Source: http://www.sfgov3.org/archive.aspx?dept=78&sub=&year=2004&dtype=435&file=26004
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 06:15:11
Document Index: 613561602

Matched Legal Cases: ['APPLICATION NO. 2002', 'APPLICATION NO. 2002', 'APPLICATION NO. 2002', 'APPLICATION NO. 2002', 'APPLICATION NO. 2000', 'APPLICATION NO. 2003', '§ 188', '§ 132', '§ 150', '§ 132', '§150']

MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA OCA); Craig Nikitas, Acting Zoning Administrator, (AZA, PD); Leo McFadden, Senior Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (SBI DBI); Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary, and Victor Pacheco, Legal Assistant, for the Board; and Claudine Woeber, Official Court Reporter.
SPEAKERS: Steve Kawa, Chief of Staff, Mayor’s Office, thanked Commissioner Chin for his years of service as Presidentof the Board of Appeals and presented him with a Certificate of Merit. (2) COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS & QUESTIONS:
(3) ADDENDUM ITEM(S): (3A) REHEARING REQUEST: 572 San Jose Avenue; Appeal No(s). 03-194; Tehlirian vs. DBI, PCD
Letter Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-194, decided March 3, 2004. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the denial and grant the permit with conditions as presented by the appellant. Four votes being required to overrule a departmental action, the denial of the subject permit was upheld. Project: on two-unit building, horizontal and vertical addition, 335sf on ground floor, 368sf on 2nd floor, and 1038sf on 3rd floor; electrical, plumbing, and mechanical under separate permit. DR Requestor(s): Jose Morales. ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to continue the matter to May 12, 2004, with the public hearing on this rehearing request closed. SPEAKERS: Ara Tehlirian, co-appellant, asked the Board to grant him a rehearing because of the manifest injustice of its decision. Jose Morales, DR Requestor, urged the Board to deny the request and said the project is really a demolition and not an alteration. Edwin Lindo, agent for DR Requestor, said the project results in demolition of 60% of the building so it is a demolition and not an alteration. (3B) 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: Matter withdrawn by the requestor.
(4A) APPEAL NO. 03-197
(4B) APPEAL NO. 03-199
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the appeal to May 12, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, reported that the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee has scheduled a hearing on the matter next week. Ken Harrington, Deputy Director, DBI, in response to Board questions said the department seeks the upholding of its decision and is not prepared to negotiate a settlement. David Silverman, attorney for appellant, urged the Board to overrule the penalty since there is no evidence that his client intended to violate the Code nor that there was any intent to mislead anyone. No public comment.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-192
& LEOPOLDO REDONDO, Appellant(s)
710 Edinburgh Street.
Protesting the issuance on November 4, 2003, to Javier Giron, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: construct one floor above existing garage as computer room/home office).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/08/28/5143S.
Note: On Feb. 18, 2004, the Board voted to uphold the subject permit with conditions. On March 24, 2004, the Board voted to grant the rehearing request by the Acting Zoning Administrator.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Shoemaker absent) to revoke the subject permit. SPEAKERS: Leticia Redondo, co-appellant, said she remains concerned about possible construction on the garage at the front of the property and was not concerned about the rear. Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained the procedural reason he asked for the rehearing. No public comment.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-190
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION,Respondent
616 Shrader Street.
Appealing the suspension on Aug. 6, 2003, of BPA Nos. 2003/08/06/1364 & 2003/07/23/0191. Reason(s) for suspension: the 1st permit was approved erroneously, and the 2nd permit requires further review by the Planning Dept. since both permits did not receive residential guideline review by Planning Dept. preservation technical specialists, which is required for the replacement of windows on architecturally significant buildings like the subject property.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ON FEB. 11, 2004.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the appeal to May 19, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, requested a rescheduling to work on a settlement with the appellant. Tom Katz, appellant, agreed to the rescheduling. ITEMS (7A), (7B) & (7C) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(7A) APPEAL NO. 03-147
LEUNG TO CHOW, Appellant(s)
111 Lobos Street.
Appealing the denial on September 26, 2003, of Permit to Demolish a Building (two-story single family house with 1,316sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/15/1446.
(7B) APPEAL NO. 03-148
111 Lobos Street (Building B).
Appealing the denial on September 26, 2003, of Site Permit to Erect a Building (three-story single family house with 1,602sf of ground floor area).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/15/1437S.
(7C) APPEAL NO. 03-149
111 Lobos Street (Building A).
APPLICATION NO. 2002/07/15/1442S.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Planning Commission and grant all 3 permits with findings as read into the record by Commissioner Chin, and with adoption of findings as submitted by the appellant’s attorney. SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained the Commission’s decision and the soundness report which indicates the building is not sound. Leo McFadden, SBI DBI, said his review and site visit indicates the building is not sound. David Silverman, attorney for appellant, said the property is a double lot and two new homes will be built, that there was no opposition to the project, and that Planning staff recommended approval, that the project is Code compliant needing no variances, and that all concerns have been addressed. No public comment.
(8) APPEAL NO. V03-208
DAVID CANNON, Appellant(s)
2 Ord Court.
Protesting the granting on Dec. 18, 2003, to Charlie Barnett (Subject Property Owner Fredric Silverman), Rear Yard Variance (construction of a new 2nd-story, vertical addition for the existing single-family house).
VARIANCE CASE NO. 2003.0828V.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Sugaya, the Board voted 2-3 (Commissioner Chin, Vice President Harrington, and Commissioner Saunders dissented) to overrule the subject variance with adoption of findings as submitted by the appellant. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action under the City Charter, the motion failed, and the subject variance was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, explained the variance that was granted and the revisions, which he made to it. Claire Pilcher, attorney for appellant, said that the five requirements for a variance have not been met, and that the variance should be overruled because the project will do great harm to her client. David Cannon, appellant, described how the project will impact him and said there are alternatives that would allow the owner expansion without impact on him and without the need for a variance. Alice Barkley, attorney for variance holder, described the project and said all five requirements have been met, and that this is only a minor project adding 30sf into the rear yard. Public comment: Christopher Hack said all the neighbors on Ord Court are concerned because there has been a lot of construction in the area recently. (9) APPEAL NO. 04-011
LONNA WAIS, Appellant(s)
2533 Baker Street.
Protesting the issuance on December 24, 2003, to Tamar Fruchtman, Permit to Alter a Building (on two-family house: complete interior and exterior remodel of existing residence combined with 4,877sf of new construction (including basement, attic, garage and habitable space) to create a new single family residence with tandem off-street parking in garage; combine two units into one).
APPLICATION NO. 2000/01/28/559.
JURISDICTION GRANTED JAN. 28, 2004.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the permit on condition that there be a 1 foot setback at the front.
SPEAKERS: Richrad Lund, attorney for appellant, asked the Board to enforce Section 134 of the Planning Code and require a regular rear yard so that the project is in context with the area. Brett Gladstone, attorney for permit holder, gave a narration of the property and permit history, and agreements between the parties and said it was recorded on the deed. Tamar Fruchtman, permit holder, said her family is growing and they need an expanded home. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said the project will have no impact on the mid-block open space. No public comment.
(10) APPEAL NO. 04-013
DANG LUONG, Appellant(s)
327 Wheeler Ave.
Protesting the issuance on Feb. 10, 2004, to Robert Eberle, Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: stair hall addition and remodel garage to include a master bedroom suite and mudroom).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/06/04/6299.
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit. SPEAKERS: Dang Luong, appellant, explained why he opposes the project. Blancett Reynolds, wife of permit holder, described the issues with the appellant, and described their project which will replace a stair that is not up to code, and also said the appellant has no easement over their property. Bob Eberle, permit holder, said their house is only 1100sf and the appellant’s window is frosted already as well as blocked by a pipe. Craig Nikitas, AZA, said this is a code-complying modest project. No public comment. ITEMS (11A) & (11B) SHALL BE HEARD TOGETHER:
(11A) APPEAL NO. 04-015
BERE DEVELOPMENT LLC., Appellant(s)
136 Parker Street.
Appealing a Notice of Violation dated February 23, 2004, addressed to Bere Development LLC, that the non-conforming front façade of the subject building was rebuilt after being voluntarily removed, in violation of Planning Code § 188(b); that the front setback of the project is less than the average of the front setbacks of the two adjacent properties, in violation of Planning Code § 132(a); and that a parking space that met Code requirements has been removed, in violation of Planning Code § 150(d). FOR HEARING TODAY.
(11B) APPEAL NO. 04-018
Appealing a Request for Suspension, addressed to Dept. of Building Inspection director Frank Chiu, asking that Building Permit Application No(s). 2002/02/08/8800S be suspended for the following reason(s): the project sponsor will need to file for and justify a variance under Planning Code § 132(a) for a non-complying front setback, and §150(d) for removal of required parking; and because the information shown on the plans for this permit about existing parking is not consistent with prior building permits. FOR HEARING TODAY.
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board voted 4-1 (Vice President Sugaya dissented) to overrule the ZA with adoption of findings as submitted by the appellant’s attorney. SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitas, AZA, said the permit had been approved by a “green” planner in error, and that a variance needs to be granted to allow the projection into the front setback. Jim Reuben, attorney for appellant, explained that a variance is not needed and that the Avco decision covers this situation of vested rights, as his client has completed most of his project under lawful permits, and the neighbors did not object, and no DR hearing was requested. Public comment: Joe O’Donoghue said the building can’t become a non-conforming use. There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 9:06 p.m.