Meeting Information

SPEAKERS: None

SPEAKERS: President Chin requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding scheduling of hearings after June 30, 2002, the last day of service for the present Board. He announced that Commissioner Saunders would leave the meeting at 6:30 p.m. because of family illness, leaving a four-member Board for the remainder of the meeting. He then reported on the adoption by the Supervisors of the Code Amendment for deletion of the official court reporter requirement, noting that the City Watch videotape will be acceptable as an administrative record of Board proceedings in addition to the court reporter transcript. He thanked Mr. Badiner for the Planning report on the eastern side of the City.

ITEM A: 144 Eddy Street. Letter from Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellant Empress LLC, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-082, Empress LLC vs. ZA, decided January 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Determination Holder: Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to June 5, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM B: 144 Eddy Street. Proposed findings for Appeal 01-081, West Cork LLC vs. ZA, and Appeal 01-082, Empress LLC vs. ZA, decided Jan. 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Determination Holder: Tenderloin Housing Clinic. For adoption today.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to June 5, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM C: 292 Ivy Street, a.k.a. 393-399 Grove Street, & 450 Gough Street, a.k.a. the "wood building." Letter from Steve Atkinson, attorney for Peer Logic/Critical Path, co-determination holder, requesting rehearing of Appeal 02-001, Max Limited LLC vs. ZA, decided Feb. 20, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to overrule the subject determination with findings to be prepared by the appellant’s attorney. Appellant: Max Limited LLC.

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

SPEAKERS: Steve Atkinson, representing Determination Holder Peer Logic/Critical Path, asked the Board to grant a rehearing and described the voluminous support of neighbors (230 cards and letters) and nearby businesses to disallow Max Limited LLC from occupying the subject building because it is not a neighborhood-serving business and would congest the area and undermine the Neighborhood-Commercial zoning district.

Charles Olson, attorney for the Appellant, Max Limited LLC, urged the Board to deny the request for lack of substantial new evidence. He said he has thirty letters in support from businesses in the area.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR REQUESTOR/DETERMINATION HOLDER:

April Chartrand said the Appellant should support local non-profits and become a part of the community if they don’t, then the local people will protest. Irving Lind, said he opposed the non-neighborhood business because there are schools and churches within two blocks of the site and terrible traffic already making the site unsuitable for the proposed business. Daniel Mahoney, a Hayes Valley resident, said that his concern is the parking problems and he wants new businesses that serve the community. Robin Levitt said the flyer distributed in the neighborhood by Critical Path was manipulative and that they are trying to get out of a lease agreement that was a bad deal since the dot.com boom is over. Leslie Katz said that the flyer contained misinformation and that Critical Path won’t be moving in and a non-profit is moving in. She feels the Board made a well thought-out decision. John Pozen of 335 Grove said if they were not moving in he wouldn’t speak. Kelly Bengel of 115 Gough said the HIV community is against larger business in this area.

ITEM D: 292 Ivy Street, a.k.a. 393-399 Grove Street, & 450 Gough Street, a.k.a. the "wood building." Adoption of Findings for Appeal 02-001, Max Limited LLC vs. ZA, decided Feb. 20, 2002. Proposed findings submitted by Charles Olson, attorney for Max Limited LLC.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the subject findings.

SPEAKERS: No public comment for the Appellant.

ITEM E: 1196 Hampshire Street. Letter from Frank Duarte, requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Variance Decision No(s). 2001.1160V, granted to James Cline & William Sorenson. Project: to demolish and rebuild a two-story non-complying rear yard structure.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the jurisdiction request.

SPEAKERS: Frank Duarte, Requestor, said he is a novice and didn’t appeal the variance decision as he had appealed the permit. He said this had been a voluntary razing and it shouldn’t have been allowed to be rebuilt but should have been required to meet all Code standards for a new building. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said that there had been an opportunity to appeal the various decisions within the prescribed ten-day period and he felt there is no justification for allowing a late filing at this time. He explained how Planning disseminated decisions and information on appeal rights. David Levy, attorney for the variance holders, said that the Requestor had said "he didn’t feel appealing the variance decision was worth it" and that his clients have relied on the issued variance which was not appealed and there was no basis for allowing an appeal at this late date.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial of the subject permit by the Planning Commission on condition that a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) be recorded on the land records.

SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the Planning Commission’s decision to prohibit use of the top rear roof as a deck where it projects into the required rear yard and gave the history of this project before the Planning Commission, and this Board, explaining the Commission’s latest decision and motion. Rene Penaido, Appellant, explained that all his permit is meant to do is legalize the existing parapet on the top of the rear roof, since it is a pre-existing parapet. He reminded the Board he had submitted a Notice of Special Restriction to them.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Alexander Seidel, a neighbor, showed photos of the rear of the subject house before the renovation to show the rear of the roof had no parapets. He said that the present condition doesn’t comply with the Codes.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE APPELLANT.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination on condition that the appellants hire a color consultant so as to find the least intrusive color for the subject rooftop penthouse.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained the Code requirements for stairways to the roof which are mandated by the State Code and said that DBI is presently drafting an administrative bulletin that will allow roof hatches in certain circumstances for roof access instead of penthouses. He described the costs of removing penthouses and installing hatches. Alice Barkley, attorney for the Appellants described the costs of the alternative and urged the Board to allow the penthouse to remain since it was required by the City and meets the Codes. Sue Hestor, attorney for the neighbors said she couldn’t respond to many of the issues since she was not permitted to make a site visit as the Commissioners and the Chief Inspectors were. She showed photos of the penthouse and she gave a history of the case and the efforts made by the neighbors to have the penthouse removed, including a meeting with a Supervisor a year ago.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the matter to May 29, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders) to reschedule the matter to May 22, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, described the project and why the Planning Commission disapproved it and agreed that continuing the case to May 22^nd would allow time for his staff to review the revised plans. He said Section 3ll notification may be necessary for the revised plans.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to June 5, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Alice Barkley, attorney for the owners/determination holders, said she accepted rescheduling the hearing to the Call of the Chair and she understood the Discretionary Review hearing by the Planning Commission is scheduled for mid May. Laurence Badiner, ZA, said that the DR hearing is scheduled for May 16.

James Ruben, attorney for the Appellants, said that continuing the appeal to the Call of the Chair is acceptable to his clients. The appeal was rescheduled to June 5, 2002.

ACTION: Upon motion by commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the matter to May 22, 2002 with the public hearing closed.

SPEAKERS: Robert Mintz, architect for the Appellant, said he understood he needs four votes but wanted to go forward with the hearing. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained his variance conditions and the decision of the Commission for removal of the rear cottage for the reason that it appears the cottage will someday be converted into a separate dwelling unit in violation of the density requirements of the neighborhood. He said removal of the cottage is a trade-off for permission to build in the required front setback area. Robert Mintz explained that his client wants to keep the cottage as a home for her mother who can’t live with her in the main house at the front and needs separate space where the appellant can care for her. He said all five requirements are met for the variance. Chi Nguyen, the Appellant explained her need for the cottage to keep her mother.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZA: Josie Iselin said she and the neighbors felt the decisions were correct and fair. Removal of the cottage will add to the openness of the block for all the neighbors. Allowing two buildings on the lot is a bad precedent. Dr. Winston Vaughn, the immediate neighbor, explained that he recently bought his home and intended to create a beautiful garden which will be enhanced if the cottage is removed. He said that there is no evidence that the Appellant’s mother has any medical problems and therefore needs to stay in the cottage. He said the Appellant wants to eat her cake and have it too.

PUBLIC COMMENT BY CONCERNED NEIGHBOR: Richard Peterson of 537 Valley said that the cottage is a retaining wall for his property which abuts the cottage.

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:17 p.m.

_____________________________ ______________________________________

Arnold Y. K. Chin, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Esteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, Telephone 576-0700