2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY,
JANUARY 29, 2003
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM
416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
Present: President Arnold Y. K. Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya.
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter Claudine Woeber.
(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.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 60-80 Broadway. Letter from Brett Gladstone, attorney for Sailing Billboards Outdoor Media, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 01-154, Sailing Billboards vs. DBI, decided December 18, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the revocation of the subject sign permit.
ACTION: Rehearing request withdrawn prior to meeting.
SPEAKERS: None
ITEM B: 3873-3875 - 17th Street. Letter from Pedro Merel, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-149, Merel vs. DBI, PDA, decided Dec. 18, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit. Permit Holder(s): Andrew Goldfarb & Chris Nordquist. Project: rear addition onto 3-story residence.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Pedro Merel, Appellant asked the Board to grant him a rehearing for the reasons set forth in his request letter. John Lum, project architect objected to the request and asked the Board to deny the request since no new evidence was being offered and the appeal had had a full hearing already. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the Planning Code provision for rear yard averaging as they apply to this appeal.
ITEM C: 724 Van Ness Avenue. Letter from Molly Hopp, Agent for Appellant(s) Opera Plaza Homeowner's Association, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). V02-163, Opera Plaza HOA vs. ZA, decided December 18, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject variance and modifications, on condition that a car usage survey be performed, to be paid for by the variance holder but to be directed by Planning staff, with findings to be prepared by the variance holder's attorney to be adopted at a later date. Variance Holder(s): 724 Van Ness Associates LLC.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Molly Hopp requested that the Board grant a rehearing of her appeal so that she can exhaust her administrative remedies. John Sanger, attorney for the Variance Holder, said that the request should be rejected since no new evidence was being offered and the requestor was making the same arguments as she had at the hearing.
ITEM D: 2010 Divisadero Street. Letter from David Knudsen, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-137, Knudsen vs. DBI, PDA, decided Dec. 18, 2002. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit with the following condition(s): a) that any illegal billboards be removed on the subject property prior to commencement of construction; b) that the roof be changed to a 1hr fire-rated roof; c) that the façade remain the same; d) and that the entire building be painted after construction, with the back portion to be painted with white reflective paint. Permit Holder(s): Saud Family Trust:
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Kenneth Ma speaking for the Appellant who had been called out of state for an emergency, said that the neighbors have met with the City Planner and feel the Code doesn't permit a project that is so high and a rehearing is justified to go over the standards. Craig Hudson, project architect said his client objects to a rehearing since the issue of height had been thoroughly discussed and considered by the Board already and no new evidence was being offered that would justify a rehearing. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said he opposed the granting of a rehearing since the height issue has been considered and decided by the Board. He said that the objectionable billboards must be removed as part of the project and that the issue of glare had not been raised to the point of justifying a rehearing. Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector for DBI, said that there are no Building Code violations on this property.
(4) APPEAL NO. 02-097
VERNON LIDDELL, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on May 22, 2002, of [taxicab medallion no(s). 981.
[THE BOARD VOTED 5-0 ON NOV. 20, 2002 [TO UPHOLD THE REVOCATION DUE TO [NON-APPEARANCE OF APPELLANT OR HIS [AGENT. ON DEC. 18, 2002, THE BOARD [VOTED 4-1 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR [REHEARING.
[FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject revocation.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission, said this is a most egregious case where the Appellant hadn't driven his cab for years and there is no prospect he intends to in the future since he operates a barber shop in Ohio. Jim Gillespie, speaking for the Appellant who is in Ohio tending his wife, said he relies on the Appellant's letter to the Board and asked the Board to overrule the revocation of the Appellant's medallion since the Appellant has committed no fraud and is an honest, forthcoming person and he might someday return to the City and fulfill the owner driving requirements.
No public comment for either side.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-205
CODY ROBERTSON
dba "LINGBA LOUNGE", Appellant(s)
POLICE DEPT., Respondent
|
[1469 - 18th Street.
[Appealing the denial on October 7, 2002, of [Place of Entertainment Permit.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the case to the indefinite calendar or Call of the Chair so that the DR hearing can take place at the Planning Commission concerning the change of use permit.
SPEAKERS: Inspector Coggan of SFPD explained that the subject permit hasn't been approved for several reasons including the fact that there has been no response from Planning on the referral. Mark Rennie, attorney for the Appellant said that the business location has been a tavern since 1938 and occupies only 450 square feet and it has passed the Police sound test. He cited a court decision supporting his first amendment argument and reminded the Board of its decision in the Butter appeal.
Public Comment for the Police Department:
John Spencer said the business turned into a club seven days a week and has caused dozens of complaints from neighbors about the late night noise it generates. Peter Linenthal, owner of 1404 18th Street, said he speaks for himself and his two tenants and said they were bothered at night by the noise from the overflow patrons. Emilio Cruz, a neighbor said that the operation doesn't implement a good neighbor policy. Miko Burton Cruz said she grew up in the neighborhood and the property has always been a tavern but there never was any problems until now and the owner is operating without a police permit. Ashley Spencer said owner has been operating without a permit for a year and a half. Ms. J. T. Rehbock said this is a strong family neighborhood and the noise created is too great for it. Jerome Baralich said he hears and feels the bass from the sound system and it is upsetting. Brendon DeSimnon said its like a college fraternity with young people screaming and urinating outside after they leave the club. Christine O'Connell said she can hear the loud noise within her house and this business shouldn't be located in this residential area. Oren Sellsbrom said it makes no sense for the club to be in this quiet neighborhood. Dick Millett of the Boosters said he lives half a block away and the Appellant advertises on the internet that drugs and nude dancing are acceptable at the club. Chris Lawson said the club is on a steep hill and it is easy to slip on the sidewalks and broken bottles on the ground makes it worse. Elizabeth Sullivan said she lives downstairs and her window was kicked in at 2:15 a.m. by someone leaving the club and she had to call the Police Department. Andrew Roth said to maintain ventilation a window must be opened and it allows loud noise to be emitted. The club needs to be rebuilt to be acceptable and quiet enough. Babette Drefbre said this lounge is in the wrong place because there is not enough parking available for the patrons and the neighbors. Kayren Hudiburgh said she has a small grocery nearby the club and Appellant is not a good neighbor. Kitty Friel said she lives down the street and a nightclub shouldn't be in this residential district. Paul McDermott said he is for the Police Department and opposed to the club.
Public Comment for Appellant: Yekaterina Shkolnik said she is a patron and her company had their successful Christmas party at the club, she has seen no nudity there and she loves it. Deana Dreith said she had worked at the place when it was Lilo said the neighbors oppose the Appellant because he hasn't donated $1500 to the Boosters as his predecessor did. Angelo Celini said he is a D.J. and the bar is doing well and they play good music making it a great place to relax. Irving Zaretsky, the building owner, said the Appellant is an outstanding tenant and club's business is down 50% because of the loss of Silicon Valley boom customers. Isaac Newton said he has worked at Lingba and it doesn't have any problems. Kepa Ashkenasy said Appellant wanted to do mediation and arrive at conditions acceptable to the neighbors. Diana Brent said she is a part-time employee at the lounge and she thinks it is a considerate business. Rod Minott said he is a homeowner and he is for the club and that the neighbors refused to do third party mediation. Christian Volk said she thinks it's the panhandlers who make the mess on the sidewalk. Shamel Naguib said he is a friend of the appellant and appellant tries to run his business within the law and it is a lounge and not a club, so quiet you have conversations there. Will Hammond said he performs at a nearby theater and he finds the place to be very sociable. Fred Tsai said he's a patron just back from overseas and he went to the place for a drink and there was no wild partying going on. Terrance Akin said he is Chair of Late Night Coalition and that the law doesn't keep up with changes in the entertainment field. John DeCastro for Police Department said Boosters never got a donation from Lilo Lounge. Boosters membership voted to oppose Appellant because business disturbed neighbors. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the Police Permit Referral process and said a Discretionary Review hearing is scheduled for the Commission on December 5, 2002 but was not held because Police Department had denied application and the case was moot. Commission must approve before permit can be issued. Mark Rennie, attorney for the Appellant said the business is never open after hours and that the problem is a generational one and he urged the Board to allow the permit as it had in other similar cases like the Butter case.
(6) Appeal No. 01-196
ATON WYDLER, Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1379 - 3RD Avenue.
[Appealing a determination dated October 17, [2001, that use of the subject property as a 4-[unit residential building is not permitted under [the Planning Code, and is not considered to be [a legal non-conforming use under Planning [Code Sections 180 through 185.
[THE BOARD VOTED 4-0 ON JAN. 30, 2002 [TO OVERRULE THE SUBJECT [DETERMINATION & TO ADOPT FINDINGS [SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT'S [ATTORNEY. ON DEC. 4, 2002, THE BOARD [VOTED 5-0 TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR [REHEARING.
[FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to overrule the Zoning Administrator's determination with a finding that 13 bedrooms/group housing units and one accessory dwelling unit existed as of 1937, with adoption of amended findings.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained that UCSF was not under the jurisdiction of the City for land use matters and when UCSF sold the property it should have gone back to its original use and it appears to have been a group housing use and the issue is how many bedrooms are authorized. There are no pre-1937 records of use. His count is 13 bedrooms. David Cincotta, attorney for the Appellant, said that there is no new evidence and no records of use before 1937 but it appears to have been a four-family apartment house. He said the attic could be livable and was probably a resident manager's unit and that much Code work was needed for the building.
Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: David Busby, a neighbor, was represented by attorney Ken Taymor who said the proposed findings had been worked out by all parties and that Finding No. 18 allowed for eleven bedrooms for the non-conforming use as well as a manager's unit.
No public comment for Appellant.
(7) APPEAL NO. 02-079
BABA-MALOUF PROPERTIES, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1596 Howard Street.
[Appealing a determination dated April 25, [2002, addressed to Joel Yodowitz at Reuben & [Alter, that the Job Housing Linkage Program [(JHLP) Ordinance fee is applicable to the net [addition of office space proposed, and that the [Certificate of Final Completion & Occupancy [cannot be issued until the JHLP fee is paid in [full.
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED [JUNE 19, 2002.
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, and Commissioners Sugaya and Saunders dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Afterward, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to overrule the subject determination with findings as read into the record by President Chin.
SPEAKERS: Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the Appellant, said his client did not understand the effects of the legislation then under consideration and spent substantial sums ($1,600.000) on his project once he had an issued permit in hand, not realizing that Planning would come after him for $600,000 in JHLP fees. Had he known of the fee requirement he would have made different business decisions. He said the AVCO case applied here and that his client shouldn't have to pay fee. Judith Boyajian deputy city attorney, explained the relationship of state environmental law to this matter and to housing projects. Lawrence Badiner, ZA said there hadn't been much discussion of what triggered the JHLP for at the time the legislation was being considered, just the amount to be charged developers; and the legislation had been under consideration for many years. He admitted his Department had made several clerical errors in their communication with the Appellant.
APPEAL NO. 02-142
(8) ANTONIO CASTELLUCCI, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 PARTIES: None.
DR REQUESTOR(S): John Wischman.
|
[2639 - 24th Street.
[Appealing the denial on July 31, 2002, of Permit [to Erect a Building (four-story, six-unit [residential building with 3,200sf of ground floor [area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/07/3664.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial by the Planning Commission and grant the permit.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the DR denial by the Commission. Joseph Sacramento, attorney for Appellant said that the DR requestor is no longer opposed to the project and actually now supports it. John Wischman, the DR requestor said he supports the project.
No public comment for either side.
ITEMS (9A) & (9B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(9A) APPEAL NO. 02-196
RONALD
& CHERYL KARPOWICZ, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[326 - 28th Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on September 20, [2002, to Julie Lee, Permit to Demolish a [Building (two-story, one-unit building with [1200sf of ground floor area).
[APPLICATION NO. 9920289.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(9B) APPEAL NO. 02-197
RONALD
& CHERYL KARPOWICZ, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[322 - 28th Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on September 20, [2002, to Julie Lee, Permit to Demolish a [Building (two-story, one-unit building with [1200sf of ground floor area).
[APPLICATION NO. 9920291.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the demolition permit for 326 -28th Avenue pursuant to an oral withdrawal by the appellants. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the demolition permit for 322 - 28th Avenue.
SPEAKERS: Peter Koenig, attorney for Appellants, said that his clients thought they were appealing both demolition and site permits and didn't understand that they had only appealed the two demolition permits. He asked the Board to take jurisdiction over the site permits, too, since they have submitted material that covers all four permits. He said that the house at 326 28th Avenue could be rehabilitated for less than 50% and that the owner had let it deteriorate. Judith Boyajian, deputy city attorney said that the Board has jurisdiction over the two demolition permits and that the site permits are not before them, though the Appellants can file a formal request that the Board grant jurisdiction to allow them to file late appeals. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, said there appears to be some problems with the permit for 322 28th Avenue but that the one for 326 28th Avenue is properly issued. Rev. Arnold Townsend, representing the Permit Holder agrees there are errors by SOHA but that the amount needed to rehabilitate the house was almost 50% once the new furnace is added and that SOHA had not included it. He gave a history of his client's efforts to obtain permits and the efforts of the appellants to prevent her. Cheryl Karpowicz co-Appellant, said that homeless people have squatted in the house as well as raccoons and that the neighborhood has suffered because of the owner's dereliction of duty to keep the house in reasonable condition. She said she has not delayed the project.
Public Comment for Permit Holder: Jack Barry said the demolitions should not be appealed. He said the Appellants never gave up and that the delayed process is unfair since they have gotten five feet already as a concession from the Permit Holder. Bowman Leong said that it has taken three years to secure the permits with several revisions to the plans being required along the way. Phil Chang said he collected signatures of people in the neighborhood who support the Permit Holder and her project; and she is being held hostage by the Appellants.
No Public Comment for Appellants.
(10) APPEAL NO. 02-204
LEE & RUTH ANN SEWARD,
THOMAS & JODY ROBERTSON,
SYDNEY GOLDSTEIN, STEVE &
BRENDA BOTTUM, & RICK ELLIS, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[2736 Pierce Street.
[Protesting the issuance on October 7, 2002, [to P.Q. & June Chin, Permit to Alter a Building [(sun deck on top of existing roof, 42" high rail, [4X4 post secured to existing structure (roof)).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/07/8421.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(11) APPEAL NO. 02-216
VERDI CLUB INC., Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2424 Mariposa Street.
[Appealing a determination dated October 18, [2002, addressed to the Verdi Club, that a [Type 47 (On-Sale General for Bona Fide [Public Eating Place) liquor license is [prohibited by Planning Code § 781.8(a), which [prohibits new establishments in the Mission [Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Sub District [from selling alcoholic beverages.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the determination with a finding that the Verdi Club has been in existence for 86 years, and that it is a bona fide restaurant.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said that the issue is determined by the Department of Public Health which issues restaurant permits. He said the problem is whether this is a new establishment or the expansion or intensification of an existing one. He said it would meet the exception if it is deemed a bona fide restaurant, which would be eligible for an ABC license of this sort, changing the permit from 58 and 51 to a type 47. Guenter Morawietz, the manager of the club said the club may have twenty-four catering jobs and functions and the club has been in existence 80 plus years and needs the new ABC license to remain viable since its membership is decreasing and they must attract the public. He said he had support in the room but wouldn't ask them to speak and a show of hands in support of the appellant was approximately 25.
(12) APPEAL NO. 02-217
IDIL URALLI
& NICOLAS ST. HILAIRE, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[1169 Dolores Street.
[Protesting the issuance on October 23, 2002, [to David Kline, Permit to Alter a Building [(replace existing bath and plaster in kitchen [with all new drywall insulation and cabinetry [along with updated electrical).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/23/9757.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ITEMS (13A), (13B) & (13C) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(13A) APPEAL NO. 02-233
CHARLES R. THOMAS JR.
& CARLO TARONE, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[412 Lombard Street.
[Protesting the issuance on November 27, 2002, [to Mahmoud Khosoussi, Site Permit to Alter a [Building (existing one-story over garage - [convert to three story over garage).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/03/3468S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(13B) APPEAL NO. 02-234
GREG GIACHINO, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[412 Lombard Street.
[Protesting the issuance on November 27, 2002, [to Mahmoud Khosoussi, Site Permit to Alter a [Building (existing one-story over garage - [convert to three story over garage).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/03/3468S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(13C) APPEAL NO. 02-235
BARBARA FONG, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[412 Lombard Street.
[Protesting the issuance on November 27, 2002, [to Mahmoud Khosoussi, Site Permit to Alter a [Building (existing one-story over garage - [convert to three story over garage).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/03/03/3468S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Feb. 19, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Charles Thomas, Co-Appellant, asked the Board to reschedule the hearing on this matter since one of the Co-Appellants cannot be present at this time. Ahmad Mohazab, Project Architect, objected to a rescheduling since his client has been delayed three years and the project is in escrow now.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
____________________________ __________________________________
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.
