Meeting Information

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.

Letter from Lando Siu, requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over the Taxi Commission’s revocation of medallion no. 1181. 

Note:  The requestor filed an appeal of the Taxi Commission’s revocation (Appeal No. 03-052), and the Board held a hearing on June 4, 2003 where the revocation was upheld.  The rehearing period lapsed with no rehearing request filed, and a Notice of Decision & Order was issued, terminating the Board’s jurisdiction.  The requestor has filed this jurisdiction request asking the Board to grant him a second 10-day rehearing period and the opportunity to request a rehearing.  If this request is granted, the Board may consider the rehearing request for Appeal No(s). 03-052 as addendum item 3B.

If the foregoing jurisdiction request (addendum item 3A) is granted, then this rehearing request may proceed:  Letter from Lando Siu, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 03-052, decided June 4, 2003.  At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted   3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the revocation and instead impose a 3-month suspension of the subject medallion.  Four votes being required under Charter § 4.106 to overturn or modify a departmental action, the motion failed, and the Taxi Commission’s revocation was upheld. 

Letter from John Feldmann III, Attorney for David Adams, Appellant(s), requesting rehearing of Appeal No(s). 02-020, decided June 25, 2003.  At that time, upon motion by Commissioner Saunders, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Shoemaker & Sugaya dissented) to overrule the Taxi Commission and add the appellant’s name to the subject medallion.  Four votes being required under Charter § 4.106 to overturn or modify a departmental action, the motion failed, and the Taxi Commission’s denial of the request to add the appellant’s name to medallion no. 129 was upheld. 

Proposed findings submitted by Brett Gladstone, attorney for Permit Holder Margaret Pocoroba, by Jared Eigerman, attorney for Appellant Clear Channel, and by Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes.  For discussion and adoption. 

JOEL HOLLANDER, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

TAXI COMMISSION, Respondent

Appealing the revocation on February 3, 2003, of taxi medallion No(s). 884.

RESOLUTION NO. 2003-02.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

DANNY FONG, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL

2620 Vicente Street.

Protesting the issuance on May 13, 2003, to Si Fang Zhang, Site Permit to Alter a Building (on single-family house: rear extension, two-stories, consisting of 2 bedrooms on 1^st floor, and a master bedroom and master bathroom on 2^nd floor).

APPLICATION NO. 2000/12/04/7076S.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

MARK ONG, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

DEPT. OF BUILDING INSPECTION, Respondent

PLANNING COMMISSION DISAPPROVAL

§ 14 Parties: N/A (Mandatory DR)

2545 Greenwich Street.

Appealing the denial on May 28, 2003, of Permit to Alter a Building (interior modification to combine 2 units into 1 unit, resulting in a 2-unit building; no additional space is created; no exterior changes).

APPLICATION NO. 2002/09/12/6333.

FOR HEARING TODAY.

EVELYN ELSESSER KAHL, Appellant(s)

                        vs.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, Respondent

565 Diamond Street.

Appealing a determination dated May 15, 2003, addressed to Stephen Johnson, that the non-conforming structure on the adjacent lot at 551-555 Diamond Street cannot be used for rear yard averaging so as to allow the rear expansion of the subject property because the said non-conforming structure is not a dwelling unit under Planning Code § 102.

FOR HEARING TODAY.