2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2003
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
Present: Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker, and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya. Absent: President Arnold Y. K. Chin.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney for the City Attorney (DCA); Jonas Ionin, Planning Department, Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, DBI, and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary, and Victor Pacheco, Legal Assistant, for the Board of Appeals; Official Court Reporter Claudine Woeber.
(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: Commissioner Shoemaker confirmed date for appeal No. 02-152 on
April 23, 2003.
(SPECIAL ITEM (S):
ITEM A: Informational presentation by the Mayor's Office of Housing on low-income housing development and the approval process.
SPEAKER: Joel Lipski, Director of Mayor's Office of Housing, explained how affordable housing projects are processed and units registered with MOH, including methods of financing and of cost reduction and parking standards that apply to such projects. He said all the information about affordable housing is on their web site.
(3)ADDENDUM ITEM (S): None.
(4) ADDENDUM ITEM (S) none.
(5) 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.
(5A) APPEAL NO. 03-001
|
LOWELL BUCKNER, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
[888 Elizabeth Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [January 3, 2003, for work done without a [permit (on 3-story duplex: renew Building [Permit Application No(s). 2000/12/04/7094 [to finish work, and abate NOV #20012367).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/16/1531.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Lowell Buckner, Appellant, said he has had many problems with DBI over his house over the past 25 years and he asks that the penalty be reduced to two times the regular fee. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, said the Department feels some reduction of the penalty is acceptable and they will go along with the Board's decision.
(5B) APPEAL NO. 03-002
|
JANE FETTERMAN, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
[2929 Fillmore Street
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [January 8, 2003, for work done without a [permit (on 3-unit residential building: remove [existing kitchen cabinets, hook up new sink, [and comply with NOV #200336534).
[APPLICATION NO. 2003/01/08/4787.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Jane Fetterman, Appellant, said she didn't know a permit was necessary for the replacement of kitchen cabinets so she didn't obtain one. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, explained that under the State Building Code cabinets don't need a permit but under the City's amendments they do. He said some reduction in penalty at the discretion of the Board is acceptable.
(5C) APPEAL NO. 03-005
|
SCOTT WALLACE
& NEHA SANGWAN, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[1108-1110 Page Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [January 14, 2003, for work done without a [permit (on 2-family residential building: [comply with NOV #200223652, remove [illegal stair addition from 3rd to 4th level, [remove illegal playhouse and structure, [remove non-permitted storage area/room, & [remove non-load bearing wall on ground [floor).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/12/12/3367.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None.
(5D) APPEAL NO. 03-008
|
YONG POM LEE, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
[3727 Geary Blvd.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [January 15, 2003, for work done without a [permit (on 2-family residential/commercial [building with restaurant: legalize work done [without a permit, provide upgrade to 20% of [valuation, and tenant improvements).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/10/17/9225.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Mr. Shin, a friend of the Appellant, spoke for him and said that the Appellant had converted the space to a sushi bar and didn't know that a permit was required for the work. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, described the project and said that counter and bathroom was added to the space with no permit and that the work has been done and the ADA met. He left it for the Board to decide the penalty.
(6) APPEAL NO. 02-171
|
PHONG T. NGUYEN
& TRIEU MUOI, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[1671 - 40th Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on August 26, 2002, to [Can Pei Zhang, Site Permit to Alter a Building [(horizontal rear addition on single-family [house).
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/11/28/4069S.
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED FEB. 19, [2003.
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the permit on condition that the depth be pulled back another 5 feet (from the revised plans dated Feb. 27, 2003), and that the light well be eliminated.
SPEAKERS: Appellants Phong Nguyen and Trien Muoi explained that they still oppose the project and the revised plans submitted do not follow the directions of the Board. They described the permit holder's other buildings and his Code violations. Ahmad Larizadeh, Agent for the owner, described the revisions made to the plans at the request of the Board and asked that the revised plans be approved. Jonas Ionin, Planner, explained his Department's concern about the lightwell for the benefit of a utility room and study as well as the length of the building.
No public comment for either side.
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 02-179
|
CAI XIA GAO, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[330 - 2nd Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on August 30, 2002, to [Debbie Wong, Permit to Demolish a Building [(3-story, 4-unit residential building with 1500sf [of ground floor area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/29/2998.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(7B) APPEAL NO. 02-180
|
CAI XIA GAO, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[330 - 2nd Avenue.
[Protesting the issuance on August 30, 2002, to [Debbie Wong, Site Permit to Erect a Building [(3-story, 3-unit residential building with 1,925sf of ground floor area).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/29/3001S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Both appeals withdrawn at the request of the Appellant.
(8) APPEAL NO. V02-193
|
KEITH DICKINSON, Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2065 - 14th Avenue.
[Appealing the condition(s) imposed on a Rear & [Side Yard Variance (on single-family house: [legalize the existing non-conforming 4 foot 5 [inch high deck and retaining wall located in the [required rear yard and side setback on [condition that the illegally constructed non-[complying second-story rear deck be removed, [and that the railings for the lower level deck and [stairs be kept open).
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0364V.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to overrule the condition requiring removal of the 2nd story rear deck.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, Planner, described the work done without a permit and explained why the conditions were imposed in the granting of the variance. Keith Dickinson, Variance Holder and Appellant, said he hadn't made a presentation at the variance hearing but that he does need the second story balcony for his family's access to the rear yard
(9) APPEAL NO. 02-220
|
ROGER GONZALES, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[715 Brazil Street.
[Protesting the issuance on October 24, 2002, [to Lenora Lai Ngor Wong, Permit to Alter a [Building (on 2-family residential building: [remove existing ground floor unit and legalize [as storage per NOV #200232574; legalize all [partitions and related electrical work).
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/09/17/6621.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Appeal withdrawn by the Apellant.
SPEAKERS: Roger Hinson representing the Appellant submitted a letter from his client and a signed agreement from the parties and withdrew the appeal.
(10) APPEAL NO. 02-243
|
NEXT MEDIA OUTDOOR INC., Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[60-80 Broadway.
[Appealing a Letter of Determination dated [December 12, 2002, addressed to Brett [Gladstone, that because there is a case before [the Board of Appeals concerning the revocation [of Building Permit Application No(s). 9908729 at [the subject property (Appeal No. 01-154), [which affects the issue of submitting Planning [Department requirements, the Planning [Department has no jurisdiction until the Board [of Appeals has ruled on the appeal.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
[NOTE: On Dec. 18, 2002, the Board voted 3-2 [to uphold the revocation of the subject permit; [the request for rehearing was withdrawn on [Jan. 29, 2003 by the appellant, and the Notice [of Decision was released on Jan. 31, 2003.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the subject determination.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, Planner, said the appeal is not clear and he described the myriad of continuances and rescheduling requests by the Appellant for more than a year and said that Planning no longer has any jurisdiction in the matter since the Board upheld the Department's revocation on December 12, 2002. Brett Gladstone, attorney for the Appellant asked the Board to order the ZA to respond to his letter of last summer which asked for the reason their conditional use application was not accepted.
No public comment for either side.
Catharine Barnes, DCA, in response to a Board question said that the Board could deny the request since they do not have the power to order the ZA to issue a letter. This would make a clear administrative record.
(11) APPEAL NO(S). 02-244/245/246
|
DEAN ALEC, Appellant(s)
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
[2173 Turk Street.
[Appealing the suspension on December 16, [2001 of Building Permit Application No(s). [2001/12/24/5838, 2001/12/28/6060 & [2002/05/10/6292 for the reason that there [has been an expansion of the building [envelope, and the construction of a floor of [occupancy as part of the replacement of the [roof framing, all done without review and [approval of the Planning Dept., and without [the required § 311 notification to neighbors.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to uphold the suspension with a suggestion that DBI look at removal of items 4, 5 & 6 in Mr. Sarris' Feb. 25, 2003 submittal instead of legalization.
SPEAKERS: Bertrand Kaufman, attorney for appellant Dean Alac explained that his client had filed the application at the direction of the departments so that notice could be sent to the neighbors and the permit was approved by Planning and issued on May 6, 2002. Now there is a new owner. The project was inspected and a CFC issued and the suspension is not timely. Leo McFadden, SBI, DB explained the many Code violations on the property and the misrepresentations on the plans. Dorian Sarris the complaining neighbor, asked that the Board require the removal of certain items and said that since the present owners took over it has been a nightmare for him. He feels it is a "Winchester Mystery House". Jonas, Ionin, Planner, said that Planning had signed off on the application because the plans misrepresented the situation and what part was lawfully existing and that there were exterior and interior alterations to be done. A Section 311 notice will have to go out again.
No public comment for the Appellant.
(12) APPEAL NO. V03-003
|
BONNIE DEMERGASSO, Appellant(s)
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[3196 Pacific Avenue.
[Protesting the granting on January 6, 2003, to [Dan Phipps Architects (Subject Property Owner [John Conlin), Rear Yard Variance (on single-[family house: construction of an addition at the [basement, 1st and 2nd floors at the northeast [corner of the rear of the existing building in the [required rear yard).
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.1008V
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin absent) to reschedule the appeal to April 23, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin explained the nature of the variance for the property next to the Presidio for the minor addition proposed. Bonnie Demergasso, Appellant, explained why she opposes the project and the variance and described the compromise she wanted which had been offered in December and not accepted. David Cincotta, attorney for the variance holder, agreed to a rescheduling of the appeal to April 23, 2002.
There being no further business, Vice President Harrington adjoined the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
_____________________________ ________________________________
Kathleen Harrington, Vice President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
