Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice-President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, and Commissioner Allam El Qadah.

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: Commissioner John McInerney.

Vanji McGonegal, substitute for 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.

SPEAKER: 1. Patricia McColm requested that the Board set aside its rules and allow her to file a second request for rehearing for Appeal No. 00-006 decided March 1, 2000, rehearing request denied April 12, 2000. She also asked the Board to order the Executive Secretary to prepare the administrative record for her which he wrote her he would not do without her submitting evidence the court has permitted her to file an action in this matter.

SPEAKER: 1. President Chin and the Board congratulated Mr. Badiner on his appointment as Zoning Administrator. [NO MOTIONS WERE MADE REGARDING THE ABOVE]

(3) CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS AND REPORT BY DBI ON PROGRESS OF PROJECT: 38 West Clay Street. Appeal No. 98-212 heard on July 14, 1999. Rainer and Beatrice Baldauf, appellants, and DeLeys Brandman, permit holder (Application No. 9824371). Board upheld permit on condition the permit holder revise plans to vent the kitchen range on the roof and close up the side wall vent, with appellants to pay 55% of the necessary and reasonable costs up to $5,500.

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on the progress of the permit application for moving the side kitchen vent to the roof of 38 West Clay Street, Appeal No. 98-212. The permit has been approved and is ready for issuance. 2. Alice Suet Yee Barkley, attorney for appellants in Appeal 98-212, reported that the roof vent has been installed already and that her clients were prepared to pay their share of the costs as soon as invoices are sent to them. 3. President Chin requested that the Chief Building Inspector visit the site and report at a future meeting to the Board on compliance of the vent system with the Board’s order and with the Building Code.

(4) STATUS REPORT ON CHAT CAFÉ: 598 Sanchez Street. Appeals 98-035 and 99-197 scheduled for further hearing on July 12, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. Michael Crawford and Tom Hanus, proprietors of Chat Café at 598 Sanchez Street, Appeal Nos. 98-035 and 990197 to be heard for further hearing July 12, 2000, reported on their situation as requested by the Board. They reported their business is being supported by their neighborhood and that Supervisor Leno was considering legislation that could be supportive. 2. President Chin requested that the two appeals be continued to October 11, 2000, and he asked that a letter be prepared for his signature requesting that the relevant departments continue their cooperation with these appeals until the Board acts or legislation is enacted that cures the problems.

ITEM A: 700 Great Highway, #2. Letter from Hoc Nguyen, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-051 heard on March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s request for suspension of building permit for noncompliance with guidelines approved by the Planning Commission for installation of 22 windows on the north and west of the building.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to DENY the Request for Rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Hoc Nguyen, appellant/requestor, requested that the Board grant him a rehearing to allow him to reargue his case since he feels the facts were hazy to the Board after the long period between the first hearing and the final decision. He said he feels he has a solution that will be acceptable to all parties, involving shades to minimize the tint. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, urged the Board not to grant the request as the time has come for the appellant to comply with the Notice of Special Restrictions and the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission for the project. He said there was no new evidence being presented that would justify another hearing.

ITEM B: 1844 Greenwich Street. Letter from Ray J. Martelli, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-026 heard on April 5, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that white reflective material/paint be used in the subject property light well.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to DENY the Request for Rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Ray Martelli, appellant, requested a rehearing so that a revision of the proposed plans can be agreed to, and that he would agree to pay a portion of the cost so a light well could be created. He suggested a process for arriving at a fair price for such work involving several contractors’ bids.

2. Jamil Harb, permit holder, urged the Board not to grant a rehearing in the matter since he has been held up two years in seeking this permit and there is no new evidence to justify a second hearing.

ITEM C: 236-238 Vernon Street. Letter from Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning for the Planning Department, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 99-120 and 99-148 heard on April 12, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permits with findings.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner McInerney was absent, and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to DENY both Requests for Rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, requested a rehearing for these two appeals because of his belief that interested groups had not had notice of the Planning Commission hearing, although the record showed that property owners had proper notice. In the future he said he would have mailings corroborated with affidavits by the staff for the record. 2. Dan Sullivan agent for permit holder, urged the Board not to grant a rehearing for three reasons. First, any notice to groups was done by the City, and the permit holder, having acted in good faith, should not have to suffer for such error. Second, there was constructive notice to all groups from several departments over the course of months of review. Third, the issue here is whether the lots should be made part of the adjacent park and the Planning Commission will address the question on May 4^th. If the General Plan is amended to include these lots as park land then the City can purchase them for such use from his client.

REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION:

ITEM D: 924 Church Street. Letter from Gilbert Smolin and Stephen Johnson requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/25/2866 issued to Ora Hatheway to install clearstory windows at wall on north elevation lot line.

Date issued March 24, 2000

Last day to appeal April 10, 2000

Request for jurisdiction April 20, 2000

ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN by the requestors.

(6) CONSENT ITEM: With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.

(6A) APPEAL NO. 00-044

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Wong, appellant, reported that the work had been done so that her disabled elderly parents could prepare their food at their ground level space since they can’t come up the stairs anymore to use the kitchen. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on his review of the case with the District Inspector.

(6B) APPEAL NO. 00-055

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: 1. Steven Lewis, appellant/owner, described the work done by his out-of-town contractor who failed to obtain a permit. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said there were no major safety issues here and that he felt the appellant could gain redress in small claims court against the contractor.

(6C) APPEAL NO. 00-063

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Vice-President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to UPHOLD the Planning Department’s denial of the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, explained the 24 foot height limit in the Planning Code and the sloped street frontage of the site which allowed for other places under 24 feet for sign locations. He said trees blocking the sign now will grow and will block higher location, too. 2. Steve Peterson, of Ad Art, for Whole Foods, the appellant, said the higher sign was needed so people could see where the garage entry is. Presently trucks parked along the curb and street trees block drivers’ view of the entry sign.

ACTION: This appeal was RESCHEDULED to May 17, 2000 prior to this meeting.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to CONTINUE the case to May 31, 2000 and to CLOSE the public testimony.

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that he had spoken to Inspector Tom Corlett who visited the site in 1997 and reported for the Condo Conversion Application, an area in which he is an expert. The owner then was J. Stavi. 2. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, noted that the Assessor’s records indicate the owner of the property as J. Stavi. 3. Jacqueline Stavi, appellant/property owner, said that she had not authorized this permit application and she asked the Board to disapprove it. 4. Andrew Lomas, permit holder and tenant, said he was at a loss at why he was here since the owner had consented to this permit which is to correct violations. He said he intended to purchase this unit once condo conversions are completed and that there is on-going litigation between him and Ms. Stavi. 5. Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, said that she was confused but believes that the owner authorized the filing of this permit and now is revoking that consent.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney was absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that all property line windows be above the peak of the roof on the McLemore’s home, on CONDITION that the said property line windows consist of glass block or be opaque, on CONDITION that the permit holder rebuild the fence on the south side of the subject property, on CONDITION that the permit holder re-submit plans to show the adjoining properties more accurately, and on further CONDITION that the permit holder pay 2/3 or $2500, which ever 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, with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jose Murillo, permit holder, said he intended to build the fence required by the Planning Commission as well as pay for the moving of the crawl space opening, the electric service box and the electric meter, but he wanted to keep the windows with glass blocks or other opaqueness to safeguard neighbor’s privacy. 2. Mallun Breedlove-McLemore, co-appellant, said there are four issues: neighborhood character, character of Mr. Murillo, the windows along her property line, and the fence he said he would build. She said that he agreed to delete the windows in exchange for her not filing an appeal, but he had not deleted them. She feels the top floor should be deleted from the plans as it is out of character with the area. She said the drainage will be a problem, too. 3. Takemi Totes, appellant, said she appealed because of the fence issue. She is concerned that her crawl space entry, electric box and electric meter will be blocked by the proposed project. She said the cost of moving these items was constantly rising and the $1500 awarded her by the Planning Commission was not sufficient anymore.

4. Joseph Totes, son of the appellant, said there was no mention on the plans of a retaining wall to support his family’s house since Mr. Murillo is excavating below the Totes’ structure which will sink if it is not reinforced. 5. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported on two issues: the windows along the lot line which are permitted under the 1995 Building Code if certain conditions are met. He said the plans did not show the abutting buildings and that windows were not required by the Code. He felt there was nothing special here as far as underpinning and shoring. New construction must protect and preserve abutting properties. 6. Lewis Robles, agent for the permit holder, described the level of excavation needed. The garage would be five feet off the line to protect neighbors. The windows would be of glass block and opaque and would not invade privacy. Mr. Murillo to pay 50/50 for moving Ms. Totes’ meters. 7. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said that the Planning Commission had proposed $300 to move the crawl space opening. He said the light well was not addressed by the Commission but was a staff recommendation.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to May 24, 2000 prior to the meeting.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary