sioner comments and questions. commissioners, anything? >> okay. item no. 3 is the board's consideration of the minutes for the meeting of may 13, 2015. are there any changes additions, deletions to the minutes? if not, may i have a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. >> so moved. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes. okay. seeing none, mr. pacheco if you can call the roll, please. city clerk: there is a motion on the floor from the vice-president to adopt the may 13, 2015 minutes. on that motion to adopt, commissioner fung, aye, president lazarus, commissioner swig -- those items are adopted.

>> we've invited kate tran who is director of taxi and accessible services and i see she's joined as well. she's going to give you some information on the rules governing of the taxi industry, how the division works with the taxi industry on rules and compliance and also the agencies use of progressive discipline in enforcement cases. >> thank you. hello. kate tore in. thank you for allowing me to introduce myself as the head of taxis services. i started late june last year and allow me to provide a presentation on the taxis services discipline process. i have been at the sf mta for 10

years and a manager for 15 years. you may have some questions related to para transit and i know some cases may have come before you. i'm talking generally and if you have any general questions about the transit program, that's an area of expertise that i bring. taxis have been part of our program since 1981 and wheelchair accessible taxis in operation since 1994. we have a long history of working with taxis and para transit. obviously taxis in san francisco is at a crossroads. with the rise of network companies, the taxi industries has felt the need to compete with other services and have a different regulatory framework. the taxi industry is now more important than ever. sit public good to have a regulated taxi industry and why

we regulate is important now given the new landscape and the for higher transportation industry. the taxi services mission statement is to promote a vibrant taxi service industry through regulation, enforcement and partnership. we champion public safety, economic viability and sustainability. the san francisco taxi industry is as iconic as our cable cars. it's important for the framework. your decisions have a hydrogen -- huge impact on how it's viewed and enforced by the sf p.d. and sf mta which has sole regulatory authority over the taxi industry. public safety and public service are critically important and to that we have a comprehensive

set of requirements that are detailed in article 11 of the transportation code. there are company standards in the code and their accountability to those standards and we try to create clarity and informity and enforce those rules and regulations across the board. there are seven taxi investigators supervised by mr. marvis. the taxi investigators work out on the field and they do work in the office. we are work to go codify our process in the code and vetting the process with the taxi industry now. elements include verbal warnings written warnings,

citations and probation for companies and revocation. what you hear are mad medallion revocation case who are unable to fulfill the whole time driving requirement and permit cases as well. the taxi committee considers various factors before revoking. so you can be assured that a lot of thought, work and effort has gone into the matter before it comes to you. and based on thoughtful considerations and uniform enforcement of the rules and regulations. the case may go through two levels of appeals. we have a neutral hearing officer that hears appeals and it comes before you if it continues on after that process. it may also go to superior court and

beyond. before coming to you, a taxi investigator spends dozens of hours reviewing bills, airport records, other information to investigate a medallion's holders records and appellate legal arguments must be researched, drafted and compiled. a lot of work goes into case before it comes before you. i know it's a truncated time and things happen very quickly. the staff does a lot of work before it comes before you. in order to survive the appeals process, the revocation access must be well documented and documented disciplinary history and that may span years. a recently enacted ordinance which goes into effect next week allows sf mta taxi service to have subpoena

power and to conduct testimony or other evidence. adding subpoena power makes it simpler and more efficient to gain taxi services for permit applications for permit holders and the sf mta to present relevant evidence at a taxi hearing. a ruling by the board of appeals has an impact to diminish the enforcement mechanism in the eyes of the industry. obviously any decisions are looked at by a lot of eyes. there are about 9,000 drivers and many stakeholders in the taxi industry. sf mta conducts drivers training and driver recruitment process in conjunction with the industry. sf mta sponsored a free esl class for

taxi driver's to improve their communication skills. there has been a smoking cessation effort and many other efforts. and we work with the taxi industry to vet policies and potential regulatory changes. we have a taxi task force, we hold regular meetings and town hall meetings if needed and working bertd -- better to integrate taxis into the sf mta. thank you for being part of the accountability mechanism. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i have a question. we haven't have many revocations in the past. a couple of them were related to -- not

performing for purposes of their medallion. anecdotally i have heard that it's almost impossible to get a -- do you have any comment? >> it's almost impossible for a customer to get a ram pack? yes. we are putting renewed attention on the ramp taxi program. for our wheelchair riding customers it can be the roughest type of taxi they can get to be accurate. to your point in the very few cases in efforts to staff and jarvis has tried to come to a positive resolution before he gets to this level. there has been a real effort to try to work on specific cases so it doesn't get to this point.

>> thank you very much for taking the time to join us tonight. public comment? please step forward. >> public speaker: thank you, commissioners, my name is mark grub erg with san francisco alliance. we are a new san francisco drivers bringing together two preexisting groups the san francisco cab drivers association and numerous independent drivers to a union affiliated with the acio with 500 members. i will just quickly mention that on the issue of ramp taxis, these have really been the victims of

the tmc invasion. these cabs are the hardest to operate, the hardest to find drivers to operate. they are less lucrative for the driver and they are more prone to break down. the mta has tried to correct that. this is the weakest link for the taxis the tmc's because they are much larger vehicles, they use a lot more gas and breakdown more frequently. the service itself takes a lot more time to perform. it's hard to find drivers willing to drive those cabs. the other comment i want to make is obviously you are a neutral body. when a driver comes before you, that driver

is entitled to' de novo hearing which means that whatever has gone before you are hearing the evidence freshly and you have to consider it on those terms and that's really important a protection for cab drivers. most of whom now are immigrants, come from other countries. their english language skills may not be the best although when a customer says to me in my cab, hey, i'm glad i have a driver that speaks english. well that previous driver he probably speaks english as a third or fourth or fifth language. drivers aren't always able to defend themselves to the extent that they might need to at these lower levels and they may come here. this maybe the first time they realize that they need an attorney or some assistance. and you really are the body that can see this

with fresh eyes that is not associated, like a hearing officer with the agency that is imposing the penalty. so, and if the driver has to go to court, you are the last resort for cab drivers. keep that in mind. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on item 4? seeing none, commissioners, we'll move on to item 5 which is a rehearing request. the subject property is 57 eureka street. appellant requesting rehearing for hearing 15-43. at that time the board voted 3- 1-1 to deny the appeal and hold the

permit on the bases it was properly issued. the project to remove the kitchen stove and gas lines. return all alarms, checkout wiring and plumbing to code and remove floor and stairway compiled with an annoys of violation and to original configuration. i understand, mr. swig you have reviewed the video and read the materials? >> yes. i reviewed the video online and materials. so i'm up to speed on the case. >> okay, wonderful. we can hear from the requesters, you have 3 minutes. >> thank you for listening to our rehearing. i appreciate that very much. can you hear me. we are asking for a rehearing for the following reasons. we have submitted evidence spanning from

1930-2002 obtained at the sf library showing 57 eureka occupied by two houses and responding that it applies that two people live there that h is for householder and r is for resider. so this has been a 2-unit household for a long time. additionally the determination made by -- was not made in the proper manner. the owner challenges this information based on the information if the confidential report. they do not have access to regarding this property. we could not get that report. but why has the board not seen this document? i am not sure. in the confidential assessor's report when he challenged the

designation of a single dwelling. according to ms. sardana of dbi of the planning commission, of dbi there is a document. interesting that the permit holders have not mentioned this report in their responses. we feel before we are evicted from our home from 10 years, that the board should determine what is legal under the circumstances. due diligence was not done by dbi cord together -- according to the procedures and mr. duffy. it was made by mr. allen. mr. duffy did not prescribe it. he explains how he makes

a personal determination on the unit status. this was never done for 57 a eureka. in fact the only thing used was the sole evidence that the contractor referenced it as a single family when they put in four aluminum windows. the permit holder purposely submitted unviewable copies of the permit. i ask you now to lieu particularly permits page 2, section 4 is not checked and say section 5 is checked. roman numeral five and 4 must be checked. subsequently a permit was issued indicating he would comply. if you look at the rules on the permit referenced section 3800, california code

says it has to be referenced. >> i'm sorry, but your time is already up. i'm waiting for the projection to work. in the law it says here. this permit must be denied in order to comply with california labor law and health and safety code. no county shall issue a permit and that is properly executed declaration shall be a consideration. on this purpose, we ask

you to uphold the law. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the permit holder. >> the facts and argument that the appellant setforth in every hearing request are insufficient to support a decision that a rehearing should be granted. appellants rehearing request was filed untimely and fails to state sufficient grounds to justify a rehearing because there is no new different information being submitted now. also i have been trying to

clear these violations for the past 2 years and it's going on 3 years that i have been trying to get this matter straightened out and i believe the appellant should be denied a rehearing for those reasons. the request should have been filed on the 9th of may and it wasn't filed until the 11th that's about all i got. >> thank you. >> any from the departments? mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners, joe

duffy, dbi. it was filed by the appellant to do with mold. i think i spoke on this at the last hearing. the housing inspection services investigated the complaint on a profile indicates this is a single family dwelling and the person got taken to remove the illegal dwelling on the ground floor. i don't know what mr. davidson used to make that determination, but in my experience they do a pretty thorough job when they do their investigations. so i'm not really sure they would be wrong

in that. this is not a unit convert situation. i do sometimes do site visits on those and the 3r report. the people and the owner of the property. they are supposed to get all the records together and that is the process that we have done at dbi. this was dealt with as a complaint, by a notice of violation on a subsequent permit to remove the illegal unit. i don't think i have anything else to add if anyone has any questions? we hear the requester whether the issue whether they checked the right boxes for workers comp? >> i didn't check that. i'm not

sure. it's a very bad copy. i didn't see it. >> in the meantime i can ask if we have any public comment? in this

permit the owner has taken responsibility for the work. for which the permit is issued to comply with the workers comp laws of california and prior commencement of any work will be a completed copy of this form. that's pretty standard language on any building permit.

when i looked at the property itself, it did show up as 2 units. i'm not sure about that. a single family dwelling and the records showed it was a single dwelling. that has to come from a customer, not dbi. we don't do that automatically on a single property prior to sale if they are going to sell a property or if they think records are clear. we didn't do that in this case. >> the other question i had was the appellant mentioned reports from the dbi. i never heard that before.

i'm sorry. question withdrawn. >> i take it there is no public comment. is that right? commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i haven't seen the old phone directories for years. in previous cycles, economic cycles people used to go through those and reverse those to try to get more units out of their building. the question is not so much that there were multiple people. one

indicated as the householder or tenant or rooming there. it's what the records show and then the assessor is not the primary record holder for the number of units. i'm prepared to accept the building department's determination that the 3r shows single family that's the official record. move to deny the rehearing request. >> thank you. mr. pacheco? city clerk: motion on the floor from commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request. on that motion to deny, president lazarus,

commissioner honda, commissioner wilson, swig. the vote is 5-0. an order shall be released. >> we move to item 6. jill vivanco department of public works bureau of urban press forestry. dlth p -- denial of march 25, 2015 of a tree removal. >> i have an announcement. there may be some people in this room that were trying to attend a dpw departmental hearing. this is not the dpw

departmental tree hearing. this is a tree appeal by the board of appeals. if you thought you were coming to a dpw hearing. you have to go to room 263. i tried to get the address from staff. i couldn't get the address, but if you were here for a dpw tree hearing, this is not it. you have to go to room 263 for the dpw hearing. >> the dpw hearing is for multiple addresses? >> yes. for multiple addresses. >> i'm sorry for the scheduling issue. >> we'll go back to item 6. >> i need to make a disclosure. i wish to disclose that i have a business relationship with rubben and

junes, as a representation of the board will not have any effect on my representation. >> good evening, members of the board, tom tunney ruben juniors and rose, the property manager. we are the appellants. we applied for a tree permit. it's described as a tree removal. it's incorrect. we are requesting a tree replacement. i will talk about that more in a moment. the staff originally recommended approval of the permit and then a hearing was requested by neighbors and after the hearing, then the bureau denied the appeal and we have now appe