Meeting Information

SPEAKERS: None

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM A: 3861-3863 - 25^th Street. Letter from Gloria Rivera-Lawson, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2001/10/01/9631. Permit Holder: Joan Intrator. Project: deck repairs, replace deck boards, add cross bracing.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the requestor.

ITEM B: 1551 - 40^th Avenue. Letter from Tin Shek Tam, Requestor/Permit Holder, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2001/11/16/3388 for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal. Project: reduce height of retaining wall to comply with complaint no. 200122023; remove electrical line to retaining wall, remove plumbing drain for concrete slab per plan.

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

SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said his department has no objection to the Board allowing a late appeal.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to reschedule the matter to Feb. 27, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit on condition that the appellant pay the fee in question and submit a receipt to the Police Permit Bureau and to the Taxicab Commission’s attorney.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and reinstate the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to Feb. 27, 2002.

SPEAKERS: John Prentiss, attorney for the Appellant, requested the hearing be rescheduled so that there will be a five-member Board Sitting. Paul Zarefsky, deputy city attorney, representing the Taxi Commission agreed to a continuance to February 27, 2002.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit with the settlement as agreed to by the parties.

SPEAKERS: None

APPEAL NO. 01-202

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to uphold both permits with findings and conditions as submitted by the permit holders’ attorney with amendments made by Vice President McInerney.

SPEAKERS: (For 9A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H,) Igor Winkelstein of PAR spoke for the appellants and said the area of Sea Cliff is a known landslide area and the neighbors fear that the proposed construction will weaken the cliff and put them all in danger of a slide into the sea, and there has been no geotechnical report done yet for the site permit. If permits are approved today there can be no more appeals of the geotechnical review. Neighbors want the kind of review required for construction on Edgehill Way. Martha Rosenberg, appellant, said this project is another Fontana Towers. Dolores Levin, appellant, said she is disabled and has a mobility impairment so she stays in her room and her western light well will be blocked by the proposed house and her quality of life will be diminished. The model doesn’t make clear what her problem is and how her window will be affected. Dr. Sheldon Levin asked that the offending wall be pushed back to the west. Barbara Hancock, appellant, said she seconds Mr. Winkelstein’s comments and feels that a study should be done before demolition or construction. Dr. Gary Kardos, appellant, said the project will make a tunnel in front of Dr. Stern’s house. The project seems to consider itself on an alley and not on a street. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holders said her clients want Frank Rolls to do the engineering and soils report but he is on another job. She said the neighbors should feel safe because the proposed house will be properly engineered and will strengthen the cliff with sound engineering and drainage. There is no public view corridor issue only private view issues; and she described the proposed house and revisions made to accommodate Mr. Shorenstein, one of the appellants. Larry Badiner, ZA, representing the Planning Commission said that demolition can be approved even if there is no unsound building report. Larry Kornfield, CBI, DBI, made two points that this is only a site permit and no work can be done under it, and there will be a complete review and a peer review and the engineer will be Frank Rolls, done under State Guidelines and that a special inspection will be required for the project by an engineer.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Clay Thompson said the proposed house will be out of scale with the neighbors and will change its character. Laurel Collins said she is a geomorphologist and that there is complex geology on the site, with faults and landslides. Myrna Tam said that project should be lowered so it won’t block views of the Golden Gate Bridge. Nelson Kao said it is a shame that views from this area should be protected. Michael Farrah, Jr. from Supervisor Gavin’s office said that the Supervisor is concerned about the hillside.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDERS: Robert Allen former president of Sea Cliff Association, said that proposed house is an excellent example of contempory design and that the permit holders tried nine times to appease the neighbors and can’t. Karl Kaussen said it is disingenuous of the neighbors to protest when they have large houses themselves. Shirley Liu said she supports this dream house which will be energy efficient. Rosario Cucalon said the permit holders are very friendly people. Danny Ng described an incident during the last El Nino when they were the only ones to agree to do a community survey. The Wongs are good neighbors. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said he thought the portion cut out for Walter Shorenstein should be put back into the project. Ollie Lundberg, architect said that the loss of area is 80 square feet from the compromise for the appellant.

SPEAKERS: (For 9I & 9J) Alice Barkley for the permit holders informed the Board of the settlement between her clients and the permit holder, Walter Shorenstein, appellant 9I and 9J in Appeal No. 01-211 and 01-212 regarding the opening to the focal for the trash cans, and the Planning Commission has approved the revised plans.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination and to adopt findings as submitted by the appellant’s attorney.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA explained the history of the use of the property by the University of California as and by the present owner who wants to legalize it as a four-unit residential building. David Cincotta, attorney for the appellant, said that the history of the use is a non-controversial issue and that once U.C. gave up their non-residential use it remained the same four-unit residential building it had been before U.C. took it, and U.C. is a state agency not subject to local zoning controls, and he detailed the permit history of the building which show its four-unit use as lawful. David Buzby letter on behalf of the City was read out loud into the record by the President. Letter was left with Board when writer had to leave the meeting and couldn’t testify.

NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject Notice of Violation with a finding that the subject property consists of two legal flats, a commercial downstairs space, and that the cottage in the rear yard constitutes a legal non-conforming use.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, said the record for this property is unclear but that it appears it was a four-unit building over a store with a cottage and a shed in the rear yard. Veronica Tedeschi, co-appellant, said that she purchased the property 57 years ago and it was then four units over a store with shed and cottage in rear yard. For 40 years they maintained the cottage and made the shed into a laundry room with no complaints. They removed two of the front units but want to retain the cottage which is an affordable small unit and similar to many in the neighborhood. She reviewed her research on the history of City and Water Department records showing the cottage has existed since it was built after the 1906 earthquake. George Tedeschi, co-appellant said he has counted 28 similar cottages in the neighborhood.