2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 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, and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
ABSENT: Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
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); Jacob Szeto, Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Street Use & Mapping (DPW BSM); 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:
(3A) 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 Harrington, 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 Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the request to July 21, 2004 with the public hearing still to remain closed.
SPEAKERS: Brett Gladstone, attorney for appellants, requested a continuance to allow for settlement talks. Raquel Fox, attorney for DR Requestor, objected to a continuance and asked the Board to take up the request and then deny it for lack of any new evidence being offered, and because the Board’s decision should stand and no settlement seems likely.
(3B) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
968-970 Hampshire Street; Permit issued on April 9, 2004
Last day to appeal was April 26, 2004; Jurisdiction request received May 3, 2004
|
Letter from Raquel Fox, attorney for Requestor(s) David Garcia, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2004/04/09/0939. Project: on 2-unit residential building, removal of existing interior walls that are non-bearing as well as removal of kitchen; removal of non-conforming unit. Permit Holder(s): Tim Berkley.
|
ACTION: Withdrawn by the requestor.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (4A), (4B) & (4C) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(4A) APPEAL NO. 03-056
|
GREGORY ERLACH, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
531 – 43rd Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on March 27, 2003, to Alan Freebury, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family house: install 5’ high fence on side of front yard, treated vertical posts on 4’ centers, redwood lattice full height between verticals, pre-formed 3’ metal footings driven into ground floor for verticals, capped by treated 2” X 4” (on side) tying 5 posts together; 8’6” free standing; rest next to building)
APPLICATION NO. 2003/03/27/0836.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit with a finding that the fence is 75% open where it is visible, and that the height of the fence is measured from the top of the retaining wall.
(4B) APPEAL NO. 03-067
|
GREGORY ERLACH, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
531 – 43rd Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 2, 2003, to Alan Freebury, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family house: rebuild existing rear stairs in-kind).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/05/02/3742.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the 1st floor railing be pulled in 3 feet from the property line so as to comply with the Building and Fire Codes.
(4C) APPEAL NO. 04-032
|
ALAN FREEBURY, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
531 – 43rd Avenue.
Appealing a determination dated April 6, 2004, addressed to Alan Freebury, that Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/05/02/3742 (rebuild existing rear stairs in kind) was approved by the Planning Department in error on the basis of an inaccurate application, that the subject rear stairs as constructed in 1988 without the benefit of permit did require a variance at that time, and that a variance should have been sought and granted prior to Planning approval of the Building Permit, and that a property line firewall may be required for any legal permit to replace the existing illegally constructed stairs which may require neighborhood notification and a variance.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination with findings as read into the record by Commissioner Chin.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained the determination and the nature of the permits under appeal, which need the approval of a variance after proper notice to neighbors. Alan Freebury, permit holder, gave a history of the use of the building and its deck and steps and his permits to alter the stairs, which provide emergency egress for his wife’s parents who reside in one of the units. Ray Erlach, brother of appellant, urged the Board to overrule the permits and to uphold the determination because the permits were approved in error without the granting of a variance, and because of misrepresentations by the owner and the impact of the stairs on views and privacy of his brother’s tenants. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, reported on the building inspector’s report as to the number of legal dwelling units in the building and the lack of egress requirements. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-154
|
ULYSSES NAPURI
dba “LAST STOP SOUVENIR”, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING,
Respondent
|
498 Beach Street.
Appealing the denial on May 5, 2003, of a Sidewalk Display Merchandise Permit.
ORDER NO. 174,098.
JURISDICTION GRANTED SEPT. 17, 2003.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON DEC. 10, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the appeal to August 11, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Maria Napuri, wife of appellant, requested the continuance.
ITEMS (6A) & (6B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(6A) APPEAL NO. 04-031
|
CARL OLSON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING,
Respondent
|
NE corner of 3rd Street & Mission Street, NE corner of Geary Street & Stockton Street, SE corner of King Street & 3rd Street, and 2 locations on Market Street near Powell Street, 835 & 865 Market Street.
Protesting the issuance on April 7, 2004, to JC Decaux San Francisco Inc., Public Service Advertising Kiosk Permit.
PERMIT NO. 04PSK-001.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(6B) APPEAL NO. 04-033
|
WESTFIELD
SAN FRANCISCO CENTRE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING,
Respondent
|
NE corner of 3rd Street & Mission Street, NE corner of Geary Street & Stockton Street, SE corner of King Street & 3rd Street, and 2 locations on Market Street near Powell Street, 835 & 865 Market Street.
Protesting the issuance on April 7, 2004, to JC Decaux San Francisco Inc., Public Service Advertising Kiosk Permit.
PERMIT NO. 04PSK-001.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 3-1-1 (President Harrington dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit with a finding that there are no grounds for this appeal.
SPEAKERS: Carl Olson, appellant, explained that he protests the advertising kiosks because the revenue from them supports the installation and maintenance of public toilets which he objects to on Haight Street near his building. Jacob Szeto, DPW BSM, explained how the public toilet program works in providing public toilets at no cost to the City since 1995. Fred Christoun, agent for permit holder, appeared in support of DPW BSM. Public comment: Susan Strollis said she supports the appeal to deter the public toilets in front of her building on Haight Street, and said the downtown is saturated with advertising kiosks, and that the notification process is inadequate. Dave Grenell from Supervisor Gonzalez’s office said that the argument opposing the kiosks does not seem compelling, and asked the Board to uphold DPW BSM. Richard Margery said the kiosks should not be situated near private property, and that the matter has been thoroughly vetted by the Board of Supervisors. Jim Rhoads said he agrees with the earlier speakers in opposition to the kiosks. Flip Sarrow of the Haight-Ashbury Merchants Association said his group has been fighting for public toilets on Haight to serve visitors and take pressure off merchants.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-196
|
FRANCIS DAVID RYAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1018 Clayton Street.
Protesting the issuance on Sept. 22, 2003, to Gunther Dertz, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construct 7’ X 36” high one-hour fire rated parapet on roof at south side).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/09/22/5414.
JURISDICTION GRANTED 11/12/03.
Note: On March 24, 2004, the Board voted 3-2 to uphold the subject permit. On April 28, 2004, the Board voted 4-1 to grant the appellant’s rehearing request, and to set the rehearing for June 9, 2004.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the rehearing to June 23, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(8) 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.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON 5/12/04.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to July 14, 2004.
SPEAKERS: David Silverman, attorney for permit holder, requested the rescheduling based on the absence of Commissioner Saunders. Ken Harrington, DBI, agreed to the rescheduling request.
(9) APPEAL NO. 04-025
|
ELEONORA BLETNITSKY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
101 – 17th Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on March 18, 2004, to James Riley, Permit to Alter a Building (on a residential duplex: revision to BPA No(s). 2001/06/20/1979, to construct new fence 9’6” high for 20’, and 6’ at 10’ high; return approximately 2’6” into corner of building; move security gate back 11’ into alley way).
APPLICATION NO. 2004/03/18/8966.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Eleonora Bletnitsky, appellant, said her concern is the placement of the metal gate between her house and the permit holder’s building which provides security by blocking the alley between the houses. She described the on-going debate between herself and the permit holder about the issue and asked the Board to prevent the gate from being moved back 11 feet. Peter Zouras, attorney for permit holder, explained why the gate must be moved, and said that his client and the appellant cannot agree on the matter, though they are trying to accommodate her. Public comment: Patty Thomas, former tenant of appellant, described how the gate prevented trash from being pulled out to the street, and provided security for the building. Gabriel Bletnitsky, son of appellant, said that the permit holder has made many complaints to the City about his mother’s building, and that there are many issues between the two households.
(10) APPEAL NO. 04-028
|
BRIAN BASINGER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
65-67 Pearl Street.
Protesting the issuance on February 5, 2004, to Jan Neufeld, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-unit building: install new garage according to attached drawings dated 12/9/03).
APPLICATION NO. 2004/02/05/5723.
JURISDICTION GRANTED 03/24/04.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to continue the appeal to the indefinite calendar (call of chair) with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Brian Basinger, appellant, asked for consideration of his appeal because of the dire health issues of himself and his partner, both of whom are deteriorating and need quiet during the next few months, free of the construction noise the permit work will cause. Denise Leadbetter, attorney for permit holder, described the offers made to the appellant that have not been accepted, and said they are trying to negotiate with the appellant’s attorney. Vanessa Stimac, co-permit holder, explained the importance of the proposed garage for all the owners. Jan Neufeld, co-permit holder, further described the owner’s need for the garage, and why they had filed under the Ellis Act. Tayler Bayer described how noisy the neighborhood is already and how difficult more noise could be to live with for the appellant. John Pollard, agent for permit holders, described the noise caused by the Octavia Street construction.
(11) APPEAL NO. 04-029
|
MALANA MOBERG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
899 North Point.
Protesting the issuance on March 30, 2004, to Galway Properties II, Permit to Demolish a Building (one-story gas station with 1,650sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/04/25/3194.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject permit on condition that the permit holder comply with all Dept. of Public Health, Dept. of Building Inspection, and Planning Dept. regulations, and on condition that the permit holder provide a copy of all soil reports filed with the City to the appellant.
SPEAKERS: Malana Moberg, appellant, explained the Planning Code provisions regulating replacement of service stations and said the demolition is not warranted to do soil testing and environmental review since no plans have been approved for a replacement building. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for permit holder, said that demolition is necessary to meet the Board of Supervisors’ requirements to do environmental review, and that no replacement building is presently under review. Peter Cusack, agent for permit holder, explained why drilling deeply for samples is not possible with the building in place. Craig Nikitas, PD, described the history of the permit and appeal of the categorical exemption to the Board of Supervisors. Public comment: Robert Clutton said he is very concerned about any new use of the site, and that the developer is difficult to work with. Josephine Mazzucco said the Planning guidelines have gone by the way side and asked that they be followed. Jane Stavropoulos said the ignored environmental questions could affect the neighborhood for a 100 years. Thomas Branch said the neighbors aren’t trying to hold up the developer, just slow him up since they have no knowledge of a replacement building. Roland Salvato said that a gas station cannot be removed without an exemption being granted and a new use approved after notice of hearings to neighbors.
(12) APPEAL NO. 04-030
|
MARVIN LAU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
714 – 22nd Street.
Appealing the denial on April 15, 2004, of a Permit to Alter a Building (on 3-unit residential building: install 12 vinyl windows in kind into existing frames; no structural changes; windows face front and are visible from the street; if applicable, bedroom windows shall comply with § 310.4 for rescue).
APPLICATION NO. 2004/04/15/1367.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 3-1-1 (Vice President Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the denial and grant the subject permit. Four votes being required under the City Charter to overrule a departmental action, the denial of the subject permit was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, PD, explained that the department denied the application because it fails to comply with the condition imposed by the department based on the advice of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for window replacement in the Dogpatch Historical District. Elena Koustas, agent for appellant, said the proposed vinyl windows will be appropriate on the building and that the cost of the wood windows was prohibitive. Jamie Sakamoto-Lau, wife of appellant, described how the dilapidated building has been improved since they purchased it, improving the neighborhood, and that the condition is not justified. Alex Koustas, agent for appellant, submitted photos showing other buildings with vinyl windows similar to those proposed.
There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 9:55 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.
