Meeting Information

MINUTES OF THE

REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF APPEALS

WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 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, Commissioners Carole Cullum, Allam El Qadah and John McInerney.

Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator (ZA); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Department of Building Inspection (CBI, DBI); and Robert Feldman, Executive Secretary for the Board.

Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, swore in all those who intended to testify during the meeting.

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: 1. Barry Taranto, representing the United Taxicab Workers, urged the Board not to grant continuances to appellants in medallion revocation appeals because it allows those in violation of the taxicab rules to continue collecting $1,800.00 a month under their medallion leases. He said the Board will be getting 50 more revocation cases in the near future.

COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

SPEAKERS: 1. The Executive Secretary announced that the hearing scheduled for August 9 will be cancelled for the reason that two Commissioners will be unavailable. President Arnold Chin directed that the appeals scheduled for August 9^th be rescheduled to middle and late September. 2. President Chin responded to the public comment and said it was his policy to continue matters if there is no objection, but that he regretted that all the medallions the Board authorized were not on the street serving residents and tourists.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING: 347A Masonic Avenue. Letter from John Mallory, permit holder requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 00-059, heard June 7, 2000. Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Cullum absent) to GRANT the permit on CONDITION that the subject wall be relocated to the original location as on the subdivision map, and on further CONDITION that all bathrooms, sinks and kitchens built in the storage area be removed.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to September 6, 2000.

SPEAKERS: None.

(4) APPEAL NO. 00-074

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING and to CONTINUE this matter to August 30, 2000, with directions to the appellant to prepare REVISED PLANS that incorporate a connection on the 2^nd floor between the front of the house and the subject two-story rear addition, with no additional public testimony.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, described the convoluted history of the case before the Planning Commission. 2. Eduardo Troz, translated from the Spanish by Alberto Rios of BACA, said that he wants to provide more living space in his house for his family and he apologized to the Planning Commission and the ZA, and his staff. 3. Armando Sandoval, architect for the appellant, said that the planning staff had approved the plans which to him was a strong point for Troz. He said that one can’t tell in advance whether illegal units are going to be created in the future. Here there is no second entrance that could serve illegal units and the rear access is required or a room will be destroyed. No public comment.

(5) APPEAL NO. 00-109

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to September 6, 2000.

SPEAKERS: 1. Larry Badiner, ZA, said that the proposed variance would be expedited and the fee waived as requested by the Board. 2. Mark Brady, appellant, said he would have a variance application filed by the end of the week, but that neighbors had told them he could not possibly get a variance.
(6) APPEAL NO. 99-200

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to OVERRULE the Taxi Commission’s revocation on CONDITION that the subject medallion be suspended for 6 months.

SPEAKERS: 1. Tom Owen, Deputy City Attorney representing the Taxi Commission, said that the appellant was not driving at all and that he operates a restaurant and bar, and that his waybills were falsified. He said there was no progressive discipline process yet. 2. Sgt. Vincent Simpson, Taxi Detail, SFPD, described the comprehensive audit of drivers in 1997 and said the appellant’s waybills were incorrect and falsified and that the falsified records were an aggravated circumstance. 3. Bob Moore, attorney for appellant, said that the revocation was not consistent with what his client had done and that fairness required the Board to impose a lesser penalty than revocation. He said that 112 of the 431 drivers audited were not driving full time and they were only admonished. His client for the same violation was being unfairly treated. Public Comment for the Appellant: 4. Craig O’Connor of National Cab Company said the appellant was a very responsible career driver and it would be a shame to lose him. It was unfair to penalize him for doing two jobs. 5. Geraldine Armendariz said she is a neighbor of Liverpool Lil’s, the appellant’ s restaurant, which is run by several competent managers. She said the appellant is a decorated hero of Vietnam with a strong work ethic who supports charities and works two jobs and he was not familiar with the rules and it would be unjust to revoke his medallion. 6. Dan Dillon said he was a friend of former Commissioner Victor Makras who had sat through many Board meetings and seen many compromises crafted. He said the appellant is currently driving and that revocation is too harsh for someone trying to work two jobs. Public Comment for the Taxi Commission: 7. Barry Taranto of the UTW said that someone who has held a medallion for many years knows the law and the driving requirements and he urged the Board to uphold the Taxi Commission.

(7) APPEAL NO. 00-092

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permit, with PROP M FINDINGS read into the record by Commissioner Cullum.

SPEAKERS: 1. Peter Ryan, attorney for appellants, said he submitted his case on the brief and that his clients were asking only for a small revision to the plans, that a 3’ x 4’ portion be deleted along the side property line. 2. Larry Badiner, ZA, for the Planning Commission, described the discretionary review process and said the Commission had voted to not take the case after hearing testimony. 3. Josephine Cangelosi, permit holder, said the attorney was asking for something different from what the appellants had asked for. She said she had offered to revise plans in exchange for the appellants not filing an appeal, but now that they filed, she withdrew her offer, since she has been greatly inconvenienced and lost rent. 4. Luis Robles, architect for the permit holder, used an aerial photo to show that his client’s house is one of only two short buildings on the block. He said the project is in character and that shadows came form taller buildings nearby and that this addition will not affect light or air to the appellants. Public Comment for the Permit Holder: 5. Redwood LaChapel, said that the purpose of the addition is to provide a unit for the permit holder’s mother and that the permit holder had spent much money and time in this stressful process, with the neighbors trying to trash her dream.

Items (8A) and (8B) shall be heard together

(8A) APPEAL NO. 00-097

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to GRANT the subject permit.

(8B) APPEAL NO. 00-105

ACTION: This matter was WITHDRAWN by the appellants at the hearing.

SPEAKERS: 1. Ron Kulton, speaking for appellant Cheryl DuCote, said that clearer plans were needed since the balconies that were to be eliminated are still shown on the plans he reviewed. He objects to the permit holder’s attitude and unwillingness to compromise. 2. Joan Trauner, co-appellant, said she had reviewed the plans and that her issue was the drainage since there is an acquifer under these properties and severe basement flooding requiring pumping and the project would eliminate a tree on the property line that could impact them. Also she was aware they are near a liquification area that could produce problems in a seismic event. She asked for a continuance so she could have a professional review the hydrologist’s plan. 3. Don Trauner, co-appellant, said they want the plans to be complete as to the rear deck. He said the tree’s roots are deep and will affect drainage problem and he is concerned with dynamic change to the acquifer. 4. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said the record is complete and that the planner had signed off on the minor changes covered by the 8B permit. 5. Scott Emblidge, attorney for the permit holders, said he felt the appeals had gotten out of hand, and that the second permit was to cover those items they had agreed to remove, so he did not understand why it had been appealed.
6. Mark Horton, architect for the permit holders, said the project was now 60% the size of the original concept, and was 20% less that the Code allows. 7. Jim Moore, co-permit holder, said the project was now 80% less than the original idea and that he was saddened by the opposition to the project that does not even require a variance. He said he and his wife were expecting a child and planned on adopting two more so they needed to expand the house in a modest way. 8. Joan Trauner withdrew her appeal of the alteration permit issued June 28, 2000, since it was her intention to appeal the underlying site permit and not the permit to correct the plans. 9. Laurence Kornfield, CBI, DBI, said that the subject property is not in the liquification area and that seismic safety is always addressed by his department for all plans, but that they have no jurisdiction over the underground spring. Drainage must be addressed with run-off to the sewer and never onto a neighbor’s property. 10. Larry Badiner, ZA, confirmed that the revisions were covered by the plans and that there is a 5’4" setback the length of the addition.

(9) APPEAL NO. V00-041

ACTION: This matter was RESCHEDULED to August 23, 2000 prior to hearing at the request of the parties.

(10) APPEAL NO. 00-096

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to CONTINUE this matter to CALL OF THE CHAIR, with directions to the Chief Building Inspector to report to the Board on the life/safety issues of the subject illegal unit within 3 weeks.

SPEAKER: 1. Trevor Fooks, appellant, said he accepted the Board’s intention to continue the appeal to the call of the chair, but that there was a lien on his property, and he wants to do work on the other part of his house for which he can not get a permit because of the existence of the illegal third unit.

There being no further business, President Chin adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.

_________________________________
Arnold Y.K. Chin, President

_________________________________
Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary

Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained directly from Easteller Bruihl, the Official Court Reporter, (415) 576-0700.