plan that you endorsed and various budget and contract approvals, we will be operating a new substation connecting facilities subbation in 46. our new substation will be interconnecting with caiso controlled grid. [ please stand by ]

. >> so we are in the process of applying for and securing a fair amount of federal relief

from the american rescue plan act, so it's federal funding going to utilities to payoff customer debt that was accrued from march 2020 to july 2021 -- to june 2021, excuse me. so we've applied for water and power, and we're expecting to be approved, and we're expecting to receive it in the next couple of weeks. for water and sewer, we're expecting to pay that off, as well, and that should pay off a pretty big amount that's recently owed, so we're hoping that as we start, we will have a large chunk of this debt paid off. >> and i would appreciate your assessment before that cutoff date as to where things stand, what portion people have been able to payoff on their own and

what amount of debt and obligation is still outstanding. >> sure, we can be sure to update you on that. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, any other questions? public comment, please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make three minutes of public comment dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2481-728-928, pound, pound. to raise your hand, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers wishing to be recognized at this time. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item 17 is closed. >> thank you. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed.

motion and second, please. >> so moved. >> second. >> motion and a second. roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> the item passes. next item. >> clerk: item 18, this will be introduced by michael

paulstein. today, i'll be presenting and clarifying the water rules and clarifying them in the rules and regs. this initially included just a 15% discount on sewer charges, and in 2012, at the p.u.c.s request, the san francisco controller's office conducted an audit and made a series of

recommendations, and as a result, the p.u.c. made a number of changes to tighten the enrollment process. however, those changes made it burdensome for customers to apply and for staff to implement it. in 2020, in response to the economic impacts of the pandemic and associated long down, the p.u.c. initiated the emergency customer service program as highlights in blue. -- as highlighted in blue. more than 5,000 residential water customers enrolled in the emergency program in the last five years. -- and would like to take advantage of financial

assistance than are currently enrolled in the start program.

>> -- in the same way that the emergency program did, and customers will be asked to recertify their eligibility every three years, just as they are now. this is a change from the current requirement as customers provide detailed

income and tax rates. we'd also work with a vendor to define a careful bias free process for identifying customers to select for verification each year. finally, the c.a.p. enrollment process allows for hetch hetchy customers to enroll if we know their income eligibility. the proposed rules make one change to the existing rules, which is updating the discounts offered to be a uniform 25% for both water and sewer bills. this is a change from the current 15% for water and 35% for sewer discount, however, it's expected to have a minimal effect on the current program for customers. eligible hetch hetchy customers

will be able to receive a 30% discount, and as has been the case since the program started in 2004, the program will be available to metered households or those who pay their bills directly to the p.u.c. the p.u.c.s average water-wastewater has doubled since 2010, and the cost is expected to continue to rise. even though we expect general household wages to rise as well, it's documented that low

and middle-income households do not see they wages rise the same. we have been exploring customer bill burden, and in that analysis, we've defined households who pay more than 2.5% of income on their water or sewer or electricity bills to be water or energy cost burdened. that's w.c.b. or e.c.b. on the slide. you can see some of the findings here. cost burdened households are concentrated in the southeast neighborhoods of the city, so based on these findings, it's clear that it's an equity issue, and it's a critical issue to start addressing it.

thank you for your time today, and happy to take any questions. >> thank you. commissioner maxwell? >> yes, thank you for your presentation, and do we know how many households receive the benefit that were not qualified or were not entitled to it? >> currently, no households receive benefit who are not an eligible household. >> before we made the changes? >> yeah, after the audit in 2012, at that time, there were about 7700 households enrolled, and after we made the changes outlined in the recommendations from that audit, 1200 households remain, but i'll point out that it's really important all those households removed were not necessarily ineligible. we asked them for income verification, and many didn't

respond, so we removed them for lack of verification. >> so we don't really know how many were ineligible. >> that's correct. >> okay. okay. i mean, does the audit that the controller's office -- so many people are ineligible that they are getting the benefit. >> it was expressed to me that at the time we're not requesting income verification up front like we now do, that they are concerned about people being able to take advantage of the program and -- i'm sorry. >> no, you go on. >> just that they recommended we tighten the enrollment process to verify everyone's eligibility up front when applying for the program to avoid that risk. >> okay.

thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? public comment, please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically to item 18 dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2481-738-9289, pound, pound. to lineup to speak, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there is one caller in the queue. hello, caller. you have two minutes to comment. >> can you hear me okay? >> operator: loud and clear. >> great. david pillpel. sorry to pop in and out. a lot of things going on.

i have no objection to memorializing the cap for residential customers in the rules and regs. i've not read the rules. i just had one question. what was the outreach conducted prior to today. was this broad to the citizens advisory committee, for example, and described and their input sought or input of others on the impact of the program and program changes, etc., and not just memorializing it but tweaking it and describing impact, ease of application process, etc.? and further to that end, how does this compare to pg&es care and thera programs and recology and other programs in terms of low-income customer programs? and finally, i think i heard in

the staff presentation an outside contractor will be used to verify that participants do, in fact, qualify, and i'm concerned about access to customer confidentiality of that data and question whether it's appropriate to have an outside entity to do that or whether that would be better done by in-house p.u.c. staff who have access to customer information but understand that that's not to be shared? and if there are some -- if the choice is to use an outside entity, ensure that that data does not get taken to be used for outside or nefarious

purposes. that's my comment. thank you. >> operator: madam secretary, there are no further callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment is closed. >> thank you. any further discussion? sophie, you're on mute. there you go. >> yeah, i'm back. >> okay. any further discussion? if not, a motion and a second, please. >> move to approve. >> second. >> moved and seconded. roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: three ayes. >> thank you. next item. >> clerk: next item is 19, update the p.u.c.s permanent water waist restrictions, also contained in section e, rule 12

of the p.u.c.s rules and regulations governing water service to customers and resolution, presented by julie ortiz. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i actually do not have presentation slides, so i'm available to answer any questions about the item. >> thank you. commissioners? okay. seeing no questions or comments, public comment, please. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to make two minutes of public comment specifically on item 19, dial 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2481-738-9289, pound, pound. to raise your hand, press star, three. mr. moderator, do we have any callers? >> operator: madam secretary, there are no callers in the

queue. >> clerk: thank you. public comment on item number 19 is closed. >> thank you. commissioner maxwell? >> yes. were there a number of homeowner associations or community organizations that had a problem with doing this? did it come from a reason? i mean, did we have a reason for doing this? >> so we are updating ours to reflect what the water control board is doing across the state, and water control board did do it because in various parts of the state, this has come up as an issue with large homeowners associations. we haven't received any complaints specific to h.o.a.s in our service areas, but again, to be consistent with what the state is doing, we wanted to move ahead and update our list of current water

restrictions, just to update our list of current water restrictions to h.o.a.s. >> great, thanks. >> thank you. any other discussion or comment? motion and a second. >> so moved. >> second. >> motion and a second. roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: you have three ayes. >> and the item passes. madam secretary, any other items before the commission? >> no, mr. president. that concludes your agenda for today. >> then we stand adjourned. thank you, all.

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.

>> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the

grill. >> i am the owner. it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility

to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco

public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do,

and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive. >> all right. it is time to eat, people.all r

san francisco mayor london and we are here to swear in stephanie cahina to the sfmta board. i want to thank the heresies from coming to lakeviewto be with us today . you must be somebody really

special. i want to acknowledge some of our elected members of the board of supervisors for joining us . marna melgar recommended stephanie so thank you supervisor melgar for being here . supervisor mandelman and supervisor hillary cahina. thank you to the members of the board not only for being here but for supporting stephanie and ourreporter, walking torres . thank you for being here. it's not really easy to get commissioners nowadays to the board of supervisors . that tells you is that stephanie is a bridgebuilder. she is so lucky to be able to goand work and napa every single day . i don't know how you get any work done and napa. leading their economic policies

and dealing with the challenges and that economic world of nap . i would just gointo wineries after work every day and have a good time . and this is san francisco, the place she was born and raised in, the label based he grewup getting 14 . and dealing with the challenges of muni. any of you who grew up in san francisco remember the days of muni where we didn't have all this next bus system andall these things where you knew whenthe next bus was coming . we had to look like this . every single time and deal with the challenges of our public transportationsystem . i think that stephanie is going to bring aunique perspective to this body . a unique perspective of someone who lived in the outskirts of san francisco where equity has

beenchallenging around public transportation in general . this body needed a voice of somebody who understands what it feels like to rely on public transportation and to make sure that when the city is talking about the need for central subways and transcends at all these complex systems that there is a voice speaking for those who deserve reliable transportation in san francisco to . [applause] so i am so glad that we have that voice and stephanie and i am so glad about the work and advocacy that you've done over the years in the city she was born and raised in the city she loves and i don't know if just tumlin his ear. she's going to give you tumlin a run forhis money .

i think that's going to be great because her perspective perspective of working with the various coalitions, we have a bicycle coalition but we also have every average everyday people who aren't necessarily actively engaged in a coalition and what i appreciate about stephanie when we had our conversation is a strong desire towant to hear people's perspectives in general . so that she can make good decisions that we need made for the city as a whole. that's what this is about. swearing in someone who's going to represent the very best of all of us and bring all that to the table. and really i think what was really important and what i heard from the latino trinity in particular time and time again is the need to make sure it was representation to supervisor ronen. she remembers when those red lanes appeared overnight in her district and everyone went

crazy. this is a large latino population even though we know the excelsior is as well but the mission in particular is the heartbeat of the latino community and making sure there's a voice that understands some of the challenges that exist in this community which is such an importantpart of the city , an important part of the history and culture but also the economy and making sure they have access to solid public transportation to get around that infrastructure is discussed, it's a job opportunity the linkage between all of what we do to build the city at our transportation network is linked to a lot of these communities. we are part ofthe fabric of the city. with that, let's swear in a new commissioner . [applause] do i have my little book here? it just looks good. it's for the theatrics.

all right. pleaseraise your right hand and repeat after me . i, state your name i stephanie cajina. >> do solemnly swear. >> do solemnly swear. >> to support and defend. >> to support and defend. >> the constitution of the united states . >> and the constitution of the state of california. >> against allenemies. >> foreign and domestic . >> and i bear true faith and allegiance. >> to the same. >> and i take this obligation freely. >> without anymental reservation . for or purpose of evasion. and that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter, and during such time as i serve

on the mta board for the city andcounty of san francisco . congratulations. [applause] >> clearly where amongst famil . this is the hand of the city and county of sanfrancisco . i don't know if other mayors use this. but my signature is on the bac . it's something i like to give to people that i swear in just as recognition of your service andyour commitment to the city . we know that it's all volunteer time and there's so many other things you could be doing what you're choosing to serve the city youlove and thank you for this opportunity and when you say a few words to the public ? >> oh boy.

thank you so much mayor bree for honoring me. [applause] it isn't often that i native san franciscan as an opportunity like this to serve their community . the mta, muni in particular was essential for our family to gain access. get to school. become part of the fabric of the community that was so important to us. my family came to san francisco is getting a revolution, a civil war in nicaraguaand we came with a lot of trauma and a lot of pain and san francisco was home . and to now serve on the board, to be a director it was so integral to our success, to our making this place i will.

it's such anhonor. it is such an honor. and i'm very grateful to you mayor bree for recognizing that in me . i'm gratefulto supervisor melgar for encouraging me to take this role . opportunities like this again aren't always available for latinas. and it's important that we're flipping that script. and i hope that with this appointment , we're doing just that and this is not an exception but the rule and we will see more of this and that we're building a pipelineof future leaders to take on these positions and serve their community i'm so grateful to share this moment with families, friends, timothy . all those that have been educators in the work that i've done and i hope inthis role i honor your lessons . thank you so much.

>>.♪ ♪ >>.♪ ♪ >>

[♪♪♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city.

we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the

neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals. it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much

political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪♪♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over

the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring in the new, without displacing the old. [♪♪♪]

>> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪♪♪]

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.

>> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner.

it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived

in bayview. she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint

venture partners we got resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive.

>> all right. it is time to eat, people.

>> remote meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president swig will be the presiding leader joined by and lazarus, darrellhonda, tina chang and we expectcommissioner lopez and he's here . >> here we go . >> also present is the deputy secretary who will provide the board with any need needed legal advice for five and six.

deputy city attorney brad will provide the city with any legal advice for the other items on theagenda . at the controls of the board approval assistant and i judy judy rosenbergexecutive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city department presenting before the board . tina tam, representing the planning department, matthew green, senior building inspector and neville correa , product services both from ddi. enforcement and legal affairs manager for the sf mta services, dan young, principal administrative analyst with sfmta taxi services, san francisco public works. valerie lopez, deputy city attorney representing the department of public health, jennifer cal ward, manager of the tobacco program dph and janine young, senior health

inspector smoking program for dph. the board request you turnoff or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they do not disturb the proceedings . the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants permit holders and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for remodel. people affiliatedmust include theircomments within the seven or three minute period . members not affiliated have up to two minutes each to address the board in their rebuttal . mister longley are legal assistant will give you a warning. floor votes arerequired to grant an appeal or modify a permit or determination . if you have questions about requesting a rehearing please email board staff at sfgov.org. public access and participation are of paramount importance and every effort hasbeen made to replicate the in person hearing process . to enable public participation,

sfgov tv isstreaming the searing live we will have the ability to take public comment for each item . sfgov tv is providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watchthe meeting, go to sfgov tv able channel 78 . note it will be rebroadcast on channel 26. a link is found on the home page of our website at sfgov.org /boa. public comments can be provided in two ways. join the zoom meeting by computer, click on the zoom link or call in 669-900-6833. enter webinar id 873 0484 9079. again, sfgov tv is broadcasting the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen . to block your phone number when calling in style star 67 and then the phone number. listen to the public comment

portion and dialá9 which is the equivalent ofraising your hand .you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn . you may have to dialá6 two unmute yourself. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time isup . there is a delay between life proceedings and was broadcast. therefore it'simportant people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tv or computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting . if any participants need a disability combination or technical assistance you can make a request to the board's legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals at sfgov.org. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment. now we will swear in or affirm all thosewho intend to testify . any member of thepublic may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance .

if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight raise your hand and say i do after youhave been sworn in. do you affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, truth and nothing but the truth ? >> i do if you're not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. we are on item onewhich is general public comment . this is for anyone who may wish tospeak on a matteron the boards jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar . anyone for public comments, please raise your hand . i believe we weretold in advance mister barnes wanted to provide public comment . mister carnes, you have two minutes. the president limited the comments to 2 minutes given the length of theagenda . >>. >> caller: evening president swig and commissioners .

as the market street project 4 people including myself appealed it and a hearing was set for december 15 on august 21 i got an original list and began preparingmy meeting presentation . next slide please. the list matches the one i've got. next slide. the decision came in monday. it's approved to remove 32 streettrees. next phase . here's the list of trees to be removed. there are 33 trees and i don't know how theboard is going to solve that . next please. here's a list of trees i requested from public works. the trees are to beremoved .

it's supposed to be 32. next slide. then what happensto me , i wanted to talk about a certain number oftrees . by the time the board ofappeals took a vote the trees had disappeared from the list and i was not able to speak about them . let's go back. >> 30 seconds. >> i want to saywhen the board took a vote to approve a list i had not seen before , i've been working on another list of trees. i watched 4 to 6 months of my life wiped out. i believe someone from public

works submitted along list of trees . anyway, just to beproductive about this . >> that is your time. >> thank youmister carnes. any other general public comment tonight, please raise your hand . i don't see any hands raised so wewill move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions . >> may i start my director, mister president? i'd like to congratulate our president rich swig on his first grandchild congratulations rick . >> i would like to before interrupting the other commissioners congratulate my son and his wife on the arrival yesterday.

and i've checked enough, he's alive, well and kicking so maybe have a long and healthy life and the same for the parents. any othercommissioners have any comments ? >> any public comment on this item, please raise your hand . i don't see any public comment sowe will move on to item number three, adoption of the minutes commissioners before you are the minutes of it every night 2022 meeting . >> anybody have any comments or do ihear a motion ? thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt th february 9 minutes. any public comment ? ca nine, on that motion commissionerlopez . [roll call vote] that motion

carries 5 to 0 the minutesare adopted, moving on to item number four, 21 097 , simran basi and mark dutko versus public works, subject property is 2 vista verde court. continuingthe issuance on october 6 2021 . installation of a personal water service facility in a zone protected location. permit number 21 wr 00067 on january 26 and motion by vice president lazarus of the board voted 5 to 0 continued to continue this matter to february 16 2022 given thelate hour . you have the minutes. >> can i share my screen? >> no problem. >> you see my documents? >> yes. >> my name is mark dutko and i

live at 2 vista verde court. the report strongly supports my position that it will have a significant impact on my solar system for the only reason dd claims the new shading would only impact my entire solar system for 10 to 20 minutes a day. the solar provided by division actually at the bottom of figure s3 shows that the shade is present for hours during the day, not the 20 minutes read misrepresented by at&t. this study references a general point of the shadow on the roof and gives no mention that it moves across the entire roof for an extended period of time report shows the 20 minutes interval shadow on each section as shown in the key, not 20 minutes full-time as at&t claimed. at&t also claims that contemporary solar systems continue to operate and have minimal loss when partially

shaded. my 2008 solar strength is not a contemporary parallel for our system. this means whenever one or more panels significantly reduces the power of all the other panels to match the stated. the revision report states they are unaware of the type of system at my residence at the time of the report even though it weremade aware of these issues in advance .stanford university's guild master demonstrates how shading is one of 36 elements that can reduce power output by 75percent . the loss of power and installer of the system said solar energy system you have is significantlyimpacted by shading . unlike contemporary solar installations 2008 estimates it will reduce your solar output significantly by overhead shading from the utility pole unlike the modern solarsystems being built . this is why we went to great

extent to the panels and our skylights to a completely un-shaded area. and optimal power refused to install them in any part ofthe residence . to demonstrate this issue i did an informal test to cover only one of my panels with a one foot section. as a result it instantly reduce my output by 60 percent. the proposed shading would be up to to be wide andwould cover at least two or more of the panels at any given time throughout the day . shaded panels and older strength systems like mine must absorb theenergy of an shaded panels which can result in damage to any of the shaded panels from overheating and require replacement . it is definitive that in any parcel shading will cause significant impact and at&t took no consideration in reviewing this model matter until the appeal was quiet.

i would be seeking financial compensation from at&t and public works to replace the solar system with a more contemporary system. additionally, we are in the process of plans for a second story infront of our home and i'd like to know if at&t would raise the height to clear any new structures a second time . they only removed one of the polls from this corner to eliminate shading and additionally allowed access to our property to the polling question. we will no longer grant this access should this poll be changed at&t will need to excavatetwo blocks to remove these cables for access. there is no lines and no notation by at&t regarding this filing permit . when we came here 2 weeks ago we heard sherwood put forth an appeal for empathy in terms of the public exposure. and we heard that what we come

to you about is there replacing this poll with an unsightly another 10 feet installation. impacting views from our facilities as well as essentially taking what is already a large pole and essentially putting on top and even larger goal , giving wider larger and the stealth installation as we look at other installations around our neighborhood as well . it's anything but still, it sticks out. it has equipment attached to it and this is a part of the neighborhood where a lot of cars go but people have views of the bay behind it and we're coming here in our neighborhood. we also don't understand why this makes any sense. at&t's own document states its due north and a 10 degrees

decline directly hitting a hill to the left and right and a canyon to the right of it. this situation doesn't make sense and is a risk and we feel is a risk to exposure. we understand the fcc has not updated guidelines but we request more information from the council department. lastly, at&t did a sloppy job of notification . the notifications posted were useful in the season that occurred around november december and we are thinking in the case here that we are going to be financially impacted i solar aswell as impacting the views and notification . >> i want to add that several residents testified today. rich walker at schilling

street, his view is directly impacted by this whole. this poll is nothing like any of the other smallholes in this area. you can look at the poll behind this 10 feet . completely abstracts the bay views. looking out east, or choose me you can see this hikehere at on to the poll . this is a monstrosity. it is not a small poll by any measure and not anything in th neighborhood, not even any other cellular holes in the area . let's go to this diagram here. also i get a test on the room and continued to mark the tape. this is the poll moving. the shadow is only 20 minutes over the entirepanel system . in fact that's a 20 minute movementright there . this shadowing report was skewed by them and misinterpreted in order to look like it wasn'thaving any impact .>> thank you, you'll have

time and remodel. we will now hear from the permit holder and miss blackstoneis here as a representative . >> can you hear me?>> welcome, you have seven minute . >> i'm going to try and share myscreen . as well,can you see it ? >> not yet why is it not letting me share my screen? i had an anticipation thismight happen so if alex could bring it up . >> he's bringing it, i promise. in the meantime i want to say. >> we don't have to start until weget the visitation on 5108 . >> okay.

>> give me a second. >> thank you for your patience everyone. >> thank you for providing this list. >> commissioner rachel tanner.

she texted and i was like it's kind of busy, it's boardof appeals . shesaid you guys still do that on wednesdays ? and i saw franklast night. he gives his regards to everybody . >> here we go. >> thank you very much. i apologize for that. i've been having computer issues all day but thank you for having us back and thank you for your time. i'm kenny blackstone, director of external affairs for at&t and i have read a diamond and jennifer hodges, our vendor who handles the permit process . phil hammock is here from hannah to answer any questions

related to radiofrequency compliance and also erin check who is our outside counsel is here should you have any legal questions . the permit appeal today before you is a small tenant in the public right-of-way and at&t has an obligation to maintain our networks with the network traffic and increasing so dramatically especially in the last two years we're doing everything we can to keep up with that demand and they do add capacity to the network and usually their preferred as they don't have a lot of extra infrastructure to the public right-of-way. the city of san francisco has about the most thorough review of these kind of facilities as any other city that we work in and because of that, at&t and our vendors are particularly vigilant about following all of the requirements of article 25. the site was selected after a robust alternative site search. our notification was done

properly as required and the site has been reviewed by the planning department, public works, department of public healthand was rightfully and lawfully approved so we encourage the board to uphold the decision of the city departments. let's go to slidenumber three . and this is just our timeline showing from application of middle , receiving the sql and all of the different stepsat&t and our vendors had to go through to get to this site . i'll go ahead and go to number four. this slide shows the poll as it is today on the top slide and then the proposed site is the slide below that shows the additional heightwhich is less than 10 inches in diameter . next slide. this shows the construction for the design of the poll. at&t does need and an additional 10 feet in order to comply with the geode 95. so it will bring the overall pole hike to 40 feet.

and as the planning department determined, this small cell and then designed to be minimally visible. it will not impair views nor will it detract from the district characteristics and in fact since that poll has been there for a while it shouldn't be noticeable all after a little while. on the next slide you'll seeall our alternatives site analysis . the round black dots with the white perimeter, those are the holes we look at in the neighborhood. all in all welook at 16 different polls in the area . and i'll just let you know why they were not selected or why this one was. the poll selected is marked by the yellow thumbtack. the rest of them we looked at, 4 were not viable because the antenna would not comply with the general order number five regarding overhead line construction .two of them and transmission equipment already

attached and we couldn't from pg&e.eight polls were not feasible for construction due to structural issues and then one of them would be more intrusive than the proposed site as it would involve tree trimming on private property so that's how we endedup with a particular poll diverging. let me go to slide , skip ahead to slide number eight this is our shadow analysis , kind of the bullet points. at&t did engage in the provision designed to conduct a shadow analysis to quantify the shadings of the rooftops the shadow analysis which you should have in your packet in exhibit 1 you can see that no new net shadow would affect the rooftop for at least half of the year from the spring equinox to fall equinox and which are solstice it would be a maximum shading on vista verde but that would just a slim shadow of 1to 2 feet and

would only affect the skylight and solar panel for about 20 minutes a day . results of the rooftop of nearby 190 would also be impacted mentally and no impact to the skylight for solar panels for half the year and again, the maximum impact of which are solstice adding a narrow band of net new shading to one skylight for 20 to 30 minutes per day.but minimal and transient shading is not expected to affect efficiency of the appellant's solar panel. i know provision says such shading would not meet standards and that typical contemporary solar installations continue to operate when partially shaded. i understand the appellant mentioned his is older but from looking through our shadow analysis that was done by third-party , the evidence does not support the thoughts concerned alert panels would be adversely affected. if we could go back to slide seven, the one right before this is the certification that

shows the site as design will comply with and in fact be well below all federal standards fo radiofrequency emissions . andthen if we skip ahead to number nine , i just kind of want to say that we did work with the appellant from the get-go . we did try to, we had a scheduled hearing. we pushed back due to their timing issues and then we worked with them on trying to answer everyquestion . about the alternative side, everything that they had asked. and we do feel that we've done a very thorough job of filling out this application and going through every single step as required by thecity . if you go to slide 10, thenext slide is just in conclusion . we followed everyrequirement that the city and county provides . it the site has been approved by everycity department as required . we done our best to answer

every question and concern the appellant has asked of us. we do request that the board of appeals commissioners that you uphold this dpw approval from our application permit for vista verde court. >> looks like wehave a question from commissioner honda . >> the question is that i know that you guys provided a solar kind of footprints impact but that was then the appellant supplied his brief so in response to his brief, because yours is more of a contemporary solar. that's the reason why he applied to thebrief . i didn't see anything in response to his particular brief. >> i will say that we still believe from the shadows study that. >> what i'm asking is

particular questions. your company had time to take his brief the solar study was a response. we did not use solar study until he first brought that up and in response that's when we hired the solar company or sorry, the shadowsstudy company . >> they feel the older system will not be impacted . >> they have said and it does say in the quote contemporary and he's saying is is older. that i may have to take back but i don't believe that and we still believe the amount of time is consistent no matter how old his solar power system it's. the amount of time that shadow will be there. >> that's the reason why both appellants and the permit holders supplied greece sowe can answer . >> and our study was in response. >> second question is if the appellate a third story on the property will it impact the

antenna? >> that we will have to determine when we see the construction design . i wouldn't be able to answer that until i see whathe's proposing . >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of public works . >> can you hear me. >> welcome. >> hello president, vice president and commission. i'm representing public works. we believe this permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedure defined in publics code are 25 for personal wireless services. this application article 5 requires public works director of the application to the department ofpublic health and planning department, both departments determined this application complies with article 25 . the planning department is in

attendance and can speak more regarding the claims review. if the board has questions the health department is available to take questions and respond. >> we have questions from commissioner honda and president swig. >> same question to you. this is the first time from all the hearings we heard there was an impact versus solar, how does that affect the department and what are the steps for you? >> our job is to make sure that the facility complies with article 25. if the property owner is purporting an impact from future solar, more solar or any other type of global, that's not mentioned inarticle 25 . there's no direction for those facilities and in regards of denying the application it doesn't appear in article 25 so far article is to make sure all the requirements are fulfilled

and as i said article 25 does not mention impact for solar. >> that's a consideration your planning department does not look into. >> we do send it to the planningdepartment and they do their reviews based on if it impacts views in the area . >> we have a question from the presidentswig . >> president: i'm on the same topic as former president honda, commissioner honda. the article 25 legislation has been discussed multiple times, more than 10 times the number of fingers on my hands as to its currency, validity, etc.. and citing health validations

from 1996, stuff like that. from my point of view it's an obsolete piece of legislation. it should be changed but i'm just a humble commissioner living in san francisco. what does bother me is and we take liberties to assume that something is okay, even when it does not appear in article 25. mister palacios, why did the department of public works not seek a legal opinion from the city attorney on this issue? this is not your fault, your fault. i speak when i say you i don't mean mister palacios, i mean the department. this is not the department of public works faultthat article 25 ishopelessly out of date . in my view.and this is a perfect example of that . and whenthis legislation was

created , solar panels were not something that appeared on everybody's roofs , the rooftops as is a trend. and probably in the advocacy position of our leadership in the city of california. and so given that this is a readout, why does not in a diligent fashion the department of public works take the right step in my view to ask the city attorney where does this fit in article 25, should this be an issue in article 25 and should the city of san francisco have a legal opinion on this? why is that step not taken and then i have one more follow-up question after that . >> again, article 25 we are limited in local control as you

are aware. personal water seals are done from federal and state law. federal law controls radiofrequency standards and state law gives wireless telecommunication companies the rightto install his abilities and bowls in public right-of-way . sowe're very limited in what we can do .i think we have article 25 but if your concern ranges from future solar and all these other proposals than i could take these comments in as of right now, the permit comprises article 25. >> my concern is that article 25 is of an age. it's a piece of legislation that is of an age that it includes some obsolescence. things happen. i'm obsolete, i'm old. in many ways. and so these are people's lives

we are dealing with. these are citizenslives we are dealing with . i'm very clear on your rhetoric about state and federal on article 25. i'm very clear. i know it, i've been through these hearings with you. again, dozensand dozens of times. however this is a big hole. this is a question you can't answer. you can't, becauseit's not addressed . and you didn't answer my question . why does not the department of dpw on this element or any element of any other element in any legislation that may not be addressed to see in support of the citizens of san francisco

who pay for my feet and pay the taxes to support your department for their care. why is not a step make any obvious hole in the legislation. why is that step not taken to seek a legal opinion from the city attorney whose responsibility therefore is to look at the federal and state issues related to this and come back with an opinion on this. what is that step not taken. it's a simple step. going to hurt anybody. it's going to be a yes, sir no answer and clarify any ambiguity i have or you have on this item that's is just again, i address article 25. whydon't you take that step ? >> i can bringthose comments back to the bureau to try to give you an answer . that's fine. >> second question.we sat here tonight again and heard

commentary from an appellant. as we did last week on something that was not an at&t item but rather i believe a verizon item. and then when ms. blackstone was here a couple of weeks ago, there was the same commentary from a third appellant. and whoever are the approved vendors to post notices on telephone poles are not doing it with care because they either get filled with moisture and areeligible . they are either placed on telephone poles at a level that neighbors, neighborhood members cannot read them or they are washed away by mother nature. what i am asking here is what steps does dpw take to protect

the interests and the interests and protect in general the citizens of san francisco faced with things that are not necessarily comfortable with. that is the installation of poles and equipment in this case and could be anything else but what steps does dpw take to make sure the vendors are being utilized by these third parties are taking care and protecting the interests of the citizens of san francisco by fixing notices properly, making sure that every step is taken so they are not rushed away. the only reason i bring this up is because three out of, we're batting 1000 over the last couple of weeks on these items where citizens havementioned this very same item . >> regarding public

notification. the permit has completed a proper public notification under article 25 which is shown in your brief on exhibits d and e. we have 2 forms of notification. the policy on five poles and the post-poll location, they alsodo a mailing notification . that goes 300 feet from the approved location. and they did that mailing which showed there's multiple forms of public-key medication, public content so that people who are concerned over this issue have the right to contact us. appeal the application. and you know, any other. any other information from the

public and if you could just seethe posting on exhibit e . they posted there on 11 and it looks like to protect from weather. i don't know what else to say. itfollows article 25 . >> i'm not picking on the department. i am just during the testimony of people who are coming in front of this body and have certain feelings that they are reflecting independently three weeks in a row or three in a row last week.that postings do occur according to article 25 but those postings arenot being done in a responsible fashion . i only ask that apartment look at that and hold accountable either the permit holders or their vendors for doing a job

so that when we get into this, these hearings again we can come back and hear validations that the postings were good and that the signs could be seen without distraction. that's all. thank you. >> we will now you're from the planning department . >> good evening president swig, vice president lazarusand members of the board. i am deputy zoning administrator . it is in a 40 x height in both districts. december 22, 2021 the planning department completed an evaluation of the project and concluded the proposed wgs facility is on balance consistent with article 25 of the public works code and the objectives and policies of the general plan. theproposed facility is

designed in a streamlined matter , located on a hole in the same location as the existing poll and will not distract from the other defining characteristics. furthermore the proposed facility does not degrade any aesthetics or impair any views of any important buildings, landmarks or parks from the public right-of-way. with regard to the shadow impacts to solar panels there are no provisions for this in the planning code. a planning code does state a shadow analysis is required when there is a project that proposes a height of more than 40 feet and is adjacent to or has potential impact to public parks or open space. the project does nottrigger such shadowanalysis requirements . that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions . >> thank you, i don't see any questionsat this time and we will move on to public comment

anyone here to provide public comment on this item ? i do see afew people. jean parada, please go ahead . >> caller: thankyou very much . >> you have 2 minutes, thank you i am a board member of the park improvement club speaking on behalfof the empty ic . empty ic is a nonprofit organization started in 1930 and represents the residents of the 200 homes in the park and businesses in the park. its mission is to promote the collective interest of all persons residing in our neighborhood and to resolve the interests when these are deemed to affect those residents. when there is a purpose in promoting quality architectural design and improving quality of life in our neighborhood. the design guidelines were adopted into the planning code in 1999.

last year the park residents contacted ncic and advised us of the 4g personal wireless service facility to this vista verde court. the residents explain their complaint about the product they also shared their research . the mpi seaboard considered all their concerns including the negative impacts of the city and character of the neighborhood and health and safety and interference with solar production to vista verde court. we are most concerned about the possible negative impact that this facility will have on the solar panels at vista verde and ntic supports their appeal. we will now hear from wesley winick, please go ahead i am a

26 year san francisco resident and i have also lived with my wife for 10 years at 209 schilling which is across the street on the proposed poll. first we like to thank our neighbors for bringing this proposed poll to our attention as we view it as somewhat of a process at&t has been conducting because a mailer that was dropped in our mail contains multiple languages, none of which were english. so at the time we did not realizewhat was being proposed until our neighbors brought it to our attention . i'd like to say that miss blackstone in her comments use words like minimal and small which we believe to be subjective. the poll will be over 40 feet tall which is a significant height increase from what is presently across the street . it would substantially impair our view and we believe our property value.

right now we see acanyon . if the new poll is to be installed we would look directly into a pole . it is not sitting at the immediate neighborhood appeal and we believe it to be a grievous mistake. thank you for giving us the floor. >> is there any further public comment on this item, please raise your hand . i don't see any further public comment so we will move on to remodel and hear from the appellant, you havethree minutes. >> can you give me one second ? >> no problem. >> one of the things i'd like to start calling out is she did not meal mail at&t a list of questions and we tried to get a response and i got an answer before the day before my brief was due and president hobbit had to giveus an extension . she did not work with us.

>> i want to make something clear here . the reports state 30 to 60 minutes and that 30 to 60 minutes is not over the solar panels. if you look at the color codes on this report which at&t has completely misconstrued that means line, the blue line the object is on any given area of those color coatings for 30 to 60 minutes meeting that goal is at 20 minutes and then as it moves the next section it's in 30to 60 minutes and when it goes to theright it's another 20 minutes . it is ours, it is not 20 minutes . another thing religion needs a disclaimer that they were making the assumption of low-impact but did not know what type of system i have. and also the shading not only reduces five production bike 70 to 80 percent but it actually causes damage to the panels. and a strengthenedsystem each panel is directed . when you shave one is like

putting a deadbattery into a stream of good batteries . that battery loads up and it has to take all the current of the other panels and it literally destroys the panel over time. this is a $30,000 solar system and over time it can be reduced to pretty much nothing not to mention the polar production would be immediately impacted . this report is accurate, but it's misconstrued byat&t and misrepresented because they didn't take the time to understand what it was . and there's significant financial damage involved here. andi have to say this is just incredible at this point . >> are you donewith your presentation ? >> i believe we are. i want to call out i have a utility line going through my yard , through my gripe driveway which has no easement on this poll and at&t did not obtain my permission to access

that poll. this serves the entire neighborhooddown below. i am right to remove that utility . >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, miss blackstone you havethree minutes . >> just to respond, i am not a shadow study expert. we did contract out with a third-party shadow analysis study. that assured usthat our interpretation of that shadow study was correct . that's all i'm going to say about that. this is an antenna that will be added on top ofthe pole . we do have to extend the goal of this antenna is 10 inches, less than 10 inches in diamete . we did do the standard notification. this is a notification the city requires and it is required that you have multiplelanguages on that notification . we did post as required anytime

that there is any sort of problem because we have to send our vendor the pictures of their postings we are told by dpw if they think that one has been posted in accurately or insufficiently or haphazard if you will. so those postings are done accordingto article 25 which was updated in 2019 . we did work with the appellants and i did not directly but we do have our vendor that does all the processing of these permits and every questionwe were given we did provide an answer . so we continued to provide answers and we continue to wor with them on scheduling this hearing . again, every department in the city that needs to review this particular application did review it and approve it and w ask that you uphold this permit . thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner honda. >> miss blackstone so given the

appellant has said this could potentially do harm to his system andthe report did not address that , would at&t opposed to putting a new poll together? >> you meancommissioned a study from a solar company to take a look at it ? >> just that it was given a general . now that and yes, in his brief and as it was an older system and it wasn't the company you contacted did not really address that. >> i mean, this shadow study that we at great expense obviously did in response to their brief is not required by the city. we did it just to show in good faith this isjust an extension of the existing bowl . i am happy to ask the shadow study company provision if they could take another look at it

but again, this isn't required and i ask that this commission uphold our permit. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now you from the department . mister posse, youhave three minutes . a thing further. >> no further comments. >> does the planning department have anything to add. >> no further comments. >>commissioners, this matter is submitted . >> commissioners. mister honda. >> since this is the first time that a shadow has come into before us regarding a solar system and the appellant at great expense has put this solar system in and potentially doing that solar system that would be a concern that the board should address personally.

i guess we've heard hundreds of hundreds of these cases and this is the first time it's come out. i would recommend you continue this so at&t can answer the appellants concerns . >> comments? >> i have to wonder if that's within the preview of article 25 which is the governing legislation for this . >> thank you for bringing that upcommissioner . it really does bother me that you know, this is, it really does bother me that there is the assumption by ourselves and or dpw or any other city department that something was

automatically assumed as part ofa piece of legislation that was done several years ago . i would like to ask our city attorney whether it would be appropriate of us is dpw, ... i'm sorry mister palacio, i don't want to interrupt. you didn't sound too excited about asking the city attorney for an opinion on this aspect of article 25 or whether asking our city attorney is it appropriate for this commission to get a view on this aspect of article 25 which may have been a lead out. not maliciously, but just because the legislation ... it wasn't appropriate or wasn't timely or wasn't valid to consider the impact on a shadow

on an energy system. >> are we posing that question? i'm not prepared to hold this up until we get that change in article 25. >> i'm not asking that at all. what i'd like to know from our city attorney is the appropriateness of asking the city attorney be responsible ... >> to address the ambiguity. >> to address the ambiguity on this so that this commission knows how to find on this subject and what may be a future subject when something that is new technology that may not have been considered when the legislation occurred is now

more a daily occurrence or more standard than when it was during when the legislation was passed. and how do we get a reading on that and mister palacio is correct.it is not a local issue, it's federal and state but our local city attorneys have to have some feedback from the state, i don't know. >> waiting for your response from the city attorney accu . >> deputy city attorney brad radford. in response to your question , i'd like to point out article 25 was most recently amended in 2019 so it has been around. it was upended recently. the board review of these permits isconstrained .

there are other types of permits such as building permits governed by a discretionary standard where you consider the impact of the project on a neighborhood. for article 25 there's a provision that says the board of appeals reviewed and is limited to compliance of article 25. i've reviewed article 25 and i don't see any conditions or consideration of the project on solar panels. >> thank you. that takes care of that. >> do we have a motion commissioner honda? >> i'll let someone else make that motion. >> commissioners. >> i'll move to deny the appeal

on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarusto deny the appealon the basis it was properly issued . on that motion, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the appeal is denied. we are moving on to item number five so we will ask deputy to the attorney to leave the meeting and callhim back after item 5 and six have concluded . item number five disc deputy city attorney zachary brannon. item number five is feel 21, george orville appealing the issuance on july 9 2021 and decision on reconsideration, sfgov tv sfmta versus george horbal, taxi medallion 1303.

george horbal does not have a current driver's license and is not eligible to possess a card. without these licenses the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the transportation code. the notice issued by taxi services is upheld and the medallionis revoked . medallion number 1303. on september 1, 2021 on motion by commissioner lopez the board voted 421 to continue this item so that the sfmta could provide data that he did not provide a driver's license or a card. the board requested the sfmta provide data if possible back to 1978 but if not possible thenat a minimum since the records were made electronic . november 17, 2021 upon motion by president kaunda the board voted 3 till 121 two grant the

appeal and overturned the sfmta hearing officer's decision on reconsideration on the basis there was not an adequatebasis for the revocation of the taxi medallion lacking 4 votes needed to pass the motion failed . upon motion the board voted 4 0 1, the parties could provide additional information to the board on the three taxi medallion revocation cases cited by the appellate brief which were heard by the board in 2003. as a preliminary matter, president swig did you have an opportunity to review the materials? >> i did and i have. >> thank you. we will your first from the appellate and i believe mister mcmurdo isrepresenting him . you have 3 minutes. >> george is going to speak first. >> welcome mister horbal.

>> can you hear me? my name isgeorge horbal, i had a medallionnumber 1303 . i've driven a cab in san francisco 43 years . until my renal failure in 2016. when i had a medallion this last few months were some of the most anxiety provoking and terrible ones of my life. i havetrouble sleeping at night because of this and i want to say something . the san francisco has a bunch of surplus of approximately $100 million and yet they want to harness my medallion. i speak because i'm some of the low hanging fruit theytalk about which is a disabled old cabdriver that can no longer drive . it's not only a type of greed, it's cruel and it's savage and it's got its own kind of evil. please do not let them take my medallion from me because at

some point the value may come back and i may have some security and dignity in my final years. please let me keepmy medallion . thank you very much. >> thank you george. recognizing the heavy reliance your board puts on municipal process to decide appeals you point out the taxi laws may actually contravene the taxi regulations in accordance with the law itself so we ask you upholdthe law and not the code that there is a conflict . regarding the mark hollander case in2003, president jen found there's no requirement , rather you need a case-by-case analysis to see if it's contingent to be required by law if the medallions fulfill that.

george needs a california drivers license but he's disabled and can't get one. this seems to be a violation of the law. the agency contends ada applies the temporary disability but every other law says that permanent disability is a cover as well so the agency regulation is in accordance with the law. the lawsuit judged in the agency's favor on the driving requirement but then on appeal which the city agreed to refer that outand replace it with a template called the slum agreement . that allows for compensation and not revocation of these cases. i ask that you look at page 4 of the agency's brief, the current brief and as a footnote the last line, they changed the code since the september 1 hearing and now want you touse it as a basis for rolling in

their favor . the city attorney told commissioner chang there was no change on the item. sorry i ran out of time. i hope you will supporthim . >> we will now hear from the sfmta. welcome, you have three minute . >> i noted there was an amendment to the code. my name is philip crandall, legal affairs manager. the footnote was intended only to show that there wasn't subsequent prior to when this appeal was filed. as mister mcmurdo referenced the board requested the review and in all three we referred to the full-time driving requirement which is an actual rule drivers mustcomplete 100 hours of physically driving a taxi . all three of the decisions were before this board before prop a

which transferred the taxi regulation from the taxi commission to the mta. there was also resolution 0931 . that is relatedto the full-time driving requirement . the stipulation was allowed to plaintiffs or appellants i should say to take part one took part in the pilot so one is to sell that medallion in the appeal and the other took part in 09138 four medical modifications. i note that proposition a created a transfer i should say to the mta and the charter section 18 101b states that once adopted the agency and that means mta regulation shall thereafter proceed as an adopted ordinance governing motor vehicle hired to

duplicate such regulation. although we always talk about prop a this means prop kitself is no longer effective but they were codified in the transportation . i also think we discussed this a couple of times but resolution 09 138 stated that medallion holders are. be incapable of meeting the requirement but this is all related to the full-time drivingrequirement . again, this is about the fact that mister horbal does not have and a card. the last year about the fact that he did not complete his 800 hours and lastly i know he referenced thevalue of the transportation code to render for consideration to the medallion sales program . a2, a medallion owner demonstrates that the medallion surrendered, the medallion

holder has full-time on the last five consecutive years so unfortunately mister horbal would not be eligible to take hold. >> we have aquestion from commissioner honda . >> there's a lot of data and it's to be continued in a couple of cases andi see your reasons as well as the appellant. i'm having hard time with this week a post k . really, it looks like the law changes on them and the goalpost moved as far asdrivers responsibility . is that correct and how did that happen? >> i'll try to be brief and discussed several items. the reference to pre-k the medallions on are referred to ask , pre-k before proposition

k written by judge cobb, created the driving requirement. prior to 1978 one person could hold multiple cars to drive so my understanding of what it was like in those days, there were two people with many medallions and drivers were subject to that mercy and seeking to reform the industry judge cobb put forth the voters billwhich was passed which changed out how it was regulated . prop k ... >> sorry tointerrupt, what year was proposition k ? >> 1978. after 1978 persons that no longer could be in business could have a one person could holdone medallion and they were expected to provide 800 hours

per year . that effectively is what the twohollander appeals were about , were allegations that those medallion holders did not seek their full-time drivers requirement . for several years and that was the basis of thoserevocations . in 2010 when the it failed a pilot which was made permanent but shortly thereafter we made a permanent program and those purchased medallions are also known as transport medallions. those were effectively transferred after 2010. >> pre-k? >> and transferable. >> they could go to the airport, not go to the airport. >> that's aseparate regulation, yes . prior to 2018, yes. >> there's a lot of briefs here that i've gone through

personally and even though i'm writing notes i need a spreadsheet here to keep track of all the contradictions going back and forth from post, pre-and after. we're just trying to sort it out. no matter how long it takes people'slivelihoods are at stake here and that's just the wayit will be . continue and iapologize . >> the transferable, letme back up . i do have dates . 1109 of the transportation code states the full-time drivers requirement so to acquire his or her medallion between 2010. that's referring to the post came italian holders. prior to june 6 all of those medallion holders were pre-k so you could be setout to the companies and there is no driver requirement . any medallions that were required in between june 6 and

march 27, 2010 that's post k. those are required a minimum of 800 hours per day. although they are related they are two separate issues. >> president: is very confusing andi appreciate you taking the time. i have a question after . >> by and large where the vast majority of these medallions came from work from older medallion holders and i referenced section 1 a. it used to be the older age 60 i believe medallion holders or age 60, you were eligible to report false surrender or sell so what happen is for example if youwere going with mary sue , that gentleman was

permanently disabled, he was a post k medallion holder he opted to take part in the pilot so what happened is he would surrender his medallion and that would become the transferred medallion and that medallion is stillout there on thestreet as we know .>> you are on mute, commissioner honda . >> regarding the appellant that isbefore us right now, when did he actually start driving. was he pre-k, post k ? when did hislicense go into effect ? >> it was a post cable to. >> what year did he serve? i saw thatsomewhere, i just can't find it . don't worry, we can find that later. you very much. >> we are now moving on to publiccomments, if there's

anyone who would like to provide publiccomments raise your hand . we will your first from mark bellows , you have two minutes mister fonseca. please go ahead >> can you hear me . >> yes we can. >> my name is marcel us, i am a career cabdriver, full-time driver for more than 30 years and a medallion holder since 2009 and again my medallion was acquired in 1978. medallion holders are the real victims in this ongoing legal disputebetween the credit unions and mta . and that dispute is what's driving this surge in came italian revocations. this case agreement from 2010 clearly sets the staffforward

in the case of disabled medallion holders .but perhaps in their plenary power the mta continues to use disabled came italian holders as disposable pawns for or even roadkill in an effort to harvest the medallions wehave . i mentioned before that during the credit union trial a witness for the mta, and accountant estimated medallion value around hundred $30,000 . it seems clear the mta is using the power of their office in an effort to obfuscate george horbal's and any other medallions held by other drivers withdisability, depriving them from leading the

industry . i urge all of you serving on this board to vote in favor of mister horbal and all other came italian holders facing the mta's misinterpretation of case language and the enforcement of municipal codes that clearly violate aba loss. i thank you very much for your time and your consideration. >> we will now you're from mister cordless, go ahead. >> welcome. >> my name is dennis and i'm driving for over 40 years. first of all, just some background. prop k and the language in prop k that then supervisor cobb, now judge cobb wrote in there. and it specifically says that the driver swears the intention that he will drive once you receive this medallion. to me, that sounds like a

perjury clause that you will drive for a certain amount of time. in your life. it doesn't mean that you drive into old age. it doesn't mean you drive until you drop then lose your medallion. that isnot the way it was written . the language says you swear the intention you will drive. my next point was that our current sales program that wen into effect in i believe it was 2012 . that the reason it was formed was to give disabled drivers the opportunity to sell and get out when they could no longer drive or when they were told. that program is on hold because of enforcement. mister horbal should notlose his medallion because of market forces .

it's why the mta is putting thispressure on him now, i don't know .finally, whatever he's receiving for his medallion monthly if it's just a couple of hundred bucks for somebody living on social security, that couple of hundred bucks matters. while he might be old and obsolete he is not disposable so i ask you to please not throw his life service. >> we will now hear from rober . >> good afternoon. the first thing i would say is the mta wants to revoke all our medallions so that they can sell them or at least come out. the problem with this idea is

people who have invested in the tax industry such as myself and hundreds of others finance the tax industry. the mta wants to take advantage of this. in the last year i also echo i've heard this amount of $130,000. for the value of a medallion. the mta to the taxi drivers and to your commission says it has no value. this whole question of owning a medallion without a california drivers license has got confused. if you have ada, it is absurd

to ask for a drivers license because the first thing that happens to you when you are disabled, maybe blind. maybe your body won't work anymore. you don't have a drivers license because you can't pass the test. but that has nothing to do with running a taxi medallion. and medallions don't run themselves. somebody has todo it . and for years andyears , older taxi drivers who are blocking. >> we will now hear from charles rathbone, you have 2 minutes. please go ahead.

you need to unmute yourself. >> i think i am unmute it now. >> i can hear you. >> board members, my name is charles rathbone and i'm with one of mister horbal's medallion holders. the aging prop k medallion holders like mister horbal who are no longer able todrive , the problem was recognized and assault years ago with the creation of section 116 of the transportation code. the surrender mechanism in section 1116 was how mister horbal's case on to be resolve . that path is blocked by the agency's own refusal to bunch its yearslong pricing stalemate . please continue this spending

until such time as 1116 becomes operable again. mister horbal has an opportunity to surrender for consideration. thank you and that concludes my comments. >> thank you, we will now you'refrom the callerwhose phone number ends in 0577 . please go ahead . >> my name is stan heinz, president of the national company. i'd like to speak briefly about this agreement . this agreement was intended to resolve a dispute between medallion holders and the city with regard to detection. i'm no lawyer but my understanding is that the city's endorsement of the agreement moves the initial federal district court rule which was underappeal . i'm not quite sure why mister craddick continues to referto this . secondly, the agreement

provided for an extended disability protection to the value holders as well as financial compensation for those medallion holders to surrender their medallions. as there was no practical distinction the mta between permanent and temporary disability until medallions stopped selling. now the sfmta would deny their deferment to a medallion holder because the disability is permanent permanent. why? thank you for your time. >> we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 0654 . please go ahead.>> my name is matthew sutter andi'm one of

the 10 representing the medallions in the fight against mta .this is just oracle what's happening. it sounds a lot like the same thing we were in as far as the mta lying over and over about policy issues for their own greed and not admitting they've made a mistake in this program. i can answer the question that was answered to the sfmta about the contracts and yes, it was changed . this is horrible you guys are even considering revoking thes medallions . these people have driven the streets for 30, 40 years but that is not enough to drive. they would still be driving if they could but they can't because of their physical disabilities. this is just a shame that this is even considered thatyou're going to take away these medallions .

and stay to the mta space you're making a big failure. the mta promised it would fail. itwould return our principal and give us the medallions and now they're just looking for other ways to getmoney . to try and save their hides. it's an absolute disgrace . i'm six generation californian and you need to step up and protect the workers and the people that have picked up all these people for all these years, thank you. >> we will hearfrom the caller whose phone number ends in 4015, please go ahead . >> caller: i'm formerly medallion 244. will be in the coming era, i do want to associate myself with

the comments and support. i think it's just remarkable that the mtas finding for the board of appeals. that's my hope is that you will honor the appeal. of the disabled cabdriver. >> thank you, was there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any further public comment so this matter is closed. >> i have one question. i have one question for the appellant. >> go ahead, i'll follow you. >> let the commissioner ask

their questions . >> mister horbal, are you available forquestions ? >> could you please repeat that? >> the question i have is on yourmedallion what do you make on that on a monthly basis ? >> i haven't made anything for several months, they stop payments and i would like to answer. i started driving around 1973 and i got my medallion in april 11 2001. >> when they say you stop payments, is that sfmta sanctioning your paychecks. >> yes, just because of the decline of theindustry . >> prior to that, not receiving any one has been the average monthly paycheck over the last let's say fiveyears . >> i would say it was approximately $2000 a month.

>> when it stopped what was it at? >> when it stopped?>> prior to when it stopped. >> it was about $2000 a month for the last several months it's nothing. since the decline of the industry . >> any other commissioners, commissioner chang, question . >> i have a group of questions but i'm curious about, i want to back up and say i completely value the importance of making sure that legislation is abided by and iunderstand that . i can keep trying to enforce and make sure that the taxi code and appropriate municipal

codes arefollowed . i guess just taking a step back from that, i'm curious. i don't fully grasp the intent behind enforcing on these medallion holders specifically given where the industry is and given how many other issues the city faces. it seems like there are higher priorities that need to be addressed. i think that's my general stance on the whole medallion enforcement issue .so i'll leave it at that. >> are you making a comment or can imake one ?

are you going to say something? >> i'm going to ask commissioner lopez if he has comments and then ask commissioner lazarus if she has any comments. then i'm goingto ask my questions and then i'll get back to you . >> i think i'm of the same mind as commissioner chang. i'm not seeing the public interest in enforcing in these particular cases. i definitely see the downside and i think i keep going back to that initial hearing officer that was since overruled. that's somebody within the mta that's been entrusted with discretionary powers and i do

think there's a degree. there's such a thing as administrative equity. right? if there wasn't, if it was just a pure black and white reading of what's in the code then we wouldn't be here. you can do this by algorithm . that's why there's entrusted with decision-making. and i think that's partly what was probably driving back the initial hearing of the decision that day which is that i know that according to the letter of the lawwe can do this year . but it just doesn't feel right. and it doesn't serve justice. i think that there's this overriding principle that is written in the charter and the code is servingjustice with all our agencies . and in this particular

instance, i think we have sense for both the appellants and some of the remarks made by the public that feel like they are maybe in an analogous situation before the mta. it seems like folks are feeling targeted, folks are feeling that they relied on the issuances of these permits in the past so there's a certain degree of this is topical interest as well. if things have been proceeding normally with certain kind of mode of action and suddenly there's a different enforcement regime that's supplied, i think it's a fair question to say how come this wasn't enforced before? i think that reliance that develops over years, i think i've made this point in

previous hearings. if it were a question of unsafe drivingon these records , where people were getting behind the wheel in dangerous fashion, i don'tthink that interest would balance out the same way . but these folks are essentially talkingabout a business license . i do think a business owner is entitled to rely on what the government agencies that regulates them hasbeen telling them in years prior . that's how i feel. >> commissioner lazarus, do yo have any comments ?>> i think i'm going to be on theminority end of this particular issue and probably will be in the nextcase also . i guess as long as i've been on this board , i've been what i considered an obstructionist. we have laws and regulations

and ordinances and we create enforcementdepartments so that those can be enforced . i mean, i guess i question this notion about priorities because this department exists and it exists for the reason of making sure the lawis being followed . there's no disputing the fact in this case. and as much as we'd like to you know, show some sense of equity because it's another set of circumstances my understanding is that doesn't play arole so i'll leave it at that . >> you. my turn and then commissioner, you can have anotherbite at the apple .i would be the rubberstamp of commissioner lazarus that does mean my does not mean my mind is closed. can you help me here please?

my reading of this is why proposition k became something else. was san francisco had ... can i call it the new york model? where a guy like michael cohen couldgo in , by a zillion taxi medallions and therefore big business could wreak havoc on what is really a small busines . san francisco has never been, has always been known for supporting the small business practitioners . i get the sense that morphing from prop k, from k to post k or pre-k to k, sorry.

i get my pre-k's and kellogg's corn flakes mixed up. i get the sense that what happened in 1978 was an intent to protect small business so that small business practitioners could own a license to go out and drive hours and hours a week, build a career. build a lifestyle and it was their intent when they bought one of these medallions that that medallion, right wrong or indifferent would be salable and be some form of a financial security at the end of their driving career. am i interpreting that correctly? that's a really important thing for me. >> proposition k, there was no cost of medallion.

a small fee to get your name on the list and the way that judgment was designed was active drivers, so while you were driving like you said as your small business and the way it was designed was when you were done driving and no longer able orwilling to drive , you would turn that medallion back. unfortunately the way it ends up working out was the list didn't move. you'll hear many medallion holders say they were holding them for 20 years. so although they did drive for many years for the right to earn a medallion there was no actual cost. they were granted the other industry name for it is earned so they earned a medallion and while they were earning this medallion provided that they drove 100 hours they were leased out from the ships they

were working and were able to make additional income. as this loan decision mentions, the full-time driving component is an essential piece of the permit. the transferable medallions are the ones who took out loans. they currently don't have alon . >> before we digress into that, if i was a driver in 1978 and i was awarded one of those licenses , do you think and again you used the word earned andi think it's a wonderful word . do you think that i would have when taking over that medallion think while i was earning a living that because i was the holder of that medallion and i could turn it in for a potential eat for a significant

value at the end of the time i was finished driving that why i was in fact creating value and earning a reward that would accompany the endof my career . do you think that's how i would have thought when getting that license way back then ? >> know because there was no evidence described, when you were done driving the next person on the list who had been driving for several years earned the right to use your medallion that you turned in. there was no sale. the payment came about as part of the pilot program so there was no, that was not under consideration and it did not exist prior to 2022 . >> so when there was a pilot program suddenly there was value associated with those

medallions which were controlled by drivers at that time. is that how it happened? >> yes,according to the lender . there is that point. >> so from 2010on , if i was a driver in 1978 and 2010 occurred then in fact my dreams were realized and in fact a value had been placed on that battalion which i had been earning and maintaining for that very long period of time, isthat true ? >> there was a crisis point. >> as commissioner lazarus pointed out in the last hearing and i observed her comments, why are we going to this and?

i'm going to paraphrase, sorry commissioner if i get it wrong . why are we arguing against maintaining a relationship with a medallion or a driver when really, that battalion has no valuewhatsoever ? if there is no value there probably will be no value so what are we arguingabout here ? that is really a driver with the medallion today have in the future and looking at that medallion as having any value for theirretirement ? even with the 2010 vote. >> we use the word driver and unfortunately esther horbal.

>> i should usemedallion holder, sorry instead ofdriver . that's confusing . should a medallion holder really even with a 2010 intention that they have some value should any holder of a medallion look at those as having any value because of the exchange and circumstances of the industry? >> the code also contemplates in 1116 84 section does not confer auto medallion holders the right to amend or render a medallion for consideration . like i mentioned before there's no loan on these medallions and the only thing the quid pro quo isthey will be a taxi driver . there are still medallion holdersout there who are actively driving .

they are in compliance and wer renewed and as far as i know they are out there driving . >> so in your view these medallions once a driver is unable in this case because fulfilling, not being able to maintain a type a drivers license, once the driver reaches that point in their career that they cannot drive anymore thatthey cannot maintain the responsibilities of that medallion ,then that medallion , that's what we're here for must be turned back i . there should be no assumption of that medallion holder that there was ever any value associated with that medallion in the first placeregardless if itwas 1978 or 2010 . is that the position you take ? >> yes, and the mta board is clear on that. 1116 and also resolution 09 138.

it's controlled, it contemplated a temporary relief of the full-time driver requirement and i'm talking about the full-time driver requirements that those medallions subject to the requirement in order to have a cart you need to have a valid drivers license unfortunately mister horbal as neither a drivers license which would enable him to get a car and therefore because he does not have an a card that is why we are here today. thefull-time is a separate thing . i think my own admission because i've not driven but it's the fact that he did not complete 800 hours this calendar year. >> i understand that and that' been stated redundantly and i'm clear on that . it's why like i said, i rubberstamped myview on commissioner lazarus . i'm trying to find every which way possible to be fair to the medallion holder and

sympathetic tothe fact that he's driven for decades . and you know, due to age, due to his inability to sustain a a-card the value of his driving is being tossed aside without anycompensation and that's what i'm looking at . is there any precedents within 2010 and today where a driver in a similar, in any circumstance has received compensation when a medallion has been returned? >> that's as part of the sales program? >> as part of the sales progra . >> assume so, yes. i should say there are transferable medallion holders so those help froma post k . >> but mister horbal, let me slice it even tighter.

esther horbal's license is not transferable license. a transferable medallion. has there been any medallion holder excluding those who are subject to the rules of a transferable license? as any medallion holder received compensation when giving up theirmedallion . >> when there were sales, yes. as i mentioned they needed to be in compliance for 4 or 5 years. even at that point, there were contemplated and there were rules but unfortunately ifthere were , secondly the current transferable value holders ... >> your muddying the waters

here. where i think i'm going with this is it was very clear to the medallion holders that excluding the transferable medallion holders it was clear to those medallion holders subject to the terms and conditions of the statutes that they were able to sell their medallions given that 4 or 5 year window. and if they didn't, and they were noticed therefore in that statute that if they did not drive. if they did not qualify based on that four or five year window as a full-time driver and that their medallions woul hold no value. is that clear, am i interpreting thatcorrectly ? >> i would say they would not be eligible for surrender .

>> thank you for the clarification. so that was their forewarned forearm. if you think you're arriving at a point in your career where there is a high risk that you will not be able to fulfill it for a 4 or 5 year period the obligations as a medallion holder then you if you do not sell your medallion then the risk is that you are going to forgo any valueassociated with that medallion, is that correct interpretation ? >> correct. >> then on top of that we have that situation plus we have a situation as in this case where a driver, where a medallion holder is simply unable to drive. according to not being able to maintain a type a license and therefore that part of the code is not satisfied either. so those are the two elements of the code that we're talking

about. and where i would probably side with commissioner lazarus and say that although i am sympathetic that somebody arrives at that point in their career where they should be getting some compensation for driving all these years and holding a medallion if they didn't comply to the statutes which were clear, then we're not in the position. we don't have a wiggle room. and now i'll come to the complication. is there any room, even though with the knowledge that these medallions hold no value whatsoever rightnow . is there any room that if we were to deny the appeal but a caveat that if this specific medallion over the next five year period, yielded any value

in the form of sale that the medallion holder forgoing their rights, this medallion could receive somecompensation . is that anyway possible? i'm hail mary in here in the football parlance. >> i have to defer to mister chorion on thelegal question of that . myinterpretation is the code is clear .maintain a medallion or return it back. the full-time driving requirements , so if you are out of compliance that medallion needs to come back. that was the terms under which that permit was granted. >> and agreeing that that is so and i would support absolutely fat. but what i am looking to do in consideration of a driver that has driven for decades and

decades and do either to their age or disability has not been able to sustain that driver's license to continue holding that medallion and a medallion that's worthabsolutely nothing today . we know that . and if for some reason in the next reasonable period of time which is 5 to 10 years is able to be sold that they share in that value. >> we are in deliberation and even commissioner lopez i believe has a question as well . >> i'd like an opinion from the city attorney whether that's evenpossible . if that's even possible or else i'm just going to go with an and say i'm really sorry but i'm just trying to be empathetic to what you've been

talking about. why should a driver work for a longtime , hold the medallion thinking they may get compensation and then find themselves on the short end of the stick? according to the statute without any compensation. can i get that conversation with that city attorneyplease ? >> deputy city attorney. i would say that his analysis is correct and certainly the code speaks in terms of surrendering amedallion . again, the code is clear it doesn't create a legal interest so prospectively seeing that one day if the value if it reaches a certain value or changes value you could then resurrect your interest in that medallion. it's just inconsistent withthe surrender provision .

>> thank you for that opinion, i appreciate it. i'll go back to the commissioners for further. i think commissioner honda, you are next in line. >> i'll let commissioner lopez asked this question first . >> can you just remind us the facts here because they startto blur after a while . am i correct in saying that mister horbal had a renewal of his permit several times despite not having met the driving requirements, is that right? >>this is a drivers license . his a-card expired in 2018. that's the information i have. first there was a vacancy before me so i don't know prior to my arrival.

there was also a vacancy on the permit manager side of the house. i don't know why certain medallions were reviewed or worked during that period. when i became aware of it that there were these groups of medallion holders who were not in compliance leave for the a-card, that's when i became aware of it. that's when this whole effort began. >> i think if memory serves there were a couple of renewals beckons occurred without the drivers licensein place . did i have that right? >> again, this was my guess 2019 and that's when i wasaware of it . due to timing staff constraints and just procedural on our end they were removed, yes. with the knowledge it was out of compliance. i should add that about half of the medallion holders who i think it was about 316

medallions had 146 that sold their issues. in this case again, this is like several steps. to renew his a-card you need a drivers license. i know where shifting between a-card and drivers license but i talk about that because until he gets his driver's license he can't renew his a-card. >> thatmakes sense . >> i'll make the comment that president swig, the conversation you just had about you know, that framework that you just presented of not being able to rely on the surrender of the medallion, i think that only works if we were enforcing this properly from the get-go.

i think if you go to the desk and you get your permit, then i think from the point of view of the holder, there's no reason that trigger doesn't go off in your mind . where you say i'm on the clock. i need to find ways to surrender this while i still have my 4 out of five in place in tact so i can access that market . i think that's part of the breakdown that happened here was that those folks probably didn't have that trigger, that alarm that went off to them that said i'd better put up or shut up. because if i don't move quickl , this thing is going to be worthless for a allintents and purposes . that's where i have a little bit of difficulty here and obviously understand mister

pratt up that this wasn't in your charge at that point. but i think what's hard is if we as the city communicating that actively, the appellants or folks in appellant's position are getting that message as they go through the enforcement process and there's no reason for them to think necessarily that their perceived values that they've earned over that decade is at risk for disappearing. so i think that's part of the construct that gives me more concern. i do think that we havethat . they created the environment forundue reliance on those permit allocations that have been issued before . >> commissioner honda.

>> we are in deliberation and here we are but since we are here let's just do it. mister crannagh, how long have you been enforcing the taxis? >> 2016. >> you can state medallions have no value other than a surrender . >> according to the code that's the only way they are transferable. >> have you heard they were sold for up to$250,000, you've never that sold before ? >> the price is set under the agreement. >> but even prior, my dad drove form yellow cab in the 70s to the early 80s and that was constantly a dinner conversation of howmuch medallions were selling for, 150, 80 to 200 so you heard that before . >> those are 3k. prior to proposition k they were transferable. >> we are in deliberation so

commissioners, thishas been hard for me . i see your hand up but i got lots and lots of notes here. first of all, after reviewing this case and going through the mass amount of material that is before us and having it be continued . i know we have multiplecases going forward here . looking at what started with fresh eyes and fresh ears wher they're not so fresh anymore . looking at the decision that this board has made historically in the past, this board as far as what was amended has historically not replicated drivers for disabilities as far as i've seen that has been presented in the briefs . i think that the lack of enforcement over the years and mister crannagh states it was only because he took over 2018 and this has been a long-standing situation for a long period time . whether someone puts the ball with a k, special k, i don't

know. we're not talking about just this. we're talking about people's livelihoods that have driven for the city for 30, 40, 50 years and the fact thatyou're so decrepit and you're blind, you had a heart attack means i'm sorry , your value to the city and what you've contributed overthe last four years is null and void . i don't necessarily see it like that. i see the fact that we're having this long conversation means there'scontradictions in what's the law and what's not the law . even, i lost my page here. even at one of our from our predecessors almost 20 years ago i think vice president herring said i have to say this case pulls out my heartstrings because it's one where equity is more important than the law and as samuel johnson said

sometimes law is an ax. i don't see the harm in these drivers holding it. they've made it through the deepest part where rideshare pretty much annihilated the business. now that rideshare has decided they not want to rideshare but turn a profit so if you get into uber or lyft that meter runs so the taxi business has an ability to come back. surrender for compensation, these drivers are at the end of the rainbow . there's 70 or 80, their disabled. theycan't even drive anymore . you're on one leg, let's stop the other leg off. ascommissioner lopez said , social justice. i don't see the harm. as somebody mentioned earlier, this is the drivers are caught up between the mt