of permits and defining the characteristics of this permit and who would be eligible for the permit is a legislative and policy decision related to transportation management trying to find a way to put taxis on the street that are not out there when there is very low demand, but are available when we know there is a high demand and we need more taxis, so these are the kind of flexibility issues, and example in this class of permits at issue today. these are temporary permits number one. they can be not revoked but as a matter of a default of agreement if a company defaults on the agreement that allows them to use these permits they can be taken away. one of the conditions on the permit is that they meet certain dispatch standards. that's our attempt to make these permits give them characteristics that will make the permit recipients more accountable to the public with

these taxis, so these are the kinds of features we're adding to the class of permits. another thing about this class of permits is that they are temporary. in the future if we found that the number of taxis on the street is excessive this is the only class of permits we could take away from the taxi supply. for example, if a license agreement for these permits expired we could choose not to renew it, and by that mechanism reduce the taxis on the street by one and we don't have that flexibility with any other class of permits, so we are trying to as the director indicated create responsity and management in the taxi agree and creating new features and permits. if this particular class of permits -- if this board were to say "no that

companies cannot be eligible for them but individuals are eligible for them" and then what do we do when it expires three years later? they don't have a full time permit. if we decide it's not to be a permanent permit and you are stepping into the judgment of the sf mta how we're going to manage transportation in san francisco. >> i have another question. thank you. that was very helpful. i am curious -- i am also not a politician, and i am not involved in the politics in the city. one -- so and i don't know the depth of the history of the people in this room know and live and experience in terms of taxi and what it means in the city's industry, so my question

is to what extent if at all does mta as it exists today have some sort of transparent process with the people that do the driver related to policy and the policy making decision so that they know what is going on and what is coming down the pike and have participation in that. >> well, there are the hearings themselves. these set up with requirements of brown act and sunshine and 72 hour notice and all of those things. that is the minimum they think the public considers necessary for an opportunity to see what is going on in policy bodies, and to be able to respond, but in addition to that as some people have referenced we have had a series of town hall meetings and one in south venice and tried to invite the taxi industry to those trying to have dialogue.

that has been productive over the years and continues to be productive. we are trying to institutionalize that and have one meeting a week and each one is a six hour process so we have a segment from 130 to 430 so night drivers can come and we have another session at night so day drivers can come after they finish their shift. we are trying to do our best to allow an opportunity for dialogue. as was referenced there is also the taxi advisory council that met for two years and that was a policy body so minutes were taken. they were published and in addition to that director riskin has implemented a policy that we are struggling to get in front of and anytime we have a legislative change we want to publish it for the industry 30 days in advance so they have time to look at the legislation and have conversations how the

proposals should change. it's not perfect but we have very much endeavoring to make better routes of communication between the industry and the agency. >> thank you. i have no further questions. >> so are we going to redeliberate then because we have heard new testimony? what is the appropriate process? >> it's up to the members of the board. if they care to speak again there is no pending motion on the floor so a motion needs to be made. >> oh there is no motion? okay. >> i have a couple of comments. >> go ahead. >> just to be clear and perhaps if it wasn't involved in my

discussions at the previous hearing, you know, what is before us is a fairly narrow issue versus all the things that we heard from both sides. we're not hearing the case before us, and until we've had the verbal testimony i knew very little exactly what the action was. the question in front of us is whether this board accepts the city attorney's opinion that we don't have jurisdiction, and that question is tied specifically into how we read that opinion, and what we know individually about the charter and what occurred in terms of the various actions that were part of that opinion. the issues brought up by the vast majority of speakers are

related to their own lives and industry. it's not something that this board has been any jurisdiction over most of it. most is policy decisions that are ultimately have to be resolved at the mta level. this board in terms of its charge of looking at appeals of permits -- you know, our former name was permit of appeals. that's what i focused on when i made my comments last time, and i continue to hold those same opinion. >> and i continue to hold my opinion that this matter involves rule making legislation, policy, however you want to describe it that is not the type of matter that properly belongs before this board. whether we like it or not my

understanding is that through a series of legislation, voter approved measures, exclusive authority on these matters was granted to the mta, and until such time there is an individual situation under this rule making i do not believe that the charter and the other rule makings that have taken place would allow us legally to consider this matter, and i fear that if we do take jurisdiction we are opening up an arena for any commission, any agency that passes a rule, that implements a policy can be appealed to the board and i don't believe that's the function of the board under the charter. >> i would add that my ruling similar to what commissioner fung said has nothing to do with the merits of the policy that mta adopted, nothing to do with

ethics, fairness. my opinion is not anything to do with the issue that mta was dealing with, but again whether this properly belongs before this commission. and i would move to deny the appeal. >> well, my only comment is that i'm not changing my vote from the last time. i looked at the city attorney's opinion. i continue -- i went through it in detail at the last hearing. i continue to believe it does not support the position that we are without jurisdiction in this type of permit appeal, so i would still vote to grant jurisdiction. >> okay. i am -- would love nothing more to hear this

appeal, the merits. unfortunately i think i'm unable to get around the fact that i hold the few that this say policy decision, and understanding further the distinction between the type of permit that this policy would address versus the medallions that the people on the applicants' waiting list would be entitled to is helpful for me to get some clarity around. i think that i'm -- i think unfortunately because -- it's unfortunate for me because i care a lot about the issues that the people here raised tonight. very articulate passionate speakers. i appreciate your voice. you need to organize and keep pushing. this is not the forum for that in this

particular case doesn't hinge on what we decide here, your rights and ability to move forward with your own agenda and needs. it's not what we are here to do today for us. that's my view of it. i know i am taking a view that's a more strict reading of the code at issue, but i think in interpreting what has been presented before me that we do not have jurisdiction, so i would lean in the direction of commissioner lazarus. >> do you have a motion? >> there was a motion made by commissioner lazarus to deny the jurisdiction request, so we can call the role on that if commissioners are ready. mr. pacheko. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny

this issue to not invoke subject matter jurisdiction over the mta's resolution. on that motion vice president fung. >> no. >> president hwang. >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado. >> no. >> thank you. the vote is two to two. three votes would be needed to grant jurisdiction, so a jurisdiction is denied over this resolution. >> so commissioners on this motion fails just to be clear unless another motion is made and no jurisdiction is granted like was said. okay. so hearing no further motion president hwang do you want to call the next item or take a break? >>i would like to take a break. >> okay. thank you.

(recess).

>> welcome back to the november 7, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals with president hwang's consent we're going to move around the calendar and take item seven. which is paul iantorno versus the department of building inspection. we're taking this out of order because parties have negotiated a solution and this

is about the property on folsom street and construction work done without a permit. the matter was heard by the board and continued to allow the parties to discuss a resolution, so i will ask both parties to come forward if you will and tell the board what you agreed upon and the board can decide what action to take. >> commissioners, i was at the last hearing and spoke to inspection staff and our department is happy enough to drop the penalty down. it shouldn't have been put on. i will the applicant was working with the department, but had someone do the permit and we're happy to drop the penalty to two times. >> , can you state whether you're in agreement with that. >>i am in complete agreement. >> thank you. is there any public comme