Meeting Information

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

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

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.

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: None.

(3) CLARIFICATION OF CONDITIONS: Appeal No. 98-212 heard July 14, 1999 for the property at 38 West Clay Street, Rainer and Beatrice Baldauf, appellants, and DeLeys Brandman, permit holder (Application No. 9824371). Board upheld permit on condition the permit holder revise plans to vent the kitchen range on the roof and close up the side wall vent, with appellants to pay 55% of the necessary and reasonable costs up to $5,500.

ACTION: President Chin requested that the Department of Building Inspection report on progress in 60 days, May 3, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. Alice Barkley, attorney for appellants, requested that the Board require compliance with its order of last July. 2. DeLeys Brandman, permit holder, reviewed history of case and requested assurance that appellants will pay their part as required by the Board. 3. Susan Lowenberg on behalf of appellants urged the Board to revoke the permit. 4. Craig Brandman, permit holder, explained that money in attorney’s escrow account was worrisome and said he would comply with the order to build as soon as the rainy season was over. 5. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, explained that DBI has the power to cancel a permit and abate a nuisance if conditions of Board are not met.

(4) CONSENT ITEM: With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.

(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-020

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 OVERRULE the department with the CONDITION that the penalty be reduced to two times the regular fee of $573.95 for a total of $1,147.90.

SPEAKERS: 1. Fred Kollerbohm, agent for appellant, explained that no work was done before permit was obtained. 2. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that the district inspector had seen little work done and consented to a reduction in the penalty to two times the regular fee.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (Vice President Saunders and Commissioners Cullum and El Qadah dissented) to DENY the permit. Four votes are needed to overrule and the denial is UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Sergeant William Coggan, attorney for SFPD, explained why the Police denied the pool table permit for the bar based on its record of calls, complaints, and effects to be expected if granted. 2. Esperanza Zavala, co-appellant, explained that complaints were generated by an irate neighbor who wants to put her out of business; she asked that she be given permission for a pool table just as many bars in the City have, and that it is not fair to deny her one. Public Comment for Police: 3. Michael Pryfogle, husband of Elizabeth Baca, complaining neighbor, explained that adult customers of the bar were responsible for the noise problem. 4. Joseph Porcoro, of the Northwest Bernal Alliance, spoke in opposition to pool table because it attracts a different element that his neighborhood group does not want; he said his group has good relations with 12 neighborhood bars and only this one causes problems. 5. Royce Schumacher, also of the Northwest Bernal Alliance, said that the other 12 bars were on their side, and Zavala’s was not. Public Comment for Appellant: 6. Sandra Gonzalez offered to translate for appellant if it became necessary and said she was a customer and she observed no violence in the bar, and that the dirt from the nearby Safeway was being blamed on the bar. 7. Antonio Ayala said he remembered a pool table in the bar when it was called "Tiffany’s" and he felt there were no reasons not to allow this owner to have a pool table since it was a very clean place. 8. Michael Moody said that pool players do not drink so much and that other places are jealous. 9. Margarita Barahona (translated by Sandra Gonzalez) described her weekend visits to the bar and observing no problems. 10. Angelica Franco said she enjoys this bar, had observed no violence, and that the people are calm. 11. Anita Ybarra said she has known the appellant for 15 years and that she used to play pool; she has seen no violence and the appellant is a good person. 12. Rancin Franco, a bartender, said people relax playing pool and that a table would not bring problems to this bar. 13. Jim Ham of the Rainbow Novelty Company said he operates eighty pool tables at bars in the Bay Area and that when Tiffany’s had a table there were no problems. 14. Otto Cardona, co-appellant, said that the Police could not prove anything against them and that Police visits because of noise complaints came from the neighbors to harass them.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s letter of suspension.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, explained alternatives available and offered to use dark curtains behind the tinted glass and add muttons to give the windows the same look as others nearby. 2. Jeff Chin, an architect, spoke on behalf of the appellant and said the exposure was awful being so close to the ocean, and that single pane windows were better than multiple pane ones. 3. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, urged the Board to uphold the department’s suspensions since this was a clear case of violation of the Commission’s conditions, the Residential Guidelines and the Urban Design element of the General Plan, as well as of good taste.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Department of Public Works and DENY the permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Cheryl Dupperrault, Urban Forestry Inspector, Department of Public Works, described the healthy condition of the subject trees and explained how these trees did not meet the department’s guidelines for removal.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Department of Building Inspection and GRANT the permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeffrey Leibowitz of the South End Citizen Advisory Committee spoke for the appellant and explained how the group was trying to avoid the problems Denver had in the area near their new ballpark with new controls expected in a few months after many hearings and a consensus by the neighborhood; he asked the Board to continue the appeal until the controls went into effect so this permit would be subject to the controls. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained that the Code did not allow for Discretionary Review of the sign permit and he confirmed what Mr. Leibowitz had said. 3. Patrick Richards, attorney for the permit holder, said the permit had been properly issued and that if the Board of Supervisors had wanted a moratorium they would have enacted one. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. Paul Chow from the South Park Community agreed that the signs were an important part of City life but that they had to be reviewed carefully and he agreed with the appellants.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit with NO CONDITIONS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Patricia McColm, appellant, asked the Board to adopt conditions limiting construction hours and related restrictions which she feels are necessary to prevent unhealthy stress during her illness. 2. Sal Balistreri, attorney for the permit holder, told the Board there was no need for restrictions on the permit and that the appellant had caused his client (and son) much distress; he also said that such restrictions would make the job last a year.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s determination with FINDINGS.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the Determination and how the multimedia industry was considered a "Business Service" and not an "Office Use." 2. Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, complained that the Planning Department keeps approving these multi-media uses as "Business Services" instead of as "Office Uses," thereby sparing them the affordable housing and child care fees levied on office conversions, in this case about $700,000 for housing and $100,000 for child care. 3. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, reported that his department treats these as "Office Use" for Building Code purposes. 4. Timothy Tosta, attorney for Sectorbase.com, described the discretionary power of the Zoning Administrator to determine use categories that are not in the Planning Code; he described the Internet industry and how his client’s business was like the publishing business and not an "Office Use." Public Comment for Appellant: 5. Doug Shoemaker of the Mission Housing Development Corporation argued that logically if this were an insurance business it would be considered an "Office Use" and that it was a false analogy to consider it like publishing since it had none of the noxious dangerous aspects of the old industry. 6. Jake McGoldrick said that Proposition M of 1986 was the heart of the matter with a nexus of needs and impacts of office development. 7. Eric Quezada from a grass-roots organization in the Mission District said the new businesses coming in have a profound impact, putting pressure on housing and that the determination was a bad precedent. 8. Joan Holden of the San Francisco Mine Troupe said that the arts are endangered by the new industries, which use space formerly available to artists and performers. Public Comment for the Zoning Administrator: 9. Jim Gonzalez of the Technology & Information Coalition described recent changes in the Mission and how he welcomes the new i9ndustry; he said the ".com" industry would pay for affordable housing and child care as soon as the Board of Supervisors enact new regulations that cover them. 10. Donald Lee, the current tenant of the subject property, said he searched six months and found good space with easier access to transportation and he supports the determination. 11. Reverend Arnold Townsend spoke in support of Sectorbase.com and described how it seeks to be in the City because of its ethnic and cultural diversity. 12. Seguei Panskikh, an engineer in the Internet industry, encouraged the Board to support the ".com" businesses which are good for the City. 13. Christopher Thunberg said that Sectobase.com creates opportunities wherever they locate.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin and Commissioners McInerney and El Qadah dissented) to overrule the Zoning Administrator’s determination. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The determination is UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, said that the work the appellant wants to do on the roof of the rear building will not affect the occupants of the front residential building so that requiring the appellant to seek a rear yard variance was not appropriate; he also said that the development of the M districts was different then the residential districts where rear yards and the variance process made sense. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the reason that the work proposed on the rear building required the granting of a variance since the whole rear building is non-complying with the rear yard standards and is built entirely in the required rear yard of the residences in the front building. Public Comment for the Appellant: 3. Olga Kist of 470 Potrero Avenue said it had taken three years to get through the variance process and that the unusual development pattern in the M districts should make the variance unnecessary. 4. Michael Spaer said that work proposed would make no change in the rear building’s footprint or in the open space area between the buildings, making a variance unnecessary. 5. Anita Margrill, an architect, said she had a similar situation in renovating an old building with a courtyard and that a variance should not be required.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman

Executive Secretary