Meeting Information

SPEAKERS: Mark Gruberg of the United Taxicab Workers objected to the filing fees required of him to appeal action of the Taxi Commission attaching names of children of deceased medallion holder to medallions.

SPEAKERS: None

ITEM A: 506 Sanchez Street. Letter from Retts Scauzillo, Requestor, asking that the Board take jurisdiction over Building Permit Application No(s). 2001/11/16/3409. Permit Holder: Cheryl Sena. Project: remove stove and sink, and remove ground floor kitchen. PUBLIC HEARING HELD JAN. 9, 2002. FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

ACTION: This matter was withdrawn by the requestor prior to the hearing.

SPEAKERS: None.

ITEM B: 2836 Washington Street. Letter from Rene Peinado, Appellant, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-138, decided December 5, 2001. Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-1 (Commissioner McInerney dissented) to override the denial by the Planning Commission and grant permit with conditions and NSR. On January 16, 2002, on motion by President Chin, Board voted 4-1 (McInerney dissented) to adopt staff NSR amended by President Chin. On February 11, 2002 Request for Rehearing scheduled for February 27. On February 27 on motion by Vice President Board voted 5-0 to grant scheduled hearing April 17, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Bryan Raisch, attorney for Rene Peinado, appellant, said that the Board was limited to a decision on the parapet and otherwise these decks can be used as shown on original approval plans, but the proposed Notice of Special Restrictions wouldn’t allow that. He feels a rehearing would allow time for these issues to be clarified and for a new NSR to be drafted that is appropriate for the case. Craig Nikitas for the ZA said the Department has no objection to a rehearing.

ITEM C: 144 Eddy Street. Letter from Andrew Zacks, attorney for appellant Empress LLC, requesting rehearing of Appeal No. 01-082, Empress LLC vs. ZA, decided January 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Determination Holder: Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 3-2 (Commissioners Cullum and Saunders dissented) to grant the rehearing request. Four votes being necessary to grant a rehearing request, the motion failed. Then, upon motion by Commissioner McInerney, the Board voted 5-0 to rescind the previous vote. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the rehearing request to April 17, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Andrew Zacks, attorney for the appellant said after the Board’s decision he learned of a similar hotel nearby which operates as a tourist hotel under similar facts and feels his client has not been treated fairly. He expects a new determination from the ZA which may be appealed and could be heard with this case. The owner of the other hotel is a prominent real estate businessman. Craig Nikitis for the ZA said that a determination regarding the hotel at 25 Mason Street is being researched and will be issued soon. Randy Shaw for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said there are no new facts and the rehearing request should be denied. An argument concerning another hotel is irrelevant. Judith Boyijian, Deputy City Attorney, in answer to a Board question said that if a motion fails that a member on the prevailing side can make a motion to rescind and if passed, a new motion can be made to continue the matter to a later date.

ITEM D: 144 Eddy Street. Proposed findings for Appeal 01-081, West Cork LLC vs. ZA, and Appeal 01-082, Empress LLC vs. ZA, decided Jan. 9, 2002. Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 3-2 (President Chin & Commissioner El Qadah dissented) to uphold the subject determination. Determination Holder: Tenderloin Housing Clinic. For adoption today.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to April 17, 2002.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Withdrawn by the appellant at hearing.

SPEAKERS: David Silverman attorney for the appellant reported that the matter has been settled and his client withdraws the appeal.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the Taxi Commission’s revocation and suspend the subject medallion for a period of 6-months with the following CONDITIONS(S): a) that the appellant complete the full-time driving requirement (using his regular taxi permit/driver of public passenger vehicle permit) including completion of waybills; b) that at the end of the 6-month suspension the appellant must provide to the Taxi Detail of the Police Department a certificate of medical eligibility to drive from Dr. Norman Shapiro or a similarly experienced disability physician, which should include a report on the appellant’s vision; c) that the appellant provide to the Taxi Detail copies of all medical records, reports and other documents which reflect treatment and visits to medical providers within 10 days after each said visit or treatment; d) and that the appellant provide new medical reports concerning his vision and neurological status every 6-months to the Taxi Detail for a period of 2-years.

SPEAKERS: Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City Attorney for the Taxi Commission explained the appellant’s failure to meet the driving requirements for medallion holders and asked the Board to uphold the action of the Commission to protect citizens and the appellant who has driven in the past while he had double vision, endangering himself, passengers and the public; and he had several citations for moving violations. He described the Commission’s efforts in developing guidelines and procedures to handle ADA claims and disciplinary matters. John Prentiss, attorney for the Appellant, described the appellant’s long career as a driver of public vehicles, having originated the motorized rickshaw business and driven a taxi for forty years, since 1954. Dr. Norman Shapiro testified as to the Appellant’s medical history and said he is presently driving and is medically fit to continue driving. Richard Hybels, general manager of the cab company which leases the Appellant’s medallion said the Appellant drives a taxi with no complaints from the public. James Nakamura, for the Appellant said that the Appellant is a member of his group, went over the Appellant’s history as a driver and medallion holder and said it would be wrong to revoke the medallion of so dedicated a driver and unfair to him as a minority, reminding the Board that driver’s are not employees with worker’s compensation insurance but independent contractors who must insure themselves at great expense. Mark Gruberg, UTW, said for once he was opposed to a revocation and that this case is a murky situation and he suggested the Board reduce the revocation to a suspension for a year and require all regulations to be followed and waybills be submitted along with a DMV report on his driving record. Carl Macmurdo for the Appellant, said he feels that there is no driving requirement for medallion holders under the law since it says they declare their intention to drive only. He said that the Commission adopted a draconian template for discipline last night. Johnson Akinbodunse, for the Appellant said that there was no provision in Prop K for those who could not do the job and that the Appellant has driven successfully for forty years in the City.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TAXI COMMISSION.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to April 17, 2002 prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Withdrawn by the appellant.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 5-0 to continue the matter to April 24, 2002.

SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitis for the ZA explained that the application is to create two new lots and that it did not meet the five requirements set forth in the Code or Section 101.1, the Prop. M priority policies because granting it will lead to the loss of affordable housing. William Walters, architect for the appellant, said that his client had recently bought the lots and that the application does meet the five requirements and that the affordable housing issue is just speculative and doesn’t justify denial. He noted that the owner owns several properties and has no history of eviction though the tenants are worried.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0 to recuse Commissioner McInerney. Afterwards, upon motion by Commissioner Cullum, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner McInerney recused) to uphold the subject determination.

SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitis for the ZA said the notification had been correct and there had been no mistake in approval or in compliance with the approved plans. Jeffrey Gibson, attorney for the appellants said that the ZA had erred in taking no action when presented with evidence the house has been enlarged beyond the approved plans and among other improper charges the barbeque area has been enclosed and the ceiling heights have increased. Clients didn’t act earlier because they only become aware of problem after construction began. David Silverman, attorney for the permit holder, said that the building envelope is measured on the exterior only and the ceiling heights of rooms are irrelevant, since these are interior dimensions and the height of the house is as on the approved plans. He said this appeal was not timely and these issues should have been raised during the DR process but no one requested it.

ACTION: Upon motion by President Chin, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Saunders absent) to uphold the denial of the subject variance.

SPEAKERS Craig Nikitis said the project violates the Code and the Residential Design Guidelines. There is no evidence that the shed has been there for very long and he submitted aerial photos and Sanborn maps that show no shed in the rear year.

The appellant made no appearance.

Jeremy Paul asked the Board to uphold the Department’s decision because the matter has been on hold at DBI for years and the Appellant has amazingly avoided DNBI enforcement, but the shed needs to be torn down.

ACTION: This matter was rescheduled to March 6, 2002 prior to hearing.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to overrule the denial and grant the subject permit with adoption of the Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) as recommended by Planning Staff.

SPEAKERS: Craig Nikitis for the ZA explained that the Commission denied the permit because they felt the price structure is too high for the residents of the Mission District and therefore the proposed use is out of character with the neighborhood and not a neighborhood-serving business. Ben Sarnoff, attorney for the Appellants, said the appeal is from a mandatory DR decision and that the proposal is for a full service health club that will be neighborhood serving. He said the price structure was not justification to deny the application and the proposal would result in renovation and use of a neglected vacant property that is an eyesore and harbors drug dealers.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE APPELLANTS: Judy West said she lives two blocks from the site and the proposed facility will bring up-scale people into the area. She said the climbing gym is breath-taking and will be an inspiration for the neighborhood. Guillermo Torres said he supports the project because it will be of benefit to youth and will help combat drugs by providing good recreational opportunities for them. He is a climber himself. Mr. Jesus Barrera said he doesn’t like much in the Mission like the porno businesses and he needs a place to box and the gym on Harrison Street is too crowded. Nancy Kahn said she is a youth advocate and that the owners have shown themselves to be an honorable organization by supporting sixty groups in the City. The facility will help build self-esteem of youth and it would be a travesty to disapprove the permit. Robert Cooley of the Mission Merchants Association said his board had voted 9-3 in favor of this project which will upgrade an eyesore and the merchants and the youth will benefit from it. Ira Victor of the MMA said the vote would have been 10-3 if he had been at the meeting. The site has been vacant for 10-15 years and now shelters drug dealers under the marquee. The project will cause no displacement and he feels MEDA has a vendetta against the owners of the property. Kirk Scott said he is a climber and a product of climbing in his youth. Climbers often become conservationists and the facility will provide wholesome opportunities for local youth. Toby Levine said she had long experience in this neighborhood as a resident and a teacher and she feels this climbing-health club facility will have a very positive effect on the Mission District.

ACTION: Upon motion by Commissioner El Qadah, the Board voted 5-0 to uphold the subject permit on condition that white reflective paint be used on both light wells facing the appellant’s property.

SPEAKERS: Anton Yu, appellant, said he is not against the proposed building but wanted revisions to the plans to enlarge the lightwells so they line up and to increase the setback of the penthouse. David Standish, the permit holder, said he had reached an agreement with the appellant’s family in good faith and they had withdrawn their DR request and now the appellant wants to renegotiate the agreement and have a greater setback for the penthouse. He said his project meets the Residential Design Guidelines and was properly approved and issued and he asks that it be upheld by the Board. Gabriel Ng, architect for the project described his attempts to consult with the appellant and said the lightwell is a new issue never before discussed by the parties. Craig Nikitis for the ZA described the revisions agreed to at the Commissions DR hearing.

NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR EITHER SIDE.