2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2004
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Kathleen Harrington, Vice President Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Arnold Chin, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA OCA); Craig Nikitas, Acting Zoning Administrator (AZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Urban Forestry (AUF, DPW BUF); 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) ADDENDUM ITEMS: None.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-190
|
TOM KATZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
616 Shrader Street.
Appealing the suspension on August 6, 2003, of BPA Nos. 2003/08/06/1364 & 2003/07/23/0191. Reason(s) for suspension: the 1st permit was approved erroneously, and the 2nd permit requires further review by the Planning Dept. since both permits did not receive residential guideline review by Planning Dept. preservation technical specialists, which is required for the replacement of windows on architecturally significant buildings like the subject property.
JURISDICTION GRANTED 11/12/03.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON 2/11/04.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to continue the appeal to March 31, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Tom Katz responded to questions and explained how he had obtained a permit for replacing the subject windows. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said the department has been duped in this case by a contractor who had shopped around for a planner who would approve his permit, and that he had told one planner that another had approved the application when in fact the planner had not; he explained the terms used in the review of window replacements. Paul Delson, attorney for appellant, explained that a planner had approved the application, and he quoted the planner; he said the work was done with a permit. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-193
|
PATRICK McDERMOTT, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
1956-1960 Fell Street.
Appealing the denial on November 14, 2003, of a Permit to Convert (from 8 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit into 3 dwelling units).
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON FEB. 18, 2004.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 2-3 (Commissioner Shoemaker, Vice President Sugaya and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overrule the denial of the subject permit. 4 votes being required to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the denial was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Rosemary Bosque, Chief Housing Inspector, DBI HID, explained how the application fails to meet provisions of Chapter 41 of the Administrative Code, the Hotel Conversion Ordinance (HCO). John Baba, attorney for appellant, explained how this application complies with the HCO since it meets an exemption in the amended Ellis Act.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-194
|
ARA & BERG TEHLIRIAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
DR Requestor(s): JOSE MORALES
|
572 San Jose Avenue.
Appealing the denial on November 21, 2003, of a Site Permit to Alter a Building a Building (on two-unit building: horizontal and vertical addition, 335sf on ground floor, 368sf on 2nd floor, and 1038sf on 3rd floor; electrical, plumbing, and mechanical under separate permit).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/04/0682S.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON FEB. 18, 2004.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioner Shoemaker and Vice President Sugaya dissented) to overrule the denial and grant the permit with conditions as presented by the appellant. 4 votes being required to overrule a departmental action, the denial of the subject permit was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, described his efforts to meet with the tenant to negotiate a settlement, and then he summarized the offer he had made. Jose Morales, DR Requestor and tenant, explained how he feels the owner is perpetuating a scam with the project and the offer. Jim Faye, former agent for Mr. Morales, said he read the offer which includes some items that were before the Commission. Catharine Barnes, DCA OCA, responded to Board questions about enforcement of conditions proposed by the appellant. She said they are a problem frequently and the Board may impose conditions as it sees fit. No public comment.
(7) APPEAL NO. 04-004
|
TOBIN HANSEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
2500 Market Street.
Appealing the denial on December 26, 2003, of a Permit to Remove & Replace One (1) Tree.
ORDER NO. 174,572
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject denial due to the non-appearance of the appellant.
SPEAKERS: Tony Wolcott, AUF, DPW BUF, explained that the tree is in good shape, and appropriate among other Chinese elms in the area. Appellant did not appear. Victor Pacheco, Legal Assistant, explained the notice procedures used in this case to inform the appellant of the time and place of hearing for his appeal. No public comment.
(8) APPEAL NO. V03-208
|
DAVID CANNON, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
2 Ord Court.
Protesting the granting on Dec. 18, 2003, to Charlie Barnett (Subject Property Owner Fredric Silverman), Rear Yard Variance (construction of a new 2nd-story, vertical addition for the existing single-family house).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0828V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to March 31, 2004 at the prior written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(9) APPEAL NO. 04-001
|
CHRISTOPHER & JAMIE ZAK, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
293 Downey Street.
Protesting the issuance on December 24, 2003, to Kirk Scott, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: horizontal addition at rear, basement, first and second stories; interior remodel; addition of bay window at front and alteration to front façade; add one dwelling unit).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/11/21/3668S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Chris Zak, co-appellant, explained how the project will block his window and the broad view of the City he presently enjoys through it; he also said he has concerns over loss of privacy. Kirk Scott, permit holder, summarized the procedure regarding property line windows and said his project will have a reasonable and minimal impact on the appellants. Craig Nikitas, appellant, said that this is an excellent proposal, which has been approved by the Planning Commission after two DR hearings. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said that he agreed with the earlier testimony of the AZA and of the permit holder as to the procedure for property line windows. No public comment.
(10) APPEAL NO. 04-003
|
JOHN HOOPER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
7 Buena Vista Terrace.
Protesting the issuance on December 23, 2003, to Andrea Chavez & Dan Putterman, Permit to Demolish a Building (2-story, 2-family residential building with 2,166sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/26/8353.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Vice President Sugaya. Afterwards, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Sugaya recused) to uphold the subject permit with findings as read into the record by Commissioner Chin.
SPEAKERS: Steve Williams, attorney for appellant, described the complicated permit history of the project and asked the Board to send the permit back to the Planning Commission to straighten it all out and bring it into compliance with the Code; he said that there had been no merger in 1997 because it was impossible. Alice Barkley, attorney for permit holder, described the tortured permit history and said the neighbors welcome the project, which will complete work begun many years ago and will now be completed as a one-family house for the permit holder and his family; she said that a demolition permit is actually not required under the circumstances, and that the properties have been merged, making a one-family house. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said the Planning Commission did not have a policy of mandatory DR for merger applications until 2000, and that no demolition permit is required in this case. Public comment for permit holder: John Sanger for a neighbor said he is in full support of the project and that this action of the Board is the last link in the chain of review of the proposal. Boris Dramov said the project has been abandoned for 7 years and is a derelict, which should have been removed long ago with its flapping tar paper and billowing tarps. Bonnie Fisher said the building is hazardous and she urged the Board to uphold the permit. Robert Schuman said homeless people have used the open house, and that it cost him $40,000 to make repairs of damages caused by pigeons in the property causing blockage to his drains. No public comment for appellant.
(11) APPEAL NO. 04-005
|
JIMMY CHU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
425 Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Jan. 5, 2004, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/02/13/7355, 2003/05/17/4558 and 2003/06/20/7261 are hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to April 28, 2004 at the prior written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(12) APPEAL NO. 04-006
|
SANJAY BHAS
dba BAYVIEW GREENWASTE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1300 Carroll Avenue.
Appealing a determination dated January 13, 2004, addressed to Sanjay Bhas, disapproving a Health Permit Application Zoning Referral for a wood transferring, wood and landscaping waste chipping, mulching and transfer facility at the subject property, located within an M-1 zoning district, because Planning Code § 202(c) precludes any use in the M-1 zoning district that creates conditions which are hazardous, noxious or offensive through emissions of odor, smoke, fumes or dust, and because Planning Code § 225(o) and (d) prohibit storage of waste, discarded, or salvaged material or inflammable materials in the M-1 zoning district unless it’s conducted within a completely closed building.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the subject determination with a finding that the risk of fire is minimal, and that this type of business is appropriate in the M-1 zoning district.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained the determination and the inconsistency of the business under the Code; he said he now has additional information and is comfortable with the business on this site. Jeremy Paul, agent for appellant, described the advantages to the City of approving this business which serves the landscapers of the City and is an appropriate use; he showed samples of the materials handled at the facility and the five permits for equipment obtained from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Henry Louie of DPH said this is a solid waste issue under his jurisdiction and he referred the application to Planning for review as required under the State Administrative Code, Title 14. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, suggested conditions if the Board granted the permit to insure safety. No public comment.
There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Kathleen Harrington, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
