2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 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); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI (CBI DBI); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry (AUB BUF); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED TC); 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: None.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-025
|
QUERIDA MIA RIVERA, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, of taxi medallion No(s). 52.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-05.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation on condition that the subject medallion be suspended for 2 months.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, said that the revocation was imposed because the Commission concluded that the appellant committed fraud in falsifying records to cover up the fact that she had not met the full time driving requirement for many years and described the appellant’s history of covering up her failure to meet the rules. Robert Moore, attorney for appellant, admitted his client’s errors and argued that the rules should not be imposed on his client’s situation as a disabled elderly person who served for many years as a driver before becoming disabled.
Public comment for TC: Mark Gruberg for the UTW said that overruling this Commission action would send the wrong message to medallion holders who do not drive but want to keep medallions for their retirement pension for the rest of their life. Rua Graffis said there are 6000 drivers in the industry and only 900 have medallions while there are several thousand on the waiting list for a medallion. She said owner-drivers insure safety to the public and keep up their cabs. Martin Kazinski said that he is a driver and that he’s been on the waiting list for 11 years, and that if he’s caught without proper waybills he’ll receive a $50 citation, while the appellant broke the rules 700 times and the revocation should be upheld. Public comment for the appellant: Brooks Dyer said laws are ephemeral and can be changed and he described how the driving requirements have changed over the years causing an injustice here. Robert Cesana said this is a matter of principle and that there is no provision in Prop. K for medallion holders who get old, tired and sick. Carl Macmurdo said the current process causes hazardous conditions and that the appellant did not forge documents herself, and that she did not know about the law.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-076
|
ALI HZAMI, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on May 14, 2003, of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit No(s). 105810.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-22.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the revocation.
SPEAKERS: Sgt. Vincent Simpson, Police Dept. Taxi Detail, said the revocation was because of the behavior of the appellant who treated passengers badly more than once which generated many complaints, and that the appellant represented a serious threat to public safety. Ali Hzami, appellant, explained the complaints against him and the incidents, which he said occurred on a bad day for him; he asked for another chance since this is the only way he can make a living for his family. His wife does not work and he cannot find a job. Public comment for appellant: Mohamed Arbi, friend of the appellant, said they are from a small mountain village in Tunisia and that he is sure the problems would not happen again if the Board would give the appellant another chance to drive. No public comment for Taxi Commission.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-053
|
ADRIAN & ANNE DOLLARD, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1812-1816 Green Street.
Appealing a Request for Suspension dated March 25, 2003, addressed to Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, that Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/01/28/6145 be suspended for the reason that this permit incorrectly represented the current legal use of the property as a single family dwelling when it is in fact a two-family dwelling, and for the reason that the said permit is now being used as justification for a third Building Permit Application (2002/02/21/8004) which proposes to remove an illegal kitchen on the 1st floor, which is not illegal, and said proposal instead constitutes a dwelling unit merger subject to a mandatory Discretionary Review process.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the permit suspension request. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion passed and the permit suspension request was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, described the series of permits for the property back to 1930, which shows that the building is a two-family house. He cited the two addresses on it and the tenancy of Ms. Doran, whose letter is in the file, which describes her tenancy in one of the units since 1973 and her eviction by the appellants. He said the appellants are sophisticated people and are both attorneys. He asked the Board to uphold the permit suspension request, which would lead to a DR hearing under the Commission’s guidelines requiring mandatory DR for unit mergers. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellants, said the detrimental reliance argument applied in his case since his clients relied on the 3R report, which describes the lawful use as single-family, and that no prior permits made the house a lawful two-family house. He said the building has been a lawful one-family house since it was constructed. Public comment for appellants: Paul Friedman said the appellants bought the house with the intention of using it as a one-family house, and that they relied on the City document; he also said the former tenant’s accusations were false. Adrian Dollard, co-appellant, described his efforts to placate the former tenant and asked the Board to allow the use as single-family.
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 02-105
|
EMPRESS HOTEL LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
111 Mason Street.
Appealing a determination dated May 29, 2002, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the Hotel Bijou at the subject property never abandoned its tourist hotel use for a period of time exceeding three consecutive years, and that the tourist hotel use could have been restored without conditional use (CU) authorization.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7B) APPEAL NO. 02-106
|
EMPRESS HOTEL LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
2-16 Turk Street / 1-25 Mason Street.
Appealing a determination dated May 29, 2002, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the Hotel Metropolis at the subject property never abandoned its tourist hotel use for a period of time exceeding three consecutive years, and that the tourist hotel use could have been restored without conditional use (CU) authorization.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Both appeals withdrawn by the appellant prior to meeting.
SPEAKERS: None.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-040
|
ELIZABETH FREITAS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
1915 Diamond Street.
Appealing the denial on March 13, 2003, of a Permit to Alter Building (on a single-family house: correct record to show legal housekeeping unit, comply with NOV #200225189, remodel kitchen and bath in housekeeping unit, and repair exterior rear stairs).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/19/7803.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the permit on condition that the housekeeping unit meet the Building Code.
SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, said this is a case of detrimental reliance since his client relied on the 3R report, and he read into the record the caveat at the top of the 3R form regarding the lawful use of the property. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said that a housekeeping unit is considered to be a dwelling unit under the Planning Code. No public comment.
ITEMS (9A) & (9B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(9A) APPEAL NO. 03-057
|
RICHARD PETROCCHI, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Party: KENDALL GOH
|
111 Manchester Street.
Appealing the denial on April 14, 2003, of Permit to Demolish a Building (2-story single-family dwelling with 800sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/04/22/4580.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(9B) APPEAL NO. 03-084
|
RICHARD PETROCCHI, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Party: KENDALL GOH
|
111 Manchester Street.
Appealing the denial on April 14, 2003, of Site Permit to Erect a Building (3-story single family dwelling with 800sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/04/22/4585S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overrule the denials and grant the permits with the revised plans dated May 16, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the action of the Planning Commission in denying the two permits and the role of the neighbors in the matter, who think the proposed house is too large and should have the 4th level deleted and the whole house shifted four feet to the front of the lot. Stephen Antonaros, agent for appellant, described his efforts to meet the concerns of the Commission and the neighbors in the revised plans submitted to the Board. Lulu Petrocchi, wife of appellant, expressed her frustration at the actions of the neighbors who criticized her efforts to revise the plans to meet their concerns. She described how the house came to be deteriorated over many years as a rental. Kendall Goh, § 14 party, asked the Board to uphold the denial of both permits because the proposed house will be too tall and deep for this area of Bernal Heights, which is characterized by smaller houses. No public comment for appellant. Public comment for the Planning Commission: Ginger Rhea said she strongly opposes the demolition of the old Victorian, which has been allowed to deteriorate by the owners. Dennis Davenport described how he had rehabilitated his own house, obtaining a variance to add on to it. He read Mrs. Shubert’s testimony to the Board since she had to leave the meeting. Roif Kvalvik stood with Ginger Rhea who read his statement to the Board.
Richard Petrocchi, appellant, said he is a former City employee, that he is not as wealthy as the neighbors say he is, and that he intended to build an appropriate new building compatible with the area. He said that to remodel the old house would cost almost as much as building a new one. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained the Code provisions regarding counting of stories and the requirements for them.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-058
|
BALUCA INC., Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
316 – 11th Street.
Appealing a determination dated April 9, 2003, addressed to Eric Whitaker, that despite the passage of less than 3 years since the closure of “Twenty Tank Brewery” which possessed a Place of Entertainment permit as a legal non-conforming use, the Place of Entertainment permit may not be re-established because the illegal office use that followed the brewery’s closure constitutes clear intent to abandon the legal non-conforming use (night-time entertainment) under Planning Code § 183.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject determination with findings as read into the record by Vice President Harrington.
SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, explained his determination and the process that Planning used to reach its conclusions as to the use of the property. Eric Whitaker, attorney for appellant, described the business his client proposed for the building, and explained how the previous use showed the owner ha dnot abandoned the place of entertainment use, which should be allowed to his client. Public comment for appellant: Jeremy Paul explained that places of entertainment need help in order to survive. No public comment for the ZA.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:34 pm.
____________________________ __________________________________
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.
