Meeting Information

Present: President Arnold Y. K. Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of appeals; Official Court Reporter, Claudine Woeber.

SPEAKERS: Several members of the audience (May Goldberg and Ted Walser) came forward and wished Commissioner Sugaya a happy birthday.

SPEAKERS: No speakers.

ITEM A: Request by Commissioner Shoemaker that the Board set aside its rules to allow him to request a rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-152, McDonald's vs. ZA, subject property at Lakeshore Plaza, which was heard and decided October 30, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-1(Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overrule the subject determination that a McDonald's restaurant is not a permitted use at Lakeshore Plaza under the conditional use (CU) authorization of the Planning Commission, appealed to and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Four votes are necessary to grant this request to set aside the rules. In the event the above motion is adopted, Commissioner Shoemaker shall request a rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-152 (See Item B).

PUBLIC COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE RULES AND GRANT REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. 02-152.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to set aide the rules, and allow Commissioner Shoemaker to request a rehearing.

SPEAKERS: William Chionsini, President of West of Twin Peaks Council, including Lakeshore H.O.A. said he is ____ feet away from proposed McDonald's site. And strongly opposes it. He said motions were justified because ______ and affected neighbors had no notice of the hearing or the issue and hasn't been heard yet.

James Stark agreed with the arguments above and complained of the failure of notice and said nothing has changed since neighbors had worked on the CU case some years ago. Bruce S3lby of Lakeshore Acres Improvement Club said he represents 1100 homes that support the proposed motions. He said at last week's general meeting they were informed by the property owners that no McDonald's was going in and that there was nothing substantive on new tenancy yet for the vacated Arby space.

David Pilpel said the motion should be adopted because no one was present at the Board hearing and that the neighbors had been promised no McDonald's at the CU hearing in 1988. Monio Pilpel, father of David, repeated that they were promised no McDonald's and the conditions of the CU have been violated over the years. Parking is the greatest problems there right now and the proposed restaurant would badly exacerbate the problem.

Ronald Chun said he has video where Management said no McDonald's would locate in the Shopping Center.

Karen Kinchan once she found out of the item last night she called neighbors who were now speaking. Jeannette Dutil said she is upset that she had no notice of the Board's hearing on the determination.

Chris Manitsas said the plaza had been allowed in the residential district to serve the neighborhood but a McDonald's will bring in people from other areas.

Bud Wilson of the West of Twin Peaks Council urged the Board to reopen the case so the neighbors can be heard on the issue.

Dave Bisho said the Department had made an interpretation with no neighborhood in-put. D. J. Canepa for Supervisor Yee's office said he is in support of the motion.

Marion Getz said she lives behind the Plaza and also heard from management that there would be no McDonald's on the site.

Anne Marie Conroy said people are very upset and matters should be reopened. She said pattern of owner was to say one thing and do another.

Heddy Pilpel said she had no notice of the Board's consideration of the matter and she supports a rehearing, especially since Sloat Boulevard is already a raceway and this use will make it worse. Andrea Bryden said she supports all the arguments already given for a rehearing.

Barbara Chionsini showed photos of the Plaza to support neighbors' arguments for a rehearing.

Dr. Ruben Jaffe said he picks up the mess left by students at the Plaza and a garage was never built in the Plaza and Lincoln and Lowell High Schools are larger than ever.

Sean Elsbernd for Supervisor Tony Hall's office said he supports the motions so that can be heard on the issues.

Ray Doyle said she called thirty people when she heard of the meeting, as she is the secretary of the Homeowners Association. They had been told there would be no McDonald's in the Plaza.

Judith Boyajian, DCA said that since neither party had requested a rehearing the Board would have to set aside its rules to allow a Commissioner to request one.

Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained his determination which he said is based on his understanding of the conditions imposed by the Supervisors in granting the CU for the Plaza in 1989. He said that there are no notice requirements for a determination under Section 312 of the Code. He said those concerned can request DR at the Commission for any building permits filed for this project and any modification of conditions of the CU can only come from the Commission after a public hearing.

Patrice Fambrini for McDonald's said the determination was just a use clarification so that permits can be applied for. She said the CU authorized a large fast food restaurant and that her client's business qualified for the site.

ITEM B: Lakeshore Plaza. Request for rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-152, McDonald's vs. ZA, by Commissioner Shoemaker. See caption below.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to set aide the rules, and allow Commissioner Shoemaker to request a rehearing.

SPEAKERS: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to set the rehearing for Dec. 11, 2002.

ITEM C: Presentation to the Board by a representative of the City Attorney on the laws and ethics in regard to City Commissions (approximately twenty minutes).

ITEM A: 5 Florida Street. Letter from Ha Ly, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over the approval by the Police Dept. of an additional stop in front of the subject property for mobile catering truck no. 21. Mobile Catering Truck Permit Holder(s): Rosaana Li.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to reduce the penalty to 3 times the regular fee. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed and the subject penalty was upheld. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to rescind the previous vote, and to reschedule the matter to Dec. 4, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Jan. 15, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to revoke both permits.

SPEAKERS: Patrice Fambini for the permit holder said her client was withdrawing his permits so that he can seek refund of the application he paid. Judith Bayajian, DCA, said the cleanest process for terminating the appeals would be by the Board revoking the permits and not by a dismissal of the appeals.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Feb. 12, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject Notice of Violation.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reason for the Notice of Violation, use of a lot as a parking lot of a tow-car service in violation of the zoning of the property; NC-3 when such use is permitted only in an industrial district and a used car lot needs a new Conditional Use Authorization to be reestablished. Jeremy Paul, consultant for the Appellant said his client is now in compliance with the Code and seeks to use the lot as it has traditionally been used as a used car lot for which the P.D. license has been renewed. It is no longer used as a parking lot for a towing service.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZA: Jamie Ross said he has a business near the lot and there has been no conversation by between the Appellant and the neighbors and there are still trucks and wrecked cars on the lot. Neighbors have been complaining a long time.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to Dec. 11, 2002, with the appellant to furnish 11 copies of transcripts or videotapes or audiotapes.

SPEAKERS: Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the Appellant, agreed to a rescheduling of the hearing and said that he was making a vested rights argument since then has been substantial compliance before the fee requirement went into effect. The fee would now be six or seven hundred thousand dollars, but the date on the ZA's letter was correct and no fee should now be required. Laurence Badiner, ZA, said that there had been a breach of conditions and that the Appellant understood the meaning of his letter and the fee should be paid.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold both determinations.

SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the rear yard averaging provisions of the Planning Code and how they apply in this case and why there are two determinations. Steve Williams, Attorney for the permit holders said the building is old and his clients ask for the interpretation that would allow them to add amenities to their house within the meaning of the Code.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PERMIT HOLDER: Joel Yodowitz explained how the rear yard averaging is done and that the word "small" means that if averaging can be done that the yard shall be reduced. The ZA said that averaging is proper in this case and the Appellant's position is not based on any previous interpretation.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Augusta Rothstein said she lives around the corner and that the mid-block open space is vital to the neighbors and is threatened if averaging is allowed. She feels Williams' compromise is reasonable. Juanita Waycott said the Code hasn't changed and is clear and a longer building ____ the 54-foot rear yard. She wants the Code enforced. Norma Cook of 238 17^th Avenue said she has great sympathy for the Appellants and Mr. Ukawa, who will be towered over if the project is allowed. Hiroshi Fukyda asked that no rear yard averaging be allow ed here because it will allow a monster home to be built.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Sgt. William Coggan, S.F.P.D. said this massage use is accessory use for one or two tables and not a massage establishment. It is accessory to the salon since a regular massage establishment can't be approved within 100 feet of an existing one. Here the Planning Code allows an accessory use within 1000 feet under sections 204 and 790.201 and it is acceptable to the Police Department.

Melanie Henderson, speaking for the appellant said her salon is only 50 feet away from the permit holder's and it will hurt their business which has 25 massage tables, with business already of 15% this year. Her business is one-third massage and all her masseuses are professionally trained. She said the 1000-foot rule should be enforced here.

Yik Lui, Permit Holder, said his one or two massage tables are an accessory use to his salon business, and lawful under Section 204 of the Planning code. He said his small accessory operation won't hurt the Appellant's business.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Zelko Simoni, Appellant, said the existing house is in good condition and should be rehabilitated and not demolished since there is a market for small old houses. Bruce Baumann speaking for the Permit Holder, Lynn Fuelsher said the building was built in 1950 and has an illegal unit in it. Six units are permitted on the lot, making it a good housing opportunity site in an area of apartment houses zoned RM-1. He saw no real issue in the appeal and no neighbor responded to Planning Department.

Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said there were no DR requests for this project. City is losing one unit and gaining six a net gain of five units.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDERS:

Joe O'Donoghue for the Residential Building Association said that this Appellant is a landlord and the Appeal is ironic since the Corbett Street area is a high density neighborhood already and appeal seems to be one of retribution which raises the cost of creating the new housing. Jeremy Paul said that the Appellant filed a similar appeal recently with no issues to be discussed.

ACTION: Upon motion by Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Call of the Chair.

SPEAKERS:

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Jan. 15, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject revocation.

SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission, said the Appellant was not present and asked the Board to uphold the decision of the Taxi Commission.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 to revoke the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul, consultant for the Appellant, said his client's deck is Code compliant but the Permit Holder's project should be required to seek and obtain a variance before a permit is approved. His Client is afraid a deck user will drag something onto her property and hurt someone. There are several garages in the neighborhood and only one has a deck for recreational use. There is no permit application showing in the DBI computer and the project should have Code complying plans. Norman Cheney, Permit Holder, said there are other properties in the area with decks similar to his proposal which will provide required open space for his tenants. His plans are an ___________ to original plans with a garage deck with railing.

Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the Board had directed the Permit Holder to take out a new permit and he did but he has not seen the plans with it yet. This appeal is of the plans. This is not a proper revision and a new application with plans must be submitted for review. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said that no Section 311 notice to neighbors was required for this application and the project was approved by the Department with no problems since exception to rear yard provisions are made for decks on non-complying structures.

NO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject variance.

SPEAKERS: Sal Balistreri, appellant, asked for a continuance so he can prepare a reply brief. He said the Permit Holder intends to see the property. He said the project architect had met with his attorney twice but there was no agreement reached. He said the owner had reneged on the original agreement. Alice Barkley, attorney for the Permit Holder, said it would not be fair to continue the hearing. Mr. Balistreri said that the proposed house will be 50% larger than any house in this area and that no other variance has been granted in the neighborhood. Bill Herjn, architect for Appellant said Requirements No. 2 and No. 5 have not been met and ZA findings are wrong. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that all five requirements for a variance have been met and his variance decision is justified and Heijn's alternate plan would need two variances to be approved. Warner Schmaltz, Project Architect, said that the ZA is correct and the Appellant won't be injured by his design.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Michael Phillips of 62 Stanton said the process included the neighbors and was handled superbly by the Zoning Administrator. Sonya Richardson said she had worked with the owner and architect for a month and plans are now very workable and an addition to the neighborhood. Bryana Sokolow, 78 Stanton said he is behind the project and not affect by it and he is sad about this appeal. Sharon Eastman, 82 Stanton said he is the second most impacted and that this variance ought to be granted. Joe O'Donoghue of Residential Builders Association said the owner is a member and could have built two units but instead is building just one. Alice Barkley as a member of the public said that the hardship here justified the variance for this unusually shaped lot and the ZA findings are sufficient to support the decision.

ACTION: Withdrawn by appellants prior to hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Dec. 4, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor representing the Appellants said that the Appellants only want the impact of the windows mitigated because of the privacy issue. Through the proposed side windows the Permit Holders can look into the Mo's bedroom. Appellants are only asking for a modest change. Peter Lee, appellant said he is uncomfortable because the proposed affects his privacy. Most of houses in the area were built in the 20's and 30's and the proposal is not in harmony with them since it has too many windows. Donna Jer, Appellant, said she is a retired senior citizen who has had heart surgery recently. Robert _______, son-in-law said her privacy will be severely impacted with new windows facing her bedroom. Rocky Mo, Appellant, said the permit holders will look directly into his two bedrooms. Eileen Mo, his daughter, asked that the proposed third floor be set back three feet because the proposed south bedroom will look directly into her bedroom and she will have to draw her curtain for the first time. Shelly Horton, Appellant, said she is a small business owner who lives behind the subject property. The proposed windows look into her downstairs bedroom which she uses as an office, as well as the upstairs bedroom. No other house has wall-to-wall windows. F. Joseph Butler, architect for Brett and Shelly Horton, said the solution to the problem is to alter the quantity and size of the third story windows on the proposal. Proposal is a wall of windows unlike all the houses on the block. Raising sills to five feet would allow views and insure privacy of the homes. Brett Horton said the issues are privacy and lack of compatibility of the design with its design elements out of character with other houses which are modest, with no sloping roofs and overhang. He doesn't want a "Richmond Special". Alice Barkley, attorney for Permit Holders said that the rear yard is 75 or 80 feet away from neighbors and the project won't impact the neighbors. The angle of the roof will prevent invasion of Mo's property. She said that there are no Building Codes violations and the floor area excludes exterior walls with the proposed upper level being less than 500 square feet and the City needs family housing. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the Commission found that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances here and didn't grant DR request.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APELLANTS: Sofina _________, 8231 Geary Boulevard said that proposal will be a big box that will block her views and design doesn't go with the neighborhood.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDERS: proctor Jones said he has know Permit Holders for 30 years and this tasteful addition will permit the family to stay in City. Michael Fox said privacy is an issue for all houses in the City and this is a well-thought out project. Duane Perry said he wants continuity and a stable community and Permit Holders shouldn't be prevented from improving their quality of life. Roger Cornut said the proposal wouldn't affect the front and there are many different third floor shapes to houses. Art Adams said he thinks the design is modest and consistent with the area. Scott Raymond said he likes to see owners adding to their homes. If privacy is an issue then close your curtains and shades. Marvin Rose has a Rousseau also and now families are moving into them. He thinks the proposal is tasteful. Gay Raymond said she totally supports the project and her house has a slanted roof also and privacy is always an issue. Dennis Belfortie said he supports to project. Joe O'Donoghue of RBA said he is shocked by the facts and the modest additions should be upheld.