>> items 4 and 5. at the controls the board legal

system. and rosenburg executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the department that will presently before the board this evening. >> philip in legal affairs manager for the accessible services division. genetics board meeting guide lines as follows turn off or silence all ponents and electronic devices. i would like to reminds individuals present in attending the mote nothing person all health and safety rules adhereed. including wearinga mask and not eating or drink the filature may result in removal from this rom >> hand sanitize are stationers available and at each elvirtand masks are available upon request at the city hall entrances. we appreciate your cooperation. >> boards rule and presentation as follows. comment hold ands diameters hearing question for the parties are upon given 3 minutes each

with no rebuttal. members not affiliated with the party vs up to 3 minute and no rebuttal. >> our legal assistant will give you 30 second warning before time is up. votes required grant every hearing request. >> if you have questions about questioning police e mail board staff board of appeals. public access and participation are important to the board. sf tv is appearing live and the ability to receive public comment for each item on the agenda of sfgov tv is providing closed captioning to watch go to cable channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on fridays 4 p.m. on channel 6. a link to the live page is found upon admissible comment provided in 2 ways one in person. 2 via video.

go to our website and click or 271-669-900-6833, and enter the web id. it brusquing and streaming the number and access instructions on the bottom of the screen if you are watching a live stream. to block your number first star 67 then the number. listen for the public comment for item to called and dial 9 like raising your hand. you will be brought in the hearing room when it is your turn and dial star 6 to unmute. you all have 3 machines to speak and you will get a 30 second warning before your time is up limp is a delay with live and strolled on tv. it is important that people call nothing turn off the volume on tv or computers otherwise well is intrefrns. if you are zoom fleeding

disability accommendation request in the chat function. the board will [inaudible] sends an e mail to the board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used for public comments or pregnancy. we will take public comment from the members who are present in the room. all right. now we will swear sf affirm all those who testify. any member may speak without taking an oath. [inaudible] tonight's proceedings have the board give your testimony raise your right hand and say, i do after sworn or affirmed. do you swear the testimony you will give will be the truth? okay. thank you. if you are a participate and not speak put your speaker on mute. weave have a housekeeping item. item 622-008405 duncan with drawn. tell not be heard tonight.

we will now move to item one, which is general public comment. an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on the board's jurisdiction in the on tonight's calendar. anyone here for general public comment? i believe we had -- my client asked me to speak. on the item 6 that has been with drawn. if it works for the board? . may i? my client wants me it put something on the record i hope you don't mind. that there has been confusion the last hour there have been e mails back and forth with the board and myself and the appellate's attorney which the appellate made statements that they are with drawing without prejudice. but your forethat you will is filled out by the appellate states that it all with drawls are with prejudice.

there is confusion. and -- mis rosenberg reminded the appellate attorney that my client asked me to say that we are not going to present today we are relying on the good faith of the appellate and the appellate's attorney that they are indeed with drawing with prejudice and we don't understand the tactics that are going on. we are waiving our right to speak and thank you very much. and good to be back and see you all meeting each other for the first time. >> thank you >> thank you. okay we will hear from callers ending in 8217. please unmute. press star 6. yes. >> hi. good evening temperature is georgia, thank you for approximate principle veiling and having your hearing.

i sent in the sheet eg02 that was issued in december 2021 to replace the 2013 earlier sheet the same number rescinded in october of 2021. it was rescinded it was not in compliance with the california state fire marshall. this deals with egress for bedrooms and r3 occupancy buildings in san francisco. i thought the board should be made aware of had issue ask this the general public an issue important with bedrooms that are designed to be within excavations and egress issues for the fire department. the cac and ddi and planning and the aia are dealing with it. i did not know if you were aware and thought you should be it may be an issue.

in projects that you see. thanks, take caring well and safe and good luck. thank you is there other general public. if you call in the dial star 9. i don't see -- 577, asked for it. jot phone number ending in 0575, go ahead. you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. 0577. 0577? >> yes, can you hear me now? >> yes. go ahead. >> thank you. hello. i'm dan heinz president of national cab company. national cab introduced the lawsuit and there are 4 aspects

of the suit which need clarification with regards to the application to medallion revocation. one, no [inaudible] were picked be representatives of elderly and disabled medallion holders no way a personal lawsuit. both were modeled career drivers. bill sloan loves it he brought his oxygen tank to work. neither in suspension or revocation >> 2, cost appeal born by the major companies in the city because of the clear implications for the industry. 3, the appellate court at the request of the city and the plaintiffs agreed to part the appeal while the parties crafted an industry solution. and 4, the introduction of disability protection coupled with compensation for medallion

surrender addressed the grounds and suit was dropped. the did a terrible thing allowing them to operate on city streets without regulation. crippled the taxi industry. all the many of these medallion holders left the hope this some day it might be worth something. city wants to take that away, too. and they are demanding your acquiescence saying have you no choice they changed a few lines of code. i hope that you resist this attempt to neuter your oversight >> thank you. any other general public commend? raise your hand. i don't see. we will move on to item 2. commissioner comments and

questions? >> i would like to welcome everyone back and the 2 commissioners never in this room before. jose lopez and mr. tina chang, glad to see everybody here >> thank you, anybody else? okay. okay >> is there public comment on this item. please, raise your hand. item 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you discussion possible adoption the march 23, 2022 meeting >> commissioners and comments or a motion. >> i will make that motion. >> okay >> is there any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes. raise your hand. i don't see any so on commissioner hoond's motion. commissioner lopez. >> aye vment >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> chang.

>> aye vment >> that carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. item 4 this it is a rehearing for 21-0 knife. dirk nay heart appellate is requesting a rehearing of 21-095 dirk neyhart vs. municipal transportation gaej. board voted 2-1. deny andup hold the tomorrowination on the basis it was. lacking the votes needed to pass it failed. and the determination description dirk neyhart does not have a california driver's license. without the license the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the code as a

prilimnary matter. you have an opportunity to review the material and watch the videos for the hear thanksgiving took place on march second. i did and read it in the report. >> thank you. we will hear first from mr. heidi the attorney reporting the appellate. welcome, have you 3 minutes. >> thank you. why good evening, commissioners. representatives dirk neyhart and reserving about a minute of my time or half a minute to pam my client. >> we brought this request for a rehearing on the basis that extraordinary circumstances exist and a rehear suggest needed to prevent manifest injustice. despite the mta's attempt to gas light us by disarc vowing the basis we see it in black in white not only on the board's own website under standard of

review, but also under rules of the board section 9b we provide as an exhibits. the idea of manifest injustice proved e louisary like there is in the a such a thing we looked it up and provide a definition that is a direct, obvious and observable error. everybody makes mistakes under the law it is an error. on march second, due to the absence of commissioner lopez, i requested what our options were to provide neyhart with the benefit of a full panel. thus optimizing my cline's chance of a favorable outcome. by way of answer, we heard the rules of the board saying that the hearing would be continued in the event the missing board member's vote could have made a

different. however when commissioner hoblda motion to condition was called the chair failed for lack of one vote. executive secretary rosenberg said bringing in the tie breaker on this vote did not count because it was like nonsubstantive motion. having reviewed the rules and having an opportunity to argue them tonight, we disagree. the rules don't distinguish substantive and nonsubstantive motions. thus, commissioner lopez should have a chance to weigh in. as well, the resulting in mr. neyhart's matter failed to follow precedent set boy this board this leaves medallions in the hands of other disabled medallion holders. sfmta has not argued against the points we made in our brief.

respectfully we ask for rehearing and prevent manifesting justice i defer to my client. >> hi i'm brook neyhart. restoration medallion 2444 so i can continue to import people and pay business taxes to our city as has been done for 30 years was asked in the difficulty -- >> mr. neyhart. thank you. your time is up. we will hear from the assistant da. welcome, you have 3 minutes y. good evening. president, commissioners i'm philip the enforcement affairs manager taxi service this is rehearing request is subject to

rule 90. as she stated except in extraordinary cases. the board may grant a rehearing request upon a showing of new or different material facts or s arc risen. where facts or circumstances if known at the time could have affect the the outcome of the hearing. writ requests state one the nature and character of the new facts or circumstances. 2, the names of the witnesses and or description of the documents to be produced. and 3, why the evidence was not produced at the original hearing. appellate has not raised new facts let, lone material facts that would or could impact the outcome of the original hearing. they did not allege any of the 3 required things in the written requests. it says shall state. they did not state any of that the nature or the character of any new fact. they did not provide new witnesses or source or documents

and did not explain why anything was produce federal you did not state new fact there is is no facts or evidence to prove. lastly, the other hearings that is you in moved the other hearings have been called i believe by the chair and are not sure of the date i will defer to the director. the other 2 matters sight in the appellate's brief are now on calendar. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment. raise your hand. >> i see mr. raspon, go ahead. >> good evening board member i'm charles i'm one of mr. nay hard's medallion holer the extraordinary circumstance is every one of the taxi cases involved a disabled person. a systemic purging of disabled people from the permit system this it is manifestly unjust n.

light of the discrimination and because previous case were handled differently mr. neyhart should be granted a rehearing before the full board this concludes my comment. why thank you. >> we will hear from carl mc murdo. >> thank you very much. the comments just now i don't think are relevant because first of all the -- fact that a couple of cases are called to being brought up in a month this is fine. wait until that happens. but -- the point was this he was saying new evidence was required but the standard of review does not require new evidence if -- if it is extraordinary circumstances or manifest

unjustice. the extraordinary circumstances after you read the rules about the fact this mr. lopez should have participated, that rule is ignored you violate your own rule and the manifest injustice cost dirk his permit. which you know according to the way the votes are done similarly would not have happened. i want to irrelevant address commissioner swig and lazarus tonight is you in how you feel about the merits of an individual it whether or not the standards met for rehearing. and there is that you didn't follow your own rules. if you want to be a constructionist your rules said mr. lopez had to pip he would have counter some of the add vice you got. works for the same people we are arguing against the city attorney's office. >> i'm sorry i'm here.

everyone makes mistake i think you did make an error. look at the mistake i made i paid for this suit. i want to go to to something else. one of the things he advised about was that the sloan agreement is dan heinz spoke earlier pertained to i couple of people. negotiateors in the mediation had to know that hundreds of case would come to policy and resolution 09138 that shows ad a does not apply is in the off the table it is arc veiled by hundreds of disabled medallion holders now. it has been there. >> recording stopped. >> people -- confused here. but so i will go on a couple of other things. i'm proud of dirk neyhart if he was a victim of a violent crime

>> thank you and if that happened to me or most of us you know we would go in a shell this guy has been a tremendous inspiration to people. he is productive. has a cheerful oura. i want to say again to the 2 commissioners need one of your votes we don't want this to go to the department of justice and something that came out again there is more trouble for the city. do you want a full investigation. thank you very much. >> thank you we'll hear from our fellow. >> what does it mean when it is not recorded anymore >> i'm sorry one moment >> why don't we pause and make sure it it is being broadcast. >> there you go. >> recording in progress.

yea. they have to do that so -- better run or stop. okay. we are fine? okay. >> marcello. go ahead. >> can you hear me? >> yes, welcome have you 3 minutes >> thank you. >> i'm mar will cello long time member of the taxi industry. i'm call nothing support of mr. neyhart's request for rehearing. i believe this board failed to follow its rules by excluding commissioner lopez from participating in the march second decisions when only 2 votes out of 5 were enoughment permit for disabled medallion holer. this is an extraordinary circumstance. and it is unjust.

i urge you to grant mr. neyhart's request and will remind you the ends of his shift he got stab in the his face and made blind. how can anyone expect him to have a driver's license and go become to driving a taxicab. he is given his time to the taxi industry. and -- so i again. i urge you to grant his request for a rehearing, thank you. >> thank you. why is there any other public comment. mrs. evelyn cortez. >> good evening. can you hear me? >> yes, >> welcome. >> good evening president swig and commissioners i'm evelyn cortez president of alliance cab

company. we have been in the business for 30 years. i like to support rehearing request for mr. neyhart on the item on march 2 hearing commissioner lopez was not able to participate. did we meet the standard of review according to article 5 section 7 of the board's rules. i think this is know extraordinary circumstances missing member could alter the board's decision. prior to this, case of george and jim cortez responded in i different outcome when commissioner lopez participated. therefore, given the conflicting outcome of similar case the appellates are entitleed a rehearing where all 5 commissioners can vote. further, the most compelling reason we are appealing for the

medallions not to be revoke well is on going talk with mta and the credit union. any appeal and adjudication can bring bath medallion which is there only hope to recover. i thank you for hearing me. take care, all. >> thank you. >> any other further public comment on this item. raise your hand. i don't see any more public comment. commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the deputy city attorney they had a couple questions regarding the substantive and nonregarding commissioner lopez's absence and for clarification, they think that the manifest injust rules different than what i have been

vowing the last 9 and a half years. could you give a definition of manifest injust what is required and is up assistantive or not regarding commissioner lopez's absence. article 5 section 7 provides mechanism that prevents allows the board to continue the deliberation. if there is a circumstance the board makes a decision in the matter. there it is a missing commissioner possible this missing commissioner's participation could change the were alter the board's decision. in terms of the board [inaudible] motion to continue [inaudible] that's a procedural motion that refers to [inaudible] so the by the wording of the rule there is no difference with procedural and substantive. when you look at the intent of the rowel it is against in terms

of decision when you look at other section and it is board's rules section 8 would talk about consideration of written findings the board adopts findings and reasons for the decision. the decision can make a determination in the case. not about scheduling or want to hear a matter. the board can figure it out [inaudible] in terms of manifest injustice that is defind in the many ways. [inaudible] am. i don't disagree with what [inaudible] i general low it is about the plainly or obviously unjust result. an error in law this is the guideline with manifest injustice. [inaudible] >> for some reason i thought it was unless there was no material information not brought on during the case that real heard

that will create manifest injustice now the way you explain it, it is different. why under the rehearing rule, there is 2 basis for the board to grant rehearing of the first an extraordinary circumstance and to prevent manifest injustice. that is one. the other is there is new material facts or circumstances different facts and circumstances that come after of the initial hearing if the board would have known it could have changed the decision. those other 2 basis. i don't think appellates make the argument well is new circumstances that are coming forward the argument in board's interception and application of article 5 section 7, that's what they disagree with by not granting the --mentes to you continue the motion to continue

to allow commissioner lopez to participate. that's what they are saying manifest injustice >> thank you for that description. thank you deputy senior attorney. >> okay. anyone have a motion? a direction? i don't feel it meets criteria. in either set of criteria. >> to make they a motion or would you like to make a xhint or anyone else. >> commissioner darryl honda: i rarely felt manifest injustice in this case i believe that the commissioner did create a manifest injust i know this is a losing fail but i will vote my conscious. >> a motion. commissioner lopez?

commissioner chang? >> commissioner jose lopez: what -- vote do we need for a motion. >> 4. >> grant a rehearing request the question needs 4 votes. >> yea. i will make a comment that i -- i understand the deputy city attorney's position and i think it is well noted the reading of -- article 5 section 7 -- does lends itself to that. i think -- for me what is propelling me is -- part of this may be due to the fact that -- i'm the commissioner who was not here left time. right. and do regret this and wish i had the opportunity to participate in this hearing.

but both you know -- due to that and due to just the stakes of the substantive underlying you know matter on which the rehearing request is stemming from; i would also support a rehearing. for this question. >> i have to agree with the compelo commissioners. commissioner chang can you speak up. >> commissioner tina chang: i agree with my fellow commissioner here i would support a rehearing request. [inaudible] >> a motion. anybody. >> i will make that motion i foal tell fail. i make a motion to grant the

appeal or the rehearing request, thank you. on the grounds of manifest injust that the absence of commissioner lopez would have made a difference y. we have a motion from commissioner honda on the basis there is manifest injustice buzz commissioner lopez was absent when the matter was decided. on that motion -- commissioner lopez? aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> no >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> no. >> that motion fails. we have another motion on the table? >> move to deny the rehearing on the basis well is neither new information nor extraordinary circumstances result nothing manifest injustice j. a motion from vice president lazarus to

deny there is no new information. on that motion commissioner lopez. >> point of information what result did we need. the same thing. [laughter]. if it does not pass it will fail. >> um -- neigh. >> okay. commissioner honda. >> no. >> commissioner chang. >> no. >> president swig. >> yes. >> okay that motion fails, too. so -- we have another motion on the table? so -- the question fails by lack of a vote. >> so the under lying decision is upheld as not allow the question is denied. so -- we will move on to of item 5 the rehearing for female

21-091 john russo a rename the mta decided march second, the this time upon motion by commissionering honestlieda the board vote the 2-2-1. continue the matter to the call of the chair. the motion failed upon a motion honested and and chang descent the to uphold the tomorrowation on the basis it was issued looking the 3 vote its need its failed. board voted 2-2-1. commissioner lopez absent to continue this matter. lacking approval pass the motion failed the determination upheld by operational and the determination description john

russo did not have a license or card. and again the matter commissioner lopez did you have an opportunity to review the material and watch the videos that took place on march second. >> i did and i'm ready to participate y. we will hear from the requestor first. i believe his representative mr. mc murdue. >> thank you. >> there is no points in belaboring your time taking up your time because you made your decision and the prior case. i just think it it is a travesty. the one situation that is different for mr. russo is that he presented a letter at that time. compliance officer for mta had been advising people fur in the

disability program you did not have to renew your card or have a california driver's license he followed that advice. but you know what you did to dirk is no reason for me to say anything else. i will turn my time over to john. thank you. >> thank you. we'll pause the time until he come on. >> it is paused. mr. russo. he called in. is he in the queue? did he call in or join by zoom? i thought he was on the hearing. i did we not see his name tonight. i thought he was --

>> it is his hearing i don't know why. >> i don't see him was hoe going to call in or join by computer. >> does alec has his phone number. >> yes we can try to reach out to him. sure. >> i like the pen suit. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i bought it on a dare, if you will. especially when you got the are the pack behind you. thank you. yes. it is fun i don't wear it often as you can understand.

>> julie i did talk to union for an hour and indicated he would be on the call. we will try to reach out to him. hopeful low we can get him on. okay. >> don't have a number for him in the system. can you sends us his phone number. >> yea, hang on a second >> why in the chat or.

shill read you the number. it is brusque on tv can you send it in the chat for privacy. >> i'm tech logically challenged. >> you can call. >> okay. i'm going to type it in now. um -- do i need to let me see if i need to send it. why if you press return tell send. >> press return after the enter the number. why return. >> enter. >> that's what i thought.

thank you. we see it. >> thank you. must be dating myself saying return. that's a type writer. i knew what you meant. you have the advantage having children that can tell you how this stuff works. >> one time we had on the agenda dial in. nobody dials. don't know what that is. popcorn, what is that. . 45. i bought a graph last week i'm having fun playing with that.

etch a sketch. how much hours and your sister kicks it over. >> your hear suggest commencing now. join the meeting. thank you. >> i answer. >> do you. to finish out the time he did not answer. >> okay. well, let me think i'm disappointed that the commissioners who are not voting for rehearing are segregating out the nature of what this is. which is something unfair happened. but so be it. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the sfmta. >> good evening. philip concerna enforcement manage taxi mobility service. in this case, the appellate did

not argue or present new evidence pursuant to the rule. board may guarantee a rehearing upon a showing of different facts or circumstances where facts or circumstances if known at the time account have affected the out economist hearing the written request they need to state the character of the new facts and circumstances the name of witnesses and documents. appellate did not state any of this in their request for rehearing. additionally, the vote was 2-2. so assuming that commissioner lopez voted to i can't remember uphold or -- uphold the appeal pardon me. that would have no bearing or change on the impact 4 votes are required. there were 2 votes to deny.

assuming that voting block carried over to a new hearing, it would be the same outcome y. we are moving on to public comment. we will hear first from mr. von secka. go ahead. >> long time member of the taxi industry. it is very hard not to show emotions after witnessing all of this. for the past 10 years this city created a medallion program monetizing taxy permits and the members of the taxi industry were part of this program did so hoping some dithey could leave the industry with dignity. and you are stricken the dignity, way from us.

perhaps some of you should try driving a cab for a month to understand what we go through and we endured years and decades of punishment hoping something to get some value out of this medallion. this city our transportation agency and all [inaudible] of our municipal government they are totally against cabdriverers a stigma about our procession. i did it with pride i'm proud of serving this community for more than 30 years hoping some day if i get old and stay healing issues. hoping that i can leave the industry. all segments of our municipal government lineup with the mta who in my opinion, destroyed the

taxi industry. our former mayors destroyed the medallion program. hoar here we are facing injustice. time after time and again and again. am so far i want to -- let you know i'm disappointed you are allowing our transportation agency to harvest medallions from disabled people who gave their physical and mental health. to i medallion system they believed in and that has been destroyed. who is to be blamed for the senator of the medallion program this is a consequence of such failure. this is a human traj deviate wa that can be placemented on the city of san francisco.

>> thank you. >> any further public comment. raise your hand. if you call in the press star 9. now taking public comment on this item. okay. i don't see further public comment. so commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> commissioner chang? >> commissioner tina chang: i think that outcome of this will be replicate in the future. >> can you speak up? >> the outcome of this vote will replicate what occurred on the previous item. so -- i will what would you like to happen? >> somebody make a motion and unless -- anybody else -- would like to comment?

>> commissioner tina chang: we can make the same motions as before. so i'm happy to -- start the process and move to grant the rehearing request. on the basis that commissioner lopez's absence would have made a different in the outcome of the hearing and what is at stake that is not [inaudible] experiencing the same [inaudible]. okay. we have a motion from commissioner chang to grant the request on the basis that commissioner lopez was absent previous hear and this is resulted in a made a difference i believe you said and created manifest injustice. on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. why no. >> commissioner honda.

>> aye. >> president swig. >> no >> that motion fails. do you have another motion? commissioner lazarus. >> the hearing request fails in the under lying matter. determined. so -- that concludes the hearing. okay. here. >> use power with that. [laughter]. don't have the energy. adjourn the meeting, thank you. >> thank you.