Fur Flies When Foes Fight Over Fate of House Permit

By Paul Kozakiewicz

After a cantankerous debate, the SF Board of Permit Appeals reversed its earlier decision and voted to allow a demolition permit for property located at 710 10th Ave.

It was a case of an appearing document that turned the tide.

The action drew out big names to argue the case. On one side, in opposition to the demolition permit, were Richmond District Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and attorney Stephen Williams, a candidate for the post of city attorney; on the other side, builder advocate Joe O'Donohue and attorney John Sanger.

An application for a demolition permit was introduced as evidence at the board meeting that had been filled out but not filed at the Planning Department. Because the application had notations on it from a city planner, the five board members unanimously agreed that it was a mistake on the part of the City to not file the application papers or instruct the project sponsor about what steps needed to be taken to complete the application.

The commissioners determined that the owner of the property, Joan Coleman Spaargaren, thought she had approval for the demolition of her property when she left the planning department and that she had, de-facto, a demolition permit from the moment she left the city office. Spaargaren wants to build a two-unit building in place of the single-family house she purchased.

Laurence Kornfield, head of the Department of Building Inspection, called the introduction of the uncompleted permit application an "anomaly" and Zoning Administrator Larry Badiner called the situation one of "exceptional circumstance."

Originally, a Bureau of Building Inspection inspector and department head Frank Chiu determined an unlawful demolition had taken place because work at the site exceeded what was allowed under the site's alteration and remodeling permit.

It was determined that an illegal demolition had occurred because more than 60 percent of the building had been replaced.

The Board of Permit Appeals upheld the department's determination in its original decision concerning the fate of the 10th Avenue home.

In the rematch, both sides were passionate.

"Proposals are not law, they are only proposals," McGoldrick said of the newfound permit application. "You are here to enforce the law."

But Badiner told board members that it is no longer planning code policy to ban the demolition of sound housing. He said he issued a memorandum in 1998 that said the destruction of sound housing is too be noted and considered as one factor in the decision-making process, but that it was no longer banned outright. The ban on the demolition of sound housing was in force only during a brief time when interim demolition controls were in place, he said.

O'Donohue testified before the board that the issue was one of "fairness," and that the owner of the property would have gotten a demolition permit, rather than an alteration permit, in the first place had she known more extensive remodeling was going to be necessary.

Dry rot and other unexpected factors contributed to additional work that needed to be done at the site. The contractor at the site only did the logical thing, O'Donohue said, when he recommended that rotted materials be replaced.

Spaargaren originally acquired a remodeling permit March 29, 2000 to facilitate an estimated $90,000 in work at the 10th Avenue house. In March 2000, the estimate was modified to incorporate about $250,000 worth of work. The determination by the Department of Building Inspection that work at the site was illegal was made Sept. 5, 2000 and the Board of Permit Appeals agreed with the decision when it heard the appeal the first time.

McGoldrick and Williams argued that the wool was being pulled over the board members' eyes and that work at the property consisted of a demolition without permit because only the outside shell of the house and two inside walls remained from the original house.

But it was the application for a demolition permit that turned the tide in the battle and convinced board members to allow the issuance of a demolition permit and accept work done at the premises as legal.

"Don't penalize the public ... because of some screw-up in the system," said appeals board member Allam El Qadah. "The City should help this woman. She did her best."