2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2003
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Craig Nikitas for the Planning Dept. (PD) and the Zoning Administrator (ZA); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, DBI (SBI, DBI); Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary; Victor Pacheco, Legal Assistant; and Claudine Woeber, Official Court Reporter.
(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.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 2282 – 28th Avenue. Letter from Like Liu, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-019, Liu vs. DBI, PDA, decided April 2, 2003. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit due to the non-appearance of the appellant. Permit Holder(s): Cheng Lee. Project: on single-family house, remove illegal unit at ground floor, remove non-bearing partitions, kitchen, toilet and closet; create new storage.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the rehearing request and set it for June 4, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Like Liu, requestor, explained his lateness in attending the rehearing and asked the Board to grant a rehearing in order to present his case. Cheng Lee, permit holder, asked the Board to deny the rehearing request since there is no new evidence. No public comment.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-036
|
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
3251-3253 Steiner St. / 2205 Lombard St.
Protesting the issuance on Feb. 24, 2003, to Margaret Pocoroba, Permit to Erect a Sign (reinstallation of two 12’ X 24’ signs as soon as the existing mixed commercial building is waterproofed; existing angle and lag at wall to remain in place during removal and reinstallation).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/24/8142.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to reschedule the appeal to June 4, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Jared Eigerman, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to continue the hearing for two weeks so that he can respond to the late submittal by the permit holder and the planners can figure out this complex case. Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellant, objected to having the matter put over since he has withdrawn his late brief and there is nothing new for the appellant to respond to. Catharine Barnes, DCA, said that she needs time to research this case of first impression regarding the effects of Prop G, the voter-approved ban on new billboards. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-096
|
RAFAEL MIRANDA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1255 Goettingen Street.
Appealing a determination dated May 22, 2002, addressed to Rafael Miranda, that the legal use of the subject property is a single-family dwelling because the building was constructed as a single-family house, because no permit could be found which authorized the addition of a second dwelling unit, and because the permit history indicates the continued use of the structure as a single-family structure.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to June 4, 2003, with briefs due 2 weeks prior to hearing.
SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul agreed to a rescheduling of the hearing. Craig Nikitas, PD, said he had no objection to the rescheduling.
(6) APPEAL NO. 02-232
|
GEORGE HAUSER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 PARTIES: None (Mandatory DR)
|
1168 Folsom Street.
Appealing the denial on November 25, 2002, of Site Permit to Erect a Building (5 story, 20-unit building with 8000sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/02/21/9626S.
NOTE: Pursuant to Emergency Ordinance 186-02, the Director of Planning held a DR hearing acting as the full Planning Commission and denied the subject permit; the Board of Supervisors then upheld the action of the Director of Planning; the Project Sponsor has now appealed the action of the Board of Supervisors to the Board of Appeals.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the subject permit with conditions as stipulated by the appellant and Planning Dept., with adoption of findings on May 14, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, PD, said so long as the proposed conditions are imposed he has no objection to the Board overruling the Planning Commission.
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 02-239
|
KENNETH FONG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
31 Fairmount Street.
Protesting the issuance on December 11, 2002, to Ronald Wallace, Site Permit to Erect a Building (3-story, single family residence, 35’ in height).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/07/7174S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7B) APPEAL NO. 02-241
|
MORRIS & BRENDA ABBOTT, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
31 Fairmount Street.
Protesting the issuance on December 11, 2002, to Ronald Wallace, Site Permit to Erect a Building (3-story, single family residence, 35’ in height).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/07/7174S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule both appeals to May 21, 2003 at the request of the parties.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-022
|
CONRAD DONNER, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
275 Magellan Avenue.
Protesting a determination dated Feb. 4, 2003, addressed to Manuel Frias at Frias Family Vineyard, that the proposed establishment of Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Types 20 & 17 at the subject property does meet the requirements of Planning Code § 204.1 in that there will be no stock in trade kept on the premises, no signage, no walk-up clientele, and not more than ¼ of the floor area will be used to conduct the business; and furthermore, as the proposed business is an accessory use, in contrast to a principally permitted use, § 311 neighborhood notification is not required.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Appeal withdrawn by the appellant.
(9) APPEAL NO. 03-034
|
MARK POPE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
923 Eddy Street.
Protesting the issuance on Feb. 18, 2003, to C & O Construction, Permit to Alter a Building (on 24-unit apartment building: replacement of 12 existing wood decks with wood/steel decks).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/08/27/5063.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: None. Appellant did not show up.
ITEMS (10A) & (10B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(10A) APPEAL NO. 03-037
|
MICHAEL SLADE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
75 Miraloma Drive.
Protesting the issuance on March 6, 2003, to William Mandel, Permit to Erect a Building (3-story single family house, 31’ in height, with 880sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2627.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(10B) APPEAL NO. 03-038
|
CANDY TSANG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
75 Miraloma Drive.
Protesting the issuance on March 6, 2003, to William Mandel, Permit to Erect a Building (3-story single family house, 31’ in height, with 880sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2627.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, & Commissioners Shoemaker and Sugaya dissented) to uphold the subject permit. Four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action, the motion passed and the permit was upheld with no conditions.
SPEAKERS: Michael Slade, appellant, objected to the square footage of the proposed new building and said he had support from 80 neighbors and five neighborhood groups; he said he is not opposed to all development on the property but wants neighborhood character to be preserved and the driveway reconfigured to reduce the hazard of cars having to back up onto a blind curve into the path of the 43 Masonic bus line. Candy Tsang, appellant, said she is speaking on behalf of many neighbors who could not attend the hearing; she said the project does not comply with the RDG”S or with Prop M since it is not in scale with the neighborhood. Christopher Moscone, attorney for permit holder, described the three year review process his client went through to get the permit which has been thoroughly reviewed and is Code complying, requiring no variances and with outreach to the neighbors, and with geo-technical reports in the file.
Public comment for the appellants: Moishe Rosen said the Commission ignored the 50 neighbors who opposed the project. Isaac Moonzwc read a letter from Mrs. Rosen who wrote she never thought the lot was buildable and that the proposal is too large and out of character with the area. Susan Banie said the proposed house is not 3 stories but is 4 stories and should not be approved. Paolo Vincenti describes what he considers a dangerous hairpin curve out which the driveway will feed creating a great traffic hazard. Michael Eisenberg said the proposal is too large and should be set back from the street, and that there has been no outreach, and that the plans are not Code compliant and not in the spirit of the RDG’s. Michael Aminoff said the 4-story design is not in character with the 2-story houses in the neighborhood which have front gardens. Eleonara Shevkhod said she opposes the project and the previous owners said not to park in front because it would be fatal, and she feels there should a setback and a driveway to reduce the traffic hazard. Jan Aminoff said the area is gracious, and all the houses have front gardens but this project will not. Eva Vincenti said that all houses in the neighborhood have front gardens, that the smallest houses are one-story over garage, and that some houses are on double lots but all have front setbacks, while the project will take up the entire lot. Ann Finigan said the developer has enough insurance to cover damages caused by a landslide. Flavio Vincenti said that 84 neighbors oppose the project as well as five associations, that this is the only blind curve in the City, that the project is bad for the community, and that the project will rob the City of some of its soul. Paul Finigan, the DR Requestor, said that the proposal is extraordinary, especially the square footage which will be 75% larger than existing homes in Miraloma, and he felt liability is an issue.
Public comment for the permit holder: Jim Keith explained that this is an uphill lot, that the photos of the opposition are misleading, and that the house is totally appropriate for the area. Lou Gilpin, a geologist hired by the permit holder, said his study shows no evidence of landslides or slippage here, that the plans are conservative, and that they will meet all the geo-technical suggestions of the engineers.
Craig Nikitas, PD, described the context of the proposal and the adjacent house, and how the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the emphasis of hill form.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:43.
____________________________ __________________________________
Arnold Y. K. Chin, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
