2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 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; Leo McFadden, Senior 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.
SPEAKERS: None
(2) ElECTION OF oFFICERS:
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to re-elect Arnold Chin as President. Then, upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to re-elect Kathleen Harrington as Vice President. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to elect Doug Shoemaker the alternate Vice President.
(3) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None
(4) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 659 Greenwich Street. Letter from Gary Ittig, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/12/06/2976. Permit Holder(s): Will Muenke. Project: enlarge garage door and slope garage slab.
Date Permit Issued: December 6, 2002
Last Day to Appeal: December 23, 2002
Jurisdiction Request Received: December 27, 2002
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to deny jurisdiction.
SPEAKERS: Gary Ittig asked the Board to allow him to file a late appeal because he had no notice of the project being built next door until the construction began and the jackhammers began to pound away. John Shrader said that the developer had followed all the required procedures and that Section 311 Notification was not required for this project. Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector for DBI, said that proper posting had been done and appeals can be made on a new permit that is being required. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained the Block Book Notation process which ensures that notice is sent to people requesting it for any permit applied for.
ITEM B: 2282 – 28th Avenue. Letter from Like Liu & Jianli Lu, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/11/12/1225. Permit Holder(s): Cheng Lee. Project: remove illegal unit at ground floor; remove non-bearing partitions, kitchen, toilet and closet; create new closet.
Date Permit Issued: November 12, 2002
Last Day to Appeal: November 27, 2002
Jurisdiction Request Received: January 6, 2003
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to grant jurisdiction.
SPEAKERS: Like Liu, requestor, said that he received a 30-day eviction notice from his landlord which included the permit. He said he had signed a contract for the unit that apparently is illegal. He said no compensation has been offered and eviction would be a great hardship for him. Rev. Arnold Townsend for Cheng Lee, the owner, said that his client had received a Notice of Violation and he can be fined $2,000 a day if he failed to do work. Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector for DBI said that the problem with the unit is its substandard ceiling height.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-187
|
LOUISE HUEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent
|
[1066 Filbert Street.
[Appealing the conditions requiring replacement [of one or both trees, placed on a Permit to [Remove Two (2) Trees.
[ORDER NO. 173,692.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the Department, grant the permit on condition that the 2 trees be replaced by one tree of a smaller species.
SPEAKERS: Tony Walcott, Acting Urban Forester, said that this ficus is too big a species and that it should be replaced with two trees of a more appropriate species like a strawberry tree. Louise Huen, Appellant, said that the present tree is causing her mother substantial money for plumbing and sidewalk repairs and she doesn’t want any replacement trees since they will grow and cause damage later. She said this ficus is the second replacement tree here.
(6) 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 President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the case to Jan. 29, 2003.
SPEAKERS: None
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 02-122
|
MICHAEL HAMMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
[702 Earl Street.
[Appealing the suspension on June 26, 2002, of [Building Permit Application No(s). [2002/06/21/9728 for the reason that the subject [permit was issued based upon inaccurate [information.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the suspension on condition that the appellant file an amended Building Permit Application to correct all Building Code violations to date (Jan. 22, 2003).
(7B) APPEAL NO. 02-173
|
JOE CASSIDY, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[702 Earl Street.
[Appealing a determination dated August 19, [2002, addressed to Bruce Bonacker, that under [§ 307(a) of the Planning Code the existing [accessory residential use of the subject [property is a legal use.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination. Four votes being required under the Charter to overturn or modify any departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject determination was upheld.
SPEAKERS: (7A & B) Leo McFadden, SBI for DBI, said the permit was issued in error before the complete records for the property were received and that the plans omit the horizontal addition. Andrew Zacks, attorney for Appellant, submitted a letter from Robert Passmore and asked why Chief Inspector Kornfield was present to represent the Department as he usually does. He understood that the Department Manager had instructed him not to be here. He gave a history of the building and asked the Board to lift the suspension.
Public Comment for the Department: Alice Barkley said that review of all permits show that there are no residential units in the building. Joe O’Donoghue said it had never been a legal use and that the Appellant hadn’t gone through the process to legalize the unit.
Public Comment for the Appellant: Cathy Barbour said that the previous witness had threatened and brow beat the Commissioners and that the appellant has been unfairly targeted and he is dearly loved in the neighborhood. Ken Cleaveland said he is a friend of the Appellant and said Mr. Kornfield and the Appellant are men of great integrity and that the Board shouldn’t revoke what has been granted. John Aldrich said he had worked in the building. He said when building was a crack house the City didn’t care but now that someone is renovating it and living there the City cares. Dr. Paul Davis Nobis said he had bought the building and had rented the apartment. Jill Fox said there is no opposition to the Appellant just support from the neighbors and the association because the Appellant has rejuvenated the building. Patrick Buscovich said that no notice had been given about the deck but that no Section 311 notice was required and there were no structural additions nor any increase of the floor area which would have triggered Section 311 requirements. Dan Dote listed the neighborhood improvement organizations the Appellant participates in. Wendy Coxen said the area is of mixed use and run down and she applauded his fixing up his building. Monica Henschke an artist in Noe Valley and friend of Appellant said she supports him. Mr. Zacks asked those in the audience to stand up who support d the Appellant but were willing to waive their right to testify and approximately twenty-five people stood. Bruce Bonacken, architect for the Appellant showed a photo which he said was made in 1937 and showed the building as it was
Larry Badiner, ZA, explained his determination and said he had made it after Mr. Kornfield had reported on a site visit and that in his experience Mr. Kornfield was very thorough, and the Planning Department had signed off on the permit which now clarifies the records. The unit is either an accessory use unit or an automatic conditional use, and it was apparently created when such units were permitted under the Code. Now a conditional use authorization would be necessary to create a new residential use, and those lawfully existing are deemed automatic CVs that are grandfathered in. Andrew Zacks said that if he attempted the CV process now the Commission would likely deny the application because the lot is in the IPZ and a new CV would trigger many new requirements that are not warranted and could cost more than $100,000. He said the Determination Holder is a caretaker of the building and the unit is an accessory use. Michael Hamman, Determination Holder, said the building has always been three stories and that he has followed all the rules and his permit was signed off. After which he spent much money to renovate this abandoned derelict that depressed the area.
Alice Barkley, attorney for Joe Cassidy, Appellant, said that if the use has been abandoned for three years he must apply for new permit and CU. She feels that Mr. Kornfield made a mistake in signing off on permit and there is no evidence of continuous residential use of the property, while live-work units are no longer permitted. She said the residential use was abandoned from 1991 to 1998.
Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: Pat Buscovich said that there are no building records before 1906 because of the earthquake and fire and only very bad and incomplete records since that time. Michael Hamman said that between 1991 and 1998 the building was a crack house which should be considered a residential use. She asked the Board for leniency. [Mr. Zacks said that there were twelve more witnesses who waived their right to speak and who stood up.] Lucian Blazej said that there is a Code distinction between a caretaker’s unit and a residential use and that an M district does allow a caretaker’s unit.
Public Comment for Appellant: Joe O’Donoghue, said the issue is whether the pre-existing use is a legal use and the owner can’t establish that the unit is a legal use existing in the building so he should have to go through the same process everyone else must to legalize. Sean McNulty, Chief Inspector for DBI, said in answer to a Board question about why Mr. Kornfield approved the permit said that it was approved based on the site visit but before a thorough review of the records had been made which showed that the unit is not a legal use. He said it is unusual for a Chief Inspector to sign off on a permit and here there appears to be a conflict of interest so the Department sent Senior Inspector Leo McFadden to the Board tonight. He said signing off permits is not in the job description of a Chief Inspector.
(8) APPEAL NO. 02-185
|
COMMITTEE FOR
THE PRESERVATION
OF CHINATOWN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
[731-749 Commercial Street.
[Protesting the issuance on September 9, 2002, [to the Charity Cultural Services Center, Permit [to Alter a Building (revision to Building Permit [Application No(s). 2001/10/31/2145, change in [structural plans, architecture to stay the same).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/05/02/5561.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Judith Boyajian, DCA, said that Commissioner Sugaya has no conflict of interest in this matter and needn’t be recused so long as he can remain impartial and render a fair decision. Jason
Bley, Appellant, gave a history of the project and explained how the permit holder has failed to meet the notice requirements and has failed to meet the requirements of Section 106. He wants to preserve the historic architectural integrity of the façade of the building. David Cincotta, attorney for the Permit Holder, described the mission of the Permit Holder and said the project will not impact the façade of the building at all. He said the project is to expand the kitchen for training immigrants for jobs in the food service industry, but they can’t afford a consultant to help them get a permit. He said this is only the first phase of project and there should be an overall plan to do whole project. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, said he spoke to the landmark planner who said that the project has been reviewed under Section 106 regarding the ground floor storefront. He said the Secretary of the Interior does allow replacements of storefronts so long as they are in character though he understands the Appellant wants a restoration of the façade not a replacement.
Public Comment for the Appellant: Howard Wong, architect, said that the building has been altered over the years and Chinatown’s its character is eroding bit by bit and its character lost. He said the Appellant cleaned out the basement himself and he is beloved in the neighborhood. He said the economic decline of Chinatown is due to a lack of comprehensive look at it as a whole. Jeffrey
Wong said his grandfather had owned a business in Chinatown and was called Mr. Chinatown. He feels the building has historical significance and he read a passage from a book by a social historian who supports his arguments.
Public Comment for Permit Holder:
Daniel Hom, civil engineer, said that the facade will not be changed and the building’s appearance will remain intact. Bill Wong, of Carpenter’s Local 22 said he supports the permit holder because it helps immigrants to get into the building industry. Michael Lum said the permit holder’s job training is very successful which is important in economy of today. Brian Chen said he was a student at Charity Service Cultural Center and got good training there. Tong Cheung said CSCC comes from the heart and is terrific for Chinatown. Translator Carmen Ho for other witnesses, Ka Sing Wong and Leung Kam Yin, said that there were immigrants who found jobs and started restaurant businesses with the training they got at CCSC and strongly supported it.
(9) APPEAL NO. V02-192
|
BEATRICE KRIVETSKY, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1979-1981 Broadway.
[Protesting the granting, on September 13, [2002, to Dick & Julianna Glumac, Rear Yard [Variance (to allow a three-story addition at the [rear of the existing three-story, two-family [building).
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0243V
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
SPEAKERS: Beatrice Krivetsky, Appellant, said that the addition doubles the size of the house and that Requirement Four (4) hasn’t been met since the addition will have a very detrimental affect on units 22 and 32 of the adjacent building and will block sunlight from crucial windows. She said a variance was not essential and that an addition could be made with less effect on neighbors. Lucian Blazej, consultant to the Variance Holders said the Appeal is frivolous since the variance allowed so little and the project is minor. The addition is needed for extra rooms for visiting grandchildren and a home office and it will provide mid-block open space. Dick Glumac, Variance Holder, said there is 10 ½ feet of separation between the buildings and without the proposed addition the space is just big enough for a rat’s nest.
Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: Alice Barkley said there are no arguments that the ZA is wrong and his decision was not erroneous, and the east facing windows are blocked by tall apartments houses.
Public Comment for Appellant: Robert Humphries, tenant next door whose windows will be blocked by the proposed addition said his window will be dark all day long. He said a bay window would have less impact on him. Dan Phipps, architect for project asked the Board to allow the Variance which will have minimum impact on neighbors. He said he hadn’t understood that he should bring plans with him. He said reducing the size of the addition would be a hardship for his client. He said the addition is up to the retaining wall at the 2 foot 9 inch dimension and it provides a savings to the owner.
(10) APPEAL NO. V02-193
|
KEITH DICKINSON, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2065 – 14th Avenue.
[Appealing the condition(s) imposed on a Rear & [Side Yard Variance (to legalize the existing [non-conforming 4 foot 5 inch high deck and [retaining wall located in the required rear yard [and side setback on condition that the illegally [constructed non-complying second-story rear [deck be removed, and that the railings for the [lower level deck and stairs be kept open).
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0364V.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
SPEAKERS: None.
(11A) APPEAL NO. 02-196
|
RONALD
& CHERYL KARPOWICZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
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.
|
(11B) APPEAL NO. 02-197
|
RONALD
& CHERYL KARPOWICZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
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 Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Harrington dissented) to reschedule the case to Jan. 29, 2003, with the appellant’s documents to be turned in the next day by 4pm, and the permit holder’s rebuttal due directly to the Board, DBI, and Planning Department the following Monday by 4pm.
SPEAKERS: None
ITEMS (12A) & (12B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(12A) APPEAL NO. 02-199
|
VIACOM OUTDOOR, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
[900 Evans Avenue.
[Appealing the denial on Sept. 27, 2002, of [Permit to Erect a Sign (single pole, double-[faced flag sign, 14’ high X 48’ long, with 1,344sf [of total surface area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/03/18/1694.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
( 12B) APPEAL NO. 02-200
|
VIACOM OUTDOOR, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
[2325 Jerrold Avenue.
[Appealing the denial on Sept. 27, 2002, of [Permit to Erect a Sign (single pole, center [mounted sign, 14’ high X 48’ long, with 1,344sf [of total surface area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/03/20/1962.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
SPEAKERS: None
(13) APPEAL NO. 02-202
|
JEFFREY NORRIS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[41 Josiah Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on October 1, 2002, to [Orette Broderick, Site Permit to Alter a Building [(3-story addition to the rear of the existing [2-story structure).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/12/26/5893S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
SPEAKERS: Jeffrey Norris, Appellant, asked the Board to uphold the permit with the revisions dated January 15, 2003, which are acceptable to him. James Rizzo, appearing for the Permit Holder said that the parties had reached an agreement and he asked the Board to uphold the permit with the plan dated January 15, 2003 attached.
No public comment for either side.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 11:10 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
