>> 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 >> welcome back to the november 162022 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we are on item 7 this is appeal 21-0 sick 9, james versus mta. appealing issuance on july upon

22 of 21 the reconsideration of statement of decisions. revoke agsz of medallion 753 does not have a california driver's license and not eligible to possess an acard the taxi medallion can be revoked nonrenewal is upheld and medallion is revoked. note this matter was schedule on november 17 of 21. a long history. continued several times and heard on may 11, 2022. at that time upon megz boy commissioner chang the board voted 3 to 1 to continue to november 16th could be a change in continues. more specific low a change in legislation policy or collaboration with taxis and ride sharing service might add

value to the medallion special commissioners tras vinnia and eppler watch the videos and reviewed the materials from the prior hearing sns >> yes, yes, yes. we will v hear from the mta first. >> good evening. the mta's position that mr. cortezo medallion was not renude based on lack of an acard required by the transportation code. this is a post k medallion special subject to full driving requirement and they must min tain an active a card. we request that you uphold the reconsidered decision of the hearing officer. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i don't see questions we will

hear from mr. mc mur da. the age for mr. core corteza. i will try for the commissioners. keep it to where you don't have to deliberate more than a couple minutes the same case as the one you heard with george horbal. there are slight difference jim about 40 years and his body is break dun. trying to drive and became disabled once uber and lyft came in and the medallion rental fee went to zero from 2300 downward, and jim realized the money he saved he was kept being without money and income if he stayed san francisco. and knew people in thailand and

relied on the advice of the manager that he does not need have an acard. so over in thailand and could not get on the video. and one thing i did not bring out and had to other hearings held without the reconsideration the agency would have been the appellate needings 4 votes and during last year had one or twochl jim gave me a statement will read it in the next minute half. i'm jim cortezo. first, card deafs back to 1975. i have severe arthritis in both knees. [inaudible]. making driving automobile

impossible. i'm on [inaudible] still [inaudible] live in bank cox on small social security check and a lease driver for 25 years before he got his medallion. and then talks about the california driver's license. you can't am questions of law foil for one on several reasons. it is a funny thing. most people when can't qualify for this is because of disability. but some people can't afford to live here but arrange to have yellow cab or [inaudible]. operate, thanks the permits. and so they need to move so00 autofact that mta put in a rule about the california driver's license 38 years after prop k was in affect. i think that creates estoppel

and things like that and it it is just making the disabled people a target for the agency take permits. thank you. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment. at the direction of president swig given the late hour it is limited to 2 minutes we hear from the fellow anyone present. mr. gruber? you have 2 minutes. >> thank you, again. san francisco taxi worker alliance i don't mean to prolong it we have an important hear to come. i learned new information. that i found astoundzing. i knew before that00 autorequest for the reconsideration xam throughout city attorney's office. i had presume today come from the side of the city attorney's office that advises the hearing officers. what i'm hearing is is that that request came from the mt aside.

now the mta at the hearings they held, has represented the staff represented to their board this there is an absolute fire wall between mta and the hearing officer section between their staff and the hearing officer section. well, if the attorneys when are advising the staff are asking for the redlargz is in the a fire with you hall is swiss cheese. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. i would like to talk about money. i'm a k medallion holer only has to work 800 hours i year. that's roughly 80 days.

you guys can play. during the rest of the year, some of us lease our cabs out and do not drive them. and this is perfect low legal. and therefore, the question of driving or not driving is kind of pretty flaky. in addition to that, if you work for a cab company, in almost any capacity, certainly in the past, pumping gas. you upon don't have to drive. because you w for a cab dump. so there were many issue many reasons this lots of people did not drive. butt point that i cannot understand is if how do we get in a position that mta does not

recognize disability. ad a for cabdrivers? they employ thousands and for everybody else is ad a. >> thank you. >> can you hear me? >> okay. again are if the record marcello career cabdriver and medan dammion holer since 2009. i know james limp a professional driver. and not a caves someone break his body dun providing professional service to san francisco residents and visitors. so, in the sake of time, i just want it urge you to not let them

revoke his medallion he served the communities for 4 decades and just like the aging population of k medallion holders all he wants is to leave the city with dignity. don'tlet the mta revoke his medallion. >> thank you. why we'll hear from derbying. why you have 2 minutes. thanks. particularly the i have a concern taxi driver. and also the taxi [inaudible] you for the and thanksgiving blessings to on thanksgiving for

these cabdrivers. i hope more follow. thank you. >> thank you. is there further public comment? i don't see any. commissioner this is matter is submitted. >> commissioners any comments. or a motion. >> commissioner lemberg. i would move using the exact same language in the left one i'm not going to remember proper low i move the exact same language. >> okay. >> used for the last one. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to grant the appeal and over turn the decision on reconsideration on the basis the hearing officer made an error had the decision had been issued and to the sfmta stop from revoke the medallion

because the appellate relied on statements made by the sfmta. on that motion, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner traz vina. >> aye >> commissioner emleer >> commissioner swig. >> appeal is granted. now on to item 8. this is a special item, discussion and possible action on september 8 of 22 the san francisco sfmta advise the board of appeals discontinue of having the board hear appeal it is related taxi permit decision, consider the possibility of sending a letter to the sfmta explains the factors when deciding these cases and whether other agencies from the authority to add to or take away the matters up in the jurisdiction of the board of appealless. so president swig, i believe you

wanted me. >> this afternoon, i remember kate of mta reports to all of us a brief presentation. that i'd like her to present. >> okay. >> and then we get in our discussion. >> welcome. >> sorry for butchering your name. >> all good. >> i like all pronunciations. good evening i'm kate turin director of tax and he mobility service for the sfmta. and thank you for make time in your busy agenda tonight for this item. i have a brief presentation and i wanted provide context regarding the decision on not allow taxi permit issues to be heard by board of appeals.

i hope tell be helpful to put it in context. until 2007 the board of appeals had jurisdiction under the city charttory hear appeals of take permitting decisions. prop a pass in the 2007 and granted the mta authority over the revving regulation of taekts board adopted an ordinance abolished the taxi commission and 2009 taxis joined the sfmta operating under the frame w established boy the sfmta board which is article even00 of the transportation code. and article 1100 sets the standards for taxi permit issuance and also provides a

structured hearing process for permit hold and applicants. in 2013, a bit before my time, as taxi director, the sfmta and board of appeals negotiated a memorandum of understanding mou, intended memorize the mta consent to the board of appeals exercise of jurisdiction over taxi permit appeals that remember issued permit decisions issued by the sfmta hearing section. the mou was never executed and instead the mta and board of appeals developed informal arrangement that allowed the board of appeals to continue hearing appeal of taxi permit decision and the board of appeal's website states that the charter grants mta authority and

appeals are heard by the board only with the consent of the sfmta. and upon acceptance of the appeal by board. it indicates a shared understanding of the matter of jurisdiction. this silent internal process to set the context in 2019 staff began the permit harmonization process to aline our various permit processes and a broad are effort than just taxys. it included scooter share, bake share and new mobility and staff identified a need for consistent framework in areas this made sense across different permit types and internal dialogue.

misalined with mta appeal its has a 2 step process. there is as i stated the sfmta hearing process and there is the second board of appeal's hearings. and there are multiple types of other hearings that sfmta hearing section considers including parking citations, toed vehicles, et cetera . they have a very broad range of other types of hearings they do here at the sfmta hearings section in taxis other own one this have the different process. >> so i conferred with the board of appeals executive director. director rosenberg regarding the discontinuation of the informal proisz or practice allowing taxi

permit decisions to be paled to the board. which was and mutualy agreed to allow pending appeals to be heard boy the board of appeal it is. evermented make sure the upon appeals pending before were allowed continue. and will thereafter to aline the taxi appeal's process with other appeal's at the sfmta the director of transportation discontinued the informal practice of allowing taxi permit decisions to be paled to the board of appeals that occur in the september of 22 the past september. of course taxi permit decisions remain appealable to the sfmta hearing section as established in the transportation code. amendments to the transportation code to remove them now in applicable references to the board of appeals remember

considered most reasonable by sfmta board yesterday. there was over all support for the item. the motion to approve did not care because at the time of the vote there were 4 directors present. all 4 votes were needed and upon one director voted no. on further conversation, i understand that the one no vote was related the timing. and not the merits of the motion itself. so we expect to bring the amendments back to the sfmta board in the future. but this does not change the policy decision to discannot board hearings for taxi decisions. that's it for the presentation i want to end with a thank you to the board and to director rosen berg and happy to answer questions you may have. >> president swig. >> sure.

you you know how long i have been to this board yoochl 2015. i believe. >> over 7 years. i understand why we exist. we exist because we are the point of last hope for those who have permits and questions about those permits or those who question that permits were offered to member and may be should not got them. and -- we are that point and -- we are a point before the blood starts dripping in civil court. and money starts flowing.

we serve a community purpose. it is an i come to believe i'm a joint's fan. but -- we really serve a purpose for those people who need to have a request. who feel they have been mislead. suffered injustice. how about just don't understand. and before this -- this -- conflict guess to a grand to a big everybody court where the money follows and the boards letting. if and -- we just had 2-3 great examples of that purpose today. 3 people who clearly don't have the approximate ability to hire lawyers to go to war against their opposition.

in this case the sfmta and city of san francisco. and, and this group of individuals they were great tonight. really did home work. and locked at the detail and so, holy cow. you know in -- there were in the last 2 case you heard it. there was a mistake made and as a result of that mistake injustice was created and as a result of that injustice the opportunity for an appeal was created and they did not go to worry or pay president lawyers because the gentlemen in thailand was not prepared and got justice tonightism think that the sfmta should review their position on this as -- a result. and fairness and consideration of justice. and the tune of member who has

an issue has a place to go before the heavy lifting happens. even the first case we had today. a gentlemen finds 2 -- 400 square foot. over 100 square foot buildings suddenly next door to living in next door to him in his backyard and guess what the heck is going on here in right? that gentlemen clear does not know english as his first language and not a lifelong citizen sophisticated with the way things are done in san francisco and luck low he has the board of appeals to come to and say, guys help me out am i right or wrong. we look at it fair low and the department come in and says yep, there should not been 2 elementless in the backyard and we will create some change.

no thousand dollar larceny, people's court. the neighbor got justice. the clarification was rules made to the permit holder and of life guess on fair low without us. without this board, was that upon opportunity would not have happened. and so -- i think that the consideration of the mta step nothing front taxi drivers and not allowing them to appeal their permit issues is short sided and narrow sxf -- offers a significant injustice from my view. i see it here week after week where justice is served. people have the ability to come in and pitch their items. and sometimes they lose. but they get their day in court and don't -- it is affordable and accessible and i continuing is fair. that's just my point of view on

what you are presenting and the action and i will let commissioner lemberg follow up. >> thank you. president swig. i conquer with everything you just said. and i as a practicing attorney i know i think about appeals a lot and how appeals work. and obviously as a member of this body we hear a wide variety of different types of appeals. and i was racking my brain going through this and i upon can be the think of a single other example of an agency having both hearing authority and appeal authority in the same body. i can't think of one. and -- there is a reason for appeals bodies. there is california courts we have the superior court, the trial level and the court of appeals which the court of appeals and the supreme court above that. social security security determinations. if somebody guess on a hearing

and has social security climb denied they appeal to a udz district court. you know there is a zillion permit praels we hear in this body and -- fun -- one could argue that social security under a large federal scheme is less impactful than a taxi medallion appeal. for certainly the people who's cases we heard tonight and doubtless others. and i just you know i -- very strong lowmented to will say my distaste for skipping government layers of review. and i very much conquer with what president swig said we exist for a reason and i understand that the mta has the willing authority to go forward

with this plan, i very strategy low believe that it is in the a good compln that it it is i den think it service i purpose other than to restrict review of person decisions. and i all encourage the mta to reconsider their stance on this. thank you, mr. lopez. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation and for being here. this evening. appreciate the effort that when went monopoly to preparing the materials and i found the time line aspect helpful. thank you for that. one. things that i realized when i first sought memos. coming out about this change.

i had not considered due process elements of mta hearing before neutral hearing officer before am not something that was critical for you to reach you know a decision on the questions that have come observe us. i will ask you for our information what are the elements of how the work are there an opportunity for public comment? are they recorded. an tube for opportunity for member of the public to watch >> the enforcement manager familiar with the process. . >> yes. it is on item 20.

open to the public. prepandemic they are here the challenges involving the pandemic they were remote. they are recorded. they are i think open to the public. and it it is at the hearing officer's discretion to allow public comment. so that is available. about the change is why now. thank you for the question. the as i mentioned we have been doing discussions internal low about the permit harmonization process which we want to aline our permit processes again to

the extent possible across a number of different permits and we are having pro robust internal conversations. . and with the limited resources and looking for efficiencies the part of permit harmonization and understanding the 2 step process where by we have the neutral hearing officer conduct a hear and there is the second hearing in front of this body, this is different from all other permit decisions and hearings, this was therefore a focus of discussion and we have been look at this for a time. making sure with the city attorney's office that the jurisdictional questions are clear and addresses.

if has been under discussion for a time. >> for clarification, that harmonization process, independent of the hearings we have had since this enforce am review described in the not sure what the call it. it is -- looks like the staff memo to the board describing the proposed change and thing justifications for the change. that -- harmonization you described -- existed independent low of the subassistants of the decisions that remember heard before our body in the last year envelope or so? >> it is a much broad per offer

and it relates to a number of new mobility services coming on line in san francisco. so -- scooter share. you know there was once scooters drop in the san francisco a scramble to establish a framework and there is a lot of work tirnl low to be prepared for the next time mobility. it is a broad are conversation approximate this is part of it again the taxis are one leadership or aspect of the whole permitting frame boshg. the extent we can stream line our processes and -- really implement the intent of prop a in 200 stone create more efficiencies with the mta and,llow authority of the taxi industry. it it is completing that process and should have been done a time

ago. and -- moved forward with t. i want to acknowledge and appreciate the comments and the service of the body and emphasize again there is a hearing press due process is important for us and in fact as a division we much prefer upon compliance hahn you know this type of hearing and i know i heard going to war and we certainly don't like to do that. that is not our intent and our preference is for compliance with the rules. those are establish in the article 1100 by the sfmta board. so -- this process before you a combination of many years of notices to the industry. the ability to cure and again

when this most recent or -- last couple years enforce am effort was under taken in number of medallion holders that were out of compliant did cure. may be the majority. have to look at the numbers to speak directly to that that is our preference. we settle if a noncompliant applicant get in compliance before the hearing. there is the ability to settle in advance as well and that is our approach. mr. eppler. >> i think that approach makes sense. and certainly we don't anticipate hearing every asertion. i think that we think this you are hearing receives do a good job most of the time. tonight the first time they did

their j.w. they did it well as well had we quibbled with the outcome we think the hearing officers did a good job. and i think we are worried about the times where efficiency does not lead to justice because the case is hard much like the cases we heard tonight were hard. well is justice and appearance of justice special a case come out against you as an 58. if the appellate of justice you walk away with the faith your government is working appropriately and having an agency be the judge the injury and then the execution is strong. the initial gives the decision does in the lend itself to the perception there has been fairness. they other entity that is you know charged with the prosecution of what it is this is going on even if have you an

inspect officer that is the great thing busy this board we are inspect. noted only independent but diverse and selected by the mayor and the board of supervisors with the consent of the full board. weave have that element of being a jury of peers that looks at the corn are cases ways that they things difficult and independently and come to a decision that and i have not been on the board for long. the one thing i have been very impressed with and a -- you know a credit to my commissioners on here long and prior is that the folk who is have been in this room and walked out of the room whether we found for or against

walked out. seems like an understood they were heard. understood they were considered and could accept the decision. this is value we add that is important for civil so sight. thank you president swig and thank you for your presentation and for being here late after we deliberated over so many case. the -- when i hear i -- i pent most of my career in washington, d.c. congressional hearings on when i hear stream line harmonize, they tends top mean something else. i don't know you and don't know me i cast no personal dispersions on anyone it concerns mow in the atmosphere of our deliberation and decisions on the hearings the

matters you heard tonight. and -- i feel ha -- if the stores about president kennedy a man he played chess. they would hold the chess board on his knee when is he was losing he trip evertipped his knee and the board would drop. may have a public perception problem you are dropping our board losing a sense. independent and fairness. i wonder whether the people who come observe your officer and come before this upper level hearing would feel, feel that they were on a level playing field and they had a fair shot. what we heard tonight about is some of the ways in which they reconsidered matters where approached to the hearing officers approached for

reconsideration is i read -- section 1120 footwork no agency community with a hearing receive while a case is penning and our deputy city attorney tonight says the case is pending after final it is pending until the appeal decision has been made by losing party >> i would urge to you go back and take in what come up tonight. and share it with your board because and in really -- i think this this is significant enough to if new. may be it is old information i think it is significant enough for the board for your board to consider whether the public perception and the reality of stream lining and harmonizing and it appears that the

harmonization is to reduce process. may be not the intent. result is you are talking about duplicative hearings they will have less. an opportunity to make their case under a worn case the appeals go back to your department than they do here. i echo my colleagues said and -- according to the memo it is your decision but -- i just urge to you approximate move cautiously and deliberately for the people we care about jointly and together we care about the people of san francisco. thank you. one more comment. first of all. my comments toward you are not meant to be critical. xr we do appreciate the process

this you go through. we appreciate the fact that you actually paid attention to the taxi medallion and cleaned house and clear as you said you have been in your position for every nor your associate next to you. those who came before you who may not have done their job as well as you do or not as conscious about holding the terms and continue and a permit we really i know that i appreciate that. and i -- the gentlemen are all larceny i'm a business giechl tilike to run efficient and productive. i never use the harmonizing word the efficiency word a lot.

right. in working with businesses you sometimes can't do a broad brush stoke and say one rule applies to all. i appreciate your testimony that you are anticipating i really like the fact that you airporting now mobility businesses or activities. that's great. i will say that the best pedestrian a company anticipates where they will be 10 years from now and note 15 minutes. i appreciate that. and i appreciate the on behalf the city you are trying to be efficient. not all situations are the same. in the taxi world, these are individual people, individual people who hold the medallion and comply to the permit opposed

to a mobility company. completely different animal and so i think that one of the things i ask your department to consider syrup that -- not all mobility not all mobility situations other same. and that the individual taxicab medallion owner are single people. they don't have practitioner for 40 years. there is nobody behind me. just me. you know and where as a mobility company as an infrastructure support department and divisions and so -- i don't think one size fits all. i recommend you reconsider because one size does in the fit all and for all the reasons i state that this statute last point the last part they can get

justice done before they go in the civil court. to reconsider one size does not fit sxaul xepgdzs are okay when you are hormonon harmonize and be more fortunateful thank you for coming tonight and thank you for your present agdz and good work. anybody else has comments to close. mr. lopez. i happeneded make one comment. and i guess i will start by noting that these case have had the ones come before us, they have been statements approximate until public comment that really kind of you know -- takes swipes at the legitimacy of the broader

press and allegations about outside -- proceedings. enforcement and allegations about conflicts. we had a -- discussion in some of these tonight to address this and hopeful low address potential dwhes could, rise because there has been various allegations relate topside that and someone who wanted to be preeptive about addressing i question may have come up. you know without us this evening. i think we do that out of the interest and if preserving the impression of the legitimacy of our process. not just within our board or just within your agency but just

within our gentleman. don't get me start body questions of -- election inpriorities at the national stage. i think it is endemic of the distrust in government this like it or not we need to address it when the questions are asked. that trust in the public process is that's all we got. had it dmos this, you know whether the under loyaling concerns about you know determining the knee on the chess board or other potential allegations would be trough dollar is the question and a concern that i think there is

probably reasonable people disagree about you know the adequacy of do you process. verse you before a board like ours. but it certainly has optics that i think should be strategy low considered. i think that would be my comment/suggestion/request is that is this is that your staff really present that potential risk to your board? because i think it is a valid point for them to consider. and in terms of whether that leads to reconsideration a word we used several times a reconsideration of the change

and the decision whether it leads to you know a delay, you know until some of this enforce am harmonization activity seems to be more active in the left couple years it has been folk like yourself in your current roles. there is enough over lapped between this change and the pending questions that -- that -- just does not look right. so00 eye theme is an important part of the board consideration. >> i appreciate your comments and taking notes to say and acknowledge we spent a bit of

time yesterday at the mta meeting discussing the unbietsd process that the hearing officer has established and a lot of detail provide by my counterpart it is in the my sifted ethical wall. cfo responsible for the hearing section presented on that to again asurety sfmta board the unbiassed name of of the hearing officers decision and -- there was detail i wanted acknowledge and proernlt the comments about optics and that was per of the discussion before the sfmta. thank you for that. put that out there for us.

it is irrelevant if -- if i are the will participate in the hearing you are making the the appeal you want -- if you are making the case, and -- in you say, wait, they did not get me. you know i don't think i. -- it was they tried to be fair but did not get it. right. they missed it. and what we do here is if somebody feels that they just miss today. they have somewhere to go before they go to silv court temperature is nothing about intel rittest hearing officer or the integrity of sfmta. it is just giving across the board the same with planning and massage parlors and with you know -- the cigarette permits.

now they just did not hear me and that's what we hear a lot here. they just did not hear me. nothing gans the hearing officer they did a great job of the participate who was did not get what they wanted has this body to go to and -- get a fair hear and may be told exactly the same thing. and -- and that i think is what -- jose is referring to is that builds faith in government. this builds faith in yea, you are listen to me. i did get my day in court and i got 2. and that's it. the judge, jur special executioner that is how being

you be fair? give us the opportunity to go to appeal this is a noise appeal it is not civil court. it is 5 people who paid big bucks every other wednesday free parking to provide the people with the court. and fairness. i think that's when he said and he said. and of the other 2 will not disagree with me on that. that's our point. we appreciate again that you came tonight and heard from us. on this subject we don't need the work we have plenty on the agenda this is san francisco and those who have permits and questions king it is the best interest of the citizen of san francisco we continue that relationship for the with regard to taxi permits we'll discuss a

written letter from us requesting that the same with the same information or may not we take that up. so -- thanks. anybody else or are we done. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> president swig. the agenda item on the agenda the commissioners are supposed to consider the possibility to send a letter. du want to discuss this? and explain the factors when deciding. >> are we taking public comment. we have a discussion then public comment. >> right. i was that was the initial presentation. >> and that was the presentation portion. we will have a discussion on part one of the fwnd and part 2 whether other agencies have authority to take away or add these matters. >> my point of view is we had the discussion. and there there was clear and

decisive and direct points made. that i hope you might have taken notes on as well as -- and be prepared to formulate a do you mean you can share with the rest of us in consideration of moving something forward and we can take that up as an agendaed item at a hearing that is not too crowded. gi read the agenda item i believe it was the issue raise by lopez when deciding these case that is what the all right was supposed to address. >> excuse me. the factors considered by the board of appeal when is deciding the taxi case. that's what was on the agenda. the letter was supposed to address those fanaticors. factors were brought out in examples they were exemplify in the this discussion tonight upon where the provide the

opportunity to identify that --. board was talking about the benefits of appellates come to the board but you were not having a discussion the factors you consider when the decide the case, disability, what have you, service. >> i think we did. because commissioner lopez said or i said that tone we discovered that i said mistake made boy a hearing officer i was wrong actually the -- process of if over the hearing officer changing their decision possible low based on pressure from the outside source was something this we protected the appellate from to or -- okay. that's true. i did not hear a robust discussion if you feel it was fine. >> any other the commissioners

would like to point out robust factors that would support our other more editorial substance of what might go in our letter and the taxi case the first time that was the basis for decision for the 2 decisions we have never used that as a factor so. >> may be vice president lopez can e explain. i say i think it is probably appropriate given i suspect it is not appropriate to broaden the agenda item or the substance of the letter related to the agenda item. kind of -- without a future agenda item to discuss.

a different additional potential aspect of a potential letter. that we prebl calendar a discussion in the just about the current discussion about the grounds for decisions but -- the. appropriateness of the change. and i think that -- that's -- what i take or executive directors point to mean is that we are restricted based on what is calendars for this evening. upon gib issues we discuss third degree evening and in substannive cases and the discussion after the presentation from the agency, my

sense we are all thinking we might consider broadening that scope to a letter we decide on. i think it is fair to calendar that and have that conversation once the public has the benefit know when we are discussing. >> if they can provide proper public comment. >> right. and give us some public thought. why right >> and direction. joy will have a motion to that affect. but as far as the current discussion, i think that what i would add to our lives potential topic in a letter would be the appearance or optics of a fair

hearing. before hearing officers who have the ability to reconsider final decisions after published. i would add that the elements of equal request estoppel based on previous statements we have -- seen in the record and various of these case related to whether or not -- prosecute individuals in the appellate class whether they -- needed to renew their acards. i think those other 2 that jump out to me. the most in terms of thing this is we be good if we do, approximate if we no long are

hear these issues, i think it is worth communicating you know some of the under pinnings to -- the decisionmaking process we under gone. to who will will hearing officers. and the agency. you know to make sure what has been captured during this period does in the get lost. because we can't know the nature of the any future appellates and the facts of their case or the quality of the briefing if any this exists. i think this there is has been enough surfaced in the substantive cases that has been

important. and us reaching our decisions i think that would be a benefit to anyone who decides the case in the future. all of that was to say that -- the 2 grounds went agenda item they add to a letter would be the appropriateness of reconsideration by hearing officers of their final decisions and then the facts related to estoppel broadly. >> mr. trasvina. >> thank you, president swig. my personal view is that you as our president or julie as our executive director have the inherited authority to encapps lay the discussion this we had

tonight and as -- mta executive director guess back to her board that you would have it within your authority to appear before their board as they deliberate over whatever thank changes they will prosecute pose to make and inform them of the views that have been expressed tonight without the either the need for a letter or in addition to a letter. however long the letter may take. in the get approved. i would consider this to be more valuable or not valuable but more effective of in conveying our views than us taking a letter. i would hope however we resolve the next agenda item, the don'ts of letter, the actual letter.

the signature oft letter that you have are able to take it upon yourself to conhave a the views expressed tonight. >> for your information. protocol from the body has been that if we have a request like this, that we where there is passion enough and substance enough from the commission to do a letter, we don't do them every day. i think since i have been on the board we may have done 3 may be 4. that just by virtute fact the letter is sent. there is the body that receives it respects the fact it is a strong message and deserves consideration and feedback. i think we sent twot board of supervisor and is know 21 the health department. and i understand further testimony would be person but i

am saying the prosecute colhas been this and found with the xepgdz of one body that the response was pretty quick and actually we have had affects by sending them with good substance. along with proper editorial. >> if i can, not o poseed a letter but this has been kick around for, while and already public low noticed. i would not want the great impacts of the letter to come after the decisions. >> got it. >> mr. eppler. >> yes. without waiting too far frequently what was on the upon agenda, i appreciate vice president lopez focus talking about the estoppel this we considered tonight and thou that should apply and may be worthwhile as we consider how our factors applied to contrast

those with the factors that the hearing officers at the sfmta may consider as per their decisions they are not allowed to consider equity competence that's a limitation and so as we discuss the factors that we consider i think it is worthwhile to highlight how they may be expansive than the inspect hearing agent. where do we go now. there is part 2. and discussion whether other agents have authority it add or take away matters. did you want a general discussion about that. >> it am be aline with the discussion that was made don't by each us that we serve a

purpose for the citizen of san francisco. to get another one more by the at the apple. twice i used that metaphor tonight and -- of the opportunity to be heard. >> i understand that is the benefit butt agenda item discuss the authority i thought a folk outs legal authority i thought that's what commissioner trasvina. gi will give it become to them i'm not a lawyer. so far. >> i will say briefly this president swig heads encapps laid what i hopeed get from adding the second part. >> values and considerations have been expressed. >> okay. >> thank you >> mr. lopez.

>> yes, i think -- as -- the agenda item the 2 parts are somewhat related, i think what would still be beneficial for me i have to say that a bit more detail in the prosecute seeding presentation about the infurthermorality of the arrangement that has -- existed up until now was helpful. i find it disapointing but helpful to understand. i would like to understand whether an anal gus informal arrangement exists worrying agencies?

whether well is something we hear as a body that is currently only heard before us because of an informal arrangement and not because of mandates under the charter. i don't want to put anybody on the spot but as we consider future items to agendaize, i think that kwloen gets that home work assignment but that is something that would be helpful for me personal low. if there is potential for this happening again. may be something we could consider being preemptive b. i think it is a great idea and i will take it further.

i think that are may be we should get a brief presentation on for all of us to remind us -- from what departments are what departments do we get which departments do we get permit appeals. dp as a -- inventory item, it is getting late. which -- from those departments we do get appeals which are formalful relationships and which are casual relationships as we discovered tonight. i had no idea we had a casual relationship with mta that was shocking. >> and so may be in a legal sense we can get a one pager presentation where we getoir

permit appeals. which are formal and which are informal. how is that? >> i like it. >> anything else do we have to. public comment. >> where do we need to go to wrap this discussion before we have public comment. >> i think. i think you covered everything. why don't we take comment and after that you decide what you mean want to do. you want to continue to expand the item. >> yes. >> 2 minutes >> moving on to public comment. we will take public comment from people who are present in the room. >> 2 minutes. you have 2 minutes. thank you. thank you. san francisco takes worker alliance. and i just to point out, that

the mt aboard -- can you stop talking in the audience it is distracting. sorry for upon interrupting if you could step outside it is difficult for us to hear. thank you. >> point out that the mt aboard last night considered changes to the transportation code this would have made most of this conversation moot. so -- you know whatever you do, i hope that you weigh in with them before than i have a chance to take that up employed also a mischaracterization in my mind of the relationship here temperature it is not informal arrange testimony is in the transportation code and that's why they have it on their agenda to take it out of the transportation code. the sections with the references to the board. of the of the appeals. the other point -- by the way, i do appreciate the comments each

you have made on this issue. it is so important to us to have the right to come here and preserve. many times i have disagreed with decisions of this board but giving up that right would be -- very last thing on my agenda. so -- we believe this this right is in the charter. i hope you had an opportunity to look at the brief i furnish the after public comment last time there are 2 provisions of the charter one grants the right of appeal including taxi appeal and it is other ecclouds authority to the mta. nothing about the kwaz eye judicial remedy of administrative appeals. so these can be easily

reconciled. thank you. >> i hope you look at that again. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> lori mc guire. i'm confused because on your website now well is a list of filing fees. and on page 10 it says the board of appeals is not for appeals to taxi permits. this was added to your website on october 25th. of this year. and vice president lopez -- requested to calendar this item. a week before that on october 18th. so -- i'm confused that -- has this been decided. you are the board. are you supposed to decide these

matter and is wonder why this was add to the website before you had a chance to have the discussion? and who add today and did that person over step bound easier sn right now seem a person has more appeal rights for park. stream lining and against the wall which somebody jumped over. a question is who has the power you guys have the power to make this decision issue don't you? is this what the meeting was about tonight?

so may be if you could clarify that. thank you. julie. may we get an answer to that question because i also blind sided yours trulyly that. >> yes , i updated the website and i have the authority to and did so after we got notice from the city attorney and from the sfmta that there were electing not to continue to have appeals directed to our office we will not be taking further taxi permit appeals and the agenda item tonight specific low says there was a general discussion whether other agencies have a right to take the matters of the board. there was no plan to discuss the board's authority to maintain taxi decisions. i don't think that was that issue. that was not my understanding when we drafted the agenda item. so. >> i asked.

no problem. >> i was not informed i was ill informed on the subject and may be i should pay attention to the website. >> no problem. >> thank you, go hade you have 2 minutes >> i would like to thank you for all the support this you have given us. i don't understand what the mta representatives are doing here. because yesterday i was at the meeting where they decided 4-1 not to allow this to be discussed. at this time. there was not going to be representatives. there was going to be a discussion. because they voted down this. what are the people doing here. the other thing i will try to read to you and i will give it

to your attention. language of the administrative hearing portion of the transportation code. of upon 1120. notice of decisions essential be based on the criteria set forth in article 1100. including findings that should be set forth in evidence in support of each findings. only the office decision may be made and only upheld or -- the actions sought by the mta and they shall not set conscience established on special circumstances established special rem dees or impose other

directives the hearings officers authority is limited to the regulations established in article 1100. in other words, not independent. . thank you. >> not the mta is claiming. why thank you, your time is up. >> thank you. >> carl. also not -- hearing officers meeting i would suggest that you denight letter it is complying clerks with when is in the code. i agree with what the taxi director said that they share [inaudible] there were 5 or 6 case left year which they thought that medallion holder in the right and over turned the revocation and so -- mt aresponded by passing what robot

read in handcuff on the people so one thing if you write a letter recommend they remove that. what they added last year and the process will work better. some of the hearing officerless willup hold what the agency did in a lot of the case the agency is correct. when manage is unfir they are not. taxi director said that she was seeking compliance. in the indicates man who call immediate a couple times he went out to drive a cab had a medallion. upon got stab in the the eye and blinded for life. then this rule put in the california driver's license he can't comply he was a victimave violent crime that is an ad a violation. because of a manage happened at

the board where the attorney for the rep read in the record rules were when a commissioner absent. >> deputy city attorney. different know one -- i think he botch today and let only 2 commissioners thought the revocation should take place. we will try to get back thank you for everything you did. long night, i know. >> thanks. >> thank you. we'll take public comment from the people on zoom. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> marcello again for the record. i'veed like to thank all of you serving on this board for leaning toward stake you you are our last hope. i take provide in being a career

cabdriver. i did my job with pride every night. i was always i said i'm not driving at the moment because of my health condition i was on the night shift. and i did it with pride. dimy best to feel provide the dest service for san francisco cab users. since the mta decided to monetize taxi medallions and uber and lyft came to town and the mt agave ajurisdiction of uber [inaudible] to the puc [inaudible]. what i'm -- i'm sorry. i don't know we need to, pause your time and muted the person. >> thank you. >> go ahead, sir, sorry. >> okay.

i hope i can finish it. >> f. what will i'm trying to say is it has been a rough ride for cab drivers since uber and lyft came to town. the city did not doo anything or representatives in sacramento did not regulate them. they have technology does not change the nature they are takes service. you are leaning toward stake you are. for just and thank you for that. i really you brought back hope to us. so please, be our last hope. you are muted. 20 seconds. >> you have 20 seconds. >> i want to thank all of you

for the commentation and thank you for establishing you our last hope for justice. thank you very much. you brought hope back. thank you from the bottom of my heart. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. nayheart you have 2 minutes. you may need to go ahead. thank you again i'm sure it will be a slam dunk decision. i think it should be even -- of substantial approach i hope you hear more and persuasion with the mayor and the --

supervisors. mr. toronto. you have 2 minutes. good evening i want to say, in 2

of my favorite words, mr. swig and the others you are mentioned you performed a by look at how the industry change exclude how the mta policy has not changed to go with how the change within taxi business. the truth is that midammion sales program was create in the part to allow for an exit strategy rather than continuing to do enforce ams of the drive requirement and the other requirements to maintain the medallion. however, the00 autoyou will not see that many cases should the mta get its act together and create an exit strategy

different than the medallion program unless you allow transfers to occur at a more reasonable price. if sfmta spends much time enforcing the taxi stands and transit lanes and to access it golden gate park that is not [inaudible] and upon spend more time on allowing you to have access to the [inaudible] if they pent more time doing that as much as with the revocation hearings we would be in a better shape and would in the be here tonight. however, i than is a shortest way to say they are spending time dealing with managing that the medallion if we are again not going scombrp have a more equal spot there is a conflict between what is in the city charter. >> thank you. >> what the mta

>> thank you. adequate we will here from dennis. go ahead you have 2 minutes. press star 6 to unmute yourself. >> the other day mta director said that he wanted to stream line the process and does not want to duplicate the work of the mta from that hearing officer to the board of appeals. it is clear tonight that -- the process is very different. the board of appeals can broaden the scope and look at other factors where the mta is constrained by the code by the

with very, very narrow. director lopez mentioned trust in the government. the medallion holders lost faith and trust in the mta it seems that we have been under attack and at war. they changed the intent to driveway to you must drive and told us you did not need acards when we were disabled now they are changing that. we got old and -- don't let the market come back we lost trust they are not holdingly their words. so -- we need -- people like you to -- uphold our rights and i really thank you for your comments and support what you said and i hope have you a great

night. thank you. >> any further public comment? >> i dent see anymore commissioners. anything further the city attorney recommend this be continued newscasted having action tonight begin that there has been discussion about expanding the scope of the letter. we have it december 7th visible or a time in january but want to hear it soon are rather than later. i think -- given the mta is in action on this item and top agenda item for themselves, we don't want to rival each other to the party. i think that december 7th would be appropriate and i would appeal to our board here that they put their thinking capos to identify key bullet points to place in that letter so we don't

have to come appropriateos december 7th with each and every one. you. having your points organized and we can -- >> give that to -- we will not need to continue it we plan to having a new agenda item >> that we are expanding. >> no vote is required >> but the same holds true i'm asking the board to please premeditate your points of view and in this case and so that we are efficient and move forward as active low and get this all right to okay >> sfmta quickly. >> okay. thank you. anyone in disagreement? folk sns >> i have no disagreement with that. it is my understanding that it is done without prejudice to your ability to express our views to the mta or others.

>> thank you y. this concludes the hearing. >> i gallon there. >> thank you.

is r. my name is debra alvarez rodriguez. i'm the deputy director in san francisco. my background is one in which i have spent the entirety of my life committed to finding solution to poverty and addressing the issues of inequity so people and communities can have accesses to resources and financial freedom. one thing true anode dear to my heart was the power of business ownership in creating pathways to financial freedom. we have still in infancy. we had over 100 entrepreneurs come and start their businesses. some are food trucks.

some are restaurants. some are in farmer's markets and so farther. that's an incredible legacy and record to build upon. this was the perfect opportunity for me to come back home, you know, come back to the neighborhood and take my skills and networks and resources and put it backseat in service of the community. given everything with racial reckoning and pandemic it was time for me and everyone else that had the opportunity to leave and get educated to come back home. we have a opportunity to grow our impact in terms of the number of people we serve and how we serve them. we grow our impact in taking the money we make with our entrepreneurs and circulate those resources back interview the community for community development. the third thing is we have a opportunity to have an impact on public policy in terms of

the policies and practices the district has been notorious about interms of inequities. all of those are just the beginning of what is possible in terms of growth and impact. ♪ [ music ] ♪♪ the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood to call home.

the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe, clean streets for everyone and good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great. the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people. so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there.