2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
Present: President Arnold Y. K. Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary, and Victor Pacheco, Legal Assistant for the Board of Appeals; and Official Court Reporter Claudine Woeber.
(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: No speakers.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: The President requested a report on the budget situation and the Executive Secretary reported on the progress of the budget proposal.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS: None.
(4) 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.
(4A) APPEAL NO. 03-021
|
DIMITRI MEDVEDEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
[88 Hoff Street # 210.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [Feb. 11, 2003, for work done without a [permit (restore closet on 2nd level/mezzanine [in a live-work loft).
[APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/06/6903.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to reduce the subject penalty to three times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Dimitri Medveden, Appellant, said that no permit would be necessary in his country for the job and he thought the same is true here so he didn’t file an application. The project is now completed and the mezzanine has been restored in compliance with the Code. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said the calculations on the permit for the proposed mezzanine are vague and if the space is not a mezzanine it would count as a floor which would trigger many Building Code requirements.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-025
|
QUERIDA MIA RIVERA, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, [of taxi medallion No(s). 52.
[RESOLUTION NO. 2003-05.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to reschedule the appeal to June 11, 2003 at the request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-020
|
DIMAS & BLANCA OLIVA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[230 Rhine Street.
[Appealing a Notice of Violation dated Jan. 28, 2003, [that a 2nd stove and kitchen has been installed in the [rear building at the subject property, which [constitutes the establishment of a 2nd dwelling unit, in [violation of Planning Code § 209.1(b); and that a [pre-existing car port has been expanded, in violation [of Planning Code § 181.1.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to continue the appeal to the Call of the Chair with the public hearing closed, and with DBI and Planning to perform a site a visit on life/safety issues with a report at a later date.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained that the small building at the rear of the lot can remain but can’t have a kitchen and bath which would make it a second unit on this one-family lot and it can’t be enlarged since it is a non-complying structure. Blanca Oliva, Appellant, through her daughter as translator from the Spanish, explained her need for the building and her plans to make building large enough for her six-member family. She asked the Board to allow her project because of her hardship.
Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: Charles Swanson, neighbor and complainant explained his opposition is due to his fear of the fire hazard which would be caused by the project. He said structure is not pre-existing but is newly built without permits. Armando Sandoval, designer for Appellant described the current use of the two buildings on the lot and the Appellants proposal which she planned after discussing the matter with the Planning staff. He said that all she wants to do now is remodel the building and not build a new one.
No public comment for the Appellant.
Lawrence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, agreed to make site visit and report back to Board on life-safety issues.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-022
|
CONRAD DONNER, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[275 Magellan Avenue.
[Protesting a determination dated Feb. 4, 2003, [addressed to Manuel Frias at Frias Family Vineyard, [that the proposed establishment of Alcoholic [Beverage Licenses Types 20 & 17 at the subject [property does meet the requirements of Planning [Code § 204.1 in that there will be no stock in trade [kept on the premises, no signage, no walk-up [clientele, and not more than ¼ of the floor area will [be used to conduct the business; and furthermore, as [the proposed business is an accessory use, in contrast [to a principally permitted use, § 311 neighborhood [notification is not required.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to reschedule the matter to April 30, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Conrad Donner, Appellant, requested Board to continue the appeal. Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained that owner has withdrawn the ABC application and so the determination is moot and the appeal should be withdrawn and his determination be revoked or withdrawn.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-023
|
CLARENCE
& JUTTA GRIDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[4125 Balboa Street.
[Appealing a Stop Work Order Request dated Jan. [30, 2003, addressed to Dept. of Building Inspection [Director Frank Chiu, requesting that a stop work [order be immediately issued at the subject property [for work performed under Building permit [Application No(s). 2002/06/26/0073 & [2002/09/24/7284 for the following reason(s): [evidence has been submitted to the Planning Dept. [that the original commercial use (beauty parlor) was [discontinued for more than a decade, and thus may [not be re-established in this residential district; and [furthermore, the project involves the removal of a [residential garage and apparent removal of a curb cut [without the authorization of the Dept. of Public [Works.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold the stop work order requests by the Zoning Administrator.
SPEAKERS: Lawrence Badiner, ZA, explained how the property can no longer be used for a business as the beauty parlor has been abandoned for more than three years. Laurence Kornfield explained that a garage door replacement is required to have a permit. Robin Grider, attorney for the Appellants, explained that they had dealt in good faith with the City and sought required permits and informed neighbors of their intentions to restore the beauty parlor which has been in the building for many years. She said she wants to go ahead with the hearing even though only four members of the Board were sitting. She said there is no evidence that the space has been used as a garage while the interior is clearly designed for use as a beauty parlor and there is no intent to abandon it. Nor is there any evidence that the beauty parlor was abandoned.
Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: Michael Shiro neighbor, said he thinks the Appellants intend to turn the two-family house into four units and that there has been no beauty parlor operating for at least twelve years on the premises. The space has been used as a garage during this period. No business taxes have been paid for this property and the real estate listing says it is a “two-family house with garage”. He asks that a curb cut be made for the garage use.
Public Comment for Appellant: Rachel Ballarin, real estate broker for the property said that all the work was done with permits and that one unit is rented at present. Planner Gil Chaves signed off on the permit to replace garage door with storefront. She said lots of money was involved here and she asked the Board to grant the appeal. Clarence Grider, Appellant, asked the Board to allow him to finish the job because the work is almost complete and the neighbors support his project.
(9) APPEAL NO. 03-032
|
SAMIR BUSTAMI, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[725 Carolina Street.
[Protesting the issuance on Feb. 7, 2003, to [Joseph Bradford, Site Permit to Erect a Building [(3-story, 2-unit residential building, 40’ in [height).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/12/22/8567S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold the subject permit with the following conditions: a) that the parapet be replaced with a 1 hour fire-rated roof; b) that the parapet on the rear deck be replaced with a clear spanning-type railing; and c) that the height of the building not exceed 37 feet.
SPEAKERS: Samir Bustami, Appellant, said the conditions included in his conditional withdrawal are no longer sufficient because he has studied the plans and found several errors that need correction, including this addition of a deck not shown on earlier plans which will violate the Planning Building Codes. The roof can’t be for habitable use or storage. Height is the issue as well as mass and he hopes plans can be reviewed again by plan checkers so errors can be corrected. Joseph Bradford, Permit Holder, said the height is 37 feet as required by the Commission and he explained the dimensional errors on the plans. He said he wants to keep the roof deck.
Public Comment for the Appellant: Daniel Conrad, said he is one of the DR requestors. He said he never approved the roof deck and Permit Holder never told neighbors there would be a roof deck and he feels tricked into withdrawing his DR request. John Diaz of 731 Carolina said that the Appellant is an engineer and has made good points that he agrees with. He said the plans keep changing and the project will block his view and will be too large and massive for the site. Tracy Rice, one of the DR requestors, said the Planning Commission told the parties to work out the details but the Permit Holder never had a dialogue with the neighbors since then. There was no discussion of a roof deck at the Commission.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:50 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
