2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2003
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker, Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya, and Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Craig Nikitas, for the Planning Dept. (PD) & the Zoning Administrator (ZA); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (SBI DBI); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED TC); Jacob Szeto for the Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Street-Use & Mapping (DPW BSM); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forecter, Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (AUF, DPW BUF); 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: Lu Blazej asked the Board to require that its conditions be strictly enforced in the review of revised plans for 2518 Union Street. He submitted a letter for the Board’s file.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEM(S):
(3A) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:
3251-3253 Steiner St. / 2205 Lombard St.; Appeal No(s). 03-036; Clear Channel vs. DBI, PDA
|
Proposed findings submitted by Brett Gladstone, attorney for Permit Holder Margaret Pocoroba, by Jared Eigerman, attorney for Appellant Clear Channel, and by Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes. For discussion and adoption.
Note: On June 4, 2003, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to uphold the subject permit. On July 9, 2003, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to deny the request for rehearing by the appellant. Project: reinstallation of two 12’ X 24’ signs as soon as the existing mixed commercial building is waterproofed; existing angle and lag at wall to remain in place during removal and reinstallation.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to adopt the findings dated July 28, 2003 as submitted by Deputy City Attorney Cathy Barnes with no changes.
SPEAKERS: Brett Gladstone, attorney for permit holder, asked the Board to adopt the proposed findings submitted by the City Attorney’s office. Jim Reuben, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to adopt findings that support their decision, just as judges do. Cathy Barnes, DCA, said that the Board is required to adopt findings in this case.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-027
|
JOEL HOLLANDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, of taxi medallion No(s). 884.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-02.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overrule the revocation on condition that the subject medallion be suspended for 6 months.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, explained the procedures now in place to accommodate disability exemption requests. This case though is one of fraud not legitimate disability. Appellant not present. Mark Gruberg, UTW, said the aggravating factor in this case is that the appellant did not full fill the driving requirements for four or five years and falsified documents. He asked the Board to uphold the revocation so that it will serve as a needed precedent. Barry Taranto, UTW, said that the appellant was formerly a dispatcher, and was very familiar with all the regulations, including the driving requirement.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-111
|
TIM F. TAYLOR, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on July 2, 2003, of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle for Hire Permit No(s). 72523.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-31.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the revocation of the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Sgt. Vince Simpson, PD TD, described the incident that resulted in the revocation. He said the officer involved was present if the Board had questions concerning the incident. Tim Taylor, appellant, explained his side of the story, and spoke of the shadow culture of the Berkeley police. No public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-090
|
RICHARD CHICOTEL, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
740 Church Street.
Appealing a decision dated May 22, 2003, issuing a Permit to Remove & Replace Two Trees, & denying a Permit to Remove & Replace 4 Trees.
ORDER NO. 174,139.
Note: On August 27, 2003, the Board upheld the decision of the DPW Bureau of Urban Forestry. On October 1, 2003, the Board voted to grant the rehearing request by the appellant.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 to uphold the decision of DPW BUF, but to grant the permit to remove and replace the eucalyptus tree on condition that the replacement tree have a 36” planter box.
SPEAKERS: Tony Wolcott, AUF, DPW BUF, described the subject trees, and why the department had denied the portion of the request that would permit replacement of the eucalyptus tree. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, described the large tree as not lovely, and as harmful to the sidewalk, which breaks, and is a hazard to pedestrians. He also said the neighbors support his client. Public comment for DPW BUF: Greg Wyche said he’s against the tree removal. Paul Lufkin said he loves trees and wants them to stay. Kare Krooth said all the neighbors are in favor of retaining the trees, and that only one new owner supports the appellant. Bill Boeddiker said he’s a Friends of the Urban Forest volunteer, and that the trees mutilated by blight will be replaced by good trees. Martin Harris said he wants all the trees saved. Lisa O’Driscoll said the trees look fine, and that the sidewalks are fine. Robert Hemmer said the replacement saplings are no good. Public comment for appellant: John Johnson said the sidewalk is buckling, and that the city should allow people to adjust trees when necessary. Rose Gabaeff said the sidewalk is broken, and that the tree looks funky. Steve Clark-Hall said he slipped and broke his wrist on a bad sidewalk, and that the replacement trees will be a good size. Jonathan Browning said he’s struck by the appellant’s renovation and commitment to beautify the property. Robert Hulgate said the health of the tree is bad, that it will fall and hit a car. Michael Brisbin said the sidewalk is uneven, and that he has a passionate commitment to good trees. Pat Buscovich, agent for permit holder, said he’s the engineer fixing the sidewalk, and that it’s in terrible condition.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-112
|
PAUL SEIGEL, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
3214 Jackson Street.
Appealing the denial on July 4, 2003, of a Permit to Remove & Replace Two (2) Trees.
ORDER NO. 174,238.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial, and grant the permit on condition that the replacement tree be suitable to DPW BUF.
SPEAKERS: Tony Wolcott, AUF, DPW BUF, explained the denial, and said that Brazilian pepper trees do well in the City, and that these are two young healthy trees. Paul Siegel, appellant, said that the two trees are too big, break up the sidewalk, create a driving hazard for his family, and that it was a mistake to plant them, which he can correct if allowed to replace them with a more suitable species, which will not be as ugly. Sherry Siegel, wife of the appellant, said the trees’ look is wrong, and that a more suitable species would be attractive. No public comment.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-092
|
CARL E. OLSON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING,
Respondent
|
Northwest Corner of Haight & Masonic.
Protesting the issuance on May 28, 2003, to JC Decaux San Francisco Inc., Automatic Public Toilet Permit.
ORDER NO. 174,167.
PERMIT NO. 03PT-001.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Harrington dissented) to uphold the subject permit on condition that DPW BSM consider moving the site closer to the corner.
SPEAKERS: Carl Olson, appellant, said he opposes the facility in front of his apartment house, and described the problems that will arise from its location there. Jacob Szeto, DPW BSM, described the process of public hearings that led to the site being chosen. Fred Christoun, agent for permit holder, said that DPW BSM chose the site, and that his firm only installs and maintains them. Jack Breslin, DPH, said that his department supports the location, and reported on the complaints made to DPH, which support the location as one in need of a public facility. Public comment for appellant: Janan New said it is not right to put a public toilet in front of an entry to an apartment house, and that this will be the only site in front of a residential building, and that there is a pre-school two doors down. Beth Bailey said she supports public facilities but not in front of housing. Fred Kazzouh said this project will be bad for his grocery business. Linda Olson read to the Board a letter from Susan Stoler who is a tenant in the building right behind the site. Doerte Murray said that DPW has no ongoing inspection patrol of its facilities. Jefferson Bailey said the nearby check cashing business will exacerbate the problems caused by the facility. Public comment for DPW BSM: Tes Welborn said the Haight Street area needs a public toilet, and that the police department supports the idea. Amy Leitiner said she supports the action of the department. Tys Sniffen said she thinks the public toilet at this site is appropriate. Richard Magary said that the process for the site selection was open to all participants. Laura Sallee said it’s time for such a facility, and that the City has a moral responsibility to provide these units for residents and visitors. Karen Fishkin said this has been a five year process, and that there is always some disagreement in these types of matters. Flip Sarrow of the Haight Street Merchant’s Association said his group voted 37 for the facility, and 3 neutral, and that their customers’ need for this facility is great. Rich Cunningham, said he was the hearing officer at DPW BSM, and that he was available for any questions. Eileen Long said this toilet is desperately needed. J. van Breten said he opposes the toilet.
(9) APPEAL NO. V03-106
|
ROGER LOTZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
561 Sanchez Street.
Protesting the granting on June 24, 2003, to Gordon Atkinson (Subject Property Owner Gus Nelson), Rear Yard Variance (on single-family house: construction of a deck and stairs within the required rear yard of the existing, non-complying, single-family dwelling; the proposed deck would extend 3 feet to the north from the north building wall of the legal non-complying extension, 12 feet towards the rear with the stairs extending an additional 10 feet at the south side of the deck; no privacy screen is required).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0040V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to Dec. 3, 2003 at the request of the parties, and with letter notices.
SPEAKERS: Parties not present.
ITEMS (10A) & (10B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(10A) APPEAL NO. 03-108
|
TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
Subject Property Owner(s): BRIAN O’FLYNN
& MARTIN COYNE
|
701 Lombard Street.
Appealing a determination dated June 26, 2003, addressed to Paul Scott at the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, that the Mason Street frontage shall be used for measurement of height per Planning Code § 102.12(d), that a minimum of 2 building steps is required for measurement purposes per Planning Code § 260(a)(3), and that the rear of the lot for height measurement is located where the Lombard Street & Columbus Avenue frontages converge.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(10B) APPEAL NO. V03-116
|
TELEGRAPH HILL DWELLERS, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
Subject Property Owner(s): BRIAN O’FLYNN
& MARTIN COYNE
|
701 Lombard Street.
Protesting the granting on July 17, 2003, to Bruce Baumann, Usable Open Space Variance (demolish existing parking lot and construct a new four-story mixed-use building with nine residential units, two small ground floor retail spaces at the Columbus Avenue building corners, and nine off-street parking spaces at the ground floor.
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0346V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the determination with negative declaration findings as read into the record by President Chin, and 5-0 to uphold the subject variance.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, PD, explained the determination, which he said is a technical issue involving height measurements under the Code. Joe Butler, agent for appellant, said the height of the proposed building is an issue because it will cast a shadow on a public park, and a redesign without a rooftop penthouse and elevators would be desirable to reduce the shadowing. He asked the Board to send plans back to Planning for redesign and completion of the negative declaration. Jim Reuben, attorney for owners, said the Code allows owners to choose the front of their lots, and that his clients have chosen for their project in compliance with the Code; and the ZA has a right to change a ZA interpretation at any time because an interpretation is not a precedent for a future case. Michael Penner, agent for appellant, said the THD opposed the variance decision because the five requirements which must me met have not been met, and that there is no justifiable hardship, and this project can be built in compliance with the Code without a variance. Jim Rueben, attorney for variance holder, said there are unusual circumstances that justify the variance. Public comment for the ZA: Kay Murphy-O’Flynn said she intends to live in the building, and urged the Board to uphold the variance. Patricia Franklin demonstrated with computer-generated photos how well the project fits into the area. Philip Lesser said that nine more residential units are needed, and that the shadowing would only be on a small portion of the park. Andy Lesser said there is no better location for this building. Bart Taylor said he has never seen anyone play bocce ball in his eight years in the neighborhood, and that the park is not maintained by the City, and that housing is needed. Sal Busalacchi said that the Planning calculations are not flawed, and that he lives closest to the site. Theodore Camesano said he is delighted with the sensitivity of the developers. Lynn Jefferson said she’s impressed with the integrity of the owners. Keith Wilson said he’s a member of the THD, and that he does not support the appeals, and that this is an excellent project. James Lew said the project meets the Code and is a good one. Noel Boggins said he measures buildings. David Chan said he owns property across the street, and that his group, North Beach Neighbors, is in support of the project. Joe O’Donoghue said the Planning Code is in violation of state law regarding height standards. Public comment for the appellant: Jeffrey Graham said he opposes the height, which is not in character with the neighborhood, and is inconsistent with the general plan. Brad Willmore said the building will not be 40 feet high but rather from 40 to 46 feet at different points, and that the convoluted calculations can make it appear to be 40 feet. Nan Roth said she knows the building will cast shadows on the tennis courts, and will be in violation of the sunshine ordinance because it will cast shadows on a park. Jeanne Milligan spoke against the project. Marc Bruno said a no vote has been taken by members of the NBN. Gerry Crowley said she strongly opposes the project, and that people do use the bocce ball courts. Leo McFadden, SBI DBI, explained the penthouse standards of the Code at the request of the Board.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-109
|
CAROL OPOTOW, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
32 Rivoli Street.
Protesting the issuance on July 10, 2003, to Shelley Pope, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: build apartment in basement which extends into backyard; remodel kitchen on main floor; add third floor; create a two-unit residential building).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/04/12/3885S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that the deck be pulled back 3 feet on the side adjacent to the appellant, with an open railing and no trellis on the deck.
SPEAKERS: Carol Opotow, appellant, described the impact of the proposal on her property, the loss of light caused by extensions blocking the sunlight. She asked the Board to add minor conditions to their approval of the permit to protect her from the impact, setting the deck back, requiring an open railing, and prohibiting any trellis on the deck. Shelley Pope, permit holder, said she objects to revisions being imposed because of the costs they will entail for designs. She said she has tried to minimize any impact of her project on the appellant’s house. Leo McFadden, SBI DBI, said that no fire wall is required if the deck is set back 3 feet from the property line, and that an open railing complies with the Code. No public comment.
(12) APPEAL NO. 03-110
|
BENJAMIN GACUSAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
687 Moultrie Street.
Protesting the issuance on July 8, 2003, to John Regan, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: constructing a new garage).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/30/2706.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to Dec. 3, 2003 at the request of the parties, and with letter notices to go out.
SPEAKERS: Parties not present.
(13) APPEAL NO. 03-113
|
NURIA ROCHA, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
25 Teresita Boulevard.
Protesting the issuance on July 7, 2003, to Richard Barboni, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: add deck and solarium at rear).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/11//25/2189S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to uphold the permit.
SPEAKERS: Charles Higueras, agent for appellant, said that the solarium component is at issue because it threatens their privacy. People in the solarium can look towards the bedroom windows of his house; he asked the Board to require that opaque glass be used on at least 3 panes of the solarium windows so as to preserve privacy. Richard Barboni, permit holder, said he feels no obligation to provide this person with privacy, and that they can use curtains if they wish. He does not want frosted glass on his solarium. No public comment.
(14) APPEAL NO. 03-114
|
TOM WHELAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1441 Montgomery Street.
Appealing a request dated July 7, 2003 for reinstatement of a suspended permit, addressed to Dept. of Building Inspection Director Frank Chiu, asking that Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/09/27/7630 (installation of a motorized chair lift) be reinstated because the Planning Commission has held a discretionary review (DR) hearing and approved the project as proposed.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker and Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to Nov. 12, 2003 at the request of the parties, and with letter notices to go out.
SPEAKERS: Parties not present.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 11:00 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.
