hard to make things fair and that is important. i thank you for your service to the city we all love. i am here to support the fare increase. i am conflicted about the various issues in item 12. i am not being paid for this endorsement. i thank you for your service. bravo. >> our next speakers. >> i am with a san francisco cab drivers association. i want to support the meter increase that has been proposed and i expect that you will accept that. i am against the 10 medallions that are being sold directly by the mta. i do not think the mta should be

in the business of selling them outright. it is one thing to sell to other drivers. there is a rationale for that and giving an exit strategy but there is a conflict of interest when the mta start selling the medallions and getting revenue and the question becomes, do we need the cabs or do you need revenue? we did discuss a single operator permit, we voted on it. i do not know why jim gillespie said we did not. i do not agree with the mta renting them out as a pilot program. i like the incentive idea that if you take enough radio calls there would be no charge for it. and possibly explore what was suggested about the medallion holders being able to purchase the medallions or obtain them. i think they should be earned. i do not think they should have to be bought by people who spent

their career driving a cab and putting up with what all that takes. as far as yellow cab not supporting this, i worked for yellow cab 20 years. i started there and we were on radio and there was no service problems. since they went to a computer, no one has been able to get a cab. i believe yellow cab is doing a concerted effort to make it appear as though we need more cabs and there is a shortage and their dispatches a highly flawed. i have moved to another company that is ready a dispatched and people are served. -- a radio dispatc radio dispate are served. >> our next speaker. >> good afternoon. >> these -- i am speaking about

the single user permits. dr. fulkerson had call them designer medallions. that is an appropriate description. the people that the director has chosen to receive these are a little old. they are my age. the senior drivers. in the industry they already have the best shifts and to impose this kind of -- this is getting too hard for them to put the effort into micromanaging the permit and buying the car and too many hours. they are beyond the age where i think that people can do that. if you are well intentioned, why don't you just give those medallions to people? instead of -- are you more concerned about getting income for the mta, or are you concerned about providing service to the city? they tried this in toronto, it

did not work. if you do the numbers it is not financially feasible. maybe for some young guy but not for an older person. i urge you to continue before you implement it to and look at it. i am sure you are pleased to lease the medallions. do you want to go there again? do you want to impose a hardship on working people and their families. you were there during that discussion and i do not think you want to bring that subject up again. once again, i urge you to look at this closely. -- it will ne economically feasible for the people. they are not going to be able to do it and it will be a failure. >> >> good evening, directors.

the company -- we went to other places and convinced them to kill it. we wanted to see what you can do better. after we got to the medallion holders and companies, they are the only ones who are opposing the signature for medallions. they're not making money out of it and they want to continue their kingdom of corruption. they're ready a system is down to zero and they are telling you a different story. i can sit with you one hour and

explained their radio system is garbage. give me -- they are lying to you continuously. i proved to them last week. i have wrong calls on the on not able to stand with me. coming to this, they are -- i do requests some changes in the sand that is what, get them out of the company's hands, i request to you, i gave you the paper. what time to what time, [unintelligible] this is the future of san francisco. you are seeing it. this is the future of this industry and the public will be [unintelligible] we have hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and please

approve this today. thank you. >> the public -- this will be the last speaker. anyone else want to identify themselves, this is your chance. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i believe the answer is centralized dispatching. if any new medallions are issued, they should be [unintelligible] otherwise there will be chaos in the cab industry. directors, are we forgetting about the medallion reading list that already exists? you have slowed down the process to receive a medallion. it should be issued to the

drivers on the waiting list. the way sfmta is running things, -- for more than 12.5 years will never get a medallion. please do not do this to drivers like me. directors, since you're not going to reduce the feet, please go ahead with the meter increase. directors, you are giving the meter increase in the hands and taking it away from the other hand. i will tell you why. you are adding more cabs and we are already paying high fees and gas prices. -- [unintelligible] you are letting the cab drivers

with no choice. i urge you to increase the flag drop. thank you. >> thank you. thank you to all who participated in the various town hall meetings and thank you for the summer. i thought that was useful to hear the wide variety of comments. all those who participated were members of our advisory committee. i want to thank you here. there were useful and thoughtful comments and suggestions. one that is worth looking at is some form of indexing the fares going forward so we do not have to wait 10 years to do this. that is way too long to come in

my opinion. i would like to ask ms. friedlander to address the issue that was raised in the environmental report. could you speak to that? >> we have reviewed the letter and while it is correct there was an error in the calendar and we cannot see any obstacle to moving forward. >> no accident why we're here. we have been in this industry and a lot of you have been involved blogger then we have. the problem is always the same. now the microphone is on. you may change your mind whether you want to hear me. if you raise your hands we will keep the microphone on. the reason for proposal 12 is,

as we all know, the single biggest problem in the minds of the public in san francisco regarding taxi service and the single biggest problem regarding taxi service in san francisco is not the quality of our drivers. a special thank you for a driver from luxor who helped solve a crime the other night. it is a situation where folks feel they cannot get a cab when they need them. they cannot rely on the service and this is a cute on fridays and saturdays when our citizens and visitors should be about enjoying the city and spending money. we have the first and probably a series of many steps to address this. we will add some full-time thompson and for the first time, since i have been involved, i and others who have been pushing

forward which is aimed more surgical approach to get cabs on the streets when they are needed. the single operator permit idea is a peak time idea. the reason we're approaching it as a pilot program is to see it if it works. if it does not we will retracted. if it does it is fair to and for this single operators will drive during peak times putting more cabs out on the street when they are needed and avoiding putting out more cabs on the street when they are not needed. i would like to thank the people who have worked hard to get this year. there are many people on the mta staff but most importantly is assistant director hayashi. i compliment her on putting this together. the taxi advisory committee have worked out -- worked hard. i will single out one member of the public, john han.

i thank him personally. as i state my support, i want to be clear with everyone. this is not the last stop on addressing the availability of taxicab service in san francisco. this is what i view as the first of many steps. we will review this pilot and see how it goes. we are issuing an rfp to see if there is a greater demand for full-time cabs. if there is not, we will get that information. i do believe as i have spoken about extensively, we should explore open taxi access and ask the advisory committee to look at that issue and see if that could benefit service in san francisco. once we have the results and

the -- of the study and ways to address dispatch and service issues directly, open taxi access or otherwise, we can take additional steps as needed. i would favor this proposal with thanks to the staff with the understanding this is the first step to address the biggest issue facing the taxicab industry. it will come as no surprise that i am happy to see this coupled with a significant service increase but i hear the concerns on timing and president nolan, i would support an indexing proposal for this. we have switched to that with parking meters and other things. it is the sort of mechanized way to review these sorts of things to make sure they are happening for good economic reasons and not political reasons. we have heard from some of the speakers that it is time to review and figure out what we

will do with the medallion sales pilot. i know the director feels that way. i think today is a step forward. i want to thank those who have participated in it for their help and i want to let everyone know this is not the last step. >> thank you. >> let me start off by saying i agree with everything that director heinicke said. the meter increase is high time we did this. i am not ready to support item 12. i think we heard many people today who are not sure this is a good idea. i have also over the last three

weeks durso -- or so don hundreds of telephone calls from people who have been concerned about this single operator medallion. i asked, there -- several people told me this does not work in other cities. i went about calling several municipalities that had these things going. it is true, it has not worked in other places that have tried this. i do not want us to rush into something that i do not believe we are ready to do. i would like of weed -- if we do

not continue item 12, i will not support it. >> what we will do is split items 11 and 12t in separate votes. >> i want to sincerely express my gratitude to all of you who have shown up and spoken so eloquently on this issue. policymaking like this is never going to be perfect. it will never make everyone happy. the director has -- what the director has been able to do and staff is put to something -- put together something that will appeal to as many people as possible knowing we will not make everyone happy. a lot of you have come up here

and spoken and this has been my first real issue that has been challenging i have had to deal with. i cannot express enough to you it has been helpful. i want to mention appreciating the way that ms. marai came up, and spoke. the way you spoke helps us move the conversation forward. we have to be looking at each other like we have the best faith in mind. we have to do what is best for our city. we have to give each other that much credit and recognize we're never going to find something that will make everyone happy and we hope to be able to offer solutions that will cover everyone -- multiple different perspectives. this proposal that has come out

speaking about item 12 is a step in that direction. we're not saying it is a solution. if we put 500 cabs out we might end up with 500 cabs at the airport. there is a lot we need to work on and figure this out much more effectively and i appreciate the hard work that has gone into this. i am looking forward to supporting this item. >> we will do this separately. let's do item 11 first. is there a motion? is there a second? any further discussion? the ayes have it, so ordered. is there a second to 12? commissioner ramos: second. >> total respect to you and your commitment to this issue. i am not convinced that more

weeks or months will produce something everybody will be satisfied with. let's ask for a roll call. >> director bridges, aye. director oka, no. director ramos, aye. chairman nolan, aye. six to one. chairman nolan: we will continue after a short break. chairman nolan: consent calendar. members of the board that wish to take any of consent. ladies and gentleman. >> mr. chairman, you have

requested that we go to the consent calendar. these items are considered routine and thus a member of the public or a member of the board wishes to have an item severed and considered separately. you have a request from the public to sever item 10.2 l. that is the only request that this point. chairman nolan: the consent calendar except for item 10.2 l. all in favor? so ordered. 10.2 l. >> it has to do with removing a bus zone at ocean avenue and establishing a bus zone in a similar location. >> good afternoon.

please excuse my glasses, i have an eye disease. i can't see, but three of my neighbors wrote something, but i can't hardly see it. they want to put a bus stop in front of my house. that is fine. but some of the bus in front of our house, we don't want it. there are three houses that don't want it. there are five schools in our neighborhood. my front lawn, years ago, i'd put in rocks. when the children do past my house, there are a few rocks that they throw around. if they are going to be sitting there with idle hands in front of my yard. i'm going to have broken windows. yes, the bus stop. there were two major accidents

that happened there that we need. but not to take up three houses that we pay our taxes they you're going to have these accordion buses stopped in front and we have no parking whatsoever. i have a letter here. one of the owners is out of town and agrees all sows. he has 34 people that have to get to work. his mother takes care of three children. there is no way you can find parking. we drive around the block 100 times before we find parking. and we have a sundries store at the corner, he has been there for yearseverybody is crazy abod he will speak next. when the kids go there, day -- there is no trouble whatsoever. not in front of our place.

>> anyone else on that one? mr. yee? >> i apologize, yes. >> >> i am here to oppose moving the bus stop. it will affect the business in my place. however, we don't need a four- way stop sign there. i can play the footage that i have here. it requires special software and i don't think you guys have that available. i brought my own if you care to see it.

in talking about the parking, it is very strict. we really don't want to make the neighbors uncomfortable by having the bus the close to the house. goschairman nolan: mr. yee, didu want to speak to this one? >> good afternoon. this proposal actually is being recommended as a package. both items together should be considered together. what we have found was in the last five or six years from our files, we have five separate requests for additional stock science at this location.

that is a really strong indication that there is a strong community concern about safety in the area. there were four reported accidents in the last five years at this location. three of them involving pedestrians. it is exacerbated by the fact that there are two schools nearby. and what we found, working with our colleagues, when you have a bus stop on the far side, it is not an issue. having the stock on the far side requires the bus to stop twice. the first time unnecessarily.

it is justified because of the documented safety concerns. we work very closely with the safety department as well as transit service planning. to move from the far side of to the nearest side. that will eliminate one of the stocks that is unnecessary. that each one of these would entail an additional 20 or 25 seconds of the leg that is unnecessary. it is not a big issue, but if you look at it in total, of these are included, it would be a significant increase to the travel time and the potential liability. by moving in this particular case -- i have the overhead there. moving from the far side of the

near side, it will be in front of three houses with driveways. and we reclaim some parking spaces on the far side. this neighbor that mentioned this concern about loss of parking, it is not true. it is a net gain of two or three parking spaces. based on these factors, we recommend that they are approved as a package. it is the best compromise taking into consideration the safety as well as the principles of transit first. we recommend approval. chairman nolan: we approved k and m. is there a second? all in favor? so ordered. it is strange to speak of something you have already voted on, but if you care to address the board.

>> we approved everything on it. chairman nolan: please, come forward. item p? we have approved it, but go ahead. >> item p says no left turn from eastbound 14th at church street. i dunno why that is being deleted or implemented. chairman nolan: do whatever you want, tell us what you want us to hear. >> i don't know why it is being proposed. >>