Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders (who attended from 5:55 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.), Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah and Commissioner John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

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

SPEAKER: President Chin appointed Commissioner El Qadah as Acting Vice President under the newly adopted rule.

ITEM A: 993 Tennessee Street. Letter from Constance Channon and Paul Zingaro, appellants requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-240, protest of permit issued to Bernardo Urquieta to erect a 10 live-work unit building at 993 Tennessee Street, heard February 21, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the site permit with FINDINGS that were read into the record by Commissioner McInerney.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Stephen Williams, attorney for the appellants/ requestors, asked the Board to honor the moratorium on live-work units and to grant a rehearing in this matter even though litigation may lead to a ballot measure next November challenging the moratorium. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said tat even with litigation pending the Board should not grant the request for rehearing because the permits were approved by the Board before the moratorium went into effect on Friday, February 23, 2001. Also, the requestors did not offer any new evidence which might justify a second hearing.

ITEM B: 2001, 2051, 2095 Harrison Street. Letter from Sue Hestor, attorney for Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 01-012, 01-013, 01-014, protesting site permits issued to Harrison Development LLC to erect live-work units at 2051, 2001 and 2095 Harrison Street, heard February 21, 2001. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 (Commissioner McInerney abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, Commissioner McInerney recused) to UPHOLD the permits, with FINDINGS that were read into the record by President Chin.

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

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant/ requestor, asked the Board for a rehearing and said it was unfair during the fall for the Board to have rescheduled the live-work appeals to earlier dates so they could be acted on before the moratorium went into effect. She called this just gamesmanship to her clients’ disadvantage. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said tat even with litigation pending the Board should not grant the request for rehearing because the permits were approved by the Board before the moratorium went into effect on Friday, February 23, 2001. Also, the requestors did not offer any new evidence which could have been submitted at the original hearing.

ITEM C: 2001, 2051, 2095 Harrison Street. Letter from Patrick D. Goggin, attorney for Project Artaud, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 01-015, 01-016, 01-017, protesting site permits issued to Harrison Development LLC to erect live-work units at 2051, 2001 and 2095 Harrison Street, heard February 21, 2001. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, Commissioner McInerney recused) to UPHOLD the permits, with FINDINGS that were read into the record by President Chin.

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

SPEAKERS: 1. Patrick Goggin, attorney for the appellant/ requestor, urged the Board to grant a rehearing because the hearing was only two days before the moratorium was passed and it was true there was no evidence to present at a rehearing except the new controls. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said that fairness required the Board to not grant a rehearing since the applications were filed in 1998 and the Streamlining Act requires them to be approved. She said any conversion to office use of the lofts was the fault of their owners since the developer has recorded a Notice of Special Restrictions and had informed the buyers of the live-work regulations.

ITEM D: 175 Russ and 68 Harriet Streets. Letter from Sue Hestor, attorney for Coalition for Jobs Arts and Housing, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal Nos. 01-023 and 01-024, protesting site permits issued to Russ Street Association LLC to erect live-work units at 175 Russ Street and 86 Harriet Street, heard February 21, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the permits with PROP M FINDINGS that were incorporated by reference and other FINDINGS that were read into the record.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant/requestor, asked that Commissioner McInerney not participate in this hearing since it appears he has a conflict of interest in this case and the status of Mr. Cassidy is still not clear. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, rebutted Ms. Hestor’s arguments and explained the consulting nature of Mr. Cassidy’s involvement in the project.

ITEM E: 1320 Bryant Street. Letter from Judy West, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-256, protesting permit to Marian and Alon Byer to erect a building, heard March 7, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with findings that were read into the record by Commissioner Cullum.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Judy West, appellant/ requestor, asked that the Board grant a rehearing to allow more time for her to arrange for the site to be used as a bikeway. 2. Daniel Sullivan, agent for the permit holder, asked the Board to deny the request since his client wishes to build a commercial building on the site which is necessary to the continued success of his business.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to reduce the penalty to three times the regular fee. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion FAILED, and the original penalty of nine times the regular fee was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Nina Guralnik, appellant, said the work in question was done by the former owner, and she asked the Board to refund the penalties she has paid. 2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, went through the history of inspections and hearings on the property and urged the Board to uphold the penalties. No Public Comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to reduce the penalty to five times the regular fee. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion FAILED, and the original penalty of nine times the regular fee was UPHELD.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to CONTINUE the matter to May 23, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED, and with a directive for the permit holder to meet with the Board of Directors of the Lady Shaw Senior Center.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, reported on his meeting with the appellants and his attempts to meet with Lady Shaw’s leader. 2. James Lee, agent for the appellants, explained the appellants’ view of the meeting with Mr. Paul and what the appellants seek out of this process. No Public Comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to CONTINUE the matter to May 9, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED.

SPEAKERS: 1. James Stavoy, architect for the appellants, explained the permit and the Discretionary Review (DR) history of this project and why the neighbors have serious concerns with it. 2. Cheryl McGrane, co-appellant, described her view of the wall and how it blocked her sunlight. 3. Lesley Jeschke, co-appellant, said she had endured a nightmare from the shed high up on the wall. 4. Robert Allen, co-appellant, said the project will put his house in the shade as in a dungeon. 5. Larry Badiner, ZA, described the DR history of the project and said the permit was approved over the counter improperly and that the fence may violate the conditions of the DR decision of the Planning Commission. 6. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holders, said the wall had been built under a prior permit that had been approved based on the DR decision. 7. Lewis Butler, architect for the permit holders, said that he had designed the project within the DR decision of the Planning Commission in 1995 voluntarily and that the house and project does not cover more than half the lot, and that the pitched roof they were using would increase the light to the neighbors. No Public Comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to RESCHEDULE all four cases to May 9, 2001.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Qorey Golob, appellant, described her efforts to retain her living space in the subject warehouse and asked the Board to revoke the permit. 2. Theodore Klaassen, attorney for the permit holder, said the tenant has no right to remain in the building which is zoned M-2 and in which dwelling units are not permitted. He explained the dealings with the former tenant who had willingly moved out, after they settled the matter. 3. Alon Picker, the former tenant, said the lawyer was lying through his teeth and that the landlord had done work in the building without the proper permits. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, described the permit history of the building and said it was a commercial building with no authorization for any residential use. He said the building was being gutted now for a new tenant. 5. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the Planning Commission’s policy is not to protect illegal units even if they are twenty years old.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 2-2-1 (President Chin and Commissioner McInerney dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to May 9, 2001. Three votes being necessary to reschedule any case, the motion FAILED and the hearing went forward. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the demolition permit and the four site permits, with NEGATIVE DECLARATION FINDINGS that were read into the record by Commissioner McInerney.

SPEAKERS: 1. Chris Cole, attorney for the appellant, asked for a rescheduling of the appeals to a later date. He said he had a petition supporting the appellant with 530 signatures on it. He said the Recreation and Parks and Open Space element of the General Plan supported his position and that the subject property was important as a habitat for many plants and animals. He said the matter should be continued until after the court decides the environmental issue. 2. Barry Deutsch, appellant, said that the proposed units will not be affordable and that it will drive out many birds and butterflies as well as plants tended by his wife. 3. Barbara Deutsch, wife of the appellant, said the project poses a danger to public health, that the songbirds of Potrero Hill need to be protected, and that the site provides many children in the neighborhood with a rewarding educational experience. 4. Kevin Dill, agent for the permit holder, said it has been a long and arduous process and he opposed a continuance because of the many delays already caused by the appellant, and that the Planning Commission had approved his project and said it is appropriate on this site and that there has been no City action to make the house a designated landmark. 5. Barbara Presta, agent for the permit holder, said that the subject home is not the only one of its kind in the neighborhood, that there are dozens of such houses on Potrero Hill, and that all are in better condition than the subject home. Public Comment for Appellant: 6. David Graves said that the site was important for teaching children from the nearby school about nature, and that Barbara Deutsch teaches children about butterflies. 7. Michele Schaal said she has lived in the neighborhood for 18 years and that she walks by the site often and it is filled with many wonders. She will be sad to lose it to development. 8. Margo Bors said she has lived nearby since 1968 and that she is concerned with the loss of this natural open space which provides habitat for wildlife in the middle of the City and that the neighborhood rejected the project in order to keep this as open space, which provides a home to many small birds. 9. Jean Neblett said he opposes the project and that his letter in the file explained his concerns about the loss of habitat. He supports the appellant. 10. Deirdre Elmansoumi said that developers are never satisfied. The site is home to 36 endangered species. Barbara Deutsch has enhanced the habitat for wildlife. 11. Maria Gilardin said that developments like this are killing San Francisco in slow motion. Victorian Mews did it on the north side of Potrero Hill. She said the City is becoming uninhabitable for wildlife and for people. No Public Comment for the Permit Holder.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the subject variance.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained how this variance had met the five requirements necessary for the granting of a variance. 2. Stjepan Vargic, appellant, said the project will add not 250sf to the owner’s house but 600sf. He said the project will result in his house next door being shaded until 11:30 a.m. and he is a very sick man who has suffered through many surgeries recently. He said he begs the Board to stop the project. 3. Cleveland Lee, variance holder, said the proposed roof of the addition will be sloped so as to minimize its impact on the neighbor’s sunlight. No Public Comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Vice President Saunders absent, Commissioner McInerney abstained) to RESCHEDULE the matter to April 18, 2001.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the issue is whether the proposed use is an office for an advertising agency or for a graphics arts studio. An ad agency markets things and a studio designs them. He looked at resumes of employees to determine which use it is and determined it is a graphics arts space and not the office of an ad agency. He said the regulations of Article 8 of the Planning Code apply only in SOMA, but do give guidance in this matter. 2. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, requested that Commissioner McInerney recuse himself for the reason he is of counsel to the law firm of Reuben & Alter which represented the permit applicant through the planning process up to this appeal when they dropped it and were replaced by Morrison and Foerster. 3. David Levy of Morrison & Foerster, attorney for the applicant, said his firm represents the landlord and the permit holder in this appeal. No Public Comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Saunders absent) to ADOPT the proposed addition to the Rules.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 576-0700.