2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES -
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 20 5:00 P.M.,
CITY HALL, ROOM 416,
ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
Present: President Arnold Y. K. Chin, Vice President Kathleen Harrington, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker, and Commissioner Hisashi Sugaya.
Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney (DCA); Lawrence Badiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning Department; Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, DBI; and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary 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.
SPEAKERS: None.
(2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
SPEAKERS: None.
(3) 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.
(3A) APPEAL NO. 02-080
|
CHRISTINA KUNG, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[1000 Cabrillo Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May 2, [2002 for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/01/29/7919.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse President Chin. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 4-0-1 (President Chin recused) to reduce the subject penalty to 3 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Christina Kung, Appellant, explained why she did not obtain a permit for the work she had done and asked the Board to reduce the penalty since she hadn’t known about the permit process and had relied on her architect and contractor. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained the history of the case and why the penalty was imposed by the Department.
(3B) APPEAL NO. 02-087
|
BARBARA SAVITZ, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[230 Duncan Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on May 6, [2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/04/22/4645.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3C) APPEAL NO. 02-091
|
ROBERT HINDI, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[120 Elsie Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [May 29, 2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/03/19/1736.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to Nov. 6, 2002 prior to the meeting.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3D) APPEAL NO. 02-102
|
ELLEN KERMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[248 Thrift Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [June 11, 2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/05/20/6955.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3E) APPEAL NO. 02-126
|
KANG WEN CHING, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[8 Teddy Avenue.
[Appealing the imposition of penalty on July 10, [2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/06/21/9737.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 3 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Kang Wen Ching and a translator asked the Board to reduce the penalty since he hadn’t been aware of the need for a permit to add a stove and a bathtub in the basement of his house. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained the new policy of the Department to limit penalties to two times the permit fee in cases where scope of work has exceeded the approved plans.
(3F) APPEAL NO. 02-151
|
YOUNG K. CHO, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[822 Persia Avenue.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [August 7, 2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/23/2056.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: Young K. Cho, contractor for owner, asked the Board to reduce the penalty because he has just begun his contractor’s business and had made an honest mistake that he would never make again. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, explained the practice of the department to impose maximum penalties on professionals, contractors and architects who know the Building Code and its requirements.
(3G) APPEAL NO. 02-165
|
BILL SALMON, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[2112 Baker Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on [August 21, 2002, for work done without a [permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2001/05/21/9594S.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3H) APPEAL NO. 02-175
|
JAWAD J. MUHAWIEH, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[1148 Alabama Street.
[Appeal for refund of penalty imposed on August [27, 2002, for work done without a permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/08/14/3907
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None.
(3I) APPEAL NO. 02-186
|
CARMEN MURPHY, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,
Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
[240 Judson Avenue.
[Appealing the imposition of penalty on [September 16, 2002, for work done without a [permit.
[APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/25/2384.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reduce the subject penalty to 2 times the regular fee.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4) CONSENT ITEMS (POLICE REVOCATION): With the consent of the Police Department, 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. Without consent the Board will take testimony and then decide the appeal.
(4A) APPEAL NO. 02-184
|
MINEY LLC dba
“CURVE BAR & RESTAURANT”, Appellant(s)
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[ 747 – 3rd Street.
[Appealing the revocation on August 28, 2002, [of Place of Entertainment/Dance Hall Keeper [Permit due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 1155.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker & Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to November 6, 2002 at the request of the appellant with the agreement of the respondent.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4B) APPEAL NO. 02-188
|
YONG MOOSE, Appellant(s)
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on August 28, 2002, [of Outcall Massage Service Permit due to non-payment of fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 140.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation on condition that the appellant pay the permit fees and submit a receipt to the police permit bureau.
SPEAKERS: None.
(4C) APPEAL NO. 02-189
|
YONG MOOSE, Appellant(s)
vs.
POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondent
|
[Appealing the revocation on August 28, 2002, [of Masseuse Permit due to non-payment of [fees.
[ACCOUNT NO. 151.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation on condition that the appellant pay the permit fees and submit a receipt to the police permit bureau.
SPEAKERS: None.
(5) JURISDICTION REQUESTS:
ITEM A: 41 Teddy Avenue. Letter from Wenson Bonifacio, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2001/12/05/4585. Permit Holder(s): James Myers. Project: remove temporary walls, stove installed by tenant, return space to garage, comply with NOV # 200121953.
Date Permit Issued: April 2, 2002.
Last Day to Appeal: April 17, 2002
Jurisdiction Request Received: June 5, 2002
ACTION: Withdrawn by the requestor.
ITEM B: 3646 Baker Street. Letter from George Lippi, Requestor/Permit Holder, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/01/08/6448 for the purpose of filing a penalty appeal.
Date Permit Issued: January 17, 2002.
Last Day to Appeal: February 1, 2002
Jurisdiction Request Received: June 18, 2002
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to grant the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: George Lippi, Requestor, asked the Board to allow him to appeal the penalty imposed on him for the reason it hadn’t been explained to him that an appeal was possible at the time he took out the permit to repair the deck on his building.
ITEM C: 5 Florida Street. Letter from Ha Ly, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over the approval by the Police Dept. of an additional stop in front of the subject property for mobile catering truck no. 21. Mobile Catering Truck Permit Holder(s): Rosaana Li.
Date of Request for Additional Stop: April 29, 2002
Date of Approval for Additional Stop: Unknown; according to Police Permit Bureau, approval was given shortly after request filed.
Date of Jurisdiction Request: July 15, 2002
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Nov. 6, 2002.
  SPEAKERS: None.
ACTION: Upon motion by Vice President Harrington, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to Nov. 13, 2002 at the request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEM E: 2937 Balboa Street. Letter from Gene Keenan, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2001/02/27/2987. Permit Holder(s): Ting Jong Yuen. Project: add extension at rear of existing building.
Date Permit Issued: August 26, 2002.
Last Day to Appeal: September 10, 2002
Jurisdiction Request Received: September 16, 2002
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Steven Whiting, agent for the permit holder, asked the Board to allow appeal to be
filed.
ITEM F: 740 Vermont Street. Letter from Carl Maletic, Agent for Requestor Mario Benassini, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Variance Case No. 2002.0840V. Variance Holder(s): Joyce Book. Project: rear yard variance in order to reconstruct a non-complying portion of a single-family dwelling (with respect to rear yard) which was voluntarily removed.
Date Variance Granted: Sept. 5, 2002.
Last Day to Appeal: September 15, 2002
Jurisdiction Request Received: September 30, 2002
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the jurisdiction request.
SPEAKERS: Carl Maletic said he is the agent-architect for his clients who live in house adjacent to the subject property and client has broken no rules and permit holder has. Joel Yodowitz, attorney for the Variance Holder said that the requestor had put forward no reason why his appeal wasn’t filed on time but clearly shows he is suspicious of the variance holder even though his client has appeared three times at public hearings on her project and that all parties were present at the variance hearing. Jonas Ionin, Senior Planner for the Zoning Administrator said that he was not present at the variance hearing.
ITEM A: 1479 – 3rd Avenue. Letter from Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator, requesting rehearing of Appeal 01-196, Wydler vs. ZA, decided Jan. 30, 2002. Upon motion by Vice President McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to overrule the subject determination and to adopt the findings submitted by the appellant’s attorney. Appellant: Aton Wydler. Determination: that use of the subject property as a 4-unit residential building is not permitted under the Planning Code, and is not considered to be a legal non-conforming use under Planning Code Sections 180 through 185.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the matter to October 30, 2002 at the request of all parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEM B: 1478 Page Street. Letter from Katherine Roberts, Co-Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-067, Roberts & Dyer vs. DPW, decided June 5, 2002. Upon Motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit. Project: remove and replace one tree with an “in-lieu” fee condition. Permit Holder(s): Michael Farr.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: Tony Walcott, Urban Forester for DPW, said that the in-lieu fee had been paid in both cases and described the process.
ITEM C: 1514 Waller Street. Letter from Katherine Roberts, Co-Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-054, Roberts & Dyer vs. DPW, decided June 5, 2002. Upon Motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit. Project: remove one tree without replacement. Permit Holder(s): Brendon McKenna.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 5-0 to deny the rehearing request.
SPEAKERS: None.
ITEM D: Taxicab medallion no(s). 129. letter from John Feldmann III, Attorney for David Adams, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-020, Adams vs. Taxi Commission, decided June 12, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
ACTION: Matter rescheduled to Nov. 13, 2002 prior to hearing.
SPEAKERS: None.
(7) APPEAL NO. V02-158
|
JIM MEKO, Appellant(s)
vs.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent
|
[1346 Folsom Street / 75 Dore Street.
[Protesting the granting on August 5, 2002, to [Citizens Housing Corporation, Parking & Rear [Yard Variance(s) (construction of a new [building that would be built within the required [rear yard, and would include only 16 parking [spaces where 98 parking spaces would be [otherwise required).
[VARIANCE CASE NO. 2002.0261V.
[FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to recuse Commissioner Shoemaker. Afterwards, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker recused) to uphold the subject variance with a finding that priority in the car share program should go to residents, and with notice of the private agreement dated October 23, 2002.
to all parties.
SPEAKERS: Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney explained the rules of conflict of interest in response to a Commissioner’s question. Jim Meko, Appellant, explained that he doesn’t oppose the project and that an agreement has been reached between the project sponsor and the community that he was comfortable with although Permit Holder had neglected to deal with the community for six months. He described the affect of the project on the residential and business neighbors and that the twelve conditions of the agreement would ameliorate the effects of the construction. Jim Buckley, representing the Permit Holder addressed the landmark issue and noted that the project had been before the Landmarks Board and that a federal 106 report has been done which found that the project would have no adverse effects. He also explained the proposed car share program imposed by the ZA as a condition for granting the parking variance. Molly Brennan, attorney for the Permit Holder spoke in rebuttal for the Permit Holder and said that the project architect was present and could answer design questions.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR APPELLANT: Roger Miles explained that Planning had told him the building would not extend beyond the boundary but now it seems all his tenants will face a blank wall and they are vacating his building. He feels too much parking is being waived by the variance. Fred Schell said that his building is just one story in height and the proposed building will put his in shadow. He feels the project is not right for the neighborhood and should provide 98 parking spaces.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND PROJECT: Patricia Kemerling of Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) explained that this kind of housing is sorely needed by the disabled community and that the disabled don’t need parking spaces since they don’t have cars. David Baker, project architect described similar variances that were granted. Annie Bourdon of the Car Share group that will serve the project explained how the process works and what a “pod” is. Ed Bedard of the Housing Coalition said he supports the variance and that the housing the project will provide is needed. Kevin Roach from ARC said the proposed building will open many opportunities for the disabled and will help people. Ron Miguel of the Housing Coalition said that this housing project is needed and the he was happy the parties had come to an agreement. Laurence Kornfield in response to a Board question explained how conditions of approval imposed by the Board are enforced. Jonas Ionin explained how Planning enforces conditions.
There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
__________________________ _________________________________
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, 883-7561.
