in the trash. we had -- you mentioned transparency. there used to be tranceparency a couple of years ago there was transparency and now you are having meetings without any involvement of the cab drivers. you are judging by reading mr. -- or director's heinicke mail. you had the plan you put into effect two weeks ago. you had it without ever discussing it with the person you put it together behind closed doors and i believe in violation of the sunshine ordinance. i believe that you violated your own rules. you violated the rules of the city and you violated the rules of state of california in order do what? you don't even know what you are doing. you are so full of sanctimonious language, like what is that? the public good? that you are not even paying attention to the details of what you are doing. details of what you are doing is basically putting a couple hundred people into poverty, if they don't get

those medallions. they are too old to do anything else. that is the one concrete you are doing and it's the public. the public. the public good. that is fine with me. i would like to see you return to actual transparency. in the meantime, it looks like ned ford has never left. thank you very much. next speaker. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> mark gruberg, thank you again. to follow-up on ed's remarks, blinded by self-interest, i think you just focused like a laser beam on your own financial self-interest as an agency. and you are just not getting the picture. i sent you a letter last week, about the driver fund.

you know, a lot is said here in public comment and maybe you missed some of it. i hope you weren't missing what i was saying at the last meeting that what you did was it absolutely gut the drivers' fund, take virtually every penny out of the drivers' fund for the next possibly 20 or 30 years and appropriate that money for yourself, because instead of 15% and 5%, it's 20% to the agency. and you know, i can't imagine more -- you know, kind of a heartless thing to do to bolster your bottom line by this additional amount at the expense of the only, only, only, only thing in the medallion sales program that was going to help the driver, who won't have a medallion, will never have a medallion in his life. or maybe will spend 20 years in the industry before ever

getting a medallion. so please, please, please, please revisit this. i don't know what else to say about that. on these alternate car services, they are providing taxi service. but stp if something happens in that cab and is lift going to solve their problem? no, who do they turn to? where do they go? these are unregulated vehicles. have to do something about this. put them off the street. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> i second everything that mark gruberg just said, by as far as large-capacity vehicles going the only hybrid six-passenger van commonly available is the toyota

sienna, which is prohibitive getting new. one thing has been the situation of the traffic at 3rd and market. it impacts all the way up 3rd street, and all the way -- i'm talking about inbound market and then northbound 3rd. can i get the screen? i'm sorry that my ipad has very, very small picture. info services, can you get the projector? what do we say? oh, there we go. it's even worse -- it's very difficult to see here. this is just not going to be good. anyway, this is market street.

inbound. and this is 3rd street. i suggest that to make traffic flow better, the problem is that people very desperately cross 3rd street an market and then the light turns on them. they block the box all day long. also, on 3rd street, if you could shave this sidewalk just a couple of feet, at this apex here, you would take it so that people turning and also muni buses don't have to take up part of the next lane to get around that particular corner. also, you will notice how badly striped it is. the striping really does not indicate where people need to go as they cross. striping is non-existent here. it's very difficult to follow here.

and it doesn't follow traffic patterns. this needs to be logically restriped and not just restriped. there needs to be a sign here saying -- >> thank you. >> i'm out of time. >> yes. >> don't lock the box or have traffic control people there. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> thank you for letting me speak again. i just wanted to clarify, some people misunderstood my comments about the waiting list. that i do believe in the waiting list. and i think medallions should go to the waiting list. some of you may agree, some of you may not. but i wanted to make sure that that is clearly understood. and that is how i feel. so i just wanted to say that. the other thing that i wanted to say about uber and i appreciated all of our comments about uber cab. the one thing that uber is doing is picking up people off

the streets. as far as their other business, that is another discuss. i have called eric five times a night, seeing people lean into the window of a town car cab, how much? making a deal and probably getting charged more than i would charge them. and getting in the cab. and that is illegal. and i wish you guys could hire more people to do what eric does. i think he works with somebody else. but that really -- that is a big thing and the illegal cars. i called them the other day with a guy who isn't a cab, but has one painted like a cab. the last item that i want to say that i ride orders. in other words, it will be far away from where i am and i will go for it, you know? and

sometimes, there are times that they give me the phone number and i will actually be able to talk to the passenger that i'm picking up. it's and very, very helpful. it would be great if there was a law that we could have the phone number. because if i speak to somebody and say hi, i'm brian. i'm cab 998 and i'm going to come and get you. just wanted to let you know, please don't take another cab. i'm on my way. they will wait. so if that could be implemented, it would be really good. >> thank you. >> tom lee. barry corngold. >> followed by peter witt. >> okay. good afternoon, mr. chairman and members. san francisco is a very, very busy city and we're living in expensive san francisco. people are paying high money to sit in a cab. they should get a cab as quickly as possible. the best service to the public is that cabbie should right

away -- but we have 1500 legal taxis. another 1500 illegal taxis, but they are choosing the busy time to come out. it's not everyday at any time. this is the real effect. so add 200 cabs more is providing another 600 jobs for the gate and gas drivers. it's a very good thing. i would like to see the drives get shifts and support their family and pay their bills. but the actual cost of rung the business in the taxi is $50 a day only $50 by the car for insurance. it's $50 a day and now you are going to charge $1900 a month. so you should make your taxi policy as parallel to the cab company and driver, because you should give half of the medallion leased to the cab driver, who would like to

lease. especially maybe two or three drivers coming to our office and pay the money to mta. you should give your medallion, half of them should go to the cab driver nortto support the driver and not overchexing to the overwhelming to the cab company. we have a lot of drivers would are very upset because they pay $150 a shift, overcharging to get a guest to drive the cab. i hope you consider leasing tot to the cab drivers as well. [ reading speakers' names ]. >> mr. corngold. >> hi. i'm barry corngold. i want to comment on how appalled i was and surprised at the lack of discussion before last meeting's vote on the

medallion reform plan. in particular, vice-chair brinkman said that this has been looked at and underway for a long time. that you have -- that you have enough informing have looked at it enough and in the next following sentence you proceeded to show that you don't understand the concept of the waiting list or the issue with it. such as the people waiting 15, 20 years and sluging it out the of this time at very low-income and having to work hard shift where's there is nobody there. they finally are ready to get their medallion and it's not going to be worth it for them to buy it. you are telling them that okay, at least you have the opportunity to buy it if you are on the list. it makes no sense. everybody on the list gets a medallion -- i mean the medallions don't get sold to anybody who is not on the list and the people at the top of the list, it's not worth it for

them to buy it most of the time because they are too old. they are been doing this for 20, 30 years already. so you need to to explore this a little further. and then as i said before, barry toronto shared some of the emails with me, that he obtained through the public records act. and i was appalled at the disrespect given to the cab drivers and all the meetings that we have been going to through the years. it did consider the needs of public and the agency, it gave $10 million a year to the agency. and what is wrong with appeasing -- you are talking as if we are the enemy. what is wrong with listening tot cab drivers, who have been addressing these concerns? >> thank you. >> peter witt. last speaker.

>> okay. >> thank you for waiting. if your camera could get me center, i would like to see that. this is the data that has been collected over the years and i submitted to the taxi commission and taut for the last four years. i believe mr. reiskin you are involved in the last survey here this. is this year's survey i gave you last month. mid-last month, 2012 survey, 1,000 customers. pretty much it was all anecdotal testimony and, in fact it was all anecdotal testimony. you know, i would prefer to

work analytically and i prefer government to work analytically, rather then through warm and fuzzy feelings, mr. reiskin. i have your requirements for your job, which is supposed to be to is collect data, relevant data and store it and then it would be ideal if you actually administered it or you know, spread it around and let the people look at. it because you know, he believe your it people haven't looked at it yet. i got an email the 15th by carol from the quarry galinas people who are doing your current study and i was asked a few questions, but i find it a little bit odd, because i was also told i would be a paid consultant. unfortunately, i missed my day

and said it would end the end of august. so they had done their little focus group and i missed out on it. it's unfortunate, but i'm not an avid email reader. thank you. >> anyone else wishing to address public comment? seeing none, next item. >> moving on to item 10 -- these are consent calendars matters to be considered routine unless a member of public asked an item be considered separately. there is a question for l, m and n to be considered separately and 10.2l by a member of public? >> removing those, is there a motion to approve the cardinal. consent calendar? >> aye. >> david silverglide.

>> item l is in regards to changing the signage between sampson and montgomery, reichert now it's a urban oasis, very nice trees and thousands of people that eat lunch, that walk and enjoy the sunshine, which is a rarity in the financial district. unfortunately the dpw made a mistake and issue arid food truck permit on commercial street in the middle of this pedestrian zone. and the applicant didn't inform dpw it was a pedestrian zone and parking was illegal. so for months the truck parked illegally, right in the middle of pedestrian zone in the middle of thousands of people enjoying the little bit of green space in the middle of the financial district. so to rectify the situation, the dpw has asked that we just change the parking regulations and allow trucks that have dpw

permits to park in the middle of pedestrian zones. i own a business that is on this pedestrian zone and we fought very hard to have this pedestrian zone and create this place. we serve thousands of restaurant customers with outdoor tables and chairs and permits for those and we have people who enjoy coming there. now we have a truck in the mill of it, which is bad for a lot of reasons and should be there. it's bad for the pedestrians. we have generator noise from the truck in the middle of a pedestrian zone and engine noise in the middle of a pedestrian zone. it's dangerous. there is no enforcement when the truck comes and goes and the truck can move feel freely if they come later or early. we all know what happened to the santa monica's farmers market, where we had a truck/vehicle move into a pedestrian zone and cause a bad accident. it's not good to mix cars and pedestrian zones. there is no parking enforcement because mta vehicles cannot get in there to check. the meter is

almost never fed during this period of time. so we would really like to make sure we keep this a pedestrian zone. we don't need themate cleaning up dpw's mistakes. they should not have issued a permit where there is a pedestrian zone. you should not be cleaning up their mess incorrectly. do not let this get changed. >> you are speaking to l? >> yes. >> and matthew wexler is the next member of public and he is the last member of the public who submited a speaker card. >> good afternoon. >> my name is matthew wexler, i'm the owner of the food truck that has the permit from the department of water to park on commercial street. we went through all the proper steps that we were required of us by the department of public works to get our permit. it's opened up a couple of

months now. i'm an existing parts of the neighborhood. we had a restaurant in that same building for a little over three years now. and we have been nothing, but, i think, a great part of the neighborhood and in addition, to the neighborhood. and our food truck has been a welcomed extension of our restaurant by customers that we have had and new customers as well. we don't run our engine during the middle of service. we're parked with the car off and we are providing something that is adding to what the city looks for in the alley ways which is providing foodservice and creating that kind of leisurely atmosphere that in downtown san francisco. we follow all safety precautions. we certainly don't take -- we never put anyone in a situation where they would be in danger of the trucks not moving. it's parked and all it's doing

is serving food during the time that we're there. we're regulated when we can serve food in the street. just like anyone else is. and we have a regulated perform by the department of water for when we can be there and when we can't about there and when we can operate and when we can't operate and we followed all of those rules since we first opened. >> thank you, sir. >> can i ask you a clarifying question? >> sure. >> i'm just looking at commercial street on google map. the area where your truck is parked, is it in this sort of -- i guess it's a loading zone area? where the sidewalk kind of curves in. >> correct, 565 commercial is where we're permitted by the department of water to park, which is the address. >> you are in 5900 block? 500 block? >> correct almost at the corner of commercial and

monorail. montgomery. >> it's narrow, but the roadway widens at a certain point? >> yes. >> thank you for that clarification. director lee? >> yes, l, m and n. >> you don't have a concern about commercial street? >> no. hold on one sec. >> it's k, isn't it?

ortega is l and m? >> commercial is l on my sheet. >> i have commercial as k. >> i do, too. >> i do, too. no wonder we're confused. >> well, let's stick with commercial street and i have no issues with commercial street. my question is that both of these folks are well-spoken members of the business community. who i suspect are trying to do the right thing by their customers. what is the feedback of the neighborhood? does the neighborhood want it? does the office building love it or hate it? if this was one of our neighborhood issues we would know what the people on this block think, so why don't we find out. >> good afternoon, sustainability streets division. i think the matter has been explained by both parties in that this is a street closed to vehicular traffic between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00

p.m.i have a photo of the food truck, if you want too see it. when the street was originally closed it was typically closed for tables and chairs, but now that there are food trucks this year we started permitting -- the department of water started to permit food trucks. this is the food truck and this is the commercial street. we had a situation where the permit was granted for the food truck to be in the street that is closed to traffic. we discussed it with the department of water originally this area was signed for no periods just to ensure no leftover vehicles when treasclosed to ped straps. so our officers started to site the truck for being there, even though it had a city permit. so it created a conflict. we aloud the truck to be there and coming now before you to make sure that this activity is

allowed by the city for the truck to be here. we feel that the truck can be made in a safe manner of we did have a public hearing. the main objections have been from nearby restaurants who don't like the food truck, but otherwise, we're not aware of any specific concerns other than the fact that the food truck is not thought to be consistent with the closure of the street. it is kind of an activation of that commercial street. it allows people to have something to go to. if you go there, you will see people gathering food from the food truck, which is consistent with a lot of other uses for a street of this type. >> as i read it, this would be a full block change in the restriction. so the reason why i asked the question, right? i mean, conceivably dpw could license more than just mr. wexler's truck and i guess my concern comes in, we have to balance the needs here. and thank you for the update.

and i can understand why a restaurant that came to and participated in an effort to have a pedestrian right-of-way near its business would not want a food truck parked directly in front of it. i understand in man's concern he doesn't want it on this block, but it's about a balance. so if the only concern is from the restauranteurs and, but my concern is if we do this and maybe this is an issue for dpw to balance, but it would sure seem unfair that if there were food trucks in front of the restaurants themselves. also as i support director brinkman will channel, this is a pedestrian right-of-way and then overnight it's all food truck it's not really a pedestrian right-of-way. it's a food court. so it seems to me that the one truck and if this is the one permit and it's not in front of this man's restaurant, you know, that

seems like a fair balance, but i want to have some limiting principle here, because if we tell them it's one truck and lo and behold there is a food truck in front of this man's restaurant in a couple of weeks he would be upset and have good running back to be. >> i think what we have here is the overlay of two different regulatory systems. >> do you know anything about dpw? >> i do. >> and we actually have someone from dpw here, but note there is regulatory permitting process that the food trucks go through. so this truck presumably went through that initial public process and has an opportunity for a public hearing. it has certain notice requirements. it alsos have requirements in the regulations that dpw adopted that they consider the impact on the immediate

businesses. there is some provision to restrict the issuance of a permit if it's in direct feet workers' compensation the business. so if you have a mexican restaurant, you copyright have a taco truck right outside. so there are those conditions that dpw takes into each permit and evaluates each on its own. >> this is issue. if we open this up on the entire block, have we then said

pedestrians concerns aren't really that big a concern, if dpw business concerns turns it into a food court. that is my concern as mta director standpoint. >> i understand. the dpw process is not a business-only process. they go through a full public process as did then we subsequently went through a public hearing process before bringing this proposal forward. so there are two steps of public process. i don't think anybody would suggest that by approval of this, it would be a statement of the mta board that pedestrian issues aren't of concern. i think our folks would look at this from safety and sustainable streets perspective and find it's not of concern . >> well,, okay, because it's one truck. i think the point of all of this and i'm happy to support the staff proposal in the end, but the point is assurance to our restaurant owner and his

neighbors and friends and colleagues that at least one director here does not want to see this turned into a food court at the expense of pedestrian right-of-way without a lost of -- a lot of further discussion. >> i echo that concern. i trust mr. lee's opinion that one food truck is not going to degrade the pedestrian. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon, commissioners. john, department of public works. this situation, the mobile food facilities program that the department is currently running is approximately a year and a half since it was voted on by the board of supervisors. we're