2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Kathleen Harrington, Vice President Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker, and Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
ABSENT: Commissioner Arnold Chin
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA OCA); Jonas Ionin, Planing Department (PD); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (SBI DBI); Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary, and Victor Pacheco, Legal Assistant, for the Board; 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: No public comment.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: No public comment.
(3) SPECIAL ITEM:
|
Correction of findings issued for Appeal No(s). 02-122, subject property at 702 Earl Street, by withdrawing notice of decision and findings issued on June 5, 2003, and ordering a new notice of decision and findings that accurately reflects the Board’s action at its May 14, 2003 hearing.
Explanatory Document: Memorandum dated June 2, 2004 to President Harrington and Board Members from Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes.
|
ACTION: Taken off calendar by Board.
SPEAKERS: No public comment.
(4) ADDENDUM ITEM(S):
(4A) REHEARING REQUEST:
641 – 27th Avenue; Appeal No(s). 03-197; All City Construction Co. vs. DBI
|
Letter from Joel Yodowitz, attorney for All City Construction Co., appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-197, decided May 12, 2004. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 2-3 to overrule DBI’s notice of decision with a finding that a demolition took place which exceeded the scope of the permit, but which did not constitute an unlawful demolition, with additional findings as stated into the record by Commissioner Chin. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the decision by DBI was upheld. Departmental Action: Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Dec. 3, 2003, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that BPA No. 2002/09/09/5995 is hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Commissioners Chin and Saudners absent) to reschedule the request to July 21, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-001
|
MAX LIMITED, LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
292 Ivy Street, a.k.a. 393-399 Grove Street, & 450 Gough Street, a.k.a. the “wood building.”
Appealing a determination dated December 18, 2001, issued to Peer Logic/Critical Path & Max Limited LLC, regarding uses of the subject building in the Hayes-Gough District.
Note: Pursuant to Superior Court Judgment, discussion and possible action to (1) set aside the Board's February 20, 2002 decision in Max Limited, LLC vs. Zoning Administrator, Appeal No. 02-001 as ordered by the Court, and (2) accept withdrawal of Appeal No. 02-001 or, alternatively, set the matter for rehearing in light of the Court's findings.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Chin absent) to vacate the decision of Feb. 20, 2002 and to accept the appellant’s withdrawal of the appeal.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (6A) & (6B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(6A) APPEAL NO. 03-051
|
KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,
& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
21 Buena Vista East Avenue.
Appealing the determination dated March 19, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the subject property has a legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, that residential guest rooms constitute “group housing” under § 209.2 of the Planning Code, that this group housing constitutes a permitted conditional use since it was established prior to the enactment of Conditional Use (CU) requirements for said use, and that this permitted conditional use shall be considered abandoned 3 years from the last legal date of residency of the last resident of said guest rooms.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
(6B) APPEAL NO. 03-066
|
KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,
& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
21 Buena Vista East Avenue.
Appealing a determination dated April 24, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the proposed physical modifications to various residential guest rooms at the subject property would result in less viable guest rooms and would constitute a partial conversion of the structure to single family-use from its current legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, in violation of Planning Code.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 1-3-1 (Vice President Sugaya, and Commissioners Shoemaker and Saunders dissented, Commissioner Chin absent) to continue the case to a later date. 3 votes being required to continue a case, the motion failed, and the hearing went forward. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 3-1-1 (President Harrington dissented, Commissioner Chin absent) to uphold both ZA determinations.
SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellants, asked to continue the matter because of a pending appeal by the City of litigation regarding the Ellis Act, and he summarized his arguments that both determinations are wrong, and that his clients should be permitted to convert the building to one-family use without any conditional use authorization. Jonas Ionin, PD, explained the process that the appellants are trying to avoid, and he asked the Board to uphold the department. No public comment.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-196
|
FRANCIS DAVID RYAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1018 Clayton Street.
Protesting the issuance on Sept. 22, 2003, to Gunther Dertz, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construct 7’ X 36” high one-hour fire rated parapet on roof at south side).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/09/22/5414.
JURISDICTION GRANTED 11/12/03.
Note: On March 24, 2004, the Board voted 3-2 to uphold the subject permit. On April 28, 2004, the Board voted 4-1 to grant the appellant’s rehearing request, and to set the rehearing for June 9, 2004.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Chin absent) to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Francis David Ryan, appellant, asked the Board to revoke the permit because of the campaign of harassment by the permit holder, including the placement of video cameras, and the hiring of a lawyer. He also said no agreement had been reached, and that the wall is a spite fence. Gunther Dertz, permit holder, argued that the wall is necessary to protect his property from fire, and that it is not a spite fence, and that he retracted his offer since it was not accepted. No public comment.
Leo McFadden, SBI DBI, described the option available to an owner who wants to avoid a parapet wall, including sprinklers and a fire rated roof, as well as a skylight for those whose light is blocked by a wall.
(8) APPEAL NO. V04-016
|
MARTIN BARTOLAC
& MICHAEL WIELAND, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
53 States Street.
Protesting the granting on February 17, 2004, to Jack Byars, Rear Yard Variance (construction of a new 3-story plus penthouse addition to the rear of the existing one-story over basement single-family dwelling).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0848V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Chin absent) to uphold the subject variance with amended findings and revised plans.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, PD, described the existing condition of the property and why a variance from rear yard standards is needed for the project. Michael Wieland, co-appellant, said the proposed rear extension will block light to the rear of his property, and he asked that the conditions of approval by the ZA be enforced, saying that the five requirements for a variance have not been met. Jack Byars, architect for property owner, gave a history of the project and the communications with the neighbors, and he said that the owner wants to keep the large magnolia tree on the property. No public comment.
(9) APPEAL NO. V04-022
|
SARA SHAPIRO, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
62 Eastwood Drive.
Appealing the denial on March 18, 2004, of a Rear Yard Variance (proposal is to legalize a one-story rear addition to a one-story, single-family dwelling).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.1023V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented, Commissioner Chin absent) to uphold the denial of the subject variance.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, PD, explained the history of the project and why the variance had not been approved. Sara Shapiro, appellant, asked the Board to help her out of the situation caused by the first contractor who failed to obtain permits and who fled before the job was completed; she also said the project is 75% complete and that her neighbors support her project. Public comment: Anita Theoharis asked the Board to uphold the denial because the proposal fails to meet the Code and the Westwood Park Neighborhood Association guidelines, which have been adopted by the Planning Commission. Anne Chen spoke in support of the department and said approval of the variance would set a bad precedent in the neighborhood, and would undermine the efforts of the association to maintain the character of the area. Erin Koch-Goodman, daughter of appellant, summarized her research into zoning law, and said the room cannot be seen from the street, and that her mother should be able to finish the project since there is no opposition from immediate neighbors.
(10) APPEAL NO. 04-024
|
JOHN ATWATER
& DIANA NELSON, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
3746 Jackson Street.
Appealing a determination dated March 16, 2004, addressed to David Cincotta, that the proposed expansion, which is not within the front portion of the property where a height increase is permitted, and which, in any case, extends above the 35 foot absolute height limit, would not be allowed under Planning Code §§ 261(b)(1), 261(c), 261(c)(1), and 261(c)(2).
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Chin absent) to reschedule the appeal to August 11, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(11) APPEAL NO. 04-034
|
AT&T WIRELESS, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
350 – 8th Street.
Appealing a determination dated April 6, 2004, addressed to Liz Johnson at AT&T Wireless, that the proposed antennas are not considered either necessary to the operation or enjoyment of a lawful principal use or appropriate, incidental and subordinate to any such use, and that therefore the proposed installation of a maximum of four (two pairs) of antennas at the proposed locations would require Conditional Use (CU) authorization per Planning Code § 816.73.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Withdrawn by the appellant.
SPEAKERS: None.
There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
______________________________ _________________________________
Kathleen Harrington, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
