Meeting Information

SPEAKERS: No speakers.

SPEAKERS: Board adopted a motion thanking Judith Boyajian, deputy city attorney for advising the Board for fifteen years.

ITEM A: 1012 Divisadero Street. Letter from Marc Goldsmith, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/01/25/7741. Permit Holder(s): Eric Schleelein & Flora Cheung. Project: construction of a one-story garage.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to overrule the denial and grant the subject permit. Four votes being required to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed and the denial of the subject permit was upheld.

SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained why the permit application was denied and he explained that the building is in the 1976 architectural survey and that the application should have been reviewed thoroughly so that the application should have been reviewed thoroughly so that any new windows will be appropriate for this architecturally significant building, even though it is not a formerly designated landmark. Tom Katz, Appellant explained that he had gotten a permit over the counter which was signed by a planner and several planners at the counter offered to sign the application, saying it was proper. Windows are energy efficient and desirable for the tenants. He asked the Board to overrule the denial and to grant the permit. He said the application never left his hands and was not routed upstairs.

No public comment for the Zoning Administrator.

Public comment for the Appellant: Ronald Cain, owner of the building, said that the windows are appropriate and are for the benefit of his tenants who need insulated windows. Simon C. Brown, retired building inspector, explained his view of the AS procedures and asked the Board to overrule Planning.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold the subject permit with the following conditions: a) that the antennas be limited to 2 watts each; b) that the readings be reported monthly to the Dept. of Public Health and the Appellants; c) that there be no exposed wiring, wiring to be inside; d) that the antennas shall not be as visible as they presently are in front of the building as per the letter dated Feb. 5, 1998 by then Zoning Administrator Robert Passmore; e) and that the roof access cable tray shall be covered and painted as per the aforementioned letter.

SPEAKERS: Fay Adelstein. Co-Appellant, spoke for all three Appellants who live in the subject building. She said they have no confidence the company will follow the regulations and she feels there are safety problems and hazards for this residential building. Tony Kim, attorney for Cingular Wireless, the Permit Holder, explained the company's needs for these antennas for coverage in the Haight. He said there was no PG&E power turned on yet. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained why no Conditional Use Authorization is necessary for this installation.

Public Comment for Appellants: Arletta Sen explained that the commission is considering revisions to their regulations of antennas. Katya George said she witnessed the work by PacBell and didn't protest. Her roof was damaged by workers and now leaks. Doug Loranger for SNAFU said the site guidelines are clear and this project needs a CU and is not an accessory use. "This is a Trojan Horse". Gloria Tulanowski said this is a heritage site and there are serious Building Code violations from basement to roof. George Robertson said that there are hundreds of antennas in the area already. Katya George said it seems as if the power is on already because she hears the humming from the box. Frieda Humboldt,. Co-Appellant, discussed the emission and how they exceed Code limits. Jerrod Bushberg, engineer for the Permit Holder, answered Board questions about the equipment.

No public comment for the Permit Holder.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to revoke the subject permit with a finding that these 2 curb cuts are illegal since they do not lead into garages.

SPEAKERS: Dominic Massoni, Appellant, explained his four reasons for protesting the project revising curbs which he feels will result in elimination of four street parking spaces and is out of character with the neighborhood and will increase traffic. Mrs. Massoni said there are no rented units but they need room for their two daughters. Mike deCruz, Permit Holder, explained his senior citizen operation and why he needs the curbs revised.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 1-3-1 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington and Commissioner Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to reschedule the appeal to April 23, 2003. 3 votes being required to reschedule an appeal, the motion failed, and the appeal went forward for hearing. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the addition be shortened on the 2^nd floor to 15 ½ feet. 4 votes being required to modify or overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject permit was upheld with no conditions.

SPEAKERS: Ibrahim Malik, Appellant, explained his issues with the project and asked for a continuance. He said the extension projects three feet beyond the house to the east. Thanh Ngo objected to a continuance. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained that the notice of the project was not done well and may have been inadequate. Thomas Ngai, Appellant, said the drawings are mislabeled and elevations are wrong. The project will impact his privacy. Sara Troung, wife of the Permit Holder said they have deep roots in the area, want to stay in it and can't afford to move to a bigger house and they want to expand their present house. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, agreed that notice was misleading and asked for better notice.

Eddie Wan said the proposed addition will block the light to his yard. Annette Crivello said the permit holders should have bought a larger house. Leslie Zamarripa said the first plans were acceptable but the new ones proposed will result in an invasion of her privacy and light. Nancy Berga said she supports the appellants and she thinks addition is totally inappropriate in this unique neighborhood.

No public comment for Permit Holders.

Salwa Ghnaim, wife of co-Appellant, said the addition will block light to her yard and she needs to garden. She thinks, if approved this will be a bad precedent for the area.

ACTION: Appeal withdrawn by the Appellants.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to continue the matter to April 23, 2003 with the public hearing closed, and with audiotapes to be provided for Commissioners Shoemaker and Saunders.

SPEAKERS: Jay Estey, Appellant, asked that the Board reschedule his appeal to a night when all five Commissioners are present. David Prowler, representing the variance holder, objected to the request and urged the Board to hear the case even though there are only four present. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained why variances are necessary before the building permit for this mixed-use project can be approved by Planning. The conditional use authorization has been granted and upheld by the Supervisors on appeal. He said the property of the BART station and bus lines justified the parking variance. The contract zoning of 50 years ago is now illegal and the present zoning is. Catherine Barnes, DCA, in response to a Board question said that the Board can hold a hearing, take testimony and continue the matter to a later date so that all five members can be present if the missing member review all materials and the audio tape of all the testimony before the meeting. Jay Estey, Appellant said that many years ago it was established that the present parking would be continued and that the parking space could not be developed on the three lots. He said the lots had been used for commercial use that left toxics in the soil that has not been accounted for. He said the project keeps changing and the developer's promises are regularly broken when it is convenient and that if the building were well designed no variance would be necessary. He is disappointed with the approved process for this monolithic building. David Prowler for the variance holder explained the history of the proposal and the lots. He said there were unanimous votes for the project at the Commission, the Supervisors and the Library Commission and that Department of Public Transportation also approved it.

Public Comment for Appellant: Reece Hart said he opposes the project `s aesthetic and procedural grounds since it doesn't fit in the site and the number of variances necessary shows it doesn't fit on the site. Susan Tibbon described how the project without a parking lot will be a terrible hazard especially for children and elderly using the library and the store. The present lot is used by 9,000 vehicles a day. Alma Hecht said that she is an arborist and landscape architect and that in her view the project will be a real threat to the neighborhood and it doesn't fit the scope of the neighborhood. Torr Tietz said he thinks the Supervisors approved because of misrepresentations about the public support and that this was a "bait and switch" since many people oppose the parking variance and want to retain the present parking lot and space the loss of which will adversely affect safety. Lesley Frana said the biggest issue is the loss of the existing parking spaces and the traffic study made has serious flaws. Elsie Ravel said she opposes the Commission exemption from a loading area, which will create a serious safety hazard because of the intense traffic on Diamond Street. The project needs boarding docks for the store desperately. Dan Tuttle said the existing parking lot is as big as needed and the local merchants rely on it. John Rohosky said he objects to Commissioner Saunders leaving the hearing and that he thinks the Negative Declaration is inadequate and should be resubmitted with full disclosure of the borings. The ground water should be tested for contamination.

Public Comment for Variance Holder and Zoning Administrator: Susan Hildreth, City Librarian, described the cramped conditions of the existing 1200 sf Glen Park Branch and how the proposed 8500sf facility in the project would be an appropriate one to serve the area. Ron Miguel of the housing coalition said this project is exactly what is needed for this site and that all the reviewing bodies have approved it without a single negative vote. Wesley Day, a librarian said the present Glen Park Branch is less than half the size of this hearing room and the proposed library will be of great value to the area. Kimberly Watts said the project should be approved because it will bring jobs to the area. Zoanne Nordstrom, President of the Glen Park Association said the project will be of great benefit to Glen Park. Bruce Bonacker emphasized that this will bring a grocery store and not a supermarket so no parking spaces are needed as they are for a larger facility and that the parking variance is fully justified.