Meeting Information

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

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

ABSENT: Vice-President Sabrina Saunders.

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.

SPEAKERS: 1. Ron Wolter, United Taxicab Workers, spoke in opposition to the continuances granted for revocation of medallion appeals because there is such a long list of drivers waiting for medallions to be reissued. 2. President Chin explained the Board’s policy of granting continuances when a Commissioner is absent as this night, so as to reduce the need for rehearing appeals by a full five member Board.

SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary reported on the legislation introduced at the Board of Supervisors that would grant the status of "principals" to adjacent neighbors who have been Discretionary Review requestors at the Planning Commission when denied applicants appeal to the Board of Appeals. 2. Commissioner Cullum explained that the version she was distributing was the latest version of the proposal by Supervisor Barbara Kaufman and that no amendment to the Board’s rules would be necessary if the proposal is enacted.

ITEM A: 317 Rutledge Street. Letter from Ellen Engman, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Variance Case No. 99.623V granting a rear yard variance to Peter Strauss for construction of a two-story rear addition that encroaches approximately 4’4" into the required rear yard.

Date granted January 20, 2000

Last day to appeal January 31, 2000

Request for jurisdiction April 24, 2000

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Neil Gibbs, agent for requestor Ellen Engman, asked the Board to allow them to file a late appeal because proper notice was not given to neighbors of the project and the posting was done in an alley and not on a street. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained how the Planning staff uses a professional list service for mailing notices of projects and that as far as he knew the proper notices were given for this case. He said that the poster in the alley was not within the letter of the requirements. No notice envelopes from the mailing have been returned by the Post Office. 3. Peter Strauss, variance holder, said he felt the request is an attempt to block his modest development and that they had an opportunity to speak on the project at his variance appeal in March. He said they could see the posted notice and they were notified when his variance was granted, but they did not act until April 24^th.

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 15-DAY APPEAL PERIOD:

ITEM B: 2370 Francisco Street. Letter from Patrick Maher, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9916867S issued to Dominique Fracchia for a partial third floor addition consisting of master bedroom, master bath, dressing room and roof deck.

Date issued April 14, 2000

Last day to appeal May 1, 2000

Request for jurisdiction May 3, 2000

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Patrick Maher, requestor, explained that he wanted to file a late appeal because the height of the project would have a negative impact on him. 2. Dominique Fracchia, permit holder, said that Mr. Maher was a contractor and had understood the plans but had not appealed and that now he was well under way and it was too late. He said that the addition would only be 12 feet higher and not 15 as originally planned, so there was no need for the appeal anyway.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to July 12, 2000 as requested by the appellant and agreed to by the respondent prior to the meeting.

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-036

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to July 12, 2000 as requested by the appellant and agreed to by the respondent prior to the meeting

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the deck be pulled back by six inches, with Section 311 and Prop M FINDINGS from the Planning staff report which were incorporated by reference.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained how the Planning Commission on December 9^th had come to disapprove the project because it believed an agreement had been made between the former owners and the neighbors several years ago, that no deck would ever be approved for this house, but that there was no writing or Notice of Special Restrictions in the file to memorialize such an agreement. He said the staff report and recommendation had been to approve the deck if shortened 6 inches so that it did not encroach into the required rear yard, and so that it meet the Residential Design Guidelines and Prop M and the Code, and so that it does not impede light and air and view or encroach into open space. 2. David Cincotta, attorney for appellant, said he had not been a party to any agreement nor had the appellant been represented by counsel at the Planning Commission. He said that the Commission transcript he had submitted showed the only issue had been the alleged agreement of 1997 between the parties then, but that no written agreement had been presented. He felt the Code was being misinterpreted and that the appellant would lop off 6 inches so the deck would be Code compliant. 3. Elizabeth Collet, appellant, said she was not trying to be difficult, but that she needed access to her yard which her project will provide, just as the other houses on the block have. Public Comment in Support of the Project: 4. Julie Cook said she was not opposed to the plans and that there was no opposition to the appellant on the street. She too had gone through the permit process for a rear deck and she uses her yard now every day. 5. Mark Dawson said he supports the project, and that he had been the real estate agent who represented the former owners who purchased and later sold the property and that he had been at the 1997 Commission meeting when the parties had spoken in the hallway and then had dropped the Discretionary Review request after passing a note to Mr. Passmore that DR was not necessary with the revised plans. He said there had been no agreement implied or written that one would ever again seek to build a deck, and that the proposed deck was a good addition to the building. Public Comment Against the Project: 6. Richard Marshall said he had durable power of attorney for Wendy Volken, the neighbor who opposes the project, and that she still opposed it, but was ill and could not attend. She wants the Commission denial upheld along with 19 other neighbors and Don Cruet, a former owner, and Greg Scott, president of the Pacific Heights Neighborhood Association. 7. Charles Molle said he lives at 113 Broderick and is 85 years old and supports the Commission denial of the permit. 8. Commissioner Cullum said she had once done some legal work for Mr. Molle but she felt there was no conflict of interest for her here and that she could be fair and unbiased in this case. 9. Stephen Williams, attorney for Ms. Volken, said that even if this hearing is de novo, that if there is any reason to uphold the Commission’s denial it should be upheld. He reminded the Board that this key lot and the project impacts all the lots that abut it. He analyzed the project in terms of the Residential Design Guidelines and said the project would have a tremendous impact on the neighbors and that there is only one other elevated deck on the block. 10. Eleanor Dickinson of 2125 Broderick Street said the proposed "so-called deck" of the 1996-1997 plan had been enclosed and that the City did not check on it or know about it. She asked why this deck kept coming up when the Commission and Mr. Passmore unanimously disapproved it. 11. Andrew Green, Senior Building Inspector, DBI, explained the six inch tolerance allowed by the Building Code in answer to Commissioner McInerney’s question.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to May 31, 2000 at the request of the appellant.

SPEAKER: George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems, appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to May 31, 2000 at the request of Alex Weyand, attorney for appellants.

ITEM A: Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

SPEAKERS: None.

ITEM B: Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).

Annual evaluation of goals/objectives for Executive Secretary for Performance Management Program for FY 1999-2000 and setting goals for FY 2000-2001.

ACTION: Evaluation of the Executive Secretary performed by members of the Board.

ITEM C: Board reconvened in open session and voted whether or not to disclose any or all discussions held in closed session (S.F. Admin. Code Section 67.10(b).

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice-President Saunders was absent) to have NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE of the matters discussed during the closed session.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman

Executive Secretary