that the zoning administrator did not error. planning commissioner. >> commissioner: if were going to condition finding in fact week they did it because of the wrong calculation so i think it has to be expressed.. i am prepared to do that. i am not interested in the conversation about the working hours because i think there is only so many constituencies that you can accommodate. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> president: that may be to. >> commissioner what kind of our sweet considering commissioner >> commissioner i believe the 309 approval involves, not only

do they consider for the approval, but also the mitigations that they attached to it. so, modification or discussion on that approval and its condition, you are saying will require finding a better? >> commissioner it must be >> clerk: the fact that you are relying on to make that fining as well as the fact that you are relying on. basically, the fracture line to make a determination. >> commissioner: so a motion would be to grant the appeal and modify the commissions decision on the basis that they error and accepting calculations regarding the lot

coverage and that therefore there be a condition that these units be moved to meet the requirements the lot coverage mac. as proposed by the permit holder. i did not make it, just articulating it to see if i get a reaction to back >> commissioner: i think would agreement on that portion of it. i was straining my brain to think about whether was not taking any further. >> commissioner: besides the hours? am somewhat in agreement than a good job one day off, myself. >> commissioner: there is nothing in the 309 approval to discuss his hours of construction. that sort of outside the purview of the

planning commission. the -- and the police department regarding the hours of construction. so, that issue was not appealed. >> commissioner: are you saying you have never seen that as a condition from planning commission direct >> testifier: not on a regular basis but to good for large -- for large complex project is granted two years to build. it has a lot of moving parts. it is difficult to go beyond what the police department about. allow. >> commissioner >> president: mr. sanchez did you wish to speak >> testifier: just to be clear, we do and have condition projects four hours of instruction. that said i would share in the concerns raised by the project sponsor, they have a plan to address the concerns of the newest neighborhood of this cool the way that still allows for

expeditious construction which everyone's benefit. as well as addressing the concerns related to those hours and further, limiting it. this is not a largely residential area. there are projects the 100 van ness. is the argento hulk >> commissioner they only argenta also? does not know what they own the one that is under construction now at -- outside hayes and pulp era believed. but, yes, this is probably what they have proposes public best way to deal with this concern related to hours of construction and would support the current proposal. >> commissioner i accept that based on the fact is pretty much protects the school during the normal hours. >> motion >> president: i make a motion i suggested earlier. i do not think it repeated. i think somebody got it.

>> clerk: whimsy but restated. please correct me back of leader motion was to grant the appeal on the basis that the planning commission erred in its application of the lot coverage requirements for the ground on the ground floor and to modify the approval so that all dwelling units on the ground floor will face a public right of way. i do know if you wanted to -- per the proposal, i do not know if you want make it more specific as to what -- how they will be relocated >> president: per the proposal given us by the developer permit holder >> commissioner you have a driver that >> clerk: is there drying we can take possession of tonight? yes? >> president: i think we sought earlier. keswick exhibit g of our brief >> clerk: per the proposal submitted as exhibit g in its brief. then you also to make

environmental finance. so, you would need to state you have reviewed the environment of documents for the project, that the changes that you are proposing they are making to this project would -- you believe does not require a new environmental review. also, you are adopting the mitigation measures that are part of the planning commission motion. >> commissioner mdm. director, would be on the environmental review site, it has accept or were accepting that apartment determination that no for further review is required since [inaudible] >> clerk: since the project is changing need to make that assessment a new.

>> clerk: i think commissioner you are correct. you are basically making a finding that there is no substantial change to the project that would require any additional environmental review. as executive director suggested, it is incorporating as well the mrp, because that is part of the motion the mitigation monitoring [inaudible] >> clerk: mr. sanchez are you able to -- i mean mr. -- >> clerk: the motion is from -- the motion then to repeat to

uphold the planning commissions of the adoption of findings that is before the board >> clerk: no open. organic commission it within a grant appeal and modify the fining. the adoption of finance. >> clerk: right just like we uphold permits and modify them. the board want to say were modifying the motion? to modify the planning commotions adoption of findings with the fining of error on the lot coverage requirement for the ground floor on condition that the ground floor units be reconfigured as per exhibit g in permit holder brief with sequined fines read into the record. some good?

>> clerk: i think we should add specifically the board is adopting the mrp, which is attached as exhibit c to the planning commission motion. >> clerk: with that amendment as well. okay on a motion from the president to modify these conditions the adoption of those findings environmental finance, commissioner >> aye >> vice president aye commissioner wilson aye >> clerk: the vote is 4-0. this planning commission adoption of findings is modified. thank you. >> clerk: so, president rises chicago -- maximum revocation of via discuss permit the board received a letter from julia summit attorney for as of american tax inc. and american dispatch company appellant requesting rehearing of appeal

number 14 205 mac american tax and an american taxi dispatch company vs. mta decided april 20, 2015 at the time the vote boarded 3-1-1 with vp honda dissenting and commissioner swick accident took hold a revocation on the base of the mta had good cause provoke permit. mr. turman, this is your clients motion so we will hear from you first. you have 3 min. >> testifier: good evening pres. lazarus and commissioners. overlay to present tonight again that when we were here last, the we argued that the -- had interfered with sf american taxis ability to come

into compliance by denying the transfer of both the medallions as well as, under the dispatch license. the sf ds at that time in by the declarations to that effect. presented to this board were declarations in support of that particular motion. stating that both as a group arrow checker cabs had to transfer both its business license as well as its its cabs under the jurisdiction of sf american taxi, as well as other drivers have stated in the declaration that they have been prevented also from coming under sf american taxis dispatch license. since that time i

have continued to research, with other companies were present tonight to -- who also state, that they also have a significant number of cabs, more than 10104 -- who wish to transfer their dispatch license and about such applications with as half the eight balls which are compliant and they wish to operate under the auspices of sf taxis dispatch license, as if super e, regions.. totaling 104 taxi cabs all of which, except for american, have met the dispatch requirement. they band together because the statute, severely impacts the ability of small italian holders, and small dispatch companies to do business. it is a crucial that

this board take notice of the fact that these taxicab companies are in essence grasping for their very ability to do business. without i will take any questions. >> clerk:: thank you. mr. murray. >> testifier: thank you commissioners jarvis murray legal affairs manager at 7 pm taxi services. as part of this for this hearing, the rules on the board of appeals simply state that the hearing a re-hearing it new or different facts or circumstances have arisen not to exercise due diligence to produce those facts and circumstances at the

previous hearing shall be deemed grounds for denial of the request. we have been involved with american dispatch for over 14 months regarding this issue. only today are the beginning to bring in new or not even new -- material that they could have brought in the previous time and did not. they appealed the decision of the lower -- the hearing officer initial hearing officer in december of 2014. we had original court of appeals hearing scheduled in january. they needed to postpone the hearing, which we agreed to because we needed more time to put together the case, to put together defense. two months later in late april we finally have that hearing. then, that hearing they want to do the shotgun that let me just say, everything you possibly say and hope that something sticks. they lost that hearing. now they are back to go even more against the wall to see what

can stick. there has been new evidence in their briefs or any of their statements that indicate there something you were material that would have changed the opinion and frankly, there is no new material that could not have been deciphered at the dude allergens have been done by the attorneys in this matter when this matter came before you about a month ago, back in april. so, based upon that, i do not think there is anything else for the board to do the met the board should deny the ub-hearing request and uphold the revocation of the american dispatch thank you. >> commissioner: what is the situation with the other taxi companies that he mentioned? >> testifier: certainly. the ones he brought forth today? >> commissioner correct: >> testifier: eco-taxi which is mr. roman -- is currently

well it was under arrow dispatch the mac arrow dispatch is been dissolved in this mismanagement lobby issues that it had simply because it has a lot of problems and were so trying to search us -- he is a gentleman is sold arrow dispatch to citywide dispatch. citywide that scratch is not here but citywide dispatches taken over all the arrows vehicles and dispatch equipment. those vehicles are being spread out. i think i saw -- yes, he is the owner of sf super met as if super is entered currently in her falsities dispatch was another dispatch company. so i am guessing they did submit an application with their property, their vehicles to american i cannot and i do not think we have a application for dispatch but i do know they

have requested to move their business operations. in their brief, i do believe they also submitted a request from arrow to move their business operations which is true. how did submit a request to submit with their operations that is different than has owned as such arrow was the third largest dispatch in the city for a while before started falling apart. so, up until april 1 arrow was its own dispatch is no longer dispatch because of his old. but the entire company was old. there is no more arrow. so, i am trying to see who else may be here. i do not see sam. and regions is here regions is also -- already under american dispatch. so they are already there. >> commissioner thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we can take public comment. mr.

addicted to minutes >> testifier: good evening of their arrow owner. we just have witnesses here. ido homage more material stuff you needed to see the testimony for the -- owners who applied to join american company because [inaudible] they been discriminated i have myself been discriminated even though i was not such a small-cap company. however, i love my approval -- so my city is but majority done them out of business. but however, i just want to say, i will be in the business [inaudible] it looks like it is heading in the direction to getting the small, intuitively is not a good thing for the service. we need

competition. we need to have everybody have equal opportunity to be able to perform. in the past american company did not have an opportunity to perform, but today all those company owners, they apply as individuals to join american company process takes about 30 days to get approval. they will get approval. so most likely the american company will have an opportunity to keep their business. would you please consider the fact that we have so many individuals come here today to testify to up the company do not put them out of business. thank you. >> commissioner, sir, you have indicated that these companies are willing to go together with american company is there any documentation >> testifier: not sure about that i believe that testify themselves. i believe they did fill out apply already and probably they can speak for

themselves. as far as i know, they did apply. >> commissioner thank you.. >> clerk: next speaker, please nor the public comment -- please therefore. >> testifier: my name is roger -- him with super. was stated earlier that why was the reason these documentation adjustment presented instead of presented much earlier. the reason being, when arrow went out of business we had to find other dispatchers to go to. so, american company offered us a good opportunity. that was one of the reasons we applied there. that is why just happen because arrow checker just one out of business. thank you. >> commissioner: you submitted

applications cubic >> testifier: the applications of the companies mentioned earlier are on file. they have filed. >> commissioner but not yours? >> testifier: supertalented samiti application, yes they did. so it is eco-cab and regions is already there. and i think does you forget the other company. after that the companies but they do have them. >> clerk: any of the public comment? seeing none, then commissioners. >> testifier: my name is sunny -- on the order of super. i submitted the form on may 12 two mta transfer from city

dispatch to american dispatch. apparently, we had about 37 cabs and the about 10 more by july 1. >> commissioner: i am sorry you are jewish are you finished her >> testifier: yes >> commissioner: i have a question for you. during the suspended period of time for american taxi, which was last year, were you in discussions with them about -- go ahead >> testifier: at that time i was from -- but somehow they do not do great job and i find american is running 24 hours, seven days a week, and i go there often so i realize, --

that is why [inaudible] >> commissioner: you change it in may >> testifier: may 12 >> commissioner has her relations been revoked? >> testifier: binaries license has been revoked >> commissioner yes >> testifier: no, i do not hope it is there other public comment on this item? >> testifier: my name is -- on the order of regions company and a manager. i also have a dispatcher with american taxi. for quite some time now. please do not -- give him a chance to continue otherwise off to look for a new

dispatcher company. i am really comfortable with american. we are a small company. with the work card we really work hard for this. if you -- them whether we get a do ? big companies do not want us -- i know that for a fact that >> commissioner a quick >> clerk: any other public comment? step forward. >> testifier: good evening i am -- and i am driving which will be super coming up when the switchover from arrow. ivana cabdriver for 21 years in san francisco. medallion holder since 09. all the years that i have been driving, we both said small companies.

sometimes individuals just for one car one driver is the order of mendonca is never been a problem in the past. a vigil for american taxi before i went to pay which we became arrow. it is a shame that they was kicked out also. a good company. they lost. i feel like all the small companies are being discriminated against. when i started driving and 93, was no problem. the problem up until now the last few years. it is very confusing as to why it is problem. i feel like they are discriminating against all -- if i want to have -- if i wanted as medallion holder to be work one car myself it used to be okay. now, i do not know if that would be okay anymore. it is like we do not know what is going on here.

does -- want everyone to be yellow? that is what it looks like. it is very strange. things are starting to go knock down one small company after another. but now that america we have all these companies coming together, they are going to be a bigger company now. and they have good dispatch. i worked with american before. they have a good dispatcher. so i do not see what the problem is here. is you want to throw them out, that does not make sense. everybody's tried to make a living here, all of us. and we have to still compete with huber and ridesharing on top of it and we still are out there trying to make a living and service the public. the best we know how. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? >> testifier: i am just going

to say about american, my office just a number [inaudible] american dispatch and my cable next to it. i work sometimes daytime and sometimes nighttime. see how american dispatch are working. the former owner of the company, is really difficult to find an owner who runs a small business like this guy almost 24 hours a day. he carried the business. today, all the alt taxi cab as it is in the city have a problem to you know whether huber is killing us but it is in them, i have to survive and for small company [inaudible]. this guy lives in american life. thank you.

>> clerk: any of the public comment? seeing none,, commissioners mattered is c submitte emacd. i have >> commissioner: i would question for counsel. your brief raises a number of legal issues but there is no documentation in there related to these offers of joining american taxi. is there any documentation? >> testifier: the documentation available to me that was submitted -- and i submitted to you. the documentation i have, you have before you at this point. certainly, just as credible as the documentation [inaudible] these individuals have given

and not contradicted in any way. they have stated that they have filled in, fill the documentation to transfer both their cabs for dispatch purposes to american. >> commissioner: is there a reason why your client then, was not able to reduce any of these agreements during the suspension period when he was allowed to pursue? >> 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 bu