2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 b>
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2000
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
(FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET)
PRESENT: President John McInerney, Vice-President
Arnold Chin, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and
Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary; Judith
Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood Planning,
Planning Department; and Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, Department
of Building Inspection.
(1) ANNUAL ELECTION OF OFFICERS.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah,
the Board voted 5-0 to elect Vice-President Arnold Chin as the new President,
and to elect Commissioner Sabrina Saunders as the new Vice-President.
SPEAKERS: President Chin thanked the Board
for its confidence in him and asked that Commissioner McInerney chair this
meeting.
(2) 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.
(3) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND
QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: 1. Commissioner McInerney
announced that he expected to leave at 6:45 p.m.
REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF BOARD
RULES:
ITEM A: Request by Commissioner
Cullum for the Board to suspend its rules and set aside its October 13,
1999 decision not to grant a rehearing for Appeal No. 99-073 for the property
at 470 25th Avenue, owned by Hugo Villavicensio, and to consider
again the Request for Rehearing filed by Raquel Fox, attorney for appellant/tenant
Frank Daijo. This appeal was heard on July 14, 1999 when by a vote of 4-0
the Board recused Vice President Chin from participating, and on Commissioner
Cullum’s motion to disapprove, the Board voted 3-1 (President McInerney
dissenting), and the permit was upheld, four votes being necessary to disapprove
a permit.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner
Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion
by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissenting)
to SUSPEND THE RULES and set aside its October 13, 1999 decision not to
grant a rehearing for Appeal No. 99-073, thus giving the appellant/tenant
in the case another 10 day period to file a Request for Rehearing.
SPEAKERS: 1. Jonathan Bornstein,
attorney for permit holder, and Raquel Fox, attorney for appellant, both
announced that they were present. There was no public testimony.
(4) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE:
REQUEST FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND
APPEAL PERIOD:
ITEM A: Letter from Wael Qahhaz
requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Taxicab Commission Resolution
No. 74-99, a suspension of taxicab permit 50850 for 6 months commencing
January 5, 2000, as well as the imposition of probation on said permit for
a period of 2 years.
Date of Taxicab Commission
Decision December 16, 1999
Last day to appeal December
31, 1999
Request for jurisdiction January
11, 2000
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner
El Qadah, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissenting) to GRANT
the Request for Jurisdiction, thus giving Mr. Qahhaz a new 15-day period
to file his appeal.
SPEAKERS: 1. Wael Qahhaz, requestor,
said he hadn’t filed on time because of a neck injury and a lack of appeal
fee at the time. 2. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney, opposed allowing
a late filing of the appeal since there were not any good reasons for waiving
the appeal period.
(5) APPEAL NO. 99-126
DONALD TRIERWEILER, Appellant
vs.
TAXICAB COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Revocation on August 1,
1999, of Taxi- [cab Medallion No. 654.
[RESOLUTION NO. 33-99.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum,
the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the Taxicab Commission’s resolution revoking
Taxicab Medallion No. 654. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum,
the Board voted 5-0 to ADOPT the findings prepared for this case by Thomas
Owen, Deputy City Attorney.
SPEAKERS: 1. Thomas Owen, Deputy City Attorney,
explained that the appellant had no waybills and hadn’t come close to following
the rules for medallion holders, and that he was relying on the death of
his father in 1997 to explain failure to comply with rules in 1998 and 1999.
2. John Stringer, attorney for appellant, argued that the appellant had
acted without benefit of counsel and had not been aware of his ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act) rights after he was injured. He admitted there had
been some technical violations, but none that warranted revocation. 3. Ron
Walter of the United Taxicab Workers urged the Board to uphold the revocation
which would free a medallion for one of the 2000 people on the waiting list.
4. Ralph Jacobson, a medallion owner at Yellow Cab said he’s known the appellant
thirteen years and he is sure the appellant was familiar with all the rules
even before he obtained a medallion.
Items (6A) and (6B) shall be heard together
(6A) APPEAL NO.
98-136
ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL
|
[Denial on July 15, 1998,
of permit to [Demolish a Building at 407 Connecticut [Street.
[APPLICATION NO. 9715365
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to March 8,
2000 prior to the meeting.
SPEAKERS: None.
(6B) APPEAL NO.
98-137
ALLAN & LORRAINE THOMPSON, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL
|
[Denial on July 15, 1998,
of permit to [Erect a Building (two dwelling units) at [407 Connecticut
Street.
[APPLICATION NO. 9715364.
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to March 8,
2000 prior to the meeting.
SPEAKERS: None.
(7) APPEAL NO. 99-035
LUCINDA HAMPTON, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[Protesting issuance on
November 12, [1998, to John and Evelyn [Schiappacasse, permit to Alter
a [Building (remove walls to provide [parking spaces and remove daycare
[facility) at 2234-2236 Francisco Street.
[APPLICATION NO. 9823286.
[JURISDICTION GRANTED MARCH
18, [1999.
[FOR FURTHER HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the
Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to
March 8, 2000.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood
Planning, PD, reported that the appellant had begun to file a variance application
and he expected it to be completed soon. 2. Andrew Zacks, attorney for permit
holders, urged the Board to uphold the permit since no variance could be
considered without the owner’s permission and the property has been "Ellised"
and the tenant is no longer a lawful tenant.
(8) APPEAL NO. 99-156
JONATHAN DOSKOW, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[Protesting issuance on
September 20, [1999, to Lille Koski, permit to Alter a [Building (build
new fence along side [property line) at 2309 Lincoln Way.
[APPLICATION NO. 9919766.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney,
the Board voted 4-0 to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by
Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0 to GRANT the permit on CONDITION
that the top 3 feet of the 8 foot fence be trellis/lattice work.
SPEAKERS: 1. Audrey Montana, attorney for appellant,
explained her client’s opposition to the subject fence and showed photos.
2. Claire Pilcher, also an attorney for appellant, explained how the fence
is a nuisance and a hazard to the safety of the tenants of the apartment
whose window faces the fence. She said it was a spite fence maliciously
installed and it serves no useful purpose. 3. Paul Koski, permit holder,
explained the purpose of the fence and the wall is to protect his privacy
from the tenant next door whose window is at the level of his yard, and
that it was not a spite fence. He also said that he felt the window should
have been covered over when the apartment was created so that the problems
would not have arisen. 4. Mark Bordonaro, the tenant of the apartment, testified
that there had been no vandalism or trespassing on the Koski’s property.
5. Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, DBI, testified as to the
Code provisions regarding property line windows. 6. Jonathan Doskow, appellant,
reviewed the history of the apartment and the fence over the years, and
the changing use of the yard and the malicious intent of the permit holder.
(9) APPEAL NO. 99-078
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY, Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[Determination by the Zoning
[Administrator dated May 3, 1999 [requiring removal of the painted wall
[sign at 465 - 10th Street because it was [discontinued for more than
three years [and no new wall signs are permitted in [the SLR zoning
district under Planning [Code Section 816. Permit Application [No. 9814260
was issued in error. [Appellant has 30 days to respond with a [program
to correct this violation or this [matter will sent to the City Attorney
for [abatement.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board
voted 4-0 to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner
El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0 to OVERRULE the Zoning Administrator’s Determination,
and ALLOW the building permit applications to go forward on CONDITION that
no more than 4 layers of ad print be placed on the sign at one time, and on
CONDITION that appellant Eller Media purchase an insurance policy on behalf
of Craig Rowland, the abutting property owner, with FINDINGS as stated into
the record by Commissioner Cullum.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, Chief of Neighborhood
Planning, PD, explained the provisions of Planning Code Section 183 as they
applied to the subject sign, a discontinued non-comforming use, which cannot
be reestablished. 2. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the appellant sign company,
said he was convinced the Zoning Administrator is wrong and that the permit
was properly issued for the existing sign. 3. Craig Rowland, owner of the
abutting property, urged the Board to uphold the department and described
his problems with the sign over the years. 4. David Sweeney, an employee of
the sign company, responded to a Board question about how the sign was constructed.
There being no further business,
President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
_____________________________
Arnold Y.
K. Chin, President
_____________________________
Robert H. Feldman
Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these proceedings
can be obtained from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter,
(415) 362-5991.