Meeting Information

John Malamut, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Jonas P. Ionin, Sr. Planning Officer, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive secretary for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter, Easteller Bruihl.

SPEAKERS: Alice Barkley wished the Commissioners good luck and thanked them for the public service they have rendered as members of the Board. David Cincotta thanked the Board for its willingness to sit through long calendars and deliberate seriously to seek solutions to the land-use problems brought to it. He said that the Board was sensitive to those coming before it and he deeply appreciated the opportunity to practice in this forum and he will miss their fairness. Gerald Green, Director of Planning, thanked the Commissioners for their contribution to the City and wished them well in the future.

SPEAKERS: President Chin presented the official court reporter with a resolution of appreciation from the Board upon the completion of her contract for the year. The resolution was adopted unanimously. Vice President McInerney presented President Chin with a plaque from the Board thanking him for his distinguished service to the City as Board President for the past two years. Commissioner Cullum said that he has been a hands-on president for which the Board is deeply thankful. Commission El Qadah thanked President Chin for all his efforts and said his experience on this Board taught him a lot and was a great experience for him. Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. presented each of the five Commissioners with a framed commendation for their service to the city and expressed his deep appreciation for their work as part of his administration. Commissioner Cullum thanked the Mayor for providing them with an opportunity to have the experience of being a member of the Board. Commissioner El Qadah thanked the Mayor for giving him the opportunity of being a member of this Board and said it has been a wonderful experience playing a role in such a

diverse city. The Mayor said that he would have reappointed all five members if the Charter allowed him to but he was limited to only three appointments and he hoped to find other appointees for those who were not reappointed at this time. President Chin and Vice President McInerney asked the staff to cancel the July 10 and 17 meetings. Andrew Zacks thanked Commissions Cullum and El Qadah for their work on the Board, and he wished the other three Commissioners well. He said they have done a stellar job. Brett Gladstone thanked the Board for its service to the City, especially the two Commissioners who were leaving. He said Commission El Qadah has taken brave stands and that Commissioner Cullum had shown great sensitivity to the plight of tenants caught in the appeal process.

ITEM A: 1775-1777 Yosemite Avenue & 1760 Armstrong Avenue. Reconsideration of Appeal No(s). 01-109/110/111/112, Wojak et al. vs. DBI, pursuant to Superior Court No(s). 500296, Preservation Properties vs. Board of Appeals et al. On September 12, 2001, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to revoke all four permits; on October 10, 2001, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner McInerney dissented) to deny the request for rehearing by the permit holder.

ACTION: withdrawn by the City Attorney’s office and the permit holder’s attorney.

SPEAKERS: The Executive Secretary reported that the City Attorney has requested this item be taken off calendar since there has been no agreement between the parties and the case will be litigated.

ITEM A 1001-1005 Market Street. Adoption of findings for Appeal No(s). 01-241, Lane et al. vs. ZA, decided May 15, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination with adoption of findings at a later date.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to July 24, 2002.

SPEAKERS: The Executive Secretary said that the findings to be adopted were not yet ready to be considered and that they will be calendared for adoption on July 24, 2002, the next meeting of the Board.

ITEM B: 1626 Vallejo Street. Letter from Mark Borsuk, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s) 99-085, Borsuk vs. DBI, PDD, decided May 29, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the denial of the subject permit by the Planning Department. Project: new deck, window and firewall.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to deny the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Mark Borsuk, Appellant, asked the Board to grant him a rehearing and explained that the arbitration process hasn’t yet been completed. Jonas Ionin, senior planner, said that since no new evidence was being proposed for presentation at a rehearing that Planning opposed the granting of a rehearing.

ITEM C: 679-689 Portola Drive. Adoption of Notice of Special Restrictions for Appeal No. 01-236, Litke vs. ZA, decided June 12, 2002. Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject Notice of Violation with a new Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) to be submitted by the Planning Department, and to be adopted by the Board on June 26, 2002.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the NSR as amended.

SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, senior planner, presented the Notice of Restrictions as amended by President Chin. Brendan Wen, attorney for the property owner said that he has no objection to the document as amended.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to the Call of the Chair.

SPEAKERS: Mary Baggenstoss, Appellant, reported that the mediation between the parties has not been a success and the details had to remain confidential. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holder and the homeowners association agreed with the appellant’s presentation and said that there are many disputed items between the homeowners and the appellant and that he feels this is the wrong forum to resolve them. Continuing this matter to the Call of the Chair is not prejudicial given the work has been done already and the delay will allow the latest arbitration to be completed. Jonas Ionin for ZA, said Planning has no objection to rescheduling the hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to July 24, 2002.

SPEAKERS:

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Aug. 14, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin for the ZA requested that the appeal be rescheduled to July 24 so that the ZA can participate in the hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President McInerney & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the permit on condition that the outer railing be pulled in 3 feet. Four votes being necessary to impose any condition on a permit, the motion failed, and the permit was upheld with no conditions.

SPEAKERS: Juan Pineda, co-Appellant, said that his co-Appellant lives next door to the subject property and her family has had their home since the 1920’s. He has lived in his house three and a half years. He opposes the permit because the top deck was built without a permit. He objects to the changes at the front of the building and he feels the print description of the project is ambiguous and that there is more than interior work being done. David Cincotta, attorney for the permit holder, said that many revisions are to be made to the plans. He said that many neighbors were contacted and many support the project and that no Section 311 Notice is needed for this project. Lynn Thompson, the Permit Holder, said that her plans had been filed by her architect and she had been assured the plans met all Code provisions. She apologized to all if they don’t. His client is willing to negotiate on the roof deck. She wants rail to protect her son when using the deck. Jonas Ionin for the Planning Department said that the plans met the Code and that no Section 311 notification was necessary before the permit application was approved.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE:

Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the permit was issued over-the-counter in error and should have been routed to the Planning Department. Helen Bisson, co-Appellant, said while she no longer lives in the house she is still concerned because the roof deck reduces the value of her house and creates a fire hazard for her house since the deck railing is only five feet from her window and there is no fire proofing between the houses. Jonas Ionin, for the ZA, said that the matter has been reported to Planning and a DR request on the application has been withdrawn. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, described the railing requirements in the Building Code.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to Oct. 9, 2002, with the public hearing closed.

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the permit for the protestor’s job has not yet been picked up. Steve Atkins, attorney for the Appellant, said that he opposes the project because it meets all the elements of a spite fence and he described these elements in detail. He said his client’s plans had disappeared at Planning for a month and only now can a permit be issued. Donald Jans, the permit holder, said the project isn’t a spite fence but is a wall necessary to protect him from the noise generated by the Appellant’s spa equipment. He said he has gotten a Superior Count judgment that the spa equipment is a nuisance. Jonas Ionin for the ZA said that Section 311 notice was sent out to neighbors and a courtesy copy to the Appellant in Massachusetts.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to recuse Vice President McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Vice President McInerney recused) to continue the matter to July 24, 2002, with the Appellant to file an amended brief by June 27^th at 4pm, permit holder to respond by July 1^st at 4pm, and the Appellant’s reply due on July 11^th at 4:00 p.m.

SPEAKERS: Christopher Hirano, Appellant, said that his group had never been asked about the acceleration of the appeal hearing date from July 24 to June 26 and he asked that the Board reinstate July 24 as the hearing date so that he has time to brief the case and reply to the permit holder’s brief. He said he was only asking for the rules to be followed and for no special consideration. He respects the process. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holders said that in her view and according to two City Attorney opinions, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this permit because the property is in a Redevelopment Project Area, unless it can be shown the permit would violate the Building Code. Issuance of the permit by the City is an administrative action with no discretion by the Board. There has been no showing of any violation and she asks that the Board uphold the permit without any further discussion. She said the Appellant really should be negotiating with the Agency and the owners over the proposed project for the site after the demolition.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial by the Planning Commission and grant the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None.