Meeting Information

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

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Gerald Green, Director of Planning and Acting Zoning Administrator (Acting 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.

(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: 1. Commissioner McInerney asked the Deputy City Attorney about a Court of Appeals case regarding a massage parlor heard by the Board. 2. Ms. Boyajian said she would research it and report to the Board on the outcome.

ITEM A: 361 Lombard Street. Letter from Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-003, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS and the following CONDITIONS: the metal pipes in the subject light well be painted a light color and a lattice fence no more than six feet in height be installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes.

ACTION: This request for rehearing was WITHDRAWN by Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, prior to consideration.

ITEM B: 361 Lombard Street. Adoption of Findings for above.

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

SPEAKERS: None.

REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND FIFTEEN-DAY APPEAL PERIOD:

ITEM C: 616 Rolph Street. Letter from Judith M. West requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/03/28/5622S issued to Xiang-Si Lei for a rear 2-1/2 story horizontal addition.

Date issued June 2, 2000

Last day to appeal June 19, 2000

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner McInerney dissented) to GRANT the request for jurisdiction. 4 votes being necessary to grant a request for jurisdiction, the request was DENIED.

SPEAKERS: 1. Judith West, requestor, asked the Board to allow her to file late because Planning had assured her when she went to Europe that the permit would not be issued in her absence and it was.

2. Patrice Fambrini, agent for the permit holder, said that the requestor had failed to file twice, once during the 30 day discretionary review period and once again during the 15 day appeal period which ended after her return from oversees. 3. Walter Wong, in response to a question from Commissioner El Qadah, described the design revisions made by the permit holder to accommodate the requestor.

ITEM D: 75B and 75C Lynch Street. Letter from Hung Yin Cheng requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/04/9072 issued to Jim Byrne to remove two illegal units at basement and convert to storage only.

Date issued May 4, 2000

Last day to appeal May 19, 2000

Request for jurisdiction July 3, 2000

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner McInerney dissented) to CONTINUE this matter to July 19, 2000 with no additional public testimony.

SPEAKERS: 1. Gary Chin, agent for requestor, asked the Board to allow a late filing because the Cheng family never got notice of the permit affecting their unit, and they were not able to testify at the other tenants’ hearing because that appeal was withdrawn prior to hearing. 2. Jim Byrne, permit holder, said that the three illegal units to be removed were built without permits by the former owner and that he intended to use the space for his office since he lost his space downtown. He said he brought a Cantonese speaking person to translate for the Chengs and would offer them more than he had offered the other tenant to move out. He said the Chengs knew of the issuance of the permit yet did not file An appeal. He said he had a SBA loan but his office rent was being tripled so he needed to move into his own space and that five of his six employees live in San Francisco. He agreed to continue the matter one week to try to settle it.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to UPHOLD the revocation. 4 votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the Taxicab Commission’s decision to revoke the appellant’s medallion was UPHELD.

SPEAKERS: 1. Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxicab Commission, said that the medallion was revoked for failure of its holder to drive the required number of shifts. The holder is a full time deputy sheriff for the City who drove five times in two and a half years when 185 shifts a year are required. 2. Sgt. William Simpson, SFPD, Taxi Detail, said in response to Commissioner El Qadah’s question that the department investigates complaints and interviews permit holders to determine the merits of the case. The evidence is given to the disciplinary body for hearing. 3. Cindy Lee, attorney for appellant, in response to President Chin’s statement that he is an adversary of her in pending litigation, said she felt there was no prejudice to her client if President Chin participated in this appeal and she wanted a full Board to consider this appeal. Her client is not an attorney and did not know of the complaint brought against him and had been denied due process by the Taxicab Commission, since he did not get the packet of materials until after the hearing. Based on case law and her client’s hardships and lack of ability to understand the procedure, that the Board should overrule the Commission’s action and reduce the penalty to one less harsh than revocation. Public Comment for the City: 4. Ralph Jacobson, a driver for Yellow Cab, spoke in support of the City and urged the Board to support revocation for failure to drive since medallion holders know the rules when they take medallions and still fail to drive while collecting $1800 a month for use of the medallion.

ACTION: These three matters were RESCHEDULED to August 23, 2000, prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the alteration permit.

SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary announced that the permit holder had withdrawn his permit.

2. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, responded to Commissioner McInerney’s question about the abandonment of an issued permit and said that there is no process for it in the Building Code except to wait for the permit to expire if it’s not implemented. 3. Kenneth Natkin, attorney for the appellant, said his client would prefer for the permit to be disapproved by the Board and that they were prepared to do whatever is required by the Department of Building Inspection. No public comment.

(7) 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.

(A) APPEAL NO. 00-091

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to REDUCE the penalty to two (2) times the regular fee.

SPEAKERS: None. The appellant was present but did not speak.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with the CONDITIONS stipulated in the principals’ agreement submitted by Jeremy Paul prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: None. Jeremy Paul was present for the appellant but did not speak.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the alteration permit on CONDITION that a Notice of Special Restrictions be recorded for the subject property that prohibits any door leading to the subject balcony, and that restricts the use of the subject balcony for the display of plants and for emergency egress only.

SPEAKERS: 1. Lisle Payne, co-appellant, said that he has tried to negotiate a settlement with the permit holders to no avail and thus was making a new proposal. 2. Tay Via, attorney for the appellants, introduce the new proposal which is the offer made in November 1999 by the permit holders, and she introduced Mr. Payne’s architect, Douglas Thornley, to explain the proposal. 3. Douglas Thornley, architect for the appellants, said that the approved plans result in an addition creating severe privacy issues for his clients but the proposal would shorten the addition and cause no problem since it would be aligned with the Payne’s rear wall. 4. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holders, using a PowerPoint presentation, explained that the November 1999 proposal was made in good faith by his clients but was rejected by the appellants and was now unacceptable to the permit holders. He said that there was no real privacy issues here but his clients were willing to not use the proposed balcony except for planters and emergency egress from windows with the door eliminated. He felt the appellants’ proposal was ugly and not consistent with the Julia Morgan-designed house. 5. Duncan McLeod, architect for the permit holders, in response to a question from Commissioner McInerney regarding the significance of the alternative design, said that his clients intend to keep the project in architectural harmony with the Julia Morgan design, trying to blend the addition into the house so well it will not be identifiable as an addition and he emphasized that the Board has already cut the design back one foot, as well as other compromises made earlier. He said deleting the door to the balcony and using an automatic watering system for the planters on it and the windows for a secondary means of emergency egress would be acceptable to his clients. No public comment.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE to July 19, 2000 with no additional public testimony.

SPEAKERS: 1. Gerald Green, acting ZA and Planning Director, explained the issue of the determination as whether there has been continuous commercial use of the premises in this RH-2 property sufficient to deem it a lawful non-conforming use that can be used for the proposed incubator kitchen for low-income Hispanic women. He said there is not enough evidence, but that an argument can be made that the facility can be deemed a community facility that can be authorized by the Planning Commission as part of the conditional use application for the three units to be built on the site. 2. Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellant, said the project could not be a community facility because it is intended to be for profit. The women need to make a profit to support themselves and their families. There is no Code violation here since there is evidence that the premises have been in commercial use continuously, making it a non-complying commercial use suitable for use as a for-profit incubator kitchen. Property was used as a storage facility for a contractor and as a rehearsal studio for a musician who signed a commercial lease which was submitted in evidence. The PG&E bills submitted also are evidence of continuous commercial use. A café can’t be part of the project for lack of space. 3. Jane Segal, appellant, said she bought the property with the intention of using it to benefit women in the Mission with a mixed use of residential and commercial. She rejected offers that would have meant great profits in order to go forward with the project. Public comment for the appellant: 4. Patricia Chang of the Women’s Foundation said she had created the match for the incubator kitchen use on the premises so that women without capital could start their food businesses and become self-sufficient. 5. Barbara Johnson said she supported the project because it would enable women to become economically self-sufficient. 6. Mercedes Samsoras said she has been working with Latino women for ten years and in her view this was a wonderful project that deserves the Board’s support. 7. Julie Dorf, a resident at 2970 Folsom since 1989 said she strongly supports the project and welcomes it to her neighborhood. 8. Ethelvina Sanchez translated by Elizabeth Milos said she had set up a catering business using St. Peter’s Church kitchen but they had to leave and the proposed project would allow them to continue their business. 9. Juanita Flores translated by Elizabeth Milos, said this project is very important and will allow her and other low-income women to become self-sufficient and to take care of their children without having to leave the neighborhood for work each day. 10. Ana Vilanova translated by Elizabeth Milos said she was very happy that this incubator kitchen is to be built in the heart of the Mission. 11. Tomoko Lipp said the project will be a great revitalizing force in the area. 12. Trudy Martin, a homeowner and small business operator in the Mission, read to the Board a letter from Sonia Melara in support of the appeal. Public comment in support of the ZA: 13. Louisa Bradley said that cooking and baking businesses were out of place on this residentially zoned block, and that while the building was used for years as storage and for music practice, that it had not been commercial use. 14. Don Bradley said he is a property owner in the area and that the neighborhood has improved a lot recently with the old bakery gone. He said the evidence of commercial use here were phony excuses and fabrications. The project is a worthy one that he would support, but no at this residentially zoned location.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to July 26, 2000 prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to September 6, 2000 prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: None.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary