2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 5, 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, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Craig Nikitas, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of Appeals; 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.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: President Chin wished everyone a Happy Chinese Lunar New Year and invited all to the up-coming parade through Chinatown. Commissioner Shoemaker requested staff to arrange for a presentation to the Board from the Mayor's Office of Housing on City programs for Non-Profit Housing and to give special notice to interested parties and groups.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 2311 - 19th Street & 705 Utah Street. Letter from Stephen Williams, attorney for Appellant(s) Melinda Hall, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-143/144/145, Hall vs. DBI, PDA, decided December 18, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Saunders dissented, President Chin recused) to uphold all 3 permits on condition that the penthouse at 2311 - 19th Street be removed. Four votes being necessary under the City Charter (§ 4.106) to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the 3 subject permits were upheld with no conditions.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 1-3-1 (Vice President Harrington, Commissioners Sugaya & Saunders dissented, President Chin recused) to grant the rehearing request. 4 votes being required to grant a rehearing request, the motion failed, and the rehearing request was denied.
SPEAKERS: Steven Williams, attorney for Appellant, asked the Board to grant a rehearing in order to prevent a manifest injustice and said his client had nothing to do with any delays to the project. David Silverman, attorney for Permit Holder, said that his client has done everything that DBI and the SFFD has requested of him as to the fire corridor which is shown on the approved plans. The easement will be reviewed by DBI and revised as required and the proposed lot merger is dead.
Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI said that easements must be recorded as are many other things and must be both before and during the construction period. In this case recordation will be before any addendum. The Fire Department did review these plans and noted that on the plans.
(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. 02-209
JAMIE HO, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[2367 - 47th Avenue.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [October 22, 2002 for work done without a [permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/06/03/8043.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to two times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented.
(4B) APPEAL NO. 02-230
424 JONES
STREET APARTMENTS LLC, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[424 Jones Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on Dec. 2, [2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/14/1407.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to two times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented.
(5) CONSENT ITEMS (TAXI COMMISSION REVOCATION): With the consent of the Taxi Commission, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to overrule the revocation of the subject permit(s) with the condition that the appellants pay all appropriate permit fees. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.
(5A) APPEAL NO. 02-207
GURPARKASH SINGH, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on October 9, 2002, [of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit [(P44) due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 54070.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the appellant pay all permit fees and penalties, and on condition that the appellant take the driver's training course.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented and requested the condition.
(5B) APPEAL NO. 02-210
AKMAL ASHRABOV, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on October 9, 2002, [of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit [(P44) due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 92854
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the appellant pay all permit fees and penalties, and on condition that the appellant take the driver's training course.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented and requested the condition.
(5C) APPEAL NO. 02-211
YURI M. COELHO, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on October 9, 2002, [of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit [(P44) due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 100612
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the appellant pay all permit fees and penalties, and on condition that the appellant take the driver's training course.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented and requested the condition.
(5D) APPEAL NO. 02-213
ZAW NAING, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on October 9, 2002, [of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit [(P44) due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 54554
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the appellant pay all permit fees and penalties, and on condition that the appellant take the driver's training course.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented and requested the condition.
(5E) APPEAL NO. 02-214
SONGKAI CUI, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on October 9, 2002, [of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit [(P44) due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 85682
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the appellant pay all permit fees and penalties, and on condition that the appellant take the driver's training course.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented and requested the condition.
(5F) APPEAL NO. 02-215
KERRIGAN DANGERFIELD, Appellant(s)
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on October 9, 2002, [of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle Permit [(P44) due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 85411
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject revocation on condition that the appellant pay all permit fees and penalties, and on condition that the appellant take the driver's training course.
SPEAKERS: Department representatives consented and requested the condition.
(6) APPEAL NO. 02-221
BORIS NIKOLIN
dba "KEUR-BAOBAB", Appellant(s)
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[3388 - 19th Street.
[Appealing the denial on October 31, 2002, of [a Place of Entertainment Permit.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7) APPEAL NO. 02-223
BRIAN T. SHEEHY dba "ANU", Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[43 - 6th Street.
[Appealing a Police Permit Zoning Referral [dated October 28, 2002, addressed to Brian [Sheehy dba "Anu", that the application for a [Place of Entertainment Permit cannot be [approved because new nighttime [entertainment uses in the RSD zoning district [are prohibited under Planning Code §§'s [815.37 & 102.17.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject Police Permit Zoning Referral with a finding that there existed on the site live entertainment-use as early as 1984, which is prior to the adoption of Planning Code § 815.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitis, Senior Planner for Planning Department, said the issue is clear and there is a clear violation of the Planning Code provision which doesn't permit a place of entertainment in the zoning district without a conditional use authorization from the Commission. Brian Sheehy, Co-Appellant and Co-Owner of the business, said the ANU is the goddess of hope and he thanked Planning and the Police Department for their cooperation. He listed ten reasons why the permit should be issued and said he had checked with Planning before applying for the permit and was told there would be no problems under the Code.
No public comment for Planning.
Public Comment for Appellant: Rossano Rountree said that the bar's operators are real sweethearts and cause no trouble at all. Kanshik Dattani said he owns a restaurant two doors away and the businessmen with businesses on Sixth Street should be encouraged and supported to fulfill their dreams. Ernest Tyler said he lives upstairs and hears no noise from the bar and the clubs in the area are cleaning themselves up. Angel Cruz said these are entrepreneurs who really care, who are willing to take a risk and he supports the Appellant. Bernard Calloway agreed with those who had spoken. J. K. Dineer said he is a patron and he appreciates the two art shows held at ANU. Ralph Kazanjian said he has seen the attitude of Sixth Street change for the better. Kelly Edwards, a patron, said he's like "Norm" on "Cheers" at ANU.
ITEMS (8A) & (8B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(8A) APPEAL NO. 98-035
VICTOR TWAL dba "BUDDIES", Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL
|
[498 Sanchez Street.
[Denial on February 13, 1998, of permit to Alter [a Building (legalize awning and sign installed [without permit).
[APPLICATION NO. 9723854.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(8B) APPEAL NO. 99-197
MICHAEL CRAWFORD &
TOM HANUS, dba "CHAT CAFÉ", Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL
|
[498 Sanchez Street.
[Denial on December 7, 1999, of permit for 12 [chairs on sidewalk.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule both cases to the Indefinite Calendar or Call of the Chair with a letter to go out to DPW BSM asking them to stay action pending enactment of legislation concerning the tables/chairs and awning, with BSM to have the right to enforce rules concerning the placement of said tables/chairs.
SPEAKERS: Seth Huntington for Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Use and Mapping said the new Supervisor for the district, Bevan Dufty, will probably follow in the former supervisor's footsteps and try to get legislation enacted that will allow what the Appellants want to do. Bevan Dufty said he has just heard of the problem and would look into it to see if the problem can be remedied and he will explore the possibility of legislative relief. Robert Sandler said he is one of the three new owners of the business and does want to keep chairs on the sidewalk.
No public comment for either side.
(9) APPEAL NO. 02-201
JAMES VIEGAS, Appellant(s)
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 (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.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the case to Feb. 19, 2003 at the request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None
(10) APPEAL NO. 02-218
BONNIE TREMBATH, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[2538 - 33rd Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on October 31, 2002, [to Todd & Lisa Ng, Permit to Alter a Building [(minor revision to Building Permit Application [No(s). 2002/10/15/8960, revised basement [floor layout to have 1 bedroom/storage/family [room).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/31/0496.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(11) APPEAL NO. 02-219
AMY & GEORGE BAGGOTT, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[738 Duncan Street.
[Protesting the issuance on October 25, 2002, [to Rahmat & Gayle Zandian, Permit to Alter a [Building (extend rear of the existing first floor [8.5ft to the north, construct a 6' X 15' deck, [construct a new second floor over the existing [roof with the new second floor to set back [toward the front of the property 8.5ft from the [rear wall of the abutting building to the west in [accordance with Planning Commission Motion [No(s). 12002).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/16/2894.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on condition that the rear wall be aligned with the existing south window jam of the Appellants' east facing window, and for the front wall to align with the Appellants 3rd floor which is setback.
SPEAKERS: Amy Baggott, Co-Appellant, said that a compromise had been made at Planning to protect the privacy of her master bedroom and the planner said she would bring the issue to the attention of the Commission but the Commission had acted without knowing of the issue of the inconsistent drawings and incorrect dimensions. The note on the plans to change dimensions two feet has been crossed out. Rahmat Zandian, Permit Holder, explained that the Commission motion in 1990 and that twice under DR his project was approved and the Commission required the wall be moved 8.5 feet and he has followed the Commission's directions with his project allowing the Appellants 80% of their view. He has met all the Commission's conditions of approval. Craig Nikitis for Planning, said the problem came about because the original planner handling the case left the Department and there was a lack of continuity in review leading to disagreements between the parties. Jon Twichell, consultant for the Appellants, said the dimension problem is due to the fact that the drawings were made by the Permit Holder and not by a professional architect.
No public comment for either side.
(12) APPEAL NO. 02-220
ROGER GONZALES, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[715 Brazil Street.
[Protesting the issuance on October 24, 2002, [to Lenora Lai Ngor Wong, Permit to Alter a [Building (remove existing ground floor unit [and legalize as storage per violation [#200232574; legalize all partitions and related [electrical work).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/09/17/6621.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to reschedule the case to March 5, 2003.
SPEAKERS: None.
(13) APPEAL NO. 02-222
MARILYN BLAKE, Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2601 Lyon Street.
[Appealing a determination dated October 29, [2002, addressed to David Silverman at [Reuben & Alter, that the subject roof structure, [as proposed, does not qualify as an exemption [to the height limit pursuant to § 260(b)(1)(B) of [the Planning Code and would therefore be [considered above the height limit.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the case to March 5, 2003, with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitis for Planning explained the stair penthouse exception of the height limits and the Zoning Administrator's determination which finds the subject penthouse to be of excessive volume. Laurence Kornfield, CBI for DBI, explained the state law which requires stair penthouses to allow fire fighters access to the roof and he said this one has inadequate headroom. David Silverman, attorney for the Permit Holder, said that the penthouse was designed by a distinguished architect to be in harmony with the neighborhood. He said it meets the definition of a stair penthouse and just covers the stairwell and will be an improvement to the house and the neighborhood.
Public Comment for Zoning Administrator: Terry Pimsleur, said the house is in the Moran Tract of six similar houses and the proposal is out of character with the other houses, and is to no purpose. Other owners oppose this project. Harry Wartnick of 2545 Lyon Street said the project won't enhance the neighborhood and will destroy the architectural integrity of the houses. Lucian Blazej for the Cow Hollow Association urged the Board to uphold the determination because the project is not consistent with the Cow Hollow Neighborhood Design Guidelines which are an adjunct to the Residential Design Guidelines and incorporate portions of it. He said the area is of historic district quality and project should need a certificate of appropriateness.
No public comment for Appellant.
Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said to correct record that the ceiling height must be at least seven feet and project doesn't meet standard.
(14) APPEAL NO. 02-225
LES & JOANNA
MANKIEWICZ, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[189 Farnum Street.
[Protesting the issuance on November 1, 2002, [to Steven Popper, Permit to Alter a Building [(new fences over 6 feet).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/01/0637.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on condition that the fence comply with the drawing submitted by the Permit Holders at hearing, noted as figure 2.
SPEAKERS: Leo Mankiewicz, Co-Appellant, asked the Board to revise the plans and impose a correction that height would not exceed seven feet, and require a new permit application for the retaining wall. Steven Popper, Permit Holder, said the problem is a boundary dispute and he has obtained a survey showing the retaining wall entirely on his property and the fence was seven feet and he is lowering it to six feet plus a lattice on top.
No public comment for either side.
(15) APPEAL NO. V02-227
WILLIAM & GAYLE CHAN, Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1998 - 8th Avenue.
[Appealing the conditions accompanying the [granting on November 15, 2002, of a Rear [Yard Variance (to construct a first floor deck [with an arbor overhang and spiral stairs to [grade at rear of building, modified by the [Zoning Administrator to extend no more than 8 [feet from the rear building wall, with the revised [proposal to be constructed with maximum [openness as otherwise permitted by the [Building Code).
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0784V.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject variance on condition that the deck not extend more than 10 feet from the rear building wall.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitis for Planning said that the variance is necessary for the deck and the stairs at rear and the deck is allowed to within eight feet of the wall. He added that the project was accepted by the Forest Hill Association. Tony Kim representing the Appellant, said they had requested a variance for a twelve-foot addition but only an eight-foot was approved; which is too shallow and provides insufficient room for their purposes. Richard Schott, the architect, said there would be less square footage with his design than with the ZA's design. Harold Wright, Chair of the Forest Hill Association architectural review committee, said a variance should only be granted for a small revision and only if there is a real hardship in meeting the Code; here there is no hardship and they can build a usable deck within the variance and deletion of the condition is not justified.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:50 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.
