2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 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); Julian Banales for the Planning Dept. (PD) and the 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.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
ITEM A: 4125 Balboa Street. Letter from Clarance & Jutta Grider, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-023, Grider vs. ZA, decided April 9, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to uphold the stop work order request by the Zoning Administrator.
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: None. The requestors did not appear.
ITEM B: 702 Earl Street. Adoption of Findings for Appeal No(s). 02-122 & 02-173, Hamman vs. DBI & Cassidy vs. ZA, decided Jan. 22, 2003. At that time, concerning Appeal No. 02-122, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the suspension on condition that the appellant file an amended Building Permit Application to correct all Building Code violations to date (Jan. 22, 2003). And for Appeal No. 02-173, at that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented, Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination. Four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject determination was upheld. Appellant(s): Michael Hamman & Joe Cassidy.
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the findings as amended.
SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks, attorney for the appellant Michael Hamman, asked the Board to adopt the findings that he presented and said that the DBI refused to accept his client’s applications. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, objected to certain language in the proposed findings, and said that the required permit application submitted was not yet approvable. No public comment.
ITEM C: 1168 Folsom Street. Adoption of Findings for Appeal No(s). 02-232, Hauser vs. DBI, BOSD, decided April 30, 2003. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial & grant the subject permit with conditions as stipulated by the appellant and the Planning Department, with findings to be adopted on May 14, 2003. Appellant(s): George Hauser. Project: erect a 5 story, 20-unit building with 8000sf of ground floor area.
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt the findings.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-010
|
MICHAEL MA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
Subject Prop. Owner(s): ROGER REYNOLDS
|
2750 Lake Street.
Appealing the determination dated Jan. 6, 2003, addressed to Sue Hestor, attorney for Appellant, that the proposal to construct a 2nd story above the existing garage on this detached single family house, if either street frontage was to be elected as the front lot line, that portions of the existing building would occur within the required rear yard, and thus be non-conforming; therefore, electing a front line parallel to 29th Avenue would allow for the proposal to comply with Planning Code §§ 172(b) & 173(b).
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overrule the subject determination with a finding that the front of the house is on Lake Street. Four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action, the motion failed and the subject determination was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales, PD, explained the determination being appealed and the project that required it, which is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s). He said this issue is a gray area and that the Code is not definite on it. Sue Hestor, attorney for Appellant, said the determination was in conflict with the traditional planning policy regarding choice of front property lines for corner lots, and in her view the project was located in the required rear yard and cannot be approved unless a variance is sought and approved; she also said that if the determination is not overruled it will be a bad precedent for future development of occupied corner lots across the City. Public comment for the ZA: Roger Reynolds, subject property owner, said the proposed addition will only be 296sf of space needed by his family and will rebuild the dilapidated garage with a room over it, and that he has much neighborhood support. Ed Caplon, Mr. Reynold’s architect, said that the existing garage has a flat roof while the proposed one will have a smaller footprint and a pitched roof more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. No public comment for appellant.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-100
|
CANADIAN AMERICAN OIL CO., Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
1868 Van Ness Avenue (Ben’s Shell Station).
Appealing a Cease & Desist Order dated May 24, 2002, addressed to Equilon Enterprises LLC & Canadian American Oil, that the subject property is being used for operation of an off-street parking facility without benefit of a Conditional Use (CU) authorization, in violation of Planning Code §§ 171 & 209.7(c).
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the case to the Call of the Chair at the request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(6) CONSENT ITEMS (DBI PENALTY): With the consent of the Department of Building Inspection, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to reduce the penalty (investigation fee) to two times the regular fee as provided for in the Building Code. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.
(6A) APPEAL NO. 03-033
|
ALLEN WU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
618-620 – 6th Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on February 27, 2003, for work done without a permit (on 2-family residential building: rebuild side stair, remove kitchen and study room at 2nd floor, remove illegal kitchen at ground floor).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/18/7723.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the penalty to 5 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, asked the Board to uphold the investigation fee because of the many violations of the Code listed in the file.
(6B) APPEAL NO. 03-035
|
WILLIAM HOGLUND, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1230 – 25th Avenue
Appealing the imposition of penalty imposed on March 6, 2003, for work done without a permit (on single-family house: comply with NOV #200336757, remove illegal kitchen and legalize existing rooms in garage at rear, install laundry sink, and change kitchen and bedroom to storage rooms).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/12/7342.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Representative of DBI indicated consent to action.
(6C) APPEAL NO. 03-041
|
CLAIRE M. BEASLEY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
925-927 Grove Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on March 13, 2003 for work done without a permit (on two-unit residential building: remove existing prohibited kitchen from non-permitted, unconditioned area of construction to convert area to unconditioned permitted construction; range, refrigerator, and kitchen cabinets to be removed, and range gas line to be capped and sealed within wall; voluntary compliance).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/03/03/8647.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Representative of DBI indicated consent to action.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-039
|
PATRICIA C. MAJOR, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS, Respondent
|
1400 Montgomery Street.
Appealing the denial on Feb. 27, 2003, of a Permit to Remove & Replace One Tree.
ORDER NO. 173,986.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 2-2-1 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented, President Chin recused) to overrule the denial and grant the permit. Four votes being required to overturn any departmental action, the motion failed, and the denial of the subject permit was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Tony Wolcott, AUF, DPW BUF, explained why the permit was denied and that this was a very controversial case. He said that basically the tree is too large for its site but that it is one of the few large American elms in the City and is not in imminent danger and so should be allowed to remain with some reduction of its height. Patricia Major, appellant, said her property is closest to the tree and that she and her husband maintained it at their own expense for many years and that fairness and equity require that they be allowed to remove it and replace it with a more suitable type. Public comment for DPW BSM: Paul Scott of Telegraph Hill Dwellers said that if the tree becomes a hazard it can be dealt with at that time but that his group supports retention. Larry Habeggar said the tree shuld be saved because it is by the Grace Marchant Garden, a great asset to the community. Mark Bittner said he studies the flock of wild parrots which need the tree to protect themselves from hawks. Mary Lipian said that removal of the tree will destabilize this steep hill. Marc Bruno said he is Vice President of THD and that the tree is not sick and should be left alone. Sherry Goodman said she wants the tree to remain because it frames a beautiful view. Arthur Chang of THD said property owners enter into a community contract and trees are their responsibility. Scott MacDonald said the tree has social and educational value for children. Millicent Bogert said there is now a pot of money from the neighbors to help maintain the trees. Carolyn Blair of the SF Tree Council urged retention of the tree. Bard Willmore said the area of garden and trees is a magical place. Public comment for the appellant: Jack Wong said that he lives on the south side of the tree and that it rates a 9 on a hazard scale, and that there is no view incentive for him if the tree is removed. Bee Killgore said she has not noticed any birds in the tree. Dave Hurlbert said the tree is not healthy and when he put his hand in the cavity it came out with a handful of maggots but he decided not to bring them to the hearing. Scott King said three arborists’ reports say that the tree should be removed, and that the issue of who pays for maintenance is a red herring.
(8) APPEAL NO. 02-201
|
JAMES VIEGAS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
91 San Felipe Ave.
Protesting the issuance on October 2, 2002, to Mark Sears & Russell Schrader, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: additional information as requested by District Building Inspector regarding the planters from Building Permit Application No(s). 2001/12/19/5627; show as built planter wall (under rear deck and stair case), correct garage roof deck, finished floor elevation).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/02/7981.
PARTIAL TESTIMONY HEARD APRIL 2, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to June 4, 2003 and for it to be the first substantive item on the agenda.
SPEAKERS: Mark Sears and Russell Schrader objected to DBI’s request to reschedule the appeal to June 11, 2003.
(9) APPEAL NO. 02-237
|
TINA WOLLENBERGER
& RAFAEL CALDERON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2515-2519 Post Street.
Protesting the issuance on March 29, 2002, to Victor Ume-Ukeje, Permit to Alter a Building (on 3-unit residential building: renovation of each unit; upgrade of bath, kitchen; finishes, lighting; no change to building footprint; new garage.)
APPLICATION NO. 2002/03/29/2665.
JURISDICTION GRANTED DEC. 12, 2002.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON FEB. 26, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit.
SPEAKERS: Tina Wollenberger, appellant, asked for a month’s continuance so that her lawyer can be present. She explained that this was a matter of principle with her, and not about money. Steven C. Williams, attorney for permit holder, objected to a continuance and said there were no reasons why the permit should be overruled and that the tenant is no longer in possession. No public comment. Tom Owen, DCA, said that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to permits and that the Rent Board has jurisdiction over landlord-tenant matters.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-009
|
IBRAHIM MALIK,SALWA
GHAIM & THOMAS NGAI, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
39 Country Club Drive.
Protesting the issuance on January 3, 2003, to David Truong, Site Permit to Alter a Building (horizontal addition on single-family house).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/02/25/9908S.
NOTE: BOARD VOTED ON MARCH 19, 2003 TO UPHOLD PERMIT WITH NO CONDITIONS. THEN, ON APRIL 23, 2003 THE BOARD VOTED 5-0 TO GRANT THE REHEARING REQUESTS BY THE PLANNING DEPT. & THE APPELLANTS.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit with revised plans as submitted at hearing on condition that the bay windows be squared off, and that the north/south directions and elevations be corrected on the plans.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales, PD, reported on Planning’s review of the plans, and said that with minor modifications the plans are approvable. Ibrahim Malik, co-appellant, said that the reviewd plans still have errors and that the bay windows will be the only one on the block. Thomas Ngai, co-appellant, said the plans violate the bay window standards and do not fit the character of the neighborhood, and that the project will still block his light. Thanh Ngo, new owner, said the bay windows do not go to the maximum 2/3 of the width allowed, and that he has worked it out with Planning. Public comment for the appellants: Leslie Zamaripa said there had been no notice for the addition originally, and she had no objection to the original plans because it paralleled the house next door and there were no side windows, and that there was no new notice when the plans were revised and granted. Richard Chan explained his opposition to the project.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-015
|
SANGIACOMO
ROSETTA LIVING TRUST, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
3366 Sacramento Street.
Appealing the denial on Jan. 30, 2003, of Permit to Alter a Building (on 2-unit residential/retail building: change of use permit; provide new sprinkler for 1hr protection and new ¾ hr property line protection windows).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/04/25/7697.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the permit with findings as read into the record by President Chin.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales explained this illegal conversion from residential to commercial use. Mary Murphy, attorney for appellant, explained the history of how her client had tried to get the permit for the conversion but had failed to complete the permit process several times. She said this conversion meets the intent of the Code. No public comment.
(12) APPEAL NO. V03-024
|
ALFRED LEE, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
423 – 35th Avenue.
Appealing the denial on Feb. 6, 2003, of Rear Yard & Front Setback Variances (subject property, a 3-story, 2-family house was built subsequent to Planning Commission Discretionary Review Case No(s). 1997.0380D, but in violation of the plans approved by the Commission, and to an extent that would require a variance from the requirements of the Planning Code to allow the building to remain.)
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.1210V.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to continue the appeal to June 4, 2003 with a site inspection by DBI & Planning, and with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales, PD, said the building has been built beyond the scope of the approved plans and the variance application was required to legalize the encroachment at the front and rear but it was denied for failure to meet the five requirements which must be met under the Code. Chris Moscone, attorney for appellant, said his client admitted he has made a mistake and asked the Board to approve the variance so that the work an proceed; he added that the five requirements for a variance have been met. Public comment for the ZA: Jay Talkoff said the builder had misrepresented the project and that the project has never had a single inspection and seemed designed as a three-unit building and not a two-family as approved. Richard Jow said this matter has been going on for years and it’s a case of pre-meditated violations of the Codes; he also questioned the structural integrity of the building since it has never been inspected. No public comment for the appellant. Leo McFadden, SBI DBI, explained the enforcement history of this case and said there is no record of any inspections ever having been made, and also noted that the stop work order for the violations was posted in May 1999.
(13) APPEAL NO. 03-040
|
ELIZABETH FREITAS, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
1915 Diamond Street.
Appealing the denial on March 13, 2003, of [a Permit to Alter Building (on a single-family house: correct record to show legal housekeeping unit, comply with NOV #200225189, remodel kitchen and bath in housekeeping unit, and repair exterior rear stairs).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/02/19/7803.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to June 11, 2003 at the request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (14A), (14B) & (14C) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(14A) APPEAL NO. 03-042
|
JOHN LOUGHRAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2735 Larkin Street.
Protesting the issuance on November 15, 2002 (re-noticed March 17, 2003 to extend appeal period) to Adam Landsdorf, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: interior remodel of kitchen, bathrooms; removal of windows to be replaced with doors; construction of decks over garage, roof of basement for structural DWGS, gate at rear yard easement; see BPA No(s). 2002/10/18/9395; revise to clarify scope).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/15/1602.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(14B) APPEAL NO. 03-049
|
MARK W. MIRAVALLE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2735 Larkin Street.
Protesting the issuance on November 15, 2002 (re-noticed March 17, 2003 to extend appeal period) to Adam Landsdorf, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: interior remodel of kitchen, bathrooms; removal of windows to be replaced with doors; construction of decks over garage, roof of basement for structural DWGS, gate at rear yard easement; see BPA No(s). 2002/10/18/9395; revise to clarify scope).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/15/1602.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(14C) APPEAL NO. 03-050
|
RICHARD GARVIN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2735 Larkin Street.
Protesting the issuance on November 15, 2002 (re-noticed March 17, 2003 to extend appeal period) to Adam Landsdorf, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: interior remodel of kitchen, bathrooms; removal of windows to be replaced with doors; construction of decks over garage, roof of basement for structural DWGS, gate at rear yard easement; see BPA No(s). 2002/10/18/9395; revise to clarify scope).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/11/15/1602.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that there be no right to install the subject deck or stairs unless the parties go to mediation and obtain an appropriate judgment or decree, and on condition that the rolling gate over the easement not be installed without the written consent of Mr. John Loughran.
SPEAKERS: John Garvin, appellant, said he had not been notified of this permit application which will allow a project that will be disruptive to the use of his property. He also read into the record a letter from Mark Miravalle, appellant, which said the two issues are the sliding gate and the petition from all the easement owners who are affected by the gate and the proposed deck over the bedroom. John Loughran, appellant, explained the history of the two permits appealed and the condo ownership of the units and their history. He asked that the sliding door be deleted and that the French doors could be acceptable if the deck were eliminated and a railing was installed across the door opening so that it could only be used as an emergency exit, with no deck below I onto which someone could step down. The deck over the garage is no problem, just the one over his bedroom. David Silverman, attorney for the permit holder, said the appellants have made gross distortions about the project, and that there are no problems with the permits so that this is the wrong forum for this case which is governed by the CC&R’s , though his client is willing to remove the rear deck and substitute two steps. Public comment: Kay Black expressed her frustration with the process.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:51 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.
