Meeting Information

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the subject penalty to two times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: Appellant’s wife and daughter were present but did not testify.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject revocation. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion PASSED and the subject revocation was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Paul Zarefsky, DCA, said that there had been quadruple violations in this case and it was a flagrant abuse of the system, with the appellant still not driving as required even with the matter before the Board. 2. Cindy Lee, attorney for appellant, said that the declaration of the appellant she had submitted gave all the details of his family’’ medical problems which was the reason he had not driven his cab for the past five years, and that her client had made changes in his duty schedule as a deputy sheriff in good faith to try to meet the requirements. Public Comment for the Taxicab Commission: 3. Mark Gruberg of the United Taxicab Workers, said he had a medallion and drove the cab and that he supported the Commission’s revocation because there are so many people on the list seeking a medallion while the appellant had a history of broken promises to drive to the Taxicab Commission and this Board, and that he had not driven as required.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject revocation and REPLACE it with a 4-month suspension.

SPEAKERS: 1. Paul Zarefsky, DCA, said the appellant had not driven under his medallion in years and had admitted it to the Taxicab Detail, saying he had spent his time caring for his son who has a learning deficiency, though he could have driven nights or weekends and hadn’t. 2. John Mejia, attorney for appellant, said that the offense was not serious enough to justify revocation and asked the Board to reduce the penalty to a suspension. Public Comment for Appellant: 3. Nathan Dwiri of Yellow Cab said that the appellant had driven over 200 shifts since he became aware of the driving requirement for medallion holders. 4. Joe O’Donoghue asked the Board to use compassion in this case and emphasized that the appellant had been a driver since 1967 and this fact stands for something. 5. Joseph Fleischman said the appellant had been a driver longer than himself and that under the old rules one had a medallion for life without a requirement to drive, and that this is a case of lack of due process. 6. Mark Gruberg of the United Taxi Workers said that this case is very different from the last one and that revocation may not be the most appropriate punishment here, though it is incredible that he did not know of the driving requirement after so many years of driving. Public Comment for Taxicab Commission: 7. Inspector Suslow of the Taxi Detail said that the only taxicab cases sent to the District Attorney are the ones involving crimes and not just infractions of the taxicab rules.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the permit on CONDITION that the subject lattice fence be eight feet in height from grade, with Mr. Butler’s drawing attached to the final Notice of Decision. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Commissioner Cullum, and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject potting shed with no revisions. Four votes being necessary to impose any revisions/conditions on a permit, the motion PASSED and the subject potting shed was UPHELD with no revisions.

SPEAKERS: 1. Andrew Zacks, attorney for the permit holder, said that four issues had been settled and only the potting shed was at issue now. He noted that the wall is to be lowered to accommodate the Allens and the McGranes. The Jeschkes still oppose the potting shed. 2. James Stavoy, architect for the Allens and McGranes, said that there had been no settlement over the potting shed, and asked the Board to attach the agreed upon drawing to the Notice of Decision. 3. Lesley Jeschke, co-appellant, said the wall with the potting shed above it will create a 12 foot high structure that will be unacceptable to her and a shed could be placed somewhere else in the Howe’s rear yard which has four levels. 4. Lewis Butler, architect for the permit holders, said the height of the potting shed could be reduced one or two feet. 5. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the Planning Code provisions for sheds in the rear yard, although this shed would be in the buildable envelope of the house and thus not subject to those limitations of the Code.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to June 20, 2001 prior to hearing.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD both the demolition and site permits.

SPEAKERS: 1. Edward Nicolaus, appellant, said the fact that the permit holders had submitted photos from all directions except toward the south was suspicious since his property is to the south, and will be impacted by the proposed house. He also explained why he had not attended the meeting of the permit holders for the neighbors at which the project was described and concerns of the neighbors were expressed. 2. Charles Olson, attorney for the permit holders, said the project meets the Code and the Residential Design Guidelines, and he described the modifications made in the plans to accommodate the neighbors who expressed their concerns and he noted that the neighborhood organization supported the proposal which is very unusual. In addition he said the lot was large enough to be divided into two lots each of which could be developed with a house. Public Comment for Appellant: None. Public Comment for the Permit Holders: 3. James Fuller of 2585 Filbert said that the existing house on the site is an eyesore and a fire hazard and he welcomed its removal and the construction of the proposed house which is well designed, and that the proper processes have been followed for the permits. 4. Joe O’Donoghue said the permit should be approved since we need to allow wealthy people to stay in the City and that the house has been designed by an award-winning architect. 5. Alice Barkley said it was important that the Cow Hollow organization supported the proposal. 6. Shirley Sullivan said she supports the project and looked forward to the new gardens that will be a pleasure to see.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders, Commissioner El Qadah, and Commissioner McInerney dissented) to UPHOLD the subject determination. Two votes being necessary to uphold any departmental action, the motion FAILED. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to OVERRULE the subject determination with FINDINGS prepared by the appellant’s attorney.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the violations of the Planning Code and how they had been investigated. 2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained the differences in ADA requirements for residential and commercial buildings. 3. John Sanger, attorney for the owner, said this case was one involving a matter of principle and that there is no consistency in the Code and that the ZA was wrong. He said his client had done everything he could do to insure the legal use of the building. Public Comment for the ZA: 4. Richard Millet of the Potrero Hill Boosters Association said the building had not been used properly and that no parking had been required of it nor school fees required, and he noted the building had been maxed-out as to its height, and was out of scale with the neighborhood. 5. Sue Hestor said the lack of parking spaces is unfair to legitimate businesses in the area. Public Comment for Appellant: 6. Joe O’Donoghue said only four of 48 units were at issue and with the Chow case only one out of 33, and that this kind of building was not cheaper to build than regular residential ones. 7. Alice Barkley said that transportation analyses showed that live-work buildings generated only 3.8 trips per day and were not a burden to the neighborhood.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to May 30, 2001, with the public hearing CLOSED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, apologized for the error made by the Planning Department which led to the need for this appeal. He explained how the permit was approved after a DR request had been filed and ignored by the Department. 2. Michael Burke, attorney for appellant, explained the chronology of events and how his client had relied on the issued permit when it bought the property for 30 million dollars and how it costs half a million a month to continue the project. 3. Sue Hestor, attorney for the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (real party in interest), described her client’s efforts to seek a DR hearing by the Planning Commission and that it was not fair for her client to pay for the Planning Department’s error. She also noted that at the Planning Commission her client only needed four out of seven votes to prevail while at the Board four out of five are needed, making a DR hearing very significant to them. Public Comment for the ZA: 4. Eric Quezada, of the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC), said he is extremely disappointed with the permit process, and said Supervisor Maxwell understood their concerns since her district has many such installations. He said his group had done nothing wrong here and that the area’s health was at stake. 5. Antonio Diaz explained the health issues associated with the generators to be installed, which produce nitrogen dioxide, which is hazardous to the health of residents in the area. 6. Amie Fishman said she represents families, seniors and occupants of SRO’s in the community which need a DR hearing at the Planning Commission in order to defend the health and safety of the people who have a right to have their say. Jaime Bardacke said she encouraged all the Commissioners to grant their request for a DR hearing to give them their inputs concerning the health issues. 7. Marc Soloman said that server farms suck up too much electricity. 8. Robert Haaland said the issue is whether to allow a DR hearing to happen. If it is done right the Board will put people before profits. 9. Paola Zuniga said she works in the Mission and supports a DR on this proposed server farm, and she wants to have input on development plans in her neighborhood. 10. Aimee Patten said she works in the Mission and wants a DR hearing at the Planing Commission. 11. Christina Olargiel said she is concerned with server farm use and she encourages the Board to support the public process. 12. Chris Selig said even the developer wouldn’t deny their right to due process and the health of the community is worth slowing the process to check health issues and to allow for research to be presented. Public Comment for the Appellant: 13. Winchell Hayward said he supports the project considering the Armory has been vacant for so long, and that the project will benefit the area. 14. Roberto Estrada, member of the Mission Merchant’s Association and other groups, said the area will benefit from the project and that enough hearings have taken place already on this project. He also said that he hated to delay the project because various uses for the Armory have been disputed for many years.

_________________________________

_________________________________