have regarding the operation of best cab also that are not necessarily related to the wheelchair pick ups but in terms in the operation of the company itself. mr. leon? >> good evening. my name's scott leon, i'm the lead investigator for the case. i've been monitoring all of the disciplinary action for mr. oha as well as the color scheme holder for best cab. in respect to the problematic issues with this color scheme, best cab had repeated failures of not properly maintaining his business permits at least since 2009 for not staffing the business from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. there were eight separate occasions, including myself and the sfmta staff to announce

visits, random inspections, closing inspections and with those visits we found that best cab was not properly maintained the business presence. they were also not properly maintaining the business presence has to do with not submitted the weekly reports which consist of driver rosters, too many drivers, mechanical break downs which we believe is essential business requirements to show proof they are properly running a color scheme premise. they have not provided any reporting whatsoever since 2010. in 2010 there was no reporting ing submitted for the entire calendar year for a total of 20 consecutive weeks. and in 2011 our records show they only submitted one report in january and nothing else.

in 2012 our regards our records show that they did not submit any weekly reports for a total of 18 consecutive weeks. if you have any questions i'll be more than happy to answer. >> just to wrap that up, to clarify now, best cab has been doing its weekly reporting in 20 13, but that's now the responsibility of a different company. again, mr. oha has placed his company responsibility with another company. it's essentially he's not running a company at all. when we have a problem with the vehicle, we have a problem with wheelchair pick ups for the medallion holder we go to that medallion holder. when those problems continue we move forward with /sr*ef

revocation. we've discussed with the medallion holder, the company what the problems are and now we have nowhere else to go to rectify these problems. and finally, mr. oha is not meeting the driver requirement and i think mr. leon proved that very well in the below hearing regarding his waybills. one of the things you should know, one of the important things about that driving requirement is that had mr. oha been a regular driver in his vehicle, in his ramp medallion vehicles, he would have recognized very early on the issues that he was having regarding the wheelchair pick ups. it's something that many of our medallion holders make an attempt to try to rectify. they'll try to get in that car on their own and do the pick ups themselves. mr. oha is the final

responsibility, he's the person i have to call to say hey, make sure you drivers do this. he's the medallion holder. we cannot subsidize that company any longer. it's merely some colors with a phone number that no one can possibly use. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> again, heidi, first i'd like to point out that this company was first conceived in 2006 and all taxi companies do have problems, they all have a certain level of violations, certain number of violations that come through their door and best cab has been addressing that over the years. sfmta's hearing officers findings were not based on a

laundry list of violations. i want to point out too that it's not illegal to bring in professional management as mr. oha have brought in professional managers. that's not illegal. so not to be distracted by that, mr. oha would like to be responsible to the disability community, especially in light of the new legislation as of january 2012, by moving his permit to desoto cab company where he has access to a better system of dispatch. he believes that would make all the difference in the world. however, that move was blocked. sfmta has held best cab to different standards and rules as compared to its competitors. and i want to point out too that sfmta has stifled the growth of the company by

refusing to allow another medallion holders to join best cab. the argument about best cab being not the best cab company and that being the reason that mr. oha is transferring his medallion should hold know weight whatsoever. we urge this commission not to be confused by mta's arguments and mr. oha's desire is base /-l ed on that. in fact, his ongoing efforts to move his medallion to another company is simply an acknowledgment that best cab cannot meet the newly enacted demands that require eight ramp taxi permits per month. there's no reason that best cab cannot capably meet the demands, such as mr. mezing and in fact there are no complaints against his permit. they are business partners, they've been business partners since 2006 and sfmta knows this.

respectfully, we urge the board of appeals to reverse the revocation. the transportation code requirement for minimum pick ups targets only medallion holders, not color schemes, thus to revoke the color scheme for this section would be a serious error of law. >> i have a question on this. just want to know the requirements or the standards for mta to determine whether a transfer to a color scream of medallion to one is met. what are the requirements and what is the code section on which -- >> i cited that in my brief actually. >> you cited 1109ap. >> yeah.

>> what about section 1116? it's not in your brief or -- >> i'm not sure about that. the sext section that i cited says that if the me medallion holders request for color scheme should be approved unless they're on probation. they may deny a change in color scheme affiliation if a court of competent jurisdiction issues a temporary or permanent order to prohibit or delay the transfer and none of those conditions applied in this case. >> what's the standard? they're saying you can apply -- what standard would mta apply to determine whether transfer is appropriate? >> well, it appears that in this case sfmta applied and entirely novel standard that has absolutely no basis in the law. >> what is the law? >> the law is what i just cited.

>> what about section 1116. isn't that the code section that actually sets for the program for the transfer? >> what does it say? a: i >> i don't have it. >> i didn't review that section. >> that's not the applicable code section. >> i haven't heard that argument from sfmta either , but it says the transfer shall be approved. >> on what basis. >> the basis that the medallion holder wishings to move his permit from one color scheme to another. typically it's on the basis of the medallion holder either believes the color scheme to which he's moving would offer some amenities that his current color scheme can't offer, maybe because they're too small in this case, or because the color scheme that the medallion holder is seeking to move to is

offering him a better deal so he's offering to pay additional lease fees or he's offering better shifts or -- i dunno what their other amenities that color schemes can compete with one another and offer. >> okay. >> counselor, the department has indicated that the /aeu appellant has zero ramp pick ups. how does that work with your argument that the last three years when he was not granted a transfer -- what about the period before that? >> well, commissioner fung, number one, the condition -- the specific requirement to make the eight wheelchair pick ups per month only went into

affect on january of 2012. secondly it's my understanding that the electronic tracking of that system went into effect concurrent to that date. so the monitoring for the pick ups wasn't that good previously, there were what was known as paper scrip at the time, that wheelchair users would pay with. and the cab companies, depending on how organized they were would either redeem that scrip or wouldn't. and then the flight card went into effect at some point and then once they had that monitoring system available, the eight wheelchair pick ups went into effect in january of 2012. >> okay, but the monitoring system, i understand, is computerized and prints out -- can print out the list.

you've been here a long time. >> right. >> you know that we used to be able to find a number of pick ups within a general range, anyway -- >> definitely. and also i would point out though that not all of the wheelchair rides go through the para transit program and so as a result of that, the new rule in place, which requires eight wheelchair pick ups says that six of those must be through the flight program and the other two i'm not sure how you prove. >> okay. but tell us how many pick ups has your client made before 2012. >> i'm not sure that he kept good track of it, to be honest. and i mean, i definitely have

asked that question and i'm -- it's, like, well, you're on a busy shift, you're supposed to record it on your waybills if you pick um a wheelchair, you're supposed to do a little w and write a circle next to it or something. that didn't always happen. my client is in an unfortunate position of not being able to necessarily prove the number of wheel chair pick ups that he made prior to that time. >> okay. >> mr. murray. >> commissioners there has always been a wheelchair pick up requirement. it has changed of 2012. we did institute one that said you

have to have eight wheelchair pick ups per month and that's because we are now better able to track those pick ups and able to see what the companies are doing. it used to be much more onerous. it used to be three pick ups per shift, but then we recognized that it was onerous for drivers we lowered it to three pick ups. and as the tracking became much more secure we've been able to say now with can realistically track the pick ups and we've determined that eight is a doing number amongst the industry. and that's because the eighty wheelchair pick ups, if your vehicle is traveling 24 hours a day, seven days a week, it's two wheelchairs a week is what that comes down to. and again, the whole point of the wheelchair accessible program is to /phraeuts priority on those customers. the revocation of that permit needs to stand because otherwise

-- we already have a history that's not important to this permit holder. we're saying we're going to reward it by saying it's not that important to us either. go ahead and keep the permit and do your best. that's not acceptable. it's no longer do your best. this is what we'd need to have done in this industry, in the city to protect our people and i don't think there's anything else i need to add related to that other than again, mr. oha is the color scheme holder and as far as transferring his permit, he's frankly the only color scheme permit holder that has ever, as far as i'm aware of, requested a transfer of their permit to another company without actually closing their current company because it's something that's kind of mo

magnanimous saying i want someone else to hold my business for me. it's something none of us have been able to wrap our heads around regarding why a person would do this so -- and i think with that, i'll leave it open for questions. >> mr. murray, one point that wasn't addressed in your brief was related to the punishment that would be inconsistent with that for others who have done the same thing. >> absolutely not. the punishment for, you know, non compliance of the wheelchair pick ups and received the citations month after month after month and then we've suspended the permit and we've been in front of this board related to the suspension of the permit and that particular person got their act

together after they came in front of this board regarding that suspension. so we move these things forward as much as we possibly can and this is just behavior on behalf of the owner. and that's the big thing for us here. >> i've got a question for you mr. murray. so no matter what the circumstances that the medallion holder wants to transfer, do you have law or legal standards on why you're denying the transfer as far as sfmta's concerned? >> it is -- i believe the statute does say subject to sfmta approval. when they transfer it's not that they just go somewhere and it's done. they have to submit information to us and we obtain information from the other

company on how it's going to be operating, things of that sort, so we gather all of that material and base the decision on that. >> it seemed like she based it on a legal standard that certain things were required for refusal of a transfer. >> attorneys, help me out. i think in the code it may specifically mention administrative probation 'cause that's an absolute in terms of if you're a company -- if the accepting company is on administrative probation then it absolutely cannot go to that company so in terms of that standard yeah, there is an absolute there. now, admittedly it's a bit of a low standard. we have to make sure we have all the information necessary to ensure proper compliance when your vehicle goes to

another company, which includes insurance, operational program and vehicles. we have to know as well the vehicle that's going to be used, same vehicle, different vehicle, we get all that information. >> so sfmta stands by that standard for not transferring it okay, right? how do i word this? the sfmta is comfortable that the standard has been met that this permit holder has not met the standard to transfer his color /skhaoep. scheme. >> it's a public policy standard that the owner of a company has decided that his own taxi can no longer work at his own company so it's going to go to a different company because my own two vehicle taxi

company, i can't maintain. to us, that says you can't maintain your business, you're having trouble maintaining your business. we are the regulator of your business as well so we have to make sure our companies can comply with our rules and regulations. >> what was mentioned earlier is maybe their dispatch system is not capable or competent to attract that business and that they want to move to a larger company -- >> they have that ability to do so to change their dispatch. we have 28 companies but only 10 or 11 dispatch companies so only 10 or 11 are dispatching companies throughout san francisco. desoto, the company they'd like to go to dispatches only desoto vehicles. if they were to go to box city or arrow or and they can do

that without moving their medallion to that company so they could transfer dispatch. it's a bit of a red herring. this is all after the fact /o*efpb even with the argument that i wanted less driving. thanks for telling us now after we've cited you and submitted this paperwork to inform you of this. >> i think you answered my question. >> no further questions then, commissioners? >> no. >> then the matter's submitted.

>> what i saw today was -- i see nothing to suggest that this should be overturned. >> we have a motion to deny the appeal and up hold both revocations.

>> commissioner tile. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> the vote is five to zero. both revocations are upheld. >> thank you. we'll move on then to item 7a, b and c appeal numbers 160, 161 and 162, all a filed by at&t california against the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping. they were at the properties located at 194 and 210 randall street, 364 roll of street and 360 street surface mounted facility permits. they're on for hearing today. we'll start with at&t, the appellant because there are three appeals, you have 21 minutes to present your case. >> great.

>> don't have to take all 21 minutes. >> i won't. >> can i ask you to hold for one minute. ? madam director and perhaps our city attorney wants to come in. it's been challenged that this is not appealable to us to discuss that situation first before we spent 21 minutes here. >> i think that was to you, but i would agree and i'm glad you raise that question. it seems to me that that issue alone should be to address that issue. >> should i address that? >> yeah, if we're in concurrence. >> give me one second and find that part of my notes here. >> sure, take your time. >> president fung. three minutes each on this

issue? >> sure. aside from the hearing on min utes -- hold one more second. we have another question on process here. >> if i participate in that mart of the decision making process, can i do that if i'm not going to participate on the merits because i do have to leave at 8:30 today. >> yes, i think yes, right? >> i wanted to hear confirmation. >> if you think so i'm happy to do it. >> the commissioner raises that point because she has to leave at 8:30. >> understood. good evening madam president, commissioners, my name's mark blake, i'm the regional issue of jurisdiction a dpw exerts that this because at&t has not

been denied any permits. dpw cites to shall hear and determine appeals with respect to any person who has been denied a permit or license and the city /kpharter does not define what a permit or license is. dpw argues that /s-s not denied a permit or license because the order and because we haven't

had permission to file for an excavation permit and this creates a catch 22 situation where we are being told we can't appeal because we don't have a excavation permit and we can't apply for one because we don't have approval to apply. at&t cannot take such an approach because the order prohibits as i stated and section 4a 1 -- if i can put that up there --

>> the city's interpretation is actually correct and proper because we do not approve the location that does not prevent at&t from submitting an application because the site has not been approved in this case. this is very similar in many

ways to the previous that went to the board for appeal. it was based on the excavation permit, not for the approval of the site on 22 avenue so the department's trying to be very consistent in our interpretation of that portion of the dpw order. we suggest that at&t can apply for permit. it will be administratively denied and that will up to them to appeal the decision of the department. >> so dpw never stated to the appellant that they do not have approval to apply. they've sort of jumped over that stuff and said there's no point in applying because there's going to be administratively deanied. denied. no one has ever stated if you

have never applied don't apply. >> no. >> if they appeal the denial of the excavation permit, with that also allows them to -- wait, that would be no site, never mind. okay. >> in case excavation permit or not we will back it from this commission to go over which is the approval of the site. >> okay. go ahead. >> you have asked for an interpretation from the city attorney representing your department? >> actually, the program manager requested that from the office that was provided. >> i just want