2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2004
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); Craig Nikitas for the Planning Department (PD); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (SBI DBI); Executive Secretary Robert Feldman, 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: Jeremy Paul explained his view on the procedure for review of plan revisions imposed by the Board.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) SPECIAL ITEM(S): Presentation by Planning Department staff regarding revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines.
ACTION: Rescheduled to February 4, 2004 without a recorded vote.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4) ADDENDUM ITEM(S):
(4A) REHEARING REQUEST:
Appeal No(s). 02-030; 50 – 8th Street; Foster Media vs. Zoning Administrator
|
Letter from Christopher Moscone, agent for Foster Media, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-030, decided June 19, 2002. Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 2-3 (Commissioners Cullum, Saunders & El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Four votes being necessary to overturn any departmental action under Charter § 4.106, the subject determination was upheld. Determination: that the subject Building Permit Application for a general advertising sign is disapproved because the subject property is visible from, and located within 200 feet of the Market Street Special Sign District.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to February 25, 2004.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4B) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 239 Greenwich St; Permit issued on Oct. 6, 2003
Last day to appeal was Oct. 21, 2003; Jurisdiction request received on Dec. 3, 2003
|
Letter from John Cowen, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/10/06/6615. Project: on single family house, stair way, 4’ wide, not more than 30” above grade, on deeded and recorded easement. Permit Holder(s): Terrance Forgette.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to February 25, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4C) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 945 Darien Way; Request to suspend permit dated Oct. 1, 2003
Last day to appeal was Oct. 16, 2003; Jurisdiction request received on Dec. 8, 2003
|
Letter from Nina Guralnik, requestor(s), asking that the Board take jurisdiction over a request by the Acting Zoning Administrator to suspend Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/08/05/1215. Reason(s) for requesting suspension: subject permit was approved erroneously over-the-counter by the Planning Department, and a subsequent review of the architectural plans revealed that this permit was taken out to construct an illegal guesthouse in the existing garage space, rather than to repair fire damage as stated on the permit application.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to March 10, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4D) ADOPTION OF FINDINGS:
3632-3638 Sacramento Street; Appeal No. 03-122; Bulkley vs. DBI, Planning Dept. Disapproval
|
Proposed findings submitted by appellant Honor Bulkley. For discussion and adoption. Note: On Dec. 3, 2003, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the denial, and grant the permit with adoption of findings on Dec. 17, 2003. Project: on two-story office/residential building in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District: level two has apparently been used for offices since 1976; the purpose of this application is to legalize present use; no construction is proposed. Property Owner(s): Honor Bulkley.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the matter to February 4, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4E) REHEARING REQUEST:
660-662 – 28th Street; Appeal No(s). 03-181/182; Meister vs. DBI, PDA
|
Letter from Geraldine & Richard Meister, appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-181/182, decided Dec. 17, 2003. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that the deck railings be open and that white reflective paint be used on walls opposite neighbors’ bedrooms.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Dick Meister, co-appellant, explained why a rehearing request was justified. Gerry Meister, co-appellant, also elaborated as to why a rehearing request should be granted. Jeremy Paul, agent for permit holder, urged the Board to deny the rehearing request for lack of new evidence.
(5) CONSENT ITEMS (TAXI COMMISSION REVOCATION): With the consent of the Taxi Commission, the Board will proceed to a vote without testimony to overrule the revocation of the subject permit(s) with the condition that the appellants pay all appropriate permit fees and/or penalties. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.
(5A) APPEAL NO. 03-188
|
GHASSEN MOSBAHI, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on October 2, 2003, of a Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle for Hire Permit due to non-payment of fees.
PERMIT NO. 055648.
JURISDICTION GRANTED NOV. 12, 2003.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the revocation on condition that the appellant pay the permit fee and penalty, and complete the Police Dept. Taxi Detail’s driver training course.
SPEAKERS: None.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-186
|
FRIENDS OF GOLDEN GATEWAY, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
8 Washington Street (Golden Gateway Planned Unit Development).
Appealing a determination dated October 22, 2003, addressed to David Burnett, that although the Planning Department reviews projects within expired Redevelopment project areas as Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s), the department does not and has never treated entire project areas as a single PUD, and thus a development application for improvements to the subject property (Block 0201) may be filed and reviewed independently as a stand-alone project, which does not require conditional use (CU) authorization for modification of the Golden Gateway Center PUD.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 2-3 (President Chin, Vice President Harrington, and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overrule the subject determination. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the determination was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, PD, explained the determination. Allen Brotsky, attorney for appellant, summarized the history of the Golden Gateway Redevelopment Project and why new CU is necessary to allow modification of conditions to allow removal of recreation facilities and construction of a new building on site. Pamela Duffy, attorney for project sponsor, briefly described the proposed project and defended the ZA determination. Public comment for appellant: Eula Walters said she has lived in the area since it was built, and urged the Board to overrule the ZA. Edward Helfeld, former director of Redevelopment Agency, described the history of this former redevelopment area and said the determination flies in the face of history, and said the recreation facilities are needed to relieve the stress of urban life. Ernestine Weiss said that Perini, the original developer, had purchased the site for half the price for the purpose of building recreation facilities for the benefit of residents and these facilities are still needed. Renee Richards said her son takes lessons at the tennis club. Nan McGuere asid she lives on Russian Hill and supports the appeal, as does Mr. Passmore who is not present. Chris Biotti said that 1400 people have signed the petition in support of the appeal, and that this downtown open space needs to be preserved for the condo occupants. Sueanne McNeil said there is a health club in her building on Davis Street and that this district has the least open space of any in the City. Jim Miller explained why a new CU is necessary to modify the original conditions of approval for the PUD. Don Gieb explained the cost of the subject land. Public comment for the ZA: Kate White speaking for housing advocacy organizations said they endorse the project because of the great need for more housing and affordable units and that there are new tennis courts in the project. Stanley Warren said that the city needs higher density housing, and that this project goes toward this goal.
ITEMS (7A) & (7B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 03-051
|
KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,
& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
21 Buena Vista East Avenue.
Appealing the determination dated March 19, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the subject property has a legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, that residential guest rooms constitute “group housing” under § 209.2 of the Planning Code, that this group housing constitutes a permitted conditional use since it was established prior to the enactment of Conditional Use (CU) requirements for said use, and that this permitted conditional use shall be considered abandoned 3 years from the last legal date of residency of the last resident of said guest rooms.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
(7B) APPEAL NO. 03-066
|
KEN PAGE, VINCENT LEGER,
& BUENA VISTA PARK LLC, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
21 Buena Vista East Avenue.
Appealing a determination dated April 24, 2003, addressed to Andrew Zacks, that the proposed physical modifications to various residential guest rooms at the subject property would result in less viable guest rooms and would constitute a partial conversion of the structure to single family-use from its current legal authorized use of 14 residential guest rooms and 1 dwelling unit, in violation of Planning Code.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD SEPT. 24, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeals to March 10, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-153
|
MICHAEL McCREADY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
355 Country Club Drive.
Protesting the issuance on September 18, 2003, to Karen Wong, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: 2nd floor addition).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/08/21/6532S.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD DEC. 10, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to Feb. 4, 2004 with the approved plans to be submitted by the permit holder.
SPEAKERS: Bruce Selby, agent for appellant, asked the Board to reschedule the appeal for lack of approved plans in the file. Jeremy Paul, agent for permit holder, objected to the rescheduling request.
(9) APPEAL NO. 03-117
|
GEORGE HAMILTON HAUCK
& DUANE FRISBIE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
218 Union Street.
Protesting the issuance on July 15, 2003, to John Votruba, Permit to Alter a Building (on 3-story, 7-unit residential building: rebuild upper deck on roof – see NOV No(s). 200336693; new roof ladder).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/07/15/9492.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to reschedule the appeal to Feb. 25, 2004.
SPEAKERS: George Hamilton-Hauck, co-appellant, requested a rescheduling based on pending court proceedings. Theresa & John Votruba, permit holders, objected to the rescheduling request.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-140
|
MR. & MRS. WILLIAM WEINDORF,
MR. & MRS. ALEX SCHWARTZ,
MARY ROBINETTE, & SUSAN O’BRIEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
450 Hamilton Street.
Protesting the issuance on August 26, 2003, to Abel Maldonado, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: horizontal extension to rear of lot for increased size of master bedroom and bath at 2nd floor, and additional bedrooms at lower level).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/02/05/8561S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit with the following conditions: a) that there be no extension on the 2nd floor; b) that the 1st floor extension not exceed 4 feet; and c) that a roof deck be allowed with open railings.
SPEAKERS: Richard Howard, attorney for appellants, described the negative impacts of the projects to his clients. Alex Schwartz, co-appellant, said he is 88 years old, and wants to retain his sunshine and privacy. Philip Robinette, agent for appellants, explained his opposition to the project, which will allow for greater capacity in the facility; he said he has been intimidated by the children from the facility. Mike Weindorf, for his parents, gave the history of the additions to the house, and the DR decision by the Planning Commission in 1999. Arnold Townsend, agent for permit holders, described the project and the foster child program of the permit holders, and said the appellants’ fears are not well founded, and that the new room is intended for a computer for the children. Public comment for the appellants: Michael Baines asked the Board to address the appellants’ problem because Mr. Schwartz has done so much for the youth of the city as well as for himself. Richard Ballasteros said the problem is the way the permit holders monitor their foster children, and that police cars regularly visit the house. Ron Parshall said this is a unique block because so many native San Franciscans are still living there, and that the permit holder’s house already shadows the Schwartz’s house, and that he would not have bought his house if he knew there would be a residential care facility next door. Mike Schredl said his grandfather (Mr. Schwartz) has already lost light and views, and that there is no need for a new room since two adults have left, and the permit holder is limited to 6 children. Public comment for permit holder: Abel Maldonado Jr., son of permit holder, said he lives nearby, and has a similar foster child operation. He said there is no police record for his father’s facility, and that if a child throws something out the window into the neighbors’ yards, they should call him and he will clean it up. Dana Maldonado, daughter of the permit holder, said they are trying to help children, and that the proposed room will give them more space. Craig Nikitas, PD, explained the Planning Code standards for residential care facilities, and the NSR process and enforcement to protect against illegal units; he said there were no DR requests after the 311 notice was sent out. Leo McFadden, SBI, DBI, explained the egress regulations of the Building Code as they applied to this project. Judy Scredl, for appellant’s in rebuttal, said the permit holder gets money from the State for care of the children and makes $36,000 a month for six children.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-141
|
AUDREY CARLSON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2368 Vallejo Street.
Protesting the issuance on August 28, 2003, to Gina Best, Permit to Alter a Building (on 2-unit building: new stucco façade to replace wood shingles; 3-story rear addition; remodel 2nd unit; remodel kitchen of 1st unit; remodel street entry of 2nd unit).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/01/04/6319S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that the guard rail be pulled back 3 feet.
SPEAKERS: Audrey Carlson, appellant, explained how the proposal will affect her light and air, and the negative impact it will have on her property. Scott Emblidge, attorney for appellant, presented several compromises that will ameliorate the impacts over his client’s property. David Teeters, archiect for the permit holder, explained several sketches of alterations designed to accommodate the appellant. Public comment: Ivan and Judy Fucilla described their issues with the proposal, and said they support the appellant. Lincoln Chris spoke in favor of the permit holder.
(12) APPEAL NO. 03-184
|
CHARLES & NEL ELWEIN,
and TEVIS & LYNNE MARTIN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
2831 – 2833 Washington Street.
Protesting the issuance on October 21, 2003, to Thomas McCarville, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family residential building: switch location of two bedrooms; move family room from first to second floor; connect spaces with stairs; expand deck; revisions to Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/07/23/2137).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/08/06/1398.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Nel Elwein, appellant, explained her issue with the new deck which will impact her privacy and may cause noise from party goers, and that it’s in the line of sight with her bathroom windows. Clint Callan, attorney for permit holder, described the project and said it will have minimum impact on the appellant. Public comment: Monica Elby said she will live in the building and the unit will not be rented as it is a family-owned building, and that the deck only has a depth of five feet.
(13) APPEAL NO. 03-185
|
ARYE MICHAEL BENDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
3334 Folsom Street.
Protesting the issuance on October 21, 2003, to John Woolsey-McKernnon (new owner Tim Albinson), Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: removal of stove and refrigerator in basement apartment).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/10/21/8076.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to April 14, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
Note: At the end of all scheduled hearings, the Board voted 5-0 to cancel the meeting of Jan. 21, 2004 and reschedule all cases to Feb. 4, 11, and 25, 2004.
There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:40 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.
