>> good evening welcome to the november 16. 2022 the san francisco board of appeals rick swig is joined by vice president lopez. commissioner lemberg. trasvina and eppler. we expect deputy city attorney who will provide legal advice. the board's willing assistant and i'm julie the board's executive director. we'll be joined by the city departments presenting before the board this evening. tina tammy the zoning add

administrator representing planning. green the building inspector for dbi. katetur an the director of sfmta tax and he services division and philip crana legal affairs for the sfmta accessible service division. >> board guide lines requests you turn off or silence phones and electronics so they will not disturb. no eating or drink negligent room. board's rowels of presentation, appellates issue permit holders and spond respondents given 7 machines to present approximate 3 for rebuttal. members not with the party vs up to 3 machines to address the board and no rebuttal. cases previous heard the parties given 3 machines each with no rebuttal. you will vet a verbal warning 30

seconds before your time is up. 4 votes are to guarantee an appeal if you have a request about rehearing or schedule e mail the board staff at sfgovtv access and participation are of importance to the board. sfgov.org is broadcasting and stream thanksgiving live and we have the ability to receive public comment on the agendaful sfgovtv is providing closed caption to watch go to channel 28. note tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 on channel 26. now public comment can be prosecute voided in 3 ways one in person. 2 via zoom. go to our website and click on the zoom link. 3 by phone. call 669-900-6833 ## and access code: 884 7911 0374 ##.

again sfgovtv is broadcast the number and instructions on the bottom of the screen if you are watching the broadcast. to block your number dial star 67 then the phone number. listen for the opinion comment to be called and dial star 9 qualify raising your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turn you may have to dial star 6 to unmute you will have 3 minutes. you will have a 30 second warning before your your time is up there is a delay live and what is on tv and the internet it is important that people call nothing reduce or turn down the tv's or computers likewise is if you need assistance request in the chat function or send an e mail to the board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used for commento opinions.

we will take public first from members physically present in the room. now we'll swear or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member may speak without the oath. if you inupon tend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight say, i do after sworn or affirmed. do you swear the testimony you will give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. if you are participate you are not speak put your speak or mute. so item 1 is general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone like to speak on the board's jurisdiction not on tonight's calendar is there a member kwhold like to speak not on tonight's agenda. >> we have a speaker. >> mark and before i start my comment i like a point of

clarification. because i noted on the website that said that if a matter has previously been closed to public comment at a previous hearing public commentom this matter should be made during general public comment and i'm not aware that the taxi matters have you on your agenda have been closed for comment if they have i would like to speak to them. at this point. >> can you clarify what you want to speak to. >> i want to speak to the taxi medallion appeals you have before you. >> well when they are called you will be able to permitted provide public comment. >> i have no further public comment. >> no problem. so looks like is anyone here in person for general public comment? i see mr. ber toranto, go ahead.

you are her for general public comment, sir? >> yes. can you hear me >> yes, >> thanks. i'm not going to speak to the matters on the agenda i need to ask the commissionerings to ask questions. the website of changed regarding the peaceful permits to this board of appeals. it was changed before a hearing was schedule today. the question is who is authorized to change the website? who is authorizeed change the wording in the website without the commissioner's permission. and whether that is permitted under commission policy? the second question issue is the last night the mt aboard your suitive director's name was mentioned mull pull times during item 14 discussion. regarding the board of appeals

participation in appealing taxi related permits. and i'm correspond might be the apparent of or a conflict of interest regarding your executive director she headed the hearing of the sfmta. prior remember job. i'm concerned because bob before may he rest in peace i was a friends of his. would be probably recuse himself in this matter considering the relationship to the sfmta. thank you very much for your time and allowing mow to speak. >> thank you, mr. toranto this was not a question and answer time. thank you for your comments. is there other further general public comment? raise your hand. >> okay. i don't see any we move on to item 2 comments and questions. >> commissioners any comments or questions. >> i like to have the opportunity since this is our

last meeting before thanksgiving wish everybody a happy thanksgiving and may that be a grandent row to the holiday season and the new year. okay. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this. raise your hand. >> seeing none we'll move on to item 3 the adoption of the minutes. buffer a possible adoption the minutes of november sect of 22 meeting. >> any comments on the minutes and is there a motion to accept them? mr. trasvina. >> move to approve the minutes as presented. >> is there public comment. raise your hand. >> i don't see combg any we i have motion from to adopt on this motion vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> minutes are adopted. we are move to item 4.

appeal number 22-070 zhimin li. appealing the,ance on september of 22 to gerardo corpuz and legalize the construction of structure ambivalenting deck at rear yard. new deck is 6 feet boy 9 feet this is permit 202207229084. we will hear from the appellate first. welcome. all the member i thank you for your time. this is my first time to attend this meeting. i want it say is actually my

neighbor build the [inaudible] received right behind [inaudible] it is on your right hand side is a [inaudible] 13 feet so really bad thing. the sun will will [inaudible] for my yard and my house. i feel like uncomfortable that yea, i tried to do research. i know that supposed to have a permit to build this but did not they after i notify the dbi and they still keep finish the roof. i live in the [inaudible] i hope we can lower the roof height and keep like the neighborhood is

nice can [inaudible] in the china but popular a lot of population in the city. every where is high rise. so. there is not [inaudible] people living. and special i don't want this the same in my neighborhood. can be future and [inaudible] the will -- it is in construction. . people living inside i hope the member can look at my case and yea. thank you just can [inaudible]. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the represent everrepresent for the permit holder. you have 7 minutes >> i'm presenting behalf of mary

beth [inaudible] am and i do appreciate mr. lihas issues about the sounds like uncontrolled construction or something. but the permit he has protested is try to build a replace an existing deck which was built irregular and built close to his property we are trying to correct. inspect many ways mr. li's brief had 2 other points they'll directly about the deck. and in my brief i said, we are addressing those items. why and we are asking like can we have the per mist or entitlement reinstated there is an issue with the manslaughter [inaudible] that exist. if you look at the permits distributed. we did call them out. we know well is i problem and intend it do something. there was a promise to do a

permit to deal with those things. i do have the permits here i tried initiate but could not because of this process. we are trying to take them down. or modify to be in agreement with mr. liwe don't want to be bad neighbors won't want to live well and together. we do see that it is a big tall building. but approximate if you know we can work together and make it work. that's our stand on this. >> i have nothing else to say. >> the questions from commissioner lemberg? >> is there any connection between the shed and the deck i seen pictures of both but not clear to their rep. no they are separate. i can let me see. i can show you a photograph of that condition.

okay. that's our desk where is the deck? >> a prefabricated kit ordered from fin land and ship today and did in the realize how big it was. it is in meters and when it arrived assemble today and built it on a pedestal. >> one of the photos submitted appears that the deck as it currently sits actually does krsz over the property listen a bit or the fence line, is this addressed within the scope of the permit? that is correct. now the current design that

exists now that we are trying to get rid of come within a not of the property line and go in 2 feet in an existing easement for utility lines. >> thank you. make is easier. do you have the plans? on the plans it is kwleer what the old deck and new deck and might help you see it. sorry for the interruption. new permits they were trying to get and has that information. let me -- it was graphic that shows the preand post before and after. it is close to the property line. we are trying to do now is to pull it away and so this way we

can respect the easement there and have a foot extra. we do have a question from commissioner trasvina. thank you for your testimony and the brief. i appreciate that you have attempted in writing and here today to address your neighbor's occurrence. i think communication is helpful to resolve the situations. wonder whether you contacted him or your homeowner contracted him directly to express your desires to address his different bunkham whether you had response if there was. >> yes. >> thank you for that. remember the answer is i have not communicated directly with mr. limy neighbors have not direct third degree with him buzz we did not know he was

calling dbi until this matter came out and there was an animosity at the beginning but now that have time passed, cline is electric to find a solution. appropriate timed be now but unfortunately mary beth are out of the country they had this honeymoon paris thing going on they are out of country now otherwise they would be here. and i would not have to do so. thank you. president swig? thank you you can sit down. we will hear from planning department. >> good evening vice president lopez and the board. i'm tina tammy. deputy zoning add administrator.

175 is one story over basement single fell in rh1 d single family defy tamp zone nothing 28x height and bulk district. construct in the 1920 a potential historic resource the permit to legalize the deck and stairs at the roar of the property that was constructed without the benefits of a permit to comply with the code the deck and stirs need to be modified from the current configuration and pull back 3 feet. the appellate is the neighbor on sakston west of the property the appellate is concerned how close the deck and stairs are to the share happened property line. appellate is concerned the illegal construction of 2 sheds in the rear yard. they are over 100 square feet in size and 8 feet in height. there is no corrective action

teen address the illegal construction of the of the 2 sheds the violation on the property is still outstanding. less in a phone call with the project architect, planning staff informed him there is a need to file a rear yard vicious if the owner wishes to legalize the sheds as constructed. but as the owner wishes to reduce the sides of sheds to 100 square feet, as well as reduce the height to no more than 8 feet a variance would not be required. it is important to note there is in limit to the number of sheds one has in the rear yard. however well is a combined maximum of 100 square feet and a height of 8 feet as measured to existing grade. you can have 2 sheds 100 square feet each the combined square foot iffage no more than 100

square feet otherwise a variance is required. given the permit does partial low address the violation issued by dbi for illegal construction the planning department is recommending you deny the sxael uphold the issuance of the permit. the sheds are remember of great concern at this time appellate i want to reiterate here at the hearing to the project architect that the corrective action is still needed for the sheds. the planning department open an enforcement case and take action if no abatement regarding the shed. happy to answer questions y. we have questions from swig and commissioner lemberg. thank you. i was trying to figure out how they fit in to this construction permit. so -- as i requested by showing

the image of the plan, there is seems to be initiative to correct the size of the deck and make it appropriate low appropriate and legal. there were 2 references made by appellate upon representative that talked about 2 other things that he was not able to include in will his presentation or in his bree. what are those 2 thing and how do we wrap that into what we will do tonight or should we not worry because if we denight appeal will they be taken care of? first what are the 2 things? >> i believe the 2 things do with the sheds themselves. i'm going to put up the over head again to help refresh

everyone's memory. this is the deck and stairs. and it is proposed to be modified. pulled back 3 feet from the side property line complies with code. approximate it is something we can approve over the counter. when i believe the appellate sell still concerned with are the 2 sheds. the sheds are pretty billing swon 230 square feet and the second one on the become is 164. well over the collective total of 100 and if this is something that remain fists variance is require exclude approval after that you need to remove it. >> nothing else on the deck. the deck -- the deck with the new plans and the corrective action passes muster for you and

seems to satisfy the questions raised by the neighbor? gi believe so. dbi may have future clarification i will let mr. matt green do this. >> and then separate to the deck other 2 additions that appeared from the noon landed in the backyard that are over sized. i'm sorry. but yea to reity iterate we have seen this in the past. within00 square feet is it and as you detailed. so this is -- from things we have seen in the past, what is the if we were to deny the appeal which means that guess forward and at this point the

sheds stay, can who thes your steps to get those sheds out of there because they are clearly not even close. not even close. what other steps to ensure that the neighbor is protect friday to get those sheds appropriate lowdown sized to get to 100 square feet and proper height. >> thank you. so our enforcement process in planning not the same as in dbi we will go ahead and roach out to the owner. the responsible party for bringing correction to their property. to inform them they have to file a permit. permit to remove or to either reduce the if size to no more than a handled for both

collective ear file a variance anything large are than 100 or taller than 8 feet in height. we move on to the next enforcement action the notice of violation and with that come penaltieses. pents of 250 a day for every day you are out of compliance. and keep going. >> and what would you recommend today unless they are going to file for a variance and try to get something which is not realistic a variance on i mean start with neighborhood character. and just advancing thought heefrment neighborhood character, there are not other sheds in the neighborhood. just on you know on the neighborhood character item. there ain't going to be a variance. what would you recommend that the individual property owner do

today to mitigate a bunch pain for the department and themselves and the neighbor? with remove them. why remove them >> okay. >> all right. >> you recommend deny the appeal and let you take the action and our conversation tuesday offer constructive congratulations to the property owner? >> right. >> thank you. >> mr. lemberg. >> a bit of more clarification on that. this permit was pull in the response to an nov by filed boy a neighbor or something like that but only addresses the deck.

so -- and there was no requirement. there was no >> reporter: for them to also pull permits for the sheds either to remove or to dot variance at this sometime in response to this nov? >> thank you there a requirement tomorrow is out lined in the nov to file the property permits with planning. >> they did not do it. >> they did partially. the deck and stairs. at this time. >> i see. we can ask the architect what the plans are to follow the permits for the shed but he could not give me an answer. >> i don't think we have the nov in our materials. >> we never received it. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from dbi. good evening commissioners matthew green with dbi. am i like to clarify our building inspector went out

housing inspector in july wrote a notice of violation for the 2 directors in the roar did not address the notice of violation did not address the rear deck. the notice i have ligdz is constructing structures at the roar yard. each structures roof area exceedingly 100 square feet and height exceeds 8 feet high. corrective action to legalize or remove these structures with a building permit and planning approval. i have pictures of the 2 structures.

you see one structure seen a picture is under construction at the time about 230 square feet and green house at the back without perimism 2 are the subject of notice of violation. them picture is the picture of the deck as it is today. it was built without permits. i don't know i didn't can't explain why our building inspector did not address this. it was built without permit and does noted to be legalized the plans as submitted today bring the deck in compliance. my recommendation if within your purvow uphold the permit condition all language to address the notice of violation stricken.

testimony does not comply with the notice of violation. since it does in the comply we moved this on to the next step of our code enforce. press and will be a sdreshth hearing within the month. i'm available for questions you may have. >> okay. i feel like now i'm more confused. so -- nov was issued and it now this we have seen it said this it was addressing the 2 sheds in the backyard. how did this permit get approved when it does not address the sheds but addresses the deck not in the nov but the permit response it nov number footwork et cetera . i agree that is a mistake i recommend you uphold but instructor:that language. it does in the comply with this

notice of violation we made a mistake when we approved that language. >> the good result are to uphold the permit the scope of the permit the work because that does need to get done. but to just. strike the language saying in response it nov number? >> i think that is the best solution. deck needs to be reduce in the size this is permit to ruse size. they need a building permit to address the 2 structures in the rear. there will be the penalty attached this and permit fees. we can to ensure this we forwarded the notice of violation on the next step of the code enforcement process. >> thank you. >> okay. president swig. and i got my answer out of mrs.

chang but you have anything else to add of is her answer with regard to immediately there will be nov filed regarding the 2 buildings that don't belong well and do you have anything to add is that it or dbi do anything. >> theyville their violation we have our notice of violation we are moving it forward. >> okay. >> that has not puwill do that. and the statement, >> we already move today it is in scheduling press. >> and then the same thing do you have advice. what would will happen when the nov filed and presented the options will be the same as would -- brought forward and your advice in today's hearing passing add voice to something would be what to do with these 2

buildings as they stand today so they don't go through unnecessary pain? >> i think the easiest and quickest process would to remove the structures. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. welmove on to public comment is there public comment on this case? raise your hand. i dent see public comment we will move on to rebuttal. mr. liyou have 3 minutes to address the board. >> thank you. yea, this let me explain what happened the build around the 2018 or 19. i don't know they rebuild it or no permit. i never get issue to many about that. until they build this huge shell i question occupy sdmem call dbi

why don't they have record when the inspector come out to look at the that. until i raft permit i saw the deck and then i [inaudible] i they want to legalize the deck i raise the concern. so will but today thank you guys -- yea look at my case and i appreciate your work. thank you. . thank you. president swig >> mr. lii want to make sure you are comfortable are you comfortable with the new plans that take care of everything that you have requested? on the deck? >> yes, i do. >> and are you understanding that those 2 structures you see in your backyard today will be most likely be reduced in size

or disappear? >> yes. >> i want it make sure you are clear on that and may be some of your occurrence will go away. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder agent. 3 minutes. well, all i can speak to the concerns that brought forth is that -- i feel a little bothered that we have 3 points in mr. li's document. 2 are about the deck and one about the structures too big in his yard and stuff like that. however, it does not seem to be the issue he is doling with.

he is doling with the sheds. there was a question why did we deal with the deck. reason yet inspector spoke to the owners about the deck and the sheds and said you have to take care of the shed and we will come become for the deck that is when they talked about. the owner was okay we take care of the deck that is easy. the decision made to remove them andid have my middle here i tried to put in there. and tried to get them removed that was our decision to move forward. that is going we can't do it now because this stopped the process. but that is our next step we agreed we would remove the 2 sheds in the back. that's all i can speak to we're doing what is asked from when i'm hearing. so. i don't know what else i can add. >> thank you.

it seem there is is no problems with the deck as you presented them. based on the testimony from dbi and on planning we put that aside. are you clear we can put the deck aside. >> yes. >> well is in the an issue. what is the issue is the 2 sheds and i recommend is that you talk with planning tonight. and introduce each other and work out a situation so they don't probably have to look forward to an nlv with unnecessary scramble. are you clear that there is are you clear of what the process might be which is to file a variance and probably based on my experience sitting on this panel a few years will not satisfy the variance standards. so are you clearer that? >> understood. >> and so are you -- would you

please introduce sdprur yourself do planning after the hear and you willing resolve your issue expediently. >> absolutely. thanks. >> thank you. planning department, dbi? suggestion in order to stream line the process the nov is referenced in the permit can we add language removal of sheds and tinldzed remove them anyway then they don't have torque ploy and go through? whatever is appropriate and -- my fellow commissionersment to move forward as a motion. anybody want to start with a motion and then -- ms. rosenberg the make good suggestions i promise.

and the acid vice. i believe dbi would like to address the board. thank you. if you put that language the a prufed plans show existing sheds. >> okay. >> separate perimism would you want them to submit separate you know new pages for approved plans. i guess we could grant the appeal and issue a permit resunrised set of plans showing the removal of the sheds and including language which alighthouse the removal of the sheds >> which is easiest for you fwies. move it forward. i'm trying to make it. >> efficient for both parties. you know. >> yea kwichl can the condition they submit altered plans showing remove of the sheds.

should we add language to the permit. >> yes, >> okay. okay commissioners this merit is submitted >> motion or comments on this subject? push this button. i think i'm comfortable with the ychld it makes sense to add it in there assuming the property owner is okay with that. it soupds like that's what the property owner was intending to do anyway. so -- i don't see harm in doing that. so -- did you want to check with the agent for the property owner. >> yea. civil this am that would solution be acceptable to you adding the removal of the shed to the permit. >> yes , i think that is fine

the clarity i need is i do resubmit the original permit. and revision since it is issued in my experience i found that is difficult have you to do a. followum. jowl submit resunrised plans and bring them tom my office and mr. grown and i will review them and stamp them and you will get what issued a special condition's permit and move forward. >> okay. >> that is fine. >> the minutes will give me the time scale and get this stuff submitted to you? >> pardon. >> there will be indications like the time scale 2 days or 5 days or whenever. >> that is up top dbi i don't know had they wouldment the mran plans by. reminds the average we have active notice of violation that is moving forward.

if they -- if ishmael we set a time frame y. sure. 30 days bring it within 30 days. if they don't within 30 days then what. the hearing will go forward the director's hearing. >> okay. i like to clarify the changes are going to be removal of the sheds. >> on the new plans. correct. if you think. >> if you continuing is simple for him to get a separate permit we can remove in the language of the nov and go forward i'm sorry to. >> i think that is simpler. >> sorry making a suggestion. okay so sure. i move to grant the appeal on the base i that the permit was not properly issued andup hold the substance

of the permit and remove the language sorry remove the language in the permit that says in response to nov202292465. >> okay. i might suggest a modification. grant the appeal and issue the permit condition resunriseed require the deletion of the reference to nov number 202292465 the illegal sheds in the yard not the deck. >> yes. >> on this motion vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> that motion carries 5-0. the appeal is granted with that condition. so thank you. we are moving on to item 5.

this is appeal 22-007 robert skrak and mt ah. february first to robert skrak. . does not have a california license or acard the taxi services notice is upheld and the medallion is revoked by operation of the prosecute visions of the sudden fran transportation code thed is medalg dammion 878 for consideration know on april 13th of 22 by lopez the board voted to grant the appeal the base that the sfmta revoking it because mr. skrak relied on conversations with managers and representatives advised him he had a waiver the full time driving and not sell it.

father allowing him to deep necessary to avoid not defeat a strong public policy or would not create safety, the motion failed by commissioner honda boarded 3-1-1. and president swig absent to consider to the call the chair for a year the mt alegislation that give mr. skrak to sell his mediagonalion. president swig placed on the board's until 22 calendar. june 14 the matter rescheduled to november 16th of 22. commissioners travel vina lemberg and eppler did you review the videos and materials for the hearing took place on april 13th of 22? >> yes. i have. >> yes, i have. >> yes, >> thank you. we will hear first from the mta

you have 3 minutes to address the board. given this matter was continued. >> the respondent. right it was conditioned to on the base i the mta may enact legislation give him the opportunity to sell his medallions you with explain if there are developments. no the mta position is the same that is the transportation code requires that post medallion holders before you tonight they are subject to full time driving >> reporter: and all holders subject to the full driving requirement am must ref tain a permit an a card. the appellate has approximate admitted he does not have an acard and rerequest that the appeal be denied. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the attorney for the appellate mr. skrak.

welcome. >> will facility is >> opportunity. >> i did in the see you. commissioner trasvina has a question. >> in the 6 months since this came before us has the city done taking any effort its address the occurrence expressed here. >> no. as far as legislation. no there have been industry wide changes. there has been the third party pilot allows. there have been changes but in the specific low addressing or changing the rules that require any post medallion holders retain an acard or driver permit. >> i and my colleagues are new to this matter as members of the commission. i have questions my impression looking at videos and reading

the written materials was that the tint of this body was to give the city some time to explore further action. and -- that might lead to a change in the value of medallions. among other things. i'm -- are you telling mow the city has not done anything in response to that? >> well, to the board of appeals, okay. the mta has jurisdiction over policy related taxis and mediagonalians and drivers. there has been changes but they impact the industry in the just this peculiar class of medallions. there have been changes but in the pacific low addressing the request of the post k medam yen to e eliminate the full time driving requirement. >> no. >> thank you y. commissioner

eppler. >> since you mentioned changes can you explain whether they have any application to the case before us you in or not. >> i don't think they do. >> i can briefly in sum. prior to the start of the pilot on november first, all taxi trips required the am fare to be categoried to the meter meant flag drop and flag raise. that is the fare. this change alighthouse taxi apps to forecast similar to were other ride hails forecast based on your destination and the passenger can brett book and allowing third parties uber passengers to be picked up by a taxi. does in the apply to the post k's the industry as a whole. >> nothing applicable to the case. >> correct. >> thank you.

>> sure. >> president swigs the only witness on this panel to the cases and previous i want to get your confirmation to give views to mr. trasvina. it was my vow that this action was postponed because and -- because of further action by the mta. correct? potential further action >> >> my recollection was. former commissioner honda wanted continue it in perpetuity. jot spirit of that was that there was the approximate terrible tht mta was going to take an action that might

provide a -- can some relief to the appeal in this case. right when was pending the approval the up front fare and took time to develop those rules. data and things and that's why it lunched inform first that was the effort i was hopefully in our home to increase the business to the taxi industry as a whole. medallion help. >> so, the in my view and i want to know if you share this view, we were by -- the perpetuity part was improper as we have review whatted is appropriate the call of the chair. my review of that call of the chair made it legalize it but legalized it because it had to be tieed a specific date to be

resolved. so that's why that happened. and were but -- was it your vow that why we did and why president honda in the first place did this to give one last opportunity for the city to provide some action which might give further relief to the people of the case. yes or no. >> no. ? rule is codified there has in the been contemplation to ink cha the rule. they don't have loans they are class medallion his have loan

the effort by the agency has been to improve the health of the industry as a whole. so in this case with this answer nothing was going to help we should not have push third degree delay the action on this case to this point nothing was going to happen. and nothing did happen y. right. >> fine. i'm not going to argue i want clarity for the panelists here who were not involve instead initial hearings tonight. why thank you. >> mr. trasvina >> thank you president swig. as long as you are get negligent history of taxi legislation going back to 1978 prop k, has

the taxi commission had any point -- considered the has the taxi commission changed the 1978. requirement. have a changed that no. that is through the chronology is the police regulated prior to 1978 and after. prop k pass in the 1978. changed the way medallions held. prior you could hold multiples. you need to drive. there was not the muddy the waters the possibility of having incorporating your medallions, no separate set of rules 1978 and 2010, all medallions taxi

medallions subject to full driving requirement 800 hours the 1998 the taxel commission was created they regulated the medallions in the same manner as the police until the mta2009 i believe taxys came over to mta. that rule is codified in transportation code today that medallions issued between june of 78 and june of 2010 is subject at this time full time driving requirement. >> my understanding that the language was intent to drive and it changed to you have to drive. is that incorrect? i believe it was litigate in the also -- i'm asking has the intent to drive gone to requirement to drive

>> yes. >> and i think you stated there have been no changes to that over the full time driver requirement? the ways of the full time driving change in that such as shifts and -- how it is but it has been a rule ever since of the alternative way for the key executives the keepers to need it. that is exception. yes. >> there are exceptions. >> and has there been an exception for those with permanent disabilities. no, that was sloan. am hypothetically, yes.

the policy is only temp refer and 3 calendar years for any single condition. and it is i believe part of this or not it is -- right. so there is a temporary policy. correct y. but in the a permanent. >> no. >> but it could have been brought and considered by the mta as one of things that could have been done the last 6 months. could have. >> thank you. >> okay. fanatic thank you we will hear from the attorney for the appellate. welcome. you have 3 minutes. >> good evening. i'm here to represent robert skrak. and i want today briefly go back through the procedural become ground on this. so, on april the third, on the 13th 20 twoot item was continued

to the call of the chair. and that was continued to the call of the chair for not for inperpetuity but for one year on the basis sfmta may enact legislation that would give mr. skrak the town to sell his medallion. a short 3 months later it was cal dares to the july 20 meeting and then for efficiency it was continued to tonight so it could be heard with other appealless. mr. skrak's argument relyos [inaudible] and 3 members of the board in the previous composition including commissioner lopez agreed that sfmta should be a stop from e vocabularyinging it because he relied on advice from staff. to his detriment.

so to be specific in 2012 sfmta staff told mr. skrak he could remain a mediagonalion holder for his life with no driving requirement in exchange for forefitting his right to sell it at that time for 200 thousand dollars inform 2015 staff advised mr. skrak it was okay to stop renewing his acard and tam california driver's license as long as he was not driving because of his disability. and disabilities here because you know you are under mfa policy allowed 3 years of exemption for each condition that you have. mr. skrak has mull pull disabilities he could get 3 years for each of those. now, in 180 degree turn about sfmta seeks to revoke him for not having the activate card

approximate driver's license thap they previous told hymen he could have lapse. so, like mr. the other 2 mr. skrak deserves consideration for decades of service. >> and -- upon the april continuance upon anticipated changes it legislation. that has now hopped the year pilot program that started on november 9 gives taxis access to uber customers and authorize 3 e hail apps that will increase the value. of the medallion in theory >> thank you. >> sfmta website. >> thank you your time is up. >> i don't have third minutes. 3 minutes. why your time is up you have a question from commissioner trs vina

>> go ahead. >> thank you. local taxi

industry. he might be able to some day roach that retirement benefit he passed up in 2012. so -- in the upon interim and kwul fiing if the statement policy i, assure you is, live and going in the sfmta he should hang in there and see if in fact his medallion does provide him

retirement benefit and not the end all fo to provide for disabled medallion holders. i was not at the meeting last night but a commissioner, commissioner boarden directed staff to look at a way to help the disabled medallion hold and ares consider the tenure they had in theistry. when someone had 30 to 40 years in the industry, then the mt aboard at least one commissioners is interested at looking how mt, can help those mediagonal yen holders it exit the strep and have something more then and there just the memory. >> thank you. thank you. we moving on to public comment.

is there anyone in the recommend who will look to provide comment. please prop the microphone people in the room first and then the zoom attendees. good afternoon i'm not going to do this in 3 minutes i will have 3 times to respond the first thing is i was offered the opportunity to of selling my medallion at the same time at -- 200 thousand dollars. i refused. and i refused for different reason. because i believed that i would make more money in the future. very similar. however, after the pilot program

ended, they started a full time sales program. and -- immediately they started cheating on this. who cheated? the mta. they were so anxious to sell medallions this instead of selling medallions just from k medallion holders, they actually allowed other people which were the pre-k's they prohibited from driving. selling to sell their's. and this within on until early 2015 to slightly more may be in 2014.

what happened then was uber really started cutting down on the business. and -- nobody wanted to bemedallions or few did. instead of allowing us to sell whatever we could, they blocked the list that we run. we had a list in order of who could sell medallions and started only to sell medallions p medam yens the new ones for 250 thousand dollars. and they started accepting a few people who had cold feet. and they resold those medallions. later on, by 2015 there were no more sold.

i have been sitting on a list since then. i am 83. i still have i driver's license but i'm afraid of driving because taxi driving is a multipurpose thing you are driving and [inaudible] thank you. i will continue in the next thing unless you have i question. >> thank you. >> no questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm carl career taxi driver and first thing i want to do is thank commissioner lopez and especially president swig for thoughing the compassion to continue this item. just the right amount to continue it. the basis for the continuance to

do with whether uber taxi pilot might bring value back. there were delays the pricing thing went forward but a 7 dpas ago this launched. you mice consider continuance because that's the same basis. um -- let's see. so i want to explain i think equitable e stoppable apply the difference with 2 types of permits the mta is conflating and has for 45 years. . this is the a card the taxi driver's license you have to have a california driver's license to have one this is the business operating permit and the people like myself committed our lives to obtaining 21 have

income in older age exclusion of taking a different path. there is no reason why an elder low person disabled and cannot obtain one should lose his permit the taxi companies work with the permit holders and medallion holders to keep the taxi serving the public and issued under pc nn process when the city needed more cabs to serve the public. there has been misinterceptions the biggest one the city attorney's office dig nothing their heels like the holy gray and will not back off. it got worse over the years. in 1988, it was codified in the police code now transportation code, swearing intention to drive got turned a never ending

driving >> reporter: that follows the holder to the grave. in 19 upon 90 when ad a came out the agency -- city attorney's office put in a false eligibility requirement. so i want to skip it a couple of other things i appreciate the request about key personnel shows how much read and research you take a tremendous burden to look at all the take place. key personnel item shows enabled body person can double tip dip than i don't have the driving >> reporter: they take away the medallion from people in a wheel chair >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please.

the cabdriver and k medam yen holer. i wanted to discuss this appeal in light of the next 2 this you will be hearing because they are innertwined and various ways. you may be aware that in those next 2 appeals the hearing officer decisions in favor of the drivers. later with drew them and reversed them in favor of the mta. those decisions were foible decisions all the procedural requirements firefighter finality were met there is no provision in the code that allowed for them to be revisited. i believe this doing so was a violation of due process and equal protection of the law. now why did this hearing receive reverse? it seems clear he mufb pressured to do so. did in the wake up in the night

and say, boy i really made a mistake when i decide in the favor of the disabled medallion holders. that did not approximate happen the pressure applied contaminated every taxi mediagonalion hearing. if you read the hearing officer's decisions in the cases they say in so many words they valid preferred to decide otherwise. but their hands were tied. so. the other pinlt is i think this the mta has really gone about this in an i'm trying to foinld a kind word but. the issue here is really an ad a

issue. they say it isave formal >> reporter: have you to have an a card but to have one have you to have a driver's license and disabled you can't have a driver's license you can't pin this down to the failure to have an acard. and i then and there the ad a issue is complex. >> i know this is a strong case there is water under the bridge since and chinks in the industry. i think this to come to gip if yous need to come to grips with the disability issues. thank you very much. why thank you. anyone else in the room. no. i see no one we are going to the zoom attendees mr. toronto you have 3 minutes go ahead. good evening i appreciate you taking the time to hear listen

to the hearings and to weigh all the facts. i want to address the part where they talk about the changes in the strep. first mr. skrak is in the making flown in th medallion. therefore spending the time to revoke it and then where would it sit? what would happen to it. the company would not be able to operate it and a drivers out of a jop. and it will sit in the drawer. you should see the abandoned cabs at the yellow cab. row and rows of unused vehicles not operated at the foement mobile home because medallions were revoked the withins not continued to the have a permit where are they. they near i drawer because the

sales program is capew. they think they can revive temperature may be they can but not for 250 thousand dollars not for 125,000. you gota be kidding. so -- another part is the uber and lyft deal if we don't know how much they will take out from the fares and the passenger pay we don't know if the drivers will make money. i refuse to participate the thing is is that the still people takingum phones before they leave a venue or a performance and already order an uber or lyft. even the purchased medam yons don't hold value and ks are useless they are sitting at night and stairing at people they wait 2030 machine for uber or lyft. thing is to take mta to take this action rather spending more time to keeping cab stands

clear. remembered value is to take away a job who may need temperature thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from marcello go ahead you have 3 minutes. can you hear me? yes. i'm marcello i started driving a taxi in 1989. 20 years later i earned a k medallion prop k. and i'm camera shy and struggle with public spoking and going

from a second language. bir with me. medallion applicants such as myself who acquired permits through proposition k of 1978 we swore to drive. nothing in the language of the 44 year old proposition saying that permit holders had to drive until they drop dead behind the wheel. this driving requirement is questionable a taxi mediagonal yen is a business operating permit not a driving permit. and regarding the driver's license requirement to renew a medallion it has been said by mta staff here that it was added to the code in 2016 and so you know 2016 the year the sales

program failed. not a single has been sold since april of 2016. now that there is the pilot program this partnership with uber and taxis, there is hope that the medallion value will bounce back but for this program to be successful we need a proper number of cabs to meet the demand. if you allow the mta it revoke his medallion you will down size the plea and jeopardizing the industry's success. even though he cannot obtain a driver's license hoe can lease his cab. his mediagonal yen to be pritted by a younger licensed cabdriver. if you allow mr. skrak to keep

it inspect riding public will be served. i hope you will consider that. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the caller who's numberens in 1954. press star 6. to unmute >> hello. >> i hear you. >> yes. >> my name dennis i have been driving for over 4 decades. i want to make points very clear here. the sales program which happened a decade ago was in part to give old exert disabled mediagonalion holders the opportunity to will leave the industry. and our understanding and agreement with the mta was that

we would surrender it for considering. since uber and lyft saturated the streets and killed the value of the medallion, since 2016 there have been no sales. i suggest you know i have said this before and i will say it again, that until the medam yen sales program gets back in affect that they should leave people who cannot driveway they are disabled leave them alone. this driving requirement the acard thing is something recent.

several years ago, before mr. were tumlin came on the staff advised several drivers that they did not have to renew their acard when they are disabled. testimony it is a no brainer it did not make sense to have a driving permit when you were not driving the fact that they came up with this ridiculous rule makes no sense. and if -- you will change the wording or the language from -- you know from the intent to drive to you must drive have you to grand further in all those who signed up and got a medallion when the language was the intent to drive. if you have any questions let mow know. okay. thank you. we will hear from the caller who's number end in 1405.

i'm part of the low hanging fruit after paying for an acard for you decades. i was disabled now i'm blind and as you hear talking like the village [inaudible] i cannot driveway or get driver's license and i condition get know acard. but i am certainly capable of paying for an acard that permit

made to do so. and i am looking at all the disabled people, what class of workers and the city of san francisco it not have protection for disabilities. as a muni driver becomes disabled, does he not permitted to sit at the lunch counter or someone else in the back of the busker get on the bus? and mta certainly let us down in the sick months they have been in finding a disability solution. they have done nothing. they should be in charge with fining of pol before the next meeting. thank you. >> okay.

thank you welhear from mr. are thebone. you have 3 minutes. >> go ahead. good evening commissioners board member i'm charles ragbone you heard that taxi issues are terrible low complex. but in fact they all boil down to exactly the same one issue. they are all going become it a single poorly crafted phrase in pread alegislation from the 70s. language regarding our sworn intent to drive. the agencies interception of that phrase lead to dris crimination rowels enforced against elderly and disabled medallion holder. yesterday's mt aboard meeting chair boarden instructed the

director of taxi service to revise the agency's posture toward prop k holders. those words from the head of sfmta give us hope the. enforce am actions will cease. we are not there yet. please support chair boarden and telling mt astaff to revisit out dated policies and please share your thoughts with mayor breed as well. please know also that virtually all elder low medallion holders would gladly sell them tomorrow if they could. and that all of the necessary transfer regulations are in place. mta has frozen that program for years. all of the appellates are thus caught in a very harm will catch

22 dlemast agencies own creation. my comments apply equal low to off the taxi item this is evening so i will in the repeat them. sin veer thanks to you for hearing the appeals and i hope upon that you will decide in favor of the appellates. >> okay. thank you. any further public comment. raise your hand. okay. i sewn see comment. commissioner this is merit is submitted. may i ask before i ask commissioners to sduchls can you claire foil when we are doing here? tonight. >> um -- you know one can laugh at it because it is really complex. and -- and it has been harsh

exclude rehashd and vows and they are all right views right from those who provide those views. but can you clarify for xhorns before we have discussions i will ask you please to do the same am in the next upcoming hearings if we find for appellate what happened. if we deny the appeal what happens? please. >> sure. before i answer your question commissioners. want to make one note nain the general public comment that the beginning of the this meeting a member of the public will alleged the executive director has a conflict with the taxi case and wanted to clear the referred that my office has advised the executive director show sdmot have conflict and beyond this she is not a

decision maker in the hearing but a facilitator. >> thank you. in terms of the question before the board tonight, the issue is whether to over turn the revocation of the taxi medallion. in which case you would be granting the appeal or deny the appeal and will the taxi medallion would be revoked this is the same is trough in all 3 of the appeals. and in the some of the earlier hearingos this there has been question from upon the appellates about who the vote threshold in the matters. because there was a decision boy hearing officer followed lie reconsideration. the vote threshold is the same as in other appealless it will take 4 members of the board to

reverse the reconsidered hearing of the hearing officer. if you if the board has 4 members to vote it grant the appeal and reverse the revocation of the medallion then 4 votes to pass. there are a new issues this come up along the way. arguments put forth boy this appellate and others. about whether the hearing officer and in this matter correct low applied the transportation code and also about whether equal factors and as commissioner trasvina explained supports reversing the hearing officer.

the burden can make a decision on either ground. you could conclude that the hearing officer made a legal error misapplying the transportation code. i don't believe the appellate here is making that argument the argument that the appellate here is primary low make suggest that equal estoppel apply under the factors that commissioner trasvina explained. essentially that the sfmta staff made rep 7ations to the appellate and he relion those representations don't worry you don't need to review your acard you can hold this in perpetuity. if the board concludes that the sfmta made that representation

and the appeal relyd and as commissioner trasvina said there would be gave injustice boy not apply and application of it would noted under mine a public policy, then the board could reverse the appeal. reverse the hearing officer's decision. foible low this board has several times continued the items. and that's if an option again for the board but just like in the past hearings you would need to have a concrete reason to appeal and a back ends dead line boy which action would be taken if that is that's an option you would like to consider i would suggest you rbi choir more with the sfmta's representative about

likely hood of additional action at the mt aboard. >> thank you deputy city attorney for the guidance and advice. this is a time i wish we had a court reporter here i'm trying to repeat what you said i may have miss today. i thought you had said in reference to the hearing officer the reconsidered hearing. and from my review of the videos, the paper presented, i never saw any actual hearing at which there was a reconsideration being discussed. and while it -- it only plays i minor irrelevant in this case it is more irrelevant voluntary to the other 2 case i wanted to we can talk about this as it is

other 2 come along i would like to explore the validity of the reconsideration and the issues we are described in the papers. why i was getting ahead of myself talking about reconsideration in the context of this hearing. >> mr. elementys. >> on the last point, that he touched upon related to future likelihood of changes on this front, i like to turn to mr. crana briefly. earlier trasvina took my question reconsideration of

enforce am. we also had a couple of statements during public comment suggesting this there may have been some related conversation about this. at the recent mt aboard meeting. i wondered to than it was recent and --mented get your input on that or how you would characterize that discussion if it happens. there was no discussion it is available i'm getting an echo. it is available online sfmta board. the board president did ask the director of tax tel asmar look at helping out the holders. there was no discussion about ending the full time driving >> reporter: or changing the a-card rules the city litigate third degree repeatedly and

defend third degree over years taxi medallion holder case in 2002. city is defended this rule. repeatedly. a follow up, would in your understanding of that discussion do you think that it would impact hearings such as this. or would it be potentially sounding like may not have been a detailed discussion. am no. in your assessment is it something that would impact similar situated folks as these appellates. >> it is unlikely. >> thanks >> in past hearings i brought this up i will do it again.

i -- i am tremendous low sympathetic to the seniors the senior member of this panel i'm sincerely sympathetic to seniors. and you know when we face when we cross 70 and go it 80's and we live that long. what is the vault medallion other than hail mary value that does in the exist today. testimony all day about ha.

what is the real estate value of medallion at this point or just a souvenir and i do not mean to be sarcastic or a souvenir one puts in their drawer saying they were a taxi driver. that's first question and aligned with that, there has been reference we heard in public comment today this a medallion holer can make income by leasing that medallion to somebody else and sharing the value of this medallion to that leasee. so answer the first worn then the sect. genetics price near them are 200 thousand dollars. they may lease them this class has a full time driving requirement the class transferrable people pay 250,000 for they can les it out but they have a loan piment they payment they need to make.

to answer, yes medallion holders may lease them out. in the case of this medallion holder and i will ask you to address it in the next 2 case for the record. there is what this person is holding is something that has a potential value of 250 thousand dollars because that's the fixed process. but there is no market for that medallion new and no market for that in the if future. is this your view? there is leasing than i with make the agency does in the get involveed. we don't get involved in that relationship so i don't have that information won't don't track that we stay out of that. in this case, this gentlemen do

you see him leasing that mediagonal yen to a company and getting value in that fashion y. he would in the driveway it does not have an a card. yes he would lease it. >> he would have to lose it. >> correct. there is value in that medallion. >> yes. >> leasing it. why is there and most likely although there is a value of 250 thousand dollars right now that is not going to happen. >> there are no buyers for medallions. what is the harm of why is the city rigorous about the holding of the medallions by the individuals who i know there is a full time driving requirement. i heard the testimony. but what is the rbi tensity approximate rigor related getting these back.

what is the harm of 80 year old man who can't drive but could get value if they leased the medallion. what is the why is there the rigor about getting them become from individuals >> there was no enforce am until i came on board when i became aware i alerted and this effort was under taken and the harm is to other medallion holders who are in compliance. >> but this boils down to and fair i proach this gospel every week is the law is the law. these you know we have testimony [inaudible] to comply with this act you have to fulfill the following 5 things if you don't guess what you don't get to be an okayor anymore temperature is

irrelevant as simple as that. you are preventing a double standard from am i hearing you trying to prevent a double standard from happening? and that is although the individuals are in their last. chapter of their lives most likely and disabled and they suffer from the inability tom drive. they are still subject to the same rigor as an active driver why should you you don't want to create an exception for the drivers because you want. compliance to the law. is this it? yes. it is a fee simple will like that actual need to driveway and if you don't it come become it was not intended be a life daily no. never was a permit for life

>> when we have to rustle with here tonight is -- taking away a senior's individual's hope because in fact they cannot comply with the law and we have to remind ourselves we would like to be compassionate that we have to pay attention to the tact fact the law suits all party and when you got this medol dammion you were subject to these conscience. is that wrap it up? >> yes. in was when i say without monetary cost they waited scombreers i acknowledge that and i respect this for sure they put in sweat equity tow earn this. but they did don't have a loern outstanding as well. it is without cost effectively. money. i should say. >> and if they did have a lone

outstanding how would the rule change? well, i continue does not apply this . rowel does in the apply to that class. >> okay. >> right. thanks. thank you. a member said hoe is able to answer your questions i don't know. asking professional y. commissioner eppler. yes. the broken windows very it nonenforce am for the madamions can you go in detail what the, harm would be if these holders were to be allowed continue to hold them?

they would be allowed lose them if they wanted to in >> is it correct? >> with whom the current the gentlemen in front of us on this appeal >> yes. >> yes. that he does not have a per nit meal not drive it. jot question is that lease is competitive if he is allowed keep typeset and therefore a detriment to the other drivers would there be a circumstance someone able to drive would want to lose it. >> they are fro to provided they meet the conscience. fro to do so is there a condition which they actually do this if they were really capable does this happen in. what is the america up tick on in sgroo i'm not sure they do

this. drivers who drive full time also lease. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. not hearing anybody then you want to make a motion. i am prepared do it. >> mr. trasvina. gi will defer to you. why okay. >> mr. -- lemberg. i don't know to me this is in the a tough one. i -- you know as 3 of us on the panel spent my weekend reading and vowing videos from this for

the items and for this case i think it is probably one of the strongest arguments i have seen in any legal proceeding ever. i think it is a powerful thing and the joy of equitable is a defense in okay you can fulfill the check the boxes and be right legal low and in compliance with the code approximate over turn the decision. but that said i you know pass the argument in this case i heard all of the taxi drivers now and the past i heard all of the public comment. i heard the mt arepresentatives who have said this they are not plan to do anything to fix this problem. and while we are not a pol

making body and don't have the ability to over turn or change policies we have the ability to address the case before us. and i certainly would be prepared grant all 3 appeals tonight on that basis i think this is i grave injustice to the taxi drivers. and i think it is a complete and total arbitrary discrimination against disabled people and that's my opinion. that's where i am at with this. >> i'm glad you are starting the conversation. mr. trasvina. >> i had deferred to you earlier. >> i'm here to facilitate tonight and looking forward to hearing everybody's opinions so we can get to, yes.

>> my opinion is this is not an easy case and i applaud the work of my predecessors on the commission. and all the time the city and the all of the interested members of public have. this is a serious subject. taxi drivers have an important job. among other things ambassadors for san francisco. the airport or other pers offent row for the city they are met boy a taxi driver they have the most dangerous job in our city. you and i are the more senior members of the commission remember paul sdooin are stein the first v. zoed victim of the

zod iac in 1974. i do appreciate the difficulty. the city and administering and attempting to have a policy that does not i guess have exceptions. i electric at the equitable e estoppel case, will in the apply against a governmental body except in unusual instance and we can agree this is unusual. to avoid grave injustice. we heard tremendous testimony from the mr. skrak, other litigants and member of the public about avoiding a grave injustice and when the result will defeat a strong public policy they apply h. the strong public policy seems to be in the

oral testimony from the department to be i came in thank you it was there should be maximum full compliance with the view of the lu. however, there is all on the books for the city this exception for court reporter scheme personnel. it is called an alternative driving requirement. you look at the ad a law. some of which somebody say. why is that student getting more hours to take an exam. why is this student getting a tutor and others are not. because it is a reasonable accommendation for someone with a disability. i don't consider i don't

consider this waiving the diving >> reporter: i consider it an alternative way. a. and that is part of the ad a alignment i'm struck that the department has no policy for permanent disability. than i have for temp refer and the left 6 months in almost being tone deaf to this the proceedings here and decisions you have made did not move forward on considering something. i consider it the equal e stoppel requirements met and move to over turn the decision based upon the equitable estoppel principle. why mr. lopez i echo the comments of the previous peeshgs

and i will not go i know that president swig was here for the earlier ones that i had. it soupds like my fellow commissioners watched the videos i will not repeat my previous spots on the matter. i will'd is this continue to believe this the leaderships of equitable e stoppel are met and did not hear going of grave injustice or strong public policy interests to change my view i'm supportive of the granting the appeal. >> thank you. my fellow commissioners i almost hezidate to pile on here i will go to that point of strong public policy and justice.

i am shonninged at argument that the potential to lease and compete in the marketplace with license to compote is the damage that will happen when it is in the an actual market place but a marketplace created by entity that now wants to pull the licenses out. it i mean -- i guess the argument is so -- bad that i commencement here, otherwise i do agree with the points you have made. this evening. thank you. did we have a motion? i will move to grant the appeal. on the basis of the elements of equitable estoppel met. i will make a comment. i think this is no win situation and i think we are suffering

from many of the pins that you all brought pickup the policies. that's not a legal term but it is weak and muddy. you know it is its sticky. so -- if you take the if you take the medallion away i feel has no value. we heard that. and we uber and lyft and god knows the next will be. you are taking away hope. and the point i brought could you lease the medallion, yes. so there is if you work real hard i don't know if the gentlemen have the forth coming to have strength it do that. there is a value to create revenue for them. is it against now i will jump to

the other side and say, does it granting this appeal go against mta rules? clearly that's whyy woor here the mta thinks so may be if we grant this appeal this will force the mta to make the policy a little tighter and make it less stick and he that's what we will giving the folks hope tonight by granting the appeal this appeal and others i don't know we will have to have the hearings and we force policy to get tight and clearer. and which i think that is what mr. eppler was commenting on. with this call the roll y. commissioner lemberg i like to suggest adding fact its your motion let me know if you want these or not. vice president lopez's motion. >> thank you.

>> vice president lopez, made a motion to grant the appeal approximate over turn the determination that the sfmta estopped from revokeingly and i thought you may want to administer skrak relied on conversations with sfmta managers he did not need to renew his a-card. on that morgz commissioner trasvina >> yes y. commissioner lemberg y. aye >> eppler. why aye >> president swig. >> aye >> the appeal is granted you in moving on to item 6. george horbal appealing issuance of the decision on reconsideration sfmta versus george horbal taxi medallion george horbal does not have a california driver's license and

not eligible to possess an acard. the notice of nonrenewal by the taxi serves upheld in the medallion is revoked 1303 and you see from the agenda well is i long procedural history was heard i will not read it heard. heard on september first 2021 and most reasonable heard and continued several times and last heard on may 11th 2022. and at that time, upon a motion by commissioner lopez, the board voted to continue the matter to november 16th of 22 on basis there being be a change in conscience affect the value of the medallion and change in legislation, anthropologist or collaboration with taxis and ride sharing service. so, again. we will hear forecast mta first.

similar to the last case so. mr. crana you have 3 minutes. and i like to confirm commissioners trasvina, lemberg and eppler you had the opportunity to watch the videos review the materials for the prior hearing this is took place. >> yes, >> yes, >> yes, >> thank you. >> ghaen is similar situation. the notice of nun renewal issues electric of an acard. requires that any medallion holder must main dane an active a card that was the basis for nun renewal. we ask that you uphold the decision by the hearing officer. and deny the appeal.

thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from murreda. >> we have a question >> commissioner trasvina. this thank you for your presentation. this question may go to you or deputy city attorney the as the you reference said the hearing officers decision. can you do you know the gent cysts decision between the time first decision that was rendered and the reconsidered one? the one not before and you one before you. the -- hearing the decision --

on june ninth the 2021 the decision denying the nonrenewal. are you aware of what occurred between june 9 and july the ninth when the judge issued a decision, which has been subject of the appeal. >> city attorney wrote a letter requesting the hearing officer reconsider their decision and issue a new decision based on the code. and are you aware whether the city attorney, to whom did he wroit? the hearing officer. and all parties were served. >> and was there what was that? you say request to reconsidering. >> yes. was there a hearing on request

for reconsideration? >> no. so -- was there the so -- was reconsideration granted? >> yes. and how was that presented? how was that the reconsideration grant made? the hearing officer issued the decision buffer today. there is a difference between this is why i ascii, from my days in the city attorney's office there is a request for reconsideration there is notice for request for consideration, the question the hearing on the request for reconsideration and if this is guaranteed there is reconsideration.

seems you are saying that there was an e mail sent from the city attorney at this time hearing officer and the response was, a now decision? is this correct? in short, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay. welcome you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. george will speak first if he is on. >> we will not start the time yet. mr. horbal. i believe he called mr. horbal you need to press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> hello. yes. i'm george horbal i have medallions 13 your 3 and native

of san francisco i'm 76 i driven a cab in san francisco for 23 years. but kidney failure and cancer ended my driving career in 2016 i'm in a wheel chair and cannot walk living on a small social security check that barely pays my rent. i'm hoping today you will stop this cruel harvesting of medallions from old and disabled holders i'm not low hanging fruit. i'm -- i'm calling will for you folks to help me out the please don't let them kick me under the bus and please let mow retain what small income i may receive from my medallion to live out my last few years with more financial security and dignity.

let your hearts be your guides and let justice prevail i thank you very much and god bless you all. thank you very much. >> okay. i want to say to george as a vietnam vet and he -- this is stressed out this is his fifth hearing and went through 2 administrative officer hearings. as mr. trasvina pointed out the main argument i want to make is that the code 11 section 1120 is ecaccompliceit this the hearing officers decision takes affect the day the decision is serve said. and that is also a blatant disregard for communication rowel in this case. but -- you know if you don't

agree i would say that -- the pilot program with hoover should go forward and the reason why it is more then and there a hail mayoref the 've dynamic when ummer did. payments to the drivers and sell low costs. thank you. destroy the competition. then an ipo there was uber was preponder lawyer and 2.5 billion dollars mou uber prices are coming up the taxis are competitive and the pilot might work to make a lot of business for the taxi industry. and people may take cabs once

they are getting a more professional driver. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. yes, question. commissioner trasvina has a question for you. i'm sorry. were you representing mr. hear bell during june to july 9 of 21. why i wrote this one brief and i guys must feel i tell you -- mr. lemberg, may be you den want to tick a judgeship. thank you, i wrote that brief. you could enlighten me more what occurred. between the time of the decision on the june ninth and as i

understand it deputy city attorney emory requesting reconsideration on john 22. notice of with drawl sent to the parties on june the second and mr. horbal on june 22 noticed for request for reconsideration. . >> i think i heard the question. there was a mix up is this where am keep were supposed to be able to put in input. >> no. what i wonder about is were you copied on the request from the city attorney to hearing officer. request for reconsideration. >> yes, i anyhow it was happening, yes. >> was there ever hearing on the request for reconsideration? i know you read so much in that

file what happened it is honest as manying by the hearing officer. he told us we had until like july 9 or a mont to get the response and thought it was july 1 when he read the decision it came out on the day we sent our response in he never considered it. it came cross as an honest mistake the hearing officer was very fair. >> one other question on page 88 materials that we were given, perform it includes the footnote the city attorneys response to the allegation that something went wrong or that it was inappropriate way of approaching the hearing officer. and the city attorney's office says that section 1120 does in the limit the hearing officer's continuing jurisdiction after

issuing a decision. >> hearing officer retains jurisdiction to correct it. correct mistakes. i den thank you is when the transportation code says. it says the decision is final. so when the city attorney deputy upon intervened, and loaned on the his underling in the hierarchy. can of the case had been decide it was final. and so we were not a second time -- notified of the ecparty communication they twisted the guy's arm and said change your decision. to me it is obvious. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we erno more questions we will move to public comment.

i want to try to explain as many things as possible in the shortest part of time. okay. there are 3 different types of particulary medallion the pre-k's. the k, and the p's. the sales program was initiated after the hearing and the grem in the ninth circuit. and the agreement was that 2 taxi drivers who had petition today keep their permits it was agreed that they could keep or sell their permits and this was signed boy the city of san

francisco on the side of the agreement. after that agreement was signed, a pilot program of selling medallions was started. the condition of the pilot program was you had to be disabled or over 60. and the holder of a k medallion. the reason for all this was k was a disaster. it was a disaster for drivers. because drivers waited years, i know of a driver who judicial eventually got his medallion in his mid 70's. all logic says stop driving

around about that age. and this was not an individual thing. general low speaking, the only time the taxi medallions were added was because there was a big event. and i by luck or whatever got a medallion upon because the mayor decided that we needed more cabs because there was a democratic convention in san francisco. okay. that's the first thing. second thing and the most important thing is this whole question of earning money. the more was calculated that k medallion holders filled the requirement of driving by driving 800 hours a year.

>> thank you. time. >> unless you ask me a request i condition continue. why thank you. >> thank you again mark. sudden front taxi war alliance and i like to read to you from transportation code section 1120 e-2 it says hearing officers decision shall take affect on the date that the notice of decision is served on the respondent in accordance with section 1120i. now it is my understanding this was served and that made it a final decision.

and not subject to any modification. so -- i irrelevant do believe that there has been a violation of due process rights here. the other point i wanted make more general low is this am i believe this this will group of medallion holers got swept up in a wave. the this is mta sent out 316 notices of nonrenewable. to 257 medallion holders because roerpt holders and others had multiple going back preprospect circumstance. within 46 of those were cured. they kept their's. within 21 did in the respond and those medallions were lost, 49

took appeals. 17 hearings and 32 default decisions. but the great bulk of the medallions deservedly within become they were people not driving. did not have reason or excuse for not driving and you then and there was all right and proper but in this mass some of the drivers with disabilities got caught up and these other cases that you have before you. it is a shame because i know well are others out there they could go after if they wanted instead of picking on this group of people. and others like them. thank you.

next speaker, please. i'm sorry -- i'm sorry mr. we are not calling the people on zoom yet we were finishing in the hearing room. >> please excuse me. where thank you. go ahead >> mary mc guire. i'm a taxi driver and former commissioner and i want to follow up on what mark said and brought it up yesterday at the hearing the idea low hanging fruit is so insulting for a disabled or senior person and that when i was a commissioner yea. there is a lot of high hanging fruit that never got touched police captain wife issue friends and now this. george horbal i knew him when i worked at yellow cab and cab drivers are artists or actors

george is like a career cabdriver. working 5 days a week in a company man and going out there and serious about his job. i think this is it is disgraceful mark said the people are being caught up in this wave and there has been frud and are a lot. we they don't drive and care less but somebody like this t is in the right. thank you. >> thank you. okay. mr. nihart you have 3 minutes go ahead. are you there? yes. i am thinking as you mt, board to reconsider and redefoip you are not letingly them to make a

more interpretation of i am thinking about me from 1997 forward. when i was [inaudible] all over that the permitted mow to pay dues and continue my prop circumstance operation. 17 years may be 20 years. and so that was at the discretion of the people behind the counter when i was funding up and swearing my intent was to driveway my cab every year.

20 years i could exercise this discretion. i think this i served support thing the idea of being able to exercise discretion and circumstances am than i definded as appropriate. i would hope this someone would permanent low disabled would be appropriate exception. i not it thefrng the board for public service and i want it thank all taxi drivers for their public service, too. that's all. >> thank you. we will hear from marcello, go ahead. you have 3 minutes y. can you hear me. >> yes. >> julie i don't know if i'm on camera. am i.

>> you are in the. >> do you want to be. >> yea. i have 2 do you means. why okay, one moment. you are i panelist now but you are on mute and camera is off.

unmou yourself. perfect. okay. very good. for the record i'm marcello career cabdriver since 2009. i really wish we have investigative reporters from credible media sources here because george horbal's case is an injustice he said, in the comment he drove for 43 years. he served this community for more than for you decades. and then he had kidney fail year and wheel chair user. and now this he can no longer obtain a california driver's license, the mta ativitied by city attorneys and twisted arms to reverse previous rulings now

are trying to strip george of his pride and dignity this is an injustice. when i have here i hope you can see it. this is my day card. this is my k medallion. as you see, they are valid until june of next year. if i become disabled, and cannot renew my driver's know will bes i know i condition renow this a-card. but if i lose my driver's license if i les this card i can still lose this medallion, serve the public and perhaps have an extra income. so this a card is the driving

permit. this medallion is business operating permit. so -- george, myself and all the agents medallion holders like to least industry with dignity. we hope some diday to get something. we invested many years of our lives broke our bodies doing this hard job. please shalling don't let this injustice to take place. it is so unfair. it is so it is so bad for the mta to go after folks in. in a public meeting i am a cancer survivor what if i condition drive anymore? how unfair would it be for the

mta to refer to me as a low hanging fruit and strip me of my dignity and pride being a greater cabdriver and perhaps getting something for a medallion. >> thank you. time. bari toronto. go ahead. >> yes. good evening. itch wanted to just add a bit more it information to my previous comment related this. first, this decline to renew the k medallion permit boy the sfmta or revocation is hurting those people who are getting little or no income from the medallion.

you are in the getting passive income. and in fact, nay are suffering like other drivers who are driving a circumstance medallion. buzz they are barred. barred from working the airport they are, lued go at this time airport when there is the demand is extraordinary, which is on sunday nights. the result of that, stuck it w in the city. eye myself have been driving for 20 years tried to work only the city and i cannot make gent rit the same income as i can having the ability it work the airport. now you -- fortunately some of the cab companyers charging a promotium for using the p

medallions. so the. i said the value of revoking a permit at this time serves no useful purpose. new drivers who get have been e eliminated for advanced training. the mta has e eliminated this training many who want to work of the airport. and those medallions are few and far between at this point. the people benefitting from a medallion income is the drifrs of the k medallions get goes to the color scheme. mt ament part of the policy to create a cap on how much00 autocompany can earn from were lesing the drivers k medallion if the holder is in the driving

at all. there may be [inaudible] holder but very few and last comment is 30 tw medallions were revoked from the the credit unions. and the sudden front federal credit youns. as a result of this, this is why they were given access to the airport and no revocations since september of left year. thank you. >> thank you we will hear for evelyn angle. go ahead you have 3 minutes. . said that i highway lie support justice for the holders 2047 and

2020 i don't have i medallion i'm a driver. i recognize 1303 immediately i drove 1303 i did not have an assigned cab but i drove it. i tried lockup the dates john 29, 2019 in april, drove television these are paper records could not find them quick low. i want to say there is have you to having the medallions available to cab company and for drivers. and i'm of once benefitting from it. thank you. >> thank you. any further comment for this item. raise your hand. okay there is in further comment. commissioners this is submitted.

commissioner lopez? >> yes. thank you. i like to ask a couple questions of mr. gibin. and before i jump in the the substantive, questions i wanted to get ahead of any questions or am allegations of of conflict issues. because i do see that mr. give in is copied on the emory to sebastion e mail in the record. is there a conflict issue considered? >> thank you. as you know the city holds many administrative ajudecasions. the board of appeal ands city attorney the attorney for the entire city. and all city agencies we as a

government law office have special rules that apply to us in administrative appeals. in order to protect the due process rights of litigants.

for example. mr. emory sent as an advocate for a party in the appeal sudden an e mail to the hearing officer and to the upon driver and the driver's council.

he could cc the attorneys who are working with the hearingly officer as if bow were like the hearing officers judicial clerk. that -- they are consistent with california supreme court case and our office screens upheld in by the california court of appeal. in this case, people in my side of the screen, have provided add voice to hearing officers involved. we have not communed with lawyers on his side of the screen about this advice. and -- and no communications about the substance between mr. emreand the hearing officer occurred. >> thank you for the thorough explanation. turning to more questions of

substance. with respect to the reconsideration. it does that the process general low have a basis in the transportation code or you know another city code that may be applicable. and if so were the procedures you know required for such a reconsideration where they follow in the this can is? there is in procedure codified for request for reconsideration transportation code or the rule this is apply to hearing officers. so when the hearing officer received the request for reconsideration from taxi division, they determined with the add voice from my side of the city attorney's office screen, that they had the

hearing officers had jurisdiction over the matter and until an appeal was foild and the jurisdiction of the board of appeals or the appeal period ends and they no longer have jurisdiction. than i were in the -- in reconsidering of the merit they were not reliing on a code provision or rule but -- what i think is when we add sunrise side an authority this they continue to have jurisdiction over a matter until one of the parties taken it to another level. >> thank you. >> mr. trasvina. thank you. president swig and mr. -- i was not aware you were on the e mail in this situation. and it further confused me you have mentioned that if i heard

you correct low no communication with mr. emory and the hearing officer. as far as i'm aware. i and -- i will telling you tell you a person in charge of ensuring our officers screened for years i'm confident there was no improper communication. that's different you in you say there is no improper communication i want to make sure i understand the difference with there was communication with mr. emory and the hearing receive. correct the e mill. that is not ex parte communication where on the e mails with mr. emory sent are e mill that he sent to the hearing officer the pers in the matter were copied. why so the -- in the -- in the um -- city attorney's brief, to

us, awhile back. it says that the hearing officer retains jurisdiction to correct mistakes in his decision. i would consider a mistake an error but in the i reversal of the decision. and you saytrary rule prohibiting hearing officers correcting their mistakes result in unnecessary and unfor the proliferation to the board. i think when we have here is unnecessary pel to the board. because of the way the reconsideration came up. my question is -- the decision and all decisions talk about right of review. it is says that any party or entity adverse low asciied by this decision seek review filing

an appeal and accordance with the 15 daytime lines. does in the say file a motion it reconsider or distinctively not say inform the hearing receive this hoe or she made a mistake. i worn whether there is more to the right of review than the appeal that is people are informed of and what basis there is a greater right apparently for the the city attorney's office. and does that ability to correct mistakes apply to the other litigants. sure. to be clear in your question you said when talking to me you said you input note one of the brief say hearing officer has discretion to reconsider the brief you are referencing is in

the a brief that is it is not add sunrise from my receive or hearing refer or the board terror is foiled by mr. emory on behalf of the taxi division. just to be clear that i am not involved in brief filed with this board. it is your the office of the city attorney. >> it is office of the city attorney that made that we min stain evertain the screen to ensure add vice that this board and the hearing officer receive are entirely separate from are any advocacy on behalf of people in our officers and we take that responsibility seriously to give this body and the hearing officer impartial advice. taking all parties broef briefs

into account. the options for reconsideration e can you said, there is in codified press for reconsiderations. . when the taxi division representative asked for reconsideration of thes matter. the question is -- what authority does the hearing officer have to reconsider the merit and i said, we advised that the taxi -- hearing officer continuing jurisdiction as language as no appeals or lawsuits filed and the appeal period is still pending. and the hearing officer in their discretion of the hearing officer makes the decision about whether to reconsider their decision and ltd. this decision will be. commissioner lemberg. i share similar concerns with

voip lopez but i have a slightly angle for it. which is i'm not concerned about the screening procedures. y don't think there is necessary low a there, there. but am at least not on the record in front of us. i have been trying to formulate what i want to say. you know i believe he pointed section tc1120 e-2 the hearing receive's decision shall take affect in, cordance with section 1120i. ir heard what you said about the city attorney's decision that

had i evering officer has jurisdiction. what i don't understand is how -- mr. emory came to the decision hoe had the authority to write an e mail to the hearing officer and request to reconsideration to begin with. possible the sfmta representative could poke to it. >> okay. i mean what is clear to me from reading lit gones can pole to the board of appeals which

happened here. i don't see any authority we have authority for request for consideration and jurisdiction requests i don't see that in the coved section here. you know -- i think your interpretation of this law is a reasonable one. i don't see how we got here. it does in the sit right with mow they were able to do this in the first place. i don't think this is a question but --y you have anything before mr. lopez has a second by the of the apple? this time i will poil on with my fellow commissioners. there was a reference if it was

in mr. emory's e mill or hearing receive's e mails. but it was said something tht hearing officers had huddles up and decided collective low it motorbike a good idea it reconsider these ajude indicated hearings in order it avoid appeals. and i'm assuming that -- given the screen which you described that -- that someone would not have been in contact with the hearing receives to coach them on guiding them on this conversation amongst the hearing

receives. is there anything you can shirr based on your knowledge and experience when may have promptd that. conversation if you can even comment on -- whether to place. why i don't think i can. i don't give my offices or team our irrelevant is it provide add voice to the hearing officers on request. and that's where i'm not sure about huddling up. that's all i can tell you. we gotta move forward. . dom do we have a motion to move

forward in any direction? mr. trasvina. i'm as you tell i'm troubled boy the post hearing ativities that occurred here. and it appears that if i understand we have the whole store that the hearing receive made received a request from mr. emory on june the 21st at 1057 a.m. and on the same day notices with drawl of his decision. i can't imagine he could do this based on 7 lines or few are than 7 lines of an e mail and i think

that when should have happened was the city the -- agency should have paled. if it did in the look the decision. and given that they did in the do so win the 15 days i would contract original decision on june the ninth of 21 referenced in july 9 athdecision is -- decide the issue. i would consider that the final decision and this matter that we have before us in the supreme court would be am will granted and i would in order to resolve

i move to grant the appeal of the july ninth decision based upon the fact that it was that -- it is hearing officer made an error in deciding that when the merit was decided by youn ninth decision.

over turn the decision on the consideration on the basis of the hearing officer made an error in issuing it when the decision had been issued. mr. loams. i'd like us to consider an e stoppel basis based on the record i feel that the the -- elements that we ticked off in the last matter existed slightly different but in this case as well. i think it is appropriate to

make a motion on dual grounds y. you ask that of mr. trasvina he can accept your adjust am >> happy top have this as an addition to the motion. >> i'm sorry can you clarify for the record why they are equal the factless. >> a few facts, >> on the bases of the appellate's reliance to their detriment on statements from the agency. that he did in the need renew his acard or statements in general. statement in general. >> so i will repeat. we have a motion from commissioner tran trasvina to the sfmta hearing officer made an error in issuing when the

decision had been issued. and 2, the sfmta equal e stopped from revoke on the basis the appellate relied on statement. vice president lopez. why aye. >> commissioner lemberg. why aye >> commissioner eppler. why aye >> president swig. >> aye. >> i would like to have a break it is 7:53 and become at 8:05. >> we'll be back at 8:05 we are

>> [applause]. [music] [music] >> about 20 years ago the port was look to develop a network of open space and parks and to bring the art network and access to the bay to the entire 7 and a half miles of waterfront property. this location, 7 acres, identified a very important place to make a park for the community. the park was used very much for ship building. it was a very important location in the city's history. iot best part of the water front was heavy industrial and did in the have opportunity for the public to get in and enjoy will

bay and connected to the bay. >> they incorporated the historical value of the area people can learn what was here before, what is here now and then really be able to understand the community that they live in. this was a vibrant ship building area here for years and years. and you know here we got a slip away and for us to have an opportunity to teach our children the old way specials incorporate them in the new ways, it is endless. >> this will be an upon upon wonder uponful addition to the southeast sector of san francisco it is green and clean and beautiful and access to the bay from a park is just going to be incredible. jot things planned is going to make this a destination for the folkless in the upon community. ability to come out and have a

picnic on the grass. and to come out and use the picnic area with the tables and bbq pit and movie night and food trucks has an open space is exciting. we don't are much of it in dog patch. i think this will be a family and community based type park. >> the port is good about talking with the local people about things they might like. >> the whole place is a play ground they will not see anything like this before. >> i feel blessed have been part of the commission and the process of bringing this park to the community. this has been a long community lead process. >> open space is something we have been doing in san francisco for a long time. connectivity we have to the waterfront and san francisco is

important. i can't wait to experience it as a residents and district supervisor. [music]. >> shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services we help san francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. >> my name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if san francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because

the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both national chains and neighborhoods by the neighborhood stores where coming you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their

own- that's