2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 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); Julian Banales, for the Planning Dept. (PD) & the Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Seth Todd Huntington for the Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Street Use & Mapping (DPW BSM); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED TC); Sgt. William Coggan for the Police Dept. Legal Division (PD LD); 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: Carl Macmurdo reported on recent Taxi Commission actions, and his thoughts on the Board’s Rivera decision. Robert Cessana explained his views on Taxi Commission issues. Ann McVeigh explained her views on the driving requirement for post Prop K medallions. Mark Gruberg, UTW, explained his views on the Rivera decision and how the City policy of Prop K is being disregarded, and how it will probably change. Ron Wolter described the purpose of Prop K. Dan Heinz explained that medallion holders are an aging group and Prop K does not account for the aging process and disabled medallion holders. Barry Taranto, UTW, said he is upset with the Board’s decision in the Rivera case. Rua Graffis explained how taxi drivers are suffering now.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(3A) REHEARING REQUEST:
2750 Lake Street; Appeal No(s). 03-010; Ma vs. Zoning Administrator
|
Letter from Sue Hestor, attorney for Appellant Michael Ma, requesting a rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-010, decided May 14, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overrule the subject determination with a finding that the front of the house is on Lake Street. Four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under Charter § 4.106, the motion failed and the subject determination was upheld. Determination: that the proposal to construct a 2nd story above the existing garage on this detached single family house, if either street frontage was to be elected as the front lot line, that portions of the existing building would occur within the required rear yard, and thus be non-conforming; therefore, electing a front line parallel to 29th Avenue would allow for the proposal to comply with Planning Code §§ 172(b) & 173(b). Subject Property Owner(s): Roger Reynolds.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Vice President Harrington dissented) to grant the rehearing request. Four votes being required to grant such a request, the motion failed, and a rehearing was denied.
SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to grant a rehearing and explained her difficulties in trying to obtain the plans for the project and said the former owner had elected the frontage and it should not be changed now. Julian Banales, PD, said the corner lot is unique and explained the Department’s position. Roger Reynolds, subject property owner, urged the Board not to grant a rehearing because no new evidence was being offered that would justify one.
(3B) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
1349 Clayton Street; Permit Denied on August 30, 2002
Last Day to Appeal was Sept. 14, 2002; Jurisdiction Request Received June 2, 2003
|
Letter from Tom Katz, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over the denial of Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/07/25/2280. Project: 13-unit apartment building; replace existing steel with vinyl retrofit – same shape and size; total 20 windows.
NOTE: THE REQUESTOR FILED AN APPEAL ON SEPT. 4, 2002 (02-172), AND THE BOARD HELD A HEARING ON MARCH 19, 2003 AND VOTED TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PERMIT. ON APRIL 23, 2003, THE BOARD VOTED 4-1 TO GRANT A REHEARING. AND AT THE REHEARING OF MAY 21, 2003, THE REQUESTOR WAS NOT PRESENT, AND THE BOARD VOTED 5-0 TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PERMIT.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to rescind the motion of May 21, 2003 upholding the denial of the subject permit in Appeal 02-172, and to reschedule the rehearing for July 9, 2003 , and for letter notices to go out as well.
SPEAKERS: Tom Katz, requestor, asked the Board to allow him another rehearing because he had not received notice of the rehearing and so had not attended the rehearing. Ron Kane, subject property owner, said he had not gotten written notice of the rehearing either and supported Mr. Katz’s request. Catharine Barnes, DCA, advised the Board on this matter and said this involved an estoppel issue.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-054
|
JERRY S. WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2139 Jackson Street.
Protesting the issuance on March 26, 2003, to Carol Levine, Permit to Alter a Building (add closet at west side, enlarge bathroom at west side, and replace tile and fixtures in guest bathroom).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/03/26/0766
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Jerry Williams, appellant, said he opposes the project for several reasons, and that it could affect the structural integrity of the building. David Silverman, attorney for permit holder, described the proposal, which he said is a minor addition that adds very few square feet to allow for a tub and that the appellant has a similar addition in his unit. No public comment for appellant. Public comment for permit holder: Arthur Roth expressed support for the project. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, described the proposal as a minor addition, not large enough to trigger seismic requirements.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-205
|
CODY ROBERTSON
dba “LINGBA LOUNGE”, Appellant(s)
vs.
POLICE DEPT., Respondent
|
1469 - 18th Street.
Appealing the denial on October 7, 2002, of Place of Entertainment Permit.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY HEARD JAN. 29, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the permit with adoption of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission per the DR hearing, and with further modifications: a) that the hours of operation for place of entertainment run until 10:30pm from Sundays to Wednesdays and on holidays; b) that the hours of operation for place of entertainment run until 1:00am on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays; c) that security personnel remain on premises until closing anytime there is a DJ or other live entertainment; and d) that security personnel be required to monitor the outside area adjacent to the subject property.
SPEAKERS: Sgt. William Coggan, Police Dept., said the Department leaves the decision to the Board and the community now that Planning has approved the referral from the Police Dept. Julian Banales, PD, described the DR hearing and the decision of the Commission and the Department approval. Mark Rennie, attorney for appellant, described the DR hearing and said his client has agreed to the conditions proposed and cited the Board’s Butter decision, which he said supports his case. Public comment for the Police Dept.: Tony Kelly of the Potrero Boosters explained his position on the proposed conditions. Dick Millet, Potrero Boosters, explained his support of the denial of the permit. Public comment for the appellant: Irving Zaretsky urged approval of the permit and said similar clubs have no limits on their hours of operation. Thanya Suwansawad said it was her bar for ten years and she helps the appellant to improve it. Neil Schofield, friend of the appellant, said it is a very mellow place, which is fighting to survive.
(6) CONSENT ITEMS (DBI PENALTY):
|
With the consent of the Department 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.
|
(6A) APPEAL NO. 03-065
|
ELISA INING, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
4026 – 24th Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May, 8, 2003 for work done without a permit (on two-family residential/commercial building: replace siding, install awnings above wood stairs in interior courtyard, and replace two windows).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/09/05/5768.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reduce the penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained that this appeal is part of a matter at the Access Appeals Commission.
(7) APPEAL NO. 02-020
|
DAVID ADAMS, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the denial on January 30, 2002, of a request to add the appellant’s name to taxicab medallion no(s). 129.
NOTE: AT THE REHEARING OF JAN. 15, 2003, THE BOARD VOTED 3-2 TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. PURSUANT TO SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. CPF-03-502454, THE DISMISSAL MUST BE VACATED, AND THE APPELLANT MUST BE GRANTED A HEARING ON THE MERITS.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the Taxi Commission and add the appellant’s name to the subject medallion. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the Taxi Commission’s action was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, explained that there are no exceptions to the driving requirement in Prop K and said that we cannot know what happened 25 years ago. John Feldmann, attorney for appellant, said this case is not a request for a transfer of a medallion, but rather a request to add a name to a medallion and that Prop K is irrelevant here. Public comment for the Taxi Commission: Mark Gruberg directed the Board to the City Attorney’s memo in the file, which he feels supports his case against the appellant. Ron Wolter said this is a case of an unlawful transfer of a medallion and not the correction of a clerical error made 25 years ago. Rua Graffis explained how a medallion reverts to the City upon the death of the holder so that it can be issued to the next person on the waiting list. Public comment for the appellant: James Nakamura explained how much income is generated by a medallion, and how much a driver earns.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-026
|
MARK HOLLANDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, of taxi medallion No(s). 881.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-03.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and instead impose a 4 month suspension with the appellant to contact the Taxi Commission concerning ADA accommodations after the suspension period.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, said the case was egregious because of the alleged fraud by the appellant. Robert Moore, attorney for appellant, said his client is completely disabled now and did what he had to do to support his family. Public comment for the Taxi Commission: Barry Taranto, UTW, said that fraud is a crime not justified by the appellant’s need for money. Ron Wolter said the appellant had lied for 6 years and now wants to retain the medallion as a pension for the rest of his life. Rua Graffis explained his Prop K driving requirement. Mark Gruberg, UTW, said that if the Board would not uphold the revocation that at least they should impose a one year suspension and that a two-month suspension is not enough. Public comment for the appellant: Dan Hines, General Manager of National Cab, said drivers are an aging population and they tend to have accidents the older they get so that it is poor policy to impose a driving requirement on them. Carl Macmurdo said that this is like the Rivera case and that the medallion cannot be revoked because the medallion holder is disabled. James Nakamura described the negative aspect of driving a cab and said the medallion holders are needed to stabilize the industry.
Catharine Barnes, DCA, advised the Board as to what they can do.
(9) APPEAL NO. 03-047
|
TOM KARAS
dba “22nd & IRVING PRODUCE”, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING, Respondent
|
2101 Irving Street.
Appealing the denial on March 18, 2003, of an increase in limits on a Sidewalk Display Permit.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial, and grant the increase in limits with findings read into the record by Commissioner Sugaya.
SPEAKERS: Seth Todd Huntington, DPW BSM, explained the Code requirements for merchandise displays on the sidewalk and how the appellant’s application fails to meet Code standards. Jim Bozionelos, agent for appellant, said that this display has been used for 23 years and that it causes no problems on this 15-foot wide sidewalk. No public comment.
(10) APPEAL NO. 01-115
|
THERESA ISSERMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
700 Vermont Street.
Protesting issuance on June 20, 2001, to Raymond & Hazel Guaraglia, Permit to Alter a Building (demolish existing non-compliant residential units per Notice of Violation No. 200114983; remove all utilities to ground level; convert to original commercial space with no structural work to be done).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/06/20/1935.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY HEARD JUNE 19, 2002.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to Sept. 24, 2003 at the written request of the parties, who did not appear at the hearing.
SPEAKERS: None.
(11) APPEAL NO. V03-063
|
ANNIE LI, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
698 Paris Street.
Appealing the denial on April 22, 2003, of a Minimum Lot Area Variance (subdivide an existing 3,087sf corner lot into two lots, one with 1,375sf fronting on Italy Street, and one with 1,750sf fronting on Paris Street).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0593V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the variance with the following corrections: a) the existing 3,000 square foot lot shall be split into a 1,250 square foot lot fronting on Italy Street, and a 1,750 square foot lot fronting on Paris Street, and with findings to be prepared by the appellant’s agent.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales, PD, said the denial was because the project is not compatible with the neighborhood, and the granting of this variance would be tantamount to a rezoning. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, said the five requirements for the granting of a variance have been met and described how this lot is not like other lots. No public comment.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:08 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.
