2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MEETING MINUTES - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2004
5:00 P.M., CITY HALL, ROOM 416, ONE DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
PRESENT: President Kathleen Harrington, Vice President Hisashi Sugaya, Commissioner Arnold Chin, Commissioner Sabrina Saunders, and Commissioner Douglas Shoemaker.
Catharine Barnes, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney (DCA OCA); Jonas Ionin, Senior Planner, Planning Department (SP, PD); Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Dept. of Building Inspection (CBI DBI); Naomi Little, Executive Director of the Taxi Commission (ED TC); Jacob Szeto, for the Dept. of Public Works Bureau of Street Use & Mapping (DPW BSM); 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) REHEARING REQUEST:
1018 Clayton Street; Appeal No(s). 03-196; Ryan vs. DBI, PDA
|
Letter from Francis David Ryan, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-196, decided March 24, 2004. At that time, upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker and Sugaya dissented) to uphold the subject permit. Project:: on single-family house, construct 7’ X 36” high one-hour fire rated parapet on roof at south side. Permit Holder(s): Gunther Dertz.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner Saunders dissented) to grant the rehearing request, and to set the rehearing for June 9, 2004.
SPEAKERS: Francis David Ryan, requestor, asked the Board to grant his request for a rehearing, and said the parapet wall is not the real issue, and that the wall is not needed under the Code. Gunther Dertz, permit holder, objected to the request and said he had offered to pay for fire-rated glass for the appellant’s windows but that the offer had not been accepted; he felt the real danger is caused by the appellant’s kitchen window and that the property line window is not legal.
(4) APPEAL NO. 01-115
|
THERESA ISSERMAN, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
700 Vermont Street.
Protesting issuance on June 20, 2001, to Raymond & Hazel Guaraglia, Permit to Alter a Building (demolish existing non-compliant residential units per Notice of Violation No. 200114983; remove all utilities to ground level; convert to original commercial space with no structural work to be done).
APPLICATION NO. 2001/06/20/1935.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY HEARD 6/19/03.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to May 26, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
(5) APPEAL NO. 03-154
|
ULYSSES NAPURI
dba “LAST STOP SOUVENIR”, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
BUREAU OF STREET USE & MAPPING,
Respondent
|
498 Beach Street.
Appealing the denial on May 5, 2003, of a Sidewalk Display Merchandise Permit.
ORDER NO. 174,098.
JURISDICTION GRANTED SEPT. 17, 2003.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD & CLOSED ON DEC. 10, 2003.
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to June 9, 2004.
SPEAKERS: John Kwong, DPW BSM, reported that no one has applied for a building permit to legalize the tent structure from which the appellant conducts his business and he requested that the appellant’s appeal be denied; he also said the sidewalk regulations are presently being met and that the sidewalk is not obstructed. Ulysses Napuri, appellant, said that he and his wife had tried to get a permit, but that DBI asked for professional plans and that no building permit has yet been granted. Maria Napuri, wife of appellant, said the owner’s brother had a heart attack so no application has been filed by the owner. Catharine Barnes, DCA, responded to questions from the Board regarding the effect of the continuance of the hearing.
(6) APPEAL NO. 03-044
|
JOHN ARKEDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on March 19, 2003, of taxicab medallion No. 1167.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-09.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by President Harrington, the Board 4-1 (Commissioner Sugaya dissented) to overrule the revocation and replace it with a 9-month suspension and 3-year probation period with the following condition(s): that during the 3 year probation period, appellant must submit waybills to the Taxi Detail on a quarterly basis.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, explained why the Taxi Commission revoked the subject medallion, and said the appellant had been formally admonished and yet continued to violate the Code, not driving the required number of shifts, and thus it is a case of willful disregard of the Code requirements. Geoffrey Rotwein, attorney for appellant, said there has been no evidence produced by the Commission to justify the revocation and conceded that the appellant has had medical problems that have made driving difficult; he urged the Board to at least reduce the revocation to a suspension. John Arkeder, appellant, apologized for violating the regulations and asked the Board to help him keep his medallion. Public comment: Dan Hines of National Cab confirmed that the appellant had driven until his leg injury, and that he drives again as required.
(7) APPEAL NO. 03-052
|
LANDO SIU, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on March 25, 2003, of taxicab medallion #1181.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-12.
NOTE: At the original hearing of June 4, 2003, the Board voted to uphold the subject revocation. On September 17, 2003, the Board voted to grant the jurisdiction request seeking a second 10-day rehearing request period; the Board also voted that same day to grant the rehearing request.
FOR REHEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 3-2 to overrule the revocation and replace it with a 2-month suspension. Four votes being required to overturn a departmental action, the denial of the subject medallion was upheld.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, explained why the Commission has revoked the appellant’s medallion, saying that there is no good evidence that he has driven any of the required shifts at all. Geoffrey Rotwein, attorney for appellant, said he disputes all that was said, and that there is no evidence that his client has not met the requirements, and nothing to support the Commission’s assertions. He said his client claims he has driven the years in question, and that he has surrendered his medallion which he relies on for his income. Lando Siu, appellant, said that he is sorry for not driving the required shifts and that he has taken full responsibility for meeting the requirements in the future since he needs the income from the medallion take care of his family, with a child in high school that wants to go to college. Inspector Farrell Suslow of the Taxi Detail said the waybills submitted by the appellant were blank, and not verifiable as proper waybills, though some evidence seems to indicate someone drove, but that there is no evidence the appellant drove in compliance with the Code. Public comment: Carl Macmurdo said he feels the medallion should be reinstated since the appellant has owned up to his problems, and that a suspension/probation should be imposed instead of revocation.
(8) APPEAL NO. 03-206
|
JOE LEUNG, Appellant(s)
vs.
TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent
|
Appealing the revocation on December 16, 2003, of a Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle for Hire Permit.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-87.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Shoemaker, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the revocation and replace it with a 30-day suspension.
SPEAKERS: Naomi Little, ED TC, explained that the appellant’s A-card was revoked because he bought para-transit scrip from an under-cover investigator, and that the program rules are clear, and the appellant violated them. Sherry Gendelman, attorney for appellant, said she relied on her legal arguments in her brief, and said her client has no police record from this incident, and that there are no elements here of a crime having been committed; she added that her client is 68, has limited English, and earns his income from driving a cab. Public comment: Mark Soto, general manager of the para-transit program, explained how the program works, and how the City is trying to end fraudulent abuses which result in depriving those entitled to scrip from receiving it; he added that he supports the Commission’s action. Rua Graffis of the UTW explained how the instructions for participation in the program have changed: first the drivers were told to buy scrip and turn it into the cab company, then they were told not to buy it, thus confusing many drivers, including the appellant.
(9) APPEAL NO. 03-117
|
GEORGE HAMILTON HAUCK
& DUANE FRISBIE, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
218 Union Street.
Protesting the issuance on July 15, 2003, to John Votruba, Permit to Alter a Building (on 3-story, 7-unit residential building: rebuild upper deck on roof – see NOV No(s). 200336693; new roof ladder).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/07/15/9492.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: This appeal was withdrawn by the appellants.
SPEAKERS: None.
(10) APPEAL NO. 03-185
|
ARYE MICHAEL BENDER, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL
|
3334 Folsom Street.
Protesting the issuance on October 21, 2003, to John Woolsey-McKernnon (new owner Tim Albinson), Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: removal of stove and refrigerator in basement apartment).
APPLICATION NO. 2003/10/21/8076.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on condition that DBI conduct a site visit in 60 days to verify that the permit has been executed, with a report to the Board from DBI thereafter.
SPEAKERS: Arye Michael Bender, appellant, said that he has moved out of the apartment and his appeal is now moot, but he did want to make a statement concerning protection of tenants in this situation, and their need for protection from unscrupulous landlords. No public comment.
(11) APPEAL NO. 04-005
|
JIMMY CHU, Appellant(s)
vs.
DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent
|
425 Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Appealing a Notice of Decision by Frank Chiu, Director of the Dept. of Building Inspection, dated Jan. 5, 2004, that an unlawful residential demolition has taken place at the subject property under Building Code §§ 103.3, 103.3.1 & 103.3.2, that Building Permit Application No(s). 2003/02/13/7355, 2003/05/14/4558 and 2003/06/20/7261 are hereby revoked, and that a 5 year moratorium on the issuance of building permits is hereby imposed pursuant to Building Code § 103.3.1.
FOR HEARING TODAY.
|
ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to reschedule the appeal to May 12, 2004 at the written request of the parties.
SPEAKERS: None.
There being no further business, President Harrington adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m.
______________________________ _________________________________
Kathleen Harrington, President Robert H. Feldman, Executive Secretary
Transcripts of these hearings can be obtained from Ms. Claudine Woeber, the Official Court Reporter, 506-0430.
