2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2004
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Kathleen Harrington, Vice President Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Arnold Chin, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA OCA); Julian Banales, Planning Department (PD); Laurence Kornfield, Chief 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: None.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(3A) REHEARING REQUEST:
|
Appeal No(s). 03-194, Tehlirian vs. DBI, PCD. Subject property at 572 San Jose Avenue. Letter Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-194, decided March 3, 2004. At that time, upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the denial and grant the permit with conditions as presented by the appellant. Four votes being required to overrule a departmental action, the denial of the subject permit was upheld. Project: on two-unit building, horizontal and vertical addition, 335sf on ground floor, 368sf on 2nd floor, and 1038sf on 3rd floor; electrical, plumbing, and mechanical under separate permit. DR Requestor(s): Jose Morales. Note: The public hearing on this rehearing request was held and closed on March 31, 2004.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Saunders dissented) to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for Sept. 29, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Ilene Dick, attorney for appellant(s), reported on the offer made by her client to the DR requestor, and asked the Board to grant a rehearing. Raquel Fox, attorney for DR requestor, urged the Board not to grant a rehearing since there is no new evidence being offered. No public comment.
(3B) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL :
|
Subject property at 15 Balceta Avenue. Electrical permit issued on March 19, 2004. Last day to appeal was April 5, 2004. Jurisdiction request received on June 16, 2004. Letter from Dominique Fracchia, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Electrical Permit No(s). E20040319608 for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said the DBI had no objections to a late filing of an appeal. No public comment.
(3C) REHEARING REQUEST:
|
Appeal No(s). 04-030, Lau vs. DBI, PDD. Subject property at 714 – 22nd Street. Letter from Elena Koustas, agent for appellant Marvin Lau, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 04-030, decided June 9, 2004. At that time, upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the denial by the Planning Department and to grant the subject permit. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action under the City Charter § 4.106(d), the denial of the subject permit was upheld.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Sugaya dissented) to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for August 25, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Alex Koustas, agent for appellant, asked the Board to grant a rehearing so that the appeal could be heard by a 5-member panel. Julian Banales, PD, did not object to the request.
(3D) REHEARING REQUEST:
|
Appeal No(s). 03-197, All City Construction Co. vs. DBI. Subject property at 641 – 27th Avenue. 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 Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to August 25, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Joel Yodowitz, attorney for appellant/requestor, asked for a rescheduling of the rehearing request.
(3E) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
|
143-145 Pfeiffer Street. Permit issued on March 18, 2004. Last day to appeal was April 2, 2004. Jurisdiction request received May 5, 2004. Letter from Felix & Carol Arts, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2004/03/18/9082. Project: on 2-unit building, interior tenant improvements to include remodel of kitchen/bath; electrical/plumbing under separate permit. Permit Holder(s): Shaun Weston.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to grant the jurisdiction request, and for the DBI to perform a life/safety inspection, and to set the appeal hearing for August 18, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Felix Arts, requestor(s), asked the Board to allow him to file a late appeal. Felicia Weston, permit holder, said she intends to renovate the building, which is in desperate need of repair. No public comment.
(4) CONSENT ITEMS (DBI PENALTY):
|
With the consent of the Dept. 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.
|
(4A) APPEAL NO. 04-048
|
LYDIA YAFFE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
337 Parnassus Avenue.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May 28, 2004, for work done without a permit (on single family house: dormer windows per plan; comply with NOV dated March 30, 2004).
APPLICATION NO. 2004/05/13/3749.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reduce the subject penalty to two times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said he could not consent to a reduction since the case does not meet DBI guidelines necessary to justify consent. Scott Yaffe, husband of appellant, explained that a contractor was paid who was supposed to obtain permits, and instead did half the work without permits and then ran off with the money. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. V03-209
|
CATHERINE FERREIRA
& ANN FERREIRA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1120-1122 Vallejo Street.
Protesting the granting on Dec. 23, 2003, to Susan Lee, Jennifer Cherk & Jay Capela, Rear Yard Variance (on 2-family building: construction of an enclosed pavilion on the roof of the existing 3-story building and the enclosure of two areas at the rear of the building that are currently unenclosed).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0476DV.
Note: On March 24, 2004, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the variance with the following condition(s): a) that the north portion of the roof be sloped to allow for more sunlight into the adjacent backyard; and b) that the front (south) elevation be redesigned to reflect the solid to void ratio of buildings of a similar nature. On May 12, 2004, the Board voted 4-1 to grant the rehearing request by the appellants and to set the rehearing for June 30, 2004.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Commissioner Chin dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to July 28, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Chris Moscone, attorney for appellant(s), asked for a rescheduling of the appeal so that all 5 members could be present since this is a rehearing and only one rehearing is allowed per case. Jay Capela, co-variance holder, objected to the rescheduling request, and asked that the matter be heard now. No public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 04-036
|
LYNNE WINSLOW, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
746 Hayes Street.
Appealing a determination dated April 16, 2004, addressed to Brett Gladstone, that the charitable fundraising business at the subject property is prohibited under Planning Code § 204.1 (a) through (h) for the following reason(s): charitable fundraising is not an occupation that has been traditionally practiced out of one’s residence; the current business occupies more than ¼ of the total floor area of the dwelling unit; and because the current business employs persons not living in the unit.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Knox dissented) to overrule the determination, adopt the conditions as presented by the appellant’s attorney, and adopt the following further condition: a) that no more than 3 employees be present at the subject property at any given time.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales for PD, explained the determination and said that there is no discretion under the Code to waive. The project doesn’t meet the Code provisions as an accessory use in a residential district since she has five employees and too much floor area. Brett Gladstone, addressee of the determination and attorney for the appellant, described the appellant’s business as how it is appropriate for the neighborhood. Public Comment: (For Appellant) – Richard Johnson asked the Board to allow the use because of its beneficial impacts on the crime-ridden Haight-Ashbury, and that her business has minimal impact on the area. David Miranda said he supports the appellant because of the significant assistance to the AIDS projects. Matt Magana said he is a tenant and that the appellant is his third and best landlord and he rarely hears his business operation in the building.
(7) APPEAL NO. 04-045
|
THOMAS WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2749 Pierce Street.
Protesting the issuance on May 5, 2004, to Wendell Laidley, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construction of a new roof deck with exterior spiral stair).
APPLICATION NO. 2004/02/13/6344.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Sept. 8, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(8) APPEAL NO. 04-047
|
SFLW PARTNERSHIP, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
205 – 13th Street / 1717 Mission Street.
Appealing a determination dated May 5, 2004, addressed to Patrice Fambrini at Jaidin Consulting, that the general advertising sign at the SE corner of the subject property is a legal non-conforming use, that the request to move the sign to another location on the subject property in response to the freeway replacement project does not constitute relocation of the sign “to another site” under Planning Code § 611 and thus does not require Conditional Use (CU) approval, and finally, that the relocation of the sign must comply with Planning Code § 604, and as such, it cannot result in a decrease in compliance with any provision of the Planning Code, including the provision prohibiting visibility by travelers on a freeway.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the determination with the following conditions: a temporary relocation of the subject sign upward is allowable as a business sign, and after the on-ramp construction period, the appellant can choose to relocate the sign where it is not visible from the freeway and choose to revert back to a general advertising sign without there having been an abandonment of this general advertising use during the on-ramp construction period.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales for the Planning Department explained the nature of the appeal and how the proposal failed to meet the restriction of the Code if the sign is deemed a general advertising sign, which would be seen from the freeway under construction, an increase of discrepancy with Code provisions, while it would not be in violation if the sign deemed a business sign. Patrice Fambrini, for the Appellant and owner, asked for clarification since the sign has always been used as a business sign for business in the building and it must not be moved to accommodate Cal-Trains freeway construction project.
(9) APPEAL NO. 04-049
|
JUAN YANES
dba “CHARLES TOWING & MECHANICS”, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1251 Thomas Avenue.
Appealing a Police Permit Zoning Referral (P51 Tow Car Firm) dated May 13, 2004, addressed to Juan Yanes, that the proposed use, tow car operator, requires Conditional Use Authorization (CU) in the Restricted Light Industrial (RLI) zoning district per Planning Code § 249.15(b)(2), and that such a use must be conducted within an area completely enclosed by a wall or concealing fence not less than 6 feet high.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to Sept. 29, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(10) APPEAL NO. 04-050
|
MARK MIRAVALLE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
|
1021 Francisco Street.
Appealing the denial on May 28, 2004, of a Permit to Alter a Building (convert 2 residential units to single family unit; dwelling merger).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/05/30/5840.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to Aug. 25, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
_______________________________
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
