Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); 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.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the request for rehearing, with the rehearing scheduled for April 11, 2001.

SPEAKER: Mya Ham Short, requestor, said she is a small property owner trying to comply and asked for a rehearing of her appeal because one commissioner had been absent at the first hearing and she wants a full Board. No public comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to DISMISS the case for lack of jurisdiction, and for the appellant to receive a refund of the filing fees.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained how he was changing the language on the Notices of Violation and would not object to the Board dismissing the appeals. 2. Susanne Beilicke, attorney for the appellants, requested that the Board dismiss the appeals and direct the staff to return the filing fees to the appellants.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to DISMISS the case for lack of jurisdiction, and for the appellant to receive a refund of the filing fees.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to DISMISS the case for lack of jurisdiction, and for the appellant to receive a refund of the filing fees.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 to UPHOLD the subject site permit with FINDINGS that were read into the record by said commissioner.

SPEAKERS: 1. Stephen Williams, attorney for the appellants, said it was never too late to do the right thing and to obey the law, and that the matter is being litigated in Superior Court. He said this was not a matter of collateral estoppel. He said the Board must follow the Planning Commission guidelines and he was exhausting his administrative remedy with this appeal. 2. Paul Zingaro, co-appellant, said this project was a perfect example of excess allowed by the live/work ordinance and that the project is out of scale with the whole neighborhood with its height of 50 feet. 3. Judith Boyajian, DCA, said that she concurred with Mr. Williams that the interim controls and guidelines are the law and that the Board should apply them. 4. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said the design was approved by the Board last June at the hearing of the appeal of the denial by Planning filed by the permit holder and that the present plans are identical to those approved by the Board last June with a quorum of the Board sitting and the vote was 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum was absent) to overrule the Planning Commission and grant the permit. 5. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the Planning Commission had not asked him to file for a rehearing last June and that he hadn’t. Public Comment for the Appellants: 6. Sue Hestor submitted to the Board copies of the moratorium and resolution of the Board of Supervisors on live/work units and said the appellants asked only for a small reduction of the height of the building. 7. L. Joseph Boss said the project is next to a historical duplex and had been designed by a good architect but that the height should be reduced. 8. Gary Moody said the public wants to change the procedure and that no one wants a scam. He wants the Board to consider its future. Public Comment in Support of the Permit Holder: 9. Joe O’Donoghue said his group had not exhausted its remedies regarding the Board of Supervisor’s action, and that they had violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) rules with no proper notice of their action.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to UPHOLD the subject permit with the CONDITIONS as stated in the written agreement between the principals.

SPEAKERS: 1. Richard Jeung, attorney for the appellant, showed photos of the roof deck project and said the work so far exceeds the approved plans and that the permit holders should apply for a permit for a vertical extension. 2. Chris Garlington, permit holder, said this was a case of "you can’t have what I have" and he also responded to the four issues in the appellant’s statement. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the project is about a proposed roof deck and his interpretation is that a non-complying structure’s railing may be no higher than that allowed by the Building Code and the railing appeared to be too high, and maybe the work is beyond the scope of the approved plans. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, reviewed the deck and railing provisions of the Building Code. Pubic Comment for the Appellant: None. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 5. Robert Shrieve said the project is not intrusive and will not cause great harm to anyone.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented) to UPHOLD the subject permit on CONDITION that landscaping be installed and maintained around the edge of the subject roof deck, to be designed in consultation with the appellant, with discrepancies to be arbitrated by Mauricio Vela of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, and on further CONDITION that the permit holder transmit the required documents, reports and the survey to the appellant.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jennifer Willman, appellant, said she opposed the project because it replaces one that was built without a permit, torn down, and is now being replaced, making the house, already the largest on the house, even more out of scale with the neighbors and blocking light and air on the south side. She is concerned with the foundation especially. 2. Jennifer Torbohn, attorney for permit holder, said her client would transmit the documents requested to the appellant and described the concessions already made by her client for the neighbors, the addition being reduced from three stories to two. 3. Arnie Bustamanete, permit holder, described revisions to plans negotiated with Planning to benefit neighbors and he said that his family has had no kitchen for three years and he needs the addition because he has four daughters. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained that the Code limits on working hours and noise, as well as procedures to insure proper foundations. Public Comment for the Appellant: 5. Julieta Ozan read three letters of opposition from neighbors who could not attend the hearing. 6. Robert Adler, a concerned neighbor, said he had no notice of the project because it was an over-the-counter permit and plans sat at Planning for two years, and that he did not delay the project. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 7. Mauricio Vela said he lives next door on the east side since 1989, and his rear windows face the house. The sun sets to the west so there is no problem with light to appellant. He said there is lots of public support for the addition.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Gladys White, agent for appellant, explained her objections to the proposed addition which will block her view and reduce the value of her property. 2. Jerry Klein, agent for the permit holder, said a rear extension was common in the City and that the sunlight coming from the south will not be affected by the addition which is needed for his client’s large family and that his client does not speak English well which prevented him from reaching out to neighbors. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, said he felt that the lower level of the addition does not lend itself to conversion to an illegal unit and that he does not recommend a Notice of Special Restrictions in this case. Public Comment: None for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the three subject permits with PROP M FINDINGS that were incorporated by reference and other FINDINGS that were read into the record.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the Coalition for Jobs, Arts & Housing, said the Board could take judicial notice of the new controls adopted by the Board of Supervisors which will go into affect in a few days whether it is signed by the Mayor or not. She said it was adopted because developers would not compromise with the community about live/work loft units. She said the Board should continue these cases because the other appellant, Mr. Witkoski, had to leave the meeting because of a sick child. 2. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said her clients are a small business trying to keep their T-shirt business alive by building these two buildings. She said the shadowing of schoolyard issue had been resolved and she also explained Prop K provisions and history. 3. Pat McCune, co-permit holder, and a partner in Graphic Sportswear said the Commission had approved their plans unanimously. Public Comment for the Permit Holders: 4. Joe O’Donoghue said he met the permit holders at the Commission meeting and they should be supported to keep their local business going. Public Comment for the Appellants: 5. Gary Moody said Ms. Barkley and Mr. O’Donoghue were telling big lies as to developers paying school fees for these projects. 6. Daniela Kirshenbaum said there was no reason to approve any more live/work units and that other projects could be built on this site. 7. Nada Savic said the project will make her open space for her building adjacent non-compliant and she will be in the bottom of a well.

ACTION: 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

3-1-0 (Commissioner Cullum dissented, and Commissioner McInerney recused) to UPHOLD all three subject permits, with FINDINGS that were read into the record by President Chin.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sue Hestor, attorney for the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC), said that these hearings had been accelerated and she asked for a continuance. She said the NMIPZ regulations prohibit housing projects over ten units and that the earlier Imbelloni projects shade the block and that Project Artaud is the only real artist live/work building in the City, and that this site is not appropriate for the proposed buildings. 2. Patrick Goggin, attorney for Project Artaud, said the site had toxic serpentine soil which needed soil analysis so it could be shipped to a proper dump site, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. Alice Barkley, attorney for the permit holder, said the units would not be sold to a dot.com company and that the Board had sound discretion to approve the project. She said mitigations in the Negative Declaration are identical with those in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and would be monitored closely by the Department of Public Works (DPW), including a Health Safety Plan by the developer and approved by DPW. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 4. Joe O’Donoghue said he appealed for community involvement since before 1978 and it is why we now have a housing crisis. Community involvement is a disaster. Here the developers are from the Mission District unlike Sue Hestor and Patrick Goggin. His group could build affordable housing f allowed to. No Public Comment for Appellants.

___________________________________

___________________________________

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