tv [untitled] July 16, 2010 2:00pm-2:30pm PST
do do translation and would be happy to focus on that with you. commissioner chu: let people know the metings are happening, because otherwise they will have no way of knowing. commissioner dufty: thank you. i think we have had a good feeling, and it would be worthwhile to make this more meaningful, because they have done excellent work reaching out and i think it would be more important. so i have had people say it is right here on eighteenth street. is that something you can -- >> initially we considered
it. one thing we have been doing is to move it not from active, but to the brun -- laguna, and we are also looking at how the neighborhoods on the edge of the zone would be able to be protected. commissioner dufty: was their a meeting with the labor council? if not i would suggest that. they have an interesting
perspective. and i heard there would be a discount if you were disabled, so if you are a low-income disabled person, does that mean you get 150%? >> no. commissioner campos: great. thank you very much. well-done presentation. seeing no other questions, why don't we open it up to public ocmment? -- comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an informational item, so no action is required. we can file this item. clerk: item #14. commissioner campos: colleagues, are there any new items we would
>> the next time you take a muni bus or train, there could be new technology that could make it easier to get to your destination. many are taking a position of next bus technology now in use around the city. updated at regular intervals from the comfort of their home or workplace. next bus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track buses and trains, estimating are bought stocks with a high degree of accuracy. the bus and train our arrival information can be accessed from your computer and even on your cellular phone or personal digital assistant. knowing their arrival time of the bus allows riders the choice of waiting for it or perhaps doing some shopping locally or getting a cup of coffee. it also gives a greater sense that they can count on you to
get to their destination on time. the next bus our arrival information is also transmitted to bus shelters around the city equipped with the next bus sign. riders are updated strictly about arrival times. to make this information available, muni has tested push to talk buttons at trial shelters. rider when pushes the button, the text is displayed -- when a rider pushes the button. >> the success of these tests led to the expansion of the program to all stations on the light rail and is part of the new shelter contract, push to talk will be installed. check out the new technology making your right easier every day
president peterson: good evening, and welcome to the july 14, 2010 meeting of the board of appeals. presiding president is tanya peterson, and joining her is vice-president kendall goh, commissioner fung, commissioner garcia, and commissioner hwang. i am cynthia bold scheme, the board's executive director. we have some representatives
from the various departments this evening. we have laurence kornfield, scott sanchez, acting zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission. and jarvis murray is here representing the san francisco department of transportation. at this time, if you could please go over the boards leading guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all funds, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, have seven minutes to present their cases, three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must include their comments in these times and members of the public who are
not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker card and pans are on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes comments and suggestions. customer satisfaction survey forms are also on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a re-hearing or schedule, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78, and dvd pause of the meeting are available for purchase from us directly. thank you for your attention.
at this point, we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify in any of tonight's hearings, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. president peterson, and commissioners, one housekeeping item which is item number 11, regarding the property at 2119 castro st.. that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. moving to item one on the calendar, public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? please step forward. these are for items not on the agenda this evening.
>> hello, i'm carl with the medallion holder association. 35 years ago, i began driving a taxi. 1983 i signed the list. of 14 years later obtained a medallion. all of us felt this would be a business license fundamentally, not a work permit. for the first 24 years, operators to their business knowing the medallion was not transferable. in 2002, the taxi commission passed a resolution that it was an essential element to be a continuous driver and the commission and italy -- >> are you talking about a specific case on our calendar? >> not at all. the commission revoked 4 medallions in short order because the people or disabled. the details were so bizarre that
the transcript the hearings read it sort of like iran sterling twilight zone episode -- like a rod sterling's twilight zone episode. it was at the same time litigated in state court and that relief for the key personnel and the companies to not have to drive all the time. over time, subsequent regulators ratcheted down with more restrictive disability policies. once again, the older and infirm or pressured to beyond the physical capacity and had major accidents. the policy was malfeasance and dangerous for the public and the insurance liability. in response, two named plaintiffs filed a federal pursuit on rigid federal suit on a.d.a. rounds and as mta is trying to allow the medallions to be transferred for the
benefit of multiple steckel groups and allow the older people an exit strategy and the younger people and entry. i want to show a couple of documents, briefly. this document shows the age upon which people receive medallions. we have people as old as 75 and 80 years old getting their permit, so it is not a working permit and business license. it also points to what i regard as the hadn't strategy of proposition k, which is a term stop a fact, where people became disabled or died just after receiving the medallion, so no one ever really get any value out of it. the second document shows a $14 million accident, or somebody crashed into people. -- where somebody crashed into some people. we also had a couple of suicides of medallion holders who were revoked and not want to go through the humiliation and
expense of being here. i had some comments on the application hearings on a different subject, but i like that you doing it case by case and i think the criteria does build in one-year protection, so thank you for your diligence. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am speaking on behalf of the san francisco taxi coalition. i see some confusion on your case because there is a taxi matter on the agenda today, but this has nothing to do with that. this is an update from the industry as to what is happening with taxi medallion reform at mta. the taxi coalition is made up of all the major taxi industry groups. the medallion holders association, all the major taxicab companies, and most of the major driver organizations, representing 1200 of the 1500. medallions operating in the city. the coalition was put together to make sure a reform plan was
in the best interests of the industry and for the public. i am happy to tell you that this pilot program going forward is one that is remarkable. it is one that finally allows these medallions to be purchased by qualified taxi drivers in an affordable way. the medallions will be priced and away where the in combat and the deleon holder gets for having -- priced in a way where the income that a medallion holder gets will be priced into the medallion. fire, federal, police, they have all come together and look at taxi drivers to qualify to purchase a medallion. the current system where medallions were given away for free to the waiting list will continue. those who are high up will still be able to get a medallion to have been there a long time. the people for their down on the waiting list will have the option to purchase. that will build equity in something where the biggest
problem i have seen in the history of the board of appeals are people who have got medallions, waiting 20 years, 15 years, age 70, 80 years old, cannot meet the driving requirements and are doing whatever they can to hold on to that valuable asset. with this pilot program, it gives the ability to have an exit strategy to those who have an medallion, people who purchase and the deleon canal built equity. they're not able to drive, it becomes disabled, they can transfer it to another qualified taxi driver. that is a sea change from what we have had up to this point. you have had to deal with individuals coming to you who, in many cases, have been driving 20 years and got an injured or disabled and could not meet the driving requirement, lying, do whatever they can to hold onto the value of the medallion because it helps their rent. moving towards this system,,
part of this means that proper enforcement will be done in the industry. those not following the rules, there is no excuse not to follow the driving requirement when you have the ability in the future to sell your medallion. that is a quick update of the industry as a whole, which hardly ever agrees on anything. it has been very supportive of this pilot program and we fully support this going forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner, the president of the national veteran cabs. i would also like to speak briefly on what is happening in the taxi industry. with respect to the program that will be implemented hopefully on august 3 by sf mta, a pilot program for the elderly and disabled to sell their medallions to people on the waiting list.
we have all struggled with this issue. we of all struggled with this issue. hopefully this is the first that to resolving that issue. years ago, we were charged to fixing this program so the board of appeals to not have to deal with this, i think we have finally come up with a solution to do this. we were changing the class of medallion holders from those who simply wait to receive the medallion to people who are investors and industry, and ultimately be c. chance for the benefit of us all. thank you. -- that will be a sea change for the benefit of us all. >> i am the director of the san francisco open government coalition. i rise to speak today because i have been attending board meetings for different commissions and boards because i have noticed a very serious trend i think is a violation of the law. i am a navy veteran.
i raised my hand to protect the united states and it was transformative for the simple fact that i realized when i took that oath it was one i could never put down. i know each and everyone of you took an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states and the state of california when you took your seat. unfortunately, i have noticed attending certain board meetings, not necessarily this board, but others, that people don't seem to understand the first amendment of the constitution, which basically allows you and guarantees your right to petition the government for redress of grievances and freedom of speech. from my position, what that means is whenever i appeal any thing or appear before a board or commission, i have a certain given amount of time. in this case, three minutes. that is invaluable. however i approach to address the board, what i choose to say is protected fully under the fact i am speaking to a government body and i am doing
so under my rights of freedom of speech. i think every single person who appears before you should be treated with that same respect, as you would expect that same respect shown to you. interfering with someone in the middle of their speaking is inappropriate. if you feel a person is speaking on a matter they should not be speaking on, you should wait until the end and then inform them you feel they have violated rules. the reason i say that is because if you do and you are in error, you have violated the constitutional rights. only for a procedure that you feel might be important. the second thing i have seen in city employees, unfortunately, is they believe they seem to have the public records and public documents that belong to them or their department or the city. they do not. it all public records belong to the citizens of the city and county of san francisco, which means if i approach a city agency and i request to inspect our receive copies of any public
documents, i should get one of two dancers. one is coming here is the document, or, number two, we don't have the document and here is the reason we will not release it to you. or if i get it, i get it with reductions, but those are noted. again, i have seen city employees who for some strange reason seemed to feel they have the right to hold public records and documents at ransom to the public. they don't. they're acting completely outside any authority they have in their position and i think they might want to think of the fact they're putting themselves in position where they could be sued personally because they're not acting within the requirements of their job. they're acting outside of it, and, in many cases, in violation of clear public law. >> thank you. are there any other people who wish to speak under this item? please step forward.
>> commissioners, could afternoon. at i am a taxi driver. you have heard something about the taxis. iyou are here known as the board of appeals. when people are in trouble, they come to you. they need to know, how, these troubles happening? in this case, in the taxi industry, when i noticed 10 years ago when i joined this, the people who are required to drive five years to get their medallion, and when their turn down, but there were a lot of people who were not driving and still getting the medallions. what are they getting it for free? so i started an effort to gather as many people to sell these
medallions. in this case, you must have heard just now the name of the taxi coalition. that is mainly the companies and medallion owners, not the drivers. secondly, when i know a medallion is up for sale, i would request you due diligence, sf mta. they have totally failed to have any transfer. people who never drove off five years, luckily their name came quickly. they're paying $10,000 on the table to companies, and getting them. there are people who have never touched it a taxicab for one shift getting in the dow and. -- getting a medallion. i requested them even before starting.
i said get all the driver records from the company's so you know who in the last five years was driving and not get anything. then, if somebody did not count, say, ok, where were you driving? the smart card is not matching with it, then he has to say, yes, he was driving, which is all lies. there is no way you can stop that person from getting the medallion. there are people who are business people. they have not even five minutes driving a taxi getting the medallions. you need to keep an eye on this department very strongly. thank you. >> if you have a card to give, that would be helpful. you can fill one out. is there anyone else would like
to speak under this item? ok, thank you. seeing none, we move to commissioner comments and questions, item number two. >> i just want to put on the record that i will miss the hearing on the 11th because i will be out of town. >> thank you. any other commissioners? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, moving on to item 3, the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption of the minutes of the board meeting of june 30, 2010. president peterson: any corrections? i move to adopt the june 30, 2010 minutes. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, if you could call the roll, please? >> on that motion from president peterson to adopt the june 30 minutes --
[roll-call vote] thank you, the vote is 5-0. the minutes are adopted. >> thank you. if you could please call item fora. >> calling item 4a, re-hearing request, subject property at 350 divisadero street. we have a letter from the attorneys for joseph hunt requesting a re-hearing of appeal number 10-030, hunt vs. owning a administrator. at that time, upon motion from president peterson, the board voted 3-1-12 uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administration did not err or abuse his discretion. >> thank you. we start with the request. mr. hallinan?
>> 3 1/5 divisadero. the reason we are requesting a rehearing on this matter is at the prior hearings, we prepared our argument and analysis based primarily upon the zoning administrator's basis for originally denying the request, which was the abandonment and that we had not complied with the january 21 deadline for completing the permit. however, it became very clear during the board analysis and discussion after the hearing that there was another issue, a key issue they were considering, and that was whether or not mr. hunt proposed the reopening of the dispensary and was going to change the character of the dispensary and we would no longer offer the same type of vital patient services that were integral in the operations. there were a number of issues presented at that hearing, and i also pointed to other issues in
the brief that i felt this was a key issue that the decision was based upon. mr. hunt, pardon me, a lot of this information was provided at the public hearing by the prior dispensary operator, who made some representations that mr. hunt intended to operate this dispensary for profit, intended to take away the patient services, and make it more of patients going in and out, which he did not intend to do. had mr. hunt had the opportunity to brief the issue and show his plans for the proposed dispensary, it would clearly show it was just a continuation of the same type of business. that at a minimum he would be providing the same type of patient services and, in effect, and actually intended to have the services previously offered. mr. hunt did not have the opportunity to address this issue, and this is the basis for reconsideration. we think, number one, there was
investor property rights that belong to the property owner to be operating at this location, that it was clearly never abandoned by mr. hunt, and third, mr. hunt continues to intend to offer the same types of services, which effectively makes the continuation of use. there was no change of use. i feel if he were given the opportunity to show the plan, it would be clear there was no change of use on the matter. thank you. president peterson: thank you. is there representation here for the determination holders, mr. miller? thank you. you also have three minutes. >> good evening, president
peterson, members of the commission. greg miller appearing pro bono for the neighborhood association. i as i have with me representatives from the association and the divisadero merchants association. we asked for the change of hearing. we did not feel there were any exceptional circumstances to justify a rehearing. many of the facts were presented that would justify rehearing and furthermore no manifest injustice could result of the hearing were denied because the appellant was free to proceed with his use, which he had alleged all along was the backup plan if you are not able to proceed with the prior use. the appellant, through his attorney, has led -- has alleged that his best it rights doctrine and prayer use was going to be similar -- and his