2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
(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.
- COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
- REQUEST FOR REHEARING: 653 Irving Street. Letter from Mya Hom Short, appellant requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-212, heard January 24, 2001. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented, President Chin absent) to overrule the department and grant the permit with the condition that the replacement tree is of a more suitable species. Four votes being necessary to overrule a department, the motion FAILED and the subject denial was UPHELD.
(4) APPEAL NO. 00-198
|
R.A.M. DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[701 Pennsylvania Avenue.
[Appeal of Notice of Alleged Violation of [Planning Code Sections 222, 233(a) [and [233(b) dated October 13, 2000 property [constructed as a live/work project is being [used as office space without benefit of a [building permit authorizing change in use).
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(5) APPEAL NO. 00-199
|
R.A.M. DEVELOPMENT, INC., Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[696 Pennsylvania Avenue.
[Appeal of Notice of Alleged Violation of [Planning Code Sections 222, 233(a) and [233(b) dated October 13, 2000 (property [constructed as a live/work project is being [used as office space without benefit of a [building permit authorizing change in use).
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(6) APPEAL NO. 00-202
|
THOMAS & MARTINA MURPHY, Appellants
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[598 Hampshire Street.
[Appeal of Notice of Alleged Violation of [Planning Code Sections 222, 233(a) and [233(b) dated October 13, 2000 (property [constructed as a live/work project is being [used as office space without benefit of a [building permit authorizing change in use).
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7) APPEAL NO. 00-235
|
TIMOTHY C. LEE, Appellant
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[Revocation of Driver Public Passenger [Vehicle permit on November 8, 2000, for [failure to pay annual license fee.
[PERMIT NO. P44-050737.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(8) APPEAL NO. 00-237
|
ROSEMARY & HUGH KLEBAHN AND VIRGINIA & DONALD SMITH, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2411 Broadway Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 8, 2000, [to Kim Maxwell and Judy Maxwell, permit to [Alter a Building (add metal trellis at roof [deck).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/07/26/6157.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
Items (9A) and (9B) shall be heard together
(9A) APPEAL NO. 00-238
|
VALBORG C. TIETZ & TORR S. TIETZ, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[663 Chenery Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 9, 2000, [to Winky Kee Ho Wong, permit to Demolish [a Building (single family dwelling).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/02/3340.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(9B) APPEAL NO. 00-239
|
VALBORG C. TIETZ & TORR S. TIETZ, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[663 Chenery Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 9, 2000, [to Winky Kee Ho Wong, permit to Erect a [Building (three dwelling units).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/02/3332.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(10) APPEAL NO. 00-240
|
CONNIE CHANNON & PAUL ZINGARO, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[993 Tennessee Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 9, [2000, [to Bernardo Urquieta, permit to Erect a [Building (10 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9826500S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
Items (11A) and (11B) shall be heard together
(11A) APPEAL NO. 00-241
|
ESTHER LAM, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[7-9 McCormick Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 13, 2000, [to Chris Garlington, permit to Alter a Building [(new roof; roof deck under 400 s.f.; repair [dry rot damage at parapets).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/11/13/5545).
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(11B) APPEAL NO. 00-242
|
FRANK ACONA, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[7-9 McCormick Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 13, 2000, [to Chris Garlington, permit to Alter a Building [(new roof; roof deck under 400 s.f.; repair [dry rot damage at parapets).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/11/13/5545).
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(12) APPEAL NO. 00-244
|
JENNIFER WILLMANN, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[39 Ellert Street.
[Protesting issuance on November 20, 2000, [to Arnaldo and Elsa Bustamante, permit to [Alter a Building (construct new 770 s.f. two-[story addition at rear with deck above).
[APPLICATION NO. 9809227S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(13) APPEAL NO. 00-247
|
WHITE FAMILY LIVING TRUST, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2086 Revere Avenue.
[Protesting issuance on November 27, 2000, [to James Zheng, permit to Alter a Building [(horizontal addition at rear; remodel existing [ground floor area; relocate existing furnace, [water heater, washer, dryer; lateral force [upgrade of entire building).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/05/03/8930S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
Items (14A) through (14E) shall be heard together
(14A) APPEAL NO. 01-006
|
GREGG WITKOSKI, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[175 Russ Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 12, 2001, to [175 Russ Street Assoc. LLC, permit to [Demolish a Building (office and warehouse).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/20/7740.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(14B) APPEAL NO. 01-007
|
GREGG WITKOSKI, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[175 Russ Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 12, 2001, to [175 Russ Street Assoc. LLC, permit to [Erect a Building (16 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/20/7745S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(14C) APPEAL NO. 01-008
|
GREGG WITKOSKI, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[68 Harriet Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 12, 2001, to [175 Russ Street Assoc. LLC, permit to [Erect a Building (16 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/20/7751S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(14D) APPEAL NO. 01-023
|
COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[175 Russ Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 12, 2001, to [175 Russ Street Assoc. LLC, permit to [Erect a Building (16 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/20/7745S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(14E) APPEAL NO. 01-024
|
COALITION FOR JOBS, ARTS & HOUSING, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[68 Harriet Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 12, 2001, to [175 Russ Street Assoc. LLC, permit to [Erect a Building (16 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/20/7751S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
Items (15A) through (15F) shall be heard together
(15A) APPEAL NO. 01-012
|
MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2051 Harrison Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 4, 2001, to [Harrison Development LLC, permit to Erect [a Building (20 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9801586S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(15B) APPEAL NO. 01-013
|
MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2001 Harrison Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 4, 2001, to [Harrison Development LLC, permit to Erect [a Building (22 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9801587S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(15C) APPEAL NO. 01-014
|
MISSION ANTI-DISPLACEMENT COALITION, Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2095 Harrison Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 4, 2001, to [Harrison Development LLC, permit to Erect [a Building (22 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9801588S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(15D) APPEAL NO. 01-015
|
PROJECT ARTAUD, INC., Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2051 Harrison Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 4, 2001, to [Harrison Development LLC, permit to Erect [a Building (20 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9801586S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(15E) APPEAL NO. 01-016
|
PROJECT ARTAUD, INC., Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2001 Harrison Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 4, 2001, to [Harrison Development LLC, permit to Erect [a Building (22 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9801587S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(15F) APPEAL NO. 01-017
|
PROJECT ARTAUD, INC., Appellant
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[2095 Harrison Street.
[Protesting issuance on January 4, 2001, to [Harrison Development LLC, permit to Erect [a Building (22 live/work units).
[APPLICATION NO. 9801588S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(16) APPEAL NO. 00-236
|
JULIAN HIRSCH, Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[250 Seacliff Avenue.
[Appeal of Zoning Administrator determina-[tion dated November 6, 2000 that the [proposed one-story addition is compatible [with the neighborhood character and scale; [the addition would not cause significant loss [of light, air, view or privacy to adjacent [buildings; the proposed addition would be in [compliance with the Planning Code and the [Residential Design Guidelines; and the [project sponsor would not be required to [apply for a new variance.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
