suggested a guild system exists whereby battalion holders are the ones setting the rules as to who gets the medallions. i was confused by that. could you explain to me briefly how a new medallion is created? is decorated through attrition? once in a while does the mayor's office or somebody have an authority to create new medallions? >> let me briefly explain that. obtaining and medallion -- obtaining a medallion ok -- there is a static number. in order for new medallions to be issued, whether it is 10, 50, or 200, there has to be a study done on public convenience and necessity. that study will recommend the amount to be issued for new medallions after that point. then eight new medallion can be

issued. it is whether we think there is room enough in san francisco to issue 100 new medallions. 100 new medallions then be created and apportioned. as far as obtaining a medallion, under the current system, without that study, those medallions only return into the system after the death of a medallion holder or if there is a revocation of a medallion, or something else of that sort. those are the only ways those battalions return back into the system -- those medallions return back into the system. >> and medallion holder is no part of the process? after they pass away, they are gone. commissionery object, those incidents with taxi have come before us. for some reason, we had to rule on the study mentioned. the taxi operators objected to

the fact that new medallions were going to be created. it seemed to me they are not part of the process. >> right. that are allowed to come into public comment and say what ever they would like to say, even in terms of obtaining a new medallion. if there are people who feel, "i have never seen a guy drive before," they can come in and say it. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> thank you. president peterson: mr. alexander? >> good evening, madam president, commissioners. mr. linus oha and i are going to try to move quickly. the facts are straightforward here. linus oha has been a taxi driver for more than 20 years. he is fully qualified to operate a taxi medallion in the city of

san francisco. his hearing come -- came up in october 2009. in february, he was denied his regular taxi medallion because he had not met the standards of the newly enacted transportation section. he is going to talk about how he thinks they did not credit him with enough hours, but i am more directed to the standard itself, and basically to the proposition if you are going to make game changing rules you have to do it properly. proposition k did not require qualification by proof of drawing -- by proof of driving. it looked at what the applicant was going to do in the future. there are regulations in place to make sure they do it. because it was a voter and -- a voter amendment, it omitted that it would change the nature of the requirement through another

appeal to the electorate. 114c3 is the result of a vote on prop a, which gave full oversight to the mta. it did not address private driving, which was rubberstamp by the board, but they did it badly. years ago, when linus oha put his name on the list, the only requirement was not a requirement. it was a preference. i have indicated in the brief why i think there are problems with that. in 2004, elements in the industry persuaded the taxi commission that only career drivers should hold medallions. the taxi commission persuaded the supervisors. obviously, some people thought that was a good idea. i have tried to show you why i think it might not be such a good idea.

but what is clear is that prop k in no way or form required battalions be issued to career drivers. it did not contemplate that. instead, it looked squarely at the question of experience and said two years after its adoption people with one year's experience in the three prior years would be given preference. that preference expired in 1980. there has been no preference since then and never was. everything in between, leading up to prop a, has been legislative interference with a voter initiative. it is the exact thing that charter section 14.10 is a to prevent. if you want to change the requirements, a change to this to apply for a medallion, go back to the voters who created a program and ask for it.

if you accept that proposition, the transportation section is standing out there alone as an unprecedented ratcheting up of the requirements and defeat of longstanding expectations of people who put their name on the last 20 years ago under another set of assumptions. these are highly technical arguments, but those are highly technical standards supported only by broad policy assumptions as to why they are a good thing. there is also some indication that linus oha's ability to apply it was hampered by his physical disabilities during this time. how much time do we have? ok. >> thank you. my name is linus oha. i will start by saying -- by responding to some of the

impressions that were presented here about absentee drivers coming to get a medallion. i will correctly state that i am not an absentee driver. i have been in the taxicab business for 30 years in the city and county of san francisco. i have not stopped walking or driving in a taxicab in those years. it is true that i am also an employee of sfmta. i do not think a conflict of interest is an issue in today's hearing. i have been on the waiting list. the list is 3000 people waiting on one of those. they did not come from anywhere. i have been waiting patiently for 20 years. in 2001, i was called for a ramp

medallion permit. the ramp medallion is to permit a wheelchair riders. i accepted it. from 2001, i have been running it. the business is good. when i first got it, the regional taxi company, and then lock start and abc car moved that permit from company to company. there was so much competition and difficulty about it. back in 2006, toward the end of best tap company, which i am still operating today. i started it in 2006. iío6

job also. then when i started this color scheme i also had to be on the road as a taxicab driver. i had to comply with all the rules and regulations for taxicab operation. i also had to maintain my job. it happens that when the regular medallion -- when i came up in the list for regular medallion happened to coincide with when i started running the color scheme. this also changed the rules and the process from when i first got on the list. when i first got on the list, it was that you have to prove you have driven a taxicab previously the 12 months prior. they have changed.

to assess and six -- president peterson: idç are out of time. >> i have seven minutes. >> your team will have another three minutes. commissioner fung: i have a couple of questions. in your color scheme, do you rent medallions? to you on a medallion? >> i have another partner with me in my color scheme. commissioner fung: how many taxis do you have? >> i have to operating taxis. -- two operating taxis. commissioner fung: in the feñrdepartment brief, you are operating under a ramp medallion, but paratransit shows no fares to your taxes.

>> that issue had not come up. i have not had any issue with paratransit. we constantly engage in it. we take the passengers. when he was saying something, i did not quite get what he was saying about that. the denial of the permit was solely based on the fact that i did not meet the requirements. inside it, i was clear that the 1vm3ivö;+'kr1b(- ++t

mean you have not picked up any disabled passengers this year? >> again, we do pick up disabled passengers. i mean, that is what we operate. we pick up disabled passengers. we do. commissioner fung: thank you. president peterson: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we will move into rebuttals. mr. murray? >> commissioners, thank you. again, i want to reiterate that the board of supervisors has the authority to make legislation. there is no conflict in clarifying the hours in terms of the driving requirement. this represents mr. linus oha's& driving. these are the bills we have

collected in our investigation in order to determine he does not qualify for a medallion. he is the color scheme holder for best cab company. taxicab 1342 received their medallion in 2008. i believe as the color scheme holder he would have been well aware of the collection of bills in order to demonstrate the driving requirement for his partner in order to obtain that medallion. again, when he says that the rules should not have applied to him, this rule has been in effect since 2004. also, he had a color scheme in 2006, and a vehicle in his color scheme obtained this medallion in 2008. he is well aware of this rule. it is not a surprise. he has had time to understand

and follow it. again, the decision of the hearing officer should be upheld. commissioner fung: mr. murray, in order to conform to the requirements of a ramp medallion is it possible that he is in compliance without having any tears onfares? >> no. even without the sweat machine, there is paper documentation. that -- the only way a paratransit user would use a taxi without us knowing would be if he used cash. all paratransit users currently use a card, a swipe card. before that it was scrip that

was collected and followed by the paratransit users. president peterson: what about this reference to a conflict of interest? >> because he is an officer with the mta, it is an inherent conflict of interest. it is no allegation that he is doing anything. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: mr. alexander? >> on mthe paratransit matter, the first time i heard of this was in the opposition break. it is a distraction.

between january 2010 and june 2010, what is at issue is mr. linus oha's driving performance in the years leading up to 2009 and the rules that apply to him or anyone else in his position. he is not claiming that this was a surprise. what we are claiming is that if you are going to make rules that impede experienced drivers from obtaining medallions because they have not met some arbitrary standard, you have to do it properly. you cannot just say, "let us make him do this," and not enact it in a proper way with respect toward the democratic initiative process. the other thing on this conflict is substantive [unintelligible] i did not see any authority for

the proposition that only conflicting legislation -- you cannot substantively amend a voter regulation through legislation. you have to go back to the voters. the people who drafted proposition k came out in force. what happens when you impose this driving request, this expensive driving requirement that prop k never required -- it was about opening up the business. who has them? it is the big companies. that is not ascribing evil motives to anyone, but it is self interest. if you have the ships, you can see who has two prop k medallions. they tend to be concentrated in the big companies. in san francisco, in order to

get a medallion you have to drive for somebody else and associate your medallion with somebody else. it is a self perpetuating system. the set up a self perpetuating a system where the people who have the opportunity to control the opportunity and people like mr. linus oha, who want to engage in the taxi business for themselves, as prop k posited, are increasingly shut out because they have to apprentice themselves for five years. that is the fundamental difference between what they have now and had then. it is a different idea. if you have different ideas, that is an act of process law. commissioner hwang: i was

expecting to hear more on the issue of disabilities and accrediting. i thought that mr. linus oha was going to speak to disability crediting. >> would you like us to address your question? ok. >> you are asking about the disability operation of the paratransit system? commissioner hwang: your own disability that prevented you from doing the proper number of hours. >> i was working very hard. i was driving. prior to my color scheme, i was keeping up with my driving requirements. i had to do my regular job and the driving. i have a spine problem.

i am going to a lot of pain. in the 2007, i had a disability due to the spine problem that i have. commissioner fung: i would like to follow up. was your spine problem continuous throughout that year, or was it for a certain time? >> it is on and off. it is due to where i work. i sit on my back most of the time in these jobs. i had to continue to be doing it. i have children. the disabled van was an expensive type of vehicle to use

in the industry. as a matter of fact, i am on the third van, the fourth band since 2001. it happens that due to the regulatory process i do not pay off each of them before it is removed and a new one is produced. i am still in the business. that has made me accumulate a lot of that. i had to be doing it thinking i would pay off my debts when i get the regular medallion, which is a less expensive vehicle to use in the industry. when it came to my time to get it and they have used the hours to try to deny me the medallion -- commissioner fung commissioner fun -- commissioner fung: i am sorry to have interrupted. commissioner hwang: it is okay.

i see the declaration of lwana cho. it looks like a print out of attendance related documents. the reason i am looking there is i am also looking for a summary of hours you missed per year. you submitted a declaration with your attendance record, did you have a calculation or summary of those hours and days you missed your regular job? >> that are not listed separately. they are not listed separately. but it shows from 2005 to current the number of days that

i was on disability. >> i am wondering if you have an aggregate number so i can equate them. if you are looking for hours crediting, i just wanted to see. could you council put that together for you? >> if i may respond to that, i apologize. the way this works is linus oha tells me there is somebody at dpt who may have the intermission. it takes a long time to track down the documents. there is a key in the declaration of what those entries mean. when mr. linus oha should have been in my office helping me with this, he was on his back with his back injury. it could be done from the key in the declaration. i believe chau nguyen means -- i

believe c means he was out on workers' compensation. commissioner hwang: i am just looking for some numbers. that is ok. i wondered if it had been done. >> it has not been done. commissioner hwang: ok. i have nothing further. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner garcia: could i ask our city attorney a question? an issue was raised having to do with whether or not there is a violation of city charter. would you comment on that? >> it was an ordinance adopted by the board in 2009. the attorney attested to its legal validity. no court has ever held that the daly/mar amendments are an

improper amendment. the court looked at when something is considered an amendment of the voter initiative. it is not considered an amendment so long as it is not in conflict with the voter initiative and is consistent with the voter intent and purposes. the legislature made flesh out amendments and add more detail. it created a prior driving requirement for people on the medallion waiting list where prop k had a list for medallion holders and said preference should go to full-time working drivers. i believe our office would say it was consistent with proposition k. furthermore, relevant to the prison -- to the provision today is the transportation code. the ordinance came into effect in 2004.

the transportation code provision was adopted in june of 2009. it contains the relevance standards for eligibility. the code provisions that were being applied by the officer was that. commissioner garcia: you do not feel that is in contravention of the city charter? >> no. i believe the appellants brief stated as much as well, that the board was in its authority in adopting that code provision under proposition a. commissioner hwang: you said no court has ruled that it is not an improper amendment. has it been subject to challenges? >> no. there has been litigation over whether it contains a driving requirement. the courts have addressed that question.

the courts have addressed the question of whether proposition k requires driving requirements for medallion holders, but this specific prior driving requirement for the waiting list has not been litigated. commissioner hwang: got it. thank you. commissioner garcia: i hesitate to overly simplified this, but it seems as though it hinges not on whether or not -- there is no question about whether the poll time driving requirements were met. i do not think anybody argues on either side. it would seem to be that it is the issue to me, unless i am missing something that was just addressed by the city attorney, is whether or not the various authorities who recommended or clarified proposition k were within their right to do so, and

having done so does it clearly state there is an obligation to fulfil the ftdr. >> i feel as though everything was done properly in terms of deciding that an applicant as well as a medallion holder has to meet certain driving requirements. this applicant did not do so. i feel, pending the comments of my fellow commissioners, that there is no course for us other than to uphold the san francisco sfmta. commissioner hwang: i would so move. sorry, frank. president peterson: any other comments? commissioner fung: i am in agreement. this is not even close to

considering questions of driving. i would say it perhaps is not fully related to the case at hand, in the sense of the constitutional arguments made by the counselor. but the fact that there were no fares recorded at paratransit seems symptomatic of the amount of driving he has done. if you look atñ'fkyk?; the apps brief, he indicated he worked at the color scheme early morning to a certain time, worked his regular job in mthe mta, and came back and drove at nights and weekends. that does not quite add up.