person can that doesn't need a wheelchair and get a cab. that is what we are trying to get done here and get them treated the same as anyone else is in our industry. thank you. >> i got several questions. >> yeah. so you have 100 ramp taxis. >> right. >> and out that have 100, what are the percentage that are having problems right now that you have. >> well each month since april, or may, we have been issuing citations. and so, it is fluctuates. there are times when it is as high as 40 percent have problems. but it goes back and forth. some months they do, and some months they don't which is why we have this lead time in where it is three violations in a 6-month period will lead to a suspension. because we recognize that not every month is a fantastic month. we also look at other factors to, you know, when we are looking at this. so if a person comes to us and say, high car is out of service

it has been in the shop. you know my wheelchair vehicle has been in the shop for the last two weeks, we don't issue the citation. we take it off the table because we get the repair records and say that the transmission was out and they were not able to use this vehicle. we take all of those things in consideration and it is a 6-month time period because we take into consideration that maybe you will have a slow month somewhere in that six months. we are hoping that at least half of those six months you can get it done. >> and the second question is on a monthly basis, how many complaints do you have from handicap individuals that are saying that they are not being serviced? >> you know that is hard to say, because typically the call is simply, i called. and no one responded. it is not so much of a you know like... >> do you track that information if someone calls. because generally, if i required a ramp vehicle, and i

called to make an appointment or called in for service, and they declined or did not show up, i would imagine that i would be upset enough to call the authorities above that are in control. so on a monthly basis, how many people are complaining to you? >> we don't track the wheelchair users. i can tell you that we get five or six of those a month. >> have any been tracked to this company or this driver? >> well, it would be really difficult to track to a particular driver. it can be tracked to a company, but i could not give you any real numbers on that. >> okay. >> but it couldn't be tracked to a driver because no one showed up because it has to be... >> so in the town or luxor or yellow. >> do they have complaints. you don't have that information? >> i don't have that information for you. >> thank you. >> how many are registered in the para transit program? >> you know i actually don't

have the numbers that are registered in the program. >> and is there no process whereby they can get credit for those who are not registered but who utilized their service? >> well, we have actually kind of built that in to the regulations so as part of the regulation we require at least 6 of those pick-ups to be through the para transit car system so six out of the eight, if you have gotten six, there is a presumption that you are out there doing the pick-ups. the vast majority of the people that we have the problems are the ones that have 0. that is where she is, she had 0s. it was not like i had six, and i had two at the airport. as well this month. you know, we can kind of give you that presumption and say that you had 6, even if we can't totally track it and we see the way bills and you wrote it in and we will figure that

you are there and give you the benefit of the doubt. but when you have a 0 and you come to us and say that i get two wheelchair customers out a week out at the airport that is sketchy for us to be able to presume that that is correct. >> but if you are at the airport and you are in need of a wheelchair vehicle and you are not going to be able to take another taxi more than likely, correct? you are going to have to take a ramp vehicle. >> yes. >> so then the people that are travelling especially this is an international airport they are not going to contain those vouchers or cards. >> that is correct. in general they won't, those are san francisco residents. who have those cards. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners? the matter is submitted. >> the driver is sticking up

her... >> your representative has already used up all of your time. >> no. sorry.

>> i will go ahead and start. i feel sympathetic in some respects to the appellant's situation in terms of driving at night and caring for two small children as a single mom. i think that it seems to me that the driving, the pick-up requirements are fairly liberal and not overly stringent while i am not a ramp tab driver i can't speak to that experience. to the extent that you are missing it in a 6-month period having not picked up sufficient number of customers who need those disabled customer whose need your services in at least three, at least three out of

those six months, it seems to me that it is, you had sufficient notice to improve on that. so those are often, i am thinking right now and so in that respect i am leaning towards up holding the department. >> i will arrive to the similar conclusion but from a different point of view. most wheelchair-bound people who need a ramp taxi wind up calling the same driver, the same company, every time they need to go somewhere and be picked up. that is why their cell phones are good tool for the drivers. it is unusual then to have 0 show up for a company that and

a driver that has been serving the handicapped population. so i would support the up hold. >> make a motion? >> no further comment? i am going to move to up hold the department. >> commissioner fung? >> might that be on the basis of the reasons stated in the department's brief? >> yes. >> i am sorry. and how long is the suspension for? >> 90 days. >> i mean, is there a way that do we have to make a motion to reduce that? >> well, the way that the ordinance is written, it is a suspension of 90 days if they failed to meet the requirement, and it is suspended for 90 days. >> there is no exception. >> thank you for that clarification. >> it does not mean that you

cannot break the rule. >> go for it. >> i would like to make a motion to reduce that by half, 45 days. yeah, 45 days. >> you are asking to a friendly amendment to the motion that is on the floor. >> thank you. >> i would accept a friendly amendment. >> grant appeal. >> reduce penalty to 45 days. >> would you like to keep the same basis or a different basis? >> yes. >> we have a motion then from commissioner fung to reduce the suspension from 90 days to 45 days and this is on the basis stated in the departmental

brief from the mta. on that motion, president hwang. >> i. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the suspension is reduced to 45 days on that basis. thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> number 7, appeal no 12-145, abolfath hosseinioum, 965 mission street, appealing the imposition of the penalty on november 6, 2012, for construction work done without a permit. application number, 2012/11/05/3563. the matter is on for today. you can begin with seven minutes to present your case.

>> good evening, president. and good evening commissioners and good evening. >> could you speak into the mic? >> yes. good evening, everybody. >> and so my name is abolfath, hosseinioum and i am the owner of 965 and i am here for the notice that was issued for demolition work that the permit was in process, but not issued. and this work, the scope of the work is moving some interior non-bearing walls and some suspended ceiling for the future ti work. i have applied many months before starting the job. pardon me, i submitted my application and i had every intention to get the permit to complete the job. and since the ti work was not

100 percent in place, and we did not have secured any tenant and so there was some issues that the plans for the application was supposed to be completed and so that was the reason the permit was not 100 percent done. i have demonstrated and in this application, at this application has presented. part of the application was submitted and approved several months before it started. and so, i would appreciate the court to consider, yeah what the penalty has been applied to this permit. it is the violation and we have picked up the permit and the

time that i was surprised that it was i was penalized nine times of the permit fees. so that is it. have any questions? >> >> sir, it is actually ten times. but, yeah... you indicated that you are a property manager? >> i am the owner of the property. >> the owner? >> and have you had to have permits before? >> yes. >> and always i, every job we have done in the building was always, it is done we do a permit. only this job, every even you started the demolition and do something of the work usually the consequences is that you have to get the permit in order to do that ti work, the new construction. i did not really just realize that would be just in the

violation. because in the past, we picked up the permit and it was the permit for the demolition and new construction simultaneusly. and so there was no structure or no life safety issue involved, i did not assume that that would be really a violation. and so otherwise, i had applied for it, i mean it doesn't, it means that we did the work without permit. and so the permit was in process. >> okay. thank you. >> how much longer would you have had to wait to have avoided this penalty? >> how much longer would you have had to wait for the issue ans for the permit to have avoided. >> i don't understand the question. >> you went ahead with the work prior to getting a permit. >> yeah. >> how long would you have had to wait. what was your understanding? >> i did not, it was not my

understanding, i did not really know that would be a violation because i had started and so, there was some question internally where for the ada we did not know in what extent we have to in the new work we have to comply with ada. because we had the existing bathrooms, and enough sufficient bathrooms, but i did not know that how many of this bathroom can be demolished in order to convert it to meet the ada requirement. and so we did not touch the bathrooms and so i was in process and going with the architect and going back and forth to see what it needed for in the future scope of the work. so the plans were delayed and so, we went ahead and started the work and so, really that was an assumption. that was not intentional

violation. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you can sit down now, we will hear from mr. duffy. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, i don't think in the brief that you actually have the complaint or the notice of violation. i brought some extra copies if you are interested in seeing those. >> yes. >> the top of... give me one, will you. >> sure.

>> i brought 11. so the top sheet is a complaint data sheet which is really, it gives you the details about the complaint, when it was received. and what the work was, the description, the inspector and then received 12th of october, 2012 and then the 19th of october, 2012, i believe that our building inspector got in there and issued the notice of violation, which you can see on page 2, which was for entire third floor being demoed and the plumbing and electrical

permits and the conditions exist with the loose wiring and the uncontrolled debris and dust. he valued work to having been done to $20,000 and he imposed the 9 times penalty that is required by the code. i have a couple of photo graphs that i could show here if i could pop them on the overhead to show the scope of the demolition. so you can see that the floor was pretty much demolished, and there was some debris, around the place and suspended ceilings had been removed. and just the demolition, no construction, no reconstruction had started when our inspector was there. so the penalty, i believe is in the region of $2,109.78.

and and the department would like to keep the penalty on for doing the work without the permit. just if you have any questions, i am available. >> i have a question. so the permit holder has indicated that he had started the process prior? what does that... >> right, i should have spoke to that, thanks for reminding me. this is a building permit application, and when you go into the building department you get this writing slip on it and you fill in your application at the ground floor and then you run it to the department departments, building and planning and dpw and it looks like the gentleman stated that he came into the building department and got some approvals. i see something here from on the back of the permit application, i will put it on the overhead just so that everyone can see it. this is the back of the permit application and what it says in the planning department it says not applicable interior only and no change of use, and the

person's name was mcaretta 2, 16/12. i don't know what happened, or why they didn't continue with that. the subsequent permit was issued. and to comply with the notice of violation. i have the details of that. but i believe that it was in november, the 5th, it was a permit issued for a demo of interior walls and removing of the suspended ceiling to comply with the notice of violation and the future will be under separate permit. and that did not go through the planning department it does not need to go through the planning department. so it is a permit application, maybe he did come in. >> mr. duffy, this scope of work normally probably would have been an over the counter. >> it is the over the counter. i don't know why unless, you

know, some people think that like he indicated that he needed to aggregate the demo work plus the new ti work. >> some people start with the demo department and we have seen that earlier tonight. but some people start with the smaller part and move to the bigger one and expedites the thing but we like them to get the permit before they start the work it is better. in this case we got a complaint from someone in the building and i was just looking through the building history today. and have not been in that building since going back to 07 and then that as a matter of fact in 2007 we noticed a violation and there was a notice to comply with the complaint to install a window and remove a door. we also had issued in regards to that and there was not a penalty, i don't think on that. i believe that it might be a

tenant and landlord thing going on, a lot of them do get through quickly, it is usually heat or quality of life complaints but they seem to get debated. but there was a number and there are only two active complaints on it right now and the rest of them have been abaited. >> the permit holder mentioned that in the past they had always applied if a permit. did the permit history indicate that their track record is what the permit holder said? >> there are a lot of permits on it as well. there is a lot of work done on the building and the track history, it is probably is okay. but the one that showed up that they had done work previously without a permit. there was a complaint and then they got a permit. we may not have issued a notice of violation, sometimes when we go there, if we don't get in, we leave a note saying that we are looking to get in to investigate and some people rush down to the building per

department and it saves them the penalty. we have to see the work before we issue the penalty. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. seeing none, then mr. hosseinioum, you have three more minutes if you have anything else to say. you can speak again to the board. >> okay. >> basically, i want to reiterate that this work really was with the intention of the finalize the permit which has already started and i did not have the intention to do any work without any permit. and so what mr. duffy has mentioned in the past in 07, there was a tenant installing a window in between two rooms and later i came to the building

department and i took care of it. and so, that is basically it. i own the building for 13 years and i always have been complied with the rules and regulations of the building department. we have about four permits in place and i really should in the last three months. >> could you explain inspector duffy indicated that potentially you were going to get a notice of violation in the past for work done without a permit. >> that is what i mentioned in the 07, there was a window installed in a wall by a tenant and so the building department notified me and i went over there and i took care of it. >> okay, all right. thank you for clarifying that. >> when did you do the demo work? >> it was done in october of last year. >> okay. the permit application shows a

date of february. >> yeah. that is correct. i originally i went over there, i have applied for the permit to do the various work from four one to seven that is my permit. and so since we did not have any potential tenant or so, we did not process with it, what is it? proceed with it. and so, in later of the year, around september or october, market start to get better, and so, i started just thinking about it and starting some work. and so pretty much in october, i started 30th and we started opening up the entire floor and this floor which we did the work there was no tenant it was total empty. we have many floors totally empty with no tenants and so with that floor we start doing the work and demolition and all

of there to just progress. but, definitely, we were working with the plans and with the architect to finalize the scope of the work for the future ti work and future tenant. that is the reason it started later and did not have any reason to start the work prior to that day. >> is your building entire building an office building? >> yes, it is. >> >> and since we added some tenant on different floors, if you start the demolition and make the noise and then they start calling and complaining about it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further mr. duffy? >> no? >> okay. commissioners, the matter is submitted.

>> normally i am the easyist one on these. >> yes, you are. >> i have a little bit of confusion on this particular case. and given some experience, you know, with the process, i would be willing to split the baby and cut it to five times. >> i would concur. i mean, because of my profession, i understand what 965 mission is, and i understand that vacantcy is tough and things are just starting to get good now. and i would concur with commissioner fung and i would agree to reduce the penalty in half as well. >> okay. >> move to grant the appeal and reduce the penalty to five times.

>> on that motion, from commissioner fung, to reduce this penalty, from nine times to five times. on that motion, president hwang? >> i am going to reluctantly vote yes. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 6-0, this penalty is reduced to five times the regular fee. thank you. >> okay we will move on to the next case which is appeal number 12-151. item number 8 on the board's calendar this evening, 465-10th street, condo home owner appellant, 264 dore street protesting the issue ans on november 19th, 2012, to daniel

kennedy to permit to elect a building two story auto repair garage building with 1997.5 sf ground floor area, application number 2012/01/27/3062 s. and we will start with the appellant's attorney and you have seven minutes. >> i am steven williams and i represent the 465-10th street association, also known as the stage house law building. this is an important building, if you read my brief you will see that it is listed on the national register of historic places a rare honor for any building. it is also listed with the california state and local registers of historic places. this building has evolved into long-term housing. and it has changed over the years. it was converted to live and work a long times ago in