Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA, OCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Dept.; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board; Celest Jones, Substitute Court Reporter.

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: President Chin thanked the audience for its patience and explained that the meeting would begin as soon as all the members were present, and wished them all a Happy New Year.

2(A) Sue Hestor, speaking for herself said she opposes any limitation on the time for briefing because of the difficulty of obtaining files from the departments necessary in preparation of briefs. Though counsel may be able to prepare within the proposed periods, the public would have trouble dealing with the proposed schedule and they will not be able to respond properly. The proposed rules are too stringent.

Nan Roth said that the proposed amendments did not allow sufficient time for appellants to retain an attorney who will file brief. She has no suggestion for an alternative schedule except she preferred a briefing schedule tied to the hearing date as currently used.

Steve Atkinson speaking for himself said that he generally agrees with the proposed process because the present schedule discourages settlement of cases. He feels that the appellant will have an unfair advantage being able to file eight pages of briefs while respondents can only file six. Also he feels the appellant’s reply should not be allowed to raise new issues since the respondent can’t respond.

Paula DeBella said the proposed schedule does not allow enough time for appellants to adequately prepare their case and that it takes time for appellants to realize they need an attorney, much less find one who is able to take their case. More time is needed before appellant’s brief is due to be submitted.

ITEM A: Consideration and final adoption of amendments to Rules of the Board regarding briefing schedule and addition of procedures for requests for rehearing and jurisdiction.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 TO adopt the changes and review them in about 6 months, and for these changes to have an effective date of Feb. 1, 2002.

ITEM A: 1432-1434 Kearny Street. Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for permit holders Nan & Nathan Roth, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 00-258/259/260/261, Cooper & Kirkham vs. DBI, PDA & Kuhn vs. DBI, PDA, heard August 22, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to REVOKE both permits. Appellants: Josef Cooper, Tracy Kirkham, and Alan Kuhn. Project: To demolish a garage, and construct a three-story two-family dwelling.

ACTION: At the request of the parties, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Feb. 6, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ITEM B: 1000 Bowdoin Street. Letter from Janice Guan, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 01-169, Guan vs. DBI, PDA, heard December 5, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent), to uphold the subject penalty.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Serena Guan speaking for the requestor, Janice Guan, said that the appellant did not appear at her hearing because of serious illness.

Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said his department has no objection to the granting of a rehearing in this matter.

ITEM C: 3628 - 22^nd Street. Letter from Robin Rudderow, attorney for appellant Don Keely, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 01-172, heard December 12, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the roof deck include an eight-foot lattice fence with vines along the side of the roof deck that faces the appellant’s property. Permit Holder: Peter Birmingham. Project: install roof deck within envelope of building.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to deny the request for rehearing.

Robin Rutterow, attorney for the appellant asked the Board to grant a rehearing because certain issues were not addressed at the hearing. Larry Badiner, ZA, said he felt all the relevant issues had been addressed at the original hearing and no new evidence was being offered that could justify a rehearing and a D.R. request had been filed on October 31, 2000 and plans were not changed. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the permit holder said that in his view no new evidence was being offered that would justify a rehearing and the written submittals for the hearing had discussed the issues now raised. A rehearing would be a waste of time.

SPEAKERS: None.

ITEM D: Letter from Retts Scauzillo, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2001/11/16/3409. Permit Holder: Cheryl Sena. Project: remove stove and sink, and remove ground floor kitchen.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to recuse Commissioner Cullum. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum recused) to continue the matter to Feb. 27, 2002.

Retts Scauzillo requested the Board to take jurisdiction over a building project and allow her to appeal so she can keep her unit. She has sued the landlord who hasn’t responded to her request. She is a school bus driver who has lived in the apartment for many years and wants to stay. Elizabeth Erhardt, attorney for the permit holder said there is no basis for jurisdiction in this case. She said her client had given notice of the permit issuance though not required to and had been forthright. Cheryl Sena, permit holder, said that she had no intention to be evasive and gave a history of the requestor’s tenancy in the unit.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Valentin Guajardo, appellant, said the violation has been corrected and the illegal unit removed from the basement although the work had been done long before he bought the property. Laurence Kornfield CBI, BBI, said there was no evidence presented to him showing that the work had been done by a previous owner and before 1960, so he couldn’t reduce the penalty himself.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Edward Mullins for the appellant submitted the contract and a statement from the title company explaining the situation in 1977 when the property was purchased by his client, evidence that the work was done by a previous owner.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination.

SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks, attorney for the appellant, said he spoke to Alan Low and the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and no intent was shown in purchasing the property. Randy Shaw, the requestor of the subject determination said there is nothing pending in this matter.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to reschedule the matter to Jan. 30, 2002.

SPEAKERS:

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Jan. 30, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1-1 (President Chin dissented, Commissioner McInerney recused) to overrule the denial by the Planning Commission and grant the subject permit per the revised plans (dated Jan. 9, 2002) submitted by the appellants’ attorney. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the denial by the Planning Commission was upheld.

SPEAKERS: Gerald Green, Director of Planning spoke for the Planning Commission and explained the revisions the Commission had wanted and the appellant wouldn’t agree to. He described his efforts to assist the parties in arriving at an acceptable plan. He said there was no consensus yet. John Sanger, attorney for the appellants, requested Commissioner McInenry to sit on this matter and not be recused, since there is no legal justification for such recusal and it would be contrary to due process. He said that his client had offered a revised plan incorporating the suggestions made by the Board, but the neighbors wouldn’t agree to it, though it represents a real compromise by his client.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to overrule the denial and grant the subject variance with a finding that the hardship requirement is met in this case.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, explained that the earlier variances were granted to enable the appellant to expand the house. He said the subject variance application was denied because of the lack of any hardship and because it would be inconsistent with the earlier variances. David Cincotta, attorney for the appellant, explained that his client was only asking for permission to build a garage because of the parking problem in the area.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZA: Kathryn Bednarz of 1355 Green Street said she opposed the project because it will result in a wide concrete driveway and she is worried about the structural integrity of the building, since it will take out part of the hill. Elizabeth Wright said the appellant knew about the easement when he bought it. This is a self-induced hardship; and he shouldn’t be rewarded how with a variance. He will cut down trees and landscaping put in by former owner Imogene Cunningham. Tommy Tami Twarog for the ZA said that in 1980 she bought a small cottage and if the appellant isn’t satisfied with his cottage he shouldn’t have bought it in the first place, and he gave false information to get earlier variance. Hilton Wong for ZA said he represents two tenants who intend to move if there is a major construction project next door.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Randall Partridge described the gardens in the 1940s with photos and said the proposal will be an improvement that Imogene Cunningham would approve of because it will preserve the garden. Trish Bransten said the appellants are well known in the art world and their project will be an improvement to an area that is scary at night. The appellant shouldn’t be penalized now since he has done so much for the city. Barbara Solomon of the Art Commission said project should be allowed since it will preserve the garden and will remove the overgrown ivy which was not part of the original design. Garden looks better now that when Imogene lived there. Sue DeMartini who lives next door said project will benefit the neighborhood by adding off-street parking. People now sleep in the yard and garage will improve security of the area. Stephen Rogers of 2519 Polk said the project will increase property value in the neighborhood and will increase parking spaces. Chris Bigelow said the project meets the requirements for a variance as well as Code provisions and General Plan objectives appropriate for the area. Stephen Goldstine, appellant said his house is a shack built after the 1906 earthquake which has much dry rot and dampness in the walls and Mr. Passmore thought it was uninhabitable at the time of the earlier variance.

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

SPEAKERS: Steve Atkinson, attorney for the appellant, said that the permit holders had never consulted with the appellants about the project, and the plans are inaccurate. It is only one building and not two buildings, and the plans don’t show the excavation and reconstruction. It is not just a remodel. He feels the can could be settled. Carlos Alvarez, attorney for the permit holder said it has historically been two structures and there is no evidence to support the two structure position. He thinks the matter can’t be settled or resolved. The bathhouse is a separate structure. They have reached an impasse and the permit was issued appropriately with the carport showing on the accurate plans. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the permit is to replace and repair the roof though it appears they demolished the building. They can’t subdivide with the approval of a rear yard variance. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that there are two walls remaining so it is not a complete demolition. The building straddles the property line and there are commonly separate foundations with a fire wall to separate buildings. This issue is a minor one to DBI. This is not a residential building, but rather a subsidiary building.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject revocation request.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said the subject sign is the only billboard in the City that rotates and the Planning Code doesn’t permit it. The sign is Code complying if it is still. Lawrence Sussman, attorney for the appellants, said that in his view the Code does allow rotating signs under Section 607(d)

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Anthony Leones, attorney for Viscom Outdoor, said the permit was for a general advertising sign at first but actually for a business sign for National Car Rental on the same lot. He described all three permits with the second one for an increase in size at the third to permit the height of the sign with no mention of rotation on any of the three. This is the only general advertising sign that rotates in the City. He urged the Board to uphold the ZA.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Phillip Lessa of the Mission Merchants Association said this high crime area needs the sign and it will revitalize it. Kieron McCartney said there is no reason sign shouldn’t rotate since it lights a corner that has had much crime and drug dealing in the past. Now corner is lit and safe, and people don’t hang out on the corner now. Greg Lessa said he works at the cookie factory across Otis Street from the sign and he supports the appellants. Slimane Djili has a business down the street and sign is a benefit in the high crime area. He walks by at midnight and is no longer fearful near the sign because it lights the corner. Brian O’Flynn, appellant, said that in his view the Code doesn’t prohibit rotation of a sign. He said Mr. Leones’ client is in litigation with the appellants. Appellant’s complete set of drawings to Gil Chaves of the Planning Department and the approved plans show that it was to be a rotating sign, and Frank Chiu, Director of the Department of Building Inspection said the plans show that it is intended to rotate. Mr. Chaves said that he disagrees with the Zoning Administrator.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the appellant(s).

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, President Chin recused) to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: (15A) Rose Lin, speaking for Kwok Wai Yan, appellant, said that the height of the project will block light and air to appellant’s windows and the five-bedroom house proposed won’t blend with the neighborhood since the nearby houses are all one and two-story and project will be three stories. (15B) Donna Sharee, appellant speaking for herself and neighbors, said the proposed house will tower over its neighbors and it is not in harmony with the block. Her home will be devalued, and she is afraid the proposed house will be converted into illegal multi-family use. Heston Chau, architect for the project sponsor, said that his letter says it all, and that the design was done in consultation with Planning, with the height in compliance with the Codes.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Lilly Rodriguez said the three-story project on Brazil was not appealed in 1998 and it has been converted into two units. But she is not against this project, but it will be way more than a one-family house.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDER:

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to uphold the denial of the subject permit by the Planning Commission.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued by the Landmark Board and Planning Commission and the final construction has a roofline 25 inches higher than shown on plans; so the Commission has ordered reduction of size of roof deck and several minor changes to legalize the construction. Now owner asks the Board to overrule Commission and allow roof deck to remain as is, since he doesn’t want to go with Commission’s compromise. Ron van Buskirk, for the appellant, said that the conditions are unreasonable and explained what caused the 25 inch discrepancy and the construction is in general conformity with the conceptual plans for the COA and final plans approved by the City several times. He said 32 neighbors supported him and that even with the 25 inches height is still within the height limit. Malcolm Misurall, attorney for the Section 14 Principals said the problem can be fixed with the Commission’s compromise conditions and the appeal is an attempt to undermine the process. Alice Barkley said the real issue is the integrity of the planning process.

PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR APPELLANTS: Geoffrey Dohrman said he is on the Board of the Architectural Heritage Foundation and that he feels this appeal is not an attempt to violate the planning process and doesn’t violate the process. Jeff Rice read a letter of another supporter and said he hopes common sense prevails. Emily Wong, an architect said she feels the project fits in well with the neighborhood as it is and that there appears to be no intention to add height to the building and the roof deck is no problem either. Dan Feeney said he thinks this is a beautiful project. Michael Byrne said he feels it is punitive to remove the roof deck since it was approved with the deck and it is a major consideration in the determination of the value of the house and the height is due to improvement of the seismic engineering of the building. There was no deceit involved. The garage door also added two inches to the height of the building unexpectedly. Rick Frissbe of Noe Valley said they had retained the architect for their project in Noe Valley and were delighted with the beautiful renovation he did there. Tony Sagaral read a statement from a nearby owner who wrote that the project fits well into the neighborhood and the building is not visible from Union Street. Bill Riley said the project is sensitive to the historical area and the issues and it was wrong to use the Certificate of Appropriateness as a club. The two adjacent buildings are the ugliest in the City. Dennis Downing read a letter from Kevin Kelly in support of the project. Orlando Wilson read a letter Wilson which said that seismic engineering should be encouraged and that the building has been restored beautifully and he felt this is a case of vested right since the City didn’t catch the change in plans and approved them.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION: Jerry Crowley said her group tried to reach a compromise. It is weaker than they wanted but still all right. The owner has made a mockery of the process. Peter Overmeyer said he got a COA for an alteration of his own house and it will be a bad precedent if appeal succeeds. Michelle Bentley said the Appellant was charming to the neighbors and one of the signers of the petition lives in the East. Joe Lobrell, a former president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (THD), said the issue is whether matter should be at Board or not since a COA is appealable only to the Supervisors under Section 1006. Leah Shick referred to the FAH letter in packet. She said Alice Carey is on the Board of FAH and that the excess height is a breach of the contract with the neighbors and violation of Commission action. Lewis Shepard said they were all outraged by the owner’s response to the Commission’s fair deal. Rafael Imperial said owner did a beautiful job and that it is difficult to restore a Victorian. Maya Armour said the 1998 agreement with the neighbors was breached and the rear balcony too wasn’t on the original plans. Nan Gordon Roth said she is the author if the Telegraph Hill Historic District and the project enlarged a house and challenged the small home character of the area. Granting the appeal will set a bad precedent. Alice Barkley said the issue is process and its integrity.