2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 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); Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, DBI (SBI, DBI); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works, Bureau of Urban Forestry; 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) SPECIAL ITEMS:
ITEM A: Informational presentation by Planning staff on the proposed new Planning Commission demolition policy.
SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, made a presentation on new demolition policies by the Planning Commission.
(4) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 2914-2916 Jackson Street. Letter from John Lauricella, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/04/26/5107. Permit Holder(s): Wesley Skow. Project: alter existing wood retaining wall, replace existing 8’ wood fence along westerly property line with new 7’ fence; portion of new fence (approx. 11’3”) adjacent to house to have additional 2’ lattice privacy screen at top of 7’ fence (9’ overall height).
Date Permit Issued: April 26, 2002
Last Day to Appeal: May 13, 2002
Date Jurisdiction Request Received: May 1, 2003
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Harrington & Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to grant the jurisdiction request. Four votes being required to grant such a request, the motion failed, and jurisdiction over the subject permit was denied.
SPEAKERS: John Lauricella, requestor, said he had not been notified of the issuance of the permit, and asked the Board to allow him to file an appeal because the fence is higher than the Code allows and the permit has not been reviewed by Planning. Tracy Edmonson, attorney for the permit holder, said the new fence is both sound and beautiful, and the requestor had been informed of the project several times and still chose not to appeal or request jurisdiction until work was completed and signed off. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, said that no DBI notice is required for the issuance of this permit, and explained the Building Code standards for fences in residential areas. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the Planning Code fence standards and said there are no notices to neighbors for fence permits under the Code. Wesley Skow, permit holder, spoke in opposition to the request and said the fence is within the Code standards, with a clarification of the plans which show the fence dimensions in compliance with Code standards.
ITEM B: 720 Valencia Street. Letter from John Holden, Requestor(s & Permit Holder(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/09/09/5921S for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal. Project: new rear stairs and addition.
Date Permit Issued: April 7, 2003
Last Day to Appeal: April 22, 2003
Date Jurisdiction Request Received: May 2, 2003
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: John Holden requested that the Board allow him to file a late penalty appeal.
ITEM C: 2815 Diamond Street. Letter from James Estey, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). V03-012, Estey vs. ZA, decided April 23, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Harrington dissented) to uphold the subject variance with Negative Declaration findings read into the record by Commissioner Shoemaker.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Jay Estey, appellant, asked the Board to have a rehearing for the reason that the Board’s rules had been violated at the original hearing and fairness requires that a rehearing be granted; he also said that the Sierra Club had withdrawn their support of the project. David Prowler, variance holder, objected to the request and said the Sierra Club had not withdrawn its support, and that the requestor has not met the test for justifying a rehearing since no new evidence was being offered, and all the issues had been considered by the Board before it made its decision. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that a rehearing is not justified since all the issues have been considered and no new evidence is being offered.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-020
|
DAVID ADAMS, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the denial on January 30, 2002, of a [request to add the appellant’s name to taxicab [medallion no(s). 129.
[AT THE REHEARING OF JAN. 15, 2003, THE [BOARD VOTED 3-2 TO DISMISS THE CASE [FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER [JURISDICTION. PURSUANT TO SUPERIOR [COURT CASE NO. CPF-03-502454, THE [AFOREMENTIONED DISMISSAL MUST BE [VACATED, AND THE APPELLANT MUST [BE GRANTED A HEARING ON THE MERITS.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to June 25, 2003 at the request of the parties who did not appear.
SPEAKERS: None.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-027
|
JOEL HOLLANDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, [of taxi medallion No(s). 884.
[RESOLUTION NO. 2003-02.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to July 30, 2003 at the request of the parties who did not appear.
SPEAKERS: None.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-044
|
JOHN ARKEDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on March 19, 2003, of [taxicab medallion #1167.
[RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to July 9, 2003 at the request of the parties who did not appear.
SPEAKERS: None.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-048
|
WING LONG
HARDWARE SUPPLY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent
|
[2244 Irving Street.
[Appealing the denial on March 18, 2003, of an [increase in limits on a Sidewalk Display Permit.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial by DPW BSM and grant the increase in limits.
SPEAKERS: Julie Chin, agent for appellant, asked the Board to allow her to keep her sidewalk merchandise display which is kept organized and does not block pedestrian traffic. She offered photos of the display. No public comment for either side. Catharine Barnes, DCA, explained the limits in the Board’s jurisdiction in this appeal.
(9) APPEAL NO. 02-172
|
TOM KATZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
[1349 Clayton Street.
[Appealing the denial on August 30, 2002, of [Permit to Alter a Building (on 13-unit apartment [building: replace existing steel with vinyl retrofit [– same shape and size; total 20 windows).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/25/2280.
[NOTE: BOARD VOTED ON MARCH 19, [2003 TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF THE [SUBJECT PERMIT. THEN, ON APRIL 23, [2003, THE BOARD VOTED 4-1 TO GRANT [THE REHEARING REQUEST BY THE [APPELLANT.
[FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the denial of the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Appellant did not appear.
ITEMS (10A) & (10B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(10A) APPEAL NO. 02-239
|
KENNETH FONG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[31 Fairmount Street.
[Protesting the issuance on December 11, [2002, to Ronald Wallace, Site Permit to Erect [a Building (3-story, single family residence, [35’ in height).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/07/7174S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(10B) APPEAL NO. 02-241
|
MORRIS & BRENDA ABBOTT, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[31 Fairmount Street.
[Protesting the issuance on December 11, [2002, to Ronald Wallace, Site Permit to Erect [a Building (3-story, single family residence, [35’ in height).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/08/07/7174S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Both appeals withdrawn by the appellants.
SPEAKERS: None.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-013
|
DENNIS LOW, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
[2776 Mission Street.
[Appealing the denial on Jan. 17, 2003, of Permit [to Alter a Building (abate Notice of Violation [No. 200232430; install front roll up gate; remove [existing wall to replace existing 2’6” door with a [new 3’0” door and 4X8 header with accessible [door hardware; the gate is for security purposes, [thus closed grill; retail open from 9am to 9pm).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/22/9550.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the denial of the subject permit. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion passes, and the denial was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the Code standards for roll-up gates, both open-type and solid as in this case. Dan Sullivan, agent for appellant, said that the Planning Department sometimes has impractical ideas and that this solid gate is justified in this high crime area in the Mission District and he said this is only one of many such gates installed already in the area. No public comment.
(12) APPEAL NO. 03-045
|
LISA HONIG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[322 Rutledge Street.
[Protesting the issuance on March 10, 2003, to [David Robins & Marge Chambers, Permit to [Alter a Building (on single-family house: add 2 [balconies and 1 bay window at rear, and exit [stair from corner floor to grade, reference [Variance Case No. 2002.0377).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/22/2050.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Lisa Honig, appellant, said she thinks it is unfair to her that she must pay a substantial amount to alter her house because of the permit holder’s project and she said that this was not a question of money but one of principle. She said there is no likelihood of an agreement being reached because of the four years of contention between the parties. David Robins, permit holder, explained his project and the history of appeals by the appellant. He said he has made offers to the appellant but that they have not been accepted. No public comment.
(13) APPEAL NO. 03-046
|
WAI KEUNG & ALICE YIP, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[200 Salinas Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on March 17, 2003, to [Victor & Ruth Pacquing, Permit to Alter a [Building (on single-family house: rear [horizontal extension).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/04/05/3277.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on condition that the ground floor be reduced by 6 feet, and with a cantilever or open deck to be allowed.
SPEAKERS: Windsor Yip, son of the appellants, said the project will block sunlight into his parent’s house and garden, and that his mother needs the yard for gardening for exercise as help for her illness, especially for growing chard which is a great benefit for diabetes. He also said that his sister’s privacy is threatened by the project. Ruth Pacquing, permit holder, described the project which she said is necessary for her extended family’s needs. She described the location of the house and how this project will not have a serious effect on the appellant’s property or life-style. No public comment for the appellant. Public comment for the permit holder: Eleanor Muller said she lives a block away from the site and she feels that the proposed addition will improve the neighborhood and make it more beautiful.
Larry Badiner, ZA, gave a procedural history of the project and said that Section 311 notice had been sent to all neighbors and there were no requests for DR. He said the rear yard meets the Code standard and that a Notice of Special Restrictions has been required to discourage the creation of the illegal units in the building. He said no new permit is required for the revisions being considered by the Board. Edmundo Badua, agent for permit holders, asked about the proposed revisions being required by the Board. Victor Pacquing, co-permit holder, asked for a clarification of the proposed revisions being imposed.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:48 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.
