2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 17, 2003
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker, Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya, and Commissioner Sabrina Saunders.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Jonas Ionin, for the Planning Dept. (PD) & the Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, DPW Bur. 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:
(3A) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Taxi medallion No(s). 1181; Revocation took effect March 25, 2003
Last Day to Appeal was April 9, 2003; Jurisdiction Request Received July 1, 2003
|
Letter from Lando Siu, requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over the Taxi Commission’s revocation of medallion no. 1181.
Note: The requestor filed an appeal of the Taxi Commission’s revocation (Appeal No. 03-052), and the Board held a hearing on June 4, 2003 where the revocation was upheld. The rehearing period lapsed with no rehearing request filed, and a Notice of Decision & Order was issued, terminating the Board’s jurisdiction. The requestor has filed this jurisdiction request asking the Board to grant him a second 10-day rehearing period and the opportunity to request a rehearing. If this request is granted, the Board may consider the rehearing request for Appeal No(s). 03-052 as addendum item 3B.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to grant the jurisdiction request.
(3B) REHEARING REQUEST:
Taxi Medallion No(s). 1181; Appeal No(s). 03-052; Siu vs. Taxi Commission
|
If the foregoing jurisdiction request (addendum item 3A) is granted, then this rehearing request may proceed: Letter from Lando Siu, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-052, decided June 4, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the revocation and instead impose a 3-month suspension of the subject medallion. Four votes being required under Charter § 4.106 to overturn or modify a departmental action, the motion failed, and the Taxi Commission’s revocation was upheld.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to grant the rehearing request and set it for Nov. 12, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Lando Siu, appellant/requestor, said he has new evidence to submit if the Board grants him a rehearing, and he explained why he had not requested a rehearing within the 10-day period; he said next time he will have a lawyer. Naomi Little, ED TC, said she had no objection to the Board granting another 10-day rehearing request period, but she opposes the granting of a rehearing because the requestor has not offered any new evidence that would justify one.
No public comment.
(3C) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 737 Pine Street; ZA determination was issued July 7, 2003
Last day to appeal was July 22, 2003; Jurisdiction request received August 15, 2003
|
Letter from Niall MacCormack, agent for Jessika deTrinidad, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over a determination by the Zoning Administrator for the property referenced above. Determination: the proposed conversion of storage space to a dwelling unit in this 39-unit apartment building would constitute an intensification of a legal non-conforming use, which is prohibited under Planning Code § 181(a).
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Jessieka Detrinidad, requestor, said that her architect was in Ireland, and explained why they did not file an appeal on time while summarizing the arguments against the determination. Jonas Ionin, PD, said that the Department has no objection to the Board allowing a new 15-day appeal period. No public comment.
(3D) REHEARING REQUEST:
438 – 21st Avenue; Appeal No(s). 03-098/099; McCallum vs. DBI, PDA
|
Letter from Millie McCallum, appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-098/099, decided July 23, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold both the demolition permit and site permit on condition that the sound-proofing inspection report be given to the appellant. Project: demolition of a 3-story single family dwelling with 900sf of ground floor area, and construction of a 4-story, 2-unit building with 1,656sf of ground floor area. Permit Holder(s): Sze-Hoi Yip.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Millie McCallum, appellant, asked the Board to grant a new hearing so that neighbors can support her new appeal, and she can get an estimate for skylights that she believes will cost more than the amount awarded to her by the Planning Commission, and upheld by the Board. Patrice Fambrini, agent for permit holder, asked the Board to deny the request since no new evidence was proposed that would justify a second hearing. She said the $7500 would probably cover three new skylights. No public comment.
(3E) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 498 Beach Street; DPW BSM order dated May 5, 2003
Last day to appeal was May 20, 2003; Jurisdiction request received August 22, 2003
|
Letter from Ulysses Napuri, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Street Use & Mapping (DPW BSM) Order No(s). 174,096, denying an application for a Sidewalk Display Merchandise Permit at the subject property.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Maria Napuri, wife of requestor, explained that they ahd not filed an appeal on time because they were distracted by serious personal problems. Nick Elsner, DPW BSM, said he ahd no objection to allowing a new appeal period. No public comment.
(3F) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 330 – 25th Avenue; Permit issued on May 12, 2003
Last day to appeal was May 27, 2003; Jurisdiction request received on August 18, 2003
|
Letter from Janet Codor and Charles Hoffman, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2000/04/05/6504S.
Note: The requestors filed an appeal of the issuance of the subject demolition and site permit (Appeal Nos. 03-071/072) and the Board held a hearing on July 9, 2003 and voted 5-0 to uphold the demolition permit without conditions, and to uphold the site permit on condition that the exterior wall be reduced by 4 feet in length on all 3 floors, with the fire escape to remain. No request for rehearing was filed within 10 days of the Board’s decision, and the Notice of Decision was released on July 28, 2003, ending the Board’s jurisdiction in this matter. The requestors have filed this jurisdiction request for the purpose of obtaining clarification on the Board’s conditions and/or for the purpose of obtaining a second 10-day rehearing period. If this request is granted, the Board may consider the rehearing request for Appeal No(s). 03-071/072 as addendum item 3G.
|
(3G) REHEARING REQUEST:
330 – 25th Avenue; Appeal No(s). 03-071/072; Codor & Hoffman vs. DBI, PDA
|
Letter from Janet Codor and Charles Hoffman, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-071/072, decided July 9, 2003. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the demolition permit without conditions, and to uphold the site permit on condition that the exterior wall be reduced by 4 feet in length on all 3 floors, with the fire escape to remain. Project: demolish a two-story single family house with 1400sf of ground floor area, and construct a three-story, two-unit condominium building with 2060sf of ground floor area. Permit Holder(s): Michael Chan.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to clarify the Notice of Decision pursuant to the revised plan as agreed to by the parties.
SPEAKERS: Janet Codor, co-appellant, asked the Board to clarify their decision, and apologized for any comments at the last hearing that might have been construed as an attack on the character of a Commissioner. She said no aspersions were intended, and she and her co-appellant felt confident in the integrity of all the Commissioners. Michael Chan, permit holder, explained that he had submitted revised plans incorporating the revisions imposed by the Board. Amy Yu, wife of permit holder, said that they complied with the conditions, and asked the Board to deny the rehearing request. She said there was no more compromise possible because shortening the building any more would make the bedrooms too small. Gabriel Ng, agent for permit holder, asked the Board to explain exactly what it wanted, and agreed to meet with the appellants in the corridor to reach an agreement, and then to report back to the Board. After leaving the room with the appellants, they returned to the meeting and reported on their agreement. No public comment.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-080
|
EVELYN ELSESSER KAHL, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
565 Diamond Street.
Appealing a determination dated May 15, 2003, addressed to Stephen Johnson, that the non-conforming structure on the adjacent lot at 551-555 Diamond Street cannot be used for rear yard averaging so as to allow the rear expansion of the subject property because the non-conforming structure is not a dwelling unit under Planning Code § 102.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This appeal was withdrawn by the appellant prior to hearing.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-088
|
DONNA ROBERTS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
303 Cortland Avenue.
Appealing the denial on May 22, 2003, of Permit to Remove & Replace One Tree.
ORDER NO. 174,140.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker dissented) overrule the denial, and grant the subject permit on condition that the replacement tree be suitable to DPW BUF.
SPEAKERS: Tony Wolcott, AUB, DPW BUF, explained why the application was denied, and described the condition of the subject tree, which he said was in generally good condition. He said that this tree is maintained by the City because it is on the Bocana side of Cortland. Appellant did not appear, and no public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-104
|
JOE WYMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING,
Respondent
|
Various Locations on Broadway & Embarcadero.
Protesting the issuance on June 20, 2003, to One Reel/Teatro Zinzanni, Street Use Banners Permit.
ORDER NO. 165,292.
PERMIT NO. 03B-032.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Joe Wyman, appellant, said that the permit does not meet DPW guidelines and should be denied. Nick Elsner, DPW BSM, explained the history of the banner regulations under the Police Code and the Public Works Code, and described the new legislation in committee at the Board of Supervisors, which is intended to replace the DPW Order that set forth the guidelines now in place. Stanley Morris, agent for permit holder, said the permit does meet the guidelines, and asked the Board to uphold the permit. He also said they have committed some $30,000 for advertising of high quality. No public comment.
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 03-056
|
GREGORY ERLACH, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
531 – 43rd Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on March 27, 2003, to Alan Freebury, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family house: install 5’ high fence on side of front yard, treated vertical posts on 4’ centers, redwood lattice full height between verticals, pre-formed 3’ metal footings driven into ground floor for verticals, capped by treated 2” X 4” (on side) tying 5 posts together; 8’6” free standing; rest next to building)
APPLICATION NO. 2003/03/27/0836.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7B) APPEAL NO. 03-067
|
GREGORY ERLACH, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
531 – 43rd Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 2, 2003, to Alan Freebury, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family house: rebuild existing rear stairs in-kind).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/05/02/3742.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeals to Nov. 19, 2003 at the prior written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (8A) & (8B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(8A) APPEAL NO. 03-064
|
TAMMY HO, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1059-1061 Market Street.
Appealing a Permit Suspension Request dated April 24, 2003, asking that Building Permit Application No(s). 2000/05/15/0050 be suspended because the project (conversion of 39,000sf of light industrial space into office space) was not referred to the Planning Department for appropriate review or for the required public hearing before the Planning Commission, in violation of Planning Code § 321.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.
(8B) APPEAL NO. 03-115
|
TAMMY HO, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
|
1059-1061 Market Street.
Appealing the suspension on May 12, 2003 of Building Permit Application No(s). 2000/05/15/0050, 2001/09/25/9156, 2001/09/26/9258, 2001/12/18/5501, 2002/02/26/0121, 2002/02/26/0114, 2002/05/14/6517, 2002/07/11/1182, 2002/08/08/3541, 2002/08/16/4177, 2002/10/18/9329, & 2002/10/18/9328 (conversion of 39,000sf of light industrial space into office space, and various tenant improvements) for the reason that the Planning Department believes these permits were issued in error because they were not routed to the Planning Department for review and a required public hearing in violation of Planning Code § 321.
JURISDICTION GRANTED JULY 9, 2003.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to the Indefinite Calendar at the request of the appellant.
SPEAKERS: Alice Barkley, attorney for appellant, explained why a rescheduling to the indefinite calendar was needed.
(9) APPEAL NO. 03-087
|
BILL & LUBA GOWER, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
2250 Jackson Street.
Appealing a determination dated May 20, 2003, addressed to Gary Bell, that the legal use of the subject property is a 5-unit apartment building based on available prior building permits and land use records.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to December 17, 2003 at the prior written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (10A) & (10B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(10A) APPEAL NO. 03-096
|
EVELYN WONG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1331 Green Street.
Protesting the issuance on June 3, 2003, to Stephen Goldstine, Permit to Erect a Building (one-story single-family dwelling with 523sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/03/30/5663.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(10B) APPEAL NO. 03-097
|
TAMI TWAROG
& ELIZABETH WRIGHT, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1331 Green Street.
Protesting the issuance on June 3, 2003, to Stephen Goldstine, Permit to Erect a Building (one-story single-family dwelling with 523sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/03/30/5663.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Vice President Harrington dissented) to reschedule the appeal to October 1, 2003 for a status report.
SPEAKERS: Claudine Cheng, attorney for co-appellant Evelyn Wong, asked the Board to reschedule the matter pending abatement of the newly issued NOV on the property. Elizabeth Wright and Tami Twarog, co-appellants, also asked for a rescheduling of the matter due to the NOV. David Cincotta, attorney for permit holder, objected to the rescheduling requests. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained the nature and impact of the NOV.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-103
|
RONALD YOUNG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
290 Beacon Street.
Protesting the issuance on June 17, 2003, to David Ehrlich, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: new deck extension, new kitchen, replace sliding doors, rear façade and windows, new skylight in kitchen and study, and a new fireplace).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/09/12/6372.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on condition that the light/air issues raised by Chief Inspector Kornfield be addressed via revised plans.
SPEAKERS: Ronald Young, appellant, explained how the proposal would block his view of a nearby tree, which is important to his wife. He asked the Board to downsize the proposed deck. David Ehrlich, permit holder, described the proposal and explained that in his view it would not have any substantial impact on the appellant. He also explained the compromises they have made, which have reduced the size of the proposed deck substantially. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said there are minor issues with the approved plans, and asked the Board to condition the permit with a requirement that the plans must be revised in compliance with the Code.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:14 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.
