Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

ABSENT: Commissioner Carole Cullum.

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.

ITEM A: 787 Castro Street. Letter from Jeffrey W. Adams requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/21/7945 issued to Sarah Smith and Greg Smirin for restoration of legal occupancy (remove illegal unit, second kitchen and occupancy separation).

Date issued April 21, 2000

Last day to appeal May 8, 2000

Request for jurisdiction May 26, 2000

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Vice President Saunders & Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Commissioner Cullum was absent) to DENY the request for jurisdiction. 4 votes being necessary to grant a request for jurisdiction, the request was DENIED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeffrey Adams, requestor, submitted a letter to him that admits he was not served with notice of permit issuance until half the appeal period had elapsed and that he felt that fairness required that he be allowed to file an appeal late. He said a lay person has a different sense of time than a lawyer. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holder, described the specific steps he had taken to give notice to the requestor above and beyond the legal requirements and that he felt the law does not authorize the Board to allow a late filing under these circumstances.

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:

ITEM B: 3015 Washington Street. Appeal 00-029, Elizabeth Collet vs. Department of Building Inspection, Planning Department disapproval. Hearing May 17, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the deck be pulled back six inches, with Section 311 and Prop M FINDINGS from the Planning staff report which were incorporated by reference.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to ADOPT the findings.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: The Executive Secretary polled the Board on whether they had reviewed and considered the environmental review document and all answered "Aye." Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to OVERRULE the Planning Department on both matters and GRANT the demolition permit, and GRANT the site permit with the original height of 49’ 10" to be reinstated, with Prop. M FINDINGS from the Planning staff report to be incorporated by reference, and with Negative Declaration FINDINGS read into the record by Commissioner McInerney.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, responded to a recent letter he received concerning his advocacy for the Commission. He described the Planning Commission’s findings and decision to require the revision to plans to lower the roof 4’ 10" in order for the project to be in character and scale with the neighborhood. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for appellant, described the proposed project and argued that the original height is appropriate given the context and explained how the architect had worked with the neighbors to design an appropriate building. Public Comment for the Planning Commission: 3. Steve Williams, attorney for neighbors, explained that the Planning Commission had approved the project, not denied it, asking only that the height of the roof be reduced 4’ 10" which the developer was not willing to do. He also explained the resolutions of policy regarding live-work projects and that the department has not yet delivered the design guidelines called for by the Commission. He said the design should have been cut down 10’ to make it compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Rob Anderson, President of the Dogpatch group, said that the talented architect had ignored the scale of the neighborhood from the start and that he hoped the Board would do what it had done on the Minnesota Street project, that is, lower the roofline. 5. Paul Zingaro of 999 Tennessee said the proposed building should be a compromised height and not the tallest building. He felt the developers would benefit from a lower roofline and that the design changes made so far were unsolicited by the neighbors. 6. Constance Channon of 999 Tennessee urged the Board to uphold the Commission action since this was a pivotal property between commercial and residential areas and that lowering the height 4’ 10" was not asking much. 7. Meb Gordon said she had met with the architect/developer several times and height was the only issue. She had analyzed the 1998 and 1999 versions of the plans and found that the later plans were for a larger building. 8. Steve Griffith said that the Planning staff had taken into account the whole area, while the Commission had looked at the block only in requiring the lowering of the height of the project. He said the architect was great and could deal with the slightly lowered height. 9. Surma Mauro said her live-work building was 39 feet tall and the proposal would be 11’ higher and out of scale. 10. Bruno Mauro said the dialog between neighbors and the architect was not authentic and that the architect was inflexible on the height issue. 11. Anna Dominski showed a March newspaper article about Dogpatch and said it had been wonderful to win at the Planning Commission which usually would not have given consideration to a neighborhood. She said the rendering was not accurate, and since the site was in the heart of Dogpatch the Board should help preserve this old neighborhood by upholding the Commission. 12. Mark Gordon, a local neighbor, quoted from the interim zoning controls for live-work projects and said the key issue was the scale of the project. 13. Janet Carpinelli said that this case could be precedent setting. She described how the zoning had changed in Dogpatch and that she supported a reasonable compromise on the height of the project. The 50’ height does not work and will ruin the neighborhood and their quality of life as far as privacy goes. 14. Roy Neyhart lives at 1042 Tennessee and has seen two generations of change in the area and the slow whittling away of the row of residences. He said we’ve got to hang on to what little we have left, and keep the small structures or they will become extinct. 15. Rex Jones joined in urging the denial of the appeal. 16. David Siegel of 917 Minnesota described the Dogpatch area of five blocks which is easy to impact with a new building. He wants the spirit of compromise and the lowering of the height by 5’. He said 20% of families of the area were in the audience and he hopes the Board would respect their views. 17. Tony Dominski of 1004 Tennessee said the proposed building will have an overwhelming impact on the neighborhood. He showed on a map of the area which owners support the Planning Commission’s action. He said he had done an exact rendering himself and that the developer’s rendering was not accurate. 18. Christopher Cole lives on deHaro Street and that this was a Potrero Hill and Citywide issue and he showed pictures of proposals which had been disapproved, one of which resulted in the building of a successful one-family house, showing that requiring projects to be in context was in the interest of the developers as well as the neighbors. Public Comment in Support of the Appellant: 19. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that this architect was internationally recognized and quoted Yeats who said "my thoughts are pillars which passing dogs defile," to describe the architect’s feelings of having his plans revised by the Planning Commission. He said the project had been reduced in size since 1998 since it had been 12 units and was now 10 units. 20. Anne Subercaseaux described the area as a mixed one and said she wants to live in it since it was attractive to a designer. She said the architect had made adjustments to the plans and had scaled it down. She thought the café idea was a good one. 21. Mike Mood described the character of the area and said the architect had made compromises and that the glass façade allows light and is not massive. 22. John Norton said he was looking for a place to live and the proposed building would meet his needs as a writer without a car who needs to be near a Caltrain station. He thought the design will enhance the neighborhood. 23. Kerry Mellor, a designer, said that the roof elements of the design serve all the parties and that the proposal was gorgeous. 24. Carolina Tapia said she supports the architect’s projects and believes that the Dogpatch association does not speak for all those who live there. She feels the proposal is good for the neighborhood. 25. Mark Donohue, an architect, said he feels that the proposed design gives the area character with an openness that is good for the neighborhood. He thought the shape of the roof is unique and brings down the scale and that renderings are always disputed.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to GRANT all three permits.

SPEAKERS: 1. Bijal Patel, attorney for appellant, said that the issue was that the three permits appealed failed to meet CEQA requirements and no environmental review had been done by Planning. She requested an analysis of all the permits in light of the steepness of the site and the potential impacts of the projects on her client’s property next door. 2. Olle Lundberg, a civil engineer for the appellant, said that he had concerns about the retaining wall between the properties which had a history of catastrophic failures. 3. John Ware, a civil engineer for appellant, said that he had concerns about the overall poor quality of the property line walls, the steep slope of the area, and the proposal to extend to the rear. Public Comment in Support of the Appellant: 4. Lester Garrison on behalf of a neighbor who had spent $1.6 million since 1989 restoring her building described the soil conditions and asked for documents regarding what is going to be done and for a suspension until his client has appealed the latest permit. 5. John Sanger, attorney for permit holders, addressed the CEQA issue and said that all the permits were categorically exempt from environmental review. He described the work proposed and said he was unable to reach a settlement with the appellant. 6. Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, said that the department had twice reviewed the permits and found them to be categorically exempt from CEQA requirements. 7. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, said that he had reviewed the permits and there were no structural issues in the two over-the-counter permits for which no plans are needed under the Code.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to GRANT both permits with the CONDITIONS stipulated in the principals’ agreement.

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary