2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 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); Jonas Ionin, for the Planning Dept. and Zoning Administrator; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI (CBI DBI); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry (AUB BUF); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED TC); 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: None.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 75 Miraloma Drive. Letter from Candy Tsang, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-038, Tsang vs. DBI, PDA, decided April 30, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, and Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to uphold the subject permit. Four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action, the motion passed, and the subject permit was upheld with no conditions.
Permit Holder(s): William Mandel. Project: 3-story single family house, 31’ in height, with 880sf of ground floor area.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 1-4 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, & Commissioners Sugaya and Saunders dissented) to grant the rehearing request. Four votes being required to grant such a request, the motion failed, and the rehearing request was denied.
SPEAKERS: Candy Tsang, appellant, asked the Board to grant a rehearing because the permit holder continues to show disrespect for the neighbors. Michael Slade, appellant, explained the concerns of the neighbors about the project and the height measurement which fail to meet the Code. Chris Moscone, attorney for the permit holder, objected to a rehearing because the appellants had not offered any new evidence that would justify a rehearing, and he said the height meets the Code, and that the project should go forward. Jonas Ionin, PD, said the height has been properly measured under the Code.
(4) APPEAL NO. 02-201
|
JAMES VIEGAS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[91 San Felipe Ave.
[Protesting the issuance on October 2, 2002, to [Mark Sears & Russell Schrader, Permit to Alter [a Building (on single-family house: additional [information as requested by District Building [Inspector regarding the planters from Building [Permit Application No(s). 2001/12/19/5627; [show as built planter wall (under rear deck and [stair case), correct garage roof deck, finished [floor elevation).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/02/7981.
[PARTIAL TESTIMONY HEARD APRIL 2, [2003.
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that DBI review all engineering and structural plans associated with the retaining wall.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said that his department has sent out a letter to the permit holders for additional materials regarding the engineering of the project and described the potential problems with the changed nature of the wall, and that tie backs may work well to strengthen it but that the new material has not yet been received. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, using a Powerpoint presentation, gave an overview of the project and described his client’s concerns. Pat Buskovich, agent for appellant, described his view of the soil problems, which may be a hazardous situation for his client. He asked for either revocation of the permit or a continuation of the hearing to ensure that proper engineering is done for the project. Mark Sears, co-permit holder, said he and his partner are victims in this matter and that the project is safe and properly engineered. Russell Schrader, co-permit holder, said they have submitted the documents required by the department. No public comment.
(5) 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.
(5A) APPEAL NO. 03-059
|
CHIK HUNG KAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
[1540 – 8th Avenue.
[Appealing the imposition of penalty on April [18, 2003, for work done without a permit (on [single-family house: addition, 1 story in the [back to be removed because it was built [without a permit).
[APPLICATION NO. 2003/03/13/9571.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Elaine Kan, daughter of appellant, said the structure is for storage and has no electricity or water and that the family would like to retain it, but that the money is needed because there are 3 children in college so they have decided to demolish it. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained the Building Code exemption for small storage sheds but that this situation did not meet that exemption. No public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-052
|
LANDO SIU, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on March 25, 2003, [of taxicab medallion #1181.
[RESOLUTION NO. 2003-12.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker and Sugaya dissented) to overrule the revocation on condition that the subject medallion be suspended for 3 months. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the revocation was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, described the reasons for the revocation, mainly for failure to meet the fulltime driving requirement under Prop. K, and for failure to maintain proper waybills under the Police Code. Lando Siu, appellant, submitted evidence of payment to him for use of the medallion and said the income from the medallion is his only source of funds to take care of his family.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-019
|
LIKE LIU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[2282 – 28th Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on November 12, 2002, [to Cheng Lee, Permit to Alter a Building (on [single-family house: remove illegal unit at ground [floor, remove non-bearing partitions, kitchen, [toilet and closet; create new storage).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/12/1225.
[JURISDICTION GRANTED JAN. 22, 2003.
[THE BOARD VOTED 4-0-1 ON APRIL 2, [2003 TO UPHOLD THE SUBJECT PERMIT [DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF [APPELLANT. ON APRIL 30, 2003, THE [BOARD VOTED 5-0 TO GRANT THE [APPELLANT’S REHEARING REQUEST.
[FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the appeal to the call of the chair with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Like Liu, appellant, said that the landlord never told him the unit was illegal and that he has paid his rent, and that he feels cheated for the past nine years. Cheng Lee, permit holder, said he has tried to repair all the units and that the tenant signed a document that he would withdraw his petition at the Rent Board in July and that the tenant did know it was an illegal unit and that he is not doing the project as a way of evicting the tenant, but rather because of the DBI which acted on a complaint. Public comment for the appellant: Ming Zhang, friend of the appellant, said that the landlord has been unfair to the tenant who has lived there for nine years. No public comment for the permit holder. Jonas Ionin, PD, explained how the Board could make a finding to allow the unit to stay only if it had been created when the Code would have permitted it. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said that there seems to be no fire safety hazards involved and that such things as ceiling height discrepancies are not considered hazardous conditions.
(8) APPEAL NO. V03-024
|
ALFRED LEE, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[423 – 35th Avenue.
[Appealing the denial on Feb. 6, 2003, of Rear [Yard & Front Setback Variances (subject [property, a 3-story, 2-family house was built [subsequent to Planning Commission [Discretionary Review Case No(s). [1997.0380D, but in violation of the plans [approved by the Commission, and to an extent [that would require a variance from the [requirements of the Planning Code to allow the [building to remain.)
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.1210V.
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED MAY [14, 2003.
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY, [WITH A SITE INSPECTION REPORT [FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING [INSPECTION & PLANNING [DEPARTMENT.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overturn the denial and grant the variance with conditions/findings as stated by President Chin.
SPEAKERS: Leo McFadden, SBI DBI, reported on the site visit he and others made on May 21 and that the solutions recommended by the appellant could meet the Building Code but that DBI must still check all the structure, wiring and plumbing before a permit can be approved, which will require significant opening of walls. Geofrey Nelson, PD, said he agreed with the proposal by the appellant, which basically brings the project back to the design originally approved by the Commission. Chris Moscone, attorney for the appellant, presented his revisions and asked the Board to grant the variance. Public comment for the Planning Department: Jay Talkoff said he has not yet received the revisions and had just received a letter from the attorney last night, which is how the appellant usually operates, but that this is the first encouraging thing from the appellant. He asked the Board to see that the appellant adheres to the approved plans this time.
(9) APPEAL NO. 02-096
|
RAFAEL MIRANDA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADNMISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1255 Goettingen Street.
[Appealing a determination dated May 22, 2002, [addressed to Rafael Miranda, that the legal use [of the subject property is a single-family dwelling [because the building was constructed as a single-[family house, because no permit could be found [which authorized the addition of a second [dwelling unit, and because the permit history [indicates the continued use of the structure as a [single-family structure.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the determination with a finding that 1255 Goettingen Street is lot 13, and that 1257 Goettingen Street is lot 12.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, PD, explained the department’s action and that the Code will not permit the legalization of this building as 2 units. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, described the existing conditions, which shows that the building was built for 2-family occupancy since it has two original portals, two utility meters and is much larger than the one-family houses around it, and has been assessed as 2-units since 1938. No public comment.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-036
|
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[3251-3253 Steiner St. / 2205 Lombard St.
[Protesting the issuance on Feb. 24, 2003, to [Margaret Pocoroba, Permit to Erect a Sign [(reinstallation of two 12’ X 24’ signs as soon as [the existing mixed commercial building is [waterproofed; existing angle and lag at wall to [remain in place during removal and reinstallation).
[APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/24/8142.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Jared Eigerman, attorney for appellant, said the signs are non-comforming uses, which cannot be reinstalled under the Code once removed. He said his client removed the signs after negotiations for purchase of them by the owner fell through and the owner required their removal. Brett Gladstone, attorney for the permit holder, said that it took his client 5 months to get the permit because of delay by the department, and that his client is reinstalling these two lawful signs to generate income desperately needed by her elderly mother. Margaret Pocoroba, permit holder, said that she had filed her applications before Prop. G was adopted, and the permit was issued afterword because of the five-month delay by the department. Jonas Ionin, PD, said the appellant had voluntarily abandoned the permits for the signs in February by letter to the ZA, and that the signs were lawful and Code compliant. No public comment for the appellant. Public comment for the permit holder: Mark Fineman said he was present during the negotiations between the appellant’s agent and the permit holder and that the agent said the sign would produce very little revenue and tried to wear her down and intimidate her. Don Lawson said he helped the permit holder and that the State has cancelled the appellant’s permits which are necessary for signs visible from state highways. Tim Brown said the Pocoroba family needs the income from the signs very much and the revenue from this would be five or six thousand a month, $60,000 to $72,000 a year, and that if the signs were lost the property value would be reduced. Kevin Hicks said he has a small sign business but is not involved with these signs; he said this is a dispute between a big corporation and an 80-year old woman after the appellant has lost the lease, using bullying tactics to get it back. Patricia Vaughey, said she has made an inventory of signs on Lombard Street and she has heard that the big sign companies have been using strong arm tactics regarding sign leases when they should be fair to the owners. Ed Ong, Caltrans, said that when a sign permit holder loses the consent of the property owner, then the agency informs the permit holder that he/she no longer has a state permit for the billboard.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-053
|
ADRIAN & ANNE DOLLARD, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1812-1816 Green Street.
[Appealing a Request for Suspension dated [March 25, 2003, addressed to Frank Chiu, [Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, [that Building Permit Application No(s). [2003/01/28/6145 be suspended for the reason [that this permit incorrectly represented the [current legal use of the property as a single [family dwelling when it is in fact a two-family [dwelling, and for the reason that the said permit [is now being used as justification for a [third [Building Permit Application (2002/02/21/8004) [which proposes to remove an illegal kitchen on [the 1st floor, which is not illegal, and said [proposal instead constitutes a dwelling unit [merger subject to a mandatory Discretionary [Review process.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to June 11, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul said he requests a rescheduling of the appeal so that there will be five members present since he must have at least four votes to prevail.
(12) 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 President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to June 25, 2003 with this appeal to be first on the agenda.
SPEAKERS: Jerry Williams said he agrees to a rescheduling of the appeal, and asks that it be early on the calendar.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 9:00 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.
