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

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: None.

SPEAKERS: None.

ITEM A: 105 Molimo Drive. Letter from Dawn L. Hassell, attorney for Marian Mozian, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9905531 issued to Milt Simpson for replacement of existing deck with three stories of decks with a stair; remodel interior stairs; replace existing masonry fireplace with metal fireplace and flue; replace two bathrooms and kitchen; enlarge rear of house 4 feet at living/dining room and 6-1/2 feet at master bedroom/bath below finished existing basement; replace furnace, windows and doors.

Date issued February 14, 2000

Last day to appeal February 29, 2000

Request for jurisdiction May 9, 2000

ITEM B: 561 Birch Street. Letter from Michael Raifsnider requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9923752 issued to Kevin Rambke to remove an illegal fifth unit and return the building to its legal use (four units).

Date issued March 21, 2000

Last day to appeal April 5, 2000

Request for jurisdiction May 12, 2000

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

SPEAKERS: 1. Michael Raifsnider, attorney for requestor, explained that he had come to the Board as soon as he could. He said that the Board should allow the late appeal because of the shortage of housing, it would be a benefit to San Francisco if the unit is legalized. His client has been served with a notice to quit and an unlawful detainer action has been filed. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said that the Planning Commission is in the process of clarifying its policy on illegal units and that permits to remove illegal units will require Section 311 notification as a matter of policy. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that he had no information on this item and explained the Building Code notice requirements for substantial alterations and that there was not a definition of "substantial alterations" in the Building Code.

ITEM C: 407 Connecticut Street. Letter from Andrew M. Zacks, attorney for appellants Allan and Lorraine Thompson, requesting rehearing of Appeals 98-136 and 98-137 heard on April 12, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to UPHOLD the department and DENY the demolition and building permits.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellants/requestors, requested a rehearing for the reason that the findings of the Planning Commission and of the Board were defective and did not support the decision of the Board since his clients’ plans met all Code requirements and their disapproval was not justified. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, asked the Board to not grant a rehearing and said that the Planning Commission had made findings that the proposed design failed to meet the Residential Design Guidelines and that the Commission had asked the appellants to modify their plans. He said that since no new evidence was being presented, that no rehearing should be granted.

ITEM D: 738 Capitol Avenue. Letter from Takemi Totes, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-043. Hearing May 3, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted

4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with FINDINGS with the following CONDITIONS: (1) All property line windows be above the peak of the roof on the McLemore’s home; (2) Said property line windows consist of glass block or be opaque; (3) The permit holder rebuilds the fence on the south side of the subject property; (4) The permit holder resubmits plans to show the adjoining properties more accurately; (5) The permit holder pays 2/3 or $2,500, whichever is greater, of the cost of enclosing the crawl space and relocating the utility meters on Ms. Totes’ property which is to be completed prior to the commencement of any construction.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney was recused) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Takemi Totes, appellant/requestor, said she was asking for a rehearing not because she had a problem with the proposed building, but because she did not have the money to do the necessary repairs on her building and she wanted the Board to spare her the costs and have the seller pay. 2. Mark Murillo, son of the permit holder, urged the Board to deny the request for rehearing because the appellant will continue to file appeals to stall the project, and no new evidence was being offered. He said the fence will not be impacted by the construction. 3. Joseph Totes, son of the appellant, in answer to a question from Commissioner El Qadah, said that the current fence encroaches on their property and that a new fence was very necessary.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to

July 19, 2000.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the metal pipes in the subject light well be painted light colors, and on CONDITION that a lattice fence no more than 6 feet in height be installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes, with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained the history of the permit and the Planning Commission’s discretionary review hearing and its decision. Hot tubs are permitted as rooftop obstructions. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained that the building permit was filed as part of the abatement action and settlement and if the permit is issued the hot tub can stay.

3. Steve Atkinson, attorney for appellant, explained the history of the dispute between his client and Mr. Jans, the neighbor who complained of the noise from the hot tub equipment in the light well which was resolved in 1997. He said his client had offered to erect a lath lattice work to screen the equipment, but the neighbors had not accepted the offer. He asked the Board to overrule the Commission and grant the permit and he offered to accept a condition to screen the equipment from the neighbor’s view. Public Comment in Support of the Commission’s Denial: 4. Donald Jans, adjoining property owner, said the City was right in denying the permit. He only has a problem with the high pitched whine of the equipment which should not be allowed in the light well under several provisions of the Building Code which he cited. 5. Daniel Conrad, attorney for Eric Johnson, a neighbor, asked the Board to uphold the Commission’s denial because of the visual impact of the equipment and pipes in the light well. He said the appellant had earlier misrepresented a penthouse. 6. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that from the photos and plans the tub and the equipment met the Building Code and there were no problems with a lath wall to screen the equipment since fences do not have to be fire rated and are allowed up to six feet with no permit. 6. Randolph George, the appellant, in response to a question from Commissioner McInerney, said that he was willing to paint the pipes and vents in the light well and run them up the corners to minimize their unsightliness.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the suspension of the permit. 4 votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the suspension of the permit by the Planning Department is UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained that the sign on the site had been expanded without a permit and a Notice of Violation had been issued for this non-conforming sign which now must comply with the sign standards of the Planning Code and not exceed 300 square feet with a wall entirely behind it. Van Ness Avenue is not a freeway at this point and a 300sf wall sign is a permitted use. 2. George Speir, attorney for appellant, gave a history of this sign and described the litigation between the owner of the adjacent building and his client, as well as the evolution of the type of signs used over the years. He maintained that the sign was never completely removed from the wall, but only replaced in part and he thought it was ironic that the City seemed to object to a size reduction of the sign. Public Comment in Support of the City: 3. Robert Moore, attorney for Joseph Betz, the owner of the adjacent building occupied by House of the Prime Rib, describe how the present sign hangs over his client’s property for which he has never been paid. The litigation is about this fact. 4. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that under the Building Code the property owner over which a construction hangs needs a building permit for such construction over it and Betz needs such a permit if the sign is to continue to hang over his property.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to GRANT the variance with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained that this variance application had been disapproved because there was not sufficient hardship to justify the proposed rear yard addition.

2. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellants, using a Power Point presenter and photos, explained how little the proposed addition will impact neighbors, who support the project, how the addition and deck are necessary for open space, and how the appellants should be applauded for saving a dilapidated old Victorian and bringing it up to current standards instead of demolishing it and building a modern building out of character with the neighborhood. No Public Comment.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary