commission. i can tell you as a former director, i think i learned that staff could not make policy. that is what mta is trying to do with their staff decision. mr. alexander has articulated some really good arguments. i do not feel like i need to repeat them. they have been hurt. -- heard. the resolution is in applicable in this case. i would like to give you some additional good reasons why this board of appeals may take jurisdiction, but also why you should take jurisdiction. specifically, people seeking to open a taxi company are quite often minority business owners. those minority business owners have been supported by the city government. by refusing to allow new companies to open, mta staff has

stifled contra premiership at a time when we most need it. mta staff may be in violation of statutes that pertain to government interference with business. hypothetically. san francisco has traditional 30 taxi companies. it is a disingenuous argument to say that we can have an owner operator company because those owner operator companies are not their own taxi companies. they cannot become a to do zero or 10 or 50 taxi company. -- 2 or 10 or 50 taxi company. much like liquor licenses are being transferred, out with the existing permit to operate a

taxi company, the existing permits have become quite a valuable on the black market. they are going for as much as $250,000. this administrative action, a refusal to issue a new permanent -- permanent, interferes with business with no policy justification. a denial of a permanent is within the purview of this court of appeals. that would be under the san francisco charter section 4.1060. this could go to superior court, but that is a costly position for the appellant. it is not the best argument for this body to take a matter on, but also in the past, w to superior court, they may have resulted in mta later ratifying a staff action. thank you.

>> the citation you gave us to the san francisco charter. >> that is listed in respondent brief. san francisco charter section 4.1060. >> thank you. >> a couple of things -- go back over the point raised having to do with the fact that there is an avenue for someone to basically operates a color scheme under someone else's color scheme which the economic impact -- >> commissioner garcia, i do not know if i can give you a full economic breakdown. maybe i can paint a picture for you.

there are some economic issues. a 1% -- a one-percent owner- operator has to pay a company to fly their colors. it is not their own company. they also have to pay for dispatch, but that would be true even if they were their own company. they're not able to take in additional medallions into their company. once you -- the more medallions that you have, the cheaper it becomes under the mta's scale to operate a company. a taxi company with one medallion might cost $500 to operate versus a taxi company with 500 medallions might only

cost $5,000 for the permit. >> he made it sound as if you could attract other medallions. i misunderstood. >> no, sir, that is not the case. if you are an owner-operator under another company, that when mean that -- that would mean that you are working under yellow cab company paying to fly their colors, to rent their cars, etc.. that is just the same as mr. aryan being a taxi driver or a medallion holder. >> there is language under 1115, it has to do with the termination of a number of permits. the board will, from time to time, why wouldn't they just --

i know you are not a silicide with them any longer, -- i know you are not associated with them any longer. " absolutely. -- >> absolutely. no policy has been enacted. no rules have been enacted by the mta board. this is purely a staff decision. that later could be ratified by the mta board, but it is not a policy. >> it seems as though one of the biggest objections has to do with the fact that it would create a queue. who is negatively affected by that? i would assume sfmta as opposed to some driver hoping to get a color scheme. >> i would love to address that to, commissioner garcia.

in the past, when persons applied for the permanent to operate -- permit to operate a taxi company, they had to jump through the usual hoops. they had to appear before the mta board. presently, the staff has decided that they are not going to accept applications. therefore, they have stifled the mta board's ability to even listen or consider those applications. the fact that there are only around 30 taxi companies in san francisco, it is far -- it is far different from the thousands of people on a medallion waiting list. it is far different from the thousands of people who currently hold a permit to drive a taxi. >> thank you. >> one more question. how long -- the director? >> three years. >> -- how long were you the

director? >> it three years. >> how many color schemes were applied for annually? >> 1 to 2, maybe. >>, many did the commission grant? -- how many did the commission grants? >> i think the commission granted most of them. " what criteria is applied in granting or denying a color scheme permit? >> things like whether the person has -- they have to have a medallion, obviously. or they have to be in partnership with a person with a medallion. in addition, they must show that they have the financial wherewithal, that they have a piece of property and an office

and the ability to run a business. >> if we grant jurisdiction and we are persuaded o merits that mta should receive applications for these permits, what does it gets the request if mta makes a determination that the permits be issued? it comes right back to us. >> if you were to grant jurisdiction, this board would need to review this permit application. there is no remaned authority. that is an interesting question. that would be up for this board to determine that question.

>> thank you. is this your client? >> [inaudible] >> you are not allowed to speak. is there any other public comment? ok. commissioners? >> i am not clear on what you are seeking. alexander, right? i mean, certainly, you do not think this board would consider it reasonable for us to make a determination as to whether or not your client deserves a color scheme. >> i want the board to enforce -- every medallion holder may apply for a color scheme permit. that section has not been

repealed. they cannot repeal ordinances, they can only adopt regulations. they have yet to do so. the commission raised a whole bunch of horrible -- color scheme applications -- >> remember the question i asked you. it had to do with the point raised by the deputy city attorney when she responded to the fact that if we were to take jurisdiction, but we would be doing would be hearing the case as to whether or not to grant a permanent to your client. -- permit to your client. i do not think that is within our purview. knowing that, what a relief are

you seeking? what is it that you would have this board do? >> accept his application. >> i do not think we can do that. " under the charter, the board's authority is to grant, deny permits. you have the power to review the grant or denial of a permanent. -- permit. the question in front of this board is whether to grant -- to uphold that denial or overturn it. the board does not have the ability to order department to handout permit applications. >> if we except the jurisdiction, we can ask that they would go to the motion. mta would go through the motions and accept or reject the

permit. it is remanded without remanding. >> the board will conduct the application process itself. >> mta may have some legitimate policy reasons for not accepting color scheme permits. we do not know -- i would be supportive of a continuance where, in that time periods, when they have supposedly passed these regulations, they would pass a resolution adopted as policy or allow the applicants to pursue that process to apply for a color scheme. >> are only other recourse is to go to the court, which is a

costly proposition. by the time we get that heard comment that may have done -- heard, they may have done something. we would have wasted our time and we would have wasted our money. >> there is a permanent that was denied. mta is saying there is no permit. >> we will not deny you the permit, we just will let you apply for one. i understand the board's dilemma. there is no merit of the application to because they will not let him apply. there is something wrong where they can make rules and the dark and no one knows about them. >> i think some of the commissioners are worried that your speechmaking. -- that you are speechmaking.

one thing you achieved is that it is no longer being done in the dark. it has come to light. this board has expressed itself, at least a few of us have, as to how we seem to question this policy. let's see where it goes. >> mta said it is their policy. we understand it is a staff policy that has not been adopted by the full commission. but do doubt the merits of that policy? -- but do you doubt the merits of that policy? they could have adopted a policy that says, we will have a moratorium on these permits for two years. planning has done that when they are in the midst of planning a new area and coming up with new zoning. they sometimes have a moratorium.

>> it is a terrible policy. it is a regulation that has not been adopted after a hearing. it deprives mr. aryan to engage in a competitive business. it forces them to affiliate with people he does not want to affiliate with. it is terrible. nobody knows if or when it will change. all this stuff about adopting new regulations is nonsense. there contumely adopting new regulations. you adapt -- they are constantly adopting new regulations. you adapt or you get out of the business. it is nonsense. >> thank you. >> a lot of the points made by

mr. aryan are very compelling. i find troubling the way that this has come out. at the same time, i think the problem, of course, this is not the body [inaudible] >> as soon as this commission is done, you may have an opportunity to speak. >> my view is that it is going to be very difficult for us to grant the relief as requested because i am not comfortable in doing an adjudication of your application. i do not think -- i think there is merit to all the arguments

that you're making, but it is not the proper forum for the relief that you are seeking. >> [inaudible] i just wanted to clarify a couple of things. i want to clarify that the taxi commission, and the mta are two separate bodies. the things that were done under the taxi commission, the rules, that commission has been abolished. the mta took over regulation of the taxi industry. because of that, we operate under the transportation code i wanted that to be clear. she made some statements regarding the practices of the taxi commission.

it was appropriate for the taxi commission having hearings. those things are not under the mta. we are completely separate body. >> thank you for that. >> i do not think i would have a problem accepting jurisdiction and hearing the merits of the case. much like the analogy -- i guess the reason was not justified -- we could hear from both sides. i think mta has given us some justification for why they have this policy. it does not seem like what we are doing -- but they are doing is nefarious.

they have just not gone to the motions of having the commission adopt as policy. it seems like it is happening in the future, in june. i would support continuing this to keep the process moving. so that mta does adopt a policy that says we will have a moratorium or new regulations. >> i do not believe we have jurisdiction over this matter. if mta is going to adopt policies in june, i am sure we will see this case again. if it is not acceptable to the applicant, whatever policy they

adopt, i did their permits is denied, -- and if there permanent is denied, i sympathize with the ability to go forward with the business opportunities for this gentlemen. regrettably, i do not believe we have jurisdiction at all. i would not support a continuance. i sympathize with the cost of going to superior court, but that is the appropriate venue. >> i do not believe it is nefarious. when one feels uncomfortable weighing in and being critical of other departments and other commissioners actions, but that is what this job is. it seems to me to be a less than well thought out policy that

affects this individual. i draw that conclusion from the presentation that one of the main reasons had to do with the fact that it would create a cue -- queue. it would be some sort of administrative paperwork, records to be kept. i do not think it would be that huge. whether or not the way that sfmta operates is the same as the taxi commission, the fact remains of they both deal with regulating the taxi industry. some of the ways they go about that might be different, but i would find it difficult to imagine that since she was over at taxi that that many more people are seeking color schemes. when we hear about da queue, we

are talking about 10. to have given that kind of comfort to people -- you are here, when it is time for us to consider this, it will be considered. the new rules apply to you are the same rules that would have applied to you if we had gone ahead and processed your permit and given it to you six months ago or a year ago. i was led to understand that individuals who currently hold color schemes will be held to the same standards as someone who gets a color scheme. all that said, i agree with the statement having to do with no benefits to continuing this. there is no real permit. even if we were to continue it, there would still be no permit.

what has been achieved here is that mr. alexander and his client go tto voice their dissatisfaction with the policy that is practiced by sfmta. hopefully, sfmta will take their remarks into consideration and will speed up this process. for the sake of people who want to open their own color scheme. i would move that we not accept jurisdiction. do we need a reason? not granting jurisdiction? >> is it based on a finding that this is not a denial of a permit? >> thank you for that.

>> we have a motion from the president's to not invoke subject matter of jurisdiction with the finding that this department will auction by mta was not a denial of permit pursuant to the charter. on that motion -- thank you. the vote is 3-1. subject matter of jurisdiction is not invoked. >> we will move on to item number five.

go sheng lei forces the department of public health. the subject property is that 646 washington street. directors case number fd-12-14. we will start with the appellant. the appellant will be speaking through a translator. if you could please give them 14 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. he is the proprietor of the restaurant. i am this friend and i and his translator. i have no financial connection. once in a while, i do each in his restaurant. that is about it. my name is richard.

>> ok. >> greetings to the commissioners and the department of public health and everybody else. the pest control came in today. he wanted to cement the report -- submit the report from the past company. earlier, i gave a copy of this report to the health department. can you take this?

we wanted to submit the report. president garcia: the you have it already? >> just today. >> they gave a copy of the department -- to the compartmedepartment earlier tod. [talking over each other] president garcia: you are free to summarize its contents if you like. >> we would refer to the department, which gave them a report. president garcia: let me explain the problem, and we can stop the clock for a second. if we are not able to pay attention to you and your testimony later if we try to read that. >> i see. the department targets --

[unintelligible] that is the best we can do. >> you can also refer to it by putting it on the overhead projector if you want the board members to have a quick look at it. >> thank you for your courtesy. >> [foreign language] >> he agrees with all the findings of the publ