and understand that this will stop and it is not going to happen and in san francisco, and you are not going to be a san francisco taxi driver or a medallion holder regardless of how much you spent on it and be allowed to get away with this type of conduct. >> mr. murray, this analysis of suspect trips and the influence between destination and drop off points was done by the para transit vendor. >> that is correct. >> has your agency reviewed their methodology and verified the results. >> you mean have we verified the trips? >> the methodology that they did for the search? and then the actual lifting of suspect trips did you folks review those and concur with that? >> well, not for each and every one, but for example when we obtained the video and that was

one of the thing that we had done and they sent us the information saying that we believe that there is a problem. >> i understand that and i saw your brief. >> and that was two instances. >> correct. >> and that was saying, 266 instances. what did your agency do to verify what the vendors presented to you. >> we did not verify all 266, no, we started the video to see is this actually occurring? >> and then we saw that it was occurring. and we were able to ex-trap polite that information and we are able to look at these balance checks and where do these people live? they live on this corn and her so that is what the highlights are and that is what we asked for, in that data was show us where these trips are and what is bye buy the home, and what are the hospitals that are normally used and so the green are the hospitals, you know the certain color was the home location and you know, so we could look at each one of those and pick it apart and say, this

went from the taxi to the fisherman's wharf is that something that a 90-year-old person is being picked up at a taxi yard. they can visit the wharf and it does not so a location near their home or any other type of destination. we looked at it, you know, that we were taking them to the hospital and great, here is a list of hospitals and the nearby addresses. and we can verify the information that they gave us and asked them to color code it so that you can see it as well. >> just have a couple of questions. the cases that you are referred to the da has there been any action on those? >> there has not been any action taken yet. >> and any indication of what they intend to do with those cases? >> not really a true indication, what they want to see for the future ones that we may submit to them.

>> and is there a reason why this case was not referred? and i guess that i am trying to get into your assessment as to why you referred to one and not the others. >> and we referred to one, and you did refer this one. >> i am sorry, we did not refer this one to the da. >> why not. >> we did not refer it to the da because, one, it is a medallion holder, and so we wanted the immediacy and we wanted to get to it as soon as possible because we want to wait for the da. to see what they did, but then the data becomes stale. and so we decided let's keep some aside and move forward with our process, again and our process is not criminal and so it is not a situation where he is going to go to jail. >> that is what i am going to get into the insight of what the possibilities are. >> we took this one because it wanted the medallion holder, and we did not want it to wait a year or two years or however long it takes. >> it will stay your action. >> correct.

>> and then, so i mean if they were to come back and say, go ahead. but we don't know how long that will take. >> i got it. >> mr. murray, if the gentleman were not a medallion holder but had been caught doing this kind of activity, what might you have recommended then? >> we would have revoked his acard and so he so maintains the acard but we revoked this because he is a business owner. >> and so the drivers. >> right. >> the permit. correct. >> and so you can continue to work as a driver. >> he actually can. >> can or cannot. >> he can. >> yes. >> and he can continue to work as a driver. we focused on the medallion because he has control over it. >> one more follow up question. >> is another reason that you did not refer this one to the da because of the strength of the evidence? primarily because of the medallion holder. >> it is something to do with the strength of the evidence here? >> in terms of why we didn't refer to the da?

>> correct. >> and it had more, primarily because he is a medallion holder we kept it on our own and went for the permit ourselves. >> and i got a few questions for myself. and what led you to the initial investigation of potential fraud into this particular... >> like, mr. san did her son said and you can come up if you would like, but he brought us and he they questioned some of the transactions that they were seeing and so he looked at some and he saw a lot of inconsistentcy and he saw and it is not just him but it several other people as well particularly when they had one patron taking one person for an extended period of time. and so that is when he began looking into that. and then, it got big and her bigger and that does not necessarily mean that it is a problem it is a weird inconsistentcy. >> this pattern just kind of materialized.

>> right. but then the bigger issues which are the balance checks and things of that sort start and that is where we start to really move forward. >> that is fine and my next question is how many medallions are actually out in san francisco that are issued? >> there are and it is moving right now, but there are over 1800 right now. >> and but by the end of 2014, it will be 2105. >> and how many have been revoked in the last 12 months? >> in the last 12 months? we had maybe, 3 or 4, turn them in without actual hearing based upon our evidence. and we have had another one that is going to be before you, actually in about a month. and so, i want to say, we have had maybe even in front of this board, i think maybe two, this year. and so far. >> and then, there will be one coming up in january.

>> and then my last question is that, this is a pretty serious matter, and we are talking about someone's livelihood at this point and there has been a serious investment as far as the medallion holders concerned here. >> is there a potential option that if it is revoked that he would be able to sell it prior? or is it just revoke only? is there an option here? because evidently he has a loan on the current medallion and there has been a substantial investment into that medallion. >> there has been and that is correct. and he has paid for his medallion and all of the records there, he paid $250 and took a loan out with a bank. under the revocation, and mr. goldstein is correct, he would get most of that money back but he would lose, $50,000 approximately of that money. and so, he would get back roughly $200, for the 250 but he would lose 50,000 of that

money. >> i was going to say that the only way prior to revocation assuming that we were not moving forward, i mean that he has the right, if there were no issues, he would have the right to sell his medallion for the full amount. >> and currently what is the medallion worth in today's value? >> $250,000. >> it is still worth. >> and the mta sets the price. >> so he can sell it or he can't sell it >> if he were not having any issues. >> meaning, >> and with the board, correct. he would have been able to sell it. if he just had felt like, you know what i don't want this any more i am going to sell it. >> he cannot sell it. >> not after revocation. no. but what will happen is that this is going to be a voluntary for sale after revocation. and that forced sale will allow him to recoup the majority of that money. >> minus. >> can he sell it prior? >> he has already been revoked.

>> okay, i got it. >> all right. >> is there any alternative that we could sell it if, i mean is the mta willing it remove the revoke allowing him to sell it or not at all? >> not at all. >> okay. so your position is firm. that it is either revoke or we give it to him. >> that is correct. >> okay. >> the other medallions that were turned in, were they allowed to sell? >> no. they were turned in, let me back up. i do believe that we allowed one to sell but there were two who were not allowed to sell at all. they had to simply turn it in. >> okay. and why did you allow that medallion hold er to sell? >> i don't remember, i remember the corporate permit and they are not allowed to sell period and the other one, was simply

because the conduct that we found was agregious enough that we were able to take them to a hearing and penalize them a fine amount and in lou, of that, they decided rather than losing the medallion and paying an at dishal $96,000 in fines they would rather turn it in. >> but was that medallion revoked at the time that you allowed him to sell. >> no, it was not, it was simply a discussion beforehand. >> we had initiated proceedings. but we had not gone to hearing. >> okay, thank you mr. murray. >> i have nothing. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i just will start out, because he it is significantly egregious conduct in my mind, but impart of it is that it is the population that is being served here. and a para transit community and i think that the evidence

establishes the fraud and the abuse on this community. and in the public. and it has been admitted to at least on two occasions i would not question the extent to which the investigation established a pattern of problematic behavior. i would support and up holding of the department here. >> i don't have anything else to add. i agree. >> part of the problem is yes, it is to confirm, 266 suspect, and numbers and probably somewhere in between. and which is still substantial number. i would hate to see his entire life ruined however and that is the one thing that bothers me a little bit about this process. >> i think that the people come out of these situations and i think that there was, i think that the discussion about the

loss of potentially $50,000 and the sale, or however the transaction happens there has probably been some gains that was done, improperly. >> i think that the total amount was $21,000. >> potentially. at the moment. >> and that the commission fung says that there is a number somewhere in the middle. >> in terms of the loss on the medallion, the value itself, i don't have any heart burn >> and there was also no criminal prosecution. >> that is fortunate for him as well. >> exactly, right. >> and the driver's ability to continue driving is there for a livelihood purposes >> i too am having a hard time with the fact that this is someone's livelihood, i do appreciate that the sfmta has given us some very detailed briefs. and i believe that this is really not on the two cases just the two video cases but this is a larger problem, and as you mentioned earlier, that

the people that are affected, and the trust value, that i mean, especially the taxi drivers do need, especially with all of the competition, so, i mean, at this point, i am still kind of on the fence to be honest. >> and let me just do something and i need to get it off of my chest. >> the >> i would consider the restitution that is equivalent with the $21,000. >> the board does not have the authority to issue a fine on the penalty. the penalty is what is before, the permit is what is before you. >> the revocation. >> and that is the permit, you could decide to suspend the

permit, but issuing a fine soughts of our authority. >> what the suspension, are we allowed to determine the amount of time that the license is suspended? >> yes, if you chose to suspend, you would have to elect the amount of time. >> the problem that i have with suspension is the issue of public trust and whether this will happen again and that is why i asked his attorney, very directly, but i am not reassured that it will not happen again. >> and nor am i. and in fact the theft, where it is criminal or civil has been established. and i don't think that we can get around that and i mean, i have had theft on my credit card and i don't appreciate it even if it is 50 cents. >> and so, i have a motion, and then, i would move to up hold the revocation and deny the

appeal, on the basis that it was, what is the standard? no abuse of discretion? >> denovo. it could be on the basis of the evidence presented by them. >> on the basis of mta's evidence. >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado, to up hold this revocation on the basis of the evidence presented by the mta. on that motion, up hold, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> no. >> the vote is 4-1, and this revocation is upheld, on that basis.

thank you. >> next is item 8, appeal number 1 3-108.john tynan, jason thrupp & kurt mueller, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1980 golden gate avenue. protesting the issuance on april 18, 2013, to urban green investments llc, alteration permit (repair wood frame in basement; replace retaining wall in basement; rebuild one bay window). application no. 2012/10/29/2977. jurisdiction granted august 21, 2013. for hearing today >> this is on for a hearing today and we will start with the appellant. appellant at the attorney. >> we are called your case, we are ready for you to present your case.

>> okay. >> miss fox, are you ready? >> great, we are ready for you to call your case. >> >> you are smart. >> yeah. >> and that does not...

>> good evening, with the housing klen clinic on behalf of the tenants of 1980 golden gate and lion street, and so we sought to revoke this permit because the work seemed to piece meal soft story work and now there is an attempt to expand the scope of the permit to include the soeft story work, and we are not opposed to that, because it makes sense to do both together. and the building definitely needs work. we are not disputing that. the dispute is that today for the first time that we have heard that all of the tenants have to move out of the property and prior to today, it had just been the down stairs

unit and the story that is being presented is that there is certain for the safety of the tenants but that is under mined by the fact that they have owned the property for over a year. there is connection between the urban green and the prior owner and we have the same engineer and we have the same law firm, and so we don't believe that these are truly brand new people to this property. for the past eleven years that i have been involved with this property, they have done nothing to upgrade it and, instead they tore down the deck and the tenants are here that i think that can speak with more detail about their particular situations. and so, what we are asking is that this permit not issue, that there be an opportunity for us to meet as in the tenant group because there are other tenants in the building that have absolutely no idea that they are going to be asked to move out for at least, and they are claiming a 2 and a half month period, but, the work

that is being presented is rather extensive and so, i don't think that that is really an honest assessment and i think that the reason that they are giving that time frame is that if it is going to be more than 3 months, they first have to seek the per miss from the rent board to display the tenants for more than 3 months but today is the first time that we have heard that all of them have to be out they are saying that they posted notice of the permit, however, that was posted on 1980 golden gate which is on golden gate and it is an empty unit and so the tenants on-line street never saw that, furthermore that permit and the work related to that is limited to the retaining walls in the down stairs and so that the people who live on the second and third had no idea that they would be asked to leave and so john. john, tenant, and 1998, golden gate avenue and i have lived there since 1995, the ground floor unit and this apartment

was going to put i guess, structural slab of concrete through the unit and so i was going to have to move out but it has come to the light that there is going to be a lot more changing with the electrical and the plumbing, and the whole building that everyone will have to move out. the problem that i have with the land lords or their agent iss that the very poor communication from them to us. and with regard to you know, when this work is happening, and how it is going to happen, are we going to get accommodated for ourselves if i have to move out, where am goig to go,? the market is bad in the city to look for another apartment. and so my issue would be that there is no communication. and that every day there is something new happening and it seems to be... and we need more time just to kind of sit down together and sort it out and i think that we come to and we were in agreement that the work has to be done and the building is old and in disrepair and it needs to be done and we are for that and we want to resolve the situation, thank you.

>> >> these are somehow outside that we have been notified before, and to me it was kind of bad and to show me the notification which he could not show me. the communication that the company has with us is zero. out of the bay window that is probably involved in the permit but it is falling. and so, about a year ago, they came and ripped out the siding on the outside, and the walls on the inside. and for ten months, they did not replace the sheetrock on the inside, and but there is plywood still on the outside of the building, and you know, they have torn up parts of the building and left the plywood on it and if you are that concerned about the safety, plywood rots in any kind of

weather and so it is like, we don't leave the buildings with the plywood on the side of it and so you know the safety issue that they are talking about, you know, i just don't believe. and so, we are just asking that you know, that there are other tenants that need to and they have no idea what is going on. so they need to be informed and the zero mun indication has not told them a thing and so we just ask that the permit not granted. >> i reside at 800 lion number two and it is two floors before john's apartment. and i came here today to basically to support john. and you know, coming here, found out that i also am expected to move out of my apartment, and this is the first that i have heard of it. all of the all that i have heard about the work, is for the units that are already

empty. below me and going out to the street. and there was no impacts on me as far as i knew. i put up over the last few years, they have put and i have had the work by then and drilling and putting up the new cages for the fire escape, and they did eight months of illegal remodeling of units upstairs which they turned over to the su. sf baseball team and no permits were pulled for that and i put up with that displacement and i am getting displaced completely from my unit with no notice at all that i just learned today. and i think that this is... >> i think that we have said everything. >> i think that we have said everything, and which is there is yes, a need for work, but we are asking that this permit be

revoked, that parties come together to have a plan in place, that does not result with tenants being asked to leave over the holidays, but the tenants that are not here have no idea and i did not know about it. and i have not had a chance 6789 >> how many total tenants. >> jason in one, and there is... >> and i think that there are 7 units that are occupied and so we have three of them. >> the upstairs houses the baseball team and i am not sure how many guys live up there i was told that it was four and it is more like six or eight and they are coming or going constantly and they no nothing about this. >> okay, thank you. we can hear from the permit

holder now. >> thank you president hwang and commissioners ryan pat ter son for the permit holder. >> and this one is fine for me. and i will turn it over to the engineer in a moment. >> this is, a difficult situation this is a building that is in a very poor condition, my client purchased it last july, approximately. and has come in to renovate the building, and fix some very, very serious problems. that the subject permit tonight, is to repair a failing retaining wall and load bearing walls that are rotting out, portions of this building could collapse, in addition yesterday we found out, and we had an independent electrician and a plumber go through and there is a very real risk that this

building could burn due to complete overloading of the electrical system. and this is a pre, 1900 building, and the electrician is here and he can tell you about that. and i think that we are all in agreement, that the work needs to be done and there are three possible options to the board tonight. and the first is the board can up hold the permit that is in front of you tonight. and the second is the board can up hold a combination of this permit for structural work, with a full soft story ret crow fit which is one things that they requested in the brief is to coordinate the soft story with the structural work in this permit. and it is additional money. and we actually spent a lot of money on this drafting the plans and with the planning and the board, and at this point, it is shocking for them to say that they don't want this after they have asked us to do it and we have done all of this work on it and so the board can take the permit as it is to fix this

building and it can combine it with the tenants have to move out once, and it is a 6 month project. and the third option is that the board can revoke the permit and we have a one year moratorium during which time we cannot apply for a new permit. chief inspector duffy has been out there and we have the engineers that will tell you how dire the situation is. yesterday there was a gas leak in one of the units and i am told that if there had been a spark it would have been an explosion in this building. this really is dramatic issue and at this point, they have asked for a month continuance, we gave it to them, and at some point we have to stop and say that this work has to be done, at this point i will turn it over to the structural engineer and we are fortunate to have

ron hamburger, and one of the preeminent engineer in the country, and he is going to tell us about the project and why this work is so urgently needed. thank you. >> members of board we are obtained by the owner to do a conditional evaluation of the structure and we focused on the lower floors and the building actually steps up and from the street and from this direction here and there are actually a number of levels that are for the first stories in the building and many of those levels are very badly deter ated and there is some fire damage in the building and there is a great deal of dry rot from frequent lighting of the wood over the life of the

structure and most importantly there are a number of unreinforced concrete retaining walls that retain the earth as the building steps up the slope of the street. and those walls have started to fail and they have actually started to rotate out as they have rotated out, the floor slabs that were retained on the earth that were protected by those walls, have actually sunk down in some places as much as 18 inches. and the building is dangerous, and that work does need to be done to repair that and in addition, we have designed a seismic upgrade to comply with the soft story ordinance and at this point he will turn the floor over to the colleague to talk about the specific up grades that we have recommended. >> i don't know if this pointer will work, the retaining wall