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); Jim Nixon, Acting Zoning Administrator (AZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector (CBI, DBI); Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney, representing the Taxicab Commission (DCA); Officer Farrell Suslow, Police Dept., representing the Taxicab Commission; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

SPEAKERS: 1. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA explained the history of Prop M which he said did not include anything about housing, but rather was intended to regulate high-rise office buildings, with the measure being adopted by 50.1% of the voters. On Item 3C, he said it is an anomaly of government that the Board of Supervisors has a double standard trying to replace the members of the Board of Appeals. He said that the case involved four units with four tenants and that the units were built with a high degree of quality.

SPEAKERS: 1. Commissioner McInerney asked the Judith Boyajian, DCA, about the memo from the City Attorney regarding political contributions. 2. Ms. Boyajian said she would review the matter and report back to the Board at a meeting in the future.

REQUESTS FOR REHEARING:

ITEM A: 1592-1594 Golden Gate Avenue. Letter from Alice R. Lane, conservator for Elizabeth Jamerson, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-181 heard on February 28, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-2 (President Chin and Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s determination that there was sufficient evidence to constitute clear intent on the part of the owner to abandon the Limited Commercial Use for the subject property. Four votes are needed to overrule and the determination was UPHELD.

ITEM B: 356 - 11^th Street. Letter from Carlton Solle, co-appellant, requesting a rehearing of Appeal No. 01-062, heard June 13, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject determination, with the appellants’ use not deemed to be a place of entertainment and therefore not required to obtain a Place of Entertainment/Dance Hall Keeper permit from the Police Department with the following CONDITIONS: that no paid disc jockey (DJ) operate the CD player(s) or turntable(s), which are only to be operated by staff, including serving staff, bartenders, and managers; and that all tips be equally divided among staff.

SPEAKERS: The President reported that the requestor Mr. Solle had telephoned him to say his request for rehearing has been withdrawn and that he would not make an appearance.

REQUESTS TO SET ASIDE RULES:

ITEM C: 696 Pennsylvania Avenue. Appeal 01-042. Request from Peter Keith, Deputy City Attorney, and Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, dated July 11 and July 16, 2001, respectively, that the Board set aside its rules and grant a rehearing in Appeal 01-042 for the reason the Board erred in interpreting the Planning Code provisions regulating live-work units. Appeal 01-042, R.A.M. Development, Inc., vs. Zoning Administrator was heard May 9, 2001; upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders, Commissioner El Qadah, and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to UPHOLD the subject determination. Two votes being necessary to uphold any departmental action, the motion FAILED. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to OVERRULE the subject determination with FINDINGS prepared by the appellant’s attorney.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (Vice President Saunders, Commissioner McInerney, and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to SUSPEND the rules and GRANT a rehearing. Four votes being necessary to suspend Board rules, the motion FAILED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Peter Keith, DCA, requested the Board set aside its rules and on its own motion grant a rehearing in the matter. He said the request was made by Supervisor McGoldrick and that his office has investigated the matter and determined that the Board misinterpreted the Planning Code provisions regarding live-work units and should rant a rehearing to correctly decide the matter, thus making a writ by the City Attorney unnecessary, saving the City much money. 2. Judith Boyajian, DCA, said she agrees with Mr. Keith and that she should have advised the Board to this effect during the public hearing on the matter. 3. Jim Nixon, AZA, said that there are no definitions of work or resident in the Planning Code. He described the enforcement activities of the Planning Department following complaints from the public of unlawful use of the subject live-work units. He said the ZA can make interpretations of these matters would be appealable to the Board of Appeals. He said the site visits by Planning revealed no violations in 27 of the buildings and that Planning is still trying to make site visits to the three remaining buildings on the list. 4. Michael Spaer, owner of the subject building and principal at R.A.M. Development, asked that this matter be continued to August 15, so that his attorney could be present and he felt that the City Attorney asked that different rules be applied to Supervisor McGoldrick than applied to him.

ITEM D: 420 Collingwood Street. Letter from David Williamson & Susan Compeau, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application Nos. 9913275 & 991372S. Permit Holder: John Williams.

SPEAKERS: 1. Susan Compeau, requestor, asked that the Board allow her to file a late appeal because no notice had posted about the project. She said she would withdraw the request if the permit holder would revise his plans to have a solid wall instead of an open railing. 2. Steven Vettel, attorney for the permit holder, responded that the plans were worked out with the other neighbors so that his client could not now change the plans without breaking his agreement with them; but he was willing to go back to the homeowners association with the proposal of the requestor and report back to the board of the result next week.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the subject penalty to two times the regular fee.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented) to OVERRULE the subject revocation and replace it with a one-year suspension.

SPEAKERS: 1. Paul Zarefsky, DCA, asked the Board to uphold the revocation of the appellant’s medallion because she had failed to drive her cab as required by the taxicab regulations. He said this was an egregious case because the appellant had not driven at all, and there was no medical documentation of her alleged medical problems. He also said that the appellant has signed three Police declarations under penalty of perjury that she understands the driving rules and still has never driven as required. 2. Jeffrey Rotwein, attorney for appellant, said his client had not driven for medical reasons and that revocation was too harsh a penalty for a woman raising two children for whom them income generated by the medallion is vitally necessary. 3. Inspector Farrell Suslow of the Taxi Detail said that even if the medallion is revoked the appellant can still drive a taxi operated under someone else’s medallion.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 2-3 (Commissioner Cullum, Commissioner McInerney and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject permit. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion PASSED and the permit was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Mildred Blumenkratz, co-appellant, said the subject deck was enclosed and the project failed to meet the approved plans and it intrudes on the available open space. She said that the revised plans do not show a glass windscreen which is like a room, not just a deck. 2. Henry Herold, architect for the permit holder, said the design of the project was fine and that the project is complete and has been signed off by the inspector after it was approved by Planning. He showed plans and pictures to show it is a deck and not an enclosed room. 3. Jim Nixon, AZA, said that the rear yard standards would permit an extension of the building much larger than the subject deck. He said the plans show the latticework is on the side of the deck away from the appellant’s property. He said the deck permit would not be required to have Section 311 Notice. He said the photo showed a project that was not according to the approved plans. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that glass screen was completely contained around its edges, so in compliance with the Building Code. 5. Jack Blumenkratz, co-appellant, said that the permit holder has created a monstrosity and that no one will deal with it. 6. Joanne Nakano, permit holder, said that all she was seeking was a deck and not a room, and that she is not willing to take down the deck because the cost would be prohibitive.

SPEAKERS: 1. Robert Epstein, attorney for the appellant, said his client is an elderly woman unable to attend the hearing who wants to retain her view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the front steps, though her view from the inside of the house will not be obstructed. 2. Willard Nutting, permit holder, explained his project with photos to show the existing condition of the subject fence. He said the fence does not rise high enough to obstruct anyone’s view. 3. Jim Nixon, AZA, said that he has reviewed the plans and there is no Planing Code problem with them. He explained the legislative setback involved.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE the matter to August 8, 2001.

SPEAKERS: 1. David Cincotta, attorney for the permit holder, asked for a one-week continuance. 2. Irene Lee, appellant, agreed with Mr. Cincotta.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit with CONDITIONS as stipulated to by the principals.

SPEAKERS: 1. Patrice Fambrini, agent for the permit holder, confirmed to the Board that a settlement has been reached with all the appellants.