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); Larry 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.

SPEAKERS: None.

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

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, reported on the conflicting surveys at the subject property, explaining that two different monuments were used for the two surveys, leading to different surveys for the same property, and he said the fault, if any, was with the City and not the permit holder. He had spoken with Joe Pelayo of the Department of Public Works (DPW). 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that in view of the facts that he did not require that a variance be sought to allow the 1’9" extension at the rear of the house, now under construction. 3. Henry Arana, engineer who prepared both subject surveys, said he had used different monuments for the two surveys.

4. Patrick Fellowes, permit holder, said that the extension was not an issue for the people next door to his property and that he has completed the first floor of the new house. He said he had acted in good faith. Public Comment for Appellant: 5. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association (RBA) said the Board should require the permit holder to seek and justify a variance to legalize the extension of this house, just as members of his organization would be required to. He said this would be a precedent and his members would take advantage of it in the future. No Public Comment for Permit Holder.

Date issued February 24, 2001, April 23, 2001

Last day to appeal March 12, 2001, May 8, 2001

Request for jurisdiction May 21, 2001

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT jurisdiction, with a directive to the Dept. of Building Inspection and the Zoning Administrator to conduct a site visit so as to evaluate the life/safety issues on the subject property.

SPEAKERS: 1. Steve Collier of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, attorney for the requestors, said that he represented tenants trying to protest four permits for a building with sixteen live-work tenants living in a true artists’ live-work situation. He said there was no notice given to the tenants of the issuance of the permits so they were not able to file appeals within the 15-day appeal period and he asked the Board to give them another 15 days to file. He said the owners attempt to evict tenants was not done in good faith and if evicted these artists would leave the City to find the special large spaces they need to create their art. 2. Thomas Wojack, one of the tenants, said he spoke for all the tenants and confirmed that they would have to leave town if evicted. 3. Kevin Greenquist, attorney for the permit holder, said that his client was trying to abate many violations of the Building Code and of the Fire Code. He said it would cost his client ten million dollars to bring the building up to Code so that tenants could live there lawfully and safely. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained that the Building Code doesn’t require any notice to tenants for renovation and repair of the building unless the building is deemed an apartment house or residential hotel. If a building is deemed a multi-residential use the notice would be required; and none was given. 5. Judith Boyajian, DCA, said the law did not cover live-work for notice requirements. 6. Larry Badiner, ZA, said his staff is doing more review of live-work regulation that will be presented August 31, 2001. Public Comment for the Requestors: 7. Joe O’Donoghue said that this case was what live-work was all about as created through state and local law, an attempt to provide housing and work space for artists in industrial and warehouse buildings and he supported their request.

Date issued May 7, 2001

Last day to appeal May 22, 2001

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented) to GRANT jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Eva Chow, sister of the requestor, said her sister received the letter giving notice of the project too late to file an appeal and she herself could not find the address indicated in the letter, 807 Columbus, even though she walked the length of the block and asked people in some of the buildings there if they knew which one was 807 Columbus. 2. Michael Strauz, permit holder, explained how the Central Permit Bureau had determined that his project was at 807 since there was confusion about the site. He said all proper notices were sent out for the variance and conditional use applications and that the neighbors had months to check on the matter and had not done so. He said 807 was not built yet so there is not yet a building with that number on the street. No Public Comment.

Date issued April 27, 2001

Last day to appeal May 14, 2001

Request for jurisdiction May 31, 2001

SPEAKERS: 1. Graham Bell, requestor, said he will be evicted in two weeks unless the project is stopped. He said there has been no posting of a permit or notice on the property so he did not know of the permit or its issuance in time to file an appeal, so he has been denied due process and he feels the project violates Prop M because the project will result in the loss of affordable housing and will be out of character with the neighborhood. 2. Kevin Greenquist, attorney for the permit holder, explained that the subject unit was illegal since the property was zoned for only two units, not three. He said the tenant never requested more time from the owner to allow for finding a new home. He said the owner wants to bring the building back to its original lawful use and the unit back to its original storage use with all violations abated. 3. Michael Majoulet, permit holder, said he wants to remove the illegal unit which will improve the building’s security and the unit can’t be legalized because of the zoning. No public comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to ADOPT the subject findings.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the subject penalty to five times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: 1. George Osumi, appellant, said he had no intention to avoid the permit process but had thought no permit was required for this repair work. 2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said a permit was necessary for the entire job, not just for the deck. He also asked the Board to uphold the penalty since the appellant was a professional and not just a single householder with no knowledge of the permit system. No public comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to July 18, 2001, with the appellant to provide a representative at his business to immediately address neighborhood complaints, and for the unpaved corner triangle on the subject property to be covered properly with asphalt within 10 days or else the Planning Department shall go forward and shut down the subject business for operating without a valid permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, described how the owner is still in violation with water still on the sidewalk and the corner triangle still unpaved and a hazard to pedestrians, but that there has been some movement with some sidewalk repair and fewer incidents of double parking, though the rental car business is still sloppy. He said there must be more compliance before he approves the Police referral for a permit for them. He submitted photos by Jeremy Paul, a concerned neighbor, who supports the department disapproval. 2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said he went to speak to the appellant but was ignored and he supports the Planning disapproval, also. He said he has spoken to DPT to encourage more enforcement of the parking regulations in the area, though this situation is not deemed an emergency. 3. Brett Gladstone, attorney for the appellant, described his efforts to get the owner to comply with the Planning requests and their recalcitrance. 4. Robert Heymann, appellant, described the proposed signage for the site in response to Commissioners’ questions. No public comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 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.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained his determination and the zoning regulations involved in the appeal regarding places of entertainment. 2. Christopher Solle, co-appellant, said that his business is not a dance hall but needs a place of entertainment permit because they play CD’s and tapes to provide background music for the restaurant. He said Officer Rose Meyer required them to file the application, though they did not seek permission for an outdoor roof patio, and he explained that they did not have a professional at the turntables, just his staff people. 3. Carlton Solle, co-appellant, said they have been in business two and a half years. He said they needed clarification of the Planning and Police Code definitions of a place of entertainment which appear to be inconsistent with one another. No public comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin and Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the subject determination.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained his determination that an earlier determination that the business was a business service use for another site would not apply to the same business at a new site for the reason the rules had changed for multi-media and business service uses and the earlier determination could not apply for the new site. Former determinations were based on analyzes in light of specific buildings and sites and therefore couldn’t be transferred since determinations were site specific, in addition to the new rules which redefined multi-media and business service uses. At the former site the use has become a non-conforming use and could have remained there. The M-2 zoning does not permit business service use. 2. Patrice Fambrini of Jaidin Consulting, agent for appellant, said that in their view the plans comply with the zoning of the proposed site and the use is lawful there. She added that the Planning Code is silent on the issue of determinations being linked to specific property. She also said she believes the Planning Code states that the business service use is defined by the use and not by location. 3. Walter Wong of Jaidin Consulting, agent for appellant, said that he represents only the owner of the property and not only the tenant or prospective tenants. He said the permit for office and retail use of the subject property is on file and the owner wants the proposed tenant to be able to move into the subject property. Public Comment for Appellant: 4. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said he knows and supports the appellant, and that this was a case of someone relying on a determination as in the Brewster Street case, with the appellant being an innocent victim.

ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellant prior to hearing.

_________________________________

_________________________________

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 348-0050.