2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
5:30 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE (FORMERLY 301 POLK STREET)
PRESENT: President Arnold Chin, Vice President Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Carole Cullum, Commissioner Allam El Qadah, and Commissioner John McInerney.
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Sean McNulty, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspector (SBI, DBI).
ABSENT: Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.
(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.
SPEAKER: Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the determination holder in Appeal 00-093 (Item 11), informed the Board that his client may not be present for the hearing if the meeting goes very long because his client has to catch a flight later on in the evening.
- COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) APPEAL NO. 00-074
|
EDUARDO TROZ, Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL
|
[1363 Palou Avenue.
[Denial on May 1, 2000, of permit to Alter [a Building (two-story horizontal addi-[tion).
[APPLICATION NO. 9922806S.
[PUBLIC HEARING HELD AND [CLOSED JULY 26, 2000.
[FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION [TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the permit per the revised plans on CONDITION that the wall parallel to the stairs in the area marked "Living" on the said revised plans be a pony wall with balusters.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, conveyed the Planning Department’s concerns with the revised plans. 2. Eduardo Troz, appellant, via his translator/architect Armando Sandoval, responded to the concerns raised by Mr. Badiner and asked the Board to approve his revised plans with no further modifications.
(4) APPEAL NO. 00-118
|
ELMER OWENS, et al., Appellants
vs.
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT DISAPPROVAL
|
[3065 Clay Street.
[Denial on July 21, 2000, of permit to [Alter a Building (remove occupancy [stipulation on CFC 7804653).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/09/08/9983.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Planning Department and GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that a Notice of Special Restrictions be recorded for the subject property that limits the occupancy to "moderate income housing" under standards developed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with FINDINGS to be adopted at a later date.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, conveyed the reasons for the denial of the permit. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the appellants, urged the Board to grant the subject permit.
(5) APPEAL NO. 00-099
|
PAUL WEBER & EVELYN MACIAS, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[4390 - 26TH Street.
[Protesting issuance on June 13, 2000, [to Sun-Choy Wong, permit to Alter a [Building (one-story vertical addition and [minor alterations in existing building per [plans).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/02/23/2537.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that all property line windows be eliminated, and on further CONDITION that the Department of Building Inspection and Planning Department provide notice of future permit applications for property line windows to all the neighbors who would normally receive Section 311 notice.
SPEAKERS: 1. Paul Weber, co-appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, urged the Board to grant the subject permit and to leave the property line windows intact. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, addressed the issues concerning the property line windows and the Section 311 notification. 4. Sean McNulty, CBI, DBI, described what he saw on his site visit and addressed the issue of what constitutes a demolition versus an alteration. Public Comment for the Appellants: Ann Storm, Jeff Byrne, Agnes Bonaurt, Jim Garahan, Pamela Dickson, Charles Taylor, Ivan Vican, and Philip Gerrie. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: None.
(6) APPEAL NO. 00-102
|
PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF DIVISADERO ST., Appellant
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[537 Divisadero Street.
[Protesting issuance on June 21, 2000, [to Howard A. Cooper, permit to Alter a [Building (install new awning).
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/06/21/3277.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented) to GRANT the subject permit on CONDITION that the size of the words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" stay unchanged, and with the words "Check Cashing" and "Payday Loans" be displayed underneath the words "Money Mart" and "Western Union" with no greater than two inch type face.
SPEAKERS: 1. Patricia Vaughey, agent for the appellant, outlined the reasons for the appeal and the conditions her group would like on the permit. 2. Thomas Chan, attorney for the permit holder/project sponsor, urged the Board to uphold the subject permit. 3. David Edge, representative for the permit holder/project sponsor, also urged the Board to uphold the subject permit with no modifications to the signage or wording. Public Comment for the Appellant: Michael Smithwick, Valerie Hartwell, and Cynthia Marcucci. Public Comment for the Permit Holder/Project Sponsor: None.
(7) APPEAL NO. 00-120
|
KENNETH SCUDDER & KELLIN DEFIEL, Appellants
vs.
DEPT. BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL
|
[310 Green Street.
[Protesting issuance on July 11, 2000, to [Mitch Menaged, permit to Demolish a [Building (single family dwelling).
[APPLICATION NO. 9915173.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin abstained) to RECUSE President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted
4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to GRANT the subject demolition permit.
SPEAKERS: 1. Kenneth Scudder, co-appellant, described his opposition to the demolition of the subject property. 2. Jeremy Paul, agent for the permit holder, asked the Board to uphold the demolition permit. 3. Larry Badiner, ZA, defended Planning’s approval of this demolition permit. Public Comment for the Appellants: Joe Luttrell, F. Joseph Butler, and Richard Bishop. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: None.
(8) APPEAL NO. 00-113
|
MICHAEL T. EGE, PAMELA I. UBERTI & ADAM SUMINSKI, Appellants
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2215 Powell Street.
[Zoning Administrator determination [dated June 29, 2000, that the extension [of the Conditional Use Authorization [dated November 27, 1996 (Case No. [91.373C) for a full service restaurant [and bar has not been abandoned and is [still valid provided all renovations are [complete and a final Certificate of [Occupancy is obtained and the [establishment reopened within six [months of the ABC’s ruling, otherwise a [new CU application must be submitted.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD the subject determination with the FINDING that there has been no abandonment of the Conditional Use Authorization.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning behind his determination. 2. Michael Ege, co-appellant, explained his opposition to the determination and to the nightclub in general. 3. Adam Suminski, co-appellant, also conveyed his opposition to the determination and the nightclub. 4. Ariel Basse, agent for the project sponsor, urged the Board to uphold the determination. 5. Robert Barbagelata, co-owner of the subject property, also urged the Board to uphold the determination and to also include a finding that there has been no abandonment of the Conditional Use Authorization. Public Comment for the Appellants: Joe Luttrell.
Items 9 and 10 were heard together:
(9) APPEAL NO. 00-114
|
RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2258 Beach Street.
[Zoning Administrator determination [dated June 29, 2000 that a second [kitchen can be installed in the one-[family house only as part of a second [unit and, with the current parking [configuration in the garage, only if an [off-street parking variance is sought and [granted by the Zoning Administrator.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
(10) APPEAL NO. 00-124
|
RICHARD GARCIA, Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[2258 Beach Street.
[Zoning Administrator determination [dated July 19, 2000 that the proposed [greenhouse on the existing rear deck [cannot be approved without additional [accurate drawings and a site plan, [notification under Planning Code [Section 311, submittal of a copy of the [approved permit application and [drawings for the existing lower deck, [and the five foot setback on each side [of the greenhouse must be open to the [sky requiring relocation of the existing [stair and landing.
[APPLICATION NO. 2000/04/25/8211.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to UPHOLD both determinations.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning of his determinations. 2. Larry Paul, agent for the appellant, urged the Board to overrule both determinations.
Public Comment: None.
(11) APPEAL NO. 00-093
|
SAN FRANCISCANS FOR REASONABLE GROWTH, Appellant
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[250 Brannan Street.
[Zoning Administrator’s determination [dated June 7, 2000 that the use classi-[fication of DoubleClick, Inc., an Internet [company specializing in development of [software solutions for Internet publishers [and advertisers which intends to operate [in a Service/Secondary Office (SSO) [zoning district, is a Business Service [under Planning Code Section 890.11 [and is exempt from Section 321 [requirements, and is a permitted use in [the SSO district.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney abstained) to RECUSE Commissioner McInerney. The Board was polled as to whether the environmental impact report (EIR) was reviewed and considered. All four members present answered "aye." Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to UPHOLD the subject determination.
SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, explained the reasoning of his determination. 2. Sue Hestor, attorney for the appellant, urged the Board to overrule this determination because her group believes that DoubleClick, Inc. is not a business service and is instead office use under the Planning Code.
3. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the project sponsor, asked the Board to uphold the ZA’s determination with no modifications.
There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 10:49 p.m.
_________________________________
Arnold Y.K. Chin, President
_________________________________
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 576-0700.
