2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2004
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker, Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya, and Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Craig Nikitas, Acting Zoning Administrator (AZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED, TC); Sgt. William Coggan for the Police Dept. Legal Division (PD LD); Executive Secretary Robert Feldman, 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) ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to elect Vice President Harrington as President and to elect Commissioner Sugaya as Vice President.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(4) SPECIAL ITEM(S):
ITEM A: Presentation by Planning Dept. staff of the Revised Residential Design Guidelines.
SPEAKERS: Max Putra and Isolde Wilson, Planners, presented the new residential design guidelines and responded to Board questions. No public comment.
ITEM B: Presentation by Planning Dept. staff of the recently adopted Temporary Residential Demolition Policy.
ACTION: Rescheduled to a later date.
SPEAKERS: None.
(5) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(5A) REHEARING REQUEST:
Taxi Medallion No(s). 129; Appeal No(s). 02-020; Adams vs. Taxi Commission
|
Letter from John Feldmann III, Attorney for David Adams, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-020, decided June 25, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the Taxi Commission and add the appellant’s name to the subject medallion. Four votes being required under Charter § 4.106 to overturn or modify a departmental action, the motion failed, and the Taxi Commission’s denial of the request to add the appellant’s name to medallion no. 129 was upheld.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to grant the rehearing request and to set the rehearing for March 10, 2004.
SPEAKERS: John Feldmann III, attorney for appellant/requestor, asked the Board to grant a rehearing and described the history of his client’s attempt to have his name added to the subject medallion. Naomi Little, ED TC, opposed the request since no new testimony was being offered that could justify a rehearing. Inpsector Farrell Suslow, PD TD, explained his understanding of the facts in the case. No public comment.
(5B) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:
3632-3638 Sacramento Street; Appeal No(s). 03-122;
Bulkley vs. DBI, Planning Dept. Disapproval
|
Proposed findings submitted by appellant Honor Bulkley. For discussion and adoption. Note: On Dec. 3, 2003, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the denial, and grant the permit with adoption of findings on Dec. 17, 2003. Project: on two-story office/residential building in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District: level two has apparently been used for offices since 1976; the purpose of this application is to legalize present use; no construction is proposed. Property Owner(s): Honor Bulkley.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the findings submitted by the appellant’s attorney on Feb. 3, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Michael Yarne, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to adopt the findings his office submitted prepared in consultation with the Office of the City Attorney. No public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-198
|
PETER MAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
662 Mission Street.
Appealing the denial on December 2, 2003, of a Valet Parking-Fixed Location Permit (P48).
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to overrule the denial, and grant the permit on condition that the appellant not park cars or control keys, and on condition that a third party undertake the valet service, with findings as read into the record by President Chin.
SPEAKERS: Sgt. William Coggan, PD LD, explained the nature of the application and why the Chief denied it. Dave Neville, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to grant the permit and agreed to conditions restricting the appellant from driving any of the cars at all. No public comment.
(7) CONSENT ITEMS (DBI PENALTY):
|
With the consent of the Dept. 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.
|
(7A) APPEAL NO. 03-195
|
PRENTICE STEFFEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
122 Hugo Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on November 12, 2003, for work done without a permit (on 2-unit building: NOV #200343243; add partitions to separate one large storage area into a weight room, passage way and storage room).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/10/03/6543.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None; consent was granted by DBI.
(7B) APPEAL NO. 03-200
|
JAMES CHAU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
2783 Folsom Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on Dec. 17, 2003 for work done without a permit (on two-story office-building: as built layout, for final inspection only, interior layout changes only).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/11/04/9386.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeals to the call of the chair.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, requested that the Board continue the case until the appellant has gone through the required conditional use (CU) process with the Planning Commission. No public comment.
(8) 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.
Note: 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. At the rehearing of June 4, 2003, the Board voted to place the matter on the Call of the Chair so that the parties could work on an agreement. Both parties have now requested that the matter be brought back to the Board.
REHEARING HELD & CLOSED ON JUNE 4, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
Further Note: Audiotapes of the June 4, 2003 testimony were available for review by Board members.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that no work begin until June 30, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Like Liu, appellant, gave a history of his tenancy and asked the Board to legalize his apartment so that he would not lose his home. Jeffrey Chen, attorney for permit holder, said there was discussion but that no agreement had been arrived at, and that the parties were still very far apart. He asked the Board to uphold the permit so that his client can correct the violations as set forth in the NOV. Public comment for appellant: Ming Zhang explained that there are many illegal untis in the Sunset, and that evicting the appellant would be a severe hardship on the appellant and his family. No public comment for permit holder. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said there is no way the unit can be legalized under the current Planning Code.
(9) APPEAL NO. V03-106
|
ROGER LOTZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
561 Sanchez Street.
Protesting the granting on June 24, 2003, to Gordon Atkinson (Subject Property Owner Gus Nelson), Rear Yard Variance (on single-family house: construction of a deck and stairs within the required rear yard of the existing, non-complying, single-family dwelling; the proposed deck would extend 3 feet to the north from the north building wall of the legal non-complying extension, 12 feet towards the rear with the stairs extending an additional 10 feet at the south side of the deck; no privacy screen is required).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0040V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the variance with the following condition(s): that the deck be pulled back on the appellant’s side to line up with the subject building; that a small 3 foot deck be allowed in front of the living room sliding door; and that open rails be used on the sides of both decks that face the appellant’s property.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained the variance decision. Roger Lotz, appellant, described the effect of the project on his property. Eva del Campo, wife of the appellant, elaborated on her husband’s presentation in opposition to the variance decision, saying that sunlight blockage is the main concern. Gordon Atkinson, architect for the owners, gave an analysis of the shadowing that will and will not occur from the project. Public comment for appellant: John Horwedel said he is a tenant in the appellant’s building and that loss of sunlight and privacy are the main issues. Public comment for owners: Ed Hardy said he feels the project is reasonable, and that the appellant has already opposed the project under the DR process.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-153
|
MICHAEL McCREADY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
355 Country Club Drive.
Protesting the issuance on September 18, 2003, to Karen Wong, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: 2nd floor addition).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/08/21/6532S.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD DEC. 10, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, reported to the Board on his review of the revised plans which had been submitted, and said that the plans conformed to the conditions required by the Board. The addition does not exceed 1,100sf of floor area as restricted by the Board. Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained that there was no deck shown on the original plans, and there was no roof area on which to place it, and that the plans are consistent with the Board’s revisions and privacy issues are of concern. Bruce Selby, agent for appellant, said there are many violations and that the plans are not consistent with the Board’s ruling and asked the Board to reinstate the 900sf limit imposed by the Planning Commission. Jeremy Paul, agent for permit holder, said that no new 311 notice was required by the Planning Dept., and that no new evidence was being offered that could justify denying the permit. No public comment.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-191
|
KUMAR PATEL
& DOUGLAS GOLDMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2518 Union Street.
Protesting the issuance on October 31, 2003, to Marc Cabi, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: 3-story rear addition, bay additions east/west sides, new foundation, garage addition, terrace addition at front, new rear egress stair, roof alterations, remodel kitchen and bathrooms).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/04/11/6580.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit with the settlement as agreed to by the parties, with amendments as read into the record by the parties.
SPEAKERS: Lu Blazej, agent for appellants, announced the settlement to the Board. David Cincotta, attorney for permit holder, described various amendments that had also been agreed to by the parties. No public comment.
ITEMS (12A) & (12B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(12A) 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 Building Permit Application No(s). 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.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(12B) 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 Building Permit Application No(s). 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.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the appeals to March 24, 2004, with submittals due by March 3, 2004 from DBI, and March 10, 2004 from the appellants, with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained the Code provisions concerned with unlawful demolitions and the penalties imposed for them and he described the facts in this case that led to the director’s decision. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for appellant All City Construction Co., said his client had no intention to avoid the Code requirements, and that the penalties are draconian and not justified in this case where there is no objection to the project. Roger Meredith, attorney for appellants Howard and Susie Woo, said his clients had no knowledge of the violations or of the Code requirements, and that they relied on the contractor to obtain all necessary permits. Public comment for respondent: Maria Sousa said overruling the decision would send a message to developers that they can avoid the demolition permit process with impunity. No public comment for appellants. Kan Harrington, Dep. Director of DBI, urged the Board to uphold the decision because the facts of the violation and the Code provisions are all clear and not ambiguous. Long Xu, owner of All-City Construction Co., said he saw rotten wood and took the house down in order to build according to the plans. Neil Sofia, former architect of owners, said he urged the owners to have him monitor the project, and if he had, the problem would not have happened, and that there is no conflict between the structural and architectural plans.
(13) APPEAL NO. 03-201
|
MARIO CASTAGNOLA, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
529 – 21st Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on December 5, 2003, to Waishan Leung, Site Permit to Erect a Building (4-story, 2-unit building with 1,770sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/06/14/9075S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Harrington dissented) to uphold the subject permit with the following condition(s): that the entrance be changed to a one-story entrance; and that white reflective paint be used in the light wells.
SPEAKERS: Mario Castagnola, appellant, said he has three concerns with the project: the excavation which threatens his foundation; the lack of matching light wells; and the fourth floor which will block his two top windows. Dennis Estrada, agent for appellant, said the neighbors’ main objection is that the proposed building will be too big for the site and out of character with the neighborhood. Jessica Leung, agent for permit holder, described her family and how they intend to live in the house which will not be out of scale with the neighborhood. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said the project must have proper underpinning so that it will not endanger the neighbors’ property. He urged the Board to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision approving the permit and plans. Public comment for appellant: Philip Cranna said the house will be too big and will not fit into the neighborhood. Jim Draper is concerned about a possible illegal unit being created in the basement. Henry Peglar said he wants to see the character of the neighborhood maintained. Mario Salinas said the plumbing and configuration of the basements is susceptible to the creation of illegal units. Greg Wright said the bathrooms in the basement are for illegal units. Nina Block said the proposed building will block her light well. Public comment for permit holder: Antonio Barrientos said there is nothing wrong with the proposal. Liu Rui Qian via Cantonese translator Esme Szeto said the permit holders have made compromises to accommodate the neighbors and it would not be fair to make them review the plans for the façade. Kim Tam via Cantonese translator Esme Szeto said he supports the project. Peter Brandtler said he thinks the existing house does not fit in but that the proposed one does. Nancy Chang said the family wants to build the house so that they can stay in the neighborhood where their parents have lived for many years. Fred Seto said the project is a good one that will enable children to take care of their aged parents. Lewison Lem said that the basement will be a library for the father who is a scholar. Gantham Reddy said the project will not be a monster house but will be a breath of fresh air, with much community support; at his request for those in the audience in support of the project, about 20 people responded. Waishan Leung, permit holder, in rebuttal said the house will allow her family to stay in the area near other family members.
(14) APPEAL NO. 03-202
|
JUDITH ALLEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2070 – 16th Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on Dec. 12, 2003, to Natalya Lvoff, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: remove kitchen facility so as to remove non-conforming unit from ground floor).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/12/12/2242.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the appeal to the call of the chair with DBI to inspect for life/safety issues and to report back to the Board on Feb. 11, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Judith Allen, appellant, said she was counseled by Tom Drohan, and she gave a history of her tenancy and relationship with former owner and the permit holder. Denise Leadbetter, attorney for permit holder, said her clients want to remove the illegal unit and make the house their home. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said in response to a Board request that he will make a site vist and report back to the Board on the habitability of the unit and any safety problems or Code violations. No public comment.
There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 11:30 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.
