due and that's why we come to the rehearing request for this, this is not appeal today the board of appeals here, the appellant has argued they did not have sufficient time to present the materials although they did present them at the hearing to the board. they did have a couple of day tos incorporate them into their brief, they never requested a rescheduling of the item because they felt they didn't have sufficient time to present their materials so given all those facts and i believe also they didn't really get to speak much to our brief but i think our brief did speak very well to how the required findings for granting a rehearing have not been met, so with that, i would respectfully request ma the board of appeals deny the rehearing request and make a final decision on this local coastal zone permit. thank you. >> thank you. i would like to see the submission.

>> mr. sanchez, am i correct that the requestor's received a copy of this already? >> i sent copies to the requestors yesterday, so i think all parties have had sufficient time to review the document. >> okay. okay, we can take public comment on this item. can i see a show of hands on how many people intend to speak on this item. when you come up to speak, if you could give a speaker card,

that would help in the preparation of minutes. >> three minutes. >> okay. okay, thank you, my name is john sergeant, good evening, i want to thank you for your consideration. if someone were to propose storing discarded tires in golden gate park, i think everyone would oppose that plan, and also that storage space for discarded tires was going be a play area for children, i think most definite everyone would oppose that plan. i would ask you please to consider a new hearing based on the new material in evidence. the fact that there is

something demon astrally and provably shown to be toxic to humans and also to the general environment would not follow under the category of naturalistic environment, you know, the planning commission says that the effects to humans are negligible and he says we should not take this study into advisement but petroleum based astro turf, even if it poses a potential harmful effect on children who will be using this play surface and upon the habitat and the residents around there, there definitely needs to be a new hearing to take that material into consideration. he say that is they didn't have adequate time to respond to this. i think there's so many reasons we need to be granted a new hearing. in the eir, it says it is not in keeping with the historic character of golden gate park.

none of that was taken into consideration and the permit was granted anyway. if there's something demon stably toxic about 7 to 11 acres of ground-up tires as a play surface for children, i think that we must take this new study into advisement. i also think that the destruction of habitat and so many other things that need to be considered, the eir barely glanced over those things and the one thing they conceded that would be a potential harmful impact was not even considered -- there was no form of mediation, they didn't consider any alternative to preserve the historical preservation of golden gate park and now we have material evidence that ground-up terms may be toxic and may not be something that we want children or other people playing around or inhaling or we don't want petroleum getting into ground water which could be a

potential source of drinking water in the future, i think the san francisco public works department actually has the ground water in the affected water as a potential source of water use, we must have a new hear -- hearing, i thank you for your time and consideration, please let's not rush into something we'll regret. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name's star child, i'm the director for the chapter of lib tairn party, i didn't come here today to speak to this item but i had heard some reports in the news about this and i was shocked to hear that they're considering tearing out 7 to 10 acres to 11 acres of grass and natural growth in golden gate park to put in astro turf, i think this is terrible, and i'm someone

who plays soccer, i've never played there but it's not inconceivable that i would just as a recreational play -- player, not on any formal terms, let the people who use the field volunteer and help fill those in, i think they would welcome that opportunity to work with the city to make the field better. i think -- i don't know how much this project costs but the rec and park department are trying to get voters to pass another multimillion dollar bond measure on this november's ballot just trying to keep up with the existing maintenance in care of the parks, they're claiming they don't have enough money so for them to go in and propose this huge new project, you know, that a lot of the community doesn't want and i think if more people knew about it or were aware about it, there would be more public

outcry about this and i think that is likely to happen going forward if this prit's not goin stop the public objection to it and the lighting also i think is just a horrible esthetic thing, between that and the briekt lights at might and the astro turf proposed for the field, i think he would be rolling over in his grave, he didn't want these things for golden gate park, he wanted it to be a natural area for people to get out from the city and get out in nature and enjoy it, i urge you to consider rehearing this, the final thing i note and this is sort of a perennial concern of mine, it seemed unfair to me that people from various city departments or the police or whoever get to come in here and testify for or

against certain measures kind of on the clock, they're being paid for their time, i assume the previous speakers for the measures from the planning department and the park and rec department being paid to be here but there's nobody being paid to represent the other side of the measure, so you get a bit of a one-sided bias in materials of whatever city departments are trying to push compared to how members of the public miekt feel. i feel if people are coming in to advocate, they should be doing that advocacy on their own time. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, my name is gene barish and i'm here for the support of the request for the rehearing. recently, i found myself wondering houfm -- how many of

the city's decision makers have gone out there, i have spoken to speak in the city who have not, how many have you have looked at the batch chalet with evergreens in their shadows, how many of you enjoy counting the stars or pointed owl -- out the milky way to your children, how many of you have imagined what this setting will look like with plastic turf and sports lights overhead disrupting the sky light with the apparition from a horrible movie, it will destroy this magnificent setting and alter san francisco forever. this project is tantamount to an act of vandalism. new facts as you've heard have arisen that since the previous hearing that could have affected your decision

including an article that we first became aware of on august 27 about the toxic nature of rubber tire crumb as well as the win win hybrid alternative, i respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision made. finally, you've heard it before but it bears repeating, there are many places that soccer fields in san francisco can be installed, but there is only one golden gate park and there's only one coastal zone. the win win hybrid alternative that bears consideration by this body provides at least as much if not more soccer playing time while also preserving the western edge of san francisco, golden gate park and the pacific ocean for current and future generations. please do not needlessly destroy one of san francisco's greatest treasures, please say

no to this vandalism. please say yes to our request for a rehearing. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there anybody else who would like to speak on this item? okay, seeing none, then commissioners, if you have questions, otherwise, the matter is submitted. >> do you have any questions? >> i might have a question if you give me one minute to finish reading the letter from planning.

>> i have a question for the requestor, are you familiar with the studies that eir reviewed that was submitted as part of the eir and given consideration? >> yes, i am. >> and to what extent is the study you presented distinguishable from those? >> i think that -- i don't know if -- okay, the city did an artificial turf study, it was done in the city. it was done with data from turf manufacturers, it was done -- it was kind of an in-house thing and it was not peer reviewed. we do not believe that that study would stand up under scrutiny.

in fact, in the east bay, they looked at that study along with other details and data and for their eir for a project they were considering, they said there could be a significant hazard from artificial turf and they discounted it. >> which study? >> the san francisco study. >> okay. >> this is a totally new study and i do believe the data is significant. gene barish is an attorney and she has background -- >> can you help me -- >> i have to look at the study again, it's my understanding it's a study that was former comprehensive during the eir process. >> in what way? >> they analyze add lot more compounds in the turf, they did an analysis of more compounds that were found in the

environment, in the environment and the conclusions were different, their conclusions were a lot stronger and said this is much more harmful than any other research that was submitted during the eir process so it's currently distinguishable from any other studies you have seen and it was also published in a peer review article, most of the study that is the eir covered were not published in peer reviewed journals, they were either generated as a result of a panel that was selected by the rec and park department so they were not original peer reviewed scientific research, they were reviews of previously existing research and the original research was not considered in the eir, just the review was considered, is this is one of the only studies that comes directly pr the source and i think it's more comprehensive based on my recollection. >> you said most of the research that was submitted as part of the eir process was not peer reviewed. was any of it? >> frankly, i can't tell you

that off the top of my head. if i remember correctly, i don't believe there was one peer reviewed article in any of the eir research but i can't tell you that categorically. >> okay, thank you. i just have a quick question from planning on this. just focusing on this new evidence because that's sort of what we need to for purposes of the rehearing request and in your submission, i know it's signed by somebody else. >> it's signed by bill wika. he's the environmental review officer for the city of san francisco so he's the one in charge of all the environmental review for the county of san francisco and his staff prepared the memo after careful consideration, we received it last thursday, we've reviewed it and issued that response yesterday. >> okay. go ahead. >> and i have -- just to

clarify, your letter doesn't address whether the relevancy to what's in our jurisdiction to review which is not the eir itself but the local planner zone program, and i want to be clear, that is what is in our jurisdiction, not the eir. >> you are absolutely correct that what we have right now is a rehearing request on the local coastal permit in the coastal zone process, the environmental review has been to the board of supervisors, they have jurisdiction over that, they have considered that, we prepared this response because we did receive the letter last week and we wanted to have this in the file for this application. >> thank you. >> okay, thanks. >> so, i guess -- go ahead. >> yeah, we're in. >> okay, so my feeling is while

this study may or may not be relevant to an eir process, that is not what is in our jurisdiction to decide here, so perhaps if there is an appeal process for that or a rehearing or a reopening of that, that this would not be setting to do that and for that reason, i would vote to deny the rehearing request. i also want to address the two studies that were submitted at the time, or the two documents that were submitted at the time of the original hearing on august 1, and at the time, what i remember is that they were submitted on the date of the hearing, however, they were considered at least by me during that vote and they would not have changed my opinion on that vote at the time.

>> on that note, i wanted to ask if a request was made to extend out the briefing in order for the board to have additional time to review those materials. >> no, i didn't know you could do that. i thought we were set with the schedule we have. >> thank you. >> i certainly would have. >> okay. >> i concur and i guess one way for me to look at it too is we're supposed to consider if there are new facts, this is a new study but i can't determine that this is new facts presented. i'm certain there will continue to be studies of all kinds on this kind of material, but i would go with the recommendation that this does not shed any new light at this

point. >> for purposes of our standard for rehearing request, i think i would echo the sentiments of my co-commissioners and on that basis not withstanding my sympathies and my view of the compelling arguments made by the requestors, i would move to deny the rehearing request. >> okay, thank you. >> we have a motion from the president to deny this rehearing request, vice-president absent, commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you. er the vote is 3-0, the rehearing request is denied and notices of decision in order for both appeals shall be released now. thank you. >> okay, thank you. we'll move on then to appeal

item number 5 which is appeal number 12-066, michail kipnis versus the municipal transportation agency division of taxis and accessible services. this is an appeal of revocation on may 18, 2012 of a taxi medallion number 1094, it is on for hearing today and we will start with the appellant. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, honorable commissioners, i am heidi, attorney for michail kipnis, mr. kipnis has worked in the taxi industry in san francisco for more than 25 years. taxi permit holders are required to drive a minimum of 800 hours or 156 four hour shifts per year, since obtaining his medallion in

1999, mr. kipnis has satisfied that requirement by driving 10 hour shifts currently on the more lucrative friday and saturday nights, i have a declaration from his regular driver that attests to his schedule and i provided that to the department as well. this means that mr. kipnis drives at least 80 shifts per year to satisfy 800 hours, although mta originally claimed that mr. kipnis had not satisfied his driving requirement for three years, the officer ruled he had fallen short for one year, 2009, the hearing officer declined to accept 74 out of 107 weigh bills that he submitted and because he failed to drive the full 107 hours, the officer up >> -- upheld his

recommendation. weigh biller ror constitutes such a common regulatory violation that san francisco taxi regulators in past years have given admonish inlets for inaccurate and incomplete weigh bill, apart from an admonishment from the police which does not make clear why they are admonishing him, mr. kipnis never received any type of admonishment or discipline leading up to the recommended revocation and i have copies of this, despite evidence in the contrary, we urge the board of appeal to simply take its word that mr. kipnis had not met his driving requirements, they must provide hard evidence that oversight agencies such as yours can understand, bah mta's exhibit a in their brief,

paragraph 8, the investigator's declaration reads, and i quote, "after reviewing the records in the case of mr. kipnis, i do not believe that mr. kipnis had not..[reading].. because unsuspected auditors had not seen his unsuspected..[reading].. up to now". just like errors that taxi drivers make on weigh bills, mta made an error, this is the same mta that's asking the board to simply trust them, the distrust approach hasn't worked in police practices and it shouldn't be allow ined a regulatory agency either, there's too much at stake, although the death penalty

isn't on the table, losing their livelihood is a serious blaoe to someone who's worked if the industry for 25 year and is who hope tos require in the industry, that's a whole lot of power in the hands of mta and they should be held to a high standard to prove their case. the sfmta has made self-evidence errors during its investigation, additionally, sfmta is in the best position to prove that mr. kipnis drove during the time claimed. instead of looking for that potential exculpatory evidence, mta was intent on proffering that mr. kipnis had failed to meedriving requirements, more over, mta apart from itself investigators has somehow become inbound, we ask the board to reject that

argument as handwriting analysis is an inexact science and even experts make mistakes, to allow mta without any credentials sets a very dangerous precedent indeed. even the hearing officer joined in this to find some excuse to revoke mr. kipnis but decline tog accept 74 out of 107 weigh bills that he submitted, largely in the basis that certain weigh bills were more orderly than others, he would have left 33 shifts to his credit but somehow those 33 shifts then became 31 shifts as written up in the hearing officer's opinion, and then rather than use the standard of 800 hours, the hearing officer elected to use the 366 shift driving requirement saying that mr. kipnis fell short. this mixes apples with oranges

or shifts with hours, and i will note that the plain language of the transportation code relies on a percentage of hour short, it's not based on shift, noered did mr. kipnis use the shift standard, finally i note that according to the 2000 admonishment from the police, the driving requirement has changed over the years, they have to show evidence of driving a minimum 05 four hour shifts per year and i have copies of the admonishment for your convenience. in conclusion, the sfmta has failed to make its case and has made too many sloppy errors that look bad for them, we urge this board to uphold the public trust in government and to reject the proposed revocation, additionally, since our understanding is that this board can only reject or accept

the penalty proposed and since the monetary fine is part and parcel of it, we highly recommend that the strangely calculated monetary penalty would also be overturned. i'm available to answer questions, mr. kipnis, the permit holder is here as well, and mr. boris whose declaration is here is available to answer questions that this board may have for him as well as if the department wishes to cross examine him. >> thank you. >> may i submit mr. shamis's deck -- declaration. >> this should have been part of the package for your declaration. >> why was this not submitted? >> i just met mr. shamis tonight. >> okay. >> and you've provided a copy to mr. murray.

>> yes, i provided a copy to him before this item was called. >> okay. >> mr. murray? >> good evening, commissioners. jarvis murray, this matter relates to the revocation of mr. kipnis' medallion, he had two opportunities to address his concerns regarding his driving requirement and as ms. mason stated, because mr. kipnis is a medallion permit holder, he is required to drive 108 hours or [inaudible] shifts each year. each year, we do an audit and that audit is conducted by

scott leon, of every medallion's weigh bill, as part of that audit, mr. kipnis came under our attention because his weigh bills for the prior years were short, upon subsequent visits to gather up his material, he remained short which is where we began our revocation proceedings. as part of our code, we can for good cause revoke a medallion permit holder for not driving because part of the requirement is being a full time driver. we had a hearing in june of 2010 and at that hearing, the sfmta presented the weigh bills that we had from mr. kipnis, we had 31 weigh bills in 2007, 41 for 2008 and 43 for 2009 and for general reference, each shift is generally 10 hours so we assume for sake of argument that each of mr. kipnis'