2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2006
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Hisashi Sugaya, Vice President Frank Fung, Commissioner Katharine Albright, Commissioner Michael Garcia, and Commissioner Randall Knox.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (OCA); Craig Nikitas, Senior Planner, Planning Department (PD); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (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: Richard Sinkoff, and Brett Gladstone.
(2) ELECTION OF OFFICERS
ACTION: Upon motion by President Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to elect Frank Fung President. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, the Board voted 5-0 to elect Randall Knox as Vice President.
(3) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(4) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(4a) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
|
Subject property at 71 Hancock Street. Permit issued on December 14, 2005. Last day to appeal was December 29, 2005. Jurisdiction request received on January 9, 2006. Letter from Richard Sinkoff, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2005/12/14/0294. Permit Holder(s): Robert Wexler. Project: on single-family house, new deck at rear of house.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, the Board voted 2-3 (President Fung, Vice President Knox and Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to deny the jurisdiction request. Four votes being required to grant a jurisdiction request, the request was denied.
SPEAKERS: Richard Sinkoff, requestor; Amy Ackerman, wife of permit holder; Leo McFadden, DBI.
(4b) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
|
Subject property at 244 – 246 – 6th Avenue. Permits issued on March 16, 2005, June 10, 2005, July 21, 2005, July 28, 2005, and Sept. 27, 2005. Last day to appeal was March 31, 2005, June 27, 2005, August 5, 2005, and August 12, 2005, respectively. Jurisdiction requests received on December 5, 2005. Letter from Susan Payne & Arisa Fuller, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2005/03/16/7644, 2004/09/27/5239, 2005/07/21/8222, and 2005/07/28/8867. Permit Holder(s): Jing Je He. Project: 1st permit, rearrange rooms, add 1 ½ bath, part of roofing (unsound) to be repaired; 2nd permit, change pitched roof to flat roof, extend right and left side building to property line; 3rd permit, replace unsound gyp. board on wall and ceiling; replace rotten wall studs and joists; 4th permit, add floor joists and flooring above second floor. Note: Appeal 05-168 (Item 5 on tonight’s agenda), Payne & Fuller vs. DBI, PDA, filed on Oct. 12, 2005, relates to a 5th building permit issued on Sept. 27, 2005 for the same subject property. Further Note: public hearing on this jurisdiction request was held and closed on Jan. 11, 2006; matter continued to allow time for DBI and Planning to review the neighbor notification issue.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, PD; Leo McFadden, DBI.
(5) APPEAL NO. 05-168
|
SUSAN PAYNE & ARISA FULLER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
244 – 6th Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on September 27, 2005, to Jing Jie He, Permit to Alter a Building (on 2-unit building: replace unsound stair and replace stone with stucco per plan).
APPLICATION NO. 2005/09/27/3928.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Susan Payne, co-appellant; Arisa Fuller, co-appellant; Jeffrey Chen, attorney for permit holder.
(6) APPEAL NO. 04-136
|
JUAN MAGARIN
dba “MISSION BAY TOW”, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1100 Crescent Avenue.
Appealing a Police Permit Zoning Referral (P51, Tow Car Firm) dated September 28, 2004, addressed to Juan Magarin, that the proposed use at the subject property, tow car operator, is not a permitted use in the NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center) zoning district pursuant to Planning Code §§ 713.1 to 713.95, and that Planning Department records do not indicate the legal establishment of a non-conforming use for a tow car operator at this location.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON NOVEMBER 2, 2005. FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY. Note: Matter continued to allow appellant time to relocate his tow car business to an appropriate zoning district.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Garcia, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the Police Permit Zoning Referral.
SPEAKERS: None. Appellant did not appear.
(7) APPEAL NO. 05-171
|
YUE ZHEN OU, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
260 Kearny Street.
Appealing a Health Permit Zoning Referral, dated July 20, 2005, addressed to Yue Zhen Ou, which disapproves the proposed massage establishment use because such use is not permitted within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) zoning district under § 218.1 of the Planning Code.
JURISDICTION GRANTED OCT. 5, 2005.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON DEC. 7, 2005. FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY. Note: Matter continued to allow time for appellant and the ZA to work out a solution.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to March 29, 2006 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(8) APPEAL NO. V05-182
|
VIBRANT MEDIA INC., Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
535 Mission Street.
Protesting the granting on October 19, 2005, to Monahan Pacific Inc., Dwelling Unit Exposure Variance (demolish existing parking lot and construct a 34-story building with up to 273 dwelling units, approx. 4,000sf of ground floor retail space, 7,230sf of common usable open space for residential use, 80sf of public open space for retail use, and a 5-level underground garage for up to 273 parking spaces using mechanical stackers and valet service.
VARIANCE CASE. NO. 2004.0297EKXV.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON JANUARY 11, 2006. FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY. Note: Matter continued to allow time for submittal of the mitigated negative declaration by the variance holder.
|
ACTION: Withdrawn by appellant.
SPEAKERS: None.
(9) APPEAL NO. 05-167
|
BAY CAB COMPANY, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing a Notice of Decision dated September 26, 2005, that orders the payment of all fines, abatement of all violations within 3 months, and the imposition of a 1-year probation.
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-60.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Fung, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to March 15, 2006, and for the matter to be first on the agenda.
SPEAKERS: Roger Cardenas, agent for appellant.
(10) APPEAL NO. 05-183
|
JOHN & CONNIE LINEHAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
839 North Point Street.
Appealing the denial on October 17, 2005, of Permit to Remove and Replace One (1) Tree.
ORDER NO. 175,641.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Knox, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial, and grant the permit with the following conditions: a) that the appellant plant two replacement trees (one tree at subject property, one tree at adjacent property); b) that the replacement trees be of a 24 inch box size; and c) that the replacement trees be of a species suitable to DPW BUF, with the following finding: the subject tree has created property damage (broken sidewalk), and the planting of two replacement trees creates a benefit equal or greater than the greenery of the subject tree.
SPEAKERS: Carla Short, DPW BUF; John Lineham, co-appellant; Connie Lineham, co-appellant.
ITEMS (11A) & (11B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(11A) APPEAL NO. 05-200
|
GUY CARSON, MICHAEL SIDLOW,
& TOM LANGSTON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
744 Union Street #5.
Protesting the issuance on November 23, 2005, to W.B. Coyle, Permit to Alter a Building (renew B.P.A. No. 2005/04/28/1102; on 6-unit apartment building; remodel kitchen and bath; repair/replace wood floors as necessary; refinish floor for entire apartment; replace damaged floor, less than 200sf; replace sink, appliances, counter tops and cabinets in kitchen; and replace tub, sink and toilet in bathroom).
APPLICATION NO. 2005/11/23/8922.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(11B) APPEAL NO. 05-201
|
GUY CARSON, MICHAEL SIDLOW,
& TOM LANGSTON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
744 Union Street #2.
Protesting the issuance on November 23, 2005, to W.B. Coyle, Permit to Alter a Building (renew B.P.A. No. 2005/04/28/1105; on 6-unit apartment building; remodel kitchen and bath; repair/replace wood floors as necessary; refinish floor for entire apartment; replace damaged floor, less than 200sf; replace sink, appliances, counter tops and cabinets in kitchen; and replace tub, sink and toilet in bathroom).
APPLICATION NO. 2005/11/23/8924.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Feb. 8, 2006 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(12) APPEAL NO. 05-203
|
JEFFREY
& KATHLEEN PASELTINER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
2555 Leavenworth Street #302 & 303.
Appealing the denial on December 6, 2005, of Permit to Alter a Building (on 22-unit building: revert layout from combined unit back to 2 units; remove kitchen and install 2 new ones; add 1 bathroom and remodel 3 bathrooms; no structural nor exterior alteration proposed).
APPLICATION NO. 2005/08/10/9955.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial, and grant the permit with the following findings: a) that no subdivision map changes were made and thus the merger was never perfected; and b) that the separate mailing of assessor, electrical and HOA bills to Units 302 and 303 indicates the continued existence of two units.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, PD; Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellants; Anita Strauss, and Joe O’Donohue, for appellants.
(13) APPEAL NO. 05-204
|
ELLEN CIRANGLE
& ROBERT QUINN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
148 Beacon Street.
Protesting the issuance on November 30, 2005, to John Brennan, Permit to Erect a Building (4-story, single-family house with 1000sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/03/09/3927S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Fung, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit with the following conditions: a) that the four trees on the street be planted as per the permit holder’s design; and b) that two additional trees (24 inch box) be planted in the general location of the two trees that are being removed because of disease.
SPEAKERS: Ellen Cirangle, co-appellant; Matthew Brenna, permit holder; Andrew Smith and Joe O’Donoghue,for permit holder; Craig Nikitas, PD.
(14) SPECIAL NOTE:
|
The Board of Appeals will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, February 1 in Room 34 beginning at 5:00 PM to evaluate and possibly propose revisions to the Rules of the Board of Appeals (effective Feb 1, 2002). The Board invites written comments on, or proposed revisions to, the Board Rules in advance of the Special Meeting. Letters can be mailed or hand delivered to the Board office, 1660 Mission Street, Room 3036, San Francisco, CA, 94103; facsimiles can be sent to 415-575-6885; and emails can be sent to Robert.Feldman@sfgov.org or Victor.Pacheco@sfgov.org.
Written comments submitted by 4:00 pm Thursday, Jan. 26, 2006 will be included in the Board's meeting packets.
The current Rules of the Board of Appeals (effective Feb 1, 2002) are posted on the Board website at www.sfgov.org/boa (click on link entitled “About”). Copies are also available at the Board office.
|
SPEAKERS: None.
There being no further business, President Fung adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
________________________________
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter. TEL: 415.493.5751 – FAX: 415.883.4272 – EMAIL: cwreporting@comcast.net.
BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES, PUBLIC COMMENT – JANUARY 25, 2006
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
ITEMS:
(1) PUBLIC COMMENT: Brett Gladstone thanked Commissioner Sugaya for his year of service to the city as President.
Richard Shinkoff asked about procedure for hearings.
(2) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(3) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(4a/b) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(5) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(6) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(7) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(8) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(9) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(10) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(11) PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
(12) PUBLIC COMMENT: Anita Strauss for Appellant said she is now on the homeowners’ board and that it has always been considered a 23-unit building with the two subject units considered to be separate with their own utility meter and tax bills.
Joe O’Donoghne said this is clearly a 23-unit building and the two units have always been separate ones and the Board should decide for the appellants and allow the building to remain 23 units.
(13) PUBLIC COMMENT: Andrew Smith, contractor in support of the Permit Holder said that he is troubled by the appeal after the long process the Permit Holder has gone through which resulted in many design revisions requested by the neighbors, with the appeal coming at the eleventh hour by a new neighbor who was not a party to the agreement.
Joe O’Donoghne for the Permit Holder said the Board has no jurisdiction over private agreements like this one. He said that Permit Holder had spent $2,000 in September to maintain the trees after consultation with an arborist and the Board should uphold the permit.
