Meeting Information

Present: President Arnold Y. K. Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter, Claudine Woeber.

SPEAKERS: Patricia Vaughey asked the Commissioners to be aware of whom the consultants actually represent when they read the briefs. Mark Gruberg of the United Taxi Workers explained the licensing process for medallions by the Taxi Commission and the long waiting list.

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM A: 1 Grand View Avenue. Letter from Sal Balistreri, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). V02-109, Balistreri vs. ZA, decided November 20, 2002. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject variance. Project: construction of a new single-family dwelling with 2 stories at the front located on Grand View Avenue and a total of 3 stories at the rear on Stanton Street. Variance Holder(s): Warner Schmalz. Subject Property Owner(s): Frank & Maureen Cafferkey.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Sal Balistereri, Requestor, asked the Board to grant his request for a rehearing because he had new evidence to present. Warner Schmaltz, architect for the owners, asked the Board to deny the request for lack of new evidence.

ITEM B: Taxicab Medallion No(s). 981. Letter from Jim Gillespie, Agent for Appellant Vernon Lidell, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-097 Lidell vs. Taxi Commission, decided November 20, 2002. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject revocation.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to grant the rehearing and for the rehearing to be scheduled for Jan. 29, 2003.

SPEAKERS: Jim Gillespie, General Manager of the Desoto Cab Company representing the Appellant who did not appear, asked the Board to grant a rehearing as the Appellant was unable to appear at the first hearing. Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission asked the Board to deny the request since the Appellant is in Ohio and can't drive, because he is taking care of his wife, nor has he driven a cab since the first day as required.

ITEM C: 530 - 47^th Avenue. Letter from Brett Horton, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-164 & 02-169, Horton vs., DBI, PDA, decided Nov. 20, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold both subject permits. Project: remodel downstairs family room, bath and laundry; remodel ground floor bedrooms and stairway to 2^nd floor; add 2^nd floor master bedroom, bath and closet; seismic, electrical and mechanical upgrades. Dry rot repair and foundation cap, new slab on grade, plumbing and electrical repair as required, all interior work only. Permit Holder(s): Ed Villhauer.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Brett Horton, Requestor, said that DBI has done nothing on the permit yet and has issued no citations to the permit holder. Alice Barkley, attorney for the Permit Holder, said that the request should be denied since no new evidence was being offered

ITEM D: 888 Elizabeth Street. Letter from Lowell Buckner, Requestor/Permit Holder, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/07/16/1531 for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal.

Date Jurisdiction Request Received: Dec. 3, 2002

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield said that the Department has no objection to the Board allowing a late filing in this matter.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner Shoemaker. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker recused) to uphold the subject variance.

SPEAKERS: Larry Richards, Appellant said he is a resident of another building owned by the Applicant and that the ZA hadn't considered that elderly and disabled residents are limited to what they can see out their windows and their views never change. The proposed apartment's residents will suffer and be depressed. He felt a roof deck would alleviate the problem. Larry Badiner, ZA said that if dwelling units are involved that would trigger a rear yard requirement but this is a group housing building. Jeremy Wilkening, representing for the Permit Holder said he would look into the Appellant's concerns about lack of roof deck but the Codes may not permit it, and the roof is sloping not flat, which will be a problem. Jane See, architect said there are too many floors as it is.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDER: Teresa Yanga, Senior Manager with the Mayor's Office of Housing, said she appreciates the Appellant's comments.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the revocation.

SPEAKERS: NONE

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the determination with a finding that the subject Extended Hours Premises permit was never abandoned.

SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said there is no clear intent to abandon the use but in fact it was abandoned. Randy Sue Pollock, attorney for Appellant, said that there are extenuating facts which would toll the three-year period. Fred Campagnoli, attorney for the former owner Rick Collier, said the Glaskatt is not like the Trocadero and that the operator of the Glaskat is doing a fine job and that the clientele is more controllable and up-scale.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Terrance Alan, Chairman of the Late Night Coalition, said the police actions have resulted in the creation of an Entertainment Commission which will begin its work in July 2003. He said that safety is an important issue but to close all clubs down at 2:00 a.m. is not good for the industry.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANTS.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT AT THE HEARING.

SPEAKERS: NONE

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject determination.

SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained his determination and said the Code is clear and there is a limit in the height of embellishments. Tom Taylor, Appellant, said it won't stick out more than one foot and he sees such construction all over the City. Why was his considered a Code violation?

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit with the following condition(s): a) that any illegal billboards be removed from the subject property prior to commencement of construction; b) that the roof be changed to a 1 hour fire-rated roof; c) that the façade remain the same; d) and that the entire building be painted after construction, with the back portion to be painted with white reflective paint.

SPEAKERS: David Knudsen, Appellant, speaking for himself and his neighbors, said that he doesn't oppose the project except he feels it should meet the Commission guidelines and the Code violations should be abated before the project is approved. Elias Saud, Permit Holder, described the history of his efforts to build on the site and said the building will only be one story high. Craig Hudson, architect, said that a variance had been needed for the two-story proposed ten years ago but the proposal now was approved and doesn't need a variance. Lawrence Badiner explained the NC-2 zoning of the site and how the one-story plus mezzanine was permitted.

Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: Patricia Vaughey said the property is an eyesore now and the project will improve the site, which was used for illegal auto repair for years, and strewn with debris.

Public Comment for Permit Holder: Simon Brown said he spoke with the Permit Holder who explained the project to him and that the project meets the Planning and Building Codes.

Public Comment for Appellant: John Schaecher said he feels that billboards must go and said that the height of the project is not clear. Linda Klonde said that the owner hasn't resided on the site for years and that the height of the proposal needs revision. She wants conditions put on the use. Ada Morales said she feels the building will be too high and will block light to her bedroom. She opposes the billboards which are an eyesore.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject variance.

SPEAKERS: Lisa Honig said that she is the adjacent neighbor. She said the project would block windows on the left side of her building. Project should meet Bernal Heights Design Guidelines and that the variance is erroneous since the five requirements are not met and the project will be detrimental to her house. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said that the Commission had voted against taking DR over project and the project has no precedent on Bernal Heights which has very restrictive regulations. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the variance holder, said the project will have no significant impact and the Appellant's home is much bigger while his client's variance is minimal with much light reaching Appellant's house.

Public Comment for Variance Holder: David Robbins said that his house is not as big as her house and he's not going as far as she has.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit due to failure of appellant to appear.

SPEAKERS: NONE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Vice President Harrington and Commissioner Saunders dissented, President Chin recused) to uphold all 3 permits on condition that the penthouse at 2311 - 19^th Street be removed. Four votes being necessary under the City Charter to impose any conditions on a departmental action, the motion failed, and the three subject permits were upheld with no conditions.

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams, attorney for Appellant said he wants President Chin to be recused from this case. He said that there are serious problems with the project and that Utah Street doesn't exist and the proposed building will be the only one on Utah. The merger application at DPW needs new notice and a hearing while the project fails to meet Prop. M policies. David Silverman, attorney for the Permit Holder, addressed the three main issues and said that the demolition was approved by DBI, after an independent report, and the Commission approved on May 24, 2001 after his client did a second report requested by the Appellant which indicates that the existing building is unsafe and should be demolished. The new building will be a modest two-family house with an envelope smaller than it was. Lawrence Badiner, explained that unsound housing is defined in the Building Code not Planning Code and that Code violations make it unsound. He said the proposal complies with the Residential Design Guidelines and the site is a lot of record and not open space. This is a small plot left by Caltrans after it built the freeway.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Heather Villasena said the proposal is not in character with the neighbor and said the proposal is large and imposing and impacts generally on the lives of the neighbors with the fourth floor impacting on their privacy, and that Fire Department Captain Ballard said it must go back to Planning. Don Kimball said he objects to use of Utah Street and that the project is a subversion of the RH-2 principles. He feels all Commissioners should visit the site. Marcello Urbani of 704 San Bruno said it will have catastrophic impact on the community. Yuhum Digdigan, RN, submitted a letter from Senator Burton and said the project is overblown and is not respectful of its neighbors and the wall will shadow her friend's yard. Sharon Radich said she opposed because of the safety issues presented by lack of access for emergency vehicles. Anna Tanato said that there is solidarity in the neighborhood and she agrees with the previous speakers. Stephen Casey, 724 San Bruno said the project would take away quality of the area. William Abend, architect for the Permit Holder, said the existing building was built in 1900 and only one alteration permit has been issued for the site in 102 years, and that for the storage room downstairs only.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington and Commissioners Sugaya & Saunders dissented) to revoke the subject permit. Four votes being necessary under the City Charter to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject permit was upheld.

SPEAKERS: Ian Berke, Appellant, said this will set a bad precedent and lead to more mergers of houses in Pacific Heights. The general Plan discourages such mergers and doesn't differentiate expensive housing. Policies aren't to protect only middle and lower classes, but should also apply to upper class. Mark Perry, Permit Holder, said he needs larger house and meger will allow for expanding family and wife's illness. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said the Commission found the project to be well designed by an outstanding architect.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Bill Henslin said he opposes project because it reduces housing opportunity in Pacific Heights. Judith Duffy said she agrees with the previous speakers. Linda Klonda said she lives a block away and urges the Board to disapprove the project which is a destruction of units. Michael Stenberg said he objects to the marriage of two houses and asked what if someone wants to merge three houses into one. Patricia Vaughey, asked what is the Master Plan in light of this humpty dumpty effort which causes the loss of an affordable unit and will be a bad precedent.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDER: Steve Bolton said he commends the Permit Holder for his efforts to reach out to the neighbors and he likes the architecture of the project because it blends in so well. Sherry Levitt, said that she is very sensitive to what is going on and is in agreement with the Commission. Here there is total compliance with the Code. Bob Ellis said he is neighbor of Permit Holder and that the design is in-line with the neighborhood. Ray Bennett said Permit Holders are quality people and the project is in harmony with the neighborhood. Mary Murphy, attorney for the Permit Holder in rebuttal said that the houses were never rentals and the merger will cause no evictions and will have no impact with the affordable housing stock and that all the merger criteria have been met.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Pedro Merel, Appellant, said this nine-foot addition will impact him and will block the sun to his two apartments in the rear, and they never had much sun. John Lum, architect for Permit Holder, described the project which he said met all Codes. It is set back on both sides and is a minor addition of only nine feet.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the variance on condition that the variance holder pay for the raising of appellant's fence which touches the subject property to 10 feet, either by reconstructing the fence or by adding lattice to the existing fence.

SPEAKERS: Lucian Blazej representing the Appellant, said that privacy is the issue. Donald Persky, Appellant, said he and his family live behind subject lot and he is the most impacted by the project. He wants to maintain reasonable privacy for his garden which is awesome. Rod Holt, Variance Holder, said he wanted to compromise but his four suggestions were rejected. Allan Levy, architect, said he can show that his client can't see into the neighbor's garden while standing or sitting on the deck. He said his client had offered to pay for half the cost of a fence if no appeal was filed but this was not accepted. He described the four ways the project was revised to reduce impact of privacy on neighbor.

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR APPELLANT: Katherine Toms said deck can be lowered so that no one can see into kitchen or sun porch. Lawrence Badiner, ZA said that how units are separated is an unrelated issue. Valerie Persky, Co-Appellant, said that all their requests have been rejected. She said the downstairs tenants use the garden as part of their apartment.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR VARIANCE HOLDERS.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANTS PRIOR TO HEARING.

SPEAKERS: NONE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that the parapet be 4 feet all around, with a 2-foot lattice on top of the parapet that faces the west, and for the said lattice to wrap around the corner for 2 feet at a 45 degree angle.

SPEAKERS: Dee Ann Yabusaki, Appellant, said she just objects to lack of privacy project causes and that no concessions have been make by the Permit Holder. She objects to the roof deck which is a bad precedent in this neighborhood. Chris Husband, permit Holder, explained his project which increases his usable open space significantly and said they have been unable to reach an agreement.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject variance and modifications, on condition that a car usage survey be performed, to be paid for by the variance holder but to be directed by Planning staff, with findings to be prepared by the variance holder's attorney to be adopted at a later date.

SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the modification of the freight loading requirements which require a variance under the zoning controls. Charles Renati, attorney for the Appellants, said the parking standard is not 1:4 but is 1:1. He said that the five requirements for a variance have not been met and that no variance is justified to reduce the number of parking spaces required by this project. John Sanger, attorney for the Modification Holder, described the project which is for middle income people in the Civic Center area. He said the parking modification doesn't require variance approval but the modification of freight loading dock does.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT PRIOR TO HEARING.

SPEAKERS: NONE

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Philip Horowitz, Appellant, said that DW didn't follow its own requirements in making this decision. He said he wants the sidewalk kept clear and that the so-called merchandise display are just illegal signs. Francisco Lavato, Permit Holder, said he has a special chrome rack and that this is a busy intersection with many deliveries and that he was with all the other sidewalk users. He said the restaurant has 24 garbage cans and there are businesses up and down the street, many with sidewalk display racks. He has no control over deliveries to other businesses which block the sidewalk.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the interior stairs at the rear be eliminated, and that the family room wall be pushed back to make room for 2 tandem parking spaces.

SPEAKERS: Hanson Lee, Appellant, said that Alfred Lee, the Permit Holder, wouldn't speak to him and showed no consideration for the neighborhood so he pursued the DR because he is concerned with this multi-family use. The addition will add 1928 sf to the house, and he wants modifications to the plans. Jeremy Paul, consultant for Permit Holder Alfred Lee said the area is underutilized and has potential for housing and that the old style houses are obsolete. He feels the Commission has modified the project sufficiently.

Public Comment for Appellant: Ian Pillay said many families have moved into the area over the past 15 years into the existing houses. He tried to work with the developer but his calls weren't returned. He said the area is overcrowded already and he opposes this large addition. Project is not in character with the neighborhood.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDER.