2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 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); Jonas Ionin, for the Planning Dept. (PD) & the Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED TC); 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: Mark Gruberg of the UTW urged the Board to take with a grain of salt the testimony of the appellants in Taxi Commission revocation cases.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(3A) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
1059-1061 Market Street; Permits Suspended on May 12, 2003
Last Day to Appeal was May 27, 2003; Jurisdiction Request Received June 13, 2003
|
Letter from Joel Yodowitz, Attorney for Tammy Ho, Requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over the suspension 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. Reason(s) for suspension: the Planning Department believes that 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.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to grant jurisdiction.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, PD, said the Department has no objection to the Board allowing a late filing of an appeal in this case. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said his Department has no objection to allowing a late filing also. Alice Barkley, attorney for requestor, said her client had not filed an appeal within the appeal period because she misunderstood the Code requirements with which she is unfamiliar. No public comment.
(3B) REHEARING REQUEST:
3251-3253 Steiner St. / 2205 Lombard St.; Appeal No(s). 03-036; Clear Channel vs. DBI, PDA
|
Letter from Jared Eigerman, attorney for Clear Channel, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-036, decided June 4, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to uphold the subject permit. Project: reinstallation of two 12’ X 24’ signs as soon as the existing mixed commercial building is waterproofed; existing angle and lag at wall to remain in place during removal and reinstallation. Permit Holder(s): Margaret Pocoroba.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Jared Eigerman, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to grant a rehearing for the reason there is new evidence to present in this unusual case. Brett Gladstone, attorney for permit holder, objected to the request on the grounds that there is no new evidence to be considered and the leases between the parties are a private matter not within the jurisdiction of the Board and are not an issue in this permit appeal but are an issue for the courts.
(3C) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:
3251-3253 Steiner St. / 2205 Lombard St.; Appeal No(s). 03-036; Clear Channel vs. DBI, PDA
|
Proposed findings submitted by Brett Gladstone, attorney for Margaret Pocoroba, Permit Holder(s). For discussion and adoption if the rehearing request (Item 3B) is denied by the Board.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the consideration of findings to July 30th, 2003 with the public hearing closed.
SPEAKERS: Catharine Barnes, DCA, in response to a request from the Board agreed to review the three sets of findings proposed for adoption and to advise the Board as to the differences between them before further consideration of the matter. Brett Gladstone, attorney for the permit holder, said he opposes a continuance of the matter since the appellant’s proposed findings were submitted late and therefore should not be considered by the Board. Jared Eigerman, attorney for appellant, said his proposed findings had been submitted timely.
(3D) REHEARING REQUEST:
1812 Green Street; Appeal No(s). 03-053; Dollard vs. Zoning Administrator
|
Letter from Jeremy Paul, Agent for Adrian & Anne Dollard, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-053, decided June 11, 2003. At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, & Commissioner Saunders dissented) to uphold the subject Permit Suspension Request by the Zoning Administrator. Four votes being required to overturn any departmental action, the motion passed, and the ZA’s Permit Suspension Request was upheld. Reason(s) for Suspension: the subject permit (BPA No. 2003/01/28/6145) incorrectly represented the current legal use of the property as a single family dwelling when it is a two-family dwelling, and for the reason that the permit is now being used as justification for a third permit (BPA No. 2002/02/21/8004) which proposes to remove an illegal kitchen on the 1st floor, which is not illegal, and the proposal constitutes a dwelling unit merger subject to the mandatory Discretionary Review process.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to the Call of the Chair so that the appellants can go forward with a mandatory DR hearing at the Planning Commission.
SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul, agent for appellants, asked the Board to grant a rehearing or continue to the Call of the Chair so that discussions can continue with the Department and they can reach an agreement making a rehearing unnecessary.
(4) 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.
|
(4A) APPEAL NO. 03-069
|
WILLIAM GILMORE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
628-632 Laguna Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May 7, 2003, for work done without a permit (remove two illegal dwelling units per NOV #200337377 resulting in a legal 3-unit apartment building).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/03/25/0611.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 5 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: William Gilmore, architect for property owner, said his client is willing to remove two of the units and that the estimated cost of such a job is only $3000 and not the higher figure assigned it by the inspector. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, reviewed the Department’s history of the matter and said it appears to be an egregious case for which the Board should uphold the penalty imposed for lack of any valid permits for the work done and the present use of the building. He said there are no life-safety issues and that the valuation of $103,000 for the job is correct and the penalty is commensurate with the revenue produced over the years from the five-unit building. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. 02-172
|
TOM KATZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. DISAPPROVAL
|
1349 Clayton Street.
Appealing the denial on August 30, 2002, of Permit to Alter a Building (on 13-unit apartment building: replace existing steel with vinyl retrofit – same shape and size; total 20 windows).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/25/2280.
NOTE: THE BOARD HELD A HEARING ON MARCH 19, 2003 AND VOTED TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PERMIT. ON APRIL 23, 2003, THE BOARD VOTED 4-1 TO GRANT A REHEARING. AND AT THE REHEARING OF MAY 21, 2003, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PRESENT, AND THE BOARD VOTED 5-0 TO UPHOLD THE DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PERMIT. AND AT THE JURISDICTION REQUEST OF JUNE 25, 2003, THE BOARD VOTED 4-1 TO RESCIND THE MOTION OF MAY 21, 2003 UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PERMIT, AND TO RESCHEDULE A REHEARING FOR JULY 9, 2003 WITH LETTER NOTICES TO BE SENT OUT.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to continue the appeal to the Call of the Chair.
SPEAKERS: Jonas Ionin, PD, explained why the permit had been denied since the vinyl windows replacing the steel ones had been done without a proper permit, and for the reason the building is architecturally significant (AS) and the windows were a key element making the building AS. Tom Katz, appellant, described the permit history and said he replaced the windows after he had an approved permit and it is unfair to expect the owner to restore the steel windows. He said he held the permit for a month during which the job was done and then he gave the permit back to Planning. Ronald Kane, subject property owner, said the new windows are necessary since the old ones were drafty and rusty and not energy efficient, and his tenants approve of the replacements, which improve the livability of their units. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, explained the significance of the documents submitted by the appellants in light of the Building Code requirements for the issuance of a permit and said that in his view no permit had been issued in this case. No public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-044
|
JOHN ARKEDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on March 19, 2003, of taxicab medallion No. 1167.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to Sept. 24, 2003 at the prior written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-068
|
JAMES NEILLY, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on April 23, 2003, of medallion No. 897.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-26.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to Sept. 24, 2003 at the prior written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEMS (8A) & (8B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(8A) APPEAL NO. 03-071
|
JANET CODOR
& CHARLES HOFFMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
330 – 25th Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 12, 2003, to Michael Chan, Permit to Demolish a Building (two-story single family house with 1400sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/05/6501
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(8B) APPEAL NO. 03-072
|
JANET CODOR
& CHARLES HOFFMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
330 – 25th Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 12, 2003, to Michael Chan, Site Permit to Erect a Building (three-story, two-unit condominium building with 2060sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/05/6504S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the demolition permit, and uphold the site permit with the following conditions: a) that the exterior rear wall be reduced by 4 feet on all 3 floors, with the fire escape to stay.
SPEAKERS: Janet Codor, co-appellant, described the situation of her cottage and how the proposed building will affect her property. She submitted her proposed interpretation of the Planning Code provisions regarding rear yard averaging because she thinks the present interpretation is wrong and does not account for rear yard cottages on adjacent properties and the affect on them of new buildings, which conform to current Code standards, but which are not sensitive to the existing historically significant cottages. Charles Hoffman, co-appellant, asked the Board to require that the proposed building be scaled back so that it will not have a negative impact on the surrounding properties. Amy Yu, wife of permit holder, explained the compromises and revisions already made at the request of the Planning Department and she asked the Board to uphold the permit as approved. Jonas Ionin, PD, explained the process the permit applications had gone through and the relevant Code requirements. Public comment for the appellants: John Walmsley said he is a friend of the appellants and said they could not be responsible for the graffiti on the permit holder’s garage door. Andrew Eckers said he made the model of the project before the Board. He asked the Board to be sensitive to the owners of rear yard cottages, which are special City structures, and which add a desirable aspect to some of our residential neighborhoods worth preserving. Susan Olney said the proposed building will create a canyon between it and the appellant’s property. Public comment for the permit holder: Gabriel Ng said he lives near the subject property and supports the project.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 7:59 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.
