drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us five, four, three, two, one, we're starting. welcometo the meeting of the san francisco court of appeals . president swig will be the presiding officer joined by lazarus and tina chang

commissioner lopez is absent . also present is the deputy city attorney who will provide any legal advice for items seven, eight and nine the taxi medallion revocation matters and city attorney brad ruskin will provide any other advice on theagenda . at the controls is the board's legal assistant and i am julie rosenberg,the board's assistant director. we will be joined by representatives from the city department presenting before the board . tina chan representing the planning department, matthew green, senior building inspectorrepresenting dvi, john pierce, jeremy schwartz representing the office of canada's . enforcement and legal affairs for sfmta and danny young also with sfmta taxi services. board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests to silence all phones or electronic

devices . respondents are consenting sevenminutes to present their case and three minutes for real . people affiliated must submit their comments within the three minute period. members ofthe public havethree minutes each to address the board with no real . time may be limited to two minutes if there are a large number of speakers . forjurisdiction request is threeminutes with no real . we will give you a warning 30 minutes before your time is up . board votes are required for jurisdiction request. if you have questions about requesting arehearing , please email board staff at court of appeals at sfgov.org. public access are of paramount importance andevery effort has been made to replicate in person hearing process . we are broadcasting and streaming this year in life and will have the ability to

receive public comments for each item on today's agenda. weare also providing close captioning for the meeting . once the hearing go to cable channel 78. please note it will be rebroadcast onfriday 4 pm on channel 26 . a link is found a home page of our website. now, public comment can be provided to ways. you can join the meeting my computer or click on the zoom link or call in one, 669, 900, 6833 and enter the web id 820 9650 7130. sfgov tv is broadcasting the number and access across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the lifestream . to block your phone number when calling in first dialá67 and the phonenumber . listen for public comment for your item to be called dialánine which is the equivalent of raising your han . you will be brought into the

hearing when it is your turn. you may have to dialá61 you yourself . you will have two or three minutes depending on thevolume of speakers . our assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time isup . there is a delay between the live proceedings and was broadcast .therefore it is important that people calling reduce the volumeon their tvs otherwise there is interference . if any of the participants for attendees need a disability accommodation or technical assistance you can make a request to address long way, boards legalassistant or send email to court of appeals . now, the chat function cannot be used bypublic comment . now we will swear in order for all those who intend to testify. any member of the public they speak without taking the oath pursuant to theirrights under the sunshine ordinance . if you intend to testify wish to have theboard give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i

do .do you swear for that testimony you're about to give will be the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth ? thank you.if you're a participant and you're not speaking your speaker on mute. we will go to item number one which is general public comment, an opportunity for anyone to speak on matters that are not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here who wishes tospeak under itemnumber one ? i see mister mcmurdo, go ahead . >> numerous older and disabled im holders have contacted the value holder association asking we convey their extreme gratitude to your board for allowing george to keep his taxi medallion at your last meeting .we appreciate your injured reiteration of the findings in three similar year hearings that found ada law applies and the simple language

requires driving requirements must be interpreted in terms of prop k and measured case-by-case against the permit holders driving history. whereas you have jurisdiction over permit appeals, these taxi casesseem to be under the purview of a different body namely is likely the department of justice . specifically the 2010 generally mediated ninth circuit loan agreement calls for compensation rather than revocation of a modified career driving rule who holds the medallion must exit the industry but the agency is analogous to the arbitrary regulations which conflict with an ineffective nullified the swan agreement. the agency represented at the hearing referred to a code provision requiring a prop k holder four of the fat past five years to qualify for compensation but the attendant

sloan beneficiaries can no longer drive weekly at all and are confined to a wheelchair and are automatically excluded which seems to be a clear violation of the ada law. the surrender program implementation is a matter which ultimately may involve the doj we hope not . the agency can choose to abide by this one person and lay all this controversy to last by defining a limit beyond which there are no more driving requirements. unfortunately for now the agency seems determined to harness for its own financial benefits.in light of the onslaught againstour older and disabled medallion holders , we thank you very much for protecting our permits. >> thank you. is there anyone else here for general public comments, pleas raise your hand . we have one hand race. robert cassano, please go ahead.

you need to unmuteyourself . can you unmute yourself, we can't hear you? go ahead, you are unmuted. mister cesanna, please goahead . you can also call him by phone if you're having technical problems with your computer. dial 1-669-900-6833. and enter webinar id 820 9650 7130. because i don't have any sound for you. i see you are unmuted. okay. president swig, should we just

move on? you are on, mister swig. >> 15 seconds. >> announced the phone number to call in and he is unmuted so i'm not sure. >> perhaps he's having a hard time calling in and if it's easier we can offer inthis instance this group is okay to type in the comment ? >> it's up to president swig. >> is there any way other than calling in? not using his computer. >> he's using his computer and wecan't hear him . he is unmute it so i announced the phone number.

if he can hear us, mister cesanna ifyou want to callin, send us a message in the chat . i could read out your message . i'm not sure wherehe is. we gave an opportunity to call in, send a message in the chat . see what i don't see him on the ... >> he's in the attendee to you. let me move him to the panelist queue,maybe that will make a difference .>> we will try, mister cesanna, please go ahead. i think he's having technical problems, it doesn't matter which queue he's in. okay. >> let's move on. >> is thereany other general public comment, please raise your hand . i don't see any further comment

so we are moving onto item number two . commissioner comments and questions . >> commissioners, i would like to wish my thoughts and prayers to the people of ukraine. the invasion from russia to ukraineis a crime against humanity . >> thank you verymuch for that. any other commissioner comments, questions . okay. >> is there any public comment onthis item ? please raise your hand. any public comment on item 2? i don't see any further comment or any comment so we will move on to item number three, before you for discussion are the minutes of the february 16 2022 meeting. >> one second julie. on the agenda, do we have to have a discussion tonight about protocols for the public

meetings? >> item number four, the next itemafter the minutes are adopted . >> it's not on myagenda . it's not showing as an item on my agenda. >> special item number four? >> it is not on my agenda. >> can you please resend the agenda? >> if i got this, i don't think you went out of your way to send me. >> i'm not sure why you don't have it because it's onmy agenda . >> it's not on mine either. >> okay. can you please resend the agenda to all the commissioners? >> and of course, the final question to that would be was it properly noticed to the public if i didn't have it on my?

>> it's on the one posted online. >> the agenda went out with this notice on the website and also we sent it out. >> i'm not sure. i'm not sure. we can discuss it afterwards but it was properly posted. >> that's all that matters. >> do you want me to send it? >> that's where my concern ran. >> thank you for bringing that up. we can talk tomorrow by about why you don't havethat anymore . we are on item number three, adoption of the minutes . >> anybody want to make any comments on the minutes or do emotion? >> i will make that motion to accept the minutes. >> any public comment on commissionerhonda's comment to adopt the minutes ?i don't see anyhands raised so on that

motion vice president lazarus . [roll call vote] the minutes are adopted 4 to 0 andwe're moving on to item number four which is a special item . discussion of possible action, plans to resume in person hybrid hearings beginning march 23, 2022. members that wish to provide public comment may providein person orremotely. the board shall consider whether to allow participation by presenters who are not city employees . commissioners . >> president: anybody want to start or i can share my opinion? >> whenyou start, president . >> president: my thoughts are simple. i think the presenters and members of this panel as well as board staff should be in the room and with regard to public comment, the city has ordained

they can still do it remotely but as a matter of caution with regard to people doing public comment that only the people who are commenting on a specific item.specific item the present in the room just to minimize the amount of people in the room during any particular period. i think we still have to be mindful we are not out of the pandemic. there is still a risk to certainsegments of the population , especially folks at the seniorlevel. that included me . i'd like to be extra careful and that doesn't mean that we're going to preclude people from like i said, set up the room, overflow room for people waiting for teacher items but i'd like to restrict people to be in the room to those who are attending for any specific

items. and again to reiterate, panel members, commissioners, support staff and people who are participating in any item as the appellate or the permit holder the present in the room. not remotely. >> i would concur with that, president. >> do we know what other commissions might be doing with respect to that? for example,what planning is going to do ? >> i understand the planning commission is fully remote for covid related reasons at least for a while and i know the mayor's office is encouraging the commissions to allow remot participation bythe parties . that's the message i did get . in terms of city staff, that apparently is the decision of

the executive director of the board but whether they should attend in person or not and that wasn't on our agenda. but in terms of the item on the agenda we're discussing whether the parties and their representatives should be able to participate remotely but otherwise, number i had not heard other commission would do that. >> i guess i'm not certain why we would discriminate between appellants and parties and the general public. >> president: the city, and the city in their guidelines i believe you can concur withthat . the city said that the general public available to give public comment arefree to be remote . so that's kind of the city

direction . not of yours truly for anybody else. >> i understand that, but i'm saying why should it be different for parties to the appeal? >> the distinction is, if i'm reading the agenda correctly or agenda discussion, it's the question of whether to allow remote participation by the parties who are not city employees. the distinction is between city employees and the parties and people who want to comment or am i misunderstanding? >> there's public comment for the general public and most people can either come in person or attend remotely. the mayor is leaving it up to the board and commission to decide whether the parties and their representatives to

participate remotely or if you want to require them to attend in person . >> i feel is a handicap over thelast two years . that we're all in the room wit parties and my fellow commissioners and staff . i think we are far more effective, not that we are effective but i find myself more effective when i can be in the same room as my commissioners and the parties. it would be awkward to have one party in the room, one party remote and commissioners required to bethere . that's where i'm coming from o

this. i think the parties and commissioners and staff should be in the room and as far as the public , they would have theoption. i think we would function much more efficiently , much more effectively andthat's why i take that position . if any one of the commissioners however said i don't feel comfortable by being in the roomlet's say , i would say we will continue to be remote as planning has chosen to be remote. so i'm, i want to just show my flexibility on this but there's a definite reason why i like to have the parties and the commission members in the room. >> i think brad has valuable advice forus . >> just in response to your comments, under the mayor's order commissioners can appear remotely if they have a covid

related reason to do so being there part of a vulnerable population as defined by the order or if they've potentially been exposed to covid. i'm assuming the planning commissioners, all of them have been stated as a vulnerable reason for appearing remotely. it's not up to the commission, basically for you all to decide whether you're going to do remote working person. you have to meet on the criteria identified in the mayor's order. >> so we can say we should be here but if someone has a covid related issue they can attend via the internet, correct? >> that's right. >> president: thank you brad. >> might be something to consider for the parties and representatives if they wanted to attend remotely. >> i agree with commissioner lazarus that if we are going to allow the general public to

comment remotely or in person , but that's the sameoption should be available for the appellate . >> understand that it's going to be helpful to have everyone be in person but it's a matter of equity and just giving folks that option to make it more accessible . i think that makes a lot of sense. >> do we have to adopt a plan tonight thendirector , or ... >> it would be good to have a definitive statement from the board whether you will permit representatives to attend remotely. we also have to take public comment on this item so wemay want to hear from the public

first if you're done discussing . >> we should resolve, i believe we should resolve this issue one way oranother . because we are within what are we, two meetings ahead of ourselves and i'm not sure that it would be good press not to resolve it so we have a clear vision of whatwe're going to do .>> i think we have to. >> why don't we hear if there's anypublic comment ? >> is there any public comment onthis item, please raise your hand . one moment. we do have mister patterson, welcome. you havethree minutes . >> caller: good morning president swig and commissioners. i wanted to provide my two cents as someone who does appear regularly at the board. i first wanted to thank the board for doing i think an

outstanding job with remote hearings over these last two years. in my opinion and my experience, probably the best in the city of any of the boards i've appeared before so thank you for that.i have nothing on the calendar tonight but it's true, i really do appreciate it. you've done a great job. i personally really look forward to returning to in person hearings but i do see an issue and that i don't think it's safe yet to be in the public hearing room for hours at a timewithout masks . there was a recent interview in the chronicle with ucf doctor bob koster who was saying we should be looking for a rate of 10 positive cases per hundred thousand people and we're at about three times that still. so i expect we will probably be wearing masks for a whilewhich is not ideal for a variety of reasons . although it's probably

necessary, masks domake it harder to speak clearly, harder to read . and it can lead to misunderstandings so unfortunately it has the advantage of not requiring masks but we will be back in person sooner or later and probably sooner. when we do, i would encourage the board to consider particular precautions. the first one is that i think there should be a requirement for well fitted masks as defined in the latest order. oh well fitted masks means a surgical mask or better, not cloth which is relatively ineffective second, i think there should be an option for parties to appear remotely . covid will have new spikes and new variants coming forward and people will need to decide for themselves what is safe in light of their own health

conditions but people weigh risks in different ways and even if they don't have a health-related issue or related condition, i for one as someone who is relatively young and healthy probably would not feel safe appear in person if we have another spike. that's something i hope the board is sensitive to. not having to request special dispensation or whatnot. clerks have had, courts have had a remote appearance option for many years and it does work well. third i would encourage maximum air circulation to open the doors and windows if possible to keep the hvac fan turned up and forth, per presidents. >> comments i think it should be limited and socially distanced at the video she the candy called out to another hearing room so thereshouldn't be a reason . welcome though masks and maximum air circulation and limited capacity.

>> thank you mister patterson, is there any publiccomment on this item . i seerobert . please go ahead. >> can you hear us?>> we are on item number four. >> we are no longer on general public comment. did you want toprovide comments on item number four ? >> i just wanted to say in light of the difficulties that everybody has had one time or another, it would be much better if you could have in person hearings. thank you. >> thank you. any other publiccomment for thisitem, please raise your hand . i don't see any . commissioners. >> okay.

anybody want to move towards resolution of the direction ? i think, i thanked mister patterson for his suggestion of masks only . i absolutely would like to support that initiative and i also thank mister patterson for pointing out that in real legal courtrooms, you do things remotely then we can probably therefore work through that behavior and by the way mister patterson, the city has significantly upgraded the air-conditioning in the hearing rooms so that's one thingthat has been done proactively . so with those comments, somebody else can round this out and make a resolution. >> for clarity, the only issue is whether or not the parties

and representatives canattend remotely. were not deciding anything about the masks for spacing, those are city hall issues . >> even if they have atransport issue do they have the ability to go remote ? >> it depends on what you all decide to do. creating a process of submitting a request like that could require commission staff. >> okay. >> i candidly think they need to give the maximum flexibility so i would make a motion to allow all parties and the general public to haveremote access to our meetings for the foreseeable future . >> okay. >> we have a motion from vice

president lazarus to allow remote dispensationby parties andrepresentatives . motion , commissioner honda . we can't hear you, commissioner honda.>> of course you would start with me. i'll vote withmy dp . >> commissioner chang.[roll call vote] that motion carries 4 to 0. >> hate to interrupt but there was a chat from item 1 listed for comment if you wanted to enter that. >> when we get to those items wewill address their concerns. right now we're moving onto item 5, jurisdiction request number 25 one , subject property at leavenworth street . asking the board to

jurisdiction over alteration permit 2021 0122 4580 which was issued on september 22, 2021. the appeal period and it on october 7, 2021 and the jurisdiction request filed at the board office every night 2022. interior remodel of third-floor residents, no change to square foot or lower levels. newkitchen and bathrooms with associated new plumbing, electrical andmechanical, addition of 480 square foot roof deck, no virtual vertical addition , access to roof deck existing. you have three minutes . >> are you ready to put up my slide good evening president swig, vice president lazarus . i want to start by making clear the other building owners recognize the owner's rights to remodel and build a roof deck. we are here today because the

city permit was in sync inconsistent and in this instance it was not. we have found several issues which make approximate the extent of the remodel within 15 days of permit approval. at the heart of our concern is the description shared on the screen and now i'd like to pose a few questions. if the access is existing why would anyone think an expansio ? given this first line but that the project is an interior remodel why would anyone think numerous changes to the interior were required and since the other owners acknowledged the 2154 owner's rights to remodel the interior and build a roof deck, why would the appeal be based on existing permit language? only once the extended staircase bill began did we

becomealarmed about the scope of work . soon after i visited dvi to review the plan drawings, i saw the footprint expansion and numerous other changes on the plan. this discovery was filed by dvi and planning and approved without any notification. soon after, dbi issued a notice of corrections and imposed violation grounds next slide. we believe there are other instances where work being done does not align with the permit . two panels at the interior of the stairs and as you can see on the left is drawing from the actual plan and on the right is a photo that my son and took of the staircase. next slide. giventhis example of unpermitted work , at the time

of approval and obvious contradictions between permit language and planned bonds, a process fails to protect the interest of all stakeholders. we're asking the board to correct this wrong byrestoring our actions to the appeal . we believe this will give the other building owners and opportunity to work with the 2154 owners to find common ground to remodel and proceed in a manner in which we respec . thank you for your time and consideration. >> we have a question from commissioner. >> my question is since this is a condominium that evidently you have articles of incorporation, code covenants, restrictions andhok rules . is there anything in your cc and are that indicates that even though it says in the brief that it's extensive usage is actually to a building that they own space within the

walls. are they supposed to notify the hok with correct information of what the work was supposed to be performed? >> yes, in particular are common area isdefined as a roof , the building, thebearing walls . and actually, we have pretty expensive common area in the piping . >> sorry to interrupt, is there anything specific because it says exclusive usage that they do not need hok approval >> there's nothing that says . >> that's a questioni'm going to be asking . >> they're allowed to remodel their interior. they're not allowed to make changes to an areadefined as common space . >> that's kind of similar and we will get clarity later from the department as well. >> we will now hear from the permit holder and i believe

mister storm antilles here. we can't see you. okay, now we can see you. you have three minutes. >> wonderful, thank you very much. good evening commissioners. i'm appearing on behalf of the permit holder. permit holder asks the board of appeals denied a request on jurisdiction beyond the 15 day for the issued permit because the information known at the time of permit review and issuance shows the city did not intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in firing filing. these are the standards the requester must meet and she has failed to do so. the permit issued is an over-the-counter dbi permit form, an interior remodel of the subject condominium unit.

2, the addition of a roof deck onto explicit area reserved for the owners at three, building up the exterior staircase which provides a means of access to the owner's exclusive use group area from the owner's home. items one and two are stated in the hok governing document is being preserved for theowners at the work proposed to rebuild a portion of the existing exterior staircase was done so to bring those elements into code compliance . the props of the requester's request is that as an ho a dispute with fellow members and the owners did not follow associationprocedures . this issue is superfluous to the jurisdictional issue to be decided by you, namely whether the city would cost a request or to file. the requester's allegations should be resolved between hok members pursuant to the hok dispute resolution process within the ccnr and under state

law. they have referenced 311 in their briefs however the board proposed to the city and has reviewed over-the-counterhave not heard a 311 notice . additionally in april 1996 planning code interpretation clarifies an exemption from notification by 311 b applies to a replacement stairway that is required by the building code for ingress if it is larger than a stairway it replaces only to the degree required by the building code and if the location coverage is as close as possible to the replacement stairway. it is alleged permit holder exceeded the scope of the permit resulting in a minor encroachment into the common area light well. we received a notice of violation and we are working on corrective action and this is separate from the standard at hand. the city did not cause the

requesterto be late in filing permit . if the owners or their agent did any inadvertent action resulting in the feeding of the work as submitted that would have been an action on our end. the owners will comply with applicable codes and follow the proper process andwe ask that you do the same. i'm available to answer any question andthe property owner is present . >>does commissioner honda have a question ? >> i asked the appellant . my understanding is that condominiums are governed by ccnr's articles of incorporation and house rules and that you're notallowed to work on any of the common areas under their exclusive or not without the hok permission, is that correct ? >> there is a carveout for work being done that's reserved for the exclusive use to the unit. >> i read that in your brief

it's not specific .my question is even if you have exclusive use of the garage doesn't mean you get to instill what belongs to thehomeowners association . so what i'm asking is that your clients need permission from the hok to remodel common space in the hok building? >> i'm happy to provide the provision that provides carveout. >> you're saying they did not need permission from the hok to remodel? that's your statement? >> with regard to the interior effects, the carveout ... >> i'm speaking about the staircase . are you saying hok approval was not needed toremodel ?

>> to the extent that this exceeded the scope, it should have been raised. >> okay, thank you councilmember. >> we will now hear from the planning department . deputies zoningadministrator cam .i'm not sure if she's going to comment on this. >> yes i am. >> no problem, welcome. >> welcome vice, president swig. i'm tina tam, deputies zoning administrator. the property is developed with a three-story open space constructed in 1924 the property is a potential historic resource. the jurisdiction requests of floor permit to remodel the interior of the existing unit onthe third floor .

it also includes construction of a new roof deck and set up new access and light well. being the proposed work will result in the removal of less than 75 percent of the interior wall of the building and a new roof deck is located within the billable area of the lot and a new access stare is submitting the plan as the light rail, no neighborhood notification was required. the permit was over-the-counter by staff on february 17, 2021. however, based on recent investigation done as part of this appeal we have learned that interior work exceeded the scope of the permit. for walls and stairs were removedthan previously noted on the original plan . in addition the light well which is to accommodate the new access areas of the roof deck is not against were adjacent to

a blank wall. contrary to what was shown to the planner who originally signed off on the permit there are multiple windows on the adjacent property that overlook the light well. it is only allowed to be approved over-the-counter if they are next to a light well. otherwisenotification to that neighbor with the windows is required . it is my understanding that the light well also raises other building code issues and may need to be revised in order to be code compliant. as such the revision permits t catch up all changes to the product as well as include the additional interior walls that were removed . with that , senior district inspector matt greene canwalk you through the building code issues and provide his recommendations . i'm happy to answer any questions . >> we have a question from commissioner honda.

>> president: the question is that 1, if the work now as noticed does require neighborhood notification is that process going to take placeor are they just going to revise the permit ? >> that depends. if the revised permit does not result in a light in self that no notification will be required. >> this has come before the board several times in the past is that members, and owner of a condominium has to work whether it's three units, five units andpermits were issued . at which point, if they don't own the hok out is a permit given whenthey're working on common areas ? shouldn't the owner of the common areas be the one issuing the permit and not someone who owns the air space between the walls ?>> that's a good

question. i'm not entirely sure. when we do our review we don't check out a request and who necessarily is opposing the workthat may be in the common area . we let the owner or the applicant of the permit go through that process and if the process is not being followed for whatever hok rules or requirements, that's considere a private matter . we're strictly looking at at it from the standpoint of land-use and planning code provisions related to setbacks and height and so forth. we're not checking out who owns what and if they have proper authorizations from the larger homeownersassociation . >> president: i would say the permit is the size of being an address and the common areas would be a different level . has it got its own apn number?

>> ... right now i'm looking at the property. >> president: thank you. >> vice president lazarus. >> i have a question for deput city attorney so if there are other questions for our deputy , i can wait. shall i go ahead? >> please. >> so it appears there are issues with this permit, but what we're dealing with is a jurisdiction request. so i would appreciate some guidance before we get too far down the road as to howwe might handle this . or whether it will get handled by itself between dbi, planning and the permit holder and we just vote on the merits of the

jurisdiction request . >> deputy city attorney, you are correct commissioner lazarus that was before the board isa jurisdiction request so you're determining whether the city intentionally caused the requester to be late in filing this appeal . that's the question you need to decidetonight i think you should wait to hear what dbi has to say . it's not like there might be something going onwith this permit that might open up another opportunity for this appellantto appeal resulting from the discussion that's happening . >> back you. >> thank you brad >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection . >> good evening president swig, i'm matt greene representing dbi this evening. a review of permit application 20 2103 7148 was approved by

building inspection over-the-counter onmarch 18, 2021 . the permit was issued december 22 2021. on february 14 2022, as the appellant stated dbi made a correction notice and required revision for the construction and the light well.although the encouragement wasn't part of the approved plan i believe it was approved in error and 1205 requires light rails be open to the sky. this correction noticethe stairway . afcowith planning and a site visit the building inspector issued a notice of violation february 28 2022 to work beyond the scope of the interiorstaircase and interior stairs. revision will be required . correction notice and notice of violation by dbi will require the building permit and

revision for compliance and this revision permit will be available for any questions. thank you. >> presidentswing has a question . you are on mute. >> i think your line is unanswered but if it wasn't appealable because it's being adjusted, wouldn't a mistake cause and appellant to be late in filing an appeal because if there was no mistake, or the mistake wasn't noticed because it wasn't discovered yet, then the appellant would review some documents and find that everything was fine and therefore might not appeal. but if dbi subsequently said

oops, we made a mistake, and then the appeal period ... the potential appellant didn'tget word of that mistake , wouldn't that because to approve what is being asked of ustonight ? because in fact dbi did cause the appellant to belate filing. isn't that correct ? i can see this is going to be reissued and probably appealed. i'm just wondering if that second partof your answer wasn't there . and in fact it was a mistake and the appellant didn'tget to see the mistake in a timely fashion . with that because for jurisdiction approval? >> would the cityattorney be better able to answer that

question ? >> i'll take any help i can ge . >> i agree dbi made a mistake on the approval of the existing overhanging sidewalk. >> as long as we find them. >> i would say where the appellant listed plans where the work was being done, our mistake was there. >> can you help us out here? if the mistake wasn't noticed prior to the appellant reeling what they thought was a final plan , wasn't that cause for the appellant to be late in filing the appeal because the information they would appeal on is rare . >> true, but the appellant can always file a suitwith the department of building

inspection to investigate . >> your thoughts . >> i might be somewhat confused about whathappened . it sounds like the plans that were submitted were just had they been reviewed more closely they would not have been approved? is that what dbi is saying? >> i guess it's supposed to be on a blank wall and there's windows there so inadvertently the department approvedof this program because had it been done correctly the appellants would have seen that . >> about the plans were the same plansprovided in the permit ? >> i believe that's what the deputy da said, that it had, that its approval over-the-counter if there's a blankwall . but during further review there's multiple windows that

so that would require 311 notification . i believe that's what she said. >> to me it sounds like a mistake at dbi did didn't have anything to do with the time of appeal. the city delayed the filing of appeal for a question of whether the permit plans comply to begin with. i can see an argument for where what commissioner swig is asking. >> dbi's concern is not about the neighboring building. our concern is ifapproved , an overhang of the stairs and therefore the light well is no longer open to the sky. this is a brand-new plan checker and when we stay with dbi for oneyear , we made a

mistake and we're trying to correct it. >> thank you, commissioner honda. >> same question to you and not speaking specifically about this case but we had a case recently on hok that one and got permits from the department on this body as well. understanding that it's kind of complicated but i don't see how the permit could be issued correctly if the person that owns the condo does not own the comments and that's the question i'm trying to get clarified. >> that's been an issue for my 23 years. there is no separate lot on th block . we've been struggling this. >> i think if the hok have looked at that it wouldn't support this body and that's still the only question i have.

>> vice president lazarus. >> i'm going to rephrase my question. if we were to grant jurisdiction before a permit that is flawed and is going to be work that has to get done or acorrection permit issued . i'm not sure what's is gained by having a hearing on apermit that's going to be revised . sorry. >> i was going to ask given everything that's been aired by the planning department and dbi, and there's basically a recognition and acknowledgment of what the appellants have expressed to begin with providing the permit. is the appellants still feel the need for a jurisdiction

request. it sounds like everyone is in agreement that the permit was issued in error. and thatthere is recognition that the permit needs to be corrected . there's blanket agreement on that and the department can take a step in correcting that, if the jurisdictionrequest is there at all . >> my kind of thought is that whether it's modified or i forgot the word they used or should this permit start with the beginning because it was flawed. if they're modifying it then i believe that deputy da said that from what they've done would require 311 notification. at that point it's a process to start all over again with notification or could they just

modify it, thenthey surpassed that . because they aired on their description, does that allow them to walk around the 311 notification? i think if you'recircumventing the process it should not be a problem . >> perhaps we should ask the deputy da to lay out the process in order to move forward. >> of course, thank you. it really doesdepend on what the revised plans look like . if the revised plans do not include a light well in phil and all the forces contained within the exterior walls of that top unit, then no notification would be required. it doesn't mean that the appellant couldn't oppose the project for whatever reason.

he could still file adr and still file an appeal to that permit okay by planning and db . is the if the applicant chooses to keep the fares the way they are which is filling in that light well against windows, we would do thenotification . and during that notification process , that's when anybody else would be concerned with the project can file for dr or their appeal for the permit. >> thank you for explaining that because that clarifies things. the appellant isn't left in th cold, they have a process even under the revised plan they could act on .>> i do need to call for public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment? we have one person, please go ahead.

>> caller: thank you for your time, bored. i am the owner of 2156 which is a to lower unit of the lower floors of the building. i'm an architect by training and i do not need to do residential architecture so i'm not following theprocess 100 percenthere. my concern about the drawings on the permit doesn't match with the construction ongoing . both second and third floor stairs were not in the permit . there's ruth x that are permitted beyond the extentof his easement . there are skylightstrying to be permitted that are part of the common area room as well so a lot of inconsistencies . my biggest concern is not what the applicant does with the unit orthe rights to the roof but it's the integrity of the

building. i'm finding inconsistencies in the permit . there are drawings on f2.1 that don't exist. all the walls on the east side have been removed and that is where they're adding the roof tech. now he has to somehow prove that he's taking the load of the new trusses on the roof and having the live load down properly through the structure of the building. there are parts of the ceiling that are falling and my last concern is the length of destruction. it's been 12 inch ceilings on the tenants below the rough opening , it's just seems a little precarious at this point. >> is there any other public comment on this item ? are you here to provide public

comment on this item? >> thank you commissioners. regarding the item miss cornish brought up, there's a second permit that went through just regarding the roof which we do have an exclusiveeasement to. it is seated properly to us . >> are you the permit holder? >> i'm the owner. the permit holder is my contractor. >> so you're theowner of the condo.this is not your time under public comment . >> youalready had three minutes . you can't speak now, thank you. isthere any other comments on this item ? the matter is submitted and as a reminder the question for you is whether the city and it certainly or intentionally caused the constructor to be late in filing the appeal . >> president: i'll start. as is always in my mind commissionerlazarus, let's not get into the weeds here . what is before us is the

weather they inadvertently or intentionally caused this permit to have a problem. i don't see it. and after the department spoke, i think there's going to be a revised permit and that permit is able to appeal and a good chance if they don't take care of it they will see the planning commission as well as the appeals again. my thoughts are that unfortunately the city did not inadvertently cause this permit to go awry. i think we would deny the appeal. >> it will cause the requester to be late in filing anappeal . >> anybody else have a comment before i respond? >> i do because i am concerned that in fact the city did inadvertently cause the requester to be late by admission of the fact that the

planner made an error. where i'm torn is there's not going to be much point. maybe we grant a jurisdiction request and an appellate decides not to pursue theappeal on this particular permit because it will be a new permit . i'm not sure i agree with commissioneron the the city did not inadvertently cause the requester to be late . >> i was thinking if you had to be my motion. >> any comment on this? >> i guess i just have a question. by virtue of thishearing , didn't the appellant able to file an appeal in time? >> this is a jurisdiction request . she didn't file within 15 days of permit issuance but now she's asking the board to take jurisdiction . >>it expired think october 20 something of last year . as i mentioned if we do hold

this it means it will get solved because i think even if we deny the appeal it will go to more than likely the planning commission which would be allowed a piece and it would come back to the board of appeals. we can also take control of how itmoves going forward . >> not really, number i think i'm going by the guidelines for when we ran a jurisdiction request and i believe this request meets that criteria . what indicated was, i don't know how much it would make sense for the appellant to continue to file an appeal of this particular permit because it's going to be moved. but we will leave that individual and i would hope, i would advise that the appellant wait to see what action now is taken by both the permit holder and subsequently by dbi and planning.

>> i like to point out i agree completely with commissioner lazarus. i think the city did inadvertentlycreate an obstacle in filing this permit because they made a mistake . and the appellant saw some plans thatwere properly represented . and then it moves, we were wrong and the appellant didn't have a chance because of the inadvertent mistake. i agree with commissioner lazarus that if indeed there is a new permit issued which renders this issue moot anyway, then it gets dropped by the appellant because he will have a more decisive and correct permit to challenge if she feels necessary. i will go in the direction of

commissioner vice president lazarus . so anybody want to? >> commissioner chang. >> i agree with what vice president lazarus just expressed. and i share that sentiment and my follow-up question would be if you did jurisdiction, the outcome would be as we've generally thought which is the parties still need to provide permit , take the appropriate policy whether that be 311 or otherwise. and the appellant continues to have the opportunity toappeal that permit . if the permit is revised rather than its compliant, then what happenshowever ? >> what happens is if the

jurisdiction request is banded tonight shehas five days to file an appeal before us . i think the point vice president lazarus is making is why do we have togo cracked through the entire process ? it's to the requester that she work with dvi and planning so if we know they're going to require that this permit be revised and when that permit is revisedshe can't appeal that . >> that was my question. if this current permit is revised , the appellant will be able to appeal. >> but she would need to give up her appeal to this particular permit. because it can't be revised while is underrestriction . >> got it. >> basically, if we change the

jurisdiction over this, we are insuring that there will be an appeal on something. if the permit, if this permit is revised, then that assurance no longer is necessary because the new appeal, a new permit will have been issued and a fresh appeal period will then be invoked and therefore again the appellant isprotected which is the whole point of this exercise . >> that's why i suggested the appeal. either way are going to see it again. >> the facts are that it sounds like the city inadvertently caused her to be late on the request and we should voteon that . she has the five-day appeal window and hopefully she decides not to appeal this

particular permit costs you understand thatit's going to be revised anyway and she will have another opportunity . >> i'm going to move to grant the appeal and ... >>grant the request .>> grant the request and jurisdiction on the basis the city inadvertentlycaused the requester to be late in filing the appeal . >> we have a motion by by vice president lazarus to grant the request on the terms the city caused the requester to be late filing the appeal . [roll call vote] that motion carries 4 to 0 and if we can talk tomorrow by phone hopefully with planning and dbi to see if wedon't understand something that's going on tonight . we're now moving on to item number six, appeal number 22

002, investment corporation versus department of building inspection. subject property is 2000 oakdale avenue suite 82 during issuance on january 11 bayview ventures incorporated has an alteration permit .a change of use from the, office to bm, office and mercantile. new cannabis office retail space. permit number is2021 , 0323, 7148. we will hear from michael lose a look you will be speaking. welcome.>> good evening commissioners, madam director and staff. mike rizzo for libkra investment corporation thankyou . libkra owns the property across the side streets adjacent to the project site. the project is a cannabis

retail, manufacturing and distribution business across the street . libkra filed this appeal because of concerns relating to potential odor at the proposed facility. the concern of permit was approvedprior to the consideration for the odor control needed for this side . in the intervening month or so has now prepared a narrative that the necessary ventilation and filtering is necessary to ensure no cannabis voters are emitted to the neighborhood including libkra's property. applicant has attached a description in their brief, that exhibit b and it includes certain ductwork as described as well as ventilationat the facility. specific carbon filters that can pull the owners out of the air . and to make sure there was a

sufficient enough carbon filter to do that. the identified equipment that seem integral to any review of the facilities mechanical equipment or extent of fixtures or other improvements . and at this juncture the board would like to ask the board of appeals to add those requirements. the over control items the applicant is put in exhibit b as a condition of the permit. libkra also filed this appeal because it remains concerned the city improperly relied on a commonsense california environment equality act exemption for theproject . our concern is based on our engineer identifying possible owner impacts from the project because there was no indication of the odor control plans will be into an inaccurate and slim discussion of another facility

in oakland which didn't have any ventilation requirements or anything. he did appeal that issue to the board of supervisors which they denied that appealyesterday . so we're not asking the board to determine the cqua issues but where hoping to make sure the additional odor control measures described by the applicant are part of the site plan and the conditionof the permit . that was the scope of our appeal at this point would be simply to ask that the measures that their own engineer has outlined as necessary should b part of the permit. as a matter of process . it seems quite backwards that the one issue that might affect the neighbors odor would be sort of at the tail end of the process that the facility

generally goes through and here we been trying to follow the procedures the city allows us to raise the issue in a timely way and see if we can understand what those measures are so that the adjacent property owner would be able to help to be assured they're not going to have such any odors from the facility so with that i will reserve the rest of my time, and seven minutesto express this and i appreciate your time if you have any questions . >> i don't see anyquestions at this time so we will hear from the permit holder or the agent for the permit holder . >> .mitchell will speak first. >> okay. >> thanks, susan. good afternoon presidents way, vice president lazarus.

thank you for having my team here today . i would like to beginby introducing myself . my name is pri mitchell, an equity partner for the cannabis retail location at 2000 oakdale avenue and the needy district. a second-generation resident san francisco and born and raised in the bayview hunters pointdistrict . as the bayview is my community and to have a business here in the area and to share with my community, and family is like a dream come true. our team is led by strong, experienced women of color with over 25 combined years and the cannabis industry. we plan to bring workforce developmentprograms to the bayview district ,according equity applicants , career opportunities in the cannabis industry as well as providing shell equity, entrepreneurs to

get their products on to retail shelves. we also plan to use these resources to be able to carry a diverse inventoryof equity trained , certified lack brown and lgbt q plus phone products on our shelves. we posted three committee meetings and have met with the bayview hunters point citizen advisory committee who is also in support of our project. we have also collected over 40 letters of support from neighbors. we've had dozens of people call in to the various meetings and hearings in support of our project . throughout all ourwork within the community , the appellant never came forward to express his concerns to usduring our extensive unity outreach meetings .the appellant's concerns about odor are outrageous.

on december 9 the planning commission unanimously denied discretionary review and just yesterday the board of supervisors came to the same conclusion. and now the appellant is taking advantage of this access and delaying our project months due to this extensiveappeals process . appellant has been able to navigate and use the city's resources, time andmoney . we have met with the appellant three times since october to resolve this issue. unfortunately his demands including cash settlement remain a nonstarter. i believe that the partisan equity program will keep me protected as long as i completed the task and remain compliant but as of right now this program is failing to protect people where someone can come along and abuse the powers.

we have our countless hours of the planning commission and office of cannabis to make sure we are following all city requirements. these departments have best practices and municipal codes in place for businesses regarding odor mitigation. there's a check and balance system already created within the department to make sure there are no odor disturbances to our neighbors and committee. according to files the public health and office of cannabis there have been no complaints of owner buspar at any cannabis business. being a san francisco equity advocate and from the bayview neighborhood it's very disappointing that my project can be delayed by a total of six months due to thepettiness of this next door neighbor . i asked the commissioners to entrust this object to the board of supervisors and let this processcontinue . we ask you to deny the appeal . >> are you done with your presentation?

>> no, hold on. >> we will call for time. >> i want to share my stream here. can you see my screen? perfect. that evening, bayview ventures. we been working to get approval for a little over three years. the board to deny the field on the basis of planning department unanimously unanimously denied on september 9. the board of supervisors unanimously upheld the planning departments exemption yesterday and finally the appellant and experts are like any serious understanding of the cannabis industry in san francisco. a request made by the appellants were extensive not only on his property but the entire block,access to our records, areas of the requirements cash settlement . i want to put in context the extent that our facility would cause environmental damage.

hunterspoint has 2 million square feet of commercial and industrial space . our licensed premises would be 3000 square feet inthis building , this building is 40,000 square feet . additionally, the activity of the appellant and his mechanical engineer are so afraid of is concentrated in this small , 400 square foot manufacturing room which i remind you is enclosed in a 3000 square foot premise. consequently to suggest our project will have detrimental impact on our community is madness. deliveries to this tiny room all other cannabis entries will be ready for retail, packaged and in bag and jars. these are state requirements. we've also contracted with leffler engineering to ensure an adequate hvac system. we are available to answer any

questions. i asked the board of appeals to trust the process and require the planning department and board of supervisors continue and ask you to deny this appeal. delaying this project would put every equity and nonequity cannabis placed at risk. accepting it nowwould have a better mental impact to future facilities. please deny this frivolous attempt to delay our project . >> we have a question from commissioner honda.if you could stop sharing your street please, thank you. >> president: thank you for yourpresentation. one, is there cultivation or smoking allowed at this dispensary ? >> no. >> second question, is thisthe only dispensary you own or are there multiple dispensaries ? >> we not have another

application in therichmond district .>> is that one open or not? >>not open or you . >> and how much did heask for the cash settlement ? >> at the time it was fighting between one and two . last one. so the ventilation. is not required by the city? is thisprocess, that's what i'm understanding that's going to happen . >> absolutely, yes. >> thank you forthat clarification . >> thank you. wewill now you're from the planning department . >> thank you. tina tam. the subjectproperty at the dale avenue is an l-shaped lot in the bayview hunters point neighborhood . the property is split between

zoning districts, fronting on oakdale avenue is in a pdr 1c . the district fronting on is in the art two zoning district. projects fight is currently occupied by a one-story 43,000 square-foot industrial building containing light industrial, manufacturing and office uses . constructed in 1962 the property is a potential resource.establishment of a cannabis retail establishment is a five step process. applicant will be seeking a business license to operate a cannabis retail establishment. but before the license can be issued and must first seek approval from the planning department for the use of the property. this appeal is about a permit application that establishes the use of the property. approval of operation for the business will happen after the use has been approved. and the proposed scope of work

consists of an interior implement to the extent 3000 square-foot light industrial sweet within the subject building and a change of use to include a retailcomponent for the existing cannabis business . the project would not include anystructural work to the building. improvements would result in approximately 600 square feet of retail, 1000 square feet of manufacturing , and1400 square feet of office space. and as you heard earlier no cultivation is proposed at this subject site . the business is a license offered by the city of cannabis and allows a small cannabis business to operate in an integrated manner instead of each cannabis activity like retail or office or manufacturing be separated or in aseparately tiered premises . the micro business license allows some of these multiple cannabis activities to operate in one premise. in the case of 2000 oakdale

avenue the applicant is seeking a micro business license because the cannabis retail is being introduced to the project site. further pdr 1c zoning to district, cannabis use either for retail, office or manufacturing is consensually permitted. during the neighborhood notification process adr was filed by the appellant pursuant to raise the dr of the same concerns raised in this appeal. that is proposed cost significant owner impacts to other properties in the area. after the december night 2021 planning commission hearing the commission voted 7 to 0 to not take discretionary view in the permit. the commission's decision was based upon the fact that the project complies with the planning code and general plan but more importantly the commission noted all cannabis

use is regulated under article 16 including the requirement for some middle of an order mitigation plan. under the existingregulation, order is regulated . as part of the licensing requirements for the micro business operation the applicant will be working with the public health, police and of course the office of cannabis under the review of the order mitigation plan which was required after the land use was approved beforethe license was granted order mitigation measures would be as follows . if odor is not significantly mitigated and the director of cannabis has theauthority to impose additional requirements to reduce odor . tonight at this hearing we do have the director of cannabis your tonight to answer any questions you might have about the cannabis process . following the planning commission's approval of the permit the appellant filed a ccua appeal. the appellant once again cited

potential impacts related to odor. the appeal case was heard at the board of supervisors. after hearing and considering public testimony the board voted 11 to 0 to uphold the recommendation that the project is exempt from ccua under the basis that there's no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment . any odor mitigation plan has yet to be approved by the office of cannabis and as such the presumption that there will be owner impacts is mitigation measures are not taken is not substantialevidence to award an additional environmental review. as such the board of supervisors determined the product is appropriately and properly exempt . given the two public hearings for this project and the

unanimous approval from both the planning commission and board of supervisors, the planning department recommends you deny the appeal and approved the premise. the project complies with the planning code and general plan and will undergo as part of the micro business license requirement and extends the review of order andorder control by the office of cannabis and finally the department did not error in improvingthe building permit. we ask that you deny the permit . >> thank you. did the department of building inspection want to wait in ? >> inspector green. >> good evening, department of building inspection. after planning approval building permit application 2021 033148 was approved over-the-counter by dbi. on january 10, 2022, permit was issued the next day. applicant has chosen to be for the plumbing or any drawings of these will be reviewed under a future revision permits as the zoning administrator said all

cannabis facilities will have to submit an order mitigation plan. they would then enforce those requirements as incomplete. dbi believes this wasapproved properly and asks that you uphold a permit . >> thank you, idon't see any questions at this time so we are moving on to public comment . ms. roth, go ahead. nadine brox. please go ahead,you have three minutes . i see your hand raised. >> we will come back to her. i see other hands raised. maxine, please go ahead. >> my name is maxine mitchell

and i have ahomeowner in the bayview district . i am qualified to use cannabis for my anxiety and other issues through my doctor. but i cannot see how one individual can hold up a project after beingvetted by the entire community . i am frankly terry frustrated and outraged that one person who has the legal means and resources to find loopholes can take advantage of the process to type of project, community has already welcomed. when will bayview ventures incorporated be allowed to continue? how many more hearings and community meetings are required in san francisco. i am requesting a change of process for tomorrow'scompanies like bayview ventures .

one person should not be allowed to stall a project that has already gone through various rigorous levels of approval from the community and the city. please reject the frivolous appeal and support the bayview ventures team which will really help me and lots of my trinity friends and keep the bayview hunters point district close to without having totravel far away from this community . and i just can't understand how this one person can keep appealing and take up the boards time. thank you board and board of directors and presidents way for listening to me and i'm sorry if igot a little shaken up . >> we will now hearfrom donald whiteside, please go ahead . >> good evening. this is the thirdtime i believe . i believe with i agree with the

previous color. whether i smoke or take dummies, whatever, i just don't believe it's right for one person to stop the process. you've already heard it, you had approved and i don't understand how it can still be talked about. i have visited and went to various cannabis places around the city and around the bay area and unless you're in line to smell something or as the gentleman stated earlier, they're not puffing in the driveway for doorways. they encourage if it's run professionally youpurchase whatever it is you're getting , you leaveand go home. there isn't a pervading smell . normally you see security outside and you know that's where you can go and purchase some legalmarijuana or dummies

. you don't tell by this you smell, something must be there. that's not how it works. i would appreciate it if you would deny this appeal and let this go forward. >> we will try nadine brox again. please go ahead.we can't hear you, you have to unmute yourself. >> nadine, come on up. >> i live across the street from the proposed site at 2000 oakdale. me and another neighbor in the community went out and we acquired 300 signatures to prevent the opening of a

cannabis. we already have an industrial that in this soulless holder is incredible. we have a dispensary on third street and there are just several in the area already. as far as i'm concerned, there'senough . personally i don't want a cannabis businessacross the street from my house . >> is or any otherpublic comment on this item, please raise your hand . i don't see any other comments so we willmove on to revolve. you have three minutes . >> libkra doesn't havean issue with the type of business or the applicant . we're just trying to make sure that the tenants of libkra and their tenants are notaffected by odor from the site .

our engineer, the information we got informed us of the potential voter concern that the site and each of the pieces in the process that we were supposed to present work late and the city's processes that we're following. it's burdensome to some of the applicants. there's no cash settlement, we didn't make an initial comprehensive proposal that included cash only to reimburse the neighbor for the costs they incurred to hire an engineer to repair the recommendations for other people that nobody had bothered to do and all the other costs . that was it. there's not any money proposed. and the owner plan requirements doesn't say what the owner control pass control have to do.it doesn't haveany set criteria or standards.

we have no idea what the plan is supposed to have . we only got a plan here with leffler engineering which we think is behind and could i'm sure there's details to work out but the plan, this permit would assure control of any owners at the site. we're not complaining about that we're simply asking this board to conclude that as requirements because to wait until i don't know when, the mechanical is put up and none of us are in the process yet. clearly it affects folks outside the facility and in this case unable right across thestreet . we do have a chance to revise that plan and we won't have a chance to have ourengineer look at it . we have had the narrative that there's resistance and we do

appreciate that.we'd like to take advantage of that and in my mind fix the cities process but it's the one issue that really does affect the neighbors . >> 30 seconds. >> again, we ask the owner controls of the applicant itself be put into its requirement of the permit. that can go through whatever process of fine-tuning the department of health will reviewthat . with that i thank you for your time. >> we will nowhear from the permit holder . >>. [inaudible] thank you again for taking the time tolisten to our item . we have tried to contact the appellant regarding this odor matter but his team does not

want to compromise with any of their onerousrequirements . as the appellant has not presented any new information which has not already been deferred by the planning commission , we have pledged to be goodneighbors and will uphold everything in our good neighbor policy . this will include odor mitigation efforts preventing any odor escaping our premises. we would like to finally and this ongoing appeals process and move on with continuing our project. please deny this appeal. >> we will now hear from the planning department. >> tina tam from the planning department. because i've heard concern because of another cannabis establishment in the neighborhood i do need to go to them and saythere is another

cannabis establishment in the neighborhood . it's an industrial avenue but there's a difference between establishment and what's being proposed tonight. 75 industrial avenues , it is also something that is currently undergoing their process and it will be required to submit also and order of mitigation plan. i want to make sure that we're clear with that. otherthan that i have no other problems but i'm happy to answer any questions . >> you have a question from commissioner honda.>> quick question deputy. how do they get open without a odor mitigation. isn't that what pulls the cart or the car pulls the horse there? >> i honestly don't know whole lot about the other site other than the fact that that site

might have been there for a very long time. >> that was pre-done. >> is the premise that we have today. they have what we call a temporary lease permit that will allow them to operate undercurrent conditions.they will put everything up . >> that's an interesting id. i think he'sgoing to get two minutes closer to that . >> that's correct. that site weretalking about has been issued a temporary permit . permits were issued during the relationship to give those or operating the opportunity to participate legally with the 75 industrial site. they have not performed their odor mitigationplan . >> when you say in the future because one of the members of thepublic said the owner is very strong and she can smell that . how long will they be able to

operate without housing or odor mitigation?>> we didn't receive any complaints about that site until the process and if a complaintis submitted we would go in . >> thank you. >> commissioner chang has a question. >> to follow up on what you're getting to describe. can you for the public health articulate why there's a difference in types of cannabis establishments matter and the permit proximities with those facilities? >> i'm not sure whether the proximity matters. only brought up what i know of semi-industrial because i believe it would be better.

there are no restrictions i know of, having onecannabis near another cannabis . the land use ispermissible . like in the case of pdr one. it's just something that we would compete for and allow the office cannabis to also put in their review after a land-use approval. >> can i jump in here and say there is a buffer on retail dispensaries and this proposed site is complying with those regulations. >> president: i heard there's another proposed cannabis is on third street would conflict with the original location. >> my understanding is the temporary permit is not at an

adjustment site. >> if that is correct and i have to double check, i believe this type of site, the distancing is correct. i believe the site is not subject to that buffer. >> are you talkingabout the one on third street i mentioned . >> third street, i believe there's another proposed dispensary on third street. within the other dispensary. >> it would not be allowed within 100 feet unless it was a dispensary that i might be able to go down the road here. i can do that at a later date as well. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> again, dbi. >> thank you socommissioners, this matter is submitted . anybody want to start?

>> commissioners, any thoughts comments . >> i would go straight to a motion to deny the appeal. >> president: go ahead. >> moved to deny the appeal on thebasis the permit was properly issued . >> on vice president lazarus motion, commissioner honda. [roll call vote]. >> that motion carries and the appeal is denied. we are moving on to item number seven, appeal number 21 091, john brisco.first deputy city attorney brad, and deputy city attorney zachary coriander on these items.

>> may i ask any of my fellow commissioners whether they need a break given our history with last week and the length of these conference commentaries? if somebody wants to take break to prepare themselves for what might be a potentially long on . >> i wouldn't mind a seven or 10minute break . we have several cases and i believe weare going to stretch our fun tonight . >> can we get anybody? is there anybody against mister hunt'srecommendation . can we come back at 7:00. >> you want to 14 the break. >> than meeting of the san francisco board of appeals.

we are now moving on to item number seven. but we did have a comment from heidi. she believes that they're entitled to a full [ indiscernible ] and she wanted to know what her options are and i would just like to quote from article five, section seven of the board rules that the board generally will not reschedule a matter solely on the fact that fewer than five members are present at the hearing. but when the board hears the matter with less than five members present could alter the board's decision, the board will move to continue the deliberation so that the missing member can participate. >> i believe appeal number item number eight, the permit

holder, he did not provide a brief. >> secretary: item 8. they did submit a brief. it was item seven, john russo. okay. we are on item seven. this is appeal number 21-091. john russo the appellant. of the statement of decision sfmta versus john russo. he does not have a current california driver's license. without these licenses, the taxi medallion can be revoked. the notice of nonrenewal is upheld and the medallion is revoked and we will hear from the appellant first. mr. russo. you have seven minutes. mr. russo, are you here? >> he's in the room.

>> secretary: we could also go on to the next case and go back to that one. mr. russo. >> yeah. can you hear me now? >> secretary: yes. we can hear you. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> by the way, i did present a brief today to alex wongwa. >> secretary: we can't accept a brief. your brief was due three weeks before the deadline. >> it's not a brief, but it's something he wanted me to show at the hearing. >> okay. we can share that for you. do you want us to share it now? >> okay. that would be fine. >> secretary: please go ahead. you have seven minutes, mr. russo. >> okay. first, i'm sorry to be not on

the d.o. but, you know, i'm getting over covid and, you know, i feel run down and i just don't feel like being -- i'm in connecticut. it's, you know, it's past 10:00 here and i've been up since 3:00 a.m. so in any case, i'll just say that my name is john russo. i drove medallion number 334. i drove for 27 years until 2013. so from '87 to 2013, and that's when i started having health problems. a few years earlier, i fell off a rock in mexico. you know, i fell about 10' or 12' and um, i landed on my

butt. so over time, a cyst grew in my spine which causes me severe nerve pain in my legs and feet. it only gets worse and it never gets better. i'm permanently disabled and that isn't going to change. so i just feel like i'm an elderly person who is being discriminated against based on my disability. now, in reference to this exhibit, now, my california driver's license expired in 2015. at that time, i called paige

stanfield who i believe was phil cranna's predecessor in that position. she told me it wouldn't be legal for me to have a connecticut driver's license and a california driver's license simultaneously. because i'm not living in california. i'm living in connecticut. she told me i didn't need a current because i was on disability and i believed her. i believed it and there's just one other thing i want to say and then i'll pass it along.

is that when i got my medallion in 2007, i agreed -- i'm sorry. i'm forgetting. i agreed to drive -- i agreed to meet the driving requirements. i never agreed. i never signed anything saying i would drive forever whether i was able to or not; you know, and i never i counted on getting this. it's a horrible disability. i can't sit in one place for very long.

i walk very -- i can't walk across the street. so in any case, that's all i have to say. thank you. >> secretary: okay. thank you, we have a question from commissioner honda. >> commissioner: yes. so the question is it's a great disability when we don't have a brief to read and it's just off of oral. so do you currently have a connecticut driver's license, sir? >> yes, i have a connecticut driver's license. >> commissioner: so are you able to drive? >> i can drive, you know, i can drive to the grocery store. and then i can walk around the grocery store for a little while, 10, 15 minutes, very slowly. and that's about like -- like that's the highlight of my day, you know. >> commissioner: being disabled myself, i understand it, you know, but if an a-card

is required, wouldn't it be possible for you to come to california to get a driver's license? i mean, that medallion. >> well, no. as i just said, you know, i'm not walking across the street to the soccer field and watching high school kids kick the ball around. i can't do that much. i'm going to get into an airplane, are you know, that six-hour flight. go to dmv, get myself a, you know, wait outside for two and a half hours during the height of a pandemic. you know, and get inside, get my and then i have to do a piss

test down on patrero hill. then i have to go up for fingerprinting at 25 van ness and then i have to go up and say, oh, i did it all. then i have to go sleep in a tent maybe because i don't have any money. i'm on disability. >> commissioner: okay. thank you sir. thank you. >> secretary: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the sfmta. mr. cranna, welcome. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. good evening president swig. commissioners. my name is phillip crana. before you tonight is the nonrenewal of medallion 334. as mr. russo noted, his medallion is a post k medallion and those are subject to the full-time driving requirements. the nonrenewal is based upon mr. russo's lack of an a-card. as i outlined in my brief, this

nonrenewal was one of many in about 300. as i noted, half of those medallions, a little less than half were able to secure any and all issues and they were subsequently renewed. about 120, there was no response and those medallions were brought back to the m.t.a. and this is one of about 50 appeals. the transportation code is clear, holders of medallions subject to the full-time driving requirement must maintain an active a-card and as part of getting an a-card, a driver must as mr. russo laid out, there are several requirements that a driver must fulfill in order to get that a-card one of which if you have a current california driver's license also as you also mentioned drug testing and fingerprinting. because he does not currently hold an a-card, the nonrenewal should be upheld. i think that's it. thank you. >> secretary: thank you.

we have a question from president swig. you're on mute. >> president: takes me a second. so now this is hearing number three and this is [ indiscernible ] and i'm aware of that. it seems, you know, it seems that the department whether anybody likes it or not [ indiscernible ] but it doesn't matter to me or not and the law exists and i have to attend to that. but it seemed that the standards were created to have an a-card on california license once you have those standards, you've got to get fingerprinted. you have to do other things to maintain that license which is i look to as a privilege earned

by fulfilling certain responsibilities. and is this not -- and this seems to be mischaracterized a little bit as the recall of these licenses are some vengeful act on behalf of mta to take it out on old retired folks or people with disabilities or whatever the reason might be, but let's just stop at the vengeful activity when, in fact, it seems to me that this is an effort by m.t.a., a business decision to maintain control of these licenses. and to make sure that those -- that you can keep track of them. correct me if i'm wrong. but it is there to control the licensing process to have control over those who have the

privilege of holding one of these licenses. and to keep m.t.a.'s basically m.t.a.'s business organized so that it is a cohesive operation. isn't that what licensing is all about? and isn't this the purpose of all these steps that the law has taken to hold people accountable to a certain standard? isn't that the point? my question. >> is that to me. can you please restate. >> president: you want me to say it all over again. >> well, yes, the point of the license is for particular permits and medallions, there are core requirements. i will point out the drug testing itself is mandated by the state.

so hypothetically if i were tonight to say i will exercise this discretion and grant mr. russo his a-card, i would be technically in violation of state law. the mechanism for the implementation upon the a-card was the policy which was adopted by the m.t.a. board, but that was in compliance with the state. and i should point out that propk, the core which was discussed in the loan decision which i know wasn't necessarily raised in this hearing was that the full-time driving requirement was a core element of that permit and therefore it did not violate the a.d.a. >> president: so is this like -- i mean, if i went to in a nonprofessional statement or comparison, i have a car parked right in front of my house, my privilege to drive that car is

encumbered by my ability to pass the driving test whether it's an act of driving the car around with an instructor or passing a written test and also staying ticket-free. and not endangering people. that gives me the privilege to hold that simple driver's license. if i breach any of those, if i can't drive the car for the driving instructor. if i can't pass the written test. if i have a history of drunk driving and/or bad driving, i will have my license permanently revoked. is this not the same thing? what i'm getting at, we have laws related to issuance of taxi medallions. we have laws issued related to as simple as my personal driver's license. am i oversimplifying it that if

you don't fulfill the law, you don't get a medallion or your medallion is revoked the same way that my license would be revoked if i didn't fulfill certain responsibilities of that license. is that correct. is that how simple this is? >> yes. it could be put that way, yes. >> okay. thanks. >> secretary: thank you. so we are now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item, please raise your hand. we have one commenter. >> caller: can you hear me? >> secretary: yes. >> caller: hi. good evening, commissioners. i'm the president and owner of alliance cabs and i've been in business for 35 years. i have been part of witness to which many of the different

stages the taxy is involved. at the time the city needed to balance the budget, they decided to monetize the medallion by conforming distribution of taxi permits in a system similar to new york city. cab drivers in good faith invested a lot of money and many years in their lives in a medallion system as their unofficial retirement pension. fast forward to today. why is m.t.a. revoking the taxi medallions now. for several years, since its inception, if a medallion holder is on medical modification or disabled, there is no need to renew the a-card, but when sf san francisco credit unions sues m.t.a. things have changed. the credit union demanded that the city purchase this for medallion and in order to

mitigate, the m.t.a. has been turning over revoking medallions so that the credit union can lease them out. there is reasonable expectation that it will not be long before the credit union will hold more if not all of the medallion. in his deposition at the trial, mr. oliver who is the president of the credit union referred to this elderly medallion holder as the low hanging fruit and urged sfmta to revoke these permits. which suggestion the sfmta took oliver up on. this is actually theal tear your motive. everything else is the pretext. and looking to the moral conscience i believe this is

not over and there will be an appeal and by voting no to revoke this medallion, you are giving the medallion holder a chance that their medallion can be repurchased who are in dyer financial need a chance for a decent exit from the industry. i thank you all for taking the time to listen. >> secretary: thank you. we will now hear from paul mcmerta. >> caller: thank you. you can hear me? >> secretary: yes. >> caller: okay. i have a lot to say. first of all commissioner lopez said it in one sentence. the taxi medallion is a business operating permit. the a-card which is also called taxi driver's license, that's the driving permit. what the agency is doing and

this has been handed down to the current regulators for 20 years is to conflate the two and operate the business permit as a driving permit. if you do that, the largest cab company yellow cab went bankrupt in 2016 largely because of a $14 million accident caused by an elderly guy trying to drive when he shouldn't. this is a reverse incentive. you're giving all the older people, they're going to hide their disabilities and endanger the public. meanwhile, mr. russo's permit has a color scheme they can put it on the street. he swore the intention like 40 or 50 years ago. until this body broke down that he would drive. when he swore the intention, you need to mention that and analyze whether or not he fulfilled that sworn intention.

this is what your predecessor board ruled on in 2003 that it's based the interpretation whether someone has a driving requirement. and as far as the sloan decision, mr. cranna quoted that it was upheld. that's what judge white said in the decision, but that was appealed and the city signed the agreement throughout white's decision and says that when you become disabled, you can stay in disability status. the city's ignoring that and they're putting regulations. so it's frustrating for us. this is very malfeasant policy if you revoke this permit. it violates a.d.a. and can end up in the justice department. i think you can mitigate against it and evelyn just made a beautiful speech and i just hope that you'll realize that

this is not a driving permit. the medallion is a business operating permit. so that's what i have to say. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. is there any further public comment? please raise your hand. i saw marcello fonsaka, you need to unmute yourself. okay. >> caller: can you hear me well? >> secretary: yes. >> caller: my name is marcel lo fopsaka. i am a full-time driver for more than 30 years. i'm not driving at the moment for medical reasons. i acquired my medallion in through proposition k. i'm calling in support of fellow medallion holder john russo. i'm also calling to urge this board to stop this pattern of harassment from the m.t.a. because this policy, this

driving requirement, it targets the elderly in most elderly medallion holders. this policy clearly is in violation of a.d.a. laws. it does not benefit the taxes or the riding public. it might benefit the m.t.a. in the future if there's a medallion market. so i urge you to stop this pattern of harassment. now, we drove for so many years, we deserve some dignity. i find it very interesting that when we could attend meetings in person before the pandemic. i remember clearly a lot of meetings at the m.t.a.,muni drivers retiring and the m.t.a. board would thank them for their service and they would say now i'm going to travel the

world and when i compare that to taxi drivers, i go, my goodness, we are nobody. we don't get any respect. we are treated like nonhumans. we deserve some dignity. so i urge this board to stop this harassment and perhaps the m.t.a. will leave us alone. if i cannot drive forever. i can't drive forever. it's that simple. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. is there any further public comment? please raise your hand. i see a number of people in the queue. any hands raised? i don't see any hands raised. it looks like we will move on to rebuttal. mr. russo, you have three minutes to address the board. are you there?

we can't hear you. >> yeah. i'm sorry. it takes me alittle while to get to that mute unmute thing. >> secretary: no problem. >> you know, i think that, you know, carl said pretty much all of it for me. carl mcmurtto and the last fellow. he spoke very well. i don't know his name, but so i'm okay. >> secretary: okay. thank you. >> no rebuttal. >> secretary: okay. thank you. we'll now hear from the sfmta. mr. cranna, you have three minutes. >> i'd just like to add the m.t.a. board did continue plate temporary periods of disability, unfortunately, i did not attach it as an exhibit and it allows drivers to be relieved of the driving requirement temporarily for up to three calendar years. again, i just want to note this

isn't about the driving requirement itself, it's about the lack of a driver permit and a-card. maybe another way to analogize it the case we heard earlier perhaps another example without an owner mitigation measure if you will. there are certain things that this permit, this license is you need to maintain and that the a-card in this case is one of those. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. we have a question from commissioner honda. >> commissioner: yes. mr. cranna, are you aware of his statement of referring to the disabled and senior drivers as low-hanging fruit? >> no. i was not present at the trial nor did i watch it. >> commissioner: okay. secondly, i believe i asked this question before. so the enforcement from m.t.a. comes after the litigation from

the credit union? >> i don't. i can't say for certain. >> commissioner: the credit union litigation start? do you know that? >> that i don't. i'm not sure. like i don't want to answer. >> commissioner: that's fine. if you don't know. i'm not forcing it. >> i'm sorry. right. it was pandemic, there's no in-person so, yeah. >> commissioner: it's all good. i'm sorry that you're the spokesman. you know, we hear a lot of mobile phone facilities. we see the same guy every week and i think pretty soon we'll be seeing you soon too. >> secretary: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president: commissioners, anybody want to start? >> commissioner: sure. so in the similar cases, even though a brief was not provided, i am aligned with the

drivers with this. so and we are missing commissioners, so if the vote line goes the same, we will have to hold this over to the next commissioner comes in. until commissioner lopez comes in. >> president: commissioner lazarus comment? >> commissioner: no. >> president: commissioner chang, comment? >> commissioner: no. >> president: okay. of i'm going to hold my position and we are not there. we are not here to challenge a.d.a. laws. we are not here to unfortunately use as much of our hearts as i would like us to use sometimes. we are up here to uphold the statutes that are on the books in the city of san francisco etc. and based on these

statutes, i'm sorry, i think the medallion revocation activity is legal according to the statutes as have been presented and nobody -- i want to -- i really want to state this, emotionally, i'm all over it. i don't want to see folks who have driven for 30, 40, 50 years have these issues. right. i don't want to paint myself as unemotional or a mean spirited corner, but this was not my law. i didn't create this law nor did any of the commissioners create this law. this was created passed by your legislators and your government and we are here to uphold those statutes. so in that spirit not in the spirit of harming elderly folks who have driven on the street, in the spirit of upholding the

law which is our jobs. i absolutely support the department's position and would deny the appeal. but, you know, we have that between ourselves. we're not here to re-invent the law. that's it or do a.d.a. work. so we're going to -- so anybody want to make a motion and see what we have? >> commissioner: i'll make a motion. >> commissioner: [ indiscernible ] >> president: i'll let commissioner honda go ahead. >> commissioner: i'll make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair. >> president: i want to comment on that. i think that that is absolutely as they say [ indiscernible ] okay. we have to make a decision. to go to the call of the chair, we're kicking the can down the road. we're setting up the department and the city for significant problems. our job is to resolve.

okay. to kick the can down the road, sorry, commissioner honda, is really cowardess. you know, we stand up, we lead. we either say yes or we say no. we go according to the vote. yes or no. i completely adamentially disagree. i'm so sorry we took the action to the call of the chair. that to me underminds what we do. let's call to the chair on everything by the way. we don't have the guts to take a position on. why don't we do that then we might as well fold on 10 on the board of appeals. so that's my position. there's no way that i can support that. ever. >> commissioner: that's my motion. >> secretary: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this item to the call of the

chair. on that motion, [roll call] so that motion fails 2-2. do we have another motion on the table? >> president: i deny the appeal based on the fact that whatever the action was correct. >> secretary: okay. we have a motion from president swig to deny the appeal. on the basis that the termination was properly issued. on that motion, [roll call] so that motion fails 2-2. so if we don't have another motion on the table, that means

that the underlying determination will be upheld as a matter of law. >> commissioner: then i'll make my motion again. >> secretary: the same motion? okay. i think we're going to have the same result. we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this to the call of the chair. on that motion, [roll call] okay. so that motion failed. we can't just continue to make the same motions. it looks like this underlying determination is being upheld as a matter of law.

>> president: the thing is the missing commissioner would be a determining vote. so we would have to -- >> secretary: no that's not the case because you're just making a procedural motion to move this to the call of the chair. it's not a substantial decision. >> commissioner: so the missing commissioner's vote would not make a difference. >> secretary: we can defer to deputy city attorney corianda on this. the missing vote has to affect a sub substantiative decision. >> commissioner: sure. let's hear his comments on this. >> welcome. you're always smiling. you and matt green are always smiling. good evening, commissioners. >> that is correct. on a procedural motion, a missing commissioner does not make a difference. only on a substantiative motion. >> commissioner: thank you. >> secretary: so that means that the underlying determination is upheld as a

matter of law. and the appeal is in effect denied. thank you. so we are now moving on to item number eight. this is appeal 21-095. dirk neyhart appealing the issuance on september 9, 2021, to dirk neyhart who does not have a california driver's license. without these licenses, the taxi medallions can be pursuant to the trmgs code. the me dall job is revoked and we will hear from the appellant first. i'm not sure if his attorney will be speaking first or mr. neyhart. >> good evening, commissioners. prior to starting my statement i just wanted to answer a question that mr. honda asked. they filed that lawsuit march 27th, 2018. so with that, i'd like to start

my presentation. good evening i'm heidi mason representing mr. dirk neyhart. he's also here with us tonight and i plan to reserve about a minute and a half for mr. neyhart to make his own comments. i know it's challenging for people to take a new look at things so i just want to start with a parable first. a horse is lost. for want of the forest, the rider's lost. for want of the rider, the message is lost. for want of the message, the battle was lost. for want of the battle, the war was lost. all for the want of a horse shoe nail. so sfmta's nonrenewal of mr. neyhart's medallion is

based solely on mr. nyehart's want of an a-card. to summarize it in any other way is unfair. it's really about mr. neyhart's failure to be a full-time driver. we do not dispute that the code requires all a-card holders to first have a driver's license. i can point you to where that is in the code. that is in transportation code 11032c 3. it requires that each applicant for a driver's permit, that's an a-card must have a current california driver's license. it's difficult for us to prove the negative which is what i'm being asked to do here that mr. neyhart has to show where in the code it doesn't require

him to have an a-card, but it should be a simple question for the sfmta to prove a positive. where in the code does it specifically say that a medallion holder is required to have an a-card? so two of you commissioners have self-identified as strict constructionists and the other three have identified as sort of activist judges if you will. so the strict constructionists say that, you know, you're supporting sfmta because you believe they're uncited contention that the code requires the medallion holders possess an a-card. guess what, it doesn't. the others of you, the activist judges think that something

smells bad here that it just, you know, the medallion holders are getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop. but they should be allowed to continue holding their medallions. strict construction is great. i love it you know why because as an attorney that's how i win on the law. so i'd like to empower each and every one of you commissioners to use strict construction in your analysis and look at this because mr. neyhart's position is clearly strong based on the law not just because it's humane, more humane which it is but because of the law. so if we read sfmta's brief which opposes this appeal, we see a lot of conclusory

language. ney hart did not have a driver's license as required of the code. of the requirement to maintain an active a-card. it's of this sfmta has taken a page out of donald trump's play book and they have decided that if you say it enough, it becomes true but it doesn't. in fact nowhere in the transportation code does it explicitly require that mr. neyhart has an a-card in order to hold a medallion. so if you ask sfmta where in the code that requirement lies, they might point you to full-time driving requirements or to the fact that drivers

must have an a-card. but mr. neyhart does not have to have a driver's license. where does it say a medallion holder must also hold an a-card. and i'd like to stop here and with my time and allow mr. ney hart to say a few words on his own. >> thank you for your public service. i am medallion 244 is under discussion. i started driving a yellow cab in 1970. in 1989, the police commission granted me that paid medallion.

and that has operated in that in 1997, i was assaulted and now i am blind and talk funny and have movement disorders. and i cannot get a driver's license. i cannot get an a-card, but this is not my fault. what that can do is operate a business as i have done that since 1997. and then the taxi commission and then sfmta renewed so i ask

you to renew my medallion 244. >> secretary: thank you. we do have a question from commissioner honda. >> commissioner: i'm fine. i'll ask that question to the representative of the department. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. we will now hear from the representative from the sfmta. mr. cranna from the sfmta. >> as i outlined in my brief. he is subject to the full time and i read from subsection a,

the medallion holder does not have a valid a-card a approved full-time driver as mr. ney hart noted. he drove for sever l years before he obtained his medallion. >> secretary: thank you, we have a question from president swig and commissioner honda. >> president: it seems that you and ms. mason have different opinions on the law. she made some strong statements that basically in every one of your arguments must go specifically to the driving

requirements. can you -- this is why we have these hearings. so that you can both present your arguments. would you please enlighten us with your view of her claim that there is no issue related to the driving requirements that allows you to maintain a medallion and if, ms. mason, if i got that wrong, i really invite you stepping in and correcting me. i won't take offense. >> thank you, commissioner swig. >> president: so let him answer that question related to what he heard. >> you did mischaracterize my argument. >> president: okay. go ahead. you're not supposed to talk right now but i want to make sure that i heard you correctly and that i want to make sure that he heard you correctly and that we all heard what we

heard, okay. then i can ask my question to him. go ahead. >> i appreciate it. so we concede that there is a requirement that drivers that is a-card holders must have a california driver's license. we also concede that there's a full-time -- that the medallion holders are subject to a full-time driving requirement which can be waived under the a.d.a., you know, but we don't even need to go there because the m.t.a. based its entire argument on the fact that mr. neyhart does not have an a-card. where in the code does it specifically require a medallion holder to be an a-card holder? >> president: can you stop there.

thank you very much. can you please answer that question, directly, sir, mr. cranna. >> yes. 1118a 8 states that m.t.a. has good cause to revoke a medallion holder when it's subject to driving requirements. i don't think this dispute is subject does not have a valid a-card. so it's clear in the code. it's explicit. >> president: thank you. i'm sure ms. mason will rebut in her time allowed. >> secretary: thank you. commissioner honda. >> commissioner: same question. i'll wait for rebuttal. because as the president said, there's clearly two sides here and we just want to get to the bottom of it. thank you. >> secretary: thank you. we're now moving on to public comment. please raise your hand if you're here for public comment. i see robert sesana.

please go ahead. [please stand by]

>> caller: was right when the dalliance stopped selling and

the mta, people behind closed doors decided they wanted to start harding permits, putting things inthe code that would allow them to find ways to take permits away from drivers . even that quote from 11, 18, 88 says medallion holders with full-time drivingrequirements . i think i've been president of this group for something like 18 years arguing the point. the law propped today said we had to swear the intention to drive and the city continues to say that that never stops. the full-time driving requirements follows you to the grave. it puts you in the position of having to drive when you shouldn't and takes away the right of a disabled person to have a business permit because

they can't get an account for their drivers license which is what this case is about. commissioner swigsays we're not here to challenge ada . it shows aresponsibility in my opinion touphold the law of the land . it'snot about challenging it , it's about holding it . so he can serve the public since he wasassaulted and stabbed and made blind . i getting a cab on the street. he doesn't havea full-time driving requirement that follows him into the grave . it blows my mind that some of the commissioners don't think the ada trumps municipal code. i can't believe this is happening here in the city, that you would do this and i think the law holds that you

should reverse the ruling. >> 30 seconds. >> okay, but it's just ... the other thing i wanted to comment, i thought it took three votes to uphold the underlying action ?i guess it takes to if only for people our president. thank you for your consideration. >> we will now hear from marcelo fonseca, please go ahead. you need to you yourself. >> caller: can you hear me? for the record, marcelo fonseca, career cabdriver. i have always struggled with codes and since the mta introduced the medallion sales program a few years later, the

city of san francisco embraced the rule and gave uber and lyft new legitimacy. i have never felt so bad and having to speak on those issue , you do not make my public speaking easier. it's so emotional for us but i know you say you're emotionally touched by this and you have to interpret the law. my colleague, when with the medallion sales program failed the mta perhaps abuses its plenary power given the controversial passage of prop . they startedcreating all these

codes . this was after all medallion sales program was very well-known and bound to fail. now all medallion holders are caught in the middle of this legal dispute. but again, i'm calling you in support of my colleague. mister neyhart. and again, this is so unclear. this interpretation of the language of prop k that we hav to drive forever ,holding or not holding a a-card . i see it as an abuse of power by the agencies so i urge you to stop this harassment by the mta. thank you. >> is there any further public comment on this item?

mister neyhart you will have time for rebuttal. we are on public comment now. i don't see any other phone further public comment so we are moving on to remodel. we really hear from mister neyhart, you have three minute . >> i will turn the floor to a moreknowledgeable person . can i speak after? >> yes. >> i want to point out first of all that the municipal transportation authority has consistently said it has no choicebut to revoke . so in the spirit of wanting to empower the sfmta i will point out and this is statutory interpretation 101 here that section 1118 which was earlier quoted, revocation, suspension

and administrative fines specifically uses the word may rather than shout. that means guesswhat? it's not compulsory . use of may rather than shout means sfmta as discretionary enforcement and you know why that's important? that's super important because if mta doesn't have discretionary enforcement here effectively nullify the sfmta's board resolution on ada exemption tothe driving requirements . so at the end of this section 1118, number 11 says yes, may revoke. number 11, a medallion holder houston does not satisfy the ultimate driving requirement by the end of the fiscal year.

guess what? if you're given a ada exemption you're allowing the medallion holder to not satisfy the full-time driving requirement and the sfmta is using their discretionary enforcement authority which section 1118 clearly gives them by the use of the word may. and i'd like to defer to mister neyhart if you wanted tosay something more . >> it is not to have sympathy or compassion. my appeal is therule of law . i think sfmta has been quite reckless with the law and i hope you'll recognize that efficiency and permit me to continue serving.

thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner honda. >> my question is to mister neyhart. you asked the question specifically about where in the code they have to have a a-card and the representative of the department indicated it's under 1188. so in the municipal code, does it actually say that they have to have a card? ? >> soap mister crenna. does this specifically say 118 a that a driver has to have a card? and you're under oath.

>> yes, it says that. it says mta has cost for revocation if the driver does not have , or i should say medallionholder . >> in your brief could isee that somewhere in your brief ? as we ruling on someone's livelihood and this is not about just a permit to build a house. so thing is i'm especially partial to this one because that means on the job, i'm a realtor. i have no policy, i have no retirement benefits either. i understand that but where in your brief doesn't show that? this is somebody's situation and i trust both of you. we're over here to settle this out and we have to completely different statements here. we have another case after this and 20 more cases togo. so can you point out in your brief where it says that ? >> the mechanism here is an

article. the actual ask is on renewal. when we look at the status in this case which is a medallion and compliance, it's analogous tothe driver . if a person does not have a drug test or adriver's license . >> we've been through this a bunch of times. i want to know specifically in the code if it says that he does not have . both of these are compelling stories.everyone has their side on both sides.is it in the transportation code that they have to have a valid a-card and where can we show that? if it doesn't say there and it's just interpretationat this point . i'm not willing to take someone's livelihood for certification . can you point that off in the

transportation code, is it in your brief somewhere says that you have to have a valid card otherwise. >> i did site, there's in my space i did reference 1118 where ... >> does it say specifically a ada a-card? >> he is on what we call an annual agreement where he can declare ... >> we have many cases to talk aboutthis. i'm asking a specific question and i'm not trying to badger you . where does it say specifically theyhave to have a valid card ? >> november 18, 1988. >> soap missed macon, he's saying it says it has to have a valid a-card. is that true or not true? we've got to getto the bottom of this .

>> yes. so it was not a question directed to me? >> there saying it hasto have a valid a card . >> i like all of us to read and if you can just indulge me for a second, 1118. which is entitled revocation, suspension or administrative sign to cause. >> is it in your brief somewhere? is 1118in the brief anywhere ? >> number here it says and just again, trying to indulge me. i know it's a long night for you guys but if you can try to listen. sfmta may revoke any permit for good cause. good cause shall include but not be limited tothe following

. number eight, okay. just a side note here. it says sfmta may suspend or revoke for this reason. not shout, not shout. it doesn'tsay sfmta has to revoke if this is the case . so we get down to number eight . and the cause is given. a medallion holder who is subject to the full-time driving requirements does not have a valid a-card because the driver has failed to renew it or sfmta has revoked it. when you're looking at the venn diagram there, there's a lot of assumptions here. first you'relooking at the may , they may not shout because they don't have to. they may require it, if the medallion holder doesn't have a valid card. >> i get it, so it's not

specific on there but it indicates that the department has discretion that they may d it, is that correct ? thank you very much. >> commissioner lazarus. >> i like ourdeputy city attorney to weigh in on this . there are other sections i think might be relevant if he doesn't mind, would you please give us his opinion on this mistake? >> commissioners, my understanding of the argument is that the prop came italian full-time driving requirements is to determine whether that's an actual requirement. from that point that's where you get to if you're a full-time driver you have to have a a-card. the fact that it's a post came italian and has a full-time driving requirement you have to jump through that to getto a full-time driving requirements

. you have to be an active driver. that's my interpretation of it and i think that's how the mta has presented it. in previous hearings we discussed. and in section 11 18, it does say may, it's up to the agency whether or not to enforce it but in section 8a it says that at least for that section a medallion holder is subject to the full-time driving requirement does not have a valid a-card, that's the basis for the agency to revoke. but it says it's discretionary interms of may . again, the prop came italian's, 28 is represented those who must have a full-time driving requirements, you must have a valid a-card. that's the subtraction right there. >> commissionerchang .

>> this question is directed at deputy city attorney maranda. can you please weigh in on the ada component of this because what all these pieces have in common what i struggle with is ada, i think there's the state law and there's also federal ada regulations i believe. and i'd like to understand the relationship between someone who comes disabled and is unable to perform the driving requirements and how that impacts this situation. >> my understanding is the full-time driving requirements that disability, so it did not violate the ada.

my understanding also is that mta, sfmta opted for a resolution that allows for temporary waiver basically the full-time drivingrequirements for temporary disability . that's the way. so that the full-time driving requirements does not violate the ada. that doesn't move us down this decision.>> thank you for that. i guess if i may i like to ask for information, your understanding of the provision and how it impacts or complicates the situation. >> so when i talk about how sfmta may suspend or revoke any permit or article under this section for the reason of a

medallion holderwho is subject to the full-time driving requirement , doesn't have a valid a-card, the discretion that sfmta has shown, that's how it folded into the ada qualification. let me try to get here clearer here. it's an abuse of discretion to not allow mister neyhart to apply for the ada waiver which he has not had an opportunity to do but rather to go in and revoke him first. so the ada waiver that was established by resolution by the sfmta board of directors, resolution 09 138 was included with my brief. so in order to use or to allow this ada exemption to live, the

mta has to use their discretion under that may clause to not require the medallion holder to have a valid a-card and here's why. because having a valid a-card requires that you have a valid california driverslicense . and if you're disabled , all of a sudden what will happen is the state of california will take their license, therefore you do not qualify for that a-card. therefore the discretion. we're asking that mister neyhart be allowed to apply for the ada waiver rather than revoking himself. thank you foryour consideration . >> anything further,

commissioner chang. >> i like to ask mister hannah y has sfmta denied the ability toapply for a waiver ? >> there was never an application made and we passed at that sameresolution to our brief . it's clear by contrast is permanently physically incapable of meeting the full-time driving requirements and should not be entitled to such release and such release is relating to the temporary relief and may be required to relinquish his or her medallion to sfmta so unfortunately mister neyhart would not qualifyfor temporary because it's not a temporary nature. it's a permanent disability . there was no denial onthe application. no application was ever made to my knowledge .

>> thank you. >> thank you, so president tran five. >> president: would you get me oriented ? where are we? >> we still have rebuttals from the sfmta and thematter will be to submitted to you for consideration .>> president: i feel like we'rediscussing it already but as long as we're digressing . this issue of ada. given that there's already been a legal finding on ada. you cited itjust moments ago . any ada, if it's so that any discussion of ada is really off the table for this commission? that finding has already been made by a legal body that has

far exceeds ourboundaries . so how can we even consider the concept of ada impacting this situation in any way shape or form? it's off the table, is it not? >> after the argument, a full-time driving requirement violates the ada so there is n ada violation for full-time driving requirement . that's the scope of what's been uncovered. >> so we can discuss that anymore, that's off the table. >> if you went against that you would be going against the decision. >> this is all in keeping. i want to stay very consistent and the reason i bring it up is

i want to stay consistent that we have to stay within legal statutes, legal findings and we are governed, not governed by ourselves. we are governed by the statutes and findings so as we have these issues like ada raises, that you for answering my question because i think it's important to know that we can go beyond whether it's desired in a court of law. that goes well beyond our boundaries sothat's why i bring it up . let's get back on track with where we are supposed to be. >> we do havecommissioner hondas and is raised . should we finishthe rebuttal? >> i got a question . this is coming up so mister crannagh, when did this driver become disabled? >> i believe in 1997.

i don't want to speak for him. >> you're the department, if you're off a littlebit that's fine we know that predates your position . 1997, it's not 2002, somewhere 20 years later. is there a reason why he's been able to maintain a medallion? for 23 years? >> i don't know obviously my time with the agency that it predates the agency . >> in past cases we've seen that in 2003 the department tried revocation ofsimilar medallion holders because of disability . and at that point this board denied that and upheld their medallions. so i'm just wondering why it's so illegal and it's a matter of

fact this should not happen how have the department of health the medallion for 23 years. >> i think that's where the name comes in. i can't speak for any of my predecessors, i don't know . >> the reason the enforcement, is itbecause of you or the department there is a may there, someone has made that decision . who has made that decision? >> i initially made that recommendation to my directors in the report. it was based upon i will go to the but when i was first made aware of it i brought it tothe attention of my director . >> i have a question for the deputy city attorney . that question is you know, it's a little confusing with the pre-k stuff . according to what they said earlier that the legislation is

2015 and 2016 is changing the requirements. the question i have is if there's a rule in place and i my house and i set certain rules and after i buy the house they changed the rules. shouldn't the person that you sign something up in 2000 or whatever is and they changed the law after thatpoint , does that make, that means that doesn't matter ofthe agreement prior, that the new agreement is in place . >> that would be on a case-by-casebasis commissioners . sometimes whatever the license can be grandfathered in. or the piece of legislation can make its findingsthat the house

should be applied retroactively which is retrospectively . but i want to point out i think the key here is that even though that section 1118 may have been amended at that time, i think the critical points to look at his what does the prop came italian, when those were issued, when those were issued what wasrequired ? what was the full-time driving requirement? >> sorry to interrupt but what's been said is the intent was further clarified in 2015 and 2016 with a modification of the legislation indicating that you needed and a part of the california driverslicense . if i signed up for a program a and then the boundaries and the goalposts move, that's what i'm

trying to have you explain to me. in 2015 and 16 they amended the code or the piece of legislation so basically the agreement that they made prior no longer counts. is that what we're saying here? >> i would not say that.i would say action 1118 which is anenforcement sectionin the code . that was amended . that may change with respect to what efforts mta could do but with respect what's required to medallion holder, it wouldn't affect that. it wouldn't affect any of thos requirements . section 1118 is the enforcement mechanism. you're looking at 2015, 2016 and after that you look at what changed with respect to sfmta's ability to enforce, revoke, suspend or issue funds. >> so basically, the intent to drive that was originally the decision for it was there.

thatmechanism was there and then in 2016 , they basically change the enforcement rule retroactively the agreement they made earlier. >> i would be cautious. there is a requirement for a medallion then there's the enforcement. just because the enforcement mechanism changed does it mean any of the eligibility requirements. nothing has been cited that indicates that those requirements were met. >> we are now on the rebuttal for sfmta, you havethree minutes . >> i've heard you talking about proposition k. proposition k was a voter approvedinitiative in 1978 which created theclass of medallions we're talking about tonight . after that , i'm not sure of the act exact date that

proposition k was passed which brought taxis over to the mta. and the charter states section 88.101 that the taxi commission was transferred over to the mta and i'm reading now from their charter, the agency had shall have the same authority over taxi related fairs,budgets and personnel and it has over the mta . and the last sentence in that subsection, once adopted regulations shall supersede all previously adopted ordinance guarding motor vehicles for hire the board has sole jurisdiction to set the rules for taxis otherwise known as motor vehicles. >> thank you commissioners, this matter is submitted.

>> commissioners, i'll start. >> you understand my position. youmade the last boat, i'll leave it to you . >> commissioner lazarus. >> nothing to add. >> my position remains the same as well. i continue tostruggle with these cases . particularly because of the ada situation that all of these pieces tend have in common. the fact that there was an understanding 100 percent mister crenna that a lot of the cases preceded your tenure at sfmta but the fact that the medallion holders were able to

maintain their medallions for a while. and again, i appreciate arguments on both sides that on the one hand it can be perceived as a privilege that they were able to maintain their medallions. for sfmta positions in error but i think that it does as evidenced in the previous case i mister crannagh, your predecessor. this perception that what these medallion holders have been doing doesn't sit in compliance with city regulations. and then more recently having that rolled up and and overturned i think is disconcerting for folks who have you know, the perception and the belief that this is a component of their livelihood and part of their retirement plan . i think all of the so and

others but because commissioner lopez is not here i need to express it onceagain . so thereyou have it . >> you know my position. i don't find any change and i see the legalstatute . i understand the ada piece but as the city attorney has said, the ada pieces off the table because that's already been ruled upon by a court at a higher level than ourselves. we can't keep making new judgments based on something that's already been judged upon.

and it's sorrowful. that's why i'll stand. i'll make the same motion i did last time and i wonder whichway it will go ? not to be sarcastic or show humor in that. >> we have a motion from president swick to deny the appeal anduphold the determination on the basis it was properly issued . on that motion, vice president lazarus . [roll call vote] that motion fails 2to 2, do we have another motion on the table ? since we'll have another motion theunderlying determination is upheld as a matter of law . the appeal is denied.

we are now moving on to item number nine, appeal number 21 092, sfmta versus mark paulson appealing the issue to mark paulson, the statement of decision, sfmta versus mark paulson, transportation code requires drivers totake a drug test prior to issuing a a-card. mister paulson cannot qualify for a a-card which is required to maintain a medallion . mister paulson is in thailand and unableto travel to the us for a drug test due to the pandemic . he is not driving and does not pose a threat to the public. the sfmta has not established that mister paulson's medallion is eligible at the present time to beaver revoke underthe drug testing provision of the transportation code. in this case the sfmta is the

appellant so he we will hear from mister crannagh first . >> as mentioned this is medallion 65 which is a post came italian. it requires post came italian holders maintain at this a-card and in order to get it you must pass a drug test which is mandated by policy passed by the board which is in response to state law. so almost all taxidrivers must undergo drug testing as part of their renewal process . unfortunatelybecause mister paulson has been unable to complete the drug testing , we cannot renew his a-card. that is subject to state law and also policy and because he does not have a a-card that is the case for renewal before you today . >> we will now hearfrom mister paulsen. welcome, you have seven minutes .

>> can you hear me?>> we can. >> good morning. no, it's evening. let me read that here is my brief . dear board of appeals members, my name is mark paulsen and i am the current holder of taxi medallion365. i am 80 years old and a native san franciscan . i drove a taxi in san francisco for 42 years from 1970 until june 2012 when i was diagnosed at the age of 70 with defibrillation. of i also suffered from other medical conditions such as lower back problems and swelling of my legs when sitting. regarding the matter of drug test, mister crannagh stated in his appeal i madethe decision to live in a country where i am

unable to complete drug testing at this time . therefore i wish you inform the court of appeals i do not live in acountry where i am unable to complete drug testing . i live in a country that has some of the finest medical facilities in the world where i could have easily completed such drug testing and that there was no hesitancy on my part to do so. in fact, as i previously stated at my hearing on july 29 of last year, i would have been perfectly willing after i was fully vaccinated to submit to a drug test at any medical facility here in thailand that the sfmta might havespecified for such drug test and that i was also willing to pay for it . however it is now my position the san francisco municipal transportation agency taxi driver drug and alcohol testing policy as written is perfectly

legal but only as applies to taxi drivers who are actively engaged in the operation of motor vehicle for higher and does not in any way apply to thoseindividuals who are no longer actively involved in the taxi industry . in fact, as i understand it such drug testing policy is only constitutionally permissible when there's a valid public interest to be protected by it. in the case of retired medallion holders who are no longerdriving , there's no such complication to be protected because such individuals are no longer in this position and are not at any risk to public safety should they be physically or mentally disparaged. by the use of alcohol or drugs. therefore as such current agency policy implementation

seems to be illegal as it requires an unreasonable search. that having been said i wish to state for the record i am pretty much a teetotaler and i do not take any drugs other than those prescribed for me. i also wish to say that i have no intention of allowing myself to become a victim of systematic harassment by the san francisco municipal transportation agency against medallion holders like myself who are no longer able to drive . i'm not going to jump to any ridiculous or unnecessary hoops by flying halfway around the world just to urinate in a cup and if anyone at the sfmta is upset i my refusal to do so and i can only opine that they need psychiatric help. also, while i've got the floor, you read the fourth amendment to the united states constitution, it protects againstunreasonable searches .

so maybe mister craddock and tell me which reasonable about having me fly halfway around the world to urinate in a cup. you've got the floor. >> you still have more time, are you finished? >> yes. >> thank you. we will move on to public comments, isthere anyone hereto provide public comment on this item, please raise your hand . marcelo fonseca, please go ahead . >> again, came italian holder and again, calling in support of my colleagues, mark paulson. ifind his case very interesting . they say california requires cabdrivers to be drug tested. i support anybody who'sdriving

for hire to be drug tested . but how interesting that the city of san francisco, the mta, none of them are disabled members nor any of the 40 senators ever introduced legislation to require uber bar uber lyft drivers to be drug tested as well. i'm sharing that with you just to show you how unfair things are for members of the taxi industry . pre-k, both k, medallion holders. we all face these barriers, these difficulties and as mister paulsen stated thailand has very advanced clinical systems. he's not driving and he looks healthy but he has those health

issues that will stall him from driving so why not accept a drug test from thailand.why does he have to fly halfway around the world during a pandemicto be into a cup ? i know some of you have to interpretthe law but my goodness . i'm asking you show us some compassion. we deserve somedignity . i'm and i asked the mta for the same thingmy goodness, we deserve better than this . these rules can bechanged at every mta board meeting .it just doesn't make sense. this city took and the california legislature took the taxi industry for a ride. so i hope you'll be more

sensible this time.thank you. >> we will now hear from carl mcmurdo, please go ahead . >> if ever there were a case that could make a great make someone stir in his grave in the city of prague this would be it. as mark said the city's position is that he should fly across the world to urinate in the cup to prove he doesn't smoke pot and he's never going to drive a cab again anyway. i believe the issue in this case is he missed the deadline for filling out some paperwork. and he was trying to comply as i recall from the administrative hearing paperwork that he couldn't get vaccinated. he was on a list to get vaccinated because of covid but mta didn't care aboutsuch things . i don't know that the sloan decision will tie into this.

it might. but i want to say that from the previous case your deputy city attorney quoting the sloan decision.that's what judge lightner said that was replaced .that decision was appealed and the city did not fight to uphold judge white's ruling. you should not be quoting it as a basis for ruling in the favor of the city, what prevails is what's called the settlement agreement that deny the ninth circuit side and that does allow for disabled people. i think you've got it wrongbut thank you. >> we will now hear from robert mcdonough . please go ahead. you have to unmute yourself. >> it's very humbling that the

city attorney and mta are not aware of the ninth circuit decision and it just seems to me that because the ninth circuit decision went against them, they're denying it exist . yet these are attorneys. they are there to uphold the law and you should ask your city attorney to look at that. and if it is true, i believe you will have to dismiss the decisions you have made to revoke the decisions today because there is an accommodation and it would find on behalf of the city of san francisco and of the mta from attorney who is now a judge. and i think it would do well

for the city attorney to investigate. thank you. >> is there any further public comment on this item, please raise your hand. i don't see any so we will move on to remodel and hear from the appellants, sfmta. mister crannagh, you have three minutes. >> out note we did explore testing overseas with our contractor who performs the drug testing. unfortunately they are unable to verify those drug tests overseas. this was not the only driver who was overseas we did explore thatpossibility and unfortunately we were unable to do that . i don't have discretion on renewal of the a-card. i was able to pull up the federal code, california

government code section 53075 and also part for a for the code of federal regulations. thank you. >> thank you. we havea question from commissioner honda . >> so what the member of the public mentioned is he couldn't get vaccinated so because of that hecouldn't come and we had a worldwide pandemic . we're here on a video zoom call becauseof that pandemic so because he couldn't get vaccinated , thecity and county was not going to allow that to happen ? they were going to say he can't fly because you're not vaccinated so we're just going to restore. >> technically, yes. there's various circumstances. he happened to be overseas and

there were other holders overseas who had since returned and were able tocomplete the drug testing . >> but at the time, not opening up and people are able to travel to thailand just reduced their pitch for one dayduring five of the pandemic the city and county was not willing to extend it because he could not get vaccinated ? >> when these notices were mailed to the address of record i had noknowledge of any individual living overseas . >> thank you. >> we will nowhear from mister paulsen, you have three minutes . we can't hear you, you are on you. >> i don't think any of those laws about drug testing apply to retired drivers, ask drivers because they are non-safety

sensitive positions so i'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to us. that applies to people were flying airplanes, driving buses , operating heavy equipment to those who put the public at risk . the supreme court has pretty well ruled on that so i just don't think i'm required to take a drug test i may still be willing to do it if you can prove to me it would be a violation of my constitutional rights . i just see that i'm protected against unreasonable searches so if you can tell me what's reasonable about requiring me an 80-year-old was never going to drive a cab again. i'm not in asafety sensitive position. tell me what's reasonable about

compelling me to take a drug test ? i'll leave it atthat. >> we have a question from commissioner honda. >> question first of all to the permit holder . you look pretty good for an 80-year-old . >> i have a question for our cityattorney . so the question is that the sloan case has been mentioned many times that i remember at the first hearing we had in the previousbrief there was a settlement and the settlement , so you just in the part that you mentioned that we should uphold and if we don't going against the sloan decision but then what you just mentioned was in that decision it was appealed and the city gave in and i know that there was a settlement agreement and the ada was mentionedin that . can you explain that, are we

supposed to uphold the ada or not because the city evidently uphold it by agreeing to the settlement position. >> the settlement in that case was added to the plaintiffs, and i pulled up a board of appeals decision where it specifically addressed and i'm going to read what this board previously said. it said so at that time the board had continued a similar taxi case. >> is that the 2003 case? >> it is not commissioner. this was in 2009. and i just want to put critical language, i'm going to read it to you. at that time that the board continued to allow the outcome of a federal law which raises questions about the

applicability of the ada to the city's full-time driving requirement for medallions . on june 30 2008 the us district court ruled the full-time driving requirement is an essential eligibility requirements of the city's taxi medallion program and that the ada does not require the city to waive the driving requirement for people to drive because of a disability. a subsequent appeals decision was later dismissed at which time the decision of the district court became finalso the appeal was dismissed , and as to those plaintiffs only. that settlement was knocked to all medallion holders. it was to interested parties in the case. >> that's why wehave the smart law dogs like you .

>> we have aquestion from president tran five . >> president: i don't know if this question isappropriate . i'm pondering my question. i think commissioner lazarus posed this question before and i'll pose it to the medallion holder. why are we here? what is the value of this down into you? you can't drive anymore. that's 10 years behind you. i respect the fact that you did the work you did. so god bless the taxi drivers who keep our customers happy

and in san francisco, but what is the drive? what is the drive behind this initiative, no pun intended. what is pushing this so hard? we've established in previous cases that these medallions currently have no value. there's no market for them. i agree with the public commentator that i think you're absolutely right to complain that uber and lyft got special treatment and helped push the taxi drivers out of business . but that's not what we're here for. if the medallion has no value, you'renever going to use it

again , what are we here for? what are we here for? i'd like to get down to the brass tacks of this because you can't sell it. there's no money that you're going to getfor turning it in even if you could because there's no value . what are we here for ? >> i don't have a crystal ball and that question, that's not really relevant, that's a personal question. it's not really relevant to the issue at hand. theissue at hand is awant to take my medallion . why want to hang onto it, that'sirrelevant . it may come back, it may have value . >> i hesitated from asking the question but it was a question

that was not posed in this case, not posed in theprevious case, posed several weeks ago by commissioner lazarus . and as we sit here arguing vociferously on this, our legal thoughts, ourpersonal thoughts , as commissioner honda said we're talking about the future of your life. we take thatvery seriously . but that's why it entered my mind and if i insulted you by asking the question, it's perfectly okay but i just wanted to do it. >> that's kind of a personal question but you're asking for your owncuriosity. it doesn't pertain tothis case.

to answer your question , the value may come back. it may put money in my bank account . it would allow me to do things that i can't do right now that would befinancially beneficial to me . >> thank you very much for indulging my question and i apologize if idon't to personal .>> commissioners, this matter issubmitted . >> commissioner chang, i'll ask you first. i denied you in the last couple of questions. >> you haven't denied me. i think i've had my questions answered. i think my position remains the same, we don't dig into the details and i appreciate the

city attorney clarifying the results of the sloan case and the question that we all had with the mta . but i agree with the example in this argument that the permit holder may be. >> deputy city attorney marand , please go ahead. >> i don't mean to insult you by bringing this up but i want to make sure, i wanted to flag this for you. the procedural posture is different so the hearing officer denied sfmta's notice of renewal in this case which means medallion was not recovered. i wanted to clarify thatbecause usually it's different from some of the others .

>> in this case we're finding for theappellant . we would be taking his medallion away. and vice versa, if we deny the appeal, the medallion holder gets to hold on to his medallion. is that correct? anybody else have any comments or we can again make a motion. commissioner honda.>> all you, president. >> commissioner lazarus.

>> i'm a littleconflicted . but i think my instinct is to uphold the appeal. so grant the appeal for the sfmta? >> thank you. >> i'm granting the appeal in my view to be consistent with the other actions we have taken even though the situation declined and that's where i'm going. but it's tough to make that decision. >> to get us started i'd make the motion that i would need help from our director in awarding it. if iwant to grant the appeal and overturned the decision of thehearing officer , that's the

start . >> and overturned the determination on the basis, you have to provide a basis. >> on the basis that the failure to takethe drug test is in violation of the code . >> okay, so we have a motion from vice president lazarus. to overturn the determination on the basis thatthe failure to take the drug test is in violation of the code . >> again, to overturn his 4, zero. so one non-vote denies that act. correct? >> the motion would fail. >> i'd like some clarity on this because it's getting kind of late. >> the sfmta appellate because the hearing officer denied the notice of nonrenewal.

currently mister paulsen has his medallion. theyappealed that decision because they felt it should be taken away . vice president lazarus made a motion to grant the appeal which would in effect overturn the hearing officer's decision and the medallionwould go away . it would be revoked . she needs for votes. on thatmotion , commissioner honda.[roll call vote] that motion fails 2 to 2. do we hav another motion on the table ? if not the underlying decision by the hearingofficer is upheld .and the appeal of the mta is denied. that would conclude the hearing.

would you like to adjourn, president swig? >> president: i would love to adjourn, it's 9:00, it's great and we would see each other when? >> march 23 in person at city hall. >> president: i have to wear a coat and tie and look as good as commissioner honda. >> we will be talking before then. see you then. have a good evening everyone .

dev mission's goal is aiming to train young adults, youth so we can be a wealth and disparity in underserved communities like where we are today. my name is leo sosa. i'm the founder and executive director for devmission. we're sitting inside a computer lab where residents come and get support when they give help about how to set up an e-mail account. how to order prescriptions online. create a résumé. we are also now paying attention to provide tech support. we have collaborated with the

san francisco mayor's office and the department of technology to implement a broad band network for the residents here so they can have free internet access. we have partnered with community technology networks to provide computer classes to the seniors and the residents. so this computer lab becomes a hub for the community to learn how to use technology, but that's the parents and the adults. we have been able to identify what we call a stem date. the acronym is science technology engineering and math. kids should be exposed no matter what type of background or ethnicity or income status. that's where we actually create magic. >> something that the kids are really excited about is science and so the way that we execute that is through making slime. and as fun as it is, it's still a chemical reaction and you start to understand that with

the materials that you need to make the slime. >> they love adding their little twists to everything. it's just a place for them to experiment and that's really what we want. >> i see. >> really what the excitement behind that is that you're making something. >> logs, legos, sumo box, art, drawing, computers, mine craft, and really it's just awaking opportunity. >> keeping their attention is like one of the biggest challenges that we do have because, you know, they're kids. they always want to be doing something, be helping with something. so we just let them be themselves. we have our set of rules in place that we have that we want them to follow and live up to. and we also have our set of expectations that we want them to achieve. this is like my first year officially working with kids. and definitely i've had moments where they're not getting something. they don't really understand it and you're trying to just talk

to them in a way that they can make it work teaching them in different ways how they can get the light bulb to go off and i've seen it first-hand and it makes me so happy when it does go off because it's like, wow, i helped them understand this concept. >> i love playing games and i love having fun with my friends playing dodge ball and a lot of things that i like. it's really cool. >> they don't give you a lot of cheese to put on there, do they? you've got like a little bit left. >> we learn programming to make them work. we do computers and programming. at the bottom here, we talk to

them and we press these buttons to make it go. and this is to turn it off. and this is to make it control on its own. if you press this twice, it can do any type of tricks. like you can move it like this and it moves. it actually can go like this. >> like, wow, they're just absorbing everything. so it definitely is a wholehearted moment that i love experiencing. >> the realities right now, 5.3 latinos working in tech and about 6.7 african americans working in tech. and, of course, those tech companies are funders. so i continue to work really hard with them to close that

gap and work with the san francisco unified school district so juniors and seniors come to our program, so kids come to our stem hub and be exposed to all those things. it's a big challenge. >> we have a couple of other providers here on site, but we've all just been trying to work together and let the kids move around from each department. some kids are comfortable with their admission, but if they want to jump in with city of dreams or hunter's point, we just try to collaborate to provide the best opportunity in the community. >> devmission has provided services on westbrook. they teach you how to code. how to build their own mini robot to providing access for the youth to partnerships with adobe and sony and google and twitter. and so devmission has definitely brought access for

our families to resources that our residents may or may not have been able to access in the past. >> the san francisco house and development corporation gave us the grant to implement this program. it hasn't been easy, but we have been able to see now some of the success stories of some of those kids that have been able to take the opportunity and continue to grow within their education and eventually become a very successful citizen. >> so the computer lab, they're doing the backpacks. i don't know if you're going to be able to do the class. you still want to try? . yeah. go for it. >> we have a young man by the name of ivan mello. he came here two and a half years ago to be part of our digital arts music lab. graduating with natural, fruity

loops, rhymes. all of our music lyrics are clean. he came as an intern, and now he's running the program. that just tells you, we are only creating opportunities and there's a young man by the name of eduardo ramirez. he tells the barber, what's that flyer? and he says it's a program that teaches you computers and art. and i still remember the day he walked in there with a baseball cap, full of tattoos. nice clean hair cut. i want to learn how to use computers. graduated from the program and he wanted to work in i.t.. well, eduardo is a dreamer. right. so trying to find him a job in the tech industry was very challenging, but that didn't stop him. through the effort of the office of economic work force and the grant i reached out to

a few folks i know. post mates decided to bring him on board regardless of his legal status. he ended his internship at post mates and now is at hudacity. that is the power of what technology does for young people that want to become part of the tech industry. what we've been doing, it's very innovative. helping kids k-12, transitional age youth, families, parents, communities, understand and to be exposed to stem subjects. imagine if that mission one day can be in every affordable housing community. the opportunities that we would create and that's what i'm

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of

food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo

and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those

local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ] i'm nicole and lindsey, i

like the fresh air. when we sign up, it's always so gratifying. we want to be here. so i'm very excite ied to be here today. >> your volunteerism is appreciated most definitely. >> last year we were able to do 6,000 hours volunteering. without that we can't survive. volunteering is really important because we can't do this. it's important to understand and a concept of

learning how to take care of this park. we have almost a 160 acres in the district 10 area. >> it's fun to come out here. >> we have a park. it's better to take some of the stuff off the fences so people can look at the park. >> the street, every time, our friends. >> i think everybody should give back. we are very fortunate. we are successful with the company and it's time to give back. it's a great place for us. the weather is nice. no rain. beautiful san

francisco. >> it's a great way to be able to have fun and give back and walk away with a great feeling. for more opportunities we have volunteering every single day of the week. get in touch with the parks and recreation center so come

>> the hon. london breed: all right, everybody. how's everyone doing today? i'm london breed. i'm mayor of san francisco, and i'm really glad to be here today to honor an extraordinary san franciscan and an extraordinary human being, jack jaque. [applause] >> the hon. london breed: now here's the thing about jack. we know, president of the board of supervisors shamann walton has honored him. we know that people with tryi