2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 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); Julian Banales, for the Planning Dept. (PD) & the Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Howard Lazar, Executive Director of the Street Artist Program, for the Art Commission (AC); Tony Wolcott, Acting Urban Forester, for the DPW Bureau of Urban Forestry (AUF, DPW BUF); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (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: None.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) ADDENDUM ITEMS:
(3A) 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 Permit Holder Margaret Pocoroba, by Jared Eigerman, attorney for Appellant Clear Channel, and by Deputy City Attorney Tom Owens. For discussion and adoption.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Aug. 6, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Jim Reuben, attorney for appellant, addressed the issue of a rescheduling. Brett Gladstone, attorney for permit holder, also addressed the issue of a rescheduling.
(3B) JURISDICTION REQUEST TO ALLOW LATE FILING OF APPEAL:
Subject property at 1011 Howard Street; Stop work order request dated June 27, 2003
Last day to appeal was July 14, 2003; Jurisdiction request received July 21, 2003
|
Letter from Henry Karnilowicz, requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over a Stop Work Order Request by the Zoning Administrator for Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/02/19/7782. Reason(s) for requesting stop work order: subject permit for vinyl windows was approved in error by Planning staff as an over-the-counter permit without the appropriate review that is required for historically rated buildings.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to grant the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Henry Karnilowicz, requestor, explained why he did not file an appeal within the allowed and said he has been dealing with the Redevelopment Agency and was confused about the appeals process as it pertains to his window replacement project. He said the work has been completed and he has submitted the permit application he had prepared to cover this project. Julian Banales, PD, said the facts set forth in his letter are correct and that the application had been processed at the zoning counter without proper referral to the permit review staff who would have denied it because the new windows do not meet the standards for architecturally significant buildings. No public comment.
(4) APPEAL NO. 03-083
|
ADRIEL QUINTANA LOAYZA, Appellant(s)
vs.
ART COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the suspension on May 22, 2003, of Street Artist Certificate No. 5886.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the suspension with the following conditions: a) that the subject certificate be suspended for 3 weeks starting Sept. 15, 2003; & b) that a 2-week suspension be held in abeyance pending a 6 month probation period, and if no warnings are issued in this period, said 2-week suspension shall not be executed.
SPEAKERS: Howard Lazar, AC, explained the procedures that must be followed by street artists and how the appellant failed to meet some of them even after several warnings. Adriel Quintana Loayza, appellant, via translator Enrique Perez, asked the Board for compassion in judging his case and assured them he now understands the process and will follow the rules in the future. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-070
|
MARC PASCHKE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF URBAN FORESTRY, Respondent
|
137 Central Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 1, 2003, to Edward Litke, Permit to Remove & Replace One (1) Tree.
ORDER NO. 174,093.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 3-2 (Vice President Harrington and Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overrule the department and revoke the permit. Four votes being required under Charter § 4.106 to overturn a departmental action, the motion failed, and the subject permit was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Marc Paschke, appellant, said he speaks for himself and the neighbors who oppose removal and replacement of the tree, which is the largest in the area and the only one on the block, with no safety issue involved just a need to clear for the benefit of anew private driveway, which can be reconfigured to allow retention of the tree. Dulce Arguelles, agent for permit holder, said that the removal is necessary for the contractor to complete the construction project and there is no way to retain it though a replacement will mitigate the effect on the neighborhood. Tony Wolcott, AUF, DPW BUF, explained the department’s position and how a replacement tree would replace the existing tree. Public comment for appellant: Marianne Love from Supervisor Gonzalez’s office informed the Board of the legislation now being prepared that will alleviate this kind of neighborhood problem. Carolyn Blair of the SF Tree Council said she feels a seven-foot clearance would be sufficient and the tree retained, and all can win. Elaine Paschke, wife of the appellant, said she thinks a seven-foot wide curb cut is the answer to saving the oldest tree on the block, which is important to the streetscape. No public comment for permit holder.
Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, reported on inter-departmental meetings held to coordinate review of tree cases.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-027
|
JOEL HOLLANDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, of taxi medallion No(s). 884.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-02.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to reschedule the appeal to August 6, 2003.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, TC, commented on the rescheduling.
(7) 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.
|
(7A) APPEAL NO. 03-082
|
JOHN R. HOLDEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
720 Valencia Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May 30, 2003, for work done without a permit (on two-story commercial building with one dwelling unit: new rear stairs and addition).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/09/09/5921.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to reduce the subject penalty to 3 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: John Holden, appellant, requested a reduction in the penalty because his project is so small an addition. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, described the problems as work done beyond the scope of the plans and permit as well as work done without necessary plumbing and electrical permits.
(7B) APPEAL NO. 03-085
|
JOHN FITZPATRICK, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
3425 Jackson Street.
Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on June 2, 2003, for plumbing and mechanical work done without a permit (replace heater).
PERMIT NO. P440624.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None since the department consented to the reduction.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-062
|
GALINA VAYSMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL
§ 14 Party: N/A (Staff Initiated DR)
|
644 Spruce Street.
Appealing the denial on April 22, 2003, of a Permit to Demolish a Building (3-story single-family house).
Note: Permit application to construct three-story one-family house on site is pending at Planning awaiting Board action on this appeal of denial of demolition application.
APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/26/2425.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Planning Commission and grant the permit with a finding that the cost of rehabilitating the structure up to the Housing Code’s minimum standards of habitability exceed 50% of the cost of replacing the structure.
SPEAKERS: Julian Banales, PD, described the Commission’s action and said the demolition permit was denied because it is inconsistent with the General Plan. Alice Barkley, attorney for appellant, described the deteriorated condition of the house and said the cost of bringing the house up to livability standards would cost more than 50% of the cost of demolition and new construction on this steep lot, which slopes in both directions. Public comment for Planning Commission: Weiru Wang spoke for her parents who own the adjacent property on the north side; she described the reasons the house should be preserved and not demolished since the cutting down of the tree in the rear yard shows the bad faith of the appellant. Jane Wang also urged the Board to deny the appeal. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained how standards may be triggered as renovation projects proceed and a building is opened up.
ITEMS (9A) & (9B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(9A) APPEAL NO. 03-078
|
M.K. MURPHY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
285 Edgewood Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 15, 2003, to Paul Dennes, Site Permit to Erect a Building (two-story single-family dwelling with 900sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/03//15/1545S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(9B) APPEAL NO. 03-079
|
JUDITH HARDING, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
285 Edgewood Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 15, 2003, to Paul Dennes, Site Permit to Erect a Building (two-story single-family dwelling with 900sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/03//15/1545S.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit.
SPEAKERS: Judith Harding, co-appellant, explained her issues with the original variance and the lot split process, which she said are no longer viable since the lot split documentation was incomplete and the conveyance from father to son was an inside arrangement and unclear. David DiFrancisco, husband of co-appellant MK Murphy, said that the variance is null and void since its conditions were not met in a timely fashion, and the parcel map application was very inadequate. Jeremy Paul, agent for permit holder, said this is a case of sour grapes and gave a chronology of the appellants’ efforts to stop the project. He said the variance conditions have been met and the parcel map process was done properly and it is complete. No public comment.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-081
|
E. ANNE CHEN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1260 Plymouth Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 16, 2003, to Roger Brehmer, Permit to Alter a Building (repair lower level rooms to comply with 2nd half of complaint #200336593).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/05/16/4801.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (President Chin dissented) to uphold the permit with the following conditions: a) that a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) be recorded on the land records that the subject property is a one-family house; b) that the stairs remain open on the upper and lower levels; c) that the door in exhibit A of the Westwood Park Association’s letter be eliminated; & d) that the door in exhibit C of the Westwood Park Association’s letter be eliminated unless the entire bottom floor is made ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessible.
SPEAKERS: E. Anne Chen, appellant, asked the Board to place conditions on the permit, which she set forth in her letter, which will ameliorate the negative impact of the project on her property. Roger Brehmer, permit holder, said he has no intention of creating any illegal units in the house, and described the two doors, which the appellant wants deleted, and his willingness to meet some of the proposed conditions. Public comment for the appellant: Anita Theoharis explained the history and nature of the Residential Character District that was created by her organization and is the only one in the City. She said she thinks the permit was issued in error and that she wants to insure that this will only be used as a lawful one-family house. Alice Barkley said that this is new construction and not an alteration, and that there is always the potential of creation of an illegal unit. Laurence Kornfield, CBI DBI, said that the two doors are not required by the Code. Charles Athos, architect for permit holder, explained that the door in front is useful for disabled access, and that this large building will be appropriate for an extended family.
(11) APPEAL NO. 03-086
|
ROSY LOU LEE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
1326 San Bruno Avenue.
Protesting the issuance on May 23, 2003, to Frank Stonich, Permit to Alter a Building (on 2-unit building: build new rear deck 10’ X 15’ @ 36” high; comply with NOV #200235368; replace railings in kind; replace rear wall siding in kind).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/05/23/5344.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This appeal was withdrawn by the appellant prior to the meeting.
SPEAKERS: None.
There being no further business President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:22 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.
