Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum who left early at 8:58 p.m., Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (SBI, DBI); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the meeting.

SPEAKERS: 1. Mark Gruberg asked the Board to uphold decisions of the Taxicab Commission revoking medallions for failure to meet driving requirements for holders. In the Wong case he said the holder was employed as a deputy sheriff and could have driven as required but hadn’t. 2. Winchell Hayward spoke in support of the appellant in Appeal 01-049 for which the hearing had been held and closed May 9, 2001. He requested the suspension be lifted and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission be imposed, in order to allow for the protection and maintenance of the Armory, a designated landmark.

Date issued March 27, 2001

Last day to appeal April 11, 2001

Request for jurisdiction May 8, 2001

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE the matter to June 13, 2001.

SPEAKER: Commissioner McInerney requested that the Executive Secretary phone the appellant’s consultant to discuss how the proposed findings can be improved and made suitable for adoption.

ITEM C: Pier 39. Appeal No. 01-061. On May 23, 2001, after public hearing, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator with a condition to allow the trampoline and bungee business to remain at Pier 39 without a conditional use authorization.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum abstained) to ADOPT the subject findings.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the denial on CONDITION that the Department of Public Works undertake the root pruning of the subject tree, and on CONDITION that the appellant prune said tree within 90 days.

SPEAKERS: 1. Myra Hom Short, appellant, said if the subject tree is trimmed it will die, and that branches fell off of it in 1996 during a storm. 2. Judith Boyajian, DCA, said that if someone is injured by falling street trees the City has no liability because of its sovereign immunity.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to June 20, 2001, with a directive that negotiations take place between the appellants, the permit holder, the Department of Building Inspection, the Zoning Administrator, and the Department of Real Estate.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, reported on the meeting with the representative of the Lady Shaw Senior Center as requested by the Board. 2. Annie Chung, director of the Lady Shaw Senior Center, asked that those in the audience in support of the Center raise their hands and twenty people raised hands. She said her Board will not meet until July and they must make a final decision on their position regarding the project.

3. Jerry Lee spoke for the appellants and complained they weren’t included in the meeting and there has been no recent communication with the permit holder. He said the 10 foot easement is too small for the Center’s vans to get through and maneuver in, and side mirrors will be damaged. 4. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, explained what a site permit is and that addenda may not be appealed to the Board. He also said that the vans area needs extension space and certain grade, neither of which are adequate on this site for the vans. 5. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that vans are 20 to 22 feet long.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject determination, with ADOPTION of the findings and conditions as submitted by the appellant’s attorney which were part of the Planning Commission’s motion regarding this project at the Advisory Discretionary Review (DR) hearing held on May 24, 2001.

SPEAKER: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, described the Advisory DR hearing held by the Planning Commission on the new armory use, and how all the parties struggled to reach an agreement. He recommended that the Board overrule his suspension of the permit and adopt the conditions of approval suggested by the Planning Commission which are acceptable to the appellant. 2. Michael Burke, attorney for the appellant, said that the Mission Technology Center (MTC) is the new owner of the property and he also described the Planning Commission’s hearing and the proposed conditions his client would accept. He said there is not complete agreement on all the conditions proposed, but all had been presented to the Planning Commission and the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC) asked for additional conditions. The Planning Commission rejected MAC’s conditions and recommended the Board adopt theirs. 3. Sue Hestor, attorney for MAC, explained the effects of the facility on the power situation in the City and how it would result in the Hunter’s Point powerhouse being expanded to the detriment of the people in the Bay View Hunter’s Point area. She said the people in the Mission were in support of the Bay View on the power issue.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin abstained) to OVERRULE the subject determination with FINDINGS and a NOTICE OF SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS to be prepared by the appellant’s attorney and for adoption on June 13, 2001.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that he had reconsidered his determination and feels now that the two units could be sold to 100% of median income buyers within the original conditional use authorization of the project. 2. John Sanger, attorney for appellant, said he would have revised findings to support the ZA’s new determination, which his client can accept, next week, as well as a second Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) as requested by Commissioner McInerney. (Mr. Badiner asked that copies of the NSR be submitted to Planning and to the Mayor’s Office of Housing.)

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to July 11, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED, and with REVISED PLANS to be submitted to the Planning Department.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained why the Planning Commission had denied the application with the fourth floor of occupancy. He said the appellant could fit the desired rooms into the house even if three stories and the original design does not meet the Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs). 2. Ginger O’Reilly, wife of the appellant, explained why the fourth floor was necessary for the home of their own and that their project with four stories meets the Planning Code. 3. Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellant, said the original staff recommendation to the Commission was for approval of the plans with the four stories with a five-foot setback and it would then meet the RDGs. He thinks the design breaks away from the usual mold and is a great design. Public Comment for Planning Commission: 4. Art Bender said the proposed building is too big for the site and far larger in square footage than other houses nearby. He felt the project would set a terrible precedent in an area with existing parking congestion and that the neighbors are being reasonable and are willing to compromise but the developer won’t.

5. Jan Hammock lives next door to the subject lot and her property is still in escrow. She said she feels a project is all right bot not a house of 4500sf which will loom over her house. 6. Paul Curtiss from Fremont Street said that the project will ruin the neighborhood and that all the neighbors oppose the project since it is out of scale with the 60% of houses in the area that are two-stories and this one will be four stories. 7. Tom Gilleran who lives next door to the subject site said his house is only one floor and was built in 1929. He said the appellant has no consideration for the neighbors and that the proposed top floor doesn’t conform to the area. 8. Andrea Werlin said the Planning Commission had rejected the four story design with a 5 to 1 vote with their findings saying the proposal will change the neighborhood character and that the appellant would not meet with the neighbors. She said there is confusion as to what exactly is to be built. 9. Bill Petri said it is unfruitful to discuss the height issue with the appellant and that the building will alter the character of the neighborhood. 10. Paul Travis asked the Board to note the depth of neighborhood support for the Commission’s decision and that eighty people attended Supervisor Leno’s meeting on this issue. He said he did not object to the proposal if the house is set into the ground as was first proposed, but now that idea is out and the original height has been reclaimed by the appellant. Public Comment for Appellant: 11. Jeremy Paul described the project as fitting well into the block and the design as not being incongruous with the neighborhood. 12. Ross Levy of Randall Street said the plans comply with the Code. He said he wants to do the same on his property with two levels over garage. 13. James Zack from Chenery Street around the corner said not only are the plans code complying but no variance is necessary for approval; while a block away is an even larger building. 14. Eduardo Paniagua of 178 Randall Street said he supports the project sponsor. 15. Peter Csapo of 194 Randall Street said people need larger houses now than long ago because our life style has changed and the neighbors have to get beyond the issue. 16. Emilio Bidegain of 119 Randall said he likes the unique design of the proposed house and he felt it wouldn’t be a precedent and he agrees with the previous speakers. 17. Aaron Jackson of 195 Randall Street said this was something good and he welcomes the O’Reilly’s to the neighborhood. 18. Chiyori Filion said she has lived on Randall Street thirteen years and the existing building at 129 Randall is egregious and rebuilding it is a good idea. She feels the design of the proposed building is beautiful and appropriate for today’s family needs. 19. Tasheem Karimbhai of Chenery Street said that things change including access to light and views. 20. Elena Asturias said she supports the appeal. 21. Joe O’Donoghue said the project has taken two or three years to get this far and that he had lived on Randall when he first came to the City. He felt this project won’t affect traffic density in the City.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject denial and GRANT the permit with FINDINGS & CONDITIONS as prepared by the appellant’s consultant.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said this was denied because it would mean a loss of housing and it conflicts with the General Plan. 2. Jeremy Paul, consultant for the appellant, said that the house has a good permit history and was built as a two-family, which is what is requested today to allow to go back to two-family use. 3. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, said that he had done an inspection of the property and its original use was a two-family house and that it can be readopted to two-family use easily. No Public Comment.

SPEAKERS: 1. Rafael Torres-Gil, SBI, DBI, explained the permit process for rear yard decks 36" above grade or less. He said a deck needs a permit if over 30" above grade. 2. Betty daCosta, appellant, said she objected to the permit because her property rights had been violated. She can’t get to the rear of her house for maintenance because the permit holders have boxed her in with their additions and sealed her up. She can’t squeeze through the little window in the back wall. 3. Kirk Sujishi, permit holder, said he has two children and needs the rear deck for them to play safely. He said the deck has already been built and a certificate of final completion issued for it. He said their deck doesn’t block the appellant’s access. No Public Comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit on CONDITION that action on the permit be stayed for 60 days, with the stay expiring on August 1, 2001.

SPEAKERS: 1. Charles Eliason, co-appellant, said his wife was the original tenant in unit 1117B and he pays for electricity for 1117 and 1119 after it was shut off by the landlord. He said he was not questioning the permit but the application did not have proper information on it since it shows no dwelling units in the building and he has lived there many years. He said he needs a 60 day delay so he can find another home. 2. Roman Knop, permit holder, said that the tenants have not paid him rent for years. He said a 60-day delay was all right with him but he wants the tenants to vacate by July 31, 2001. 3. Gabriel Ng, architect for permit holder, said the addenda have not yet been issued.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner El Qadah absent) to UPHOLD the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Allen Lerch, attorney for the permit holders, said he thought the appellants were inconsiderate to not be present at the hearing. 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the project will have no affect on the neighbors and that Section 311 notice was not required for the project which is a very small alteration.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit on CONDITION that the permit holder provide plastic coverings for appellant’s windows, that the permit holder purchase an air purifier for the appellant, that appellant be provided with a set of plans, and that the mounds of dirt in the construction area be covered and watered.

SPEAKERS: 1. John Doo, appellant, said the permit had not been posted and the proposed building will block his view of the Golden Gate Bridge and construction noise and dust will damage his health and life as well as cause parking problems in the area. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, said that his client will take necessary and reasonable measures to keep noise and dust from the construction to a minimum, with dust watered and coverings as appropriate. No public comment.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 348-0050.