>> good evening, and welcome to the october 24, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. commissioner frank fung and joining him is hurtado and lazarus. and we have mr. hwang is absent. one member of the board is not here but the rules allow a

hearing to be held. i i i am cynthia goldstein and we have scott sanchez, and joseph duffy, the senior building inspector here. and we are joined the taxi service commissioner. and if we could go over the guidelines. >> the board requests that you turn off phones and pagers. please continue conversations in the hallway. those representing have seven minutes to present the case and three minutes for rebuttals.

members of the public not affiliated with the party, have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board with preparation of minutes, members of the public are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to the board staff when you come to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions, with survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting, or call the board in the morning. the board appeals office is broadcast live on san francisco government tv, sfg tv and

channel 78. and thank you for your attention. at this time point in time we are conduct our swearing in process. if you plan to speak at any part of tonight's meeting, please stand and raise your right hand and say "i do" after being sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member the public can take this oath according to the sunshine ordinance in the code. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> thank you. >> vice president fung, we have one housekeeping issue, 12-041,

this is regarding a letter of determination, having to do 651 to 655 geary street, and we need to vote to move it. is that a motion? commissioner lazarus. thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. please call the roll. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to reschedule item five, 12-041 to january 9, 2013. on that motion. >> fung. >> aye. >> thomas. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0,

that is rescheduled to january 9. >> thank you, moving to item of public comment, anyone wishing to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. we would like note that mrs. avery's last day, and has been with the planning commission for 22 years. when commissioner fung was on the planning commission in the 90's. he must remember her well. and for the last years she's served as the executive secretary, and been doing double duty in the last years. we will miss her greatly, she's been a calming presence on the planning commission. and we wish her the best and taking over for her in the

interim period is from the board of ape -- appeals. >> can you repeat? >> jonas (inaudible) will be the acting secretary. >> item 3, the consideration and possible adoption of the board minutes for the meeting of october 17, 2012. >> so moved. >> we have a motion to approve the minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none. call the roll please. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus, to adopt the october 17th minutes. fung. >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado.

>> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0. minutes adopted. >> calling item 4-a, the board received a letter from mark gruberg, agent for the taxi members, and asking for the subject matter jurisdiction over 12-115 which authorizes the issuance of 150 to 200 temporary medallions for a limited amount of time. an appeal was submitted and rejected much we will begin with the requestor. mr. gruberg or your representative. you have three minutes.

>> thank you, vice president fung. we seek on appeal a decision of the mta board to release 150 to 200 taxi medallions directly to taxi companies for three years. for taxi drivers been on a waiting list for 17 years. i want to recognize the drivers in the room, these drivers are at the subject of 10-14 million. and the fact they are here on that busy day is a more of their concern. the charter is clear, with limited exceptions it allows an appeal to this board or any person that feels that their interest would be granted or denied of the permit. we have 150 to 200 permits.

and the language overrides the broad language of the charter section. granting the authority over taxi functions, whatever they are. and taxi related fares and fees and personnel. it says nothing about appeal rights, grounded in due process. the purpose of taxi provisions of proposition 1 was to bring regulatory authority previously split between the taxi commission and the board of supervisors under one roof. if the attempt was to make an exception to the appeal right, it should say so. the voters could not intend that they would be stripped of this precious right. if any ambiguity or favor, it needs to be to the favor of right of appeal. we have two equal sections of the charter. the law is clear of conflict between the two, they must be

interpreted to give effect to each. 406-b explicitly governs appeals. even if you believe that the right to appeal is not in the charter, it can be found in two sections of the police code. and we have explained these in our brief. let me touch on section 2.103, which is entitled right of appeal. the city attorney appeal that is this section is operable. and allowed to this board for a person grieved by this requirement. and issuing of medallions of those waiting on the list. and drivers who applied for 17 years and have driven for years for their eligibility.

this is an unlawful decision made by the transportation code made by an agency that put their interest above the public and above the taxi driver drivers. we ask you to accept our appeal. if you have questions, i will be happy to answer. >> let's hear the other side first. >> good afternoon, vice president fung and board members, executive director goldstein and mr. brian. i am the director of the taxi and accessible services. i am here on behalf of director risk who wanted to be here but is unfortunately out of town. as stated in his october 12 letter to your director, this issue of jurisdiction is a legal matter about my board's

legislative authority. we have appealed to the authority than filing our brief. however this is a critical policy decision from our perspective. the transportation board of directors is transportation management. this is our responsibility as the city's transportation authority to regulate over the taxi industry. in a manner that results in better transportation to the public. this includes decisions about whether to create a new class of permits. this is most emphatically not the grant or denial of a permit. this a creation of a new class of permit. how much to issue, and the issuance of these permits and maintaining the transportation is best addressed in the board legislative authority. we hope that the board will keep these decisions in mind in your jurisdictions on whether to

exert your jurisdiction over this new class of permits. thank you, happy to answer questions. >> i believe that perhaps mr. brian can weigh in on this. the city attorney office has different representatives by different departments. and supposedly separated by a wall in their office. your directors indicated that they are willing to accept the city attorney's brief. but it's written by a city attorney representing this board. >> we advised the board of appeals on -- i am sorry, we advised the board of appeals as attorneys of the city. we did not advise the board of appeals on a context of a party preceding before you. we are advising you on the interpretation of the charter and the related provision of the

transportation code and the police code. the due process law from which you refer does not apply in this context. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment. can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak on this item? okay, if you can line up on the wall along that side of the room. so we don't block the door way. and if you haven't done so already, it will help in the preparation of minutes if you can please fill out a speaker card and give when you come to speak. if the first speaker wants to step forward, please come forward. >> one minute here? >> yes, the president with the one minute. >> hold on. >> we will give them three minutes. >> okay, we are going to do

three minutes. go ahead. >> hi, my name is brad nuscham, i have been a san francisco taxi driver for 27 years. this is so important to me they gave up world series tickets to be here. i have been followed this decision since prop a of 200200. this is about the ugliest thing i can imagine, i couldn't figure we get to this point. i am sure you are seeing nasty things in the past. but i have been bullied in the past and a gun to my head in my taxi driving, and this feels worse than those put together. this prop a which has led us here, which diverted the cash flow in the cab industry from cabdrivers to the sfmta was put

together in a back room by -- and snuck past a public that had no idea what it was voting for. and certainly never voted to take away appeal rights from drivers. it was passed with the yes votes of 15% of electoral in an off election and never knew we would wind up here. the idea that sfmta would take money from the most vulnerable workers in the city. and people who have no health care. no vacation pay. no sick pay. no 401 k. and they would use that money to pay for all of those things for the other sfmta's other 5,000 workers is ludicrous. and then to take away the right

to appeal any decisions about these permits. i am almost speechless. it's so outrageous. this board i have seen your predecessors here over the years. and this board has traditionally been the last line of defense for justice and common sense in the common person. and in this case cabdrivers. i appeal to you to not take this last shred of human dignity away from us. they say that a human is actually hard to kill. that to choke the last breath of a human is a hard thing to do. that something kicks in. this is basically our last breath. and i appeal to you as human beings to stand up for the little guy here and the little

female as well. thank you. >> next speaker please. >> quiet. >> hello. my name is tara houseman. i am a cabdriver. and i ask that you retake jurisdiction, rather reassert the jurisdiction that never should be seated from you in the first place. the board of appeals has been the body for 80 years that people have turned for a voice when something goes wrong in government. taxicab issues have come before you no matter whose umbrella. why should it matter which agency regulates us, and why an avenu

avenue taken away. with sfmta with authority over us, and the precedent is set. don't believe the sfmta that they only want this issue in their perview. if you take away this issue, sfmta will use it to take away driver's rights on other issues. the value that cannot be possibly overstated the board of appeals. it's somewhere that the people can go and the individual can go and be heard. if not -- if not for the board of appeals. the only avenue we have is to hire a lawyer and sue in court. we are not of economic income to be able to do that. when you became the board of appeals instead of board of

permanent appeals. it was to expand your perview, not to narrow it. it was to make it available for more people for more issues. if we do not -- it's not american to take away rights. and narrow things. the way it is now with sfmta there no avenue of appeal. they are judge, and executioner, and if the not for you, we have nothing but to hire a lawyer and go to superior court. we need you there. we need you when there are individual driver issues, and when there are other issues. we need you because the public needs you to step up. and this is the time that you must assert that. if not you then whom? if not then, then when?

i paraphrase, i can't say it better. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is saunba. and i speak for the members and can bring 300 people and clutter your movement and all of those things. so i suggest if i could have more than three minutes otherwise they have to talk and it takes more time. i have dyslexia and i would not be able to read all of these three pages you have in front of you. i will go as fast as i can, i am a taxi driver. i am speaking for a taxi driver called driver action committee. some members are here, and you can identify them by their tag. by spending time driving taxi attending daily chores and then sleeping, we cannot spend as

much time to build our intellect as others. you are selected by payor a-- mayor and board of supervisors and you may wish to hear them. and how can this board be impartial? as we understand, they want you to say you have no jurisdiction over sfmta. you had jurisdiction over taxi matters before. variables affecting taxi industry and drivers is the same. what has changed is the city attorney (inaudible). you are supposed to be the last stop in the process. if they ask you to say that you have no jurisdiction on city departments or commissions, one after another, would you do that? if this is the case, then what is the purpose of this board? my take is you are not puppets

because you have high ethical standards. and i say that because you have held praise worthy positions outside of this board. you might be under the impression that sfmta is doing a fine job and no reason to intervene. let's exam the other side of the coin. would you allow breaking of rules when they need. saying that if they change or add a rule, they must give three months notice to the public and then vote on it. when a rule is established they are supposed to follow it. it's around a year that i try to get a taxicab business with 50% of the profit going to at-risk youth. and i (inaudible) this board based on their city attorney

board that we have no jurisdiction. and my attorney, mr. alexander, and executive director of taxi commission that was selected by the mayor (inaudible) no rule prohibiting me from getting a permit. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good afternoon, my name arik. taxi driver. when prop a was made, what was prop a? 200 pages of muni and one line was inserted in these 200 pages. the people that inserted it and took in hand (inaudible). and this page went through. nobody in the city knows there is one page finishing the taxi and moving into sfmta.

later on mayor issued a letter to mark gruberg that filling our prop fundaments be kept in it. that letter he have it. but later on this was not the plan. like nine attempts made to finish prop k. and finally this prop a by some industrial or money making people (inaudible). and andi was with them. sorry to tell you. it was a wrong plan. mayor newsom and muni at running, and later as mayor newsom was gone and then buddy (inaudible). and hold out for $385,000 check, why? the story is clear. they ask the airport director to put the airport lobby shuttles

with the taxi downstairs. and the story came out and the money paid and then in the chronicle. and then the mayor paid back the money. and similar to that, hundreds of people that are the rich company owners. they paid the money to the mayor. through that channel they asked the mayor to (inaudible) issue these permits. to allow (inaudible) permits and fundamental requirement for these medallions. they said okay, three-year le e lease. it's not permanent so they don't have to go through (inaudible) review. there were so many taxi drivers in front of city hall. and i have to admit i know most of them and they one time considered getting me out by issuing an admonishment letter.

you can kick out the (inaudible), and where do i go? do i have 10,000 to go to the court? no, all of these people from third world and immigrants their rights are taken away today. please, you are the last hope in san francisco. a city which recognized the gay and lesbian rights. and the city that recognize human rights. give us our rights. thank you very much. >> next speaker. >> i am martin, and i am here to ask you to continue to take care of the taxi matter. four years ago i was denied a permit by the taxi commission.

and i appealed the decision and to make a long story short. about a year ago i received a permit. and this wouldn't happen if you wouldn't help me and remedy injustice of the taxi commission. that was done to me. as far as sfmta, they would like to have a carte blanche no appeals, just green light for them. it doesn't matter what they are doing. we should trust them. they have the best interest of the public and the taxi drivers in this mind. which is far from the truth. we would like you to be a policeman when we are robbed, raped, terrorized by unfortunately a city agency which is supposed to be working for all of us. there is no other way of dealing

with that except for the board of appeals. we have no other way to go. if i have four years to go and if you deny my appeal? what do i do? get $10,000, go to the court and talk to the judge that has no idea of detail and regulations. and he's got to learn prop a, how does it work? you are the people that should have the right and obligation to stand there in case we are hurt. and we are hurt. and public is hurt. i hope you will stand there an impartial policemen and deal with those merits. thank you very much. >> next speaker please. >> good aftern