2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Kathleen Harrington, Vice President Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Arnold Chin, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA OCA); Craig NIkitas, Acting Zoning Administrator, Planning Department (AZA, PD); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (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.
|
ACTION: None.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) SPECIAL ITEM:
|
Public hearing, discussion and adoption of the Board of Appeals Incompatible Activities Statement as required by the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code § 3.218. Copies are available at the Board office, and it is posted on the Board’s website at www.sfgov.org/boa. Please address comments to Executive Secretary Robert Feldman, Board of Appeals, 1660 Mission Street #3036, SF, CA 94103. Telephone (415) 575-6880, fax (415) 575-6885, or email at robert.feldman@sfgov.org.
|
SPEAKERS: Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary, reported that the Office of the City Attorney requested the matter be continued to a time when they are able to advise all boards and commissioners on the adoption of statements. No public comment.
(4) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(4A) REHEARING REQUEST:
572 San Jose Avenue; Appeal No(s). 03-194; Tehlirian vs. DBI, PCD
|
Letter Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-194, decided March 3, 2004. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the denial and grant the permit with conditions as presented by the appellant. Four votes being required to overrule a departmental action, the denial of the subject permit was upheld. Project: on two-unit building, horizontal and vertical addition, 335sf on ground floor, 368sf on 2nd floor, and 1038sf on 3rd floor; electrical, plumbing, and mechanical under separate permit. DR Requestor(s): Jose Morales. Note: The public hearing on this rehearing request was held and closed on March 31, 2004.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to reschedule the request to June 9, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Ara Tehlirian, requestor, reported on his efforts to reach an agreement with his tenant. Jose Morales, DR Requestor(s) and tenant, asked the Board to deny the request for rehearing and said he did not want to continue trying to negotiate an agreement since the parties are in complete disagreement.
(4B) REHEARING REQUEST:
1120-1122 Vallejo Street; Appeal No(s). V03-209; Ferreira vs. ZA
|
Letter from Chris Moscone, attorney for appellants Catherine and Ann Ferreira, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). V03-209, decided March 24, 2004. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the variance with the following condition(s): a) that the north portion of the roof be sloped to allow for more sunlight into the adjacent backyard; and b) that the front (south) elevation be redesigned to reflect the solid to void ratio of buildings of a similar nature. Variance Holder(s): Susan Lee, Jennifer Cherk & Jay Capela.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Chin dissented) to grant the rehearing request, and to set the rehearing for June 30, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Chris Moscone, attorney for appellants/requestors, said that a rehearing is justified so that he can respond to the discussion between Mr. Cherk the architect and the Board. Jay Capela, co-variance holder, said he feels there is no justification for a rehearing since all the issues were discussed and no new evidence has been offered, and that there is a structural reason that the proposed revision can’t be done. No public comment.
(4C) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 239 Santa Rosa Avenue; Permit issued on November 20, 2003
Last day to appeal was December 5, 2003; Jurisdiction request received on April 6, 2004
|
Letter from Lan Ying Li, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Electrical Permit No(s). E200311205875 for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal. Project: 5 lights, 8 switches, 6 receptacles, remodel bathroom and kitchen, new furnace and water heater.
|
ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the requestor(s).
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (4D) & (4E) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(4D) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 467 Duncan Street; Variance granted on June 9, 2003
Last day to appeal was June 19, 2003; Jurisdiction request received on April 23, 2004
|
Letter from Michael Martensen, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Variance Case No(s). 2003.0279V. Project: construction of a horizontal addition at the front of the existing single-family house, construction of cylindrical dormers and a spiral staircase connected by a catwalk and glass railing on the east side of the existing roof that extends beyond the front of the existing house, and construction of a deck extending from the front façade of the building. Variance Holder(s): Michael Logue. Subject Property Owner(s): Striebeck & Miyata.
|
(4E) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 467 Duncan Street; Permit issued on Feb. 10, 2004
Last day to appeal was Feb. 25, 2004; Jurisdiction request received on April 23, 2004
|
Letter from Michael Martensen, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/03/26/0782S. Project: on single-family house, vertical and horizontal extension. Permit Holder(s): Striebeck & Miyata.
|
ACTION: These matters were withdrawn by the requestor(s).
SPEAKERS: None
ITEMS (5A) & (5B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(5A) APPEAL NO. 03-051
|
KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,
& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
21 Buena Vista East Avenue.
Appealing the determination dated March 19, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the subject property has a legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, that residential guest rooms constitute “group housing” under § 209.2 of the Planning Code, that this group housing constitutes a permitted conditional use since it was established prior to the enactment of Conditional Use (CU) requirements for said use, and that this permitted conditional use shall be considered abandoned 3 years from the last legal date of residency of the last resident of said guest rooms.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
(5B) APPEAL NO. 03-066
|
KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,
& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
21 Buena Vista East Avenue.
Appealing a determination dated April 24, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the proposed physical modifications to various residential guest rooms at the subject property would result in less viable guest rooms and would constitute a partial conversion of the structure to single family-use from its current legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, in violation of Planning Code.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule both appeals to June 23, 2004.
SPEAKERS: None
ITEMS (6A) & (6B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(6A) APPEAL NO. 03-197
|
ALL-CITY CONSTRUCTION CO., Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
641 – 27th Avenue.
Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Dec. 3, 2003, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that BPA No. 2002/09/09/5995 is hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 2/4/04.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
(6B) APPEAL NO. 03-199
|
HOWARD & SUSIE WOO, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
641 – 27th Avenue.
Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Dec. 3, 2003, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that BPA No. 2002/09/09/5995 is hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 2/4/04.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 2-3 (Commissioner Shoemaker, Vice President Sugaya & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overrule DBI with a finding that there was a demolition that exceeded the permit, but that there was no unlawful demolition, with additional findings as read into the record by Commissioner Chin. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and DBI’s Notice of Decision was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Ken Harrington, DBI, urged the Board to uphold the Director’s determination and said the appellants have admitted there was a demolition without an issued permit. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for appellant All-City Construction, said the Board’s decision need not be all or nothing, and that the City will not compromise and is dealing in bad faith. Public comment: Roy Guinane said he had spoken to a deputy city attorney who had said the Board can only uphold or overrule the decision but can’t amend the conditions imposed since these are set forth in the ordinance and there is no discretion to alter them. Jake McGoldrick said the Board must follow the law and it cannot alter the sanctions clearly set forth in the law. Bruce Bonacker said he is part of a group trying to draft a new ordinance concerning illegal demolitions, and he hopes they can create something that serves the public better than the present ordinance.
(7) APPEAL NO. 04-020
|
STEPHEN D. SMITH, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
1480 Page Street.
Appealing the denial on March 2, 2004, of a Permit to Remove and Replace One (1) Tree.
ORDER NO. 174,691.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the denial of the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Appellant did not appear for the hearing. Tony Wolcott, AUF, DPW BUF, described the subject tree and listed the reasons for his decision to deny the permit to replace it. No public comment.
ITEMS (8A), (8B) & (8C) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(8A) APPEAL NO. V03-132
|
WILLIAM CANIHAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
891 Carolina Street.
Appealing the denial on August 22, 2003, of a Front Setback Variance (proposal is to construct a new 3rd level that intrudes into the required front setback area; the project also proposes a new 4th level addition, and one additional dwelling unit on an existing single-family, two-story over garage structure, which are not subjects of the variance request).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0933V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(8B) APPEAL NO. 03-137
|
WILLIAM CANIHAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
891 Carolina Street.
Appealing a determination dated August 20, 2003, disapproving Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/05/08/6090 (construction of a 2nd dwelling unit, and a 2-story vertical and horizontal addition on an existing single-family, two-story over garage structure).
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(8C) APPEAL NO. 03-155
|
WILLIAM CANIHAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Party: KRISTINE GARDNER
|
891 Carolina Street
Appealing the denial on Sept. 30, 2003, of Site Permit to Alter a Building (substantial alteration of existing dwelling from one unit to two units; addition of top story).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/05/08/6090S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: All three appeals were withdrawn by the appellant.
SPEAKERS: None.
(9) APPEAL NO. 04-005
|
JIMMY CHU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
425 Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Jan. 5, 2004, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/02/13/7355, 2003/05/14/4558 and 2003/06/20/7261 are hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to continue the appeal to June 9, 2004 with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Ken Harrington, DBI, asked for equal time to rebut the due process argument made at the previous meeting by counsel for the appellant. He listed the credential of the hearing officer and said there was no denial of due process and that the building had been demolished except for a small wall at the rear so that in fact the construction results in a totally new house without the appellant having gone through the required procedures. David Silverman, attorney for All-City Construction, denied that there has been fraud and described the additional permits his client had obtained at the direction of the building inspector, all of which were approved by the DBI. He also described his efforts to reach an agreement with the neighborhood association on the design of the house. Public comment: Norman Meunier described the neighborhood association’s efforts to negotiate and said that they have been stonewalled. Roy Guinane said that it appears the plans were drawn not by the appellant’s daughter but by someone associated with Jimmy Jen. Bob Mosher said he saw the house come down and it appeared that the demolition was the intention from the beginning, and that the appellant may still rebuild what was illegally demolished. Paul Conroy said this was a demolition and nothing else, and that DBI’s decision is accurate. Miko Mosher said she can see the site from her window, and it appeared that the demolition was carefully planned and organized and not an accident. Jake McGoldrick said the hearing officer was clear, and that the law should be upheld. Karen Niglio said the Merced Manor association strongly supports the decision. Annemarie Conroy described what remained of the demolished house and said the façade left standing is like a false front on a movie set. Andrew Thanos said the dry rot excuse for demolition is a classic one for illegal demolitions. Don David, engineer for appellant, said there was dry rot and that people do not understand the relevant Building Code provisions. Jacqueline Young de Roover said the appellant should be permitted to go forward. Rodrigo Santos of the BIC said he is optimistic that the parties can reach an agreement. Mary Meunier said the neighborhood association meetings are open to the public and that the appellant can attend, and that he is a contractor and knows the rules well.
Craig Nikitas, AZA, said the Planning Department has not signed off on the rear yard and that a variance is needed to allow new construction in the yard.
(10) APPEAL NO. 04-017
|
YVONNE & IRWIN COTTON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
2669 Sutter Street.
Appealing the suspension on February 13, 2004, of Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/08/29/3479. Reason(s) for suspension: the above-referenced permit was approved in error over the counter by the Planning Dept., and the permit applicant knowingly abused the process to legalize a fake driveway.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 2-2-1 (President Harrington and Commissioner Saunders dissented, Commissioner Chin recused) to uphold the suspension of the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellants, asked for a continuance, and when denied, proceeded to explain the history of the driveway and how it complies with the law and is a benefit to the appellants, their tenants and the neighborhood; he also said the rear portion of the driveway is definitely wide enough for cars. Steve Williams urged the Board to go forward with the hearing since the neighbors in support of the DBI were present and had waited hours to testify. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said he is neutral on the issue of continuance, and then described the driveway and said it is too narrow for ordinary auto use since cars would hit the pipes and utility boxes on the building wall, and no parking is permitted in the rear yard. The Codes do not specify exactly what width is necessary for a driveway, only that the width be sufficient. He also said no variances had ever been granted to allow parking in the rear yard, and that a variance could not be granted now. Yvonne Cotton, co-appellant, said she modified the driveway as recommended by the planner, and that her 1973 VW could be parked in the rear. Public comment: Steve Williams said the rear building has never been a garage, and that it took a half hour to work a car through the passage way, and that the Fire Dept. said nothing can be stored in the rear building. Patrice Motley said a width of 5’3” is understandable to her since that is how tall she is; she said that that someone in the building told her that the small structure in the rear is not a garage but rather a storage space. Frank Kidder said he has seen the building used for storage and has never seen a car in it. Margie Lau says she has never seen a car in the small building. Joyce Lively said she was shocked to hear the passageway called a driveway since she has never seen a car use it. Michael Harrity said he is a tenant and his Porsche is parked in the driveway, though this is his second car and doesn’t use it frequently. Christian Gravern said it is a driveway and motorcycles can easily use it as such; he then described the written attacks he received from a neighbor on professional legal stationary. Rebecca Spitz-Gravern said that the neighborhood leader is not professional.
Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said that he and Sr. Inpsector Leo McFadden had made a site visit, and that the Building Code is silent on how wide a driveway must be, and that it appears the building in the rear was once a carriage house and now it looks like a driveway and garage.
(11) APPEAL NO. 04-019
|
OCEAN PARC VILLAGE
HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCATION, Appellant(s)
vs.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
730 Great Highway.
Protesting the issuance on March 8, 2004, to Tom and Breda MacDonald & KTH LLC, Coastal Zone Permit Authorization (proposal is to construct a new three-story, four-unit building approximately 32 feet tall on a vacant lot).
CASE NO. 2003.1009P.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to August 25, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(12) APPEAL NO. 04-021
|
EDWIN HOUTKOOPER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2258 Beach Street.
Protesting the issuance on March 9, 2004, to Richard Garcia, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: revisions and clarifications to supercede existing permit no(s). 9822604, 98251205, 9909806, 2000/04/25/8211, 2000/12/18/8145, 2001/03/28/5423, 2001/11/20/3576, 2001/11/20/3577, 2002/09/19/6941, 2002/09/27/7692, 2002/11/14/1488, and 2002/11/14/1489 to achieve final inspection).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/07/02/8662.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit and to adopt the Planning Commission’s findings of Feb. 13, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Edwin Houtkooper, appellant, said he opposes a final inspection because of the many violations still uncorrected, and because City employees have not done their duty and enforced the Code. Graham Maloney, attorney for permit holder, said that the work has been completed for a year, and that the permit holder is living in the building, and that the Planning Commission has approved the project, and that it is fully Code compliant. Larry Paul, architect for permit holder, said they obtained all the required permits, and that the only issue remaining is the decorative features on the greenhouse.
Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained the consolidation permit and that the elevator permit should have gone to Planning for review though the Planning Commission has approved the project. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said that the change in elevations should have a required a 311 notice, but that the Planning Commission had not granted DR, and although the department has made some errors, the Planning Commission did approve it. No public comment.
There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
______________________________ _________________________________
Kathleen Harrington, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
