Meeting Information

PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Lawrence Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, Planning Department; Seth Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

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.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor urged the Board to grant a rehearing on Appeal No. 99-192 for the reason that the DBI required fire escape at the rear which interfere with the rear yard open space required by the Planning Commission. 2. Mary Ellen Flynn said she and the neighbors were concerned about the scale of the project on Minna Street, Appeal 99-192, as well as yards and parking, and she urged the Board to grant a rehearing. 3. Ronald Lippert and Pamela Brown reported to the Board as requested at their appeal hearing (Appeal No. 99-175 continued for further hearing to July 19, 2000) on their efforts to find jobs and a new home in one of the Northern Counties where Ms. Brown has made several applications for jobs.

SPEAKERS: 1. Commissioner McInerney reported that he would probably be late or absent for the meeting of April 26 since he was expected to arrive at SFO from New York late in the afternoon that day and the flight could be held up. 2. President Chin asked those in the audience to turn off their pagers and cell phones so as not to disturb the hearings.

ITEM A: Letter from Patricia A. McColm, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-006, 575 Miramar Avenue, permit holder Marc Balistreri. Hearing March 1, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Patricia McColm requested that the Board grant her a rehearing and that any Commissioners who saw the documents in the file which she felt was prejudicial to her should be recused from this hearing. She said that her request for conditions limiting the time the permit holder could work were modest and she asked the Board to rehear her appeal. 2. Sal Balistreri, attorney for permit holder, reported that the day before there was a moving van outside the appellant’s house and she was now living in a bare house. He said he felt she was not sincere and was trying to harass the permit holder.

ITEM B: Letter from Charles Ledogar, on behalf of Seth Charney, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-192, 1025 Minna Street. Hearing March 15, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit. The Board then voted 5-0 to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Charles Ledogar, agent for appellant, himself a tenant at 1020 Natoma, urged the Board to grant a rehearing , saying that anything that is built on the lot will impact the neighborhood. He showed photos of the area to illustrate his argument that the proposed project would block sunlight to the neighbors as well as the sky. He said he had a petition signed by all on the block, all tenants, and that the owners too were concerned. He said a rehearing was needed so they could get reasonable setbacks for this harmonious residential enclave with wonderful greenery. 2. Yury Trubnikov, permit holder, asked the Board not to grant a rehearing as he had paid the City $20,000 in permit fees and that a 40 foot high building was standard. He made four points and ended by saying his project met all City requirements. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, reminded the Board that the project had been approved with five or ten foot rear setbacks and that there had been no fire stairs in the rear on the plans when the Commission had reviewed it, but had been required by Building Inspection after Commission review and the plans had not been sent back to Planning. 4. Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that Mr. Kornfield’s testimony at the public hearing represented his department’s position and then he explained the purpose of Fire Code required fire escapes for the buildings so that occupants could have access to the roof in an emergency, while firemen can access the building through its front for rescues.

ITEM C: Letter from Christopher Cole, attorney for Barry Deutsch, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. V00-014, 690 De Haro Street. Hearing March 15, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the variance on CONDITION that new language is added to the variance decision as prepared by Larry Badiner for the Planning Department.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Christopher Cole, attorney for appellant/requestor, said he believes the Board’s decision violates the law and asked that a rehearing be granted, since the Board has no jurisdiction to approve projects in violation of the law. He submitted copies of pages of the transcript of the hearing with Mr. Kornfield’s testimony. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that the variance granted in the case applied to the lots underneath the building and that with it approved the developer could work out the best solution for dealing with the existing building, with participation of the City and the neighbors. There has been no subdivision yet of the lot, but now that the application as well as building plans could proceed, with the concerns of the neighbors addressed.

ITEM D: Letter from Farid Dahbour, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9906116 issued to Rosa Vega to enclose existing storage, enclose furnace and water heater, install new washer/dryer closet, bathroom, wetbar, social room and bedroom (on first floor); and remove kitchen and dining area, renovate existing bedrooms, install new bathroom, lightwell, rear deck and stairs (second floor) at 381 Maynard Street.

Date issued September 17, 1999

Last day to appeal October 4, 1999

Request for jurisdiction March 24, 2000

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders, Commissioners Cullum and McInerney dissented) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request was DENIED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Dawn Hassell, attorney for requestor, said that her client never had proper notice of the issuance of the subject permit and that he doesn’t live next door to the building site, though he owns the adjacent lot at 377. She said the notice had been addressed to his sister Myrna, and she asked the Board to allow her client to file a late appeal. 2. Jose Gonzalez, agent for permit holder, urged the Board to not allow a late appeal since his client had followed all the rules and wanted to finish the project. He said the property had been posted with a 3’ X 4’ poster with the notice of the Planning Commission hearing, visible from the street. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said the Assessor’s Records showed Farid Dahbour as the owner of the adjacent lot, and not Myrna Dahbour, with the date of transfer as April 9, 1996. 4. Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that there was no returned mail notices in the file, indicating that the notices had gone through to the adjacent property owners as required for this type of permit.

ITEM E: Letter from Joanne Polach, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9916252S issued to William Wong to construct a four-story three-dwelling unit building at 2747-2749 Judah Street.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Commissioners El Qadah and McInerney dissented) to grant jurisdiction. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request was DENIED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jerry Klein, agent for requestor, said that the plans failed to show his client’s lightwell and that the Residential Design Guidelines required that such lightwells be accommodated by new construction. His client will lose ventilation because her lightwell is not faced with one on the proposed building. 2. Dan Sullivan, agent for permit holder, asked the Board to not allow a late appeal because his client had not tried to deceive here and that Mr. Klein had overstated the case. He said the process had been properly followed. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said usually that the planner reviewing the plans would have checked the Sanborn map and checked on any relevant light wells on abutting properties.

ACTION: RESCHEDULED to May 17, 2000 prior to hearing at request of appellant with agreement of Deputy City Attorney Tom Owen.

(5B) APPEAL NO. 98-137

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to UPHOLD the department and DENY both permits.

SPEAKERS: 1. President Chin explained the hearing process he intended to follow in this matter since a full public hearing had already been held for it and this further hearing was to evaluate the revised plans requested by the Board. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellants, explained the revisions made to the plans at the direction of the Board after the original two hour hearing. He said that Planning agrees that the plans now conform to the Residential Design Guidelines and that his clients would agree to all the minor changes still required by Planning. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said that three issues remained, that is, the width of the garage door, the stairs at the rear, and the height of the roof in the last ten feet of building depth. Public Comment against the Appellants: 4. Paul Minton, adjacent property owner, said that he found several errors in plan dimension, with a four-foot discrepancy at issue. He opposed the revised plans because a fourth floor still remained and should be eliminated, with the proposal still upsetting the area’s open space pattern. 5. John deCastro of the Potrero Boosters and other groups said the revised plans failed to be consistent with the Master Plan as to scale and density and that the appellants should not be rewarded after allowing the existing home to deteriorate.

6. Philippe Fossier said that the Planning Commission and Robert Passmore had found the plans to be out of character with the neighborhood, and that this Board had agreed at its hearing in March 1999. 7. Patty Kong said she was a resident of Potrero Hill for nine years and asked the Board to preserve the existing house on the site with two units in it if wanted by the appellants. The proposed house with four stories she felt was out of scale, but with three stories would be acceptable. 8. Steve Hettenbach, co-owner of an adjacent property, said that the existing building should be rehabilitated. 9. Maria Cristini gave an analysis of the subject property’s value with a house on it and as a vacant lot. She said the owners could sell the existing house and still make a good return without any loss of character to the neighborhood. She opposed the four story revised plans. 10. Peter Walbridge said he was opposed to the demolition permit. He said he tried to buy the house but now could not afford it. He asked the Board to not reward owners who had a history of neglecting this house. 11. Ellen Kernaghan, e member of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood Association Board, said she supported all the points others had made and that she thought the issues were scale, mass and coverage. 12. Jean Neblett, a member of the Boosters, said there were errors on the plans and the revisions do not meet the requirements of Mary Gallagher’s letter of December 1999. She asked the Board to disapprove the plans. 13. Joe Headlen said he lives across the street and asked for hands of those in the audience in opposition to the project. Several dozen people raised their hands. 14. Michael McCone said he lives on Missouri Street and the owners’ deliberate trashing of the house was terrible and asked the Commission’s disapproval be upheld. 15. Art Agnos, a resident of the Hill and former mayor, submitted a flyer concerning the project by Ford Real Estate and urged the Board to uphold the denial and keep the existing house which he felt was beautiful. 16. Roberta Callahan, on the Hill since 1980, said allowing a demolition was the wrong way and that if the house were restored the appellants would still make much money. 17. Luther Greulich, a contractor, said fabulous things can be done in remodeling an old house. He said that the project be kept in scale and limited to two stories over garage. 18. Stephen Williams, formerly the attorney for the neighbors, objected to the abuse of the process by the appellants. Public Comment for the Appellants: 19. Chris Beckman, a resident of the Hill for 27 years, said he bought there for his retirement and then the City changed the zoning from RH-3 to RH-2. He said he favors people investing in property for their retirement so long as they follow the rules.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to May 24, 2000 since the variance decision has not yet been issued.

SPEAKER: 1. Lawrence Alioto, attorney for appellant, reported that no variance decision has been issued yet and requested that the appeal be continued. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holders, opposed a continuance and asked the Board to deny the appeal. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, said the variance would be issued in 2 weeks.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Daniel Weaver, appellant and Vice-President of OMI Community Action Organization, said he never received the paperwork for these two proposed houses and that the Planning staff had informed him too late of the shadow study so that he could not ask for Discretionary Review at the Planning Commission. He described the park next to the site and its native species. He asked that the permits be disapproved. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the shadow requirements in the Code which do not apply to under 40-foot height districts, as here. 3. Dan Sullivan, agent for the permit holder, said the plans complied with all Codes and should be upheld. He said housing was as significant as plant life. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. Peter Vaernet said that the Open Space Committee had funds for only four lots and not for these two. He then showed a photo of the lots. He said the neighborhood works hard on this green space and if he had been given notice he would have rallied to get the Committee to add these two lots to the park. 5. Regina Blosser of the OMI Neighbors in Action said they tried to have these lots bought for park use, but the funds ran out. Showed photos of blighted vacant lots in the area for sale for development. Timing has been terrible for these two lots. She hopes a private donor will buy one and the Committee the other. 6. Irma Marx, an educator, said the Ingleside District has gone from a devastated area to a nice neighborhood through their efforts. This park is needed to teach under-privileged children about natural history. 7. Doug Dorn lives at Ralston and Sargent and opposes this project because it is by an out-of-area developer. Board is needed to give neighbors a chance. 8. Robert McDonald, Park Planner/Project Manager, Recreation and Park Department, said he is working with the developer who will need an encroachment permit for his construction project. He does not object to the permits. The Open Space Committee will continue to try to buy the lots and the Planning Commission will meet with the Recreation and Park Commission in late May and may discuss this possible open space site and purchase from the developer.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 7(A).

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS, and minutes later, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCIND the previous vote. Afterwards, the Board voted 4-1(Commissioner Cullum dissented) to GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS, with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, said that there are three issues here. The first is the need for implementation of the First Source Hiring Program and the developer has agreed to it. The second is the need to impose a springing affordable housing fee to become operable once the City has enacted new legislation that requires the payment of such a fee for this kind of project, similar to the Bryant Square project at the Planning Commission. Also a springing fee for transit to support MUNI. She felt the environmental review cavalierly skirts the density of the project and that not enough parking is being required. 2. Timothy Tosta, attorney for permit holder, said that there are meetings going on about proposed legislation to create fees for such projects but until enacted projects should be approved without conditions. He distinguished Bryant Square from the subject project, and explained why this project is categorically exempt from environmental review. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, admitted that the permit should have been stamped with a First Source Hiring Program condition but said the developer had agreed to do it and it was required by the law. He said the fee legislation was at the very beginning of the process with studies and hearings to be coming along to cover the multi-media industry. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. John deCastro of the Potrero Hill Boosters said this site is at the edge of the transit zone. The buses serving the area are already crowded and a springing transit fee condition was appropriate because of the need for more transit service on Potrero Hill. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 5. Rev. Arnold Townsend said he is working with the tenant for this building who is seeking employees from ethnic communities of the City and he urged the Board to uphold the permit.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented) to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, explained that the variance was denied because it was felt there was room within the house to provide the new space without needing a variance and there was no hardship here to justify the variance. 2. Mark Brand, agent for appellant, said that this is a small variance that Mr. Passmore would probably have approved in his day and that the neighbors did not object and the result was an improvement in the look of the house as well as amenities for the owner, with the extraordinary front setback being the special circumstance justifying the variance. He used an illustration to show the visual improvement proposed. No Public Comment.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to May 24, 2000 to allow for a site visit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the determination and its history and how the LCU had to stay as is or the property must conform to the zoning. 2. Jane Martin, co-Appellant, explained how they wanted to use the building and recreate the building at the rear of the property as a workshop as part of their architectural practice and their residence above the architecture office in the front building with no separation into office and storage as Planning wants, and with a proper rear yard for the first time between the two buildings. 3. David Baker, co-appellant, said they were asking for a larger rear yard than the Code requires. 4. Todd Huntington, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that there could be other issues once plans get to DBI for review involving a passageway to the rear building if it’s a workshop, and a need for new firewalls to separate living areas from other areas. No Public Comment.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary