Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA, OCA); Isolde Wilson, Senior Planner, Planning Department (SP, PD); Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector (SBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

SPEAKER: President Chin asked those in the audience who wished to speak on Item 5 to wait until it was called and not speak under the first item.

ITEM A: 1592-1594 Golden Gate Avenue. Letter from Alice R. Lane, conservator for Elizabeth Jamerson, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-181 heard on February 28, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-2 (President Chin and Commissioner El Qadah dissented, Vice President Saunders absent) to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s determination that there was sufficient evidence to constitute clear intent on the part of the owner to abandon the Limited Commercial Use for the subject property. Four votes are needed to overrule and the determination was UPHELD.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to August 1, 2001 at the written request of the Appellant/Requestor.

ITEM B: 575 Miramar Avenue. Letter from Patricia McColm, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-066, heard May 23, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit. Permit Holder: Marc Balistreri.

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

SPEAKERS: 1. Patricia McColm, appellant, asked the Board to grant her a rehearing for the reason the permit holder had not responded in writing to her written request for a rehearing and because there was no opposition to her appeal and the Board should be sensitive to her as a disabled person whose health is being hurt because of the work being done by the permit holder. 2. Marc Balistreri, permit holder, said he opposes the request because no new evidence was to be presented if granted as required by the Board’s Rules to justify a rehearing and he said he has done no new work since his permit was suspended upon the filing of the appeal and he would have finished the work if the appeal and suspension had not occurred.

ITEM C: 356 - 11^th Street. Letter from Carlton Solle, co-appellant, requesting a rehearing of Appeal No. 01-062, heard June 13, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject determination, with the appellants’ use not deemed to be a place of entertainment and therefore not required to obtain a Place of Entertainment/Dance Hall Keeper permit from the Police Department with the following CONDITIONS: that no paid disc jockey (DJ) operate the CD player(s) or turntable(s), which are only to be operated by staff, including serving staff, bartenders, and managers; and that all tips be equally divided among staff.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to August 1, 2001 at the written request of the Appellant/Requestor.

ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:

ITEM D: 710 - 10^th Avenue. Appeal No. 00-215, rehearing held June 20, 2001. Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the subject determination with a FINDING that a demolition permit was issued on March 31, 2000.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the subject findings.

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

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the denial by the Planning Commission, to GRANT the subject permit per the revised plans with the following CONDITIONS: that the bay and stem walls be reduced from three feet to two feet, and that the second and third floors be reduced in height from eight feet / ten inches to eight feet / four inches, with FINDINGS as prepared by the appellant’s attorney.

SPEAKERS: 1. Mark Leno, Member, Board of Supervisors, speaking as a private citizen asked the Board to uphold the Planning Commission’s required modification of the plans to remove the fourth level because the proposal was out of scale with the neighborhood. He said he is working on legislation that will prohibit houses that are out of scale with their neighborhood. 2. Bill Petri said the latest plans may be appropriate for a wide street but not for a narrow street like Randall Street. 3. Randall Zielinski of 169 Valley Street, speaking for himself and his wife, Vicki Rosen, said that he opposes the project because it is out of scale with the neighborhood. 4. Tom Gilleran of Randall Street said that the proposal does not conform to the neighborhood and asked the Board to uphold the Planning Commission. 5. John Murray said that a four-story house will rise over its neighbors and would be a bad precedent that will transform the neighborhood, and a rich and diverse architectural heritage will be swept away; adding that the City is a special place where people can back up and see the sky. 6. Shirley Armintrout said that the house will be very expensive and the units will generate six to eight cars with a domino effect on other properties also rising to four stories. 7. Dave Monks, President of Friends of Noe Valley, said that the four-story design is out of context and does not represent good planning (Frankenstein Planning) with its seven bedrooms and six bathrooms and two or three parking spaces; it will be too large. 8. Jeannene Przyblyski said her house is only 1300sf and built in the 1920’s. She objects to the size and density of the proposal. 9. Stephen Williams said the Board is not a legislative body and that it has made several decisions recently which upheld permits for buildings that are subject to the live-work moratorium while the legislation was on the Mayor’s desk awaiting signature, and also overruled DBI decisions on unlawful demolitions, undermining legislative intent. 10. Linda Barth said the new three-story buildings up the street are fine but the proposed four-story house is just a big box. 11. Paul Curtis of Fairmount Street said this will be a bad precedent, and he is outraged that the appellant is considering another out of scale building by Jimmy Jen which violates the Residential Design Guidelines which require sensitivity to adjacent properties. 12. Katherine Howes of 158 Randall Street said she wants the building to be consistent with the three-story buildings of the neighborhood and the project kept in line with and conforming to the neighborhood. 13. Paul Travis said the revised plans are still too bulky and house too big, still with a fourth story, which is not consistent with the scale of the neighborhood. Public Comment for Appellant: 13. John Ewers said he lives half a block away, and spoke for himself and his wife, and said he supports the project because there is a housing shortage. 14. James Woods said he supports the appellant and has looked closely at the plans and feels the building fits into the neighborhood, and meets the RDG’s, the density and height regulations, and the appellant intends to live in one of the units. Reducing the size would make the project not viable based on cost. 15. Tasneem Karimbhai of Chenery Street asked the Board to allow the appellant to build the house. 16. Chiyori Filion said she is an artist, and in her view the design is not ugly and is beautiful to her. She said she and her daughter need large rooms and she supports the large rooms proposed by the appellant. 17. Aaron Jackson said that he welcomes the appellant and his family to the neighborhood. 18. Emilio Bidegain said he was there for the DR hearing and that he has no problem with the size of the proposed building and he feels the owner should be allowed to use as much of his land as he can. 18. Peter Csapo said he couldn’t see how the character of the neighborhood would change if the proposed building is built and that there seems to be a double standard here since there are large buildings already built on Whitney and Chenery.19. Eduardo Paniagua, for himself and his wife, said that lifestyles are changing, therefore needing larger houses with larger rooms. He himself needs more space in his home for his family. 20. Zahid Sardar, and architect and designer for the Chronicle Magazine described how he tried to add three stories to his home and there was much opposition which was unfair to him. He thinks the proposed setback will reduce the impact on the neighborhood. 21. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said this kind of project should be encouraged on the few opportunity sites left in the City. The allegations made at the Commission that the owner intends to build other large houses is not true and he is not a developer but building a home for his family. 22. Ginger O’Reilly, wife of the appellant, said this is a dream house for her after living her life in small houses on Potrero Hill. 23. Brett Gladstone , attorney for appellant, explained the revisions made pursuant to the Board’s directions at the public hearing and said the project meets the RDG’s. He submitted proposed findings for adoption by the Board if they voted to grant the appeal. 24. Andrea Werlin, DR Requestor, said that the revisions were not significant and the fourth-story remains in the plans. She said the testimony of the attorney was not true as to the meetings between the parties and that no charges were made in the project after the neighbors expressed their opposition to the fourth story and the house is still too big and she supports the Planning Commission.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject permit with the conditions as agreed to by the principals, who were present but did not speak.

SPEAKERS: 1. Kristen Arkush, appellant, said the deck had appeared suddenly and she was shocked by it since it can be seen from all her rooms. She said that the letter from the consultant was insulting and no way to work toward a compromise. 2. Jeremy Paul, consultant for permit holder, said it is a very small deck and the property abuts many other lots as shown on the Sanborn Map, and he feels she is being unfair since there is little privacy for anyone in such a densely built-up area. 3. Isolde Wilson, SP, PD, said that the deck meets the Planning Code standards. Public Comment for Appellant: 4. Jerry Topolos of 1012 Chenery said he is the most impacted by the deck, which takes half his view away, though he now lives in Sonoma County. 5. Carolyn Deacy of 1024 Chenery said she opposes the deck because it is out of scale with the neighborhood and invades the privacy of her back yard, since people on it can look down into the yard and she is concerned about noise from the deck. 6. David Valstad of 1006 Chenery said he was concerned about the deck’s underpinning, which is made of materials that will rot and become an eye sore. Public Comment for Permit Holder: None. 7. Rafael Torres-Gil SBI, DBI, said he visited the site Tuesday and that it was not yet upgraded to a level that can be approved. The deck must be made of treated materials; the railings are not yet installed and will have see-through rails. The District Inspector had already fined the owner two times for working without a permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Corazon Zhang, appellant, said she opposes the deck because it invades her privacy. The original deck extended three feet and the new one is larger. 2. Byron Smith, co-permit holder, showed pictures of the old deck and complained that the appellant did not come to him before the concrete was poured, but he had talked to them before and they said it was alright with them, and now they could not work out an agreement. 3. Rafael Torres-Gil SBI, DBI, said he had visited the site earlier in the day and he had observed that there is four feet of yard on each side of the deck so no firewall was needed. No Public Comment for Either Side.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject site permit, with a FINDING that the project is in conformity with the Residential Design Guidelines.

SPEAKERS: 1. Cliff Flores, co-appellant, read a letter from Maggie McCain, co-appellant, who could not attend the hearing. He said that Planning twice told her that the project had been cancelled and then the construction began. They feel it is out of scale with the neighborhood and that the building is too close to its neighbors and out of character with them, with insufficient open space and parking and will create a traffic problem. He said the architect did not take their concerns seriously. 2. Gary Gee, architect for permit holder, described the notices sent to the neighbors and described the compromises and revisions made to accommodate their concerns. He feels the building will add to the block’s security since it is a key lot and will cut off access to the rear yards of the neighbors. 3. Dwight Siu, co-appellant, said that opposition to the project has brought the community together. 4. Isolde Wilson, SP, PD, said that the project was found compatible with the neighborhood which is of a mixed character and though the lot is unusual it still meets all the Code requirements. Public Comment for Appellants: None. Public Comment for Permit Holder: 5. Joe O’Donoghue said there is a towering wall next to his own house which looks down on him, and this was no reason to stop the project which will provide family-type housing in short supply in the City, and that there are very few lots in the City that can accommodate such projects. 6. Mack Burton said he supports the project because there is much crime on Potrero Hill and these kinds of projects provide jobs for the community which will benefit from this construction which will provide affordable housing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Dawn Olson, co-appellant, said she is primarily opposed to the proposed garage because it will result in the loss of one street parking space and will benefit only the variance holder. It will hurt all the neighbors and will especially impact the older ones. She feels the garage is not needed and its public funding is wrong since it benefits only the owner. 2. Ruth Morales, co-appellant, said she lives at 15 ½ Mirabel and she opposes the garage because it will block light to her property and will present a solid wall to her. It represents too much privilege for one person. 3. Stacey Kayden, permit holder, said her project would be a benefit to the neighborhood and not a detriment. She needs a garage because she has a small child and it is scary to park at night at a distance from her house. She said she is bringing her home up to Code by adding a parking space. Her alternative was to cut into the living space of her rental unit, which was objectionable to her. The variance allows her to build in front of the property. She is willing to cooperate with the child-care operator on construction timing. 4. Isolde Wilson, SP, PD, said that the variance was granted because the five requirements were met and that the Code requires one off-street parking space for each unit. 5. Rafael Torres-Gil SBI, DBI, said he visited the site yesterday and that there is a priority under the Code for child care facilities. He said the additional light and ventilation being provided for the unit meets Code standards but that where the stair is over the property line three or four inches it will have to be corrected. Public Comment for Appellants: None. Public Comment for Permit Holder: 6. Craig Rubens said he must monitor recipients of grants from the Mayor’ Office to low-income home owners, and in this case the recipient has been scrupulous in following all the regulations and rules and has educated herself in the process unlike most of the people he sees in his work out of the Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center. He said he lives in Oakland, and is a tenant and he loves his garage. 7. Wandralee Lindtzie said she is a next door neighbor and she feels that the changes being made accommodate all, are beautiful, and will add to the neighborhood.