due to lack of presence of the bands in item number 12 at the testimony you heard from bankers, if the of the cab companies and the bankers don't like this proposal, i would like to expand on that. medallions here, it is a first in your history and if that is going to lead to lawsuits, the cab drivers will be the whistle- blowers when that happens. don't approve anything on item number 12. they are not of interest to the cab company in were put there in this proposal to you through sheer politics. only the people that say it is a good idea are those responsible for the presence of those items. it would only be the 35 regular routine medallions, but that is

debatable. it is the only thing that makes any sense. the city of toronto has 1300 of those medallions and they are very unhappy with them. those drivers are unable to keep up on their payments. their vehicles are completely addressed at all times, and they feel like second-class citizens. if you bring a third class citizens into this scenario, you will really have a messy situation. i am against it, but everything else doesn't make any sense at all. with regard to the proposed flag drop that you have, the feeling that we have is a good thing.

it is turning the powers back to where they were eight years ago. most of us are just estimating. [chime] >> [reading names] >> thank you again, board members. i want to object to the combining of the two agenda items. secondly, i would like to urge you to go ahead with the issuance of the medallions some

conditions of qualifications. it has come to my attention that they have is withdrawn from the calendar and that is wrong. this is a process that has gone on for months. medallions that are proposed, i believe 50 is too many. if it can work, i believe it deserves a second item. i want to oppose the issuance of 10 medallions to be sold directly by the agency that can

afford a sale price, because this is tainted by the fact -- are you making this decision for the benefit of the public, the benefit of the industry, or your own pocketbooks? i urge you not to take that step. lastly, i want to say that whenever the question comes up, it is always in the context of more cabs. look at measures to improve taxi efficiency and open taxi access. and by all means, take some actions against a limousines. chairman nolan: next speaker please. >> [reading names] >> my name is phillilp war --

phillip ward, i'm a lawyer for taxi companies. i objected to the item going forward because we did not have sufficient time to review of item number 12 and allow me to advise my clients and for a general public to consider item no. 12. we received a response from the city attorney acknowledging that the report was in error. the environmental analysis which was identical of item number 11 was wrong. the environmental analysis to the e-mail response last evening, it was the first time

we had a chance to see that there was a different environmental analysis. with respect to the issuance being categorically, we simply have not had enough time to consider the correct analysis. i objected to the matter going forward. for that reason, i believe it has to be announced to the public before this body can make an action. it should be worth adequate notice.

chairman nolan: next speaker, please. >> i am speaking at the staff's recommendation for electric vehicle permits. we all know that more calves are needed. it uses outdated information. it has provided information that shows over 230,000 calls that we cannot handle. new permits will be issued, and we have in -- the plan for peak

time permits that would add is not evaluated. it would have enabled companies to manage capacity, but that was dropped. before you is a pilot program that makes no sense. we don't know what to make of this until regulations are determined. we want a more complete analysis. we hope you take the necessary steps so that we can continue efforts to make taxi service reliable and exceptional part of the system.

>> we think that this is a matter that should be conducted in front of a full hearing. at the proper hearing, we intend to present evidence that san francisco needs far more than 35 additional cabs. we will r present evidence and evidence from our tax a partner. -- taxi partner. i would urge you to postpone the vote u. i observed from looking at the staff report that the evidence being presented to you is from

2000 and 2001. anything else is not specific to san francisco. we have much more recent and better evidence to present regarding the correct number of cabs. service to the public is a serious matter and with all due respect, we do not appreciate the piecemeal approach to this matter which is critical to our ability to provide service to the public. regarding the part time permits, we have no objection to part time permits. we have presented a proposal in december of last year. why is that not in front of you along with this other proposal? we would like to see that case made in a formal pcnn. i hope you give weight to the comments. you are in the middle of a pilot program. why come up with a new pilot

program that seems to be going in quite a different direction? thank you. >> good afternoon. i am with a group called medallion holders association. during the last six years, there were biennial hearings to see of the drivers deserved a meter rate increase and on all three occasions, the controllers said yes. the consumer price index indicated that. the supervisors have the prerogative to ignore that recommendation and they did. i appreciate his body biting the bullet and having a substantial increase to the public even the members will not like it. i would like to thank chris who made an articulate and

compassionate in -- speech on how they deserve this increase. on item 12 on would urge you to put out 35 medallions. i am sure that the city will have more fleet expansion as time goes on. there can be further hearings. on the part time medallion system, i think it is interesting. service needs are greater on friday and saturday nights than sunday morning. it will be interesting to have an experiment to see if there can be a part-time single operator system. the way it is designed in the criteria, it is lacking. the medallion association would be opposed to any leasing scheme where mta takes operational profit out of the industry. the lenders, we did design better criteria for such a program. this could be sold in the future to some of the drivers and have extra tabs at the busier time. i would urge you to continue

that aspect of this item and have a select committee designs and different criteria. thank you. >> thank you. >> jim gillespie, dan hines, [inaudible] >> thank you. i am with yellow cab. regarding item 11, i would support the increase in the meter for the drivers. i want to address item 12. i'm looking here at the summary that was handed out for item 12. you mentioned 1500 cabs in san francisco. the next bullet point said that taxi service is considered unreliable. i would agree. the issue we have been discussing for years has been capacity. we need more medallions.

they decided to do -- put off an -- put up an rfp and that is supposed to be fast track and they will do awa pcn hearing and they come up with these 50 medallions that i do not understand. i have attended town hall meetings and tac meetings and that none of those was a single operating permit discussed. there were ideas about why it would not work and how it could. if your for your approval is an idea that one has been tried in other cities and has not been discussed by us. at the very least i would hope you would continue this item so it can be discussed and can be vetted. there is an rfp going out for the study.

i would think that is what we want to wait for. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker? >> dan hines, ed healy, and mari. >> i am president of national veterans cab company. i would like to speak specifically on the item listed under 12. the single user permit issue. i support exploring a single user permit approach. for the drivers, the user permit offers the enormous advantage of allowing them to choose * at peak demand to service the public. for the public, the advantage is the period of peak demand is when the public is underserved. i buy-sell approach can be developed. such a program could to buy additional ownership

opportunities to working drivers and generate revenues but without the downside of having cabs during the slow periods. single use permits deserves testing but also the purchase of leasing permits. the city should not released -- inject itself into relationships between cabs and medallion holders as a leasing agent. they should be appreciative of the possibility of generating revenues through limited and carefully monitored sales and reluctant to become brokers. thank you. >> thank you. >> ed healy. >> i am a cab driver and member of the sfcda. it is interesting these owners

came in and are worried about these legal niceties. what day want is to put 500 cabs on the street without a hearing as some of you know. it is kind of a joke that they're calling for a hearing to have this compromise program. also, i do not know what happened to gillespie. at this town hall meetings, this was adequately discussed. he walked out after the second one and said he did not like the idea of peak time permits and never showed up again. the idea of a single operator permits or talked up extensively and they were talked up at the taxi advisory council which you should have been met. i do not know what kind of smokescreen they are throwing out. they do not want any kind of compromise. this is a very good plan. i have heard the concern expressed of the mta running -- this being a foot in the door for the mta running the taxi

business and leasing. you have to be out of your mind to want to take over the taxicab business as far as i'm concerned. we need a major increase. the amount would be 22%. what we are including -- that is including the drop at a cost of living increase. we want to see some regular pcn hearings and also a regular hearings on the cost of living -- also the regular hearings on the cost of living. thank you. >> next speaker. >> mari and dave schneider and tara houseman. >> i am a very grateful cabdriver in the city of san francisco. i probably like driving a cab in the city more than anyone else

you know. if anyone wants to fine me for that title, they can. i am concerned about the drivers and their income. i support 11. and anything else that can help them, including reducing the exorbitant five% on the credit cards. o-- 5% on the credit cards. i feel strongly about the -- that the medallions should go out as soon as possible. some have been waiting 14 years and in and credible anxiety the last two or three years because there are so few going to the list. it is a slower process. i do not see any point in that not being a good idea. we all know we need more cabs on the street at peak time. no matter how people word it, we need more cabs and i like the idea of the single user permit

it is based on seniority. i know people who have been driving 30 or 40 years. there is no excuse they did not put their name down because i have known them 23 years and told them to put their name down and they said it is too late. in spite of that they should not be punished. there are still out there driving. i know several that have been driving 20 or 30 years that are able and who would be so happy to have this opportunity. the one place where i might not -- i do not totally understand is, i would think it would be better if they could buy it for a reasonable amount rather than leasing it through the city. i do not have a strong opinion on how that should be done. i do have a strong opinion to let 10 -- go to people who have driven 30 years would be wonderful. [bell] >> thank you.

our next speakers. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. a special good afternoon to director ramos. i was not able to see you. i had an intervening heart problem. perhaps not enough compassion and skillful wisdom. i rise today for discussion of item 11. i will rise in public comment about another item. on 11, it is welcome. we appreciate the general good will in recognizing the need for driver income increase. it has been a while. i also want to support mr. wilkinson's proposal that these things be done more regularly. perhaps on an annual basis or a

semiannual basis connected with pcnn where there is -- there is a review of the consumer price index and how drivers are doing. and to take a look at the city's livable wage ordinance, the spirit of it. there is some question whether employees are independent contractors, i do not think there is any doubt that the idea behind the city's livable wage is that working class people should be able to survive. thank you. >> our next speaker is. >> i urge you to sever in their minds the idea of 11 and 12. please pass item 11, no matter what you do with 12. we have had six weeks of income forgone that cannot be gone

back. as far as item 12, on the matter of you selling new medallions out right, not only must you appear to come to your decisions -- not only must you come to your decisions with clean hands, you must appear to. this does muddy the waters a bit since you would be raising money off of these medallions. i do like with a peak time medallions, i do like the idea that -- i am not not about the drivers having to pay a monthly fee but i like that it can be mitigated by showing they are taking radio calls. i urge you to pass this experiment although there

remember in the future the numbers got tweaked somewhere between where the people in the cab industry were dealing with that versus by the time i got to you. when that sort of thing is altered after the fact, what the message you're sending to the cab drivers is, do not bother coming to the town hall meetings, do not bother going to the tac meeteings, just come here and bend your ear. do you want to make effective preceding steps that could take care of issues before they come to you? do you keep that in mind in the future? i do not know what mr. gillespie is talking about, the peak time single operator cap was

discussed at length that several meetings at the town hall meetings and it was discussed at the tac. i stuck around until the end of the meetings. >> our next speakers. >> good afternoon. yesterday i picked up a pro at market street. she told me it is hard to get a cab. i said yes, this is 5:30 p.m. but no one said anything in the morning. this is human nature. everybody wants to get a cab and a lot of people in a hotel, they want to go out to eat. the lot of people missed their appointments because the could not get a cab. -- they could not get a cab. people are begging the cab at

the rush hour because traffic is bad. a lot of people want a cab but we do not want to see any more cabs. we want to make more money. at peak time, a single operator is very good. this should be the direction for our future because the type of medallion -- this medallion cannot make extra profit unless you are driving. this cab in the future is something business slow down, we do not need that many cabs. if you have the regular medallion, you do not get that back. you are still driving a cab. this thing is [unintelligible] it is that become a -- bad

economy. better than nothing, just like obama, he gets another big check again for another year. this is america. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> that afternoon. -- the afternoon. -- good afternoon. i want to express, i understand sfmta is taking a crash course on the cab industry and it is difficult to understand the intricacies. i found everyone to be open to discussion and willing to learn and take on this difficult task.

as far as item 11 is concerned, i am neutral on it as a consumer, i would not want to pay more money but as a driver, the drivers have their needs and i do not feel it is my place to decide what the driver should be making. item 12, i definitely support additional medallions. what i am concerned about is the allocation of a single -- single operator permit. i am concerned there are not viable business plans. i have yet to see them work in other markets and i would like more research done about a single operator permit. i would like to see some regulatory costs included. i would like to see somewhere where they work.

i do not believe they are viable. it is a noble idea and it comes from a good place. i do not think it pencils' of properly when you consider who will be behind the wheel and they will have to work in order to keep that business afloat and if they are sick or anything happens drastic to them, they will not be able to operate any more and what are they supposed to do? that will be a big problem down the line. this is one of the many flaws with a single operator. >> thank you. >> peter witt smtt and frank fay and [inaudible] >> yellow cab, 23 years, native san franciscan. i would like to see this commission operating in good faith. 11 and 12 should not be combined. ceqa report was the excuse given for not