hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. hmm. okay okay okay good good good good evening, al to the aprilhe aprilhe april 26g of of of of of the san francisco boardco bof appeals.appeals.appeals.appealsg will be the be the be the be prr tonight. he willhe willhe wil bd shortly byortl vice presidentess lopez also also also als presens commissioner alex limburglimburg commissioner john trasvina andvi commissioner jr eppler.eppler.eo presidentesident is deputy city attorneyattorneyatto, gen. hubel providingovidingovidingovidingoy needed legal advice at the controls is the is the is the il assistant, alec long way and i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presented before the board this evening. tina tan, the deputies only administrator representing the planning department, and matthew green, chief building inspector, with the department building inspection, the board meeting guidelines are as follows the

board request that you turn off for silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the board's rules of presentation are as follows appellants permit holders and department respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public court not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal time may be limited to two minutes of the agendas long or if there are a large number of speakers. mr long way. our legal system will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up for votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. if you have questions about requesting a re hearing the board rules are hearing schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at sf gov .org. now public access and participation are paramount importance to the board sfpd tvs, broadcasting and streaming this hearing live and we will have the ability to

receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. as a tv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch the hearing on tv. go to s f t v cable channel 78 please note that will be rebroadcast on fridays at four pm on channel 26 . a link to livestream is found on the home page of our website at sf gov .org forward slash b away public comment can be provided in three ways. one in person to via zoom, go to our website and click on the zoom link or three by telephone call 1669 906 833 and enter webinar. i'd 8537387. and again sftu tv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the livestream or broadcast to block your phone number when calling in for style star 67 than the phone number. listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star night start nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hands so that we know you want to speak. you will

be brought into the hearing. what is your turn? you may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes, depending on the length agenda, and the volume of speakers are legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcasting live streamed on tv and the internet. therefore it's very important that people calling and reduce her turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. otherwise there is interference with the meeting. if any of the participants are attendings on zoom needed disability, accommodation or technical systems. you can make a request in the chat function to alc long way the board's legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals of sf .org. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comments or opinions. please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public were physically present in the hearing room. now we will swear or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you

intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony, evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or a firm. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. okay thank you. if you are a participant, you're not speaking. please put your zoom speaker on mute. so commissioners we do have one housekeeping item item number four. appeal number 23-9 property 18 70 market street has been withdrawn by the appellant so we will not be hearing that case this evening. so we will be moving on to item number one. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction. but that is not on tonight's calendars there. any member of the public here who would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda , okay, i see a number of hands raised on zoom. we'll start with

. mr barrie, toronto. mr toronto . are you here for general public comment. yes, okay. okay, there is an a. a item on, um, but i'm gonna try and talk differently from the topic of the last item. i have held that class. i have to participate in line, but i'll try and monitoring but the reason is that the general public comment is, uh, you're talking about the letter on your on your agenda item, and i'm going to talk about the last week's empty a board meeting. uh or to say that that first the. this your body should have been informed that, uh, that they were going to have this on the agenda when you when you met on the 12th. i listened to your recording. and you're recording. uh you guys are really compassionate and really wonderful human beings, and unfortunately, i don't see that happening with the with the with

the m t a board. um and so the thing is, i'm concerned about the lack of communication that's going on regarding, uh, possible actions by the t a board. to i am very much concerned. that um , with julie julie rosenberg used to be the head of the hearing division of the m t. a and her knowledge, intimate knowledge of how it works. and the fact that there was some interference. with with the with the hearing process by the city attorney's office. i think my concern is not what it's not whether she recused herself, but that that her intimate knowledge of how it works should be included in your future discussions on this topic, because, um is it because your decisions in the past him have been very appreciative and have have have served a very

important purpose in terms of giving people the benefit for the doubt and fair hearings, and that is all i have to say for now. thank you. thank you, president swig just for the record like to state that mr toronto made the same allegation previously, and we've had advice from the city attorney. i am not a decision maker on any of the taxi matters, and it's not necessary to recuse myself from participating, so we'll go on to the next speaker. phone number ending in 1405, please go ahead. our truck. a nice herc. what what? what appeal that? process have been in the night through any other permit holders. okay, mr nygaard, i guess i'm just a little concerned that the taxi people are speaking during general public comment. we have a taxi item number six. president yahoo independent question. but you're talking

about the hearing process before the board of appeals. i think that's the topic of the items. six yes, mistakes question, ma'am. what is there any other city permit holder who was bent at night? okay, pills. okay is that your general public comments, sir? yeah okay. thank you. thank you for your question . uh anybody else who's in general public comment? we agenda eyes the m t a letter for a purpose. and that is, uh, that is to allow public comment on the topic that it it addresses that is regularly agendas item. it will be coming up later in the hearing, and so if you have any public comment, which has to do with the m t a, uh, the letter that we sent and which was responding to or any other. um commentary surrounding that

issue. would you please preserve those comments until the final item is heard? and you? you will be offered the opportunity to speak. thank you very much. okay mr. mcmurdo, please go ahead. thanks. juliette actually have no idea whether my comments are going to be allowed under item once, so just let me know if it's conflicting with items mr mcmurdo if they have to do if the word taxi is uttered. if the word if the three letters m to are uttered, then i would make the assumption that, um they're under item four for the our final item, please. um i was gonna briefly run down history of the medallion developments. but would that not be allowed now? i will. i would love to hear that whole commentary. and i think it would be, um, beneficial for ourselves and for the public to have it that

comment, uh, after the final item is heard because there will be some continuity and tie in with your thoughts. okay thank you. that's what i do it under item six is what you said. yes please. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. is there anyone here for general public comment, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands race, so we'll move on to item number two commissioner comments and questions you missed your mr trasvina. thank you, president swig. i just want to note that today is ah administrative professionals day and we are tremendously served throughout the year and for those of you in the public or closer to watch us , there are two people in particular behind the scenes, although one is right here in front of us, alex long way. our legal assistant who manages to run the screen and then keep this move these meetings going exceedingly well. also i want to, um, recognized our law clerk

zm ottoman here. both do tremendous work for us, and i want to express my appreciation because the brown act i can't say i am speaking for everybody, but i think, uh, i think without fear of contradiction. ah this is our our sentiments. i want to thank both of them and let the public know that we have some very hardworking administrative professionals at at the at the commission. thank you. thank you for your care commissioner. anybody else have any comments? my only comment is i wish the golden state warriors, uh, the best of success tonight. and during the break, anybody has a score. if we last that long you can. you can volunteer that score to us. thank you. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? i see one. are you here, sir? for public comment on this? no okay, so i see one hand raised on zoom denny floor. please go ahead. yes. thank you so very much. i am. um i am in

this room because i believe that, um we need in this city spaces like the greenway. okay, mrs. floor are you here for the mission? greenway case. yes that's we're not. we don't have that case. right now. we're on commissioner comments and questions so please hold off until we call it okay? thank you. thank you so much. thank you. okay is there any other public comment? okay saying none will move on to item number three commissioners before you for discussion. possible adoption of the minutes of april 12 2023 meeting. ministers don't hear motion. or any questions. i moved to adopt the minutes as presented. okay is there any public comment on that motion? please raise your hand. okay there's no public comments. so on that motion, vice president lopez pena commissioner. apple

er president. swig motion carries 5 to 0 in the minutes are adopted. and so as i previously said, item number four, the appeal has been withdrawn. so we are now moving on to item number five. this is appeal number 23-8 friends of the mission. greenway versus department of building inspection planning department approval. subject property 9 57 treat avenue, appealing the issuance on march 2nd 2023 to 17th and peralta llc. of an alteration permit replace damaged gate in kind north of the lot, approximately 16 ft wide and eight ft. tall this is permit number 20 to 3030229. and we will hear from that pelant first before we commence, please . i'd like to ask the city attorney to help set some ground rules and give advice. both to the commission. hmm and to the interested parties, uh, as as well as, uh, guide us on

expectations. um uh, first off. can you can you clarify? based on what we are here. to do tonight. oh, what yes, within our jurisdiction. or or what? what we what we aim to do tonight. and what we are empowered to do tonight. and then secondly, um, would you please comment? given that this is a seems to be a, uh there's some land used issues in here. where is our jurisdiction with regard to land use issues and what should our pasture as a commission? be with regard to land use discussions tonight and . our ability or or not to deal with things like land use issues. thank you. thank you.

president swig the issue before the board is a narrow one, and that is whether or not to overrule dbs grant of the permit to replace the damaged gate and fence. the party's briefing addresses some issues of ownership of the parcel at issue easement rights, access to the parcel and its future. the issues of property rights are not before the board. the board does not possess the authority to rule on property rights outside of the permit that is before it. ah, the appellant has also requested that future applications by the permit holder be red flagged by d. b i in order to prevent future applications. this request, like land use issues, is also outside of the issue before the board, which authority in this case is limited to the single permit appeal before it. so. in saying

that one. what we're talking about is the permit approval or not of a gate one and two that everything else is should be considered a civil issue and would fall under the jurisdiction of a civil court. that is correct. and i appreciate that clarification. presidents wigs, i meant to mention that as well, the issues of ownership of the property. these men access is an is a matter for the civil court to decide not miss board something we can't touch. that's correct. thank you. commission. limburg has a question. i do. um i just wanted to because this is a appeal of a b permit. i see miss tam here. i do not see representative of db. i hear he's attending via zoom great, okay? never mind. thank you. okay thank you. so we'll now hear from the appellant. so the representative for the appellant is elizabeth creeley. welcome you have seven minutes. thank

you very much. um presidents wig . i'd like to submit these exhibits for the administrative record. um keeping in mind the narrowness of the decision tonight we have still prepared a statement that will take me. hopefully only six minutes to read. it goes beyond the scope of the power of this committee. um if i don't know, i'm just going to read what i've prepared. we are very, very conscious that you can only make a narrow decision. um here tonight on the pyramid that was issued, so i'm just gonna proceed. um my name is elizabeth creeley. i'm a board member of friends of the mission. greenway. a 13, or 14, year resident of the mission district. i live in 22nd street in florida with my husband, jay martin, and i'm here to make three main points tonight. 17th and peralta llc, also known as monkey brains. also referred to

as the permit holder in this statement. does not own 9 57 treat and on that basis and on the lack of their recorded ownership. cannot be allowed to build. or construct an iron gate. on that parcel. they are not. additionally they are not qualified to obtain permits to build a private iron gate. sorry, i'm fussing with the microphone a little bit. the permit holder. has no easement and none of the prescriptive easements mentioned in their brief have been recorded. we conclude that they do not exist. finally the historic use of the parcel, as stated in their brief is not accurate. the parcel has never served as a commercial parking lot, hosting a fleet. it has largely for its 117 year history. conveyed foot traffic through the neighborhood. so to

speak to the permit. alex menendez, current permit holder and the applicant for the same states in his brief that he signed the application as an agent of the contractor. not of the lot. but we believe that this is insufficient. we know that san francisco building code section 10 68.3 point one states that to obtain a permit, the applicant shall first file an application signed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent. alex fernandez falsely identified himself as the owners were up. of 957 treat avenue when he applied for the permit on march 2nd. to jimmy chung of the planning review services of the department of building inspections. who sent us an email on march 6th stating the following and i would like to introduce this as a visual is that up? there we go and remember this project and did ask his role on the project. and

he stated he was the owners. rep. or representative. if he lied. you can appeal the permit after it's issued and that's why we're here today. and i quote from the permit holders brief the owners of the properties adjoining parcel 36, which is almost a colloquial term for the parcel that runs from 22nd street to 23rd. in between harrison entry we use personal 36 to describe it. the owners of the properties adjoining parcel 36 object to our. they are basically stating that the, um that they have support by adjacent owners to repair the fence. and enclosed a lot over which they have recorded and prescriptive easement rights and there are a number of mischaracterizations of, uh, in this passage. and this is, however, where we get into firmly rebutting the notion that there are recorded easements, which i understand very clearly or beyond the scope of this hearing. ah um so i'll continue

. if that's okay, um okay? the prescriptive is it's mentioned in the brief hold no actual writes the burden of proof lies with the adjacent property owners. and as yet that responsibility has gone unmet. there are zero legal documents, there is no legal documentation. that have been shown to prove any easements. we are unable to find any recorded easement for celia. say no, for example, in any city records. well some adjacent property owners have shown support for the permit holder. others have not outlets stair building, which is one of the oldest properties on the joining the parcel is not a part of this brief and has withheld their approval or interest in two parent repairing offense that they do not deem to be damaged. the permit holder claims that the parcel has been fenced off from the public for decades. the current fence was erected 40 years ago in 1981 by

the southern pacific transportation company, wouldn't they thought they had clear title? this is later shown to not be the case. this parcel since then, until fairly recently, has mostly been accessible simply because the gate has been open. there are numerous community memories. they will appear in the letters of support. one of them is from our neighbor, edward, who has lived a block from the parcel since 1987, he says. i remember when the railroad tracks were still occasionally used by trains when they weren't used by trains. the route along beside the track was was used for pedestrian used as a pedestrian right of way, and sometimes there's open space for children to play. the permit holder refers to a legal case and illegal code. however none of these references are applicable to this appeal. polski versus gormley ruling deals with a fence cutting through an easement build by the property owner rather than the easement holder, who had a recorded easement on their deed or in their deed, and additionally,

the dolce key case deals with offense going up within an easement property, whereas permit the permit holder aims to build a private gate as a non easement holder on the property they do not own. in the dusky case, defense does not contain a gate, just a 40 ft wide opening. we refute the california civil code quoted 8 41 by the fact that this appeal is not about fences or other monuments of so called adjoining land owners. the 22nd street gate does not separate landowners. it separates the parcel from a public sidewalk. california civil code. 8 45 is refuted by the fact that the permit holder failed to demonstrate and has continued to fail to demonstrate recorded easement. maritime. our work reflects the intent to represent and protect the interests of the neighborhood. we have created a public forum for the community long ignored in any of the private plans of

the current and proper former property owners are joining the parcel. our petition advocating for the greenway has gained nearly 2000 signatures. this parcel has been annexed and secured from any community serving uses. and hopefully with this hearing, and others will give the neighbors of this parcel of forum to express what we've long observed. they want to shape the future of this parcel. thank you. you'll have with each other. thank you have seven minutes. have a question from commissioner lemberg so please stay at the podium. thank you so much for your presentation in a certainly appreciate all of your organization advocacy on this subject. um i did want to ask because we're addressing the gate tonight, and that's what's before us. do you have a photograph of the gate as it sits today? i believe we do. i was looking again through the submitted matters, and i was not able to see the gate specifically. could we show you multiple photos of the gates? that would be great. thank you.

or what you want to submit. we have a range. photos. we will show you. first or two photos of um so the fact is that this supposedly damaged gates there was a small dent. and the dentist existed. the photos, okay. great testimony. you can do that in rebuttal. you have plenty of time. thank you. photo. turn it towards you as if you're looking at it. it's up. it's upset. yeah. this is from 2018. before the dense. and this is from 2019 with the dents. so that was four years ago. good for you. and yes, so just to

clarify. i know the members of the public and all of their does not have access to this parcel currently correct anymore or if sorry, not anymore, or if they do it is because we are on the parcel. unlocking it. they used to have access now. it's intermittent. unless we're on there on the parcel. what do you mean? unless we're on the personal what is unless we are there to unlock the other gate on treat avenue. they do not normally have access to it. they being the public? they being the public. okay um, so there's a second gate that also allows access to the same personal that's correct. there's a gate that opens onto treat. near 23rd street. okay but obviously that's not the what's before us tonight. that's correct, ok? um i think that's all i've got. thank you have a question from commissioner trasvina. thank you. thank you for your testimony. i just have a couple

of questions. you've made clear in your testimony. why you think monkey brains 17th and peralta. shouldn't have the ability to seek a permit. can you explain for us and for the public? what's the basis of your uh, being here. no one has a legal right to be on that personal. currently we are not the owners and we're very clear on that are claimed to being our claim to having an interest in the parcel , i would argue, lays in our residency around the parcel and our interaction with the district in general. that's where it lays as community members and as people who want to have a say. and how space is shaped in our city. but we are very clear that we do not have title. and as to the. subject of the permit, which is a gate. is

your objection to the gate? or is it to the entity that filed the application or objection is that someone who does not own the property is constructing a gate on it. so was there equal? is there equal objection to the substance of the permit, as opposed to the permit seeker. yeah. it could be anyone applying for this permit, and we wouldn't have this issue. i'm not aware that there is any i think it's a basic understanding of private property that unless you own it you you don't construct on it normally in order to you, do you build on it? were objecting to a permit being granted to a non owner. i would say that that's our primary objection. okay and so what is what is the harm to your

organization? if you could tell us what the harm of europe to the organization is. have access also believe that monkey brains is, um because they paid back taxes on the land. we believe that they are seeking adverse possession and that this gate is a part of that. okay um, i have one of the one of the questions as as the city attorney has noted, and our president swig has noted, we have limited role here. can. when we started district elections back in the seventies, we kind of looked at the district supervisors to help out with legal problems with the city. get agencies together, make the bureaucracy more. uh more, uh, responsive. uh i can i have the toner 58 pages that i read of the record. there's a lot of frustration on all sides of this, can you uh huh. and it helps me understand why people

are here. if. the doors were closed to them elsewhere, so i'm wondering if you could share briefly. what you're what the activities have been by organization by your organization to get this issue resolved with other parts of the city agencies or the or the district supervisor. certainly and to be clear again. we do understand that we're here because you have the authority to revoke a permit. that's primarily why we're here. um we would normally work with supervisor hillary ronan's office and did in fact, have a series of meetings with her and her then aid amy byner. i believe this was in 2018 or 2019 , and those conversations were fruitful and they were helpful. amy has left hillary ronan's office and to date we have not found the same reception. um to our assertion that what the neighborhood wants is a

pedestrian through way, not a commercial parking lot, which is what we think it's, uh planning what which is what we think they're planning on transforming it in short. we have worked with her office. it was dependent on her aid. thank you, sir. can i add to that we have a you wanted to follow up to that question, or you have a question. now i want to give additional information if that's okay. thank you. um so the fact is that the ssc for this parcel is a company that stopped existing almost 100 years ago, the john center company, the city started assessing that company five years ago, and, of course, the texas went delinquent. because there is no error of this company paying the taxes. so for years the supervisor told us, you know, we just simply have to wait for enough years to go by for enough delinquent taxes to be wrecked up. and then we as the city have have the authority. to go to the next

step right, which would be auctioning off the lands. so for years this was our assumption that this would happen until this corporation monkey brains walked in and paid five years of back taxes. initially lying about that too. emission local reporter, um so they removed that whole possibility that you know. hillary ronen and others were assuming was going to happen moving forward and at this point there is no agency who wants to touch this issue. it's essentially like a legal vacuum. there's no agency that's going to go out of its way to solve this issue. so this is a david and goliath fight where we are community volunteers. fighting a multimillion dollar corporation that is going to move their entire fleet of trucks onto this parcel that they do not own that they do not have any legal rights to thank you. thank you, ma'am. what is your name for the record? my name is laura hanna. laura harmon. okay, thank you. we also

have a question from vice president lopez. yeah. thank you, um just. to kind of focusing on on one of the prongs of your argument if we're setting aside the questions of ownership questions of adverse possession. one of the points that you just made was was access right? and that's one of the issues with with the permit. um and it was. it was news to me that there was there was a separate gate. that that you your group apparently controls, which also provides access. no we don't control it. okay. can you tell me you do have access to it? the gate about the gate on towards on treat street. sure the gate on treat street is like the one that is currently on 22nd street. it's a chain link

fence. um and what we have been able to do. occasionally. is daisy chain. the existing lock, which we do not have a key to with a lock that we do have a key to. it's a very simple technology that i have not mastered. ah my colleagues have and this is allowed us to access the parcel. from that side. it only works if that luck. is. on the lasted, which isn't always the case, and that is how we've gained access. and. yeah for many years, but i think what is important to point out is that the pattern of use and access is very much that of it of a neighborhood. there's a neighborhood patterns and habits that are set into place, and until recently that gate was

often left open, as was the 22nd street gate. i've lived in the neighborhood since 2004. and by and large for the last i mean, until very recently, you would walk down 22nd street, the gate would be open. and no. one find anything of it. and so does that make sense. i think i think most of that makes sense to me. but so just to clarify the gate in question under the permit that that is currently closed. the gate in question. the chain link fence on 22nd street is currently closed. there have recently been a lock that we don't have access to um, very big lock that we cannot. just a sec and, um it is closed now. it is closed. now it needs to be point pointed out that we have

in the past three weeks. contacted monkey brains. with what we thought was a compromise position, a combination lock that would allow us to share codes. secure the gates, largely in deference to the neighbor's needs for security. and sadly, this didn't work. we weren't taken up on our offer of this compromise. so to your question currently, the 22nd street gate is not. i would say it's not accessible to us and better just to when we're clarifying question. are there any other gates that provide access to the space? yes so there's one gate on each right. this is a diagonal parcel. there's an entrance on treats and entrance on 22nd street. um until just a few weeks ago, the entrance on treats avenue would be open during the day. um the adjacent preschool would open that so that they could park there and then because of that, it was also accessible to the public

and we off and we had this daisy chain system, which often worked and sometimes it didn't. the other side, the gating question on 22nd street. is open during the week because monkey brains keeps you know, adding their own private lock to it, which they opened during the day because they have their workers come in to renovate their building. so by you know them coming in. it's open and then at night, they either lock it or they leave it unlocked. and we have started a neighborhood effort when we have noticed that the gate is left unlocked or sometimes even wide open, which we also have documentation of we started. we started a neighborhood like texting thread between a couple of people so that we can make sure that the gate is locked. one of us will lock it. and then we'll remove our you lock in the morning because of monkey brains gets there before us. they'll simply cut through our lock. we've asked them. here we're going to put a combination lock on here. we're going to send you

the codes and the responses that they cut or open that lock that they have to combination code two and then at the end of the day, either don't bother locking the gates or putting their own private lock onto this gates again for property. they have zero legal rights to okay. did you? did she answer the question ? i think that coverage okay. we have one more question from president swig. alright i'm gonna try to run this down. so we go into allow you to go into , um, your your your next, um, conversation in ah! and so we're all clear on the subject, basically so one no one knows who owns anything, right? that's correct. uh no one knows who has an easement. who doesn't have an easement. san francisco assessor's office has the recorded easements for that parcel as a part of their their record and who who has

easements. uh there are no recorded easements on along the parcel, according to the san francisco assessor's office. we know that there are no easements , according to the assessor's office is why i'm running down this list. thank you. it's good piece of information. um uh, we it seems because we're reading the materials and then hearing all the local school comes in and use it. use it for the kids and there was anecdotal throughout hmm. really use of the and then monkey brains uses it for their purposes and others who are on the adjacent to the property. use it for their purposes, so it wouldn't be fair to say that usage is arbitrary. yeah yeah. okay so no undefined uses, and everything is very arbitrary. according to nobody, no law, no jurisdiction,

etcetera. it's the wild west. yes or no. that's correct. that the thing that interested me was, um the that yes, monkey brains is has volunteered. i use that word loosely to build a gate and to fund that gate and your response in testimony to that was we. we don't want them to fund the gate and my parents and my paraphrasing of your testimony. if uh if the san francisco foundation came in and the benevolence of one of their donors said we love that neighborhood and we see this broken down gate. we would love to build the new gate for you to secure that space during those hours where it may be a safety risk where the general health and welfare of that parcel would

be undermined for various reasons, and we know about street activity in the city right now and what we are all experiencing and unmanaged spaces. um would you disagree with you agree to anybody building a gate on that took a look at the department of public works and he blight ordinance, and it seems that they have broad latitude from the city to address issues exactly like this one. that was not my that was not my question. would you object? to funding from anybody to build a gate that would have a positive effect on that land to keep it from being delighted. being black would we would not object to a neutral party. i will offer that we are five oh one c three, uh and fully capable of raising funds in the neighborhood who have already become used to us. because we canvas if it was you who raised the money and monkey brains contributed to that that fund to

you as a fiber. one c three uh, would you would you? would you disagree to yourself building a gate? right there. i'm sorry. can you restate that? alright if wait, wait. don't interrupt, because really confuses us. thanks. um so if it was yourselves with funding from monkey brains, as well as other community based other community members to allow you as a fiber. one, say three to build that gate. would you accept your own money to build that gate? we would. if it included access, we would if it included access. final question. you're you're my marvelous foil tonight, um, terms and conditions. if, if a permit. yeah, because i am going to ask the city attorney if we can do this uh, if a permit included terms and conditions related to access. are are are

are you against this permit? terms and conditions that you would like. do you know? i really love the vision behind that question, and i absolutely can see a route towards contractual basis for equal access to a gate. i will say my personal opinion. the gate is doing a magnificent job. of keeping. homeless encampment from springing up. i don't except. that it's damaged. it's about his damaged as the chain link fence in my backyard. but however answering it depends on the depends on the conditions and it depends on the basis of that contract terms and conditions if we could find an amicable terms and conditions or in terms of conditions that we could play sponder as illegal as as a quasi legal body. ah that would be i would move in the

right direction for myself. if it included access, i would be favorable to it again. i do want to say very much. i always prefer to look at conditions before i agree to them broadly, but i can't see how that could be a way forward. i may be alone in this opinion, but thank you. we can continue the conversation when you speak again? about seven minutes. thank you. thank you. you can be seated. we will hear from the permanent holders wanted to submit the evidence as administrative record. do you sure. thank you. sure. welcome. you have seven minutes. hmm. this me here? thank you. um first of all, and say thank you to julie and to tina tam for helping us to this process. we've never done a b o a before and there was some information that was conveyed. that was very helpful. thank you, um, after hearing that i got i have to switch this around a little bit.

i'll do my best. uh as far as what i prepared, given the narrow scope of what we have to focus on, um, monkey brains. 17 pro tell c has a unique interest in parcel 36 because it um we bought a building and the major investment in building to stabilize our business. we're currently renters of office space and our selection, say shop space in san francisco, and we wanted to stabilize that, given that our landlord currently is threatening to sell the building and not to us. so we were excited to find this warehouse and parcel 36 with this warehouse rather has to loading docks on the back of the building, which happened to be on personal 36. those loading docks have been in continuous use for a period of seven years. for loading and unloading of material and for the last 20 years, so for parking ah, we were excited to finally have a building that allowed us to do the activities that we do, which basically involves loading and

unloading of vehicles into a shop space and storage. um we are we the way we understand it is that we have a legal right to you protected use of that lot in the sense that predecessors had used that a lot of certain way and that use should still continue through to argues today . um the way we understand the fencing code, and we're not lawyers, but you know the best that we can understand it. it sounds like adjoining property owners have a right to maintain and repair, fencing and other structures around them as well as um, you know, if there is something that is damaged and causing a risk health and safety risk, if for risk to our business or risk to our employees risk the adjoining property owners we have the ability to remedy that. uh as far as we understand it, we found no requirement in the sf in a civil code, the limits whom may obtain offense permit, um

beside the, um you know, the president that was cited by elizabeth earlier about the california supreme court. um we've not getting into easements because i know we're not supposed to touch on that too much, but we believe that we have a right of use, and that right of use includes maintenance. you wanna, uh, we do have an easement on the property and, um, all the adjoining properties that, um ah! access this lot have easements on it, and they have had them. um uh, we have, uh, we reached recently purchased the property, but through tacking we have the he's been the easement was passed on to us from the previous owners. and the mission gets coop has been there for five years are we, the previous owners and monkey brains has been there for, um, 50 years or so. and we've we've had continuous uninterrupted use of the of the land and its been

open notorious hasn't been hidden. no one has objected to us using the land, and, uh um uh , it's adverse to the interests of the owners who was who are currently unknown. i know we're not talking about who, uh, ownership of the land. however the, um using a fence to protect your easement access is part of the california code, and i don't think that we can overlook that. and again. our goal here is to secure the area to not, you know, create a health and safety risk. by denying this sorry by affirming this appeal. basically what we're saying is that the gate is better in its current state, which is broken and dented and, frankly, a blight on the community. um, i mean, we're trying to make things better do this lawfully where we're trying to go through the permitting process where, including city oversight and involvement, which is what we want to do. we're getting permits for the

construction we're doing. it seemed natural to get permit for this as well. um, you know, i heard in the appellant's, um, presentation that we're trying to transform this into parking. uh this is parking. i believe the opponent is trying to transform this into a park. ah we've met with the district nine supervisor um hillary ronen came to the lot. we walked around. and um, you know, she noted that there was a lot of issues with this, but that she was very excited about the pdr company like monkey brains coming to the district because our mission and what we do and the jobs that we provide are consistent with, you know, prop x and what you know, for instance, 24 latino cultural district looks for in a business coming into this area. um again. this is about offense. it's about repair of offense. we think we're being good neighbors by repairing it. issues of access. um are beyond the scope of this. and as a company, we

have negotiated many access agreements on properties where a utility company and we often negotiate with private owners of land. to gain access to their building. we have templates. we have lawyers that understand how to deal with that, and we're happy to talk about access, but that would be a separate issue. the issue at hand really is this fence making it so it doesn't have a large opening in it. they can be accessed. the person can squeeze through it. in fact, we had a person from db. i come and suggest representative debbie i suggest that we should put a meshing material. over the compromised portion of defense, which we did, and it was quickly cut the day before or day after another. so you know, we have constant challenges of securing this area. and we are trying our best to, you know, keep the health and safety sound. to work with our adjoining landowners and neighbors. to let this lot

be used as it's intended to be used. we believe as a commercial area in the pdr zone. yep. unlike me, unlike mission greenway monkey brains has illegal protected interest in the in the lot as an easement holder. um, the that as i said, before, we have an easement, as do all the other joining properties that have access and , um i don't think the board has , uh, does not need to determine whether or not monkey brains or anyone else along the spur, um, 30 seconds. interest as part of its appeal. the only question here is whether or not be. i made any air an issue in this appeal, and we are aware of no error. there's a so, um, i'm not sure if it would be helpful. but can we bring up the overhead for the computer? the other side of the other side round computer. can you. yes so this is just sort of to get a visual idea.

this is the back of our loading dock. this is the little question. and then here are the there's the gate in the background there. so you get an idea of like, thank you. that's time. you can do it in rebuttal to thank you. we have a few questions. president swig commissioner has been you and commissioner limburg so i'm i was confused before. moment confusion is accelerated. oh, gosh. so when are you one of you, gentlemen? sorry. i didn't catch your name. so i'm really sorry because it's you know, old age disease. i'm alex menendez. okay we're conor's okay. alex from from you or mr menendez. sorry, uh, from you. i think i heard that you didn't know who if you had an easement. or or not. because there were that that that is not exactly what i said. i said that for the

purposes of this particular presentation i wasn't supposed to talk about. he's been which was the beginning, but i'm i'm very well. i mean, been informed and believe that we have a protected legal right to use the space. that's where you went south on me with those words, either. you know you recorded these men is what you're asking for $5 in your hand. got it or you don't have $5. okay it's if i can use that bad metaphor. understood we do not have a recorded easement and you do not have a recorded but we do have a prescriptive easement. you don't have recorded easement. so there's where they hear say if you had a recorded easement that is a slam dunk. all right. but the issue for us and of course we can't discuss your easement and the language that makes sense. just addiction. um so. so then your partner says i got

this list here that we all have easements, but you don't have easements. because it's not recorded. if we go to if you walked in here and said, we went to the to the city office that has the list of every easement in the city. and here it is, and we went back in the microfiche and we went back into recording time and hear is blah, blah, blah, you know, then you gotta discussion, but what you have is hearsay. i mean, that's my problem. i would like to say that our easement is more like an atm card. if you're doing the $5 here, the $5 not there. um if you, uh, the city attorney can speak to this, but my understanding is that a, um written recorded easement is no different in california than the easement. we have, like the your rights to the use of the land, which were not socially discussed, but there's just because it's not recorded doesn't make it any, um, less value value. speaking of

microphones, city attorney to give us uh, three minute tutorial. on before we get to that. can the people by the front door please move because it's a fire hazard. we have to keep that open. thank you. it's timely, i think, can you please tell us give us a little tutorial on recorded versus and recorded easements. and. the validity validity of each and do you see any relationship? we know that there's not recorded easement and we're all clear on what recorded these ones do but when they are not recorded and they are, they are assumed by other. for other reasons that has been has been spoken about here. can you tell us about about that? so it is. turn on my microphone. it is correct that a

prescriptive easement may exist without recordation. prescriptive easement may exist based on factors like continuous and uninterrupted use for five years that is adverse to the landowner, and it must also be open and notorious. um we don't have any type of court decision establishing a prescriptive easement. um but it may exist without recordation. so that again is not for us to view that needs to go to civil court. to get we? i don't see that our jurisdiction here today can assume a prescriptive easement without a civil court guidance. this this board can't make a determination of an easement. um i would be interested in understanding d b. i s position for granting the permit to build a fence based on the claim of an easement. um and so this this board can make a decision on the

permit. it can take all the information before it about whether or not a prescriptive easement exists, but its decision is not going to be binding in any manner and it is not going to establish whether and these men, in fact exists. it's going to make a decision as to whether the permit was properly granted. um okay, um. so that you can see where the confusion lies. you don't have an easement as far as i'm concerned, you know, then easement. as far as um, excuse me. my right hand says that you have an easement. my left hand says you don't have an easement. so we have schizophrenia going on here and so that that's where the confusion lies. so when i say you don't have any easement, that's my one hand saying it when you do another hand saying that we can't and neither can make a decision. um, let me ask you this. um ah, the issue related to a gate and, um, and terms and conditions related to that gate. um you know, i don't

know how how long you all have lived in san francisco? i'm a lifer. guess i'm gonna born here going to die here for sure. uh and we have strong communities who have strong feelings about ownership, even when they don't own the land. you may have noticed that through this crowd that that's here. um is there a . um is. is there an opportunity have you considered the flexibility as i described in my previous notion of about accepting a. a permit with terms and conditions related to access . um we had the opportunity to do work with a mediator for a brief period. and, um, uh, we did put forth a proposal and, um , the mission. greenway uh, rejected it due to the, uh, the stipulation that it would have a vehicle access and they wanted

100% no vehicle access in the in the lot and ah, that that the mediation fell apart about a month ago. so i currently don't see the terms they relate to me repeatedly, um, are not compatible with our usage. can i ask the attorney something, please? um there's this board have the ability to grant appeal with terms and conditions. related to usage of the gate, uh , in in in general or specific fashion. and can we make those the can we apply those terms and conditions based on our conversation and disagreement tonight? although the board has the ability to modify a permit, i believe something like access restrictions would go outside of what db i permit provides. so i do not believe that this board has the authority to impose access conditions on the permit. the parties could come to a private agreement in order to

resolve this appeal. that revolves around access, but it is not, um, within. i believe the authority of this board and i would suggest that be i um, could also speak to that, because it it has to do with their permitting authority as well. but i have two questions for dpr. that's really good, but we know we were now. once again in with with your recommendation there were once again in civil court land, as opposed to the jurisdiction of this word. when it comes to making that that is correct. thank you. my questions are mr josephina. thank you, president. swing it and thank you for your testimony. as i look at you, i look at everybody in this room. everyone who submitted papers on this i see victims victims of an unresponsive bureaucracy that throws up its hands and says, well, we don't know who it belongs to go work it out or or well, we'll just go into something else. so i say, i hear

saying here are the frustration of everyone. my question is. what action have you taken? having had the permit. have you put up a fence? uh we have not, um julie rosenberg called me after the appeal was filed to let me know that we had to stop. i informed her at that moment that we had paid for the fence, but that we had not installed it, and then i quickly called the contractor and said, um, story so whether we grant this or not they're still going to be the issues of who controls it. and who controls the existing uh , whatever, whatever whatever is there now that that that limits access that is correct. the same issues that exist today have existed before and will exist in the futures. remain right and the case is decided about. ah

the ability to seek a permit to and as as an easement holder. this fence doesn't touch your your physical property. but it affects your the easement that you. are are asserting. yes this is the access to the public right of way right to a street that goes into the back of our building, essentially, and it's already existing structure. we're not putting a new structure in. we want to repair. an existing structure and be consistent with i believe planning prefers, which is iron fencing over cyclone fencing. okay, my last. my last question is you've you've acknowledged you don't have a recorded easement. you have prescriptive easement. can you tell us who you got it from? sure so the way i understand it and again and not a lawyer, but i'll do my best is that the previous owners, the predecessors the high eisner's, um use this

building a certain way, and it was always with loading and unloading at the back of this building. we reached out to the air that we purchased the building from and i have. i don't know if it helps, but i have his testimony in an email and i can show that he's on our deed. so but in short when you talk about owners, yeah, owners of your of your building the previous owners are building. yes so you have an easement because they had an easement. that's correct. i believe it runs with the land. they had an easement. do you know why they had an easement or how they got the easement? yes because they were using the back of the building for loading and unloading of materials. they ran a children's furniture company. and then later on after they had stopped that business, they rented the space to community of artists since 1996 i believe it was in 93 have to look at my notes. so in short, they they they earn the easement through their use continuous use. it was notorious and out in the open

and uninterrupted. thank you. okay. thank you. vice president, commissioner limburg. thank you. um i have a few questions for you. number one in your brief. you refer to our company as another corporate isp? l l c d b a monkey brains. i do note that that is not the permit holder in this matter, can you uh, express what the difference between those two entities are a little bit for me. it was upon it was upon advisement by our attorney , gen. who could probably speak better to why companies put property under a different llc name. but we have, um we have several entities and, um, the primary one is monkey brains, which i started 25 years ago. down on, um third and marine street. and then when that daleks joined in, we turned it into an llc so we could have equal ownership of it and then

it at it when, um we wanted to create another and we have another entity for holding our utility permit. and we have another entity for, um, we acquired a failing isp and kept others clients online during covid, so he wouldn't be shut off. and then, uh and then we have this entity for purchasing property and keeping real estate. transactions separate. i'm not sure exactly why we do it. it's a little i don't quite understand it. so just to clarify that which company owns the lease of the property that you, um or or owns the property . 17th in profile llc purchased 931 and a 933 treat avenue. thank you. monkey brains is leasing from that entity. i see. thank you. um okay. i. i wasn't going to ask this question, but based on question that commissioner trans media asked earlier. i'm going to which, as was questioning why the appellants were here. um uh, it

it caught my ear as as i am an attorney that, uh, both as to miss huber's description of a prescriptive easement and the appellant's, uh uh, noting that you're going for adverse possession on this property? um is what? what is your goal in seeking in blocking off this property from all of it from the public and also all of the other adjacent property owners, who? according to your own testimony include, like each of them has a prescriptive easement. according to your testimony. our goal is to, um well, it's uh, it's a lot of parts that question one. we want access for all the property owners. they all i think they all wrote letters of support to the board. we didn't get a copy of the letter, so i'm not sure. and then, um, we did have a verbal conversation with atlas air company and he, uh bob, who lives there does support the

gate as well and we want to prevent people from breaking in and putting graffiti on our building. dropping trash off. someone was murdered there in the eighties. just things like that. and we reference that in our letter and what the access will be for mission kids. john o'connor, who owns the two apartment buildings, um ah, celia, who owns the woodshop, um atlas dear company uses the uses the lot 36. we're all going to. we would all like to continue to use it and it's an important for our part of um, growing our business and creating stability for our company. ultimately that's what we do. we provide the internet low cost internet to people in san francisco. we've been doing it for 25 years , and this building will create more stability for our 60 employees and all their dependents who have full health care from us. let me let me ask a better question. um the have heard you use the words open and notorious, i heard miss hubert used the same words in describing prescriptive developments. i know from law

school that open and notorious, are also requirements for adverse for claiming adverse possession on the property. does monkey brains plan to, uh, to adversely possessed this parcel? so all the actions that we've taken from purchase of this building to now is to bring stability to this lot, so that we can use it for our uh, company? yes or no question. well it isn't because we don't. we don't know what we do know is that it's been very tumultuous in the spur that there's been a lot of issues and unmitigated, um, acts that are not involving the city that are not involving the problem agency that are unlawful. the way i see it. so we wanted to stabilize that area , and we did so by paying property taxes, for instance. that that stabilizes things because people are less excited about this thing, and like the city is very efficient way for city to get revenue as well. so

you know, we figured that if we did that, that would come things down a bit, and then we can move in here and be able to establish our business and use the loading and area in the back. so your question is, are we trying to adversely possession? sorry, possess this lot, and the answer is not really we're trying to use this lot, but we're not i mean, we're not. we don't know at this point. if that answers your question, because as soon as we moved in here, there was issues. right off the bat. we did not get a chance to establish ourselves in this area are predecessors the tenants that were rented from the previous owners? they had cars back there. they use this lot. the mission, greenaway tried to lobby them. they denied access to mission. greenway mission. gray respected them. they respected the wishes of the previous tenants to our building. and then when the building went up for sale, there was a moment of i guess there was no owner in this building,

and this is when the mission, greenway decided to cut locks come in and put planners and start essentially claiming the land from the public. this is not responsive to my question. to be more clear. you're saying that there were problems immediately. but what i'm saying is that there's a fenced off lot with fences on all sides. that doesn't necessarily have public access, except for what the appellants have described as access through this back gate on 22nd street if i'm remembering correctly um, so what? are the problems. you're speaking of the fact that the mission greenway folks and the neighbors have been trying to be, you know, garden this space is that what you're talking about? not necessarily. it's blocking our access. so what is blocking your access planners that were being put in front of this gate? so the answer to my question was yes. then. yes. thank you. vice president lopez. hey, thanks for

your testimony. we did get testimony from the appellant. about this. questions of your representation is an agent. of the owner of the parcel, so i wanted to give you a chance to speak to that point. so. i represented myself as an agent of the contractor, and i provided documentation in the brief to that, um, i had a conversation with the db rep about being both agents of the contractor and being an owner to an adjacent parcel. we talked about it at the same time. i even explained to him that this was a vacant lot that abutted are building that we had direct use and direct access to and there was an existing gate that i wanted to secure at which point, he said. i showed him a picture of the gate at which point, he said, because this is a safety thing. you know we're going to approve this permit or i'll get you through. he also knew about this issue. he did

mention. oh is this this thing that i've been reading about? and i said yes, and he asked me, he said, are people gonna get excited if i have you go to the next station? and i said yes. so that was that was a conversation we had and then along similar lines is as an earlier question to the appellant's. and i know that you you stated that you had some conversations with your district supervisor. ah but but what? what you shared, at least to my memory was more about and express excitement about having you in the district. but what can you tell us about any interactions that you had with? either your supervisor, other cd , uh, agencies or leadership about this question of the kind of uncertain ownership of the lot so, um, with him with district nine what we've heard or what we're told, including rec and park when we reached out

and talk to them. is that the city stances. this is not public land. this is private land and that the from reckoned park. we heard that the list the acquisition list is very long and that they hadn't even heard of this particular parcel. so the what list? the acquisition list. was very long. and that this they've never visited this site. so maybe i misspoke by saying never heard of it. i actually don't know that. but they did say they'd never had visited this site. uh, and then just to clarify, given that i think we have received some new kind of visuals and information about different access points for the parcel. um. is this the only way that that you're like, gets access to the street, or are there other access points on your property? to the street. there's only two access points that i know which of the two gates other than through our building. i guess he can walk through our building and go to

the loading docks and then get into this parcel as well. so absent it's me. please don't speak out in the public. you'll have time in public comment. please don't interrupt, so absent am i correct that that you're sitting the absent this gate and your prescriptive easement or purported prescriptive easement. absent that access. your property doesn't have access to the street. for a vehicle. no. so there's. so that's that's the only way that you can make use of your property with the loading for the for the loading and unloading of materials. yes it is a very narrow street and the loading docks are such that can allow for a truck to unload onto it. thanks okay. thank you can be seated will now hear from the planning department.

hmm. good evening, president wig vice president lopez members of the board. i'm tina tam, deputy zoning administrator. 9 57 treat avenue is an irregular shape lot located in the middle of the block. um located in the, um you urban mix use zoning district. it is bound by 22nd street to the north 23rd street to the south treat avenue to the west and harrison street to the east. overhead, please. the parcel is

currently bacon. um it's approximately 26,000 square feet in size. the parcel was once used by the southern pacific transportation company. is there a right away further freight trains that ran through this part of the mission district. after the trains start running in the early 19 nineties. the parcel lot 36 was sold and later subdivided into three separate parcels. lot 36, a 36 b. and 36. c in 2019. the scope of the work for the permit is to replace the existing chain link gate with a new wrought iron gate at the north end of lot 36 8. um and seeing that the, um the defense will be an upgrade. um design wise, and they're statically ways to arrive at iron. the planning staff did approve this permit over the counter on march

the 2nd 2023 here on the map and locked map. you will see the three separate parcels a b and c. and the location of the gate on the north end of personal number. 36 8. here is a photograph a color photograph of the, um, personal taken from 22nd street. and it shows the current chilling gate. the appellant is elizabeth creeley with their friends of the mission. greenway. elizabeth issues that the permit applicant 17th m. peralta llc is not the property owner, nor do they have permission from the property owner to obtain a building permit. based upon our investigation of the property, the department has concluded the following one. there is no assessor's report for this property listed in pim. it's just the property information map. while the office of the

sisters records does have john center company is the property owner of record for a lot 36, a which is the lot where the gate is proposed. it is unclear as to who john center is and where to find him. the mailing address for john center company is listed as 9 57 trade. avenue which we know is a reagan parcel. as you read in the briefs and heard from tonight's testimony. 17 m. peralta llc is not the owner. of 36, a. they are the applicant of the permit. the applicant of the permit. 17 in peralta llc is the owner of 9 31 and 9 33 treat avenue, which is one of the properties that are joins a lot 36 8 at the rare and you'll see them that. property denoted in blue on this

map. well 17 am peralta llc did pay property taxes both the redemption and current amounts for a lot 36 a and c in 2023. they are, however, not the property owners for these lots. seen they do not have authorization from the property owner to obtain a building permit. it is our understanding that the permit cannot move forward. well there's no planning code provisions about this. it is my understanding that, um db i does have a requirement that, um it is the property owner or the authorized agent of the property owner can obtain a building permit. and i'm i believe building chief matt greene will speak tonight to elaborate this planning department at this point recommends that the board grant the appeal and revoke the permit

on the basis that the permit was issued in error. that concludes my report, happy to answer any questions. we have a question from president swig, then commissioner limburg. the plot thickens. um. could you put that map up again, please? the trains went somewhere. um, they crossed . is that is that what street is that treat street cross street street and went. south is that right? it connected? um and so did anybody happened just because they might be a little interested. what? who owns what

used to be the train. bed. across streets, street treat street. and going south. the how did they? how did it get there? no, okay. thanks for the question. um if you're referring to this parcel on the south side or the south west side of treat , um, that's owned by the city. um as this trying a lot as well and by the city, and it's currently a park city park. how did that get there? when did it get there? because it's a valid question. i don't i say it in all seriousness, even though it sounds sarcastic, uh, because in in the when i was growing up, right there were trains there. that was a long time ago. but it's not that long. ah ah, and then that part of the train track. matriculated into a into

a park correct. that means somebody owned that. train bed. anybody asked that question and its relationship to what's just north of it, and i could ask the same question about north the extension because that's not where the train ended. it went right into the city. did anybody ask who owned the parcel? uh north, and if there's an if there is a current owner who owned it before, and how did it get there? i mean, it may have some. it may have some validity on on this, and we can't discuss this as a civil case, but just anybody bother doing it? that's a fair question. um great question. um, the trains ran across the entire district. so there are many, many, many parcels like this throughout the mission district. and um, based upon my just quick look at the

sort of the map of this area. some of these lots like this one right across from the tree. um have been either given sold. you know, it all depends on who last owned that purcell. there could be multiple private owners, um, which became apart. there are other parcels like this. that became a housing development site. um because it's owned by someone who once the developed housing and the zoning allows for housing, so it depends on which lot in a very some partial started. excuse me for interrupting, but they all started in the same spot. they were all trained beds. mhm arguably by southern pacific. that was the train company. and then maybe the argument is that union pacific got him. i didn't get them when they took over the company, but they all started with southern pacific. and they all went something through some some daisy chain of ownership. um and, um. and why is this? you

know why is this this stretch different than any other? a stretch and why? where was where did the disclaimer that anybody owned it whatsoever. start would be something that i would. that would be interesting for history, but we're not talking about that. we're talking about a gate tonight. okay um uh, you're very clear on the subject . that um that we think we should, uh, uphold the appeal and deny the remote. the permit because of the lack of clarity of ownership. you know some of the permanent self states that the owner is 17 m. peralta llc, which is not the case. so we're finding that to be, um, an error on the part of the applicant and we're not going to move forward with a permit with errors. so yeah, so in the spirit of when we when we approve of parliament

, we say we approved this permit because it was properly issued. when you're saying this was improperly issued, so it's null and void regardless of who owns it? who has an easement? whether it looks good looks bad is create security doesn't allows the public access or not, it was improperly issued, so it should be no envoy in the first place. that's correct. now i understand that there's and solve an answer a lot of questions here tonight , but i would like to go ahead and it's the best answer i've had all night. this mr matt green to elaborate on the specific requirements of a bill. permit because that's believed his sort of, um expertise. okay um and so just one other question along, but so it's improperly issued because the owner ah, the owner didn't. file the permit and, uh, can. in the case of an easement where there is a defined easement here we

have a, uh, a rumored easement, even though one would claim that it's stronger than that in its pursuit. prescriptive it's prescriptive easement. um if it wasn't affirmed easement with a nice paper trail. um could the could the easement owner? uh by all the permit. uh in lieu of the owner because they have a, uh, clear easement and clear use of the of the land. i will let mr. green answered that question, okay? i'm done, mr commissioner limburg. thank you, um, a couple of things, but first, i just want to clarify because i did a little bit of a double take when you said it that what i heard was accurate that the train stopped running in the early 19 nineties. hmm. i know it's slowed down a bit, but i don't know exactly when. okay so with i kind of in my head, i heard 18 nineties. but you said

19 nineties, so i just wanted to make sure i heard that right. okay um, with that said, um, and obviously this is just to the best of your knowledge. i don't expect you to have all the interest on this. but um, we heard the permit holder testify that ah, that this the back of their property in partial 36 has been used for over 100 years as a loading dock. but is that even possible, given the fact that there were active trains there until 1990 ish because they took him off and i don't know i didn't do a historic dive into the use of the property. i know the train really did slow down in terms of the amount they were kind of, um, using this right away, and i heard i heard other people mentioned at today's hearing that there are multiple uses when the trains weren't running. for this part of the. for the block. thank you. go ahead. sorry. let your let your

resident resident uh so what would happen is the trains would go between the warehouses and act like trucks. remember this is train time, like trucks. pull up to the warehouse unload. thank you very much. i would be it. apologies for this. i don't remember the trains going through the mission because i was born in 1988. so um, um i if one more time if you could bring up that partial map on the overhead um. this your testimony was the first time we've heard about some parcels, a b and c and for my own curiosity, and i imagine the curiosity of many people in this room. can you go into a little bit? what the differences between parcels a. b and c? are they all like the ownership of all threes, mysterious or ah, are they all connected in some way? yes

thanks ■for the question it it took some diving into the assessor's records office for this information because it's not in our data records in pim, um. it does appear that the lot lot number 36 was subdivided. they have the recorded data of 2019. i don't know how the sizes and the delineations were done. and why one is bigger than the other. um but there are three separate. i don't know whether it's people or entities that own a b and c. they're not all under one ownership. who could have possibly subdivided it if they didn't know who the owner was. the owner was had title or deed for the original parent lot, which is 36. but i thought we've already established that there was no record owner of that parcel. and in fact, there hasn't ever been i didn't say

that. oh that planning didn't have that information and planning database pimp. and that's what we rely on to access information about property ownership, etcetera. but in calling this justice records office and asking, like, what are you have? who do you tax? this is the information they provided to me. now that i'm sharing with you okay, thank you. thank you for the clarification. commissioner trasvina. thank you if i understand the record correctly, southern pacific was a long time monitor and union pacific then took over from southern pacific. but at some point in the at some period of time, union pacific said. we don't own it or we don't know. and but there's judge hamlin's decisions from 1994 that describes the right of way but makes clear that there is no fee interest ownership by by, uh i guess at that point, southern pacific um, i so appreciate your testimony. i

always learn a lot from you and every at every virtually every hearing. you've provided clarity and a definitive answer. the your the your department's view is the permit was improperly or incorrectly issued, and i think that speaks volumes for everything that's here, except what about the people? what about everybody who's involved in this? where do they go next? because seems to me if the permit holder is not ah, allowed to go forward with the permit. the greenway. they don't claim to own own it. yeah that that fence that the current, uh, fence and gate is going to be there. somebody could go in in the middle of the night and put up their own. okay and nobody could say no, because nobody is the owner until the city brings

people together or until somebody goes to court. we're going to have never never land on that property. uh and it could lead to problems so and there are also issues of here. you have a company that is been been attracted by the city. just set up shop is serving the communities as they described their. they are ill served by any number of possible uh, alternative alternative dispositions of that fence, so ah, i don't know whether it's your department gets involved or which departments get involved, but i really want them to get involved in bringing this long and difficult, uh, experience, uh, to a close i believe that, but but i just want to thank you for your clarity on on the

issues of whether the errors uh , that were made on the permit whether those are dispositive or not, and it is seems to be your view that it is dispositive. so i want to thank you for that. no question. what department section right? like what? well let, but my question was what? what is next for two to actually in real life resolve this matter ? um i think it's a tricky question. um because there is still a property with a with a with a with a private ownership . um, there might be limitations on the city. and to kind of, um . do much, but i think, um, hearing from the appellant's, um and their efforts in china. engage the district supervisors

office. hillary run ins office is a positive one, and i encourage them to continue working with that office. to help with the, um the mediation coordination, etcetera, um but until the property becomes in default, um where were we have the ability to step in? it's really difficult for us to go ahead and start managing what's happening on the property? and it's also not your role to decide who's who's at stake holder and who isn't not everybody here in the capacity as a planner. no, thank you. thank you. we will now hear from the department of building inspection chief building. inspector green is joining us remotely via zoom welcome. good evening, president, sweden vice president lopez matthew green, chief building inspector representing the department of building inspection. tonight i

apologize. i can't be there in person permit application. 2023 03022910 replace the damaged gate in kind north of lot was filed and approved over the counter on march 2nd 2023. this is this is work, too. repair and existing fence. on march 7th db i received a complaint stating that the permit was issued project lee to a party that had no right to pull permits for this address. the permit was promptly appealed and suspend suspended. prior to db investigating this complaint. the issue in the appeal centers on the ownership of the lot at 957 treat. the contractor on the application is going, gomez ironworks. the owner listed on the application is 17th and peralta llc at 933 treat avenue um alex menendez of 933 treat avenue was authorized by gomez ironworks act as an agent. i spoke to its staff involved. um,

when a licensed contractor applies for a building permit staff verifies that the contractor's license is valid and that the contractor has a business license to do work in san francisco. they do not verify the ownership of a lot. it is presumed that a licensed contractor is acting professionally and has performed the due diligence as to ownership if the property owner does come in to get a permit, we presume that they do not have the um, you know the same professional understanding to due diligence that a contractor does, and then we would verify the ownership. it's happened before where property owners as gets mixed up on the lot and blocks and filed permits for the wrong address. that's why we do verify the ownership there. i could not find any evidence of any recorded easement to three quarters office. there is no record of any building permit to build this fence. um, originally um if the issue of ownership was not brought up, i would say that this permit was issued properly . however it does appear that 17th and peralta llc does not

own this law. if paying the property taxes taxes does convey ownership, i would recommend keeping this permit in a suspended stage until the assessor's office confirms ownership. if not, i would say that the permit was improperly issued. since the permit application was filled out with an incorrect information as to who is the property owner? um there's a couple of questions as to easements. um easements did not come up in this permit approval. i was just texting with jimmy chang, the plan checker who issued this permit. he confirmed that no no discussion of easements was made discussions of instruments only come up with a proposal is noncompliant, such as exiting through a neighbor's lot to access the public way and that case we would verify the recorded easement to allow that um, you know, there was also questions asked to agreements between the parties. i would say my recent experience would urge the board to shy away from these agreements between parties d v. i is not able to, uh, enforced any agreements between parties. it's not part of the building

code. um so i would say my recommendation is this permit was issued in properly and should be revoked. i'm available for any questions you may have. president swig. so my question which i think you answered, is there there is no permit history on the existing gate. no no. okay there's no permit for the gate on 22nd street or the gate on street avenue, so they are both illegal. gates and if there was a somebody wanted to go so far, they could actually complain, and you would probably be have to issue a notice of violation that gate has been illegally constructed and should be removed. could it go that far? yes, i if you want to put just saying yes. someone filed a complaint. we would go down to permit history. we would not find a permit to issue we're sorry we would not find a permit to, uh, director gate

originally, and then we would write notes of violation. alright so any so the gate that exists in the arguably the get that exists today is illegal and without without an owner, uh, clear, clear owner. ah then a permanent this point could not get issued properly. according to your testimony. correct correct. and i also say if we wish you to know, sir, violation we would not have a property owner to actually. um mail this old order story. we would not have a property owner to mail this violation, too, so we would be kind of stuck in the same situation. okay? and, um so if we were to, uh, uphold the appeal and revoke the permit, um so your your options to us or or our put the permanent limbo until there's a civil agreement that that's worked out. ah ah ah

, that would be cool for lawsuit or um or or just revoke the permit. um if we revoke the permit, how and the clarity of title was worked out, therefore , a permit could be properly issued. um how? how long would we would be, would we be adding duress because i know that the permit current permit holder feels a lot of duress at this point under these conversations , would there be added duress or added burden placed upon the current permit holder in refiling for the permit? uh would there be s time suspension? um or could they could could could we revoke the permit? and then if they worked it out tomorrow, which they're not, uh, could they walk in and get a permit that is based on the proper protocols and legalities. uh yeah. i'm not

aware of any restrictions on this such such a permit just to repair permit to itself, so putting it just putting it in limbo really? it's cleaner just to revoke the permit. ah rather than putting it in limbo. and because it just get rid of just cuts out the cancer and, uh and nobody has to worry about it until they figure it all out. right suggestion was to put in limbo at the permit. holder said that they pay the property taxes and just conveyed ownership to them that that hasn't officially happened yet. if and i have to defer to the city attorney on this if that is true, and that by paying their property taxes, they do take ownership of the lot. i would suggest waiting until the assessor's office confirmed that and then they would be the right ball. so your your preference and recommendation would be, uh um up, putting it in limbo. no my

preference would be to revoke the current. alright second option. okay well, thank you. now that's that's two votes from two departments. that's a revoke the permit that that's very helpful to this. uh this commission. um um who to whom do i asked this question. this. this this just fascinates me. i meant to ask it. two. and i'm a weight or you may want to ask it when you come up in rebuttal. i'm talking to the, uh the current permit holder. um. if somebody falls and breaks their leg in your your prescriptively. um hmm. um. prescriptive of, uh, area who's liable? are you? are you guys? you know if a kid falls down, cracks their head, uh do they come knocking on your door today? or do you suddenly not? are you guys suddenly not

the owner or i should put it to mr green if one of the alleged prescriptive uh um he's been holders. um. yeah i happen to have an accent in front of their area. prescriptive easement. uh where does the liability fall does evolve too. the easement holder, the city. um or is it just tough luck? or is that something that that you can't answer, mr green? well i would say as to present prescriptive easement. we don't recognize them at all. it would have to be recorded easement. um so i happened to task to your question. i i'm called by that's what would hit me in the all through this conversation. everybody wants to take possession. take responsibility for this land and the kid fall down, cracks his head who's taking care of the kid? which would be for me a concern, but

this is probably a civil case issue. um i'm done. anybody else have any questions? okay. rebuttal. or public comment. okay we're on public comment. can i have a show of hands who is here for public comment? okay and on zoom. can you please raise your hand if you're here for public comment. given the amount of public comment will take it to two minutes. i can see just in the room. okay um, let's just see the number. so how many would you estimate we have in here? 2020 probably 25. okay so we have about 10 right now raising their hands. so 35 minutes, so 35. times three is we're here till for an hour and a half. so two is fine. okay so if you're if you'd like to speak in public comic, can you line up against the wall there, please. and then when you're done speaking, hand to speaker card to mr long way, so he so we can

get the information accurate on the minutes. thank you very much , and you don't have to wait till the speakers completely down. you can start moving forward just so we can keep it moving. so, sir, with the hat welcome. you have two minutes, sir. my name is dan maduro. see i've been a resident of the mission of 22nd and york street for 22 years, and i'm an officer of the five oh one c, which is known as the friends of the mission. greenway. um i wanted to just touch on a few issues that i think are relevant to the to the board's decision making the polski versus gormley, um decision that was cited, i believe was cited wrongly by monkey brains. it is actually the owner of the lot. who's speaking to mike, please. it's actually the owner of the lot who was entitled. to erect defense according to this decision, as long as it does not

interfere with the access of the person who holds the easement, not the other way around. which is what monkey brains said in their rebuttal. i'm sorry you identified yourself as an officer of mission. greenway okay, so you can't speak during public comment. you can speak during rebuttal. you need to speak. sorry. yeah. okay so any officers of mission greenway cannot speak during public comment, so please go ahead. thank you. hello hello. i am miguel lopez. i'm just a neighbor here in the mission. ah this common just to support revoking the permit. like all applicants, uh, have involved that it's a public right away and approving the permit will modify that very heavily. that's it. thank you. ex speaker. hello my name is j. martin. i'm a member of mission of the friends. i'm not on the board or anything, all right? um, i want i'll answer a few. questions

just because they have come up in case you want the information? um the i think the reason a lot is in this gray area is that other parts of the railroad were sold off by the railroad at different times. but when this went up for sale in the nineties, one of the local owners took him to court. and surprise. the railroad didn't have title they just had, um and eastman all along. and at that point after that, the local the property owner just kept it quiet, and they maintain those gates. now i think those gates went up when the railroad thought it on the land, and everybody did. and so maybe they thought they had some special status than that they didn't need to deal with the city. but that's why this is a little different than the others. the division into a b and c is really weird. i don't know what they were thinking ahead. please can i have the overhead? yeah. overhead. i don't know. and i wish the city would explain how they drew these lines. but basically this one here divides the whole lot in half because in

1912 it really just had two owners. this little thing here. i have no idea except maybe they were being nice to complete a rectangle. i really want to show this map, though, because the easement is being taught. i'm sorry. the easement is being talked about an incredibly vague way. and i think it's because the parties are trying to leverage it into something much larger than it is. this lot is 60 ft wide, and if you really start to think about what kind of easement the prior owners head of the warehouse it would be the area behind them and then maybe access from the south gate . and this northgate doesn't even paved. this is where vehicles come in. and even if so, the gate involved isn't uh isn't where the previous owner used it. and even if they did your they're taking a 15 ft wide drive thru and saying that the 60 ft wide piece of property somehow uh, it should be, um, there's two gate and an easement basically means you can get in.

it doesn't mean you can lock out others. thank you, sir. next speaker, please. hello my name is lawrence beato. i'm here to speak, uh, in some way in support of monkey brains, but after the presentation here. really, um more about this city getting involved and solving this issue. um i want to say that i have really high hopes that these groups could come together. and do something interesting. uh, well, the city gets there. business together here and figures out who the owner is possibly takes over the parcel. turns it into a park. i support all sorts of outcomes. um but i'm very disappointed that the city does not have a mechanism. for the interested parties. the adjacent property owners. to be able to maintain

the security of this parcel currently i mean, every indication is that this appeal is going to go through. that broken gate is going to stay there. until something is resolved as far as the disposition of this parcel. and i wish that there were a mechanism in the city. ah where ? responsible uh, property owners like monkey brains that has been in the city for 25 years. i've been a mission district resident for 35 years would love for monkey brains to be able to maintain and secure this parcel. thank you. thank you. can you give a speaker card to alex, please? next speaker? sir who just spoke. did you give a speaker card to alec? yeah.

and the man you can come forward. thank you. thank you. hello company does not have ownership or an easement of the parcel 36. therefore they should not be permitted to construct a private fence on the lot just because they have the financial means to do so, and a desire to fortress their fleet of vehicles. the greenway project seeks to keep the space public accessible to all and growing plants, including native wildflowers and edibles for the community at large to enjoy the vision is not comparable to a company seeking to privatize the space for their vehicle fleet. thank you. thank you. and can you give a speaker card to alec alec? maybe you could put a pile of them out there so they can. yeah, there was a pile. i think there are more hmm. okay up here . thank you. thank you. commissioners for all your time . i appreciate that. this is a difficult job really appreciate all your work. i'm howard fallon . i'm living in the city for 45

years. i raised my kids here. in my home and i vote. i oppose monkey brains putting up this fence. i would like to point out there's over 80 unaccepted streets in san francisco. that the city doesn't want anything to do with, so this issue is huge. there is no process. thank you. thank you next speaker, and so you can't block the door. thank you. you can walk up ma'am with the bicycle helmet. thank you for your time. i live two blocks from the greenway. ah i have no financial incentive or employment instead of or anything else for being here today, other than i'm a neighbor and i've enjoyed meeting members of my community in the garden space. it's been a great place for ah relaxation, mental health learning about the indigenous communities that were in the space and date of plants and

gardening it that space means a lot to the community. a lot to the neighbors. um and it doesn't seem that there is anything to be gained by blocking off the land other than ah, a sense of entitlement from monkey brains and other neighboring businesses. uh please keep this space open for all members of the community to use it. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. and ma'am, if you could give a speaker card to alex that be great, thanks. ma'am we have a lower area. okay, alright, go ahead. okay good afternoon. board members. thank you for taking all the time and effort to go into the details of this. my name is carol brownson. i've lived in san francisco for all 35 years or so, and they used to get around in my car until i became disabled and then

discovered what it was like getting around san francisco on my little mobility scooter, and it was a lot more fun. now. i've also discovered how important community spaces are. spaces where people encounter other san franciscans people in their neighborhood. uh strike up conversations expand their sense of community. and cars inhibit this in many ways, and not just by the noise and danger they cause. but the space they waste parking lot contributes nothing to community building. a shared green space, especially with gardening really does from where i live. i have to get on a bus. to get to that wonderful new community space that jfk promenade has provided. i so wish there was a space like mission. greenway gardening in

my neighborhood. thank you. thank you. alex can you help her with the speaker card? maybe and ma'am, you can't stand in front of the door. thanks. fire access. okay, next speaker, please. hi my name is lin huang and, um there's a lot going on here but to help make sense of everything always like to imagine things as a movie, who are the characters? what is the conflict? and what's the ending a one hand you have a underdog team of volunteers trying to build a garden to feed their neighbors. and on the other hand , you have a business trying to exclude the community to have a private parking lot. as a member of the public, you actually have as much of a role as much of a right to this parcel as anyone here today, but as board members, you have the unique power to help shape this story. which would you prefer for being in a garden surrounded by birds,

trees and flowers or looking through an iron gate to a barren parking lot? one of which you can't park in yourself. because it's locked out for everybody else. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. hmm hello, commissioners. thanks for your time. my name is scott feeny. i'm a seven year mission resident, and i'll try not to be labor. the legal points because you've already asked excellent questions on that. but i just wanted to address the concerns about blight and about the damaged gate and make you maybe make you feel better about doing the right thing and avoiding this permit today. so i have some overhead if we can overhead, please. the other way, other way. alright again. thank you. so this is what the parcel looked like before the garden was added in 2018 street view and what it looks like now with the garden, and i would ask which of these is bladed and

which is the one that encourages safety and community health. in fact, research confirms that greening abandoned urban spaces actually reduces crime. as to the gate that has been described as damaged. um it is currently in a very similar state what it looks like in this picture from april 2019. so the damage being described has been there for four years. in that time, there's not been a problem with camping. nothing like that has happened. if it was going to happen, it would have in my opinion, the only reason that this is being discussed as an urgent problem now is that monkey marines wishes to exclude the very people who are creating a community space, creating. this wonderful community space in this garden and who actually addressing blight and improving neighborhood safety and community. thank you seconds. thank you. next speaker, please . and if you could give a

speaker card to alec, that's great. thank you. hi my name is anna. thanks for taking the time to listen today. i'm a resident of 24th street mission and i'm also a customer of monkey brains . um and as much as i really appreciate low cost internet, um the community, greenway has enriched my life tremendously. um i'm a new resident of the mission. i moved 10 months ago. um which i recognize me, my footprint. much smaller right now, um at the same time, it's given me the perspective of someone who's coming in looking for community and the greenway has really provided that as a space for gathering for gardening, um music. um. sort of food distribution. um and so to me, it's just it represents so much safety and stability in the community, and i'd be really sad

to see it. go. as a greenway. thanks. thank you. next speaker. good evening. thank you for taking the time. um my name is the yanira. cholera no, i am a mission. longtime mission resident. i have been living there for 23 years and i really want to ask you to please revoke the permit and support the greenway. we that latino families in the mission district really need this space for community. ah as you all know the pandemic has heat. has affected the latino community more than other communities. we don't have green spaces in our household houses and a we have been there with our kids taking this space as an adult learning

opportunities for our kids were suffering from mental problems with our kids. we are suffering from laws learning and this is a space that is helping us to get again the community bag and to have the music and outdoor learning opportunities for our kids. thank you for taking the time. thank you and ma'am, if you could fill out a card with your name on it for the thank you next speaker. hello my name is heather lubec. i'm a co director. admission kids preschool. we are one of the adjacent properties. um along the lot being discussed here today. we're a local nonprofit, child centered preschool. we serve low moderate income families in the neighborhood were also cooperative. with an early education program in which parents, guardians and families take an active role. our program focuses on teaching children peaceful conflict resolution and creating an inclusive environment where children can explore while feeling respected and secured. we have scores of alumni, family and the community

. we have a long history of successful partnerships with a very diverse group of neighborhood organizations. we provide jobs for 20 employees, including above market wages, full benefits, financial support further education. for value team of mostly women, people of color. i'm here to support monkey brains request for a permit to repair and replace the damaged fence or play yard runs directly along a large portion of the lot and having a fully operational offense would help our school and the other jason properties better ensure the safety and security of our two year old three year old four year old five year old that we are interested. ah, with by their families. so thank you very much. thank you. next speaker. can someone shut the door, please? because there's talking out. thank you. hi thank you for listening to us today. my name's ariana and i'm in sf resident. i was born and raised in this city and i'm also the

urban agriculture coordinator for the tenderloin people's garden. it's a growing located on calista and larkin right across in the asian art museum very close to city hall. that garden used to be a vacant lot 12 years ago, and it's now a space for us to feed our community to foster connection to land to people to help people feel a sense of belonging and to connect with each other. and i've witnessed the power of community gardening firsthand, and i believe that our city needs to reflect the asks of its people. and so if we want to continue cultivating spaces of care and nourishment the way the people's garden is doing and the way mission greenway is doing and continue to do so, um i ask that you revoke the permit that you opposed the privatization of this space and that you support the mission. greenway. thank you. thank you. if you could fill speaker card next speaker, please. hello thank you for your

time today by all indications, it seems like this permit is going to get revoked. and so i know this is a little bit extra, but we're here. so it seems worth saying. my name is any abuse. i've been a resident and a worker in the mission district for nine years. i'm an urban and public affairs student, concentrating on sustainability, community development and urban studies. and i believe there's a rare and unique opportunity here with parcel 36 plot that is unknown as vulnerable to a land grab for shortsighted reasons. we are, however, situated in this moment of climate change and the necessary further densification of our cities, cities will be on the forefront of how we address issues of global climate, chaos and social cohesion. in large and small skills. they will be the guides on how we as a whole navigate this uncertain path forward. i think it's worth you know, mentioning the recent storms in march, which caused intense flooding as a result of stormwater runoff, and these are a warning. these kinds of issues will only increase if we do not create ecological pressure

release valves throughout the city, even pocket sized to absorb rainfall, mitigate runoff and draw down carbon. opportunities like this one to return land to the public or into the hands of a few willing community based stewards. perhaps local indigenous groups would sustain the direction that cities like san francisco pride themselves on a direction that recognizes the ecological imperative of open green spaces and dense cities, as well as the social, educational, cultural and psychological benefits. there is a rare and exciting opportunity here to change the paradigm of privatization and instead prioritize the public good. by allowing a lot of history to be returned to the commons. i would suggest respectfully that the board considered this parcel and project in generational timelines, profit and convenient scotus here and we need new leadership and daring new paths to get us out. seize this opportunity. just sustainable urban development patterns will be harder to instill later. now is the time. thank you. thank you. next speaker, please. hello

my name is andy gillis. i've lived in the mission for 27 years next month. and i've seen great changes occur in awful lot of new buildings, greater density of housing, and this makes the need for public spaces even more acute than it already was in the mission and in the rest of the city. um, because uh huh. before you is an issue that has a lot of gray areas. i would say that gives you perhaps more latitude to take into consideration. factors that might not, um be relevant with regard to other issues that are more straightforward, you know, strictly about permitting, um so i would i would encourage you to

revoke this permit. and i just think that this is a rare opportunity. to maintain a tradition of public access to space and to solidify it for the greater good of the community. i think it's a shame that a business a couple of businesses are looking at maintaining a parking space there when i think the greater benefits as the speaker prior to me, said, for the community and for the environment would be to go with a green space. thanks for your time. thank you. next week, please. my name is michael crayon, and i've lived in the mission for well over 50 years. and i do remember the trains, but i do remember the access to

public access to this whole area, but that with that existed for decades s and p did not have a fence there. children walk through, people would kind of play and then in that site you had western plywood as well as various southern in, uh, businesses around there that took all their deliveries with trains, box companies all through light industrial with the was really the mission. but now it's mostly residential. we need all the open space possible with all the people that have moved in. and, uh, right now, you see all the hollow taller buildings. they're going up up and down the streets. bryant street. it's becoming like a cave really need the light. we need space. because people are becoming their cramped. i feel cramped. when you drive through, you know, you just you get this idea that you know everything is going up. lights disappearing. need everything you can have. thank you. thank you. we will now move to the speakers on zoom

, denny. floor. please go ahead. thank you so very much. my name is dunedin is known as the flower lady. i live in the mission for 25 years. i just lost my house due to, um it techno person that came from germany but my house and kick me out instead of buying me. he just put the early sacked. the only reason why i'm saying this is not about me, but it's about the community. it's about our children. our children needs spaces like this. and i thank you very much to all the other there due to my health. i cannot be there in person. but, george , i thank you so much for taking the time to listen to ask people we need this spaces where they are teaching our kids to grow plants where we can go on paying to where we can go and learn how to you know how to make soaps

have to do you know how to grow flowers? how to grow trees to make ourselves sustainable. we need this spaces like this. we cannot allow this techno people to come and take her places. it is in novice enough enough for five. carol lost our places and move out of this city. we need conscious people to allow us to make things for the future is not about parking cars. it's about the future of our children . the future about community seconds. please beg you. thank you. do i loud? this young, brave people with vision. to continue this visual. it is not for one person over 60 people to park their cars is for our future of our children. please.

i beg you to listen to all those people tend to touch your card and to look into the future, please. thank you. thank you. thank thank you, caroline dutton, please go ahead. caroline dutton. yes i'm here. yes thank you. i really appreciate people's testimonies. thank you so much, um i am a homeowner in the mission. i bought my house in 1974. i've been living on treats. treat my husband's 11 89th street two blocks from this site since for the past 50 years, almost and when i first. moved to treat i explored at the old railroad right of way. um i found that spot there were trains still running occasionally. um there was a cement factory on the corner that the train went by which is now the park. and, um there was i don't remember any gate. i always walk through. and

i also was exploring whether we have a track went in the other direction, and i found um, between san jose avenue and guerrero. there was an area that the community was was taking care of and planting things, which now is jury park. i believe it's owned by the city, but that that one became a park. and, um so i think there's a lot of potential and i also feel like there's an issue behind this. it is basically an attempt to privatize land that is been open to the public for decades. i always went and so i think we have just as much of an easement as they do the public using this space. 30 seconds. um pardon? 30 seconds left. okay, that that's . that's that's fine. that's all i need to say. thank you so

much. thank you. we will now hear from michael. alexa. oh, please go ahead. you have two minutes. michael alexis. oh, okay, we'll come back to gary lung. please go ahead. okay? jorge romero, please go ahead. can you hear me? yes. yes. my name is jorge romero. i'm a resident of san francisco. i'm also a licensed civil engineering 73 in california and nevada. uh and i can tell you that it's not take a civil engineer, let alone a rocket scientist to fill out those forms. they're very clear. i am very much in favor of the greenway. um, that's quite clear, actually. um but more important is the concern. i have that issuing this permit. we don't think it's gonna happen now. instead of bad president, i

have filled out many of these premises in my career. and i always answer them truthfully because i always think there is accountability. it's sees quite clearly that under a perjury, i am making these statements. so to issue this premier to anyone knowingly when they answer the questions policy. would not help us as a city or is the community. thank you. okay thank you. we will now hear from the phone number ending in 25 28, please go ahead. you may need to press star six to and mute yourself. 25 to 8. okay the phone number ending in 25 to 8, please. press star six. okay we're going to try another phone number, the phone number ending in 8728. please go ahead. hello

my name is the dts. i live in san francisco. i don't live in the mission currently, but i spent a lot of time there. um i wanted to speak in favor of the greenway and in favor of this appeal, which i'm glad to be on set to go through. it's telling that this is all about offense. offensive divide community offensively about the right to exclude to get off. and to privatized earlier in this mission greenway saga we saw, uh , supervisor ronan's office tried to invent an owner for the partial, just it wouldn't be public property. uh it's clear how much, uh, intense property interests dislike the idea of public property in general, but the mission greenway is a public good. it benefits everybody, so much more than parking or whatever else they want to use it for. it's shameful that monkey brains being hostile to organizers, harassing them destroying planters. um and it's completely backwards that mission kids cannot do the benefit in having the community garden next door. if i had kids there, i would love to have them

learn how to garden. they also already have a fence there, so i don't i don't take their safety concerns very seriously. flee. um you know, homelessness crisis . it's sad that so many people's instincts are defense off their land or land that isn't even there's pull up their ladders and say forget you. i got mine. the mission. greenway represented san francisco. i want to live in san francisco for everybody. we should take down defense that's currently there and reconnect the community. thank you. okay thank you. we will now try the phone number ending in 25 to 8 again. please go ahead. you may need to press star 60 and mute yourself. 25 to 8. please go ahead. your hand is raised. okay, we're going to move on to somebody else. jeff, please go ahead. uh hi. um thank you to the board of appeals for conducting this meeting and soft. such a civil manner. my name is jeffrey yet, but i've been a resident of san

francisco for 15 years and in the neighborhood since 2015. in fact, i'm a neighbor to the gate and i can see it from my living room. i respect monkey brains as an isp and i've worked at that company is that if you look as their services also respect the mission, kids preschool and maybe one day we hope to send my six month old daughter there. over it makes me very uncomfortable that these private interests are taking steps to privatize this parcel of land, which is clearly established historical use as a pedestrian right of way. and since it seems pretty clear that the, uh permit is going to get revoked, i just respectfully asked that the people here today in particular the board of appeals and their legal counsel. use what power you have in the city government to help provide guidance to this issue. the idea of ownership is convert conferred by the government. you always elected officials while maybe outside the jurisdiction of this meeting , have some power and influence on the arms and legs of the city government bureaucracy as established by the city in this meeting, the government insists that this land belongs to the john center preparation. but the state of california secretary of

state clearly indicates that it was dissolved in 1934. it is the duty of the government to resolve this issue. even though this clearly will not be easy. it was think of the broader community, not just the mission kids preschool, but 370 students at george mosconi elementary school and the 424 students that cesar chavez elementary school please get involved in this issue. i recommend working with the mission greenway seconds. elizabeth crilly has done extensive research into the history of this parcel and has written about it on her blog and through the mission local blog and has many answers to the questions that have come up in this meeting. so i just asked the government please take a step forward. maybe try to be proactive on this issue. otherwise it will just be in this legal quagmire indefinitely. thank you for your time. thank you. we'll now try michael. alexa. so please go ahead. hello can you hear me? yes. okay, so, um i think it's unfortunate. i'm sorry for the

folks at monkey brains that perhaps someone gave him bad advice and buying this property . they have a fairly large business with an awful lot of cars. i don't see how that's all going to fit into what they've purchased. i can see why they want the easement, um, support these businesses. but i feel like the mission greenway. they've been working on this issue for over 10 years. they haven't been able to get any much clarity. they worked through the supervisor on the ownership of the property, and i agree with the former speaker, uh, that we asked that the appeals board here somehow help the planning department and the building department. set up a process which can help them clarify the ownership of the property so that they can move forward and possibly turn it into a park. like many of the other properties, that kind of credit cross on this diagonal, diagonal former train way. thank you. thank you. we'll now try the phone number ending in 25 to 8. please go ahead. you you need to press star 60 and mute yourself. 25 to 8. we've tried

you a couple of times. hmm. okay so that person is either not there or they don't know how to unmute theirselves. is there anyone else here for public comment? okay so i believe that can okay, wait. he admitted himself to 5 to 8. hello. please go ahead. did you? did you hear somebody talking? i believe i lowered the hand. just okay. i think we're done with public comments. so we're going to move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellant. discreetly. you have three minutes. or whomever wants to speak. it's fine. thank you. i'll give some factual information. okay, um first of all, i'm. hearing the nonanswer for monkey brains regarding your question about are you trying to claim? um adverse possession there, nonanswer. they're fake terms

regarding stability. i find it extremely concerning so i second a lot of speakers before me and that the city needs to stand up and care for the community. um monkey brains in seem to imply that they couldn't function their business or their warehouse with that without, um , gaining access am to this giant piece of land. the fact is, though, which i didn't hear them say, unfortunately, is that their warehouse on the front on treat has two giant garage doors. why don't they use those? they have also stated in mission local that, um, there space is quote unquote more. their warehouses, quote unquote more space than we need. they're literally stating their warehouses too big for them. so go park your cars in your warehouse. they talk about. monkey race, talked about meshing that we cut the day after they put it there. strangely enough, the mission was placed all across the gates

so that it prevented the gate from opening. so we did monkey reigns to service by simply cutting it through the middle so that we can all open and close the doors, which of course monkey brains is making use of every day. we did not remove meshing. no person can quote unquote quote unquote sneak through the gates. ah, um, the loading docks. they stated in their brief and today that the loading docks are more than 100 years old. this is factually untrue. we have documentation from the heinz ear's the previous owners of the warehouse. it was said in court documents that they built a loading docks in the eighties. not 100. years ago. the loading docks are built on someone else's private property. the adjacent neighbors, private property. the monkey brains uses the term historic use reference to the loading docks. historic uses no legal definition whatsoever. there is no historic use for an encroachment, so at some point that loading dock will go. um.

30 seconds. thank you mentioned mediation, comment that their form of mediation was giving us quantum code giving us a tiny, tiny piece of community garden along the side, and then they would put their own private fence down the middle and we don't find that acceptable. this needs to be public community space that the mission district is severely lacking in. thank you. okay thank you. we will now hear from the permit holders. you have three minutes. i just want to start by saying that you know, we are a pdr company. we require pdr space and in order

in order to do that, we need loading and unloading of vehicles. we looked for six years for a place that could house our business. uh, we found it here. and everyone here we are pro green space. we love green space. we love the mission. everyone here. greenway included. have cell phones they have they have internet at their homes, and that service requires infrastructure utility. wires trucks loading, it requires a mass amount of activity that is appropriate for pdr, and that's exactly what we're trying to do here. we're fine with engaging the community. we don't mind. you know, we share the space with the landowners, people that have legal rights to the space. we're open to the public. in terms of if a public agency wants to come in and take over this and tell us how they want to divvy up interest in the in the land. we're excited about that. we would love public

oversight that that is fine. there is a process that seems that our interests would be also included, um i hear over and over again. people saying they're privatizing. they're privatizing. we're not privatizing. this is a private lot. we are trying to use it as it is, but we are open to other outcomes, depending on the proper agencies and the proper oversight being involved. if the if the board blocks offense, it will effectively make it public space and to your point president swig who's gonna take care of the blight who's gonna be responsible? when, uh, when someone breaks a leg on it, we have insurance for our staff, and, uh, and i'm operations operations. we don't have it for people that walk through the lot. um uh, yeah, three of my kids went to mission kids. coop braised, raising three kids in the city. it's a it's. it's tricky raising kids in the city . it's tricky running a business in the city with 60 employees. there's a there's a lot of things. and, um, um i, uh i

would like to hear more from the city attorney about why there is an, um of checkbox for easement right on the db former owner there's dc and then there should be one thing. uh, um, easement holder there's alex left. nothing marked out in the db. i told them to cross off the li see part themselves. we needed to get this 30 seconds set up to keep the lot safe and to run our operations in the mission mission kids, coop said. they're open to a greens taste as well, but they want some oversight. from an organization that is funding like rec and park. reckon party is not interested. we met with hillary ronen. i, you know, i really think that um the this private lot. is currently private, and until it becomes public, the. responsible that's time should take care of it. and that's us and the other adjoining owners. thank you, president swig you want, you

understand, guys that we're not here to discuss land used tonight. it's out of our jurisdiction. this is this a civil case stuff. i know it's frustrating for us all. but you do understand that that's my question. number one. yes, yes. second of all. you do understand that, um that the planning department and db i said to us that they want this permit revoked because it was improperly issued because there is no owner and that's the law. okay? and we have to abide. by the law. um so do you understand that? i would, um, i will have a whole discussion on this. but with the recommendation from two department heads or true departments, saying that this was improperly issued, most likely that there might be a leaning in a way, but i want to understand. that this is this is

what we deal with all the time and like i told you about my right hand and my left hand. they both argue. they both disagree on on this case, one finds that you have everything that the other side says you're not and the other one says that you. you you guys should you have the right to occupy the space? very difficult issue, but you do understand right now department had say revocation because it was improperly issued. so is that seems inconsistent with what we've read in california fencing code and in municipal code, for that matter, so i would be interested in the city attorney's take is for offense. that's even issue. i'm not sure if that's is that a db i requirement, particularly to d b i, or is that something? i mean, is there a situation where that trump's, um, california fencing code. i'm i'm not. i'm not certain. um i'm not saying you know, obviously will

comply with whatever the board comes with. but that's a that's a very good question. that is a perfect question for db. i'm asking mr green um, who will have his rebuttal in about four minutes to address that very same question, because it's a very good question. thank you very much for that. thank you. thank you for your time. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. nothing more. okay. i will not hear from db. i inspector green. okay. um, i. i would just say that the san francisco building code states, uh, defenses any fence under 66 ft high. there's not need a building permit between two properties as i understand the california sensing code it's talks about, uh, fancy separating two private properties and who is responsible for maintaining the fast um i would also say that

you know san francisco, uh, san francisco building code and i would requires that the are building permit applications. we filled out properly, and this is clearly under the space where who the owner is. it's the located 17 peralta llc is listed and they're not the owner of the property. available for any questions you probably have president swig, then commissioner trasvina. so um, i'm assuming that you have not changed your position on the revocation of this permit. i have not. okay, um so both both parties. um. i'm going back to my right hand and my left hand there, arguing with each other. it's tough. because what i see here is um, there there. we revoke this permit. um one. what happens to the existing fence? i brought up the fact you ah, you

acknowledge the question that somebody could make a complaint of all the fences could come down if the ah, if the building department found that there was no such violation that that takes a protected piece of property right now, because these fences and, uh, you know, cast their fate to the wind until the civil civil, uh, cases resolved on the issues of easement ownership, etcetera. uh mr green, what would you and that's and that's chaos. because if that kid from that middle from that little school cracks his head on on the pavement, um , who who's responsible? is it the alleged easement? olders is it the mission? greenway? is it the city of san francisco? i don't have the question. answer to that. but what do you what do you see to that that question um if in the worst case scenario, the existing fence comes down,

and suddenly it's castro fee to the when there is no owner. there is no defined isman holder and who has liability and where would you point both parties? both parties because because i represented the san francisco building department and forced the building code, we don't address you know who's who's liable or no, no, no, i'm just asking your advice as to where would you if somebody posed this question to you? you're not the solution. um and you're not the problem. um the problems started long time ago. but where would you direct them, uh, in the set of throwing up your hands and saying, we're only the building department. we don't have those questions. but these are the public who are looking to a department. um. for direction. where would you recommend both of these parties who are going to be at potential risk? uh as this situation moves forward and before it's resolved in

potentially a civil court. i need. i need your help on this because they need they need your good advice because you get questions from the public all the time on things you can't handle. so where would you send them? um well, i would ask them to contact the city supervisor's office. there's also mediation groups that help neighbors resolved. ions. um i would also say that you know whether this permit is upheld or revoked. sorry if it is revoked, there's still an existing fence there. um and they seem to have been over the years working with each other, allowing access so the defense isn't going away. based on your decision tonight. thank you. commissioner, transgender uh, thank you, president. swig. uh, i thought i understood your testimony earlier about the lack of ah identified owner would put the existing fence legal

question. is that right? i said, actually, that when i did the permit history, there's no um historical permit was ever issued to build a fence in the first place. and that the conversation went down the line if someone did file a complaint we? we would investigate that and we would find it that it's a violation. but the question we who would we write that notice of violation to since the violations go to the property owners, so we would still be in the same, you know, similar situation as we are tonight, so i'm not surprised if there's no record of who the owner is. i'm not surprised. there's no record of a permit for offense on the on the property. but what is important, though, is it sounds like you're saying that any legal procedure to remove the fence by the city would be stymied by the absence of an owner to provide notice. to is that right? or crack, okay. and

so there's there. there's two alternatives. one is the fence could evaporate or die of its own accord, and then there's no fence. and it is there does the city or who in the city would have the authority for public safety to put something up in the absence if the existing fence no longer was there. is there any is there any legal authority by the city to put up something for public safety? if it deemed that there was this was a public safety risk. yes we do have the ability to issue an emergency order to have the have the fence restored emergency order. if there's no owner, um, available to take responsibility, and the city would put up the fence. um and then whoever you know there would be a recorded emergency order against the property that couldn't be lifted until the

fees. encourage putting up that fence were paid. um is it fairly rare situation as it happened in years, but this is a this is a rare situation. but if for some circumstances e one side or the other felt it was an emergency for some type of safety reason. that a fence needed to be up. there is a process for that to go forward and then all the parties who are here today would be able to make their arguments one way or the other. but there is a process to provide at least a little bit of order. in the in the in the chaos that we think we're we are immersing ourselves in well, we have a process to deal with emergencies as imminent hazards. i don't believe it's been used for offenses, but i think it's inclusive enough to use in this case, but i don't think anyone saying to this space fences dangerous or and an imminent hazard of collapsed. okay. thank you. thank you, okay. thank you

, president. sweet. did you have something further or okay, so commissioners, this matter submitted so commissioners i'd like to start place i don't normally start like to start. with your permission, i think, according to the statutes, and according to the recommendation of the departments, um we have a an improper issuance of a uh, of permit and the permit should be revoked. and that's where we. might stop on that issue. um. and i don't think that we will put any terms and conditions on it or anything like that, because that's just. crazy unnecessary, but that being said, all of us have heard um, very important arguments from both sides like i kept on looking at my right hand on my left, and they were arguing with

each other because monkey brain says that has the right to be in business and try to run their business as they can. they are also a member of the community, and they hopefully are sensitive so that that community which they serve and pays them, and they would do everything possible to be a constructive member of that community, and i have heard from testimony tonight that i don't see why why they wouldn't. on the other hand, um the greenway. you know, speaks to the language that we have heard many times from this . this panel, which is, um, listening to the community, maintaining greens, greenery, and, uh um, and a. canopy in this city for admire mental reasons, as well as public health as well as the betterment of the community. so man, we can argue back and forth, but that's not in our pure view. what so i see that this is going to go is

going to go into a civil case anyway. but in the meantime, there is a path forward, which i would ask for a discussion tonight unless anybody else anybody disagrees with my proposal to revoke the permit, and that is that we write a letter to the district supervisor. and ask her to do her job. pure and simple. because that's what district supervisors are supposed to do. they're not supposed to take up, but they're supposed to be unbiased. they're supposed to be neutral. they're supposed to pay attention to the law, and they're supposed to serve their constituencies to make sure that things move forward or that those constituencies had access and direction as to how they can solve their problems that exist in the city. so i'd like i'd like to move the item in and uphold the appeal and in either and revoke the permit, but i'd

also like discussion, please. on us, sending a letter to the district supervisor to ask her to pay attention to the situation which is new to us. ah first of its kind, uh, clearly something that no city department had an answer to and as as the responsible party in, uh in guiding their constituencies and binding answers that they they in an unbiased, neutral fashion, help both parties find the answer to all these open questions that we have heard tonight. they go to civil court, and some judge doesn't for in terms of writing the letter. we would probably need to agenda is it for the future? but maybe you could direct a draft letter be written, and then it could be considered at a later hearing to find out first of all, if, uh, if the my fellow commissioners will support the renegade in writing the writing a letter like this. if not, then we don't have to discuss any further. and i've been rejected before. um so, uh, commissioner airport.

thank you. i've been pretty quiet tonight. my fellow ministers have done a very good job of coming through. what is you know what you would call in law school? a heck of an issue spotter because there's a lot going on here in some of it is very pertinent to why we're here. and then there's the bulk of what's actually going on here. i find the idea of a letter interesting i would point out that that letter should be cc to the rec park department of the assessor recorder's office and the treasurer's office because this is not simply the supervisor who has some limited ability to lobby the departments , but not the direct ability to affect the department's. there's a departmental error here. it's a departmental er that actually harms the city because it's not collecting taxes or putting the parcel to public use either of which would be better than the current state. um, so it's a little bit of a broader issue than that. and i say that with sympathy to both sides on this i

live in patrol hill, another neighborhood in the eastern neighborhoods plan, and when looking at the appellant's brief and seeing the excerpt from the open space plan for the mission sub component of that i'm reminded of all the times that we have relied on the patrol hill open space plan or the dog dogpatch plan because the planning department of zone the area created a lot of density and a lot of wonderful recommendations for a green space without any ability to execute upon those without the cooperation of the other departments, and that cooperation can come and it can come with assistance to lobbying sometimes from the supervisor, sometimes from other nonprofits , like the park's alliance, we have a long tradition of guerilla, gardening and patrol hill. some of those spaces are still tenuous. some of them are now official and safe. and so i understand this effort at the same time. it's a mixed use area, and those mixed uses have to be accommodated. and those mixed uses can be retail and those mixed uses our production distribution repair, and those

are particularly special because those are the ones that most threat of being squeezed out of our communities as things like laboratory space office space, medical space, and sometimes even residential space could take up those those uses and those uses provide blue collar jobs. and so it's a tenuous balance that we have, particularly in the eastern neighborhoods. um and the needs of those users need to be accommodated in some reasonable way. i would like to think that if we took all the heat and passion in some of the history out of this, the parties could get together and start to work out a solution among themselves that would meet the needs the various needs of what is a single unitary community. with that all said the reason why i have been quite up to this point is because i, you know, as i appreciate president swig and our city attorney in huber doing at the very beginning, the arrow in front. the area in front of us tonight is very narrow, and that's whether or not the permit

is appropriately issued. and you know, i think it comes down to the property rights of the monkey brains or their their loc that holds the real estate and they may have property rights and may is the key thing here because we can't adjudicate with this property rights are they may have a perspective easement that easement has a scope. it has a geography and those things are all left undefined. and as a result, we do not know if they have the power to take out this permit, even if they're not the honor as an easement holder, whether or not they do if they are an easement holder, and to keep the permit in place would be to make a conclusion that they do have rights and that those rights extend to the ability to take out the permit. and i'm uncomfortable doing that giving our limited scope of authority. thank you, president swig, i strongly support the approach that you are

recommending. it's consistent with the two departments that have stated that the permit was improperly approved, and it underscores one of the roles of the board of appeals. we've been recently attacked. they were blocking things where unnecessary for the city and yet in this case and in so many others, uh, the people come before us. and they tell us things that they have told other parts of the city agencies for years. for a decade or more. and i and i see these various i say everyone, as i said earlier, everyone here has been ill served. but but by by the city here. you have a company that moves in. i'm guessing that some city agency said we want you in the city. we want you to stay in

this city. go look over logo. look at this area. and yet list what you've got now it appears to be less than what you thought you were getting. what what? when you moved in, on the other hand, we've got we've we have community members, some of whom have been here a few years, some of them here for many years and we have. the response from the city is we don't know who the property belongs to. it's up to the contractor, whether they the person who the gomez, uh, gate company to figure out who the owner is with city can't tell who the owner is. why why would they? why would the gate construction company now who who who the owner is, so there's a lot here that needs to be resolved. it can be resolved only by the people. it has to be resolved with a the cooperation and the leadership. ah of the agencies and particularly the supervisor. that is why we have district supervisors. that's why we have a third. they got a

third aid to tendulkar issues in the community. however it's resolved is going to be up is beyond us. we have the very narrow issue in front of us as to whether this permit was properly issued or not, and we hope that after years of ill will promote, prompted by prompted by, um not getting not getting constructive or responsive answers that that ill will can go away and something can be can be resolved. but for us for our role, our role is important to be able to, uh, make sure that permits are a proper granted appropriately that that reasonable ah complaints and reasonable contest over ah, the legality of permits are heard. i think we have done that tonight and by by reviewing the record by the public participating in this process so i would support your recommendation. president swig and i again it's consistent with

the departments and it's something that is would would be to in my mind that, at least for the for the short term, the most appropriate way to resolve the matter before us. thank you. commissioner landmark thank you to everybody. i think it's fairly obvious where the vote tonight will come out be based on every everything we've heard tonight, so i won't believe it believer at that point. ah significantly. i very strongly support president swigs idea to draft a letter and i would go so far as to volunteer myself through write such a letter. i also very much concurred with commissioner kepler's comments as to, uh expanding the scope and one particular person that commissioner apple did not mention that should also be included is the mayor and the reason i say this is because the mayor directly oversees the department of real estate, the department of real estate is the only agency as far as i'm aware

of in the city with the direct power to do something with this property. um this is not part of my suggestion for the letter. but this you know where i the city attorney which i am not i. this is the most obvious use case for eminent domain i've ever seen. um and that is an obvious fact to me, um and one that is needs to be considered. i do think supervisor. ronan needs to be a recipient of this letter. um because and i but i do concur with what commissioner eppler said in that, you know, she only has so much power in the situation. i think the supervisors at least traditionally, i don't know about legally but traditionally have been the. the go betweens between city government and local residents and neighborhood groups. um. also slightly off topic from this, but i think

worth mentioning, um, because it is very much related to what we've talked about. tonight is the as one of the members of the public spoke to tonight is the issue of unaccepted property is which is extremely. the status of unaccepted properties in the city is extremely extremely bad . um i won't go into too many details on this because it's irrelevant, but i am president of my neighborhood association in the castro, and we recently came across an unaccepted property that we wanted to have a community meeting about and it resulted in dpw closing off access to a public park, which was the worst possible outcome and something we couldn't even imagine being an outcome of this . um and this is not an unaccepted property because, as we've heard, it's not owned by the city currently, but it is strongly related and what i do

what i do agree with many members of the public on is that the cities the city needs. courageous leadership to take charge on issues like this where we're just not seeing it. um and for that reason i would volunteer to write a letter on behalf of or to present to the board of appeals for consideration at a later date. um on the topic of this parcel, particularly and all of the processes that have gone into it, and frankly failed, uh, to address meaningfully addressed the concerns here. um i do hope and think that there is a mutually beneficial solution. i you know i don't i'm monkey brains customer myself. we chose it because it's not comcast. um and but ultimately, you know, and i would love to see these smaller city owned business or local businesses. succeed um,

but at the same time, you know, the community has spoken very clearly here tonight, and i want to commend all of you for sitting through three hours of hearing on this one issue. it's not an insignificant commitment . and i applaud you all for being here. thank you. okay so, um, uh to things formal motion. motion denied the revoked for a moment that it was improperly issued is my motion before we take the vote. um here's the here's the important and standards but standard speech y'all are neighbors. monkey brains is to the community there , your neighbor, they pay taxes they contribute. to the community. there are they haven't broken any laws. um uh, that have been, uh that any any court has found. um i would you

all have to live together to move this forward. constructively please. ah, and so i would urge you they're all have good manners and try to work at constructively together before either through a city process or through a civil process. uh, the law is the law has discovered the law is implemented and there is a resulting finding by a an agency that actually can make that finding so please, please, please. um try to try to get along and, um, uh um so we'll we'll do the vote. and also with regard to the. the letter. it seems that we don't have any disagreement on that. we have some great ideas from the various commissioners as to inclusion on ah, the letter and

we have a volunteer and. built to tell, uh craft the letter and we can. i miss rosenberg can find us a date sometime in the future to put it on the formal agenda. and we can talk about it again. okay i believe vice president lopez has something further. your name is vice president. um i just wanted to say just adding to the to the comments. one of the other hats that i wear is teaching my old law school across the bay. berkeley. and, um and i just can't think of a better fact pattern. we have finals starting next week. it's just your classic. creative fact pattern for a property law final. um and so with that. um, i want to echo

something that commissioner trasvina said, which is that i see. victims. on on both sides. both sides of this of this case. um we do. you know, unfortunately, sometimes see bad actors. they come before us, but i don't see bad actors on either side of this um, the other caveat that that i wanted to give it and it looks like we're headed towards. you know a letter in addition to the action on the permit itself. and if you stick around for the next item, you'll see that uh, the letters don't always lead to the outcome that we want. um and so, with that in mind, i really want to emphasize the point that the president swig just made is that you are neighbors. and. you know , community space is one of the recurring terms that i've i've

heard over and over this evening. and i think part of that means taking in the input from all the members of the community. which includes monkey brands, which includes other adjacent neighbors. which includes the appellant. in my mind. um you know, we've heard kind of polar uh, extremes of. you know, characterization as as a parking lot. and then. you know, planners, you know, obstructing ah, potential slash purported easement uses. and i think that's not that's not helpful to a community process. even with the letter goes where we want it to go. that's gonna involve. your supervisor quarterbacking a community process that the needs that good faith and in cooperation and spirit of partnership. even if

it goes in that direction, it's and it's ultimately successful, which i sincerely hope for. it may take a while. and they're going to be many, many days and moons in between tonight. and in that eventual resolution, if we get a good resolution for everybody here and so that that's the point that i'd like to emphasize is that you know, we really need that. that spirit of cooperation from everybody in here, everybody online. that's that's involved. because. unfortunately we can't give you that clarity. i wish we could. i wish we could settle this this evening. and i'm sorry that we can't do that for you. but in the meantime, we really need you all to work together on this. thank you. thank you for your leadership. mr vice president. can we take a yes. so we have emotion from president suite to grant the appeal and revoke the

permit on the basis that it was improperly issued. on that motion, vice president lopez trasvina lemberg grappler. okay. that motion carries 5 to 0 in the appeals granted do you? do you want to 10 minutes? bio break five minutes after eight, please. yes we voting on the letter as well. uh i've asked that we, uh, calendar the letter. well, there's no need for a vote we need. we don't need to vote. so i'll work separately with commissioner limburg on a future date. thank you so appreciate everyone coming tonight and participating

okay good evening and welcome back to the april 26th 2023 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now moving on to item number six.

this is a special item discussion of the april 20th 2023 letter from the sfm ta to president swig regarding taxi permit appeals on january 9th 2023 vice president lopez sent a letter to the sfm t regarding taxi permit appeals. the letter addressed whether taxi permanent pills should continue to be heard by the board of appeals, and if not, the factors considered by the b o. a commissioner's when making decisions on these types of cases on april 20th 2023 jeffrey tumblin, director of transportation for the sfm to sent a letter to president swig regarding the issues raised by vice president lopez director tamblyn further stated that the sfm terry has discontinued the informal practice of allowing the boa to hear appeals related to taxi permit decisions. so commissioners. so uh, commissioners. this is just a hearing to recognize that we have got we have received a response from um. the mbta. there's no resolution. there's

no probably no further dialogue is just this is an opportunity for you to comment on the fact that you have received the response. and if you have any further thoughts that you would like to share with the public in the entrance of sunshine law, transparency, etcetera, um there . there was a miss rosenberg and myself. did have a meeting with the m t a to feel their questions and discuss, uh, the item. it was. it was a fair meeting again, just with regard to disclosure of thoughts is conveyed by commissioner lopezes letter. i must commend ms rosenberg in that she was um very ah. helpful in.

communicating that this commission's thoughts and also for raising issues related to hearing officers as she herself had had a responsibility there. and they said, gee, that's a very good idea when she suggested. some opportunity to improve their operations based on her experience. so i'd like to commend julie rosenberg on being not only neutral, uh and if it great facilitator but also a very constructive participant in trying to enhance the knowledge of the to with regard to their hearing activities with that. you have received the letter. i have reported on my experience. um i'd like to

probably to call on vice president lopez to see if he has any further commentary. and with recognition of the letter. uh, yes. thank you. thank you for the for the update, and i want to go. your words of appreciation for executive director rosenberg. thank you so much for representing this body in that meeting. and for leveraging your experience and prior roles. ah to communicate the values that we. ah you know, stood up for in the letter. um i think i do have to say you know? that i am disappointed. ah! as as someone who. who rides public transportation in the city. um

on the t line on the busses, i commute to work. in the mts bike lanes. there's a lot that i admire about the agency. ah but i do think that that this is an area where i have some misgivings about the about the conclusion that that that was reached by the agency. um i do think that the cases that we've heard ah, in my time. on the board. um you know, have raised issues of public safety. of the rights and treatment of the elderly of small business owners of the disabled. um. and those are important questions that i think deserve a forum like ours. questions that deserve uh, truly arm's length. independent. uh quasi judicial decision maker that sits outside of the agency.

and so that was, you know the thrust. for the letter. um you know, acknowledge that, uh and also want to thank the city attorney's office and its guidance to us both in the various cases involving the m t. a uh but but also, just as importantly, with respect to you this kind of authority and jurisdictional issue uh, that that was the subject of the letter. but you know, acknowledging that the advice that we've received that that the s f m t. a is within its right to make this decision. you know, we're also within our right to express dissatisfaction and disappointment with the decision that they reached. um, you know, in my mind just speaking for myself. of particular. uh importance are these valid questions that were

raised about you know, some of these communications and decisions that were overturned. uh, those those are pretty clear. um. clear questions that that support this independent external decision making body with with some of authority to review these matters on appeal, and i do i just also want to thank the members of the public that have spoken on these matters that have spoken on this jurisdictional issue. um you know, i you know, can't say that. i have agreed with every last point that that that is made. public comment. ah by by all members of the public. some of those comments. you know, have veered towards the conspiratorial at times, but i do. i believe strongly in. in

having a public forum for, uh, those are arguments that be expressed and um, you know, i've i've heard that you know, in in the recent letter in pre prior communications from the agency. you know, i've had this heard this interest for kind of streamlining, uh, permit processes. um but when we're faced with those types of questions about. you know the basic kind of fairness and integrity about the process. ah, those seem much more. important to address then streamlining things. and i think open hearings like this that are televised and open to the public. they just provide a great antidote. to those types of allegations. and it's disappointing to hear that that they won't provide that service to the city and any further so those are my statements. before

i share my thoughts. i wanted to ask a question and i know the inter maybe no, but i wanted to ask, anyway. um. and i my question is i wanted to see if miss rosenberg is allowed and also would desire to share her experience on this because i think her um her experience as former head of the sfm to hearing section is extremely valuable as well as obviously our executive director. so if that's permissible and you wish to do so i would love to hear what you have to say about it, but i don't know if that's allowed default to the discretion of the executive director. i'm happy to share my experience. i would love i would love to hear your specific question or just i president swig shared his experience at the meeting and kind of his the background of it, and i would just love to hear your point of view on it about the meeting. uh

i think it's i think it was productive. i think the m s f m t made up their mind that they do want to take these hearings back and they are allowed to do so, according to our city attorney under the charter. so um, we president swig and i tried to communicate to them. ah! hmm the ideas set forth and vice president lopez's letter. um we particularly emphasized, uh, due process and independence and impartiality and. i did recommend that they draft a code of conduct for the hearing officer's and may be available themselves of any training on due process principles. ah! so and i believe presents wig also emphasized, um what was the word that used empathy, empathy, empathy and empathy. right? right. so ah! i think i think we

just tried to communicate the board's feelings as set forth in the letter. um and they're very receptive to that. and as the former manager of the mt. hearing section from 2005 to 2018, we only had at that time, basically, 2 to 3 people handling the taxi hearing decisions, and i was one of them . and often times we would go against the taxi services division. so, uh, i think the hearing officer's strive to make decisions based, you know, applying the facts to the law, but the cases that were heard before the board involving, you know, equitable stoppable. there was a question because that one case involved the reconsideration. i mean, i don't think it's appropriately for giving legal legal opinion. but i do agree that if the sfm t taxi division did not agree with

the hearing officer's decision, they should have appealed to the board of appeals not sent another email to ah, the head of the as commissioner just viniar raised so um, i think the empty is taking our suggestions very seriously, and i don't think the hearing officer's rubber stamp sfm t taxi decisions and i think they're very careful and there, and i think they are independent. so and i the what i felt from, uh, director tomlin is that he was going to take very seriously the importance of having separation between the departments and even separation between him and the department so that the hearing section could act independently, so that was my experience. thank you so much. i really appreciate you sharing that, um my. the thing

that resonated with me since since we received this this april 20th letter, um is that. based on the three cases that we heard about when was that november, um and we, you know, all felt very strongly in those cases, and i don't want to rehash it or anything, but, um, you know, i if i remember correctly, our decision was unanimous to overturn all three of those appeals. um and two. see the facts that were presented in those three appeals. um and had to have the city's official response to it to be taking away. a level of virginia was just so astoundingly disappointing to me, um. as a member of the public more than anything else that you know they they saw what happened with these three cases . um i hope they watched the hearings either live or afterwards, and yet at the end

of it, they still made the decision to take away that level of review that clearly i, as based on, you know, dozens and dozens of public comments. uh and you know, in an area that i'm not personally familiar with. i don't know much about the taxi industry apart from what i've learned here um but what i you know, what i have learned is that there's a lot of considerations that go into it in a long history and a very rich, um you know community of longtime taxi drivers and i just feel like this is a little bit of a slap in the face to them, um and particularly, uh, you know the taxi drivers who are certainly not exclusively but, um generally speaking, you know , aging and many of whom are disabled. the fact that this you know? that those considerations cannot be taken into account by the sfm to is just extremely

disappointing, and, um, i don't think reflects well on our city's government or the um, you know, just the path of what's going on here based on on that. so that's what i have to say. thank you. commissioner transylvania thank you. thank you, president swig. i'll try to be brief, and i agree with my colleagues and accept the i think the description of being disappointed that i would say that they would do very well in the state department and diplomatic service, but i think it goes beyond disappointment, and but i applaud them for their for their diplomacy in putting it that way. but we have we have a role in our role is to listen to the people who come before us. read the materials, decide the cases and follow follow the law. and just as in the previous matter we heard earlier earlier

tonight. we can only do so much. it's up to other city agencies. it's up to the communities to work things out. again following the law, and when there's a matter that deals with something that comes to us, then we can, then we can be involved. not everything needs to come to us. what what? we were what we were selling. apparently the other agency wasn't buying. and according to the according to the rules, and the and the definitions, interpretations of both the municipal codes in the city charter. that's their right . um it's all right to state what we have stated the letter, i think was very eloquent and in doing that, but now it's really up to the stakeholders. it's up to us. also up to those who oversee city matters, including members of the board of supervisors, the city attorney and others to if they feel that that this is fine, and there's really no problem, but but i do think that um, if you look at uh

, if you look at whether, uh as as as commissioner limburg said the response to our work was withdrawing the our authority does that hold up to city values. yes you have equity and i don't mean in the equitable stopfel sense. but in the city, this is a city where the agency's ah, the city talks about equity all the time and whether there's an adverse impact on some of some of the elderly and the drivers who have disabilities or whether there was just a resistance to, uh as as more than one representative of the agency came up and really showed no ability to accommodate a variety of issues. if that's if that is what the those who oversee the agencies want then then that then that's that's the decision. it's not our decision. but so but i would say, i would, uh, encourage those who may be

similarly disappointed, uh, to continue to address their concerns to make sure that we as as this body and all the bodies in the city, uh fulfill, fulfill the values that we that we that we present as a city. um so i'm i expressed my views on the letter and the current situation. i don't know whether there is much more that we can do other than of course, here from here from the public, which i think will be doing shortly. thank you. commissioner eppler um, thank you. i'll be brief because i do agree with my fellow commissioners. this is a very you know, we don't have to hear a lot of taxi cases. we only need to hear the ones that are that the outliers and you know, we're not stopping the authority of the department except to the extent that department fails in exercising its authority manifestly and the only consolation that i can pull from this is the fine work of

vice president lopez present swig executive director rosenberg in communicating to the sfm to in all of us during those hearings about the issues that should be considered in the policies that should be followed in the way that the sfm t a can better accommodate those things that we hear when we decide a case when they bring it to themselves internally. i'd like to think that we did provide value, not just to the cases that we heard but to future cases at the sfm table here now the proof will be in the pudding and should there become liabilities that come out of this to the city than perhaps the department will reconsider its decision. um but i do hope that you know this has provided value to the agency and that they do heat well, and do follow those things that we have. try to try to express to them. commission member again. sorry um, i thought of something else

to the. one. i really want to echo. but commissioner eppler said in his appreciation for the work of presidents reagan vice president lopez and executive director rosenberg. my problem with it, of course, is not a problem with anything that the three of them did. but the fact that there's no accountability for the promises that have been made to them at any point in time. ah at all of the citizenry has no direct oversight of the sfm ta um and. not only that, but, you know, i think the rationale that was given in the letter to us is frankly, a little insulting the mobility permit harmonization sounds very double speaky to me and, um you know, considering that it's being put in the same category as the scooters and uber and lyft which you know i ride money

almost exclusively. i have always been immunity writer and um, you know that that sector the uber left and scooters particularly have not been regulated hardly at all. in the last 15 years since they became a thing. um and that is extremely troubling that that is the rationale that is being used to support the taking away of the board of appeals hearing writes in a specific area. it just doesn't make any sense to me. so that's all they wanted to add. let me let me one final comment. to put some wrapping and maybe a little space on this before we go to public comment. um so, uh um let me characterize our meeting with uh, mr tomlin. mr tomlin spoke to us about the challenges that he faces at uni the challenges of financial challenges that money will be underwater and industrial

financial straits within the next two years, if serious things aren't done. he didn't elaborate, because he doesn't know. ah he's under a lot of pressure. to keep keep the rails humming and get together. get the people from one place to another. ah ah! he has a gigantic agency that is further. i would think his issues are further exacerbated by the issues that that you just brought up, commissioner and now and now you have scooters and god knows what's next to manage so in in and trying to be empathetic with him, trying to be sympathetic with with his challenges. i see that he has to. he wants to keep control. and a handle on the m t a. and, um. and he chooses to manage in that fashion, which is keep it tight. keep it inside and keep

it efficient. uh and that's the way he wants to manage. and i guess we have to ensure that until whoever his bosses are, which may be the board of supervisors in the mayor, decide that you know there. there's time for a change. um so, but i think we should recognize that communities of big business at high risk right now and an anchor to keeping the city going, and we should be sympathetic to him in that passion, at least empathetic, um , so that being said, um ah! it's three things. three words came to mind as i heard you all speaking one. we aren't antidote. you know today, tonight we were an antidote. we had cranky people here. who thought that they were they had a point of view and wanted to be

heard. and we were there entered out to hear them. and resolved the issue. it so happened that we've we found for their appeal , but it was on a technicality, but they were heard they were recognized and the discussion got out there and we did our best not only to take care of the micro issue, but to give them some solid ideas about how they can handle the macro issue , which we have not jurisdiction over and this is what i think that uh, is my frustration with the empathy side, which how many times did i say the word empathy in our meeting three or 400? the empathy side of m t a is while they're trying to serve the people and keep the rails humming that they also have to pay attention to their their customers, which includes by the way their employees they are customers, too. um but you know, we are an antidote and if somebody has a problem, they can

come get their antidote here. sometimes the antidote is a little bit more sour than they would like. but it's still an antidote because they get hurt. secondly, transparency. uh the hearings in em to our hearing officers, and they're generally and tighter forums than we have here tonight. tonight we're on. you know, we're on tv. anybody can find us and if they miss us tonight, vegans us later, but we were out there naked to the world and we were as transparent as can be, uh, it's not quite the case in the hearing officer's situation and somebody who is subject to a hearing officer. they may not always feel that they got the full level of transparency that they have that goes to the empathy piece that goes to the service piece. uh thirdly, education. uh i got a great education today. i don't know about you guys. i got a history of san francisco. i got a history of the mission. i got an education about what jurisdiction is where and oh, by the way, so did the public. and

i think the public appreciated that by by cutting out the this by cutting out that access to us is preventing the public from being educated is preventing the people who are involved in the case from being educated as to why the finding is going to go in the way that it is. we do a very good job. about educating our people who come in here. whether they are they were their parties or not educating as to what? where, why it's going the way it's going and how they can , in fact, expand their education, so i think that the biggest danger so you know what the he looks to say? i think they made a horrible decision. ah by the way, my peer, the president of the commission. she was you could she could have written a letter. by the way, based on our conversations with her, and, um, and what bothers

me the most. is the potential precedent that it sets. um because i'm ta, who's next? who's next? and pretty soon those rights of the public are gonna could be limited and limited and limited and there will be an internal hearings. nobody will know whether the departments will, you know, put up their cages of fairness around those those hearings, but you know, it's not going to serve as an antidote. it's not going to be very transparent and neither the public nor the participating parties will ever get educated. so i think it was a really rotten decision. and aside from the way it was presented to us if i could kind of be square on that subject now, can we go to public comment? um yes, and how long has public comment presents? work depends how many we have out there. it's late. how many we have out there? we don't have

that many. okay, then. three minutes is fine, okay? okay um, welcome. right my name is charles rathbone. and i'm one of several 100 elderly medallion holders who are adversely affected if the t a blocks access to the board of appeals. it is certainly a discouraging to see that access, which has been guaranteed to san franciscans, since at least 1932 in the charter. and it is, uh especially distressing. to see that it's being extinguished by bureaucratic fiat. and for the.

explicit and frequently repeated purpose of saving the to staff from the trouble and time of responding to appeals. so if i could put something on the overhead. and of course, i read the charter as a layperson. to me. it's plain english is not tricky language so but some of the legal subtleties maybe escaping me, but but i don't want to talk about charter section eight a 102. regarding the s m m tas governance and duties. specifically subsection h, which includes an amendment that was made by the voters and property of 2007. so eight a 102 states at the agency is subject to other provisions of the charter. and without, uh,

without excluding all of the rest of the charter. it specifically mentions 10 sections that do apply. and the final sentence list three charter sections that are not applicable to the agency. nowhere in this is there any reference to a section 4.1 oh, six regarding the board of appeals. proposition a intended to exempt empta from appeals. it would have been so stated in this section. which the authors were clearly aware of, because it actually did add an amendment. the fact that property did not include an exemption from 4.1. oh, six is evidence of my mind and the voters had no such intention. so for this reason, i believe that the empty s assertion that is incorrect and that the board of appeals retains its authority to review permit decisions. and if i'm to wants to change that, i

believe they need to go back to the voters and make it clear that they intend to extinguish an appeal, right? and lastly, thank you all profoundly for the attention that you're given to this man. really really makes a difference. thank you very much . thank you. we will now hear from the collar whose phone number ends in 1405. please go ahead. drunk night i have been breakfast capacity of the t a blues with my wife and life bullies hood, but now i'm objective that embarrassed the weakness of the award to the put their foot down for the role of law. so now you impulsive pond us cabdrivers that duty obligation and fast foot, he said. they can our fellow parkas

higher lars to speak at what relief but court plans except court or did federal court certain? like, you know? playing of loudly and you can do something about it. and for us, cert, can you identify in the other permit? actually the agency connection or stop apartment that happens. kuala fight any permitted from customer support of appeals? my novel. there is none appropriately. thank you. okay thank you. we will not hear from marcelo fonseca. please go ahead. you have three minutes. can you hear me? yes, we can. and can you see me as well? we can see it as well. welcome. thank you. my name is marcello

fonseca. i am a career kept driver. hmm. i am a k medallion holder. and as you know, came a darling is a prop kghm, italian. um i also like to thank all of you for being our voice. or advice of hope for us, um as a longtime member of the tax industry. i find mr tambling's letter to you, even though comic , it's very insulting to members of the taxi industry. um as you mentioned, um the cases you've heard before. the evidence. presented proves that there is no ethical firewall. so mr tumblin again is bragging about this, um ethical world. um. i don't know. the mtv hearing section can give us justice.

yep. you are only avenue or we are used to think you were only avenue to a fair and impartial hearing. um another thing. property of 2007 was sold to the taxi industry as the. they promised to reform the middling system and improve the industry . sadly the m t a has abused its power and took the text industry to a dead end. um. i have here. um well, i had a major health issue. um. and in order to get this forms a three page. in order for me to get a medical exemption of the questionable driving requirement. i had to see three different doctors and the radiologist. none of them

wanted to fill out this form in segment. i finally convinced. one so i could get an exemption of these driving choir mint. um it's a very embarrassing, oppressive. um. unnecessary requirement, and it's only enforced on k madonna holders. um. some it's really hard to believe that we can 30 seconds justice from the m t. a here in section so i really appreciate all you have done for us. but i'm really. and in disappointed that. we no longer will be able to come to you for justice. okay

thank you. now hear from carl mcmurdo, please go ahead. thank you, julie. um. well the april 20 letter. is a fountain of misinformation. and we're all calling on you to show the courage to stand up to the bully here. i rural gay agencies claiming they have the right to override supersede the city charter section 4.1 oh, six. says at together with section 30 of the business tax and tax and business regulation code. so so we have the right to file appeals as taxi permit ease and that you have the responsibility and duty to hear those appeals. uh, so i think the city attorney obviously has a conflict of interest or advising both of you and the ah m t. a but.

transportation code as many entries that violate law. and so now what you really have is the city attorney is advising you to break the law. and so what are you gonna do about it? listen to them. i hope not. uh i do want to say that, you know, why is this happening? well the same city attorney who leapt over this ethical supposed ethical firewall. and landed on george hormonal and his wheelchair and you overturned that revocation, was the lead attorney in the credit union lawsuit just kind of hero. it is own agency. but. you know if you look at what's happening there, maybe 800. permits involved of elderly people, including pre k and prop k. at the caribbean trial, the city's experts warned that based in part on future expectation that permits are worth $125,000.

that multiplies out to $100 million. that's what's going on here. the city wants to have a kangaroo court process where you can't do what, just and in accordance with the law so they can take $100 million from 800 people who risk their lives and works, 30 and 40 years to have a de facto pension. and you know the city's interpretation is we swore the intention to drive a cab driver gets rick permanent. all those rear ended in paralyzed, he loses his operating permit. that makes no sense. it's an egregious violation of a d a. um in two we went to federal court 30 seconds. thanks i was gonna go jazz. i went to federal court. and slam dunked against us the federal judge, but then on appeal the nice circuit the slow under agreement the city sign venture, bria now federal judge signed, it said that we would be

compensated rather than revoked at the end of our career, so the city's violating a signed agreement. with the federal court. this is so against the law like that. i hope you'll stand up. thank you. that's time . alex support us. thank you. we'll now hear from evelyn angle, please go ahead. yes. hello. thank you, um. i want to thank you for the time and consideration. you've given the taxi appeals and echo other voices on that. i'm watched almost all of your hearings on in the recorded for him, but i haven't spoken much. my name is evelyn angle and i am a taxi driver was a taxi driver up until covid. and now i'm on the taxi workers alliance board. i just want to say that i do hope the time comes when the right for taxi permit. ease to appeal to the board of appeals is restored. i disagree with you.

taking divisions per position that this right will prevent them from implementing their goals. which they say is an equitable outcome across the industry. they fear that appeals to your board would allowing them when impact their ability to enforce their rules and reduce the deterrence effect. i do believe the opposite is true that having the right to appeal to the sport enhances our sense that the processes are fair. um in their discussion in april, 18th m t a board, uh, correctly identified that there was deep issues of a lack of trust in the fairness have mentees process but then their discussion beard and a strange direction about how to address and restore this trust. and they felt that they had to do a better job communicating to us taxi drivers just how much the taxi division was actually doing to help us. and i found that it was a bizarre turn and best time death

and i found it actually patronizing. so we thank you. we believe that allowing taxi permit appeal to the board of appeal would go a long way to restore our trust in the system and that it would actually give the m t a more not less credibility to enforce their rules. so thank you for hearing these cases with such care and empathy. hmm thank you. we will now hear from the collar whose phone number ends in 25 to 8. please go ahead. you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. the collar whose phone number ends in 25 to 8. okay, go ahead. i see you and muted yourself. you can start speaking. okay we can we can

come back to you, barry. toronto, please go ahead. yes. good evening. i could not have asked for better comments and more sensitive comments, more intelligent conversation. then. the members of the board of appeals tonight. i also owe and apology to julie rosenberg and i hope i can give you the respect that i had given to your predecessor, robert feldman. he rest in peace who has a good friend of mine. we even room together. at a retreat. many years ago. in los cotto's and i also wrote the obituary. over the jewish boards. and for benjamin suede. i believe the chairs president, president's grandfather. so i have a lot of deep respect for this body. in the work and the effort they put in and deciding cases. i am very

much concerned that the m t a does not have that type. of credibility or integrity to decide. on what's right for the for the taxi riding public. it's not about the taxi drivers only. it's about the riding public. it's about how they treat the drivers and how we serve the public. is a very it's industry has changed. it has changed to the point of where it came. a dying holders received. at the most coupled $100 a month where they used to receive over $2000 a month for the least medallions to other drivers. by continuing to revoke or not renew permits. okay, medallion holders. and not allow transparency regarding the process that they are going to be hurting service to the public and, and that's what have drivers out of out of a job. the

in the fact that i cannot work the airport. and became medallion and a lot of new drivers find out that not have access to the airport because they're not driving the proper cab with the proper medallion. could could have been continually heard the ability to provide for us to provide proper and efficient service to the public. i want to say i want to. maybe you can allow for a case that can before you for jewish diction and allow for the discussion of whether environment seconds taxation code. you're not to hear the case or the city charter, which gives you the right to hear these cases. so maybe when the first case comes to you, there can be a further debate and discussion. the email the letter sent by jeff tomlin's shirt, such a heartless hardness. uh

opinion of the taxi industry. from his perspective and shows that it is now. thank you. that's fine. thank you, mr. thank you, mr toronto. your time is up and thank you for the apology will now hear from evelyn po kez, please go ahead. good evening, president suite vice president lopez commissioners. i'm evelyn podcast, president and general manager of alliance cab. let me call your attention to the fact that the city exposed small people like us to this business of making big deaths in public policy when the city was in dire need of revenue. they sold this taxi permits to this gullible drivers. who is scraped everything they had after being painted a rosy picture of owning their small business and having a decent retirement fast forward to today. this agency is

supposed to have a fiduciary duty had failed us and made layers and layers of unsound regulations. they continue to modify the rules and regulations twisted them to satisfy their purpose. when they establish a band for airport pick ups. they all tend to only allow certain battalions to pick up in the airport. we lost a lot of drivers. many, many drivers quit. without the drivers. our cubs sat in the yard. while our overhead was was running high companies. defaulted on their obligations, and many cab companies closed. all these so empty a can look good in court while fighting their lawsuit. meanwhile when the airport is lacking on taxi availability, empty a will change their policy to allow other medallions to

pick up. then, in a month, they will change the rules and restrict them restrict them again. this back and forth, maybe really impossible for us to run at the business with some semblance of stability. now they want to take away away our rights to appeal decisions to the board of appeal. they now justify it as part of a larger effort called mobility permit harmonization. they claim there will be an ethical wall. we have seen when pressured by the city attorney's they can change. um the favorable results to the appellant's change it to sfm ta favor. how do you expect us to trust them? they have twisted the rules to suit their purpose. do you really believe that they will conduct a fair and unbiased hearing? we don't have the means to go to court 30 seconds only neutral, impartial, independent

agency and the test the forum to address our grievances. if you have to be fair, you have to do what is necessary. commissioners you have a duty to execute your powers. i sincerely urge you not to allow empty eight to take away our due process rights. and many thanks for giving us the voice. in our fight for our rights. thank you. that story commission. okay thank you. is there any further public comment, please raise your hand? okay i see one hand. yes, the phone number ending in 25 to 8. you need to unmute yourself, please. press star six. okay, go ahead. i'm not sure why you can't uh ah. we can't hear you. we will come back to you if possible, maybe calling on another phone. i don't know. okay the phone number ending in

1106. please go ahead. please press star six to unmute yourself. yes i see that you did go ahead. um this is mark ruberg with the san francisco taxi workers alliance. and uh, i would also like to thank you for your comments and concerns about this matter. um. this was a callous decision on the part of the empty a. they've provided various rationales for we in the taxi industry, and i think you will know that was made because they didn't like your decisions and wanted to cut you out of the process. um hmm. one of the excuses that they gave his that this is an inconvenience to them in terms of their staffing and their inconvenience against the loss of this invaluable, right.

i can tell you from my many years in the taxi industry that is in previous years and generations going going back 10 years, maybe 20. there were many more a taxi appeals coming to the board of appeals and with much, much smaller our staff. to handle them, and, um they were perfectly capable of doing it at the time. another excuse, directed common gave his sweater was based on what he called mobility, permanent harmonization. and he wrote that taxi permits are the only permit program administered by the s f f d a that have a second level of review beyond the sfm ta hearing sections. at the time. i made the decision to end this practice. my rationale was to bring taxi firm it into a line with all other permits issued by the sfm t a. and this seems patently flogs the mts regulation of shared mobility devices like electric scooters

are not covered in the charles authority overtaxing functions. because the charter is silent on these devices. it's indisputable that appeals over these kinds of permits would be governed by charter section 4.16 v, which is the section that is the basis of your news diction. and i believe this is correct. and it is. it means that scooter companies actually have more rights in san francisco. the taxi drivers um so uh, i just say that if this comes to you again uh um, in the form of a request for jurisdiction, please keep an open mind about it. thank you. we're not here for the phone number ending in 1954. please go ahead. you need to press star 62 and mute yourself. no yes, we

can hear you. yes this is venice , kirkus on long time industry person. i've heard the words. um, you know, fairness to the process, empathy, transparency, and i really want to thank thank you, um, for those for those nice words for those kind words. unfortunately those those words are not in the transportation code, and, uh and they do not apply if the hearing officers want to apply them, mr tumblin in his in his, uh, letter made it pretty clear that if it's not part of the jazz petition code that the hearing officer can't use it can't consider it. this is why we need our appeal rights intact with you. let me also point out that an appeal right is not really a tax issue. it's a separate issue. you you're you're not being asked to judge

you know how many taxis are out there? how many people we have to pick up? you know, what are our radio businesses and etcetera, etcetera. it's a separate right. it's not a tax issues. so you do have uh, jurisdiction of over this. my final comment. i think i believe that the entire vote that was taken at the end to was probably not quite legal. um there was there was one, uh, director who months ago like five months beforehand at another meeting. had to leave early, and before leaving, he stood up and he said if i were here when you had the vote, i would vote for it to move this through because he wanted to streamline the process . this was before he heard public comments before he had this discussion with his, uh, fellowship records clearly violates. i think you know,

fairness to the process and a lot of other rules. the day on the 25th are on the 18th of april, when he actually voted for it. there were only four members, um, at the board that they had had he recused himself . they would not have had a quorum. so i think technically that this vote was not legal, and it should be should be at least heard again. um, but those are my feelings on the issue, and i really want to again one of one of thank you. uh 40 seconds educations. and you just thank you. okay thank you. we will now hear from the caller's phone number ends in 25 to 8. please press star six to and meet yourself. okay. i see that you admitted yourself. but for some reason, we can't hear you. i'm not sure what to do. other phone callers. it's worked so

hello. okay i'm sorry. we can't take public comment. we can't hear anything. so we don't have any further public comment. president swig. that will conclude the hearing because there's no other business in hand. okay, thank you. thank you. bye bye. yeah. go.

>> shop and dine the 49 promotes local businesses and changes san franciscans to do their shopping and dooipg within the 49 square miles by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine the 49 hi in my mind a ms. medina tele

>> in 1948 swensen's ice cream used to make ice cream in the navy and decided to open up an ice cream shop it it takes time for the parent to put money down and diane one of the managers at zen citizen in arena hills open

and serve old-fashioned ice cream. >> over 20 years. >> yeah. >> had my own business i was a firefighter and came in- in 1969 her dad had ice cream and left here still the owner but shortly after um, in here became the inc. maker the manager and lead and branded the store from day to day and in the late 90s- was obvious choice he sold it to him and he called us up one night and said i'm going to sell the ice cream store what you you talking about diane came and

looked at the store and something we want to do and had a history of her dad here and growing up here at the ice cream store we decided to take that business on. >> and have it in the family i didn't want to sell it. >> to keep it here in san francisco. >> and (unintelligible). >> share worked there and worked with all the people and a lot of customers come in. >> a round hill in the adjoining areas loved neither ice cream shop in this area and support russia hills and have clean up day and give them free ice cream because that is those are the people that keep us the opportunity to stick around here

four so many years next generations have been coming her 20 er thirty or 40 years and we have the ingredients something it sold and, you know, her dad said to treat the customers right and people will keep on coming back and 75 or 74 years, you know, that is quite an accomplishment i think of it as our first 75 years and like to see that, you know, going into the future um, that ice cream shop will be around used to be 4 hundred in the united states and all gone equipment for that one that is the first and last we're proud of that we're still standing and people people are you tell people it's been around

in 50 years and don't plan on welcome to the san francisco planning hearing of may 4, 2023. sfgovtv is streaming live. i don't receive public comme