The city of San Francisco sfgtv meeting of the board of appeals occurring on wednesday august 14, 2013 will begin shortly. Good evening and welcome to august 14, 12013 meet of the San Francisco board of appeal rkts the presiding officer is chris hwang and is joined by ann lazarus and commissioner frank fung, commissioner darryl honda and commissioner arcelia hur tad da, and we have mr. Brian, and at the controls is victor pacheco, im the boards executive direct torx were also joined by representatives from matters on the board, the zoning administrator, also representing the planning commission, antithy greco is here representing the building inspection and director of taxis and Accessible Services at the Municipal Transportation Agency. At this time, mr. Pa chen koe, if you can go over the meetings guidelines and go over the swearing in process. The board requests that you turn off all cell phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings, please carry on conversations in the hallway. Appellant, permit holders and Department Representatives each have 7 minutes to present their case and is three minutes for rebuttal, people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 3 and 7 minute periods, they have 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals, to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members who wish to speak on an item are asked but not require today submit a speaker card when you come up to the podium, speaker cards and pens are available at the left side of the podium. The board also welcomes your questions and suggestions, there are Customer Satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing or rules or hearing schedule, speak to board staff at break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, it is located at 1615 mission street, room 304. This meeting is broadcast live on San Francisco government television, sfgovtv cable 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention, well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify at any of tonights hearing and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right land and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath in the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. swearing in of witnesses . Thank you. Thank you, mr. Pacheco, commissioner, we have one housekeeping item that has to do with item number 7, appeal number 13067 appealing suspension question at 104 45 ministry, they have requested a continuance to october 9th in order to finalize the resolution and with a motion, we can move it to that date. Ill move the matter to october 9th. October 9th. Okay, thank you, is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then mr. Pacheco, if you could call the roll. On that motion from the president to reschedule item 7, appeal 13. 067 to october 9, commissioner fung . Aye. Commissioner hurtado . Aye. Vicepresident lazarus . Aye. Commissioner honda . Aye. The vote is 50, that matter is rescheduled to october 9th. Thank you, we will then move to item number 1 which is Public Comment for anyone who would like to speak on a matter that is not on the agenda tonight. If anyone would like to speak under general Public Comment . Seeing none, well maouf too item 2 which is commissioner comments and questions. Seeing none, then well move on to item number 3 which is the possible adoption of the minutes for the boards meeting of july 31, 2013. Okay, ill move their adoption. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, mr. Pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. We have a motion from the president to adopt the july 31, 2013 minutes, on that motion, commissioner fung . Aye. Commissioner hurtado . Aye. Vicepresident lazarus . Aye. Commissioner honda. Thank you, the vote is 50, those minutes are adopted. Thank you. Item number 4, commissioner, is a special item, its for your consideration and possible action to enter into a memorandum of understand witching the San FranciscoMunicipal Transportation Agency for the board of appeals to hear and decide appeals of certain individual permits and other taxirelated determinations. We have here with us today christian hsshashi, who is available to present the request to you. Good afternoon, madam president , board member, my name is christian na has yash shall, im Deputy Director for Taxi Services for the Municipal Transportation Agency and were here to bring for you your consideration this memorandum of understanding to clarify our appellant procedures for taxi related permits as specified in the mou. Now, this generally comes up in the context of either the revocation or denial aof a medallion permit, and some of the rational behind this mou is that these cases are factually complex to either bring a permit revocation case or to deny somebody a medallion permit, we do a lot of review of individual entries over 4 or 5 years on paper trip sheets and compare those to detailed airport records and conduct other elements of investigation in order to determine whether somebody is in fact a full time taxi driver and qualified to either obtain or keep that medallion permit, the outcome is critically important, its very important to the next qualified applicant on the taxi me dal yan waiting list as you might imagine, to hold a taxi medallion permit is a valuable on the order of about 25 thousand dollars a year to a working taxi driver and essentially doubles their income and makes their life much more pleasant. And to the sfmta, because we have now a transferable permit system, a permit revocation is worth several hundred thousand dollars to the agency and potential revenue as well, but most importantly, the we have been working for years to try to develop and build a system of effective and consistent enforcement and thats been a long uphill battle as the agency transitioned from the Taxi Commission to the sfmta, weve had to redo all of our hearing procedures and set up Civil Service classes of enforcement personnel, we have revised our regulations from saoup to nuts, were looking at our entire appellate structure and our enforcement structure and trying to make it as good and fair as it can be, so these revocation cases in particular are built on a lot of hard work over the course of many year, we very conscientiously do not bring cases to revocation unless we feel weve done our homework, so we want to make sure that that work both by our investigative staff and the work by the hearing officer is something that comes before you and that cases arent decided in the 7 minute window without the basis of a lot of evidence, so ill rest there and see if you have any questions. Commissioners, before you begin, i want to ask the folks to try to find seat, we cant block that door for fire reasons, and it looks like people are there in the hallway, so if you could call and see if there is an overflow room, thank you. Commissioners, any questions . No. Well, for the benefit of my fellow commissioners who have not had the opportunity to meet with the mta as commissioner fung and i have, i think one of the concerns that i had in looking at the mou was provision under the section paragraph d, standard of review because it would change the way in which as noted by our direct torx it would change the way the standard that we used to have which is the de novo review, and i think im not sure why i know you made some comments, ms. Hayashi as to what the word mta would have done before a matter come tog this board would be given much deference, but it seems to be a Sticking Point from my per spektdive in terms of how to get to a place of agreement on this mou, so for me, the change in the standard of review is a little bit of a problem. And if i may address that point, its not i dont thing i would characterize this as our requesting deference to the work of the staff so much as not having a standard of review in place that allows a completely new hearing of a very important case in the course of 7 minutes as it comes before you without the benefit of the work thats gone before by our investigator, by the hearing officer and im less concerned about the complaint for example that comes to the hearing officer that our staff has done. I would be more concerned of the work of the hearing officer that has reviewed all of this evidence and that has come to some conclusions that i do believe should be given should be at least considered or at least that we dont create a situation where it can be thrown out and an entirely new set of facts be brought before you in the course of 7 minutes in order to turn the course of this entire disciplinary proceeding which has taken years to develop. So, what is the suggestion on addressing the new set of facts . Because while i have not sat on this board as long as commissioner fung, in the times that i have seen matters come before us on medallion revocations or suspensions, were presented with information that apparently had not come before your body. Correct, and thats why we included the remand provision because that is the perfect case for remand, if somebody comes here and legitimate that all of a sudden i found my weigh bills out under the refrigerator, okay, send it back, but its all too possible to come back with a story with no evidentiary support and get consideration that im not sure it deserves. And as far as modification of what we may have i know weve seen some cases where we have reduced the discipline from perhaps a revocation to a suspension, i dont have any specific examples off the topendings but one of the provision, the provision im focused on would not allow for this board to do such modifications, it would just be nay or yay up or down. Theres two reasons for that, we do have an interest in consistent disciplinary consequences, so if somebody get ts 90 day suspension for failing to pick up wheelchairs, everybody should get the suspension and not just what day do you happen to come before the board of appeals and that changes. The second consideration is that if lets say we bring a medallion revocation and this board is inclined to instead impose a penalty of a 6 month suspension, mrets say, that undoes several years of collecting work, that becomes the discipline and it puts our staff back at square 1. What was the example . Lets say there is somebody who we are bring ago revocation action for failing to meet the driving requirement, we wont bring that case until weve developed three years at least of history where we inform them of their driving requirement, we penalize them for not meeting the driving requirement, we give them another chance and another chance and finally we bring a revocation, and if the disciplinary consequence to that whole hearing process is a 6 month suspension, then all of that disciplinary history becomes completely unavailable to us if we want to come back around and prove again that this person is not driving. If theres any doubt, then it should go back for more evidence to be developed, maybe its going to take another year of disciplinary history before that revocation can be pup supported but to say that somebody who we thought it important enough to bring a revocation action against for all of the reasons that i mentioned that are very serious reasons for anyone on the top of the medallion list, to allow that person to skate basically with a six month suspension, now we have to start all over again because theres been a disciplinary consequence to all of that work that we did and now we have to if were going to pursue revocation, were going to have to go back and build another three years of disciplinary history in order to support it. So, thats why, you know, we would like to see these cases go back to us to do our homework if we havent rather than splitting the baby solutions. I have a question, is there a particular case that your body of work thab roped in compromised in the past where youre asking a xhaing in the mou. This drafting of the mou has been a long process, i can give you a case of medallion suspension for failing to pick up wheelchair and is the suspension was supposed to be for 90 days and it was cut in half to 45 days and im quite sure that that person deserved a 90 day suspension because they never picked up a wheelchair, but now the Community Looks at that days case and they see that maybe the penalties arent as harsh as theyre represented to be and if you can just get before the right group of people, that maybe you can get away with the malfeasants. Okay, thank you. Commissioner, we do need to take Public Comment on this item whenever youre ready. Thank you. Thank you. Can i see a show of hands how many people would like to speak on this item . Okay, thank you, so we will take Public Comment now. You can please step forward and if you can all step forward together, that would be helpful. Maybe line up on the far side of the room just to move this along. I also want to remind folks that we cant have people lining up on that side of the room because of a fire code requirement, so you need to find a seat or step out of the room until your item is called. I tried to get an overflow room but i was told one is not available. Yes, you can go on the other side, but its better to have a seat. Well, the other people are going to speak. Can you show hands how many people are on that side of the wall thats going to actually speak, could you raise your hands again, okay, yeah. How many minutes . 3. Okay. Hello, my name is tara houseman, i would like to first tell you what this mou is not, it is not housekeeping, it is not cleanup legislation to follow up on prop a, what it is, is taking away the rights from a group of people who cannot afford to immediately go to Appeals Court as this would dictate. Under paragraph b and c, no other decision of the sfmta may be appealed. This not only takes away rights from people now but it removes appeals in situations yet not contemplated and sorry, this is very emotional. Paragraphs d, e, f and g, they have you can only review for abuse of discretion or error, thats a high and vague bar for a nonlawyer to meet and no de novo hearings, the public cannot introduce evidence. Who is sfmta to dictate how the board of appeals conducts their business . This has been you have had these procedures for 81 years for a very good reason and you are the court of appeals for the little guy, and very often, a cab driver cannot afford to even a cab medallion owner cannot afford to get a lawyer, so it is important that you be here. Also, remember that when if youre to remand to the hearing officer, the hearing officer is an employee of the sfmta, and when the board of appeals hears things, its an entirely Different Agency and i feel more comfortable with that. Paragraphs i and j can be amended by a mutual written agreement. This is the camels nose under the tent because i can guarantee you as if mta will offer more and more restrictions to be added as time goes by making this an even more odious document and taking away more rights. This is boiling a frog one degree at a time, only this time, im the frog. Dont turn the sfmta into a super agency, answer to no one, you must be here to they can be answerable, dont take away the rights that we spent 81 years defending. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker, please. Hi, my name is ann mcva i and i must say, i do have a jd but fnt been practicing and i would like to say if you accept the sfmta memo of understanding as written, it will be a taking away of protection of business owners, permittees and other licensees that conduct business in San Francisco that has been in place since 1932. The hot dog vendor, the taxi driver, all these small businesses, usually they dont get their act together before it comes in front of you. As it is written on page 2 in the memo of understanding, it says that they can only appeal information and issues that were considered except for the introduction of new evidence, the argument that is to save you work after a long investigation, surely you will benefit by the sfmtas long investigation and research. That will be available to you, but what will be available to the petitioner, the person whos about to lose his livelihood is that you are a court of equity, you can hear new facts. This mou as written is actually saying its giving you back power that you already have and constraining and limiting your power, and surely there are more factually complex revocation issues that come before you, particularly in the financial world, more than the revocation of a taxi medallion. I think that you are capable of considering issues that have long histories. So, i beg you not to accept this mou, it is a taking away and a giving away of power and it is hurting the small businessman and the small businessman is having a hard enough time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you, my names carl mcmora, im with a group called the medallion holders association, im going to read something from the language of proposition a of 2007, it says once adopted, that proposition regulations can supersede all previously adopted ordinances, governing Motor Vehicle for hire, it doesnt say anything about superseding other Charter Amendments such as yours which have been around for 80 years, and i think that the board of permit appeals logically should hear revocation permit appeals, and so i look at the document, the mou on the first page, recitals number 2, the final clause should be stricken, it says basically that you dont have the authority to hear appeals, i dont think that prop a says that, i think its a selfserving misinterpretation, however, having said that, this regime with chris hayashi