Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the meeting.

(1) PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, members of the public may address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Board must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the calendar. Each member of the public may address the Board for up to three minutes. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

SPEAKER: President Chin explained the Board rules to the audience and requested their cooperation for the long calendar.

ITEM A: Letter from Jerome Barulich, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-205, Eliza’s Restaurant at 1457 - 18^th Street. Hearing February 16, 2000. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney, who left the room at 7:39 p.m. Then after discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the smoke and odors emitted by the rooftop exhaust vents did not reach the level of offensiveness that would be a violation of the Planning Code.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Then after testimony, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jerome Barulich, co-appellant, requested a rehearing so that several neighbors would have a chance to testify. 2. Bruce Schneider, co-appellant, asked that the Planning Department conduct random video monitoring of the emissions of smoke from the restaurant’s chimney. 3. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for Eliza’s Restaurant, asked the Board to deny the request for rehearing for lack of new evidence and said that the Code sections cited by the appellants were not relevant or were discussed at the hearing and that they were just asking for reconsideration of the original evidence.

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD:

ITEM B: Letter from Barbara J. Harvey requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9910085S issued to Alan Khoo and Betty Szeto for a two-story 25-foot rear horizontal addition at 2434 - 21^st Avenue.

Date issued January 25, 2000

Last day to appeal February 9, 2000

Request for jurisdiction February 29, 2000

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Barbara Harvey requested that the Board allow her to file a late appeal because the notice of issuance of the permit was sent to her husband’s place of business and not her home as had been the Section 311 notice of application. 2. Betty Szeto, permit holder, said she and her husband Alan Khoo had no intention of circumventing the process and that the dilapidated garage did not have a proper foundation and was near collapse when their contractor took it down. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on his site visit on March 14, 2000, and said there was no permit issued for the demolition of the garage and that it was not proper to include the demolition of the garage on an alteration permit; he also thought there might be planning issues which would come out in the review of a demolition permit. 4. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, reported that the garage was a non-complying structure if it was in the required rear yard, and that there should be a Section 311 notice sent out for the project.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit with revised plans.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that he had reviewed the revised plans and that they complied with the Planning Code requirements. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said he reviewed the revised plans with Tom Lee, plan checker, and that they were complete and the Board’s issues were met, but there were several technical Code issues that would have to be resolved; he also said the plans had not yet been routed to DBI for checking. 3. Carlos Alvarez, attorney for appellant, said that the four concerns of the Board had been addressed in the revised plans, and reminded the Board that the Planning staff had recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission; he also said that Mr. Seidel no longer opposed the project. 4. Ian Berke, on behalf of the Pacific Heights Residents Association, said that that the Board had been explicit about the four concerns and that they had said the serial permitting had to end. He said his group feared that the rear of the building would not be as they expected and the developer’s history was not honorable. He felt there were many issues that could not be resolved and he asked the Board to retain jurisdiction to monitor the project.

(5) APPEAL NO. 99-192

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit. The Board then voted 5-0 to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted

3-2 (Vice-President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, representing the Planning Department, reminded the Board that it had continued the case to allow for Ms. Hestor to receive and review the submittal by the permit holder. 2. Yury Trubnikov, the permit holder, said he had done 20 projects in the City and none had to be changed. He said only two properties on Minna Street have rear yards and that creating a rear yard on his project made no sense and that he was asking the Board to approve his project as it had been approved and issued. 3. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, said that the Planning Commission had required a ten-foot setback and then a fire escape had been added to reach a deck, not the ground, with existing problems described by Mr. Kornfield unresolved. 4. Charlie Ledogar, a tenant on bottom floor of the appellant’s building submitted a photo album to show how the project would take airspace next to the ungracious live/work building there already.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the project/addition be pulled back one foot, with FINDINGS as contained in the report by the Planning staff.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, representing the Planning Department, explained that the Planning Commission had denied the permit because of privacy issues. 2. Jeremy Paul, representing the appellants, said that the project met the design review checklist and that the Planning staff had recommended approval. He said the design echoes the Julia Morgan architecture of the house. Public Comment in Support of the Planning Department: 3. Tay Via, attorney for adjoining property owners Lisle and Roslyn Payne, said that under the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) small gestures count as good neighbor gestures; she also said that the appellants had made many incorrect statements and that there was no evidence the project meets the RDG. 4. Robert Baum, architect for adjoining property owners Lisle and Roslyn Payne, said that the Planning Commission required only minor modifications to avoid detrimental impact on the neighbors and that the Paynes added only 4’-’8" with their 1983 addition; he also said that the Planning Commission was only asking that the rear walls of the two buildings be aligned. 5. Lisle Payne, adjoining property owner, said the project was at a different scale than it was presented to be by the appellants; he also said that it was a massive addition 15 feet in height and will have a major impact on his patio. Public Comment for the Appellants: 6. Lynn Forney Stone, the god-daughter of Julia Morgan who designed the subject house, said she supported the appellants who she felt were keeping the house as Julia Morgan would have wanted it. 7. Duncan McCloud, architect for appellants, answered Board members questions concerning the area of the kitchen to be expanded and the effect of shortening the depth of the proposed extension.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Marie Graves, co-appellant, said she believes the project is an attempt to convert the house into three flats and she gave a history of the block since 1992. 2. Karolis Riauba, permit holder, explained his need for a balcony and rear stairs because he and his friends have two dogs, and his friend is giving him welding lessons, but that he is not trying to convert the house into three units. 3. Val Rabichev, architect for permit holder, said he felt the appeal was based on loss of views to appellants; he also said that the proposed deck had been redesigned to accommodate the appellants by moving it away from the property line which made a fire wall unnecessary and preserved the neighbor’s views. 4. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, gave his analysis of the plans and said the proposed changes did not require a Section 311 notice. Public Comment for Permit Holder: 5. Claudio Yerahian said he lives in the building and it wasn’t being converted into three flats. 6. Bob Vasquez said he thought the real issue was fear of parking congestion instead of the privacy issue originally expressed by the appellants; he also said that he feels the neighbors keep changing their story and that he is teaching his friend how to weld.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to OVERRULE the Department of Building Inspection & Planning Department and REVOKE the permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Marc Seidenfeld, attorney for appellants, described the steepness of the hill with the permit holders above and his clients below; he also said that there have been major landslides in the area in the past and that proper construction techniques haven’t been used by the permit holders and that a proposed carport behind the permit holder’s house was dangerous for his clients. 2. Robert Sanford, attorney for permit holders, submitted plans and photos and said that his client would follow the recommendations of his engineer’s report and would meet all Codes and any new soils requirements; he also said that the parking issue would come later when plans for parking are submitted but that his client was suffering hardship and wanted to move back into his house. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that the issued permit was valid, but that the work done may have exceeded the scope of the permit, and that the permit holder must have adequate parking. 4. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that work was done without permits and that he was concerned about the footings; he also described the requirements for special inspections and notice to the City before work proceeds. Public Comment for the Appellants: 5. Scott Sombatpanit rents a room in the appellants house and expressed his concern about the hazard for him and appellants caused by the project; he also feels the project if allowed to go on unchecked would create a dangerous precedent in the City. 6. Nancy Koch lives downhill of the permit holders and said that when the project was just replacement of a deck and solarium she had no objections but now that they have built four stories without a permit it seems like a Taj Mahal and is much more than 60 square feet as shown on the plans and she objects; she also said that she is a physics teacher and the permit holders seem to have built 3.5 times the mass of the original building on the same footings. Public Comment for the Permit Holders: 7. Tim Colen, President of the Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association, said the permit holders have been frozen out of their home and are suffering a hardship and want very much to finish the job and move back in; he also said that the new Edgehill legislation is to protect all the homeowners. 8. Gertrude Roth lives uphill from the permit holders and said that the old garage that had been demolished was unsafe and that it was right to remove it, and asked the Board to let the job be finished. 9. Srinvas Mohan, geo-technical engineer for the permit holder, said that there have been no mudslides on this property and he did a standard geo-technical study and the permit holders were following his recommendations with footings 12 feet deep and not 2 feet deep as the neighbors reported. 10. Doug Lipkin, general contractor for the permit holder, said the plans had been resubmitted to meet the Codes.

(9) APPEAL NO. 99-190

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE this case to April 5, 2000 on CONDITION that no more requests to reschedule shall be granted.

SPEAKERS: 1. Walter Wong, agent for "BoysToys," asked that the matter be rescheduled because the attorney for "BoysToys" could not be present. 2. Aaron Peskin, agent for appellant, asked that no more requests to reschedule be granted because this was the third one and he was ready to go forward now with the hearing.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to to CLOSE the Public Hearing and CONTINUE this case to CALL OF THE CHAIR.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said the lot is not accessible by car and that the Zoning Administrator found a hardship but that Requirement No. 4 could not be met because of strong neighborhood opposition which means the project will have a significant detrimental impact on the area. 2. Ahmad Mohazab, architect for the appellant, reported that the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association had withdrawn its earlier objection; he also described his efforts to secure parking on the neighbor’s property. Public Comment in Support of the Zoning Administrator: 3. Brian McCarthy described the neighborhood as formerly of moderate density but now beyond its capacity with motorcycles and cars parked on the sidewalk. 4. Deborah Henderson, daughter of an adjoining property owner, described the congestion of the neighborhood with tourists coming through all the time. She said she was not opposed to the building itself but that parking is a major problem in the area, and that her father would not agree to an easement. 5. Frank Green said he is opposed to this variance request as an immediate neighbor because there is not enough parking on the streets of the area. He said the appellant bought the property twenty-years ago knowing it was landlocked and that "buyer bewares" applies. The illegal addition to the building block his windows and he asked that it be removed.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the variance on CONDITION that new language be added to the variance decision as prepared by Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Plannning, PD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Chris Cole, attorney for appellant, said he had 200 signatures on a petition opposing the variance and that he felt the variance was illegal because it violated a provision of the Building Code with lot lines cutting through an existing building on the lot. He asked that the variance be denied so the project could be set for a full hearing at the Planning Commission. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the variance decision and said the six-inch discrepancy in lot widths being allowed were imperceptible to the eye and that there was no affordable housing involved in the case. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained the memorandum of K.K. Chu of his department regarding subdivisions, property lines and alignments with buildings. He said there were many ways of dealing with the existing buildings, fire walls, moving the building, demolition. 4. Kevin Dill, one of the partners in Chrysalis LLC, and an architect, said they would not have property lines remaining through the house but there was no decision yet how they would deal with the old house. He described the history of the lot and its late owner and the appellants, and asked the Board to uphold the variance. Public Comment for Appellants: 5. Bonnie Baron said she was extremely distressed by the variance because the lot is unique in the area once called Goat Hill. 6. Doris Roberson described her life in the area since 1952 and the character of the neighborhood. She opposes the four two-family houses to be built on the four lots owned by the variance holders which will change the character of the neighborhood forever. 7. Jules Haywood, on Potrero Hill since 1955, said Mrs. Buck, the late former owner of the subject property, was his other mother. He agreed with what Ms. Roberson and Ms. Baron had said. He said it was one of the finest spots in the world. Public Comment for Variance Holders: 8. Anna Giarretto, the current owner and daughter of the late Anna Buck, said the original plants on the property were only anise and grasses, and that the garden there now was planted by the appellant with her mother’s permission. 9. Lise Maisano, Ms. Giarretto’s daughter, said there is nothing sacred on the lot and most plants there are not native. Denying the variance would penalize the family for allowing the appellant to garden there. She said it was private property and that everyone should be on notice that no trespassing is allowed on the property and that the best use of the property was for new housing. 10. Barbara Presta said that Ms. Roberson had just built a house nearby. She said that there are already two lots on the block less than 25 feet in width. Daryl Nelson said that if the lot were 75 feet wide no variance would be necessary to subdivide it into three lots. She felt that the six-inch discrepancy made no difference at all and that the neighbor who had introduced butterflies and plants onto the land was the one opposing the variance. 11. Mark Bond said he is real estate broker who represents both the buyer and the seller. 12. Steven Carleton said he lives in the Presidio but wants to move into the City and that he is amazed that anyone would oppose new housing.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD Condition 2 in the variance decision with slight language modifications.

SPEAKERS: 1. Commissioner Cullum announced that she lives in Bernal Heights but not near the site. 2. Peter Strauss, appellant, explained the variance condition he wanted deleted which would reduce the property’s value in five or ten years when he tried to sell it. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained that the condition was standard language meant to counterbalance the effect of the variance when one tries to expand a building. Public Comment in Support of the Zoning Administrator: 4. Neil Gibbs said six owners nearby failed to be notified of the variance hearing and supported the condition. 5. John Abbott explained the zoning controls in Bernal Heights regarding parking requirements and asked that the condition be upheld. 6. Lisa Li agreed with the two previous speakers. 7. F. Lee Moulton, architect for the appellant, spoke in rebuttal and said that the appellant had supplied the required address labels with their variance application and he could not account for the failure of notice to the six neighbors. He said the condition was a heavy flag on the property.

ACTION: After discussion , upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance on CONDITION that the existing house be raised

2 feet instead of 4 feet, with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained that the application was denied because there was no hardship and the appellant could excavate to accomplish his expansion of floor area or could add on at the front of the building. 2. Frederick Miley, appellant, reported that Robert Barnes, the neighbor initially opposing his project, had changed his mind and now supported his raising the building two feet, instead of the four feet originally requested. He said he now proposed to go down one foot and up two feet, to create a nice living condition. Public Comment in Support of Appellant:

3. Robert Barnes, the neighbor, said he now supports the revised plan and that both he and the appellant were satisfied.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman

Executive Secretary