2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
Present: President Arnold Y. K. Chin, Vice President John McInerney, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam el Qadah, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Jonas P. Ionin, Sr. Planning Officer, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter, Easteller Bruihl.
(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: David Grassi, general contractor for a project at 547 23rd Avenue, Appeal 01-164 spoke regarding a citation for illegal demolition where it seems clear no permit had been issued.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 3560-3566 – 20th Street. Letter from Micaela Lezcano, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 01-213, Lezcano vs. DPW, decided Feb. 6, 2002. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the denial by the Dept. of Public Works (DPW) of a permit to remove two trees (without replacement).
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Anna Lezcano, the daughter of Appellant Micaela Lezcano, explained why her mother hadn’t appeared at the public hearing on February 6, 2002 and asked the Board to grant her mother a rehearing so she can present her case. Paul Sacamano of DPW said his Department has no objection to the request.
ITEM B: 4201-4211 Judah Street. Letter from Andrew Zacks, attorney for Bhazubai Patel, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 97-165, Patel vs. ZA, decided Feb. 18, 1998. Upon motion by Commissioner Salgado, the Board voted 1-4 (President Cullum, Vice President McInerney, Commissioner Chin and Commissioner Schwartz dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Two votes are needed to uphold a departmental action, and thus the motion failed. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Schwartz, the Board voted 3-2 (President Cullum and Commissioner Salgado dissented) to overrule the subject determination. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject determination was upheld. Then, on April 1, 1998, the Board considered the request for rehearing by the appellant. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Salgado, the Board voted 2-3 (Vice President McInerney, Commissioner Chin and Commissioner Schwartz dissented) to deny the request for rehearing. Afterwards, upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 to continue the matter to await action by the Superior Court. PUBLIC TESTIMONY HEARD APRIL 1, 1998. FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Call of the Chair/indefinite agenda.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEM C: 1479 – 3rd Avenue. Letter from Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, requesting rehearing of Appeal 01-196, Wydler vs. ZA, decided Jan. 30, 2002. Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination and to adopt the findings submitted by the appellant’s attorney. Appellant: Aton Wydler. Determination: that use of the subject property as a 4-unit residential building is not permitted under the Planning Code, and is not considered to be a legal non-conforming use under Planning Code Sections 180 through 185.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Aug. 14, 2002.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEM D: 3655 Clay Street. Letter from William Stricklin, Co-Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). V02-058, Robbins & Stricklin vs. ZA, decided May 22, 2002. Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the subject variance. Variance Holder(s): Diane Harwood & Andrew Dreyfus.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: William Stricklin, Appellant, requested a rehearing and said that the documents submitted had not been seen by the Commission. Andrew Dreyfus, the variance holder urged the Board to deny the request for lack of new evidence being offered which might justify a rehearing.
Jonas Ionin, Senior Planner, spoke against the request saying that no evidence was being offered that would justify it. Steve Vettel, attorney for the variance holder, also urged the Board to deny the request and said the variance allows the owner to maintain the integrity of the architecturally significant building.
ITEM E: 144 Eddy Street. Letter from Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellant Empress LLC, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-082, Empress LLC vs. ZA, decided January 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner el Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Determination Holder: Tenderloin Housing Clinic.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Commissioners Cullum and Saunders dissented) to grant the rehearing request. Four votes being necessary to grant a rehearing request, the motion failed, and the rehearing request was denied.
SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks asked the Board to grant a rehearing because the facts upon which the determination was made were unclear and there is significant new evidence to be presented which justifies a rehearing. Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said the appeal presented a clear case of abandonment of the tourist hotel use which had been closed for twenty years and it is best if left to the courts to decide. Jonas Ionin for the ZA said he agrees with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and with no new evidence the request should be denied.
ITEM F: 144 Eddy Street. Proposed findings for Appeal 01-081, West Cork LLC vs. ZA, and Appeal 01-082, Empress LLC vs. ZA, decided Jan. 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Determination Holder: Tenderloin Housing Clinic. For adoption today.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President McInerney, and Commisisoner El Qadah dissented) to adopt the subject findings. Three votes being necessary to adopt findings, the motion failed, and no findings were adopted for these two cases.
SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks spoke against the adoption of the proposed findings submitted by the City Attorney since it will be the City Attorney who will represent the Board in the litigation.
ITEM G: 51-55 Vicksburg Street. Adoption of Findings for Appeal No. 02-039, Lesko vs. DBI,
PCD, decided June 12, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Planning Commission’s denial, and to grant the subject permit with adoption of finding on June 19, 2002.
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to July 17, 2002.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4) APPEAL NO. 02-033
|
GERARDO
HERNANDEZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[3165 Mission Street.
[Appealing a Notice of Violation dated February [25, 2002, addressed to Leticia Luna, that the [subject property is being used as a tow service [lot in violation of § 712.59 of the Planning Code, [which also prohibits the establishment of an [auto repair use in an NC-3 zoning district.
[FOR HEARING TODAY
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Aug. 28, 2002.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (5A) & (5B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(5A) APPEAL NO. 98-035
|
VICTOR TWAL dba "BUDDIES", Appellant(s)
vs.
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.
|
(5B) 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 Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matters to Jan. 8, 2003.
SPEAKERS: None.
(6) APPEAL NO. 00-096
|
TREVOR FOOKS, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1623-1625 Noe Street.
[Zoning Administrator's determination dated [June 13, 2000 that under the RH-2 zoning of [the property, the illegal third basement unit of [the two-unit building must be removed, and [with certain alterations the space may remain [habitable space as part of one of the two lawful [units.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Call of the Chair / indefinite agenda.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 02-074
|
THOMAS & MARY SPILLANE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[1342 Funston Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on April 11, 2002, to [Victoria Esmas, Site Permit to Alter a Building [(horizontal extension in rear per plans, convert [from single family to two family dwellings, new [front finish stucco to match new addition).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/10/11/2633S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7B) APPEAL NO. 02-077
|
PATRICIA BRETZER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[1342 Funston Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on April 11, 2002, to [Victoria Esmas, Site Permit to Alter a Building [(horizontal extension in rear per plans, convert [from single family to two family dwellings, new [front finish stucco to match new addition).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/10/11/2633S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to revoke the permit.
SPEAKERS: Thomas Spillane, co-Appellant said that fifteen unrelated adults live in the house and he is nervous about living next door. A man from the house was seen dancing naked in the yard and there is a garbage problem also. Laurence Kornfield, CBI of DBI, said he reviewed the file and there was a complaint filed in 1999. The building was called a hotel. There are many Code violations of several Codes and the matter has been sent to the City Attorney for enforcement action. He said permit was issued in error and should have been reviewed by Housing Section. Victoria Esmas, permit holder and owner defended her use of the building and said tenants are mostly elderly and problems were all in the past and she is correcting violations. Tenants pay single rent of $2,100 a month in cash and all the tenants are citizens and not related to one another. Jonas Ionin for Planning said Planning takes no action to evict tenants and he read the definition of Boarding House from the Planning Code into the record, a conditional use in RH-2 districts. Judith Boyajian, deputy city attorney said the Department must hold the permit if there are violations of the Code on the property. Patricia Bretzer, co-Appellant spoke in support of Thomas Spillane and urged revocation.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANTS: Alice Debly said there have been constant Code violations and the permit should be revoked since it was issued in error.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PERMIT HOLDER.
(8) APPEAL NO. 02-075
|
ROBERT HALLEWELL, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Principals: N/A (Staff Initiated DR)
|
[42-44 August Alley.
[Appealing the denial on April 25, 2002, of Site [Permit to Alter a Building (convert from 2 units [to single family, remove kitchen, add one bath, [revise entry doors).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/09/21/8977.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Planning Commission’s denial, and to grant the subject permit with findings.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin for Planning explained that this is a merger case with staff initialed Discretionary Review by the Planning Commission. Alice Barkley, attorney for the Appellant, reviewed her proposed findings to support a motion to overrule the Commission’s denial of the permit. Robert Hallewell, Appellant, said that the proposal is the best option and that no one will be displaced and the one-family configuration will be compatible with the neighborhood.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.
(9) APPEAL NO. 02-079
|
BABA-MALOUF PROPERTIES, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1596 Howard Street.
[Appealing a determination dated April 25, [2002, addressed to Joel Yodowitz at Reuben & [Alter, that the Job Housing Linkage Program [(JHLP) Ordinance fee is applicable to the net [addition of office space proposed for the [development project at the subject property, [and that the Certificate of Final Completion & [Occupancy cannot be issued until the JHLP [fee is paid in full.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-1 (President Chin dissented) to recuse Vice President McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President McInerney recused) to continue the matter to August 14, 2002 with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin for Planning, said the case involves two mistakes on a ZA Determination, two incorrect dates that the Appellant should have questioned at the time since they were inconsistent with the Codes. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the Appellant, said that the basis for their challenge is that the Appellant has a vested right to build since he reasonably relied on a valid permit and the City can’t afterward try to get a fee retroactively. He cited a Supreme Court case (Avco) and he gave a chronology of the project and the permit process. Jim Baba one of the Appellants, said this is a fifty year-old family business and they had spent substantial amounts when they received their permit.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.
(10) APPEAL NO. 01-115
|
THERESA ISSERMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
[700 Vermont Street.
[Protesting issuance on June 20, 2001, to [Raymond & Hazel Guaraglia, Permit to Alter [a Building (demolish existing non-compliant [residential units per Notice of Violation No. [200114983; remove all utilities to ground level; [convert to original commercial space with no [structural work to be done).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/06/20/1935.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to October 9, 2002.
SPEAKERS: Daniel Boornstein, attorney for the Appellant, a tenant who fears displacement from a dilapidated apartment which she reported when she found out it is an illegal unit. The owner, he said, has taken advantage of the Notice of Violation to evict his tenant and the garage is used as an office. John Wylie for Permit Holder, said he would agree to the continuance of the hearing and the facts here won’t allow for the grandfathering of the unit.
NO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR EITHER SIDE.
ITEMS (11A) & (11B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(11A) APPEAL NO. 02-055
|
STANLEY CHOW, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Principal(s): N/A (Staff Initiated DR)
|
[1323 – 41st Avenue.
[Appealing denial on March 29, 2002, of Permit [to Demolish a Building (two-story building, [20 feet 6 inches in height with 867sf of ground [floor area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/01/24/0455.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(11B) APPEAL NO. 02-056
|
STANLEY CHOW, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Principal(s): N/A (Staff Initiated DR)
|
[1323 – 41st Avenue.
[Appealing denial on March 29, 2002, of Site [Permit to Erect a Building (four-story, two-unit [residential building with 1,667sf of ground floor [area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/01/24/0457S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Planning Commission’s denial, and grant the site permit with conditions. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Planning Commission’s denial and grant the demolition permit with no conditions.
Jonas Ionin for Planning, said this is a case of violation of the Residential Design guidelines (RDG) and the Commission wants modification to the plans to reduce the size of the units so they are a better fit in the neighborhood and he opposed the project even with the changes offered by the Appellant. He urges Board to uphold Commission’s decision. Patrice Fambrini of Jaidin Consulting for the Appellant, asked the Board to overrule the Commission and approve the permit since the plans meet all Code requirements even with the story the Commission wants removed. She said the revision will reduce the project to half of what it was. Charles Ng the designer for the Appellant said that both units could have tandem parking spaces and the building could be shortened by setting back twenty feet from the front and eight feet in from the rear line.
SPEAKERS: None.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION: Guy Woodruff, 1322 42nd Avenue, said she opposes the project because a four-story house is incompatible with the neighborhood. As described it is too tall and too massive and should be lowered to height of surrounding houses and she opposes any penthouse in the building. She said 98% of the neighbors oppose the project. Alice Buckley says she is boxed in enough and the proposed penthouse is too much. Heidi Smoot said she owns a house across the street from the site and the project will affect her views from her top floor but at three-stories project is okay and the tandem parking works for her. Stanley Chow, Appellant said he has a heart problem and his son would live with him so he needs the proposed configuration to accommodate son who will live in top floor unit and will care for him.
(12) APPEAL NO. 02-040
|
SOMARTS CULTURAL CENTER, Appellant(s)
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[934 Brannan Street.
[Appealing the expiration on March 4, 2002, of [the conditional grant of Place of Entertainment & Dance Hall Keeper Permits.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the expiration with conditions.
Sgt. William Coggan of the SFD said he still opposes the Board taking jurisdiction in this matter because an expiration is not appealable under the Charter. On the merits permit can’t be approved because conditions have not been met. Jeremy Paul, consultant for the Appellant said the decision of the SFPD specifically set forth that the Appellant is a public service agency funded by the Art Commission which provides significant cultural enrichment for the City. He said DBI said there is no problem with the proposed use of the building and that the noise abatement issue is a red herring since the building is under the elevated freeway and its music can disturb no one. The new Entertainment Commission will treat these matters with more sensitivity.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR SFPD:
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: John Woods of the Late Night Coalition said the Appellant is a government-funded space that is used by many non-profit groups for cultural events and he urges the Board to take jurisdiction and overrule the expiration by the SFPD. Terrence Allen, Chair of the Late-Night Coalition asked to Board to take jurisdiction and see beyond the SFPD morass as the art community is in dire straits now. Michael Freeman said he has watched the arts groups close down and the Appellant is really important in this city.
SPEAKERS: None.
(13) APPEAL NO. 02-036
|
GABRIEL SANCHEZ & LORENZO
AVIGNONI dba “MONARCH SCOOTERS”, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1684 – 15th Street.
[Appealing a determination dated Feb. 26, [2002, addressed to Gabriel Sanchez & [Lorenzo Avignoni, that Planning Code [§ 726.61 does not allow the use of the subject [property building for sale of motor scooters, [automotive sales or rental as a principal use [within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial [District (NCD).
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to July 17, 2002.
SPEAKERS: None.
(14) APPEAL NO. 02-030
|
FOSTER MEDIA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[50 – 8th Street.
[Appealing a determination dated February 1, [2002, addressed to Lars Skugstad at Foster [Media, that Building Permit Application No(s). [2002/01/22/7467 for a general advertising sign [at the subject property is disapproved because [the subject property is visible from and located [within 200 feet of the Market Street Special [Sign District.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (Commissioners Cullum, Saunders and El Qadah dissented) to overrule the subject determination. Four votes being necessary to overrule any departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject determination was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin for Planning said the proposed sign violates the Market Street Special Sign District provisions and is within 100 feet of Market Street. The applicant is measuring distance from the southern curb and not from the property line as it should be measured as shown on the zoning maps. Scott Emblige, attorney for the appellant said that reasonable men would measure from the curb and not from the property line. His client relied on the Code and got a permit. He said the Board should say the ZA erred and grant the permit. It’s no fault of his client that the ZA is in error.
NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, said that error or no error that the Board must apply the law of Proposition G and it can’t approve a general advertising sign. Board must apply the law in effect at the time of their decision. The interim controls required a conditional use authorization for all general advertising signs but now they are prohibited.
NO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR EITHER SIDE.
(15) APPEAL NO. 02-093
|
FOSTER MEDIA, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 PARTIES: N/A
|
[198 Valencia Street.
[Appealing the denial on May 31, 2002, of [Permit to Erect a Sign (14’ in height, 48’ in [width, with 672sf of total surface area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/12/10/4877.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial by the Planning Dept., and grant the subject permit with findings.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin for Planning said the application was put on hold for additional information from the applicant and the Department was not stalling their approval until Proposition G passed and all such signs were prohibited and this one would have to be disapproved. The applicant failed to provide the requested elevation. Scott Emblidge, attorney for the Applicant, said his client did respond to the planner’s request on January 18, 2002. The issue is whether it is to be primarily viewed from the Central Freeway or not. It faces Duboce Street and the front of the sign faces away from the freeway. His client did move the site 40 feet to meet the Code standard. He said it looks like Planning sat on the application until Proposition G passed, prohibiting approval of new signs. Lars Skupstar of Foster Media said he moved the site 43 feet so that the sign wouldn’t be seen from the freeway and he called Planning every week and the planner wouldn’t return his calls.
(16) APPEAL NO. 02-076
|
JAMES RANKIN, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[877 Bryant Street.
[Appealing a Request for Suspension of [Building Permit Application No(s). [2002/04/08/3308, dated April 23, 2002, [addressed to Director Frank Chiu of the Dept. [of Building Inspection, for the reason that the [subject property has an active block book [notation and the Planning Department would [like to allow the public to file for a Discretionary [Review hearing.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to overrule the subject Request for Suspension.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin for Planning said that the building permit application was filed in error at the front counter and there was no search of the block books that would have turned up the Block Book Notation (BBN) that would have gotten Planning to give proper notice to the concerned neighbor who filed the BBN. He added that once this error was recognized, Planning requested that DBI suspend the permit so that notice could be given and the neighbor could request DR as set forth in Planning Code Section 351(g). It was clearly an error by the Department. Jennifer Gardella, attorney for the Appellant, said that the permit was issued within the law and there is no authorization for a suspension of a validly issued permit for failure of Planning to notify based on a BBN. Section 311 notice applies to residential projects in residential districts and here it is a commercial district. Her client is losing $10,000 per month for the property. All the issues raised by Gerri Scott have been addressed. She could have appealed the permit when it was issued and didn’t.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Eric Messersmith said that there are many issues that should be raised at a DR hearing by the neighbors. Gerri Scott said she lives in Gilbert Street, which is a different kind of street. She said she had referred the matter on November 4 to Code Enforcement and the Appellant is now under a stop-work order. The Alcohol Beverage Control hearing has been postponed because there was no notice to people of that hearing. The site is on a 22-foot wide alley across the street from the Hall of Justice.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Alice Barkley said Ms. Scott doesn’t want anything at all in the alley.
There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
___________________________ _________________________________
Arnold Y. K. Chin, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Esteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter.
Telephone: 356-0048.
