Meeting Information

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.

SPEAKERS: None.

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM A: 281 & 285 Edgewood Avenue. Letter from Judith Harding, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-111, Harding vs. ZA, decided October 30, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject determination. Subject Property Owner(s): Richard & Norma Dennes.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, & Commissioners Sugaya & Saunders dissented) to grant the rehearing request. Four votes being required to grant a rehearing request, the motion failed, and the request was denied.

SPEAKERS: Judith Harding, Appellant, requested a rehearing of her appeal for the reason she was not present at the hearing as she was out of the country. She said she is supported by several neighbors and that no notice of the hearing had been sent out to those concerned. Jeremy Paul, representing the variance holders said that the Appellant did know of the hearing date and that the Planning Commission and the Supervisors had denied DR over the building permit. He expects that she will protest the issuance of the permit and that the appeal is moot because the lot has been split already.

ITEM B: 2448 Larkin Street. Letter from Michael Guglielmino, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-195, Guglielmino vs. DBI, decided Dec. 4, 2002. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit. Permit Holder(s): Primecore. Project: renewal of Building Permit Application No(s). 99257797S, 2000/04/24/7982S1, & 2000/04/24/7982S2.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.

SPEAKERS: Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney reported that Mr. Peinado had called her and told her that he was trying to protect his copyright on the plans. Ben Hamburg, representing the permit holder, said that Mr. Peinado is not the appellant in this appeal. Michael Guglielmino, Appellant said that Peinado is in the east on military duty and that the issue here is his desire to protect the copyright on the plans being used by new owner.

No public comment for either side.

ITEM C: 1069 Pennsylvania Avenue. Letter from William Green, attorney for John Tilton, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-103, Tilton vs. ZA, decided Dec. 4, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the permit suspension request by the Zoning Administrator. Four votes being necessary under the City Charter to overturn any departmental action, the permit suspension request by the Zoning Administrator was upheld.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Harrington dissented) to deny the rehearing request.

SPEAKERS: William Green, attorney for the Appellant said that the action by the Department was not consistent and asked how long does a government agency have to suspend or revoke an issued permit. The court has said a few weeks may be all right but not years.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the subject permit. Four votes being required to overturn any departmental action, the motion passed, and the subject permit was upheld.

SPEAKERS: Randolph George, Appellant, said his project is now finished and painted and that he met the conditions imposed by the Board. He feels proposed fence is a spite fence and shouldn't be allowed. Donald Jans, Permit Holder, said he needs the proposed wall to keep out the noise created by the appellant's equipment for the hot tub. He described the history of this dispute. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI reported on his site visit and the nature of the permits involved and said the permits meet the City Code.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Harrington and Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Three votes are needed to deny and four votes to grant jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission described this appeal of the decision not to add a name to a medallion 23 years after the City action on it. The fact that the decision contained boilerplate language on the Police Department decision letter about the Board appeal process doesn't give the Board jurisdiction over this action and there is no jurisdiction under the Charter for this appeal. The appellant's father purchased the medallion 53 years ago and the family has recouped its cost many times over. Under Prop K names cannot be added to a medallion after the death of the original owner and any witnesses to the events described by the Appellant are now dead. John Feldmann III, attorney for the Appellant said this case was not similar to the Lazar case and that Mary Adams, the widow of the original holder tried to add the names of her two children to the medallion but was wrongly advised by the Police Department that only one name could be added. He referred to the declaration submitted to support his position.

Public Comment for Appellant: Joe Maranz said he understands Mary's frustration in being ill advised and not having both her children's names added to the medallion.

Public Comment for the Taxi Commission: Mark Gruberg of the United Taxi Workers said he believes the Board has jurisdiction over the decision as the Commission's denial of request to add Appellant's name to medallion is the same as a denial of a permit and a denial is clearly appealable to the Board but Appellant is 25 years late in appealing Mary should have appealed at the time the PD refused to add her son's name but she did nothing and Prop K takes precedence and the appeal can't be approved. Ron Walker, a driver said he agrees with the Commission and the appeal should be denied since this is like a transfer of a medallion which is prohibited by Prop. K. In fact, the main point of Prop K which requires that upon the death of a permit holder the permit goes back to the City for issuance to the next applicant on the list. If appeal is granted people will come out of the woodwork to add names to permits. Inspector Farrell Suslow of the Taxi Detail said that there is no on-going log of people reviewing taxi files but there is a requirement that P.D. staff sit with those reviewing files to prevent items being removed or added to them. Judith Boyajian, DCA, said in her view the Board has no jurisdiction to decide this appeal since this is a matter of adding a name and not granting, denying, suspending or revoking a permit. She said matter had been continued so that jurisdiction issue could be briefed and that three votes could deny jurisdiction and four votes are necessary to grant jurisdiction.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the medallion be suspended for 60 days.

SPEAKERS: Naomi Little for Taxi Commission gave history of Appellant's failure to drive his cab over the past three years and asked Board to uphold this revocation since neither the Appellant nor Yellow could produce the waybills needed to prove the driving requirement was met. Mohammed Bakir, Appellant, said he has been driving a cab for 35 years and this was a case of a misunderstanding since he had driven many shifts over the period in question and it is unfair to revoke his permit.

Public Comment for City: Mark Gruberg of UTW, said that Yellow has good records and that the Appellant can still drive a cab. The revocation takes away a tremendous privilege and that the process has much latitude for driver's problems and there is no excuse for failing to meet the requirement to drive a certain amount of shifts.

Public Comment for Appellant: Nathan Dwiri of Yellow Cab said the Appellant is his own worst witness. He owns his own cab and drives it; Yellow doesn't operate it and he keeps his own records. Now drivers must log in and off and the computer record shows Appellant has driven 200 shifts in 2002, even if he hasn't waybills to prove it. Yellow gives drivers receipts for waybills submitted. Appellant is guilty of being careless and did not try to evade the law. He just doesn't grasp what he must do to meet the Code. Fadel Zarn said he is a driver and that he sees the Appellant driving once or twice each week, and he thinks revocation is unfair. Jim Nakamura of a taxicab association said that there were no guidelines before last year and the rules are inflexible; if you don't drive you are revoked. He said Yellow's records are notorious and when you submit your waybills you don't know if they are kept. Mike Diyana said the Appellant's friend was killed in the cab while driving and it was terribly upsetting to the Appellant who couldn't keep driving with blood on the cab seat. Ray Yagmur said he sees him driving around town.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial on condition that the subject tree be replaced with a smaller species to be furnished by DPW.

SPEAKERS: Tony Walcott, Acting Urban Forester for DPW said it is a relatively young tree which can be pruned on top and at roots and it adds to the narrow lane which is tree lined and replacement tree wouldn't be expensive and he would try to get one from City nursery. John McGlynn, Appellant said he was told by DPW to repair his sidewalk and he thought he'd replace the tree with one of another more appropriate and smaller species, as his sidewalk is being cracked and pushed up and down by the existing tree as well as the staircase being lifted.

ACTION: Appeal withdrawn by the appellant.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Feb. 12, 2003 at the request of the parties who did not appear.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Appeal rescheduled to March 19, 2003 at the request of the parties prior to the meeting.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject determination with a finding that the proposed use is an accessory use under Planning Code § 729.95(c), which is in conflict with § 790.55, and on condition that the sale of organic beer & wine be limited to 2% of gross retail floor/shelf space.

SPEAKERS: Jim Nixon, Chief of Neighborhood Planning speaking for the ZA, explained that the Planning Code is clear and no retail store with an ABC No. 20 04 21 alcoholic beverage license is permitted in this zoning district with no exceptions. The Supervisors evaded this amendment at the behest of neighborhoods which strongly oppose any new liquor stores. Some districts can have them as conditional uses but none in NC-3 at all. Bruce Remund of Thom's Natural foods said that this neighborhood is right for sale of organic alcoholic beers and wines and they will have a small shelf area for them, only 4 x 6 feet in a store with 4,000 gsf. All products on four feet of shelving. Harry O'Brien representing the appellant described the proposed use as just a minor related accessory use which is permitted under the Planning Codes. There will be no proliferation since this use is being transferred from the Haight and there is no net increase in liquor stores, since this is just for organic beer and wine. His client will accept reasonable conditions to restrict the use.

No public comment for either side.

ACTION: Appeal rescheduled to April 23, 2003 at the request of the parties prior to the meeting.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the hearing to Feb. 12, 2003 at the request of the parties who did not appear.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit with the settlement as read into the record by the permit holder's agent.

SPEAKERS: Jerry Yee, Appellant said his house was designed by Daniel Solomon and he is just trying to protect its light, air, views and privacy by a minor change in the proposed roofline, but the Permit Holder refuses to compromise. He just asks that roof be lowered two or three feet in front, just a small notch to mitigate the effect. Ralph Henson, Permit Holder and co-owner with Elizabeth Foree, said they chose a design that has the least impact on the neighbors. He asked the Board to uphold his permit with the plans approved by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2002.

No public comment for either side.

ACTION: Hearing rescheduled to Feb. 26, 2003 prior to the meeting at the request of the parties.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Steve Hammer, Appellant, described how the proposed project will impact his privacy on his deck. He said he felt the negotiation about the design was in bad faith and resulted in a project that was larger, not smaller. Phil Matthews, architect for the permit holders described the addition proposed as small with only 500 sf footprint ad two stories in height, for which his clients have been in the permit process for two years. He said the project results in mid-block open space being maintained. Jim Nixon representing the Planning Department said that the proposal complies with the Residential Design Guidelines and the special Bernal Heights Design Guidelines and the Planning Commission approved the project with no revisions required.

No public comment for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.

SPEAKERS: Frederick Renz, Appellant, described the effects of the proposed three-level addition on his views of the Golden Gate Bridge, which will result in the decrease in value of his condo. Steven Vettel, attorney for the permit holder said the Appellant's remedy is against the seller and not his client, whose plans comply with the Codes and should be upheld. He reminded the Board that under California law private view easements cannot be created by the City for the benefit of a neighboring owner. The Codes don't protect views. Project is in character with the neighborhood and meets the RDG as well as the Codes. His client is creating a garage in the basement without increasing the height of the building, which is a two-family and will remain a two-family.

No public comment for either side.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the hearing to Feb. 5, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None.

No public comment for either side.