2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2000
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET)
PRESENT: President Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah and Commissioner John McInerney.
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA), Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.
Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the meeting.
(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: 1. August Longo spoke in support of the ZA’s determination and Walgreen’s proposed relocation of Appeal 00-064, item 8 on the calendar, for the reason he had a meeting to attend and could not wait for the item to be called. 2. Walter Johnson of the Labor Council spoke in support of the ZA’s determination of Appeal 00-064 also. 3. Robert "Woody" Woodall stood in support of the ZA’s determination in Appeal 00-064 and left the room before the item was called.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary and the Board members thanked court reporter Annette Snyder for her efforts the past year and wished her well since this would be her last night as official court reporter. 2. President Chin said that he had only 2 hours of sleep on the plane that day returning early from Hong Kong, and asked Vice President Saunders to chair the meeting.
(3) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE:
REQUESTS FOR JURISDICTION BEYOND THE 15-DAY APPEAL PERIOD:
ITEM A: 3155 Scott Street. Letter from Yasin A. Salma, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/02/03/964 issued to Sailing Billboards Outdoor Media to erect a 288 square foot painted wall sign.
|
Date issued
|
February 3, 2000
|
|
Last day to appeal
|
February 18, 2000
|
|
Request for jurisdiction
|
June 1, 2000
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to DENY the request for jurisdiction.
SPEAKERS: 1. Yasin Salma, requestor, explained that someone had chopped off his rooftop flue and that the permit holder had ignored his three certified letters requesting the flue be restored. 2. Fred Campagnoli, Jr., the attorney for the property owner and the sign company, asked the Board to not allow a late filing of the appeal and described several issues in dispute between the parties. He said these issues, including an alleged trespass, were not matters the Board could act upon.
ITEM B: 679 - 35th Avenue. Letter from Steve Dupree, requesting that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No. 2000/4/21/7943 issued to Johnny Tan for the removal of an illegal unit.
|
Date issued
|
April 21, 2000
|
|
Last day to appeal
|
May 8, 2000
|
|
Request for jurisdiction
|
June 12, 2000
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the request for jurisdiction.
SPEAKERS: 1. Steve Dupree, requestor, said he and his daughter live in the unit and that he had not filed an appeal in time because of the letter he had received from the permit holder which said that the unit was to be legalized. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for permit holder, said that the permit had been properly issued and that he had suggested that the permit holder inform the tenant, though no notice was required. He said there was no way to legalize this unit in this legal one-family house. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the Planning staff was struggling with how to handle the removal of illegal units in light of the housing crisis, and that off-street parking variances to allow legalization was possible. He thought the Planning Commission may require Section 311 notices in the future.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING:
ITEM C: 361 Lombard Street. Letter from Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-003, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the permit with FINDINGS and the following CONDITIONS: the metal pipes in the subject light well be painted a light color and a lattice fence no more than six feet in height be installed in the light well to cover up the metal pipes.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to
July 12, 2000.
SPEAKERS: 1. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, reported on his review of the appeal and his conclusion that all was lawful, but that he recommended the permit holder line the proposed lath fence with a metal sheet to insure that it not become a fire hazard. He said the permit holder refused to do it. He felt there was a misunderstanding of the Board’s action by the permit holder. 2. Steve Atkinson, attorney for the permit holder, said he had not heard of the option of a non-combustible lath fence six feet by ten feet inside the lattice. He said it was not appropriate nor necessary and that it could generate a noise issue.
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:
ITEM D: 361 Lombard Street. Adoption of Findings for above.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to
July 12, 2000.
SPEAKERS: None.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING:
ITEM E: 1900 Van Ness Avenue. Letter from George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems Advertising, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal 00-031, heard May 31, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to UPHOLD the suspension of the permit to reduce and reinstall billboard. Four votes are necessary to overturn any departmental action and the suspension was UPHELD.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Saunders and Commissioner Cullum dissented) to DENY the request for rehearing. 4 votes being necessary to grant a rehearing, the request was DENIED.
SPEAKERS: 1. George Speir, attorney for Outdoor Systems, the appellant, requested a rehearing because he felt the Commissioners had not understood the Van Ness Avenue Special Sign District regulations which allow a sign of the type proposed. 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, read section 607.5 of the Planning Code to the Board, the definition of free standing signs, and said the appellant can file a new permit for a new sign on the site.
Items (4A), (4B) and (4C) shall be heard together
(4A) APPEAL NO. 00-085
|
JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[540 Howard Street.
[Appealing conditions placed on Place of [Entertainment permit granted May 24, [2000 regarding extending permits to [ground and upper levels; extending [hours Sunday to Wednesday to 4:00 [a.m. and Thursday to Saturday to 6:00 [a.m.; allowing patrons to enter until [closing; and not limiting to only three [times a year after hours operation [Sunday to Thursday.
[PERMIT NO. 99494.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(4B) APPEAL NO. 00-086
|
JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[540 Howard Street.
[Appealing conditions placed on Dance [Hall Keeper/After Hours permit granted [May 24, 2000.
[PERMIT NO. 99493.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(4C) APPEAL NO. 00-087
|
JON T. MAYEDA, dba "CLUB MERCURY", Appellant
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[540 Howard Street.
[Appealing conditions placed on [Extended-Hours Premises permit [granted May 24, 2000.
[PERMIT NO. 99495.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to RESCHEDULE these three matters to July 12, 2000, with directions to the Executive Secretary to ask the principals if they would agree to a different date beyond July 12th.
SPEAKERS: None.
Items (5A) and (5B) shall be heard together
(5A) APPEAL NO. 00-046
|
JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[1432-34 Kearny Street.
[Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, [to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to [Demolish a Building (garage).
[APPLICATION NO. 9621909.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(5B) APPEAL NO. 00-047
|
JOSEF D. COOPER & TRACY C. KIRKHAM, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[1432-34 Kearny Street.
[Protesting issuance on March 18, 2000, [to Nathan and Nan Roth, permit to Erect [a Building (three-story two-unit resi-[dence).
[APPLICATION NO. 9621910S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE these two matters to
July 19, 2000, with no additional public testimony.
SPEAKERS: 1. Tracy Kirkham, co-appellant, explained that she was about to put two nearly built units on the market and that the permit holders’ permit was illegal in that its underpinning plan did not have permission. She wanted the Board to disapprove the permits so the process would be repeated while she sells her properties. She wants to avoid a hole in the ground next to her units. 2. Steve Atkinson, attorney for permit holders, said that the finest engineers were working on the shoring plan and he suggested the Board approve the permits on condition that any revisions to the underpinning plan be appealable to the Board. 3. Loring Wylie, structural engineer for the permit holders, said he had designed for the highest level of safety, or he could do a plan for the Roth’s property alone which would provide safety, with some settlement. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the underpinning plan would be under a separate alteration permit, not under the site permit. He said the engineers were the best. He said this type of dispute is usually handled by the parties and not the City. 5. Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney, said that addenda to site permits are not appealable to the Board, but a new alteration permit for a shoring plan would be. 6. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that Planning requires that a demolition permit be accompanied by a permit for a replacement structure, to avoid a hole in the ground.
7. Elizabeth England, attorney for the permit holders, said it is difficult to schedule contractors now under indefinite conditions, as well as insurance, and bids on other things. They may need sixty days to do the sequencing plans.
(6) APPEAL NO. 00-061
|
MARK & MARY LIPIAN, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[290 Union Street.
[Protesting issuance on April 7, 2000, to [Tribecca Properties LLC, permit to Alter [a Building (revision to site plan to show [existing windows at 1304-1/2 [Montgomery Street, fire staircase and [balcony at 290 Union Street).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/07/6744.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants prior to hearing.
(7) APPEAL NO. 00-071
|
WINNIE YAN, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[1150 Gilman Avenue.
[Protesting issuance on May 2, 2000, to [Francisco Olla, permit to Alter a Building [(legalize ground floor space; rear [addition to upper and lower floors; build [deck over existing roof).
[APPLICATION NO. 9817361S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 GRANT the permit, with directions to the Chief Building Inspector to monitor the maintenance issues on the subject property.
SPEAKERS: 1. Winnie Yan, appellant, speaking Chinese through interpreter Dorothy Wong, said that the permit holder’s house was creating humidity that is making her children sick and that it held an illegal kitchen whose smoke disturbed her family and several other problems with the project. She asked the Board to disapprove the permit to stop the noise and loss of her privacy. She said that the permit holder had lied. 2. Claire Pilcher, attorney for the permit holder, said that the permit was to legalize the work done and that the illegal windows would be removed. She said her clients were trying to be good neighbors to Ms. Yan and she listed the revisions made voluntarily to suit the neighbors. She said her client’s house could not cause humidity since the yard was full of sunshine as in the photograph and that air can circulate between the houses. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, said the case was essentially as Ms. Pilcher presented it, and that the permit complies with the Planning Code which allows 75% of the lot as buildable area. He said the project was in scale with the neighborhood and that any construction will block some sunlight. He said dampness was seldom an issue at Planning. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the holes in the building would have to be plugged up, and that each property must provide its own air, light and ventilation, and that pipes could run up the side of the building on the outside. 5. Carlos Olla, son of the permit holder, said that steam comes out of the laundry not the kitchen and that they were just trying the legalize the back of their house.
(8) APPEAL NO. 00-064
|
RUSSIAN HILL NEIGHBORS, Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1480 Broadway Street.
[Determination reissued April 10, 2000 of [the Zoning Administrator that the [parking lot is a legal permitted [conditional use which may continue to [operate under Planning Code Section [178(b) for the reason it existed prior to [the creation of the Polk Street [Neighborhood Commercial District.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject determination.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained that the subject parking lot had originally been a gas station and then a CSAA lot and now would serve customers of the relocated Walgreen’s and is deemed an automatic conditional use which can continue to operate. He said he used the Walgreen’s lot on 24th Street as did many neighbors and he expected the same would happen here. 2. Claire McGhee, president of the appellant group, said that they were not opposing the project in general, but were only asking for a conditional use hearing to set conditions for use of the parking lot which has served a variety of purposes during the past years. She said that the Sullivan letter last December mentioned a CU process and she was disappointed by this determination and feels she was bamboozled. 3. Daniel Sullivan, agent for determination holder, said that when he wrote in December he did not know that the lot would be exempted from the CU process and that the Planning policy was unclear on this issue, but that all their discussions with Planning were done with open correspondence, and that he asked for a determination in November and did not receive it until March. He said his client would consider a lot operator’s bid to use it at night for valet parking as discussed with Supervisor Becerril. He said that billboards were often permitted on gas station sites in NC zones as non-conforming uses, but he had not researched the two billboards on this site.
There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
_________________________________
Arnold Y.K. Chin, President
_________________________________
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Annette Snyder, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 362-5991.
