? >> testifier: first of all, i am not quite sure the documentation that requested as to what dispatch individual companies world wanting to transfer. that is the information that is already paperwork artie filled out [inaudible] i am not even sure that information was never requested of american directly. that was the information not my clients position but from the individual company companies to the -- >> commissioner thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> commissioner one further question. so, the issue when this revocation matter came here before was twofold. one was the lack of verification of

hitting some of the metrics >> testifier: correct measured the other was -- was in it? >> testifier: yes >> commissioner: how does then the licensed work somebody applies to join a dispatch service here but the dispatch service permit has been revoked already, how does that work? >> testifier: it does not. we still have his hearing coming so we can take any action if they submitted anything at all. i cannot verify whether they did. if they did they would have submitted it after our last hearing. where he was revoked. so, if they did submit something we may have it on file. obviously, will wait until after the hearing, but as far as we are concerned there is nothing to move to that we would do entire process when

someone does submit one anyway that we checked the location make sure there is enough space for parking vehicles so on and so forth that we do a lot of that was to be the plan is to beware. >> commissioner: with the appellants have the capability of renewing his previous was he applying for a new permit? >> testifier: potentially apply for new permit because of the permits revoked then it would be -- we would exist anymore so they would have the piper brand-new permit. >> commissioner: he is not barred from that for any timeframe like a building permit would be -- if it was exactly the same scope will work? >> testifier: right, we do not have any rules in the transportation goal code that would bar anyone for year two years from applying. we did take into consideration previous conduct at our discussion but we do not have a rule that bars anyone from doing so. misread: either

question. >> commissioner: either question. why is the reason shutting down the smaller independent companies? tested were not targeting smaller independent companies. we are shutting down companies based upon various things >> testifier: for example that is alluded to in my brief. i give you the issues that related to arrow back out had over 100 vehicles or they were not small. there were issues related to their drivers, payment >> commissioner: size to interrupt you, what is the minimum for company to have a dispatch now at this point? >> testifier:: currently, it 75 by the end of the year they must have 100. >> commissioner: so that is targeting smaller companies. correct hewitt >> testifier: in that sense, yes. the reason we are doing that is related to dispatch is to ensure -- one of the thing

that is often said by many of the companies is that everything has been fine, but everything is not fine. as you can see with the rise of the tmc's people use them for a reason to why? because you cannot get a is the bottom line to your calling eight two-person, three person company playing the victim gets you and what happens is not that come get you. you call for five companies trying to get somebody to show up and no one is showing up. we are trying to create objective measurements and not subjective, they something that is objective that you can see and try to obtain that you can reach. that gives you -- gives us and the public a sense of if i call this company, i have a good chance of getting someone. so, the reason were creating these standards, these metrics is in order to do that. now

in a sense, as far as dispatch is concerned, you are right. does target in a sense, if i person dispatch company. if you dispatch only had five vehicles on it, then yes, that is a problem for us that you can be of five -- right now we have companies that are just one card were 10 cars, or 20 cars and with companies that of 600 cars. but what we want is for the public to be able to reach that company when they make that phone call. there is no point in having 800 orders the book biggest revolver 800-1800 vehicles if you cannot reach them >> commissioner: as a small business calling a taxi, and do not pick me up i do not call them back again. >> testifier: that is correct >> commissioner that the enterprise under part -- as a previous small business owner i believe it is slowly stating

stifling and limiting that you have to basically join up with someone else or lose your livelihood. that is basically what sf mta has initiated your. >> testifier: correct. so the issue we would have our customer when the customer says i call the company 25 times and nothing happens, why do you leave their number in the phone book and i would have an answer that. is they were to allow it to discontinue. there would be no consequence to not doing the job. building of consequence to reaching out for public service that was metrics are not just numbers. the metrics are also comic pickups per day are you doing per vehicle. the numbers, the first project assessment mac adjectives they do intrigue pickups per day and that is what were looking at.

i mean the bigger issue >> commissioner: see amato's efficiency, but like most all business not every small business is going to be efficient. i am sure not everyone got along from -- i am sure that he did return everyone's phone call. when he started bank of america were bank of italy map so that is what i am trying to >> testifier: i do not disagree but were trying to do the best we can to raise the service of our drivers >> commissioner following up with his question if they do meet the metrics, mom-and-pop shop shows up, they are okay, right down to reach 100 by the end of the year? >> testifier: no, no one has demonstrated to that is similar to come in and say i had 50 cars but well, i do 10 calls a day, on each of my vehicles we would have to probably reconsider what our rule is and say, okay, maybe it does not need to be so high because right now were were faced with is most of the companies cannot seem to make it.

>> commissioner the burden is on the small business person to prove >> testifier:: it is all electronic if someone is -- as we try to bring them into the 21st century with the stop writing it by hand stop trying to take calls with person arts try to do something work person had an issue with the vehicle i can actually find out. when there is a complaint and say, this person was driving them maybe that person should not be driving. how me out company. is a libido crasher who is driving this we do not know. the middle to my posted seven bc. were here to protect the public and granted, it is a small business but that is me admit dysfunctional business. we can allow that can to continue for the ones issuing a permit. >> commissioner: i am just curious. it would does not show up the stoke-on-trent's, right? it is only the

>> testifier: i can say that is true but a lot of that activity that herbivore, frankly, if he does -- if you take taxis would probably recognize the taxi services improved greatly over last couple of years. but i that is increased competition has forced a lot of our drivers to focus on that service. whereas, before, yes, you can accommodate you whenever you want. who cares? that is what i am getting right now which a lot of, so what. but, so what that is not what were here for that were here to provide the service. give me a suggestion. give me something to work with as you think you might change the rule, but how do you want to change the role? but cannot town halls within our company meetings back but then all the things we do to try to make the industry that are. do not just say, why should i have to do anything. that is a lot of what we try to arrange if we can change the rule but someone

needs us to give us a reason. someone needs this to give a good suggestion that we can do toward board and say, board, give something that is been demonstrate our company. here are the reasons we can change this rule because right now the board is looking for something that says, but an objective measure of a good taxi company? what is the objective measure of a good dispatch company? what do it they used to do tenure scope which is just do it they want >> commissioner i got it. >> commissioner: have you driven a before you look >> testifier: know what i live there now do not drive so i do not own a car so take taxis everywhere never protected companies before. i would like to. by right now they say i cannot be said can keep the money. >> commissioner it would be good experience to understand what the other side like. >> commissioner companies have and provide the service

>> testifier:: i can put the empathize because of weather my empathy level does not disappear by what i am not driving. >> commissioner: i am looking as a small business platform that if you go to a restaurant may serve the bad food you generally do not go back. >> commissioner that was the question i asked last him back does the market take care of that. he gets great from the public. >> commissioner: i think tonight's a little different situation. >> commissioner: yes. thank you. >> clerk: >> commissioner evelyn knows right voted last time. >> commissioner given situation. richard was speaking for myself, i would never be against small business and for

many policies to do without, however, that is really a discussion that occurs at the commission. the issue here is whether new information has manifested. the appellant had multiple opportunities, and quite a bit of time, to produce these kind of associations that have been brought forth, after he has been revoked. have not seen any current occupation. just references. i am not prepared to support a new hearing. >> commissioner: i am not either. it all feels very fabricated to me. >> commissioner: every windows,

and about >> commissioner: i am going to move to deny the request for a new hearing based on no new information has been provided. >> clerk: commissioner aye mr. pachinko staff it >> clerk: there is a motion on the floor to deny a request for a new hearing. on emotion, pres. lazarus aye vice president aye commissioner sweet is absent. the boat is 3-1 this rehearing request is denied and a notice of decision and order shall be released. thank you. >> clerk: the next item is item 6 jurisdiction request the subject property is at 23 -- straight the board received a letter from those you requester asking the board take jurisdiction over building permit application number 200 40106 3464f which was issued by the department building inspection on june 4 2010.

appeal period ended on june 19, 2010 the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on may 22, 2015. the permit holder is -- and the project is to arrest two-story single-family joint with 1000 hundred 86 ft.2 of ground floor area. we will start with the requester, the 3 min. >> testifier: thank you for hearing this jurisdiction request. concerning a permit process that is been going on for 27 years and erroneous 311 notice issued to me it does questionable permit extension. many neighbors ask -- i would tell you they want to be here but because of their work schedules not getting off until 11:30 pm. they cannot, or their caregiving and homebound family members. i also have a letter of support to file a

discretionary review from supervisor melia: if you would like a copy. >> commissioner we have a copy. >> testifier: all right. we said please support our jurisdiction request so that the owners and architects can meet with the neighbors and community groups since we were denied that opportunity when my request was canceled. it was canceled because of a planning department error. we subsequently learned that certain -- distinctions or where so we again have a question why was this extension granted. upon further investigation, we learn we had very good grounds for filing this. the main reason i am here now because of the error on the planning department's part that denied my neighbors and me the right to protest back why is it that no one planning were -- realize these 311 notice was in error?

whited the project sponsor realize this was an era? was it because the history of this permit is so convoluted that even the professionals were confused? we are not trying to stop a single-family home that is in scale and vernacular with the napper at been built on the site. what we want to see happen is that the neighbors and community groups have an opportunity to discuss refinancing this project, to make it fit into the existing fabric of the neighborhood. we want to work with the project sponsor, but they were unwilling to meet with us. so we finally filed adr. planning tool planning tools they could do because they need an estate. we are asking you to vote in our favor to rectify planning to mistake. we want the opportunity to file adr as originally intended. why may seeking this jr? because the

project sponsor did not pick up his approved permit for several months and we believe that it would expire since he already had two extensions. is the expiration date approached, we learned that a third extension was granted. please support this jr to again reengage with the project sponsor. i just want to add, yesterday, to neighbors had said that a mr. wong gave purchased 23 spot a couple of months ago, but the permits still say the owners -- and rachel he does not mention this sale to a new person in his brief for the jurisdiction request. so are not sure if this is a rumor or not. thank you. thank you so very much i really appreciate it. we have supporters here in the room >> clerk: the leadtime for public comment michelin i have a question. when was the first

time he received notice on this project to it >> testifier:: i received notice, let us see, i think was in -- i am sorry i wish i had those notes right now with me. >> commissioner go-ahead will continue. >> testifier: i was not here when i first started. i just heard about it, i think after 2008. i have not even lived in the neighborhood, and so i did not even know about the project at all. i did receive a notice, that that was the case. >> commissioner: until the 311 came out? >> testifier:: i just got involved in it and, you know recently i was in the community >> commissioner so, you never got a notice? >> testifier: no i did not

>> clerk: will hear from the permit holder now. >> testifier: my name is greg actually. i am an architect agent for the child's. chalice. this is been a lengthy project. it started in 2004. the previous architect [inaudible] 20 2008. a site permit was approved and issued. know in 2010. with the expiration date

of may 19 2013. now, when we got the permit it was 2010. beeler said, this is a recession and depression haiku not build this now. so, was put on hold. in 2013, the approach me and said let us start this up again. at this time, i knew i needed to extend the site permit so i extended it the first time i got it extended to may 14 2014. now, let us back up. in that first submitted the tube before -- for the site permit was issued june 4 2010 there was a 311 --

three application means, october 23, 2008 311 was sent out on december of 20 weight, and it had to go into generally because there had to go for 30 days. 2009. at that time, the neighbor, 14th sparta, filed adr in which several months transpired before, at that time, it was a four story building, and now, as approved it has two stories over a garage basement. it was then accepted and withdrawn, the dr, may 12 09. in which ben, june fourth, and that is one

the site permit was issued, june 4, 2010. now that brings me to the erroneous notification. during this period, when i started to associate with the building permit in 2013, january, the planning department students realize that i provided -- i had the extensions done for [inaudible]. so a 311 was sent to the neighborhood in may 7. at april 7 through may 7, 2014. she filed adr may 7.

>> clerk: sir, your time is up. measured either question. is the owner still -- or has that been building been sold? >> testifier: the building has been sold >> commissioner: you are no longer representing --? at this point? >> testifier: i am representing -- as well as the lungs >> commissioner thank you. commit >> clerk: mr. sanchez. >> testifier: thank you planning department at the subject of an annuity pursuant section 311 at the end of december and beginning of january. 20 weight have you join our discussion i request was filed at that time ultimately withdrawn in june of 2009 revised plans were submitted that address that request concerned the subject

building is three stories or two stories over a barrage. top stories it back from the front façade by 15 feet which is typical in our review process when there is a plot pacing to story building for less than we would have that upper story be set back from the front building wall. the permit itself was issued in 2010 . as is been stated, it did not expire. the site permit was issued by team bite goes to be a valid and active site permit. for multiple extensions sought .. early last year our staff received the addendum for that. does the actual architecture plan that would allow construction under the site permit.. staff at this time, thought this was a new project and so did a new 311 notification. however, the

addendum not subject to three of them process but not even appealable to this board. the appropriate document was the site permit to have the appeal on. that appeal should have been filed in 2010. the project sponsor did propose at the time last year some minor changes that would have required a new notification. we advised them they could either go back to the as issued site permit, or they could go through the neighborhood notification. they also ultimately decided after the -- have been filed by the jurisdiction request that they want to back to the approved site permit and not undergo any further changes. so, with that, we initially dismissed the discussion of you because there could be no discretion review filed on the addendum. with that way here to get today, -- that was last year. i think that staff at approved by the summer of last year some not sure why it took from that point so long for the jurisdiction request to even be

filed. idle construction has started more recently selected triggered the jurisdiction request payment am available for any questions back thank you. >> commissioner: this went through the entire process in the permit was not used because of economic reasons that this is a project that was a second version, right? because neighborhood objections and may change it and then was withdrawn >> testifier: correct that this was the project that was the dr was withdrawn because of -- the same project that was issued in 2010. this is just the addendum. a construction document to allow the building to continue. >> clerk: mr. duffy. >> testifier: commissioners joe duffy dbi. we actually do not see that many like this. permits from 2004 an hour in

2015. but, around the time that the gentleman was "the architect, we have seen a lot like this worker mix were issued as a site permit, and for funding reasons, the economy whenever, we were in a position in dvi extensions were pretty common. this is one of them i think that i describe is that. one of the issues with the site permits are, when you are say permit is issued -- in this probably took six years to get. it was around planning for a while and i am not sure why the applicant, whatever but once i say permit was issued, that such a clock running on your time to do your project. however -- and it has always been something that i could never understand -- you can

start working. you have to get your addendum approved that normally, people, and fairly quickly and that addendum through so they can get working. everybody wants to build. in this case a doctor site permit issued by cutting the architect explained that they were ready to build that there was no funny the economy. meanwhile, the time was going but they were not doing anything. they did commit to the building department before the expiration of the permit and they were given an extension. they were given a second extension and a third extension. week you review these at the third floor at dbi back we go through the process and is a good enough reason walks on the permit. the building code does allow it and i like to read out these from section 106a .4 .4: an extension of time first aid goods may be permitted for good reason provided search requests are cemented to the building official in writing prior to the end of time of the time period accompanied by -- unless approved by the building official no more than one

extension of time may be granted. we do know there were three extensions and i have seen projects like this and most of them fit into the category of, we have our site permit will get go because we were able to get financing. >> commissioner i am sorry. can you be the last order that again? >> testifier: unless approved by the building official, no more than one extension of time may be granted. >> commissioner: that is an automatic? >> testifier: you always get one, yes and then we review the second and third one. many years ago extensions only lasted for four months, so you used to see extension over 20. we get away with that we now give extensions for 12 months. so every year after common. i believe in this project in the

last few weeks that had a star work inspection that i am not sure how much work they done they did have a start work inspection, which sort of would be the start of the process as well for construction contract we would hope. as i said, the very unusual. have seen a few of them but not very many with the application date of 24. i did have the documentation showing dealership i could use the overhead please. this is just a snapshot of our application. for the construction, permit construction tracking. it does show the dates of the extension one, extension two, extension three. that would have been reviewed by probably senior building inspector chief building inspector and approved