before you is the permit revokation of mission beach cafe ke cafe's permit to operate. it was grounded in the fact of mission beach cafe's violation of the local security ordinance. that was how d.b.i. determined that would be the right step. we are asking you to uphold that decision here today. so this is something that has happened before where olse investigates a restaurant, finds them to be out of compliance with a local labor law, has trouble sort of getting the restaurant to come back into compliance or to make payments on overdue amounts. olse will refer the matter to d.p.h., and d.p.h. had

independent -- can independently assess whether upholding it is warranted. this would be in keeping with that tradition. i'm not going to say much. i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. >> so if -- we're stumbling a little bit in reading the brief. so if the whole payment issue was not there, would we still be here? >> yes. >> yeah. that's what i -- >> the payment issue is technically separate. >> yeah. so if there was no payment issue -- so much focus in the brief of the money stuff, but that aside, we would still be

here because of issother issue >> yeah, the health care security permit. >> well, i thought there was other health department sanitation issues? >> yeah. separately in the record, you have a separate abatement order from d.p.h. that is technically a separate condition that mission beach cafe is currently understand. they are under the order from january 29, 2019, and there are a series of conditions that in my understanding mission beach cafe is coming into compliance with. >> but just put that aside, and also the -- how much do they

owe? 77,000? >> yes. and that is just the audit period and that represents the separate wage an hour plaintiffs. it does not include the months since 2017 to the present time that, you know, we believe technically mission beach cafe has also not been in compliance with the health care security ordinance. >> you have a question? >> yeah. my first time dealing with this type of case. can you walk-through the process that other restauranteurs walked through that have not been followed in this case that put us in this position today?

when they get notice that hey, you're out of compliance because what struck me is there were perhaps opportunities to avoid being here at this hearing? and also not necessarily coming up with $100,000 in one day, i'm not sure if that's the case, that there are ways that people come into compliance both with the law and the payments and kind of get on the right track that don't lead to revoking of their permit to operate. >> yeah. if you want to ask bianca from olse those questions, but it's my understanding that it's common to try to reach a supplement agreement with restaurants where a payment plan is structured, and then a plan for ongoing and future compliance is reached so that those employees are provided for for their health care needs. >> and i don't want if you want to speak to that, when there was also the hearing that was missed, and i'm assuming that's something that would have been part of that resolution.

>> right. so there are really two administrative processes that have happened leading to this case so far? the olse's process that was in short a notice of violation, an opportunity to correct, an opportunity to contest a final determination of violation, an opportunity to appeal that, and all of those opportunities were not taken by mission beach cafe. so the determination that olse reached that the restaurant did violate the hcso and owed whatever was determined at the time, that became a final violation back in 2017. and once the case was referred to d.p.h. on the recommendation that d.p.h. consider revoking the permit, there were subsequent appellant procedures there, and it's my understanding that mr. clark was able to attend those hearings but frankly, the issue was sort of decided at that point mission beach had

violated the health care security ordinance. and the question was did d.p.h. have the authority to revoke a restaurant aways permit? that -- restaurant's permit. that wasn't contested in this case nor was it contested that the restaurant lie lated our locate -- violated our local ordinance. this board could reject that argument on two grounds, you could say there isn't a challenge to d.p.h.s decision or you could say on the merits that mission beach cafe violated the hcso. >> i think there are other grounds, but that's all right. we'll have that discussion later. did you want to ask the representative of ohse what the resolution -- >> yeah, that's fine. i'm sorry. >> this is bianca. >> good evening, commissioners. can you hear me all right? >> yes. >> okay. great. as my colleague said, my name is bianca, and i'm a compliance

officer with the office of labor and standard enforcement, and i enforce the health care security ordinance? to hopefully address commissioner tanner's concerns, what happens is we gather information to determine whether or not a given law applies to an employer, whether or not they have been complies with that law, and then -- complying with that law, and then with you come up -- we come up with the extent of the violation. in this case, i was able to get the information from the business. the business never disputed that the law applied to it. also never provided any evidence to showed it provided any money for any health care for anyone who worked for the business, so it was straightforward to come up with a liability violation that our office issued back in october 2017. every employer has the opportunity to file an appeal, and we also communicate to employers, please talk with us. we want to make sure that you

get into current compliance, that you understand how to figure out how to spend money on health care for your people on time and in full to cure ongoing violations and then here's how we can address correcting any past noncompliance. so throughout this process, we never collected anything. mission beach cafe never paid anything in the amount that it was owed to its workers. this is the only time that a health care security ordinance case has ever been before this board. it's absolutely unique, completely out of the ordinary. we have never had a case go this far where we were unable to collect anything from an employer, reach a signed supplement agreement or make sure the owner had gotten into some sort of current compliance. >> so normally, a business would work with you to create a plan of here's how we're going to make it right. >> yes. we sit down and talk.

we try to figure out a payment schedule in essence. we figure out what's reasonable for the business. it's not our goal to put businesses out of business, but these are workers who have suffered grievous injury because they did not receive any kind of spending on health care whatsoever, and so we try to come up with something that makes sense for the business while also making people whole. this is about restitution to workers. here, nothing happened despite our best efforts. >> thank you. >> actually, i think we heard a case where it was olses directives weren't followed, and then it went to d.p.h. to revoke. i think -- was that a wage case, not a health care case? >> i believe -- i believe for minimum wage, i would not be able to answer your questions on that more specifically, but one of my colleagues here can. >> okay. >> i have a question. so how many restaurants do fall

out of compliance here in san francisco on an annual basis. >> commissioner honda, that's a complex question to answer. >> like, one? 10, 20? >> it's my understanding that the workers complained and that's how you knew. >> yeah. >> so how many complaints -- how many complaints did you receive? >> we received at least two written complaints. >> i mean san francisco as a whole, not just this specific restaurant. >> this law has been in effect since january 1, 2008, and i believe we have had over 800 cases? and i think it would be fair to say that at least 15% of those cases do involve restaurants. if you need more specific data, i can happily provide that to you. >> no. and the other question is do mobile food facilities have to supply health care for their workers? i mean, because they're doing

the same type of work. >> yes. we are in the middle of our annual reporting form season. every april, employers all over the country are to report an annual reporting firm. here's how many people work for us. here is how many people fall under the ambit of this law -- >> no, my question was do health food trucks have to provide -- >> the standard of the business does not matter. the standard is you have 20 or more people performing work for compensation in any quarter. there's no particular carveout for any industry. >> being okay. thank you very much for clarifying that. >> okay. any other questions? >> thank you. >> i'll take any other questions or i'll rest on my brief. >> okay. i think we're okay for now. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on

this item? >> come on up. >> good evening. my name is carol ving. i'm an employee at public aid at work, and i represent ten former employees of mission beach cafe. i just wanted to clarify, the case is in bankruptcy, and we don't expect for our clients to receive the wages they are due. they are under wages due to them under their rights. we actually received a judgment from san francisco superior court for $1.3 million. we filed back in 2006. >> is that just for health care for the past time that they were doing or for an abundance

of claims. >> thank you jucan you just gi idea. >> sure. minimum wage, failure to provide meals over this period, failure to provide rest periods. the biggest complaint in addition to failure to provide health care -- and i should mention, we have clients, most of them who are young and healthy, but one spent a week in the hospital with pneumonia, who has a $50,000 general hospital bill for falling and hitting his head. another worker was diagnosed with a brain tumor and is undergoing treatment all out of her own pocket because there was no health insurance provided. the other main issue was failure to provide pay stubs. there wasn't a scheduled payday, and so soon after we

filed our case, we actually sought an injunction that was granted by the courts to establish regular paydays. and only after that was there some compliance, but compliance was irregular throughout the employment. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> okay. so miss alarcon -- okay. so that was public comment. we're onto rebuttal. we'll hear from -- is there any other public comment? okay. >> thank you. >> hi. couple of things -- >> you have three minutes, sir. >> okay. what we just heard was hearsay. you have counsel testifying on behalf of plaintiffs not here. >> i'm sorry. you're going to have to move that mic to speak into it. >> i'm sorry.

what we have is hearsay, counsel testifying on behalf of compliants who are not even -- clients who are not even in the courtroom. that was in state court. the matter has settled for $235,000 in a court approved settlement, in waiver to all those allegations. that number is a much more reasonable representation for that lawsuit, a settlement in court that these clients also agreed to. moving on, to the extent that the appeal is about -- it's not about money. a lot of it -- against, respondent's -- again, in respondent's brief seems to be about money, but we'd like to offer a few points about that fact, as well. the department of public health had -- did issue an order to improve certainly things, and

mr. clark testifies as to what he's done to become in compliance with that. we are optimistic that department of public health will come back within 14 days to confirm compliance of the summary. please come up and talk. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. you're kind of tall. hold the microphone up straight. >> i'm bill clark. i'm the owner of mission beach cafe. i don't know that i can say all i would like to say in three minutes, there are more that i'd like to add. most of our violations have been to inspections. our first one was in july of '17 where we received -- we had new inspectors come into our restaurant, and they spent 4.5 hours going over it with a fine-toothed comb. our normal inspection was

previously with 1.5 hours. >> you have 30 seconds. >> we had to wait and find o . out -- [inaudible] >> -- our revenues declined again. we were all set to go in with another payment plan.

we got knocked out because we funneled all our money into public health upgrades to the restaurant. >> okay. sir, your time is up. >> okay. sir, we have a few questions here. prior to the 70 yelp, and that's why yelp is yelp, what was your score prior -- but prior to yelp, what was your health score prior? general to the rule of thumb, anything under 90, you probably shouldn't be eating at. >> oh, i think it was mid80's. >> what do you say about the allegations that granted, this was a separate case, but like all previous cases, it rounds up into one, not paying for break times, not paying regularly, there was no weekly pay stubs. and understand, i am sympathetic. i am a previous owner of two restaurants here in the city and a previous business owner, so it kind of bothers me when i

see a long list of stuff that are not in compliance. >> that's the list they come up with every time they go after a restaurant owner. my employees were paid hand somely. all during the court case, none of them wanted to leave. they wanted to say even after the court case. so to paint this picture of me being this ogre -- >> is there a reason why -- sorry to interrupt you, sir, but is there a reason why none of these employees came to speak -- none of them have come to speak against you, but no one -- was there any reason why none are here in support? >> of the -- >> of you in general? >> i didn't think to ask them. >> okay. >> but i -- i have many loyal employees. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department of public health. >> thank you, commissioners. i'll take your questions or wrap up.

briefly, i'll add on the health inspection issues, those separate incidents, including the charge of rodent infestation, mr. clark did have the opportunity to appeal that determination internally within the department of public health, and it was decided that he still needed to abate that issue and is currently under an order requiring him to do some vermin-proofing work, so he did have his chance to appeal that particular question. >> so i see that -- oh, sorry. >> why don't you wrap up and then -- >> i'm wrapped up. >> so in the brief, it indicates some of the issues that were there. i work real well with pictures. was there any pictures? i didn't see any -- >> we can supplement the record with pictures if -- >> yeah. >> i assume there are some. yeah, that's true. i think the reason we didn't

include it was just because of that. the separate d.p.h. investigation -- >> no, i get it, but when we're talking about someone's li livelihood, it's got to be anticipated. so you did mention it in the brief that there was vermin, there was roach stuff, but there was no supportive information other than the material that was here. >> other than the january 29, 2019 order that sort of summarized the conclusions of d.p.h. in that abatement conference, but we're happy to supplement with some pictures, as well. >> thank you. thank you. >> actually, that would be moot, right? if there's no -- if you can't operate, then you have no business. why would it matter, the sanitation? but my question goes back to the basic premise of your brief.

what's happened here is i couldn't understand when you add earlier, if they -- what you said earlier, if they made good on what they owed, they would still not have this ability to operate. i don't understand that -- if they made good, yeah. >> if -- so at this point, the approximately $77,000 that are due from the notice of determination from the audit period is with the bureau of delinquent revenue in the treasurer and tax collector's office, so it's essentially a separate collections at this point, and they'll owe that amount regardless of their continued operation here in the city. the process that olse decided to engage in to refer this issue to d.p.h. was largely in the hopes of being able to setting and being able to, you know, leverage the future

perm permit revocation and get mission beach cafe to come into current compliance and make good on the payments that are overdue. despite repeated attempts, we haven't been able to come to sort of a global resolution, unfortunately. >> i assume that delinquent revenue and other agencies, they made payment, so they would be satisfied to some extent. >> right. delinquent revenue, if they get payment on that amount, they would be satisfied. >> then, the question is, i guess, if that audit is only for one year, been in operation for another 1.5 years or whatever that timing is -- >> it would be possible for olse to file a notice of

perceived violation for the months that are not included in the audit period. >> so that's a possibility, but at this point, if you cleared up the 77 -- if he cleared up the 77,000, that's the delinquent revenue, and that's what you folks want. >> right. and that's mostly money owed to the employee -- >> except for your $21,000 -- >> there are still penalties to cover the cost of their time. >> okay. is there potentially -- let's say in general, then, a possibility of a payment plan? >> yes. i think at that point, it would be up to the bureau of delinquent revenue to negotiate a payment plan in the collections process. >> do you think they would allow that? >> i can't speak for them. i honestly don't know. >> i'm still trying to

understand through the process. you know, i know that mr. clark did not perhaps setup a payment plan, but whether there was any communication with olse or d.p.h. during this time because it does seem to me if he was going through bankruptcy which takes the time that it takes, that has to kind of unwind and follow its course before some other things can be resolved, although that's outside the jurisdiction of the city. i'm just trying to understand if he was not communicating or if it just didn't lead to a payment plan within the specific time frame desired or whether there was just no communication with him. >> i think the main point is that the bankruptcy is pretty recent, and this amount due has been due for several years now at this point. and olse has repeatedly engaged in talks with mr. clark at various points represented

actually by different counsel and have gotten promises from him that payments will be coming and then they don't come. we saw this today with the $5,000 payment promise in the beach that didn't materialize. a problem is mission beach cafe is its own l.l.c., and mr. clark's personal bankruptcy. those should be two separate entities. the business should be able to pay its bills regardless of the principle's bankruptcy. just going back to my colleague's point, the reason we view this as being pretty unique to get this far all the way to the board of appeals is that it is much more common to a restaurant or a company to eventually at some point along the many administrative processes and due process that

exist settle with the city and make a payment. there literally has not been a cent of payment. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> i have a question for the member of the public that represented ten employees. come on up. the price is right, woohoo. so on the ten employees that you represent, are they current? past? >> so when we started the case back in march 2016 -- >> i generally know from past experience, once something happens like this, it's a witch-hunt, and they go back forever and forever, and of course past employees always have a grudge. >> so when we started in march 2016, i believe we had seven current employees and three former employees. and as checks bounced and

payments weren't made on time, despite our case, clients moved on. the last worker actually left, i learned today, about two weeks ago. but they brought the case, hoping that change would be made. their priority was the health care, and they wanted to continue working there. some of them had worked there for ten years. >> that's my next question. i had asked him why were there no employees in support. at the same time, there's no employees here to say he was a demon guy. as you mentioned, you have employees -- to me, that's an indication of a small business that has somebody that is -- you know, maybe they're not filling their books correct, but they're a decent person. if they're not a decent person, you wouldn't work for them for a decade. >> yeah. i don't want to make representations of him as an

individual. i do think there was a sense of community that was build by the customers. i -- i'm glad to hear that this isn't something that happens on a regular basis at your meetings. >> so does -- out of the seven or eight that were current, their general opinion is the health care was bad and -- but why did they stay there if that was the case? >> they stayed largely i would surmise because the tips were good, and they were regular. >> yeah. okay. all right. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> commissioners? >> i'll start off. so this board is tasked with t the revocation of a lot of businesses and a jolot of jobs.

in the 6.5 years i've been on here, i'm not fond of taking anyone's license or livelihood. i remember a tow truck license that i enjoyed, but other than that, revocation of license, someone's livelihood, i take very, very seriously. it seems to me that as a business owner and as a restaurant owner, i think some of these allegations and charges are terrible. at the same time, when you have a community of workers that have worked off and on and you're in bankruptcy, if you -- you can't pay any bills if you don't have any money. it's a simple fact. i mean, why didn't you pay this? well, if i had the money to pay this, i wouldn't be in chapter seven or chapter 11 or chapter 13. so i have a hard time

revocating, to be honest. unless it's extreme and precise, and it seems to me there's some gray area. >> i'm sympathetic, like yourself, and i hate to take somebody's livelihood away. and i agree with you on the bankruptcy issue. it takes time. if you don't have money, you don't have money, and you can't pay. however, this has been seemingly a chronic behavior that has gone on prior to the bankruptcy period, and pushed it to such an extreme that there was a step to go into bankruptcy, and probably, it could have been handled prior to the bankruptcy event, and so that's where i'm a little less

sympathetic and a little less willing to let the business owner get off scott free, but i'm not prepared to make a motion. >> all right. but so what about the employees that are there, and -- i mean, what does that do? i mean -- in this city, we have a hard time, you know? it's tough. >> yeah. i think the -- and by the way, you know, the department's representatives brought forth the two cases, but you didn't say that they were split votes on those cases. because one of them was almost exactly, if you take it down to the essence of it, how do you

pay what you owe if you have nothing that makes money -- >> and you owe? >> and so the question is, is it better to have demonstrated the fallacy of the action or the resolution of the action? i'm leaning that, you know -- that they have an opportunity, but it needs to be contingent. in other words, he needs to make that first payment, and we need to see somehow -- >> short leash. >> -- that it's working, and that he has a document document allege grieltd withed

delinquenwithed -- that he has a -- >> well, i think we can say subject to him paying it in a timely manner. if he doesn't pay it, it's hasta la vista. >> well, i think to your point, some evidence of progress towards payment and at least a portion of it. >> i do take it serious, but it has to get done. >> i think the other point is how do you pay if you don't have any money, is the business model able to sustain this -- sustain itself, and that's not for us to decide, honestly, but there could be questions if their l.l.c. and personal finances inter-mingling notwithstanding, it could be that the business cannot sustain the costs of the required health care benefit. so that might ultimately be its

demise in that way, but i don't know that we need to make that decision by revoking the permit tonight. i would prefer to continue and perhaps have the permit holder return in some period of time to see if the payment's been made and we can make a decision at that time, but i don't know if that's something we would traditionally do. >> the problem is potentially, we'd have a different board if we continued. right now, we have the members that are here that are here to vote, but potentially extending this any period of time like we did tonight, we're probably going to have a different perspective behind this dais. can i speak to the attorney or the permit holder? >> hi. yes. i'm here. >> so -- and no decision has been made, and i can go either way, to be honest. i do take it serious, but if my fellow members want revocation, so be it. so the question here is, is --

if we give you a short leash to survive, if he's already saying that he can't financially pay these things, then, how is he going to pay this and be a profitable business? first of all, how many employees are currently at the -- at this -- or will they have when they're working? >> i think 18 right now. >> and so you mentioned something about bankruptcy, and there's a set amount of money. could you elaborate that to hard facts to what that means in black and white. >> i will. i also will say that i appreciate the pragmatism of the commission and the real world experience of running a business. so in bankruptcy, the debtor has a right to exempt assets that are allowable under the exemption statute. here, if you filed an

exemption, if no one files an objection in 30 days, it's allowed. >> so are you meaning you're not paying people? >> no. if you have $100,000 of liquid cash, and you want to exempt some of that and say i want to exempt some of that, it can't be touched, you can exempt about $28 thouch,000 of that. if no one objects to that, it's taken out. >> and when is the 15,000 or whatever going to be available? >> well, the 14,000 that mr. clark has offered mission beach to give to the city would be available as soon as we confirm there's no objection, which will be may 2. i'm giving the trustee another week or two to make the check. >> just as a business owner,

how is he paying his rent and his lights right now? >> well, then about the $400,000, that's the estate's funds, and the trustee will liquidate the estate, and then, they will appropriate how that's going to be distributed to everybody. ongoing cash flow of any restaurants as i've seen some other clients, they've always struggled. is it a walk in the park? no. is it guaranteed? no. is he trying very hard to make this work? yes. >> why i'm an ex-restauranteur. thank you. >> any other questions? >> all right. i'll bite. >> hoping for an opportunity to

speak. thank you. i just want to stress the ongoing lack of compliance with the health care security ordinance spanning a number of years and continuing essentially until this day, and it's a separate violation of the health care security ordinance to get rid of employees in order to fall but low the -- below the threshold that triggers the need to make these payments on behalf of individuals. it's 20 employees that receive compensation. >> so is he below 18 right now. >> well, it's interesting that he's right at the line. to my colleague at olse, it triggered a lot of concern. >> how many has he had in the past? >> 31 was the number of employees for the audit period, so that's one point i wanted to make. i just want to reiterate that the separate d.p.h. health investigation that culminated in the january 29 order, that's

a whole separate world. >> understood. >> -- where mission beach cafe could lose its permit, any way. >> because he had 18 people cleaning. >> that they aren't fully compliant with the terms of that order, and if d.p.h. sent an investigation over there, they could lose their license on that complete separate grounds. and then, the third point that i want to stress is just technically, jurisdictionally, i don't think you have ground to reject what d.p.h. has done. >> then, why would you be here? i love when attorneys say i don't think you have the ability to do that. then why are you here? >> to reiterate that point. technically appellants have not raised any grounds to challenge what d.p.h. has done. they could have argued d.p.h. lacks the authority to do this? they didn't do that, and in any

event, state law says that when a permittee has violated state or local law, their permit can be revoked after, you know, notice and a hearing, which they received. >> and then, they come to the board of appeals, and there's a little thing that says that the board has wide and broadening powers. >> and there's merits of the investigation. technically, this board has denovo review, but my argument is you can't denovo review the fact of the violation. >> okay. we've heard the case, counsel. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners? >> yeah. i just can't get over there's no track record here of a proactive, aggressive practice of trying to get well by the owner of the restaurant, and --

and i agree with the public health department that -- and i agree that they suspended the permit on proper grounds. that's the law. and i'm sympathetic to the store owner, but i -- i -- >> look at the last case. we gave him a chance. >> but i think he's been given so many chances, and we heard testimony to that, and we heard testimony to the fact that we've had countless meetings to bend over backwards to give him the opportunity to get it right, and he hasn't done it. >> just do it, then. >> so i would move to deny the appeal on the basis that the

health department -- >> issued it correctly. >> -- issued it properly. >> okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation of the permit on the basis that the department of public health acted properly. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. that motion fails. do we have another motion on the table? if not -- >> this is rare. we never split votes here, just so you know. this is very rare. >> so there's no other motion. >> so the underlying action is upheld by operation of law, and the restaurant permit is revoked. this concludes the hearing. >> thank you. this meeting is adjourned. [gavel]

[gavel]. >> chair ronen: good morning. the meeting will come to order.

welcome to the april 22, 2019 meeting of the rules committee. i am chair hillary ronen. seated to my right is supervisor shamann walton, and seated to my left is supervisor gordon an mar. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. documents to be included in the presentations should be submitted to the clerk. items considered in today's agenda will be considered on april 23 by the board of supervisors unless otherwise noted. >> chair ronen: would you like to read item one?

>> clerk: yes. item one is appointing frank fung to the planning commit. >> chair ronen: good morning, mr. fung. would you like to come up and tell us about yourself? >> president fung: yes. i'm an architect. and i sit on the planning commission. i won't tell you when i graduated from school, but the fact is i've been in that profession since i graduated from school. you have my resume on civic activities. i have extensive experience on issues that will be faced by the planning commission. in addition, i have issues faced by the neighborhoods and communities that we will be addressing. i seek your endorsement for my

nomination, and i'll be relatively short. >> chair ronen: supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: thank you, mr. fung. just one question. mr. fung, what makes you want to serve on the planning commission? >> president fung: i served there once before, and i found it very challenging. i've recently been at the board of appeals, and on the board of appeals, we're really dealing on a reactive basis to the issues coming forth. i feel that the issues i could bring forth in terms of experience and training would then allow me to go toward more of policy driven issues, and i would welcome that challenge. >> supervisor walton: that means we have to replace you on the board of appeals. >> president fung: i think they'll need one, sir.

>> supervisor walton: thank you. >> chair ronen: you and i have had the opportunity to speak before, but i'd love to here about the city's most pressing issues to intersect on the planning commission. >> president fung: you know, i could probably spend the next eight hours discussing that. given the diversity and the fact that our citizens are so much into it, and the planning commission is really a lightning rod for so many different things. whether it's the questions of affordable housing, whether it's the question of i think greater communications between planning and other agencies on circulation deal with the m.t.a. issues, i think all those things are extremely important for the general

concepts of planning. then, there is the specific one dealing with neighbor to neighbor issues. i think all those things, i would offer to try to be comprehensive, rational, and also compassionate. so i think there's going to be a tremendous amount of work necessary. >> chair ronen: thank you for your willingness to serve. >> president fung: okay. thank you very much. >> chair ronen: now open this item up for public comment. if any member of the public would like to speak, you'll have two minutes each. >> do i give this to you? my name is michael garcia. i had the pleasure of serving with mr. fung -- not fong, mr. fung on the board of appeals, and he, in his usual, modest way, he kind of glossed over -- he's got an impressive resume.

he served on the planning commission, 14 years on the board of appeals. i think john king in yesterday's chronicle, had an article on a.d.u.s. he talked about it was such a vast challenge, vast and vexing, the issue of housing across the spectrum, affordable-to-family dwellings, and we have to do that in a way that we balance it with maintaining neighborhood character. well, it's hard for me to imagine -- i'm not saying this because i know this or i've had the pleasure of serving with him. but i can't imagine anyone more qualified and experienced in san francisco to deal with these issues. he would know how to deal with simple things like a deck and

how to deal with a high-rise. he knows the zoning ordinances. he knows about the building codes, the planning codes. he knows just about everything there is to know. i thank you for your time, and please select this gentleman for the planning commission. >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker, please. and if there are additional speakers, if you could lineup to my left, your right, that would be appreciated. >> tonya peterson, director of the san francisco zoo, but i'm not here in that capacity. prior to being zoo director, i served with president fung on the board of appeals. i was hoping he would say that the zoo was the number one priority for planning commission, but no, guess not. but prior to being zoo director, i served on the board of appeals. it was just a pleasure to be with frank fung. he was the glue that sometime

held a decisive and sometimes contentious board together. he is an amazing man, served three mayors. and then lastly, as a zoo director, i have come across his work and his colleagues. he built the vet hospital for the san diego zoo, and that is one of the leading vet hospitals in the world. it's a great pleasure, and we're just grateful that this man wants to do this job. so thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm rick swig, and i have the pleasure and honor of serving with frank fung on the board of appeals. it's going to be a great loss for the board of appeals but a great gain for the planning commission. we serve three masters at the same time on the appeals. we have the appellants, the project sponsors, and the city, and we have to balance that

without prejudice, and frank is that leader and that mentor who has guided all of us to keep the playing field level and make sure everybody is heard, and we reach the proper opinion based on the laws of san francisco and the interests of the public. he never -- he never gets upset. i'm the opposite. always keeping it calm, always keeping everybody together and moving forward. his institutional ability is outstanding, and his contribution to planning will be equal to that institutional memory, and thank you for approving him today. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. next speaker. >> got a big discrepancy pertaining to our housing. one of the speakers talked

about being fair and equal in housing. i'm going to give you an example. mission rock. that's 1,000 houses. you deliberately campaign and used the latino and spanish descent person to be your spokesperson on a commercial to advertise affordable housing for mission rock. you further demonstrated false advertisement by means of using the female's daughter while carrying balloons saying that they would love to be a tenant in the mission rock apartment building complex. then, you even went a step further and had the mother of the daughter have her instructor in school say that she would love, too, to be a resident at the mission rock apartment complex. and the mother had the daughters living in a boarding home. but yet, when it comes down to the fine print, the amount of income requirement to be a

tenant in that building, none of those people can afford to live down there in mission rock. you're not following the instructions on that big bank of information pertaining to mission rock, and i talked about this several times already. when mayor breed was president of the board of supervisors, that redevelopment understanding instruction says on or about 33% of those apartment building complexes is supposed to be for low-income and very low-income bracket people. i believe about 250 of those apartments is supposed to be for low and very low bracket income people, and you've got the majority of those apartments for people in high income brackets making about $150,000 a year, and the people you had on the commercial can't

afford to live there. >> chair ronen: thank you, micah. thank you, micah. hi. >> hi. my name's randy knox. i wasn't born here, but i've been here about 37 years. and i've seen the changes that san francisco has gone through especially in the last 15 years. i served with frank fung on the board of appeals, after i was appointed by supervisor matt gonzales, and i've seen that frank has an understanding on the board of appeals between development, restoration, and he knows how to balance and reconcile those interests. if we want to preserve a middle

class in this city, and it is dwindling every day, we need to be able to understand the tensions that exist between people who want to make money through real estate, people who want to live here, raise families here. i moved here because san francisco had a lot to offer, and it was liveable then, and it was expensive, but it wasn't like it is now. frank understands it, and his decisions reflect that. his opinions are thoughtful and measured. and even when you don't agree with him in the outcome, you respect his process and his judgment. and he will bring the sort of knowledge and experience that the planning commission needs. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you so much. is there any additional member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion? >> supervisor walton: motion approving the mayor nomination

of frank fung to planning. >> chair ronen: without objection, that motion passes. congratulations, mr. fung. thank you so much. >> president fung: thank you, supervisors. >> chair ronen: thank you. >> president fung: look forward to working with you. >> chair ronen: likewise. have a great day. mr. clerk, can you please call item number two. >> clerk: item number two is a resolution reappointing amanda eaken to the m.t.a. board of directors for a term ending march 1, 2023. >> good morning. i'm amanda eaken. i'm mayor breed's nomination for appointment to the m.t.a. board of directors. when i think about serving the people of san francisco in this role, a few key priorities come to mind.

first, i think when people walk out of their front door every morning to start a trip, and whether that's a walking trip, talking transit, or riding a bike, they fundamentally assume that their city government is going to make that a safe trip. and yet as of today, april 22, earth day, 2019, ten people have died on our streets just trying to make their way, whether it's to work, shopping, recreation, or other destination. i have experienced traffic fatalities before, as i think all of you have, but i have to tell you that these ten hit me particularly hard, and i couldn't stop thinking about them until of course it dawned on me why, and that is because i now sit on a board with a responsibility to make the streets safe in san francisco. so in my time on the board, i have pushed staff to accelerate near term safety improvements to make our streets safer and to