that community. but even more important, i have been allowed to be a teaching artist for the marsh theatre to camp with 7 and 8 and 9-year-olds. it's a very -- what's the word? it's not easiest environment in order to keep the little ones focused. i really am concerned about the sound and the problems that could occur. also we use valencia. the students go lunch at the park down the street, we take them to the water park and students coming back and forth to class. it's a neighborhood associations and most kids are walking with parents and construction would be detrimental to that as well. an as performer myself and

teaching artist, i urge you to go forward with your findings. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm gene gore. i'm a performer and student at the marsh and as several people said to me today when i was talking about coming here, oh the marsh is so wonderful. it's one of the few places where you get really quality marvelous original unique programming and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get it. and the marsh i can go on and on for the many things that it has to offer. that are unique to san francisco. and i urge you to

adopt the proposal that you made in december 11th when i was here. we were all so happy and i do agree tla they are reasonable and that people need to know that they are going to be living next door to a wonderful theatre and that there should not be noise after 4:00 p.m.. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. again i want to ask the folks sitting in the doorway to please move. that is a fire hazard. please take a seat. thank you. commissioners? >> okay. anyone want to start? >> sure, i will start. i'm in full support of the draft

findings with perhaps some slight modifications that were suggested by the appellants and i think that, well i would like to thank executive director goldstein for drafting our findings so accurately and so well. the question in my mind is whether one of the arguments that was raised by the code section j applies here. that's the primary question in my mind and maybe as an attorney, maybe i'm being overall cautious but i do want to make sure our findings rest on the law and status that apply. so i would want further briefing on the definition of housing development project and authority for how this project

specifically fits within cal government code section 65855.j, neither has addressed or briefed on this. i have no basis on this point to decide whether we need to take into consideration the permit holders arguments that we need to make specific findings about public health and safety under that code section. >> anybody else? >> i'm certainly not comfortable with that issue at the moment. so if you would support a continuance for a briefing purposes? >> yes, i think i might like some further comment from our own city attorney. >> at that point? >> during. if we are going to continue it for additional briefing that would be fine. >> okay. i too notwithstanding

my view of the appeals should fall and i believe in support of the findings, i do, like my company commissioners want our findings and our rulings to stand up, i think it's unfortunate that the question on the housing affordability act, i believe that was, accountability act was raised sort of in this context rather than at the time we were discussing issue but it has been presented. i want to address it. i would like to see some briefing on it. i think that would be useful for us and for to come to a decision on how we, to what extent we need to if at all modify the findings as written.

>> comments? >> you know, as a lay person and not an attorney, i had to read that government code at least five times. and at this point just for my view it appears to apply. but i will accept the further briefing. i presume that the city will do some briefing on this also. >> well, not necessarily. this is for the advocates to present to us. i think we would expect the commentary, but it's not -- we can ask for advice, but briefing to submit for a hearing is -- >> well, at some point, this particular issue has got to be

addressed. if it applicable to the city in some form or another to what extent and it applies to a lot of the decision making not necessarily at our board, but at policy boards such as planning and housing. >> i would definitely welcome the advice, i just don't want actual briefing. the advice we would get is advice for our own purposes but not briefing for public record here. that's my view. >> okay. >> we do want briefing from the parties? >> right. >> may i ask one question of the zoning administrator? >> of course. >> mr. sanchez? at the current, with the current project they fall under requirement to provide to low income and moderate income is that correct? >> that is correct. there was a

15 percent requirement for affordable housing and it's now reducing due to prop c to 12 percent. it would have triggered 2 units. now under current requirements it's 1. it was by prop c by last december of 2012. >> they have pretty strict guidelines as to affordability? >> it's for the mayor's office of housing. >> it's not optional by the developer. >> they choose how they comply. they must choose by the departmental action. the fee is the first option and they can provide it off site or on-site. >> it's through housing? >> it's implemented through the mayor's office of housing. we work with them and we develop the approval and attach the

entitlement. >> you said currently as the propose project is sitting now it would still need to supply one? >> so the new project were to be submitted and approved, it would be subject to the current controls of triggering one. it's my understanding that given that this was approved prior to the effective date of prop c and it was heard by the planning commission prior to that date that was requirement and the fact that they are required to provide two. i can confirm that with the city attorneys office. the rules are complex and change law. >> i don't understand, mr. sanchez. the current, two affordable housing units were required. >> if the project was submitted today? >> as it stood prior to prop c? >> with 15 percent requirement.

>> when it gets reduced to 9 units is it still required? >> no. it was restricted to 9 units and would not trigger the affordable requirements. >> isn't it true there is pending legislation to change that? >> i don't think it would change the threshold. what supervisor wiener introduced yesterday was a density bonus. if you are providing 20 percent of affordable housing there would be a density bonus. i'm not aware of the pending legislation to change the threshold for the number of units. it was adopted by prop c and would require voter. if it was voter mandated and also legislative changes and the threshold may have been a legislative change and something the board of supervisors could change. but i'm not aware of any legislation that would change that at this time. >> okay. >> i'm trying to figure out whether i should ask this now

or at the next time we meet. one of the things i'm curious about is at least one of the public commenters indicated that by taking off a floor doesn't necessarily reduce the number of units. to what extent is that anything outside of the developer zone discretion with respect to these affordable units and that requirement? >> you are correct that your decision does not mandate a number of units to the building or limited to no more than 10 units. it's conceive that believe they could still provide 12 units within the building, that said we have not seen plans and reviewed plans. they have to meet requirements. given the configurations, that is a corner lot that they have three possible option to provide exposure. but certainly they would be smaller units. we would need to review it. it

seems that it could be possible for the same number of units in a smaller building. >> the caveat in the eastern neighborhoods require larger units. they have to be larger units. >> that would be part of your analysis? >> yes. if they came with the proposal for 12 units and 4 stories. >> the neighborhood design? okay. >> we would have to review it. >> okay. thank you. >> you want to make a motion? >> yeah, i would move to continue to a new briefing particular to the government code section. i don't know how many pages you want to limit it to. >> 5 pages? is that more than enough? what would you suggest? i think that i would

like to, do you think 5 pages is too few? >> [inaudible] >> give them more? okay. i agree. i would like to actually read something that is useful. 10 pages, please. >> president hwang do you want briefing submitted at the same time or cross brief? >> i think same time is fair. >> exhibits allowed? >> if there are cases. i mean, i don't know what else would be helpful here. this is a question of law. >> so 10 pages of briefing with exhibits allowed and due at the same time which is prior to the hearing. when would you like to

schedule this hearing. how far out? i i don't know what our calendar look like. sooner rather than later. >> it should be a week from tomorrow. >> that's too soon. i think we should -- listen to the briefing prior. >> thank you commissioners, andrew genius for the applicant. as soon as possible and 10 pages would be fantastic. thank you. >> okay. so the practitioner. i want more time for this especially if we are doing 10 pages. >> you don't to have give us 10. >> i understand. and maybe a little direction. i mean the

code section is applicable but it doesn't compel a particular result. >> make that in your brief. >> we need to hear arguments. >> the next one is the 25th. >> we have an absence that night. >> yeah. >> february 12th is relatively full calendar with a couple of items that i expect? >> you mean the 19th? >> yeah. i'm sorry. we expect a little bit of public here. >> sorry, potentially i maybe absent on the 19th. >> the 26? wednesday prior. so

that's the motion. >> i'm sorry. one more clarification. every other aspect of this hearing is closed. no other issues can be raised? >> on this brief, all we want is the brief on that question, that's all. >> the question of the applicability of the government code. >> is it possible to vote on the unrelated conditions this evening? >> no. >> okay. so there is a motion by the commissioner hurtado to continue the matter to allow the parties to submit briefs on the application to the project at issue in these appeals. these briefs maybe 10 pages, no more than 10 pages, double spaced, exhibits are allowed

and all due thursday prior to the hearing date. please call the roll on that. >> other than that motion to continue to february 26th, commissioner fung, aye, president hwang, aye, vice-president lazarus? aye, commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 5-0. these matters are continued to february 26th. >> this is appealing the revocation on november 1, 2013 of ramp taxing medallion number 9060. we'll start with the

attorney, you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i'm heidi, i'm the attorney for appellant linus oha who is the holder of ramp taxi medallion and also for best cab, the taxi company or the color scheme. the regular taxi medallion operates under the also, and they're both here to answer any questions should you have any. mr. oha has worked in the san francisco taxi industry for the past ten years. his permit is restricts for use in a disabled accessible van. he's worked as a parking control officer at sfmta. mr. oha immigrating to the u.s.

in 19 85. that started best cab company in 2006. while many cab companies in san francisco have 100 plus medallions, best cab is one of just a handful of small companies with one or two medallions. as a condition of holding a taxi medallion, all are required to drive their taxis at least 800 hours a year. as of august 4, 2009, they may modify their hourly driving requirement based on them being unable to drive due to illness or disability. in 2012 they amended the transportation to require that taxis pick up a minimum of eight wheelchair rides per month. this requirement falls the

transportation code requires that sfmta allow medallions to transfer freely between taxi companies, aka color schemes, with very limited exceptions, none of which /aeu apply today. we're here because sfmta wishes to renot met his driving requirement for 2005 to '08 and discipline for that violation was upheld at the board of appeals in 2009. the hearing officer ruled at the past hearing that mr. oha had met his full-time driving requirement in 2009 because, in her view, the small amount of required driving that he had not proven was considered min /phupbl and he gave her 82

waybills which would have been 822 hours, but for some reason it came in slightly under. mr. oha submitted proof of driving proof was not credible and thus supported revocation of his medallion. for 2011 the hearing officer admitted that mr. oha provided evidence of driving 78 ten hour days but ruled that he did not meet his 2011 driving requirement and supported revocation. the hearing officer said that she knew of no rule that would allow mr. oha a driving modification due to his condition and sfmta did not correct her even though there was such a rule in police since 2009. we urge this commission to apply the 2009 to years would have shown substantial compliance be r /phraoeupbs and not be in danger of revocation of his medallion. we ask there

many oha be given a modification as allowed by the ada to excuse the 50 hours over the course of two years that he was unable to prove having driven. from 2012 when the new minimum wheelchair pick ups went into affect, the hearing office resolved that he did not meet the minimum for 2012. and supported revocation of his medallion. despite having no legal best cab company for the failure of mr. oha's ramp medallion to meet the minimum number of wheelchair pick ups. here we note that in september 2012 he realized he was unable to meet the minimum number of ramp taxi pick ups and submitted paperwork to transfer his medallion from best cab company

to desoto cab company. sfmta denied that transfer in utter disregard of the transfer guidelines. instead ignoring mr. oha's multiple subsequent attempts to change the decision to deny that transfer, sfmta waited until may 2013 when it served both mr. oha and best cap with revocation papers. now to recap, sfmta seeks to revoke mr. oha's medallion for not meeting his full-time requirement for 2005 to '08 for which he was already disciplined. he was also found to not have met the /raoeufrplt for 2011 and 10. also mr. oha claims eligibility for an ada

accommodation modifying his driving requirement for those hours as allowed under mta's policy. sfmta also seeks to revoke his medallion for not meeting the requirements for wheelchair customers. in 2012 he filed to transfer. in may 2013 sfmta sought revocation of both mr. oha's ramp taxi medallion and best cab color scheme with violations associationed with mr. oha's ramp taxi medallion. in other words they blocked mr. oha from making corrections and now seeks to hold both medallion holder and taxi company liable for ongoing violations related to mr. oha's medallion. we respectfully urge the

commission to reverse those revocations and i'm available to answer questions. . >> counselor, your brief did not address one of the points made by the department related to where they disqualified some of the waybills based upon the odometer readings. do you have a response to that? >> i really don't simply because -- oh, are you talking about in the 2010 or which year are you talking about, sir? >> it was a couple of years. >> because i know for 2010 it's my understanding that the waybills were discredited by the hearing officer for the reason that -- 2010 -- that was -- for the reason that they examined his parking control officer schedule, but they actually examined a typical

parking control officer schedule and apparently that parking control officer schedule did not apply to mr. oha and so they didn't look at his individual parking control officer schedule. but in looking at the typical parking control officer sed schedule they said oh, he can't be in two places at the same time and if he was driving on these particular shifts and if a parking control officer works on those particular shifts, then clearly these waybills are not credible so that's my understanding of those. in terms of other discrepancies i'm not sure that the hearing officer reached specific findings that she articulated in her memorandum. >> okay, thank you. can hear from the department now. >> good evening commissioners,

enforcement legal affairs manager for the sfmta. this is a matter of two things. one, the responsibility of a permit holder to do all the actions necessary to protect the permit and the other to serve our public. what mr. oha and the council tend to /khrosz over is the fact that they are responsible for serving our disabled population in that vehicle. our 9,000 series medallions are supposed to make an effort to put a wheelchair customer's first, that's why they're required to be wheelchair accessible vehicles. we only have 100 of them here in the city, so what we wanted to do is to ensure that they

put those customers first. as i demonstrated in the brief, mr. oha has not been able to demonstrate a single wheel /kphaeur pick up in over six years and even beyond that he's unable to demonstrate any para transit pick ups. he's the color scheme holder of the company. the company has two vehicles total. mr. oha's and mr. minzi's so the responsibility on mr. oha as the color scheme owner and the medallion holder at that color scheme is large because 50 percent of his fleet refuses to do what it's required to do and it's important to acknowledge that mr. oha's responsibility as the owner of the company to ensure that 50 percent of his fleet, which is his one ramp medallion is picking up the wheelchair customers is important and most

important that it's his own medallion. it's not someone else's medallion. no one else received those fines and citations, mr. oha did. he can't pass this on anyone else. he did seek to move his medallion to another company, but he's moving it away from the company he is the owner of. he is the owner of best cab and essentially is saying i give up. i will not do anything to better the service on this taxi. i'm going to have someone else take responsibility, yet i want to maintain my name on the front of this company, in a company that my car's actually not at. he's going to be required to maintain his driving requirement, but he'd be happy to go to another company, so i, the owner of best cab will be driving somewhere else in order to maintain my requirement. it doesn't make any sense. beyond that, as we demonstrated in our brief, the issues we have regarding the operation of

best cab also that are not necessarily related to the wheelchair pick ups but in terms in the operation of the company itself. mr. leon? >> good evening. my name's scott leon, i'm the lead investigator for the case. i've been monitoring all of the disciplinary action for mr. oha as well as the color scheme holder for best cab. in respect to the problematic issues with this color scheme, best cab had repeated failures of not properly maintaining his business permits at least since 2009 for not staffing the business from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. there were eight separate occasions, including myself and the sfmta staff to announce