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 H. 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.

SPEAKER: Executive Secretary informed the Board that he was scheduling on March 1, 2000 Appeal No. 98-212 for Clarification of Conditions imposed after public hearing on July 14, 1999, as they had requested, and would inform the parties and counsel by mail.

ITEM A: Letter from Lynn Axelrod, attorney for Victor and Linda Vitlin, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 9702332S, issued to Ed Tanseu to erect a 200-unit (residential and live/work) building at 855 Folsom Street.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to DENY the request for jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: 1. Lynn Axelrod, attorney for requestor, asked the Board to allow her client to file a late appeal because she had tried diligently to find out if a permit had been issued but was not told it had been by DBI until after the appeal period had ended. She said there was no indication to her that the permit was issued pursuant to a conditional use authorization. 2. Ed Tanseu, permit holder said that his permit was pursuant to Planning Commission Motion No. 14772 which approved his residential-live work project and that the requestor knew this since he had appealed it to the Board of Supervisors and lost. 3. Larry Badiner for the Planning Commission supported Mr. Tanseu’s statement concerning the conditional use history of the project.

ITEM B: Letter from Raquel Fox, attorney for Frank Daijo, appellant requesting a second rehearing of Appeal No. 99-073, 470 - 25^th Avenue. Hearing July 14, 1999. Upon motion by President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin because of a conflict of interest. Then after testimony, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President McInerney dissented) to UPHOLD the department and GRANT the permit. Request for rehearing October 13, 1999. Upon motion by President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to RECUSE Vice President Chin because of conflict of interest. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President McInerney dissented) to grant the request for rehearing. Four votes are needed and the motion failed. The request was DENIED. Notice of Decision and Order released October 18, 1999. Request for suspension of rules January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissenting) to SUSPEND THE RULES and set aside its October 13, 1999 decision denying the request for rehearing, thus giving the appellant another 10-day period to file a request for rehearing.

ACTION: RESCHEDULED prior to hearing to April 5, 2000 at the request of the permit holder with the agreement of the appellants.

SPEAKER: The Executive Secretary reported that the permit holder had telephoned late in the afternoon to say he did not have counsel yet and requested that the matter be put over to April 5, 2000 so that he could be properly represented; Raquel Fox, attorney for appellant, had been informed and agreed.

ITEM C: Letter from Donald Trierweiler, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 99-126, revocation of taxicab medallion. Hearing January 26, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Taxicab Commission’s resolution revoking Taxicab Medallion No. 654. Then upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the findings prepared by Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Donald Trierweiler, appellant, requested a rehearing based on his 1990 physician’s report on his herniated disc problem. 2. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney for the Taxicab Commission, argued that the report was already in the record and was of no relevance to the present revocation nor did it justify a rehearing of the appeal.

(4A) APPEAL NO. 98-052

(4B) APPEAL NO. 98-127

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to April 5, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, reported on his review of the City records as to the legal number of units in the subject building, two over a commercial level. 2. Raquel Fox, attorney for the appellants, reported on the litigation still pending between her client and the property owner/permit holder. She said that one of the permits was issued in error and that they should both be revoked, referring to the documents attached to her letter to the Board. She said the building was legally three residential units and one commercial unit. 3. Martin Mendoza, son of the appellant, said he was raised in this building and described the way it was configured when he was young, always as four units. 4. Alex Weyand, attorney for the permit holder, reported that a jury had rejected the appellants’ arguments and that the jury was from all walks of life. He said the case would be heard again in a couple of months and he questioned whether the Board had any jurisdiction since the trial had decided many issues regarding eviction of the Mendozas under the Ellis Act. 5. Judith Boyajian advised the Board that they did have jurisdiction over the building permits appealed. She said the two newest Commissioners could not vote on the matter until they had reviewed transcripts of the original hearings in 1998 and 1999.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE the matter to April 5, 2000.

SPEAKER: Alex Weyand, attorney for the appellants, asked that this matter also be continued to April 5, 2000.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to March 29, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary reported on the letter received from the appellants requesting the appeal be continued to March 29, 2000 to allow time for them to negotiate conditions of the variance granted to them for an off-street parking space. 2. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, representing the Zoning Administrator, agreed to the continuance since the final decision on the variance application has not been issued nor the conditions decided on.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 (Vice President Saunders absent) to RESCHEDULE the matter to April 26, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary reported on the request by the permit holder for rescheduling the hearing to April 26 so that he can have plans prepared which comply with the Code. 2. Hal Leininger, the appellant, objected to the rescheduling.

ACTION: After discussion, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator and GRANT the variance with findings.

SPEAKER: 1. Larry Badiner for the Zoning Administrator explained the project and how it failed to meet the five requirements required for granting a variance, especially since there was no hardship due to the land. 2. Peter Morse, the appellant, explained the personal hardship for his wife in using the front flat and the need for their fixing the rear cottage and moving into it. He said they had the support of all their neighbors. 4. Bruce Bonacker, architect for the Morses, explained with a chart how many of the surrounding properties are larger than the Morse property, and that the project will result in bringing the cottage up to neighborhood standards and will increase the garden for the benefit of the Morses and the tenants in Ms. Goldman’s building next door. Public Comment in Support of the Appellants: 5. Kris McIntosh spoke briefly in support of the project and said the Morses were good neighbors. 6. Margo Golden, owner of the abutting property, said they share a common easement and the project will reduce the size of the deck and create a garden her tenant would benefit from. 7. Linda Klonda noted that the proposed basement bedroom will not increase the cottage’s envelope, the Pacific Heights Residents Association does not oppose the project or the variance, and the project will enhance the neighborhood.

ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney, who left the room at 7:39 p.m. Then after discussion, upon motion by Vice President Saunders the Board voted 4-0 to UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning, PD, explained the determination and the investigation by the Planning staff of the complaints regarding smoke and odors from the restaurant, including three site visits. 2. Jerome Barulich, co-appellant, showed a video of the rooftop of the restaurant at several noon hours showing smoke being emitted from a chimney and explained his history of complaints against the restaurant. 3. Bruce Schneider, co-appellant, offered letters from other neighbors who suffer from the smoke and odors from Eliza’s, and said he cannot open his windows and must accept reduced rentals from his units because of these nuisances; he felt the evidence was overwhelming. 4. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for Eliza’s, described the site visits by the Planning staff and said the Planning Code has a different standard than the Clean Air Act and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. He said his client has tried to work out problems with the appellants but could never please them. 5. Joe Yick said his firm had installed the vent originally when Eliza’s moved in, and that moving the vent to a different spot on the roof would not be productive because of the winds and air currents. 6. William Saltz, City Inspector with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, reported on his investigations of the complaints about Eliza’s; he said no citations have been issued since there has never been the five complaints within a 24 hour period necessary to trigger a citation. 7. James Ting, also a City Inspector for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, reported on the 10 to 20 times he received complaints regarding the smoke and odors from Eliza’s roof vent; he said they could only confirm that there was smoke and odor but would not measure it. Public Comment in Support of Eliza’s: 8. Arienne Landry said she operates the hamburger restaurant nearby and that Ms. Sung of Eliza’s has helped her; she also said that it only took three hours to fill many pages of signatures in support of Eliza’s, and that she felt the complaints were a complete waste of time. 9. Robert Garner, a neighbor at 314 Missouri, said that he lives next to Mr. Schneider’s building, only five feet from his deck, and has never had a problem with Eliza’s; he also said that Potrero Hill feels that Eliza’s is one of the best things to happen there. 10. Shannon Harrison said she works at home with an office on her deck and her door open and that no aromas from Eliza’s bother her; she also said Eliza’s prepares healthy, non-fried food, and that Eliza’s has increased the property values in the area, and that older neighbors unable to attend this hearing asked her to convey their support for Eliza’s. 11. Frank Clauss of 437 Pennsylvania Avenue said he eats at Eliza’s three or four times a month and he has not noticed any problems from smoke or odors. 12. Mary Jean Kloss said the restaurant is always immaculate inside and out. 13. Irving Zaretsky, the owner of the building, said Ms. Sung is the best tenant he has ever had and that every possible attempt has been made to ameliorate the problem, but to no avail; he also described the history of the building from its construction as a bakery. 14. Jan Sung, one of the owners of Eliza’s, explained how she has tried to keep the property clean and address the concerns of the appellants.

(10) Proposed Annual Department Budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. For public hearing, consideration and adoption. Copies are available at Board office.

SPEAKERS: No one from the public spoke. 1. Commissioner McInerney recommended $50,000 be added to the budget for technological improvements to allow the staff to meet the Prop G requirements for public information. 2. President Chin suggested $6,000 be added for funding community meetings for the Board to go into neighborhoods to explain its role in government and to hear the concerns of the people. 3. Commissioner El Qadah suggested money be requested for furniture for the office to make it a professional ergonomic environment for the staff. 4. Commissioner Cullum asked for a letter to the City Administrator requesting more appropriate office space for the office.

_________________________________

Robert H. Feldman

Executive Secretary