the dtnc don't leave behind the disabled community and that they don't only going to the rich areas of city and these reports will be due to us on september, 2014, and once we see the data, and once we have verifiable information and then i think that the commission will open phase two and begin to modify what is necessary. and we win convene that one year after the issuance of the decision and like i said by then we will have the verifiable data and i think that we felt. and as we issued the draft decision, and we opened it up for anyone who wanted to file the comments with us, and i believe that both the mayor of san francisco, and the mayor of

la, sent us letters, and in complete support of our decision, i believe. and i am not sure if those letters on the website, but, we received those letters and, we also received just recently, a letter from the head of san francisco airport and, asking us to promoting our or supporting our decision in asking us to quickly, issue permits, so that they can allow these companies, i believe, into their jurisdiction and with that i can go into more detail but i would rather take your q&a. >> sure. thank you. >> i do since you have no data, and as you noted, why would you not hold the evidentiary hearings? >> workshops, and evidentiary hearings are normal to us, either or. and we issued a workshop before that is part of the record, we don't issue and we don't have evidentiary hearing on every single case that we do, we hold

the workshops and practically similar. >> well, i don't know that they are practically similar, they are not. i mean it is a workshop and it is an evidentiary hearing and a two day workshop to me does not seem sufficient for you to really collect the kind of evidence that you need to make an informed decision and why wouldn't you do that. >> the commission chose not to. >> is there a reason why. >> no. >> no reason, given? >> we held a two-day workshop. >> and when we opened phase two, if the commission decides to hold evidentiary hearings, we will make that determination. parties are when the judge issued the scoping memo asking for the workshops and evidentiary hearings the parties can comment on whether they want the hearing and why or why not and the judge will make that decision. >> it seems to me that if the goal is to protect the consume and her to insure the public safety, that you would have a process that allows consumers and members of the public to

actually share these kinds of concerns and i think that is one of the purposes of an evidentiary hearing to provide that kind of evidence. it is mind bogling when you look at what the pc did. in terms of the disabled community, why don't you have any protections that actually go directly to prohibiting discrimination against disabled individuals? >> what kind of protections would you like? >> well, is there a rule that actually prohibits discrimination based on disability? >> absolutely. >> oh, really? >> and how do you enforce that? >> we have asked them not to, but we can't how should we enforce it. this is a new industry for us. we are everyone for information, i mean that i appreciate all of these questions, i think that these are all relevant questions, but we don't have all of the answers sir, we have to sit here and get the information and get the data, i can ask a thousand set of questions that are good like yours, unless we

see the data that there is discrimination in place we are not going to make the prejudgments about how we should and this is how we are going to prevent discrimination. we need to see if there is discrimination. >> you don't think that the data that was given by the mta is relevant? the fact that you have 50 percent decrease in a number of disable passengered that have been serviced in you don't think that is relevant? >> i think that one of you asked kaoshi if the demand and why is that reduction there in the first place? do we know? >> well, did you ask that question of the mta? >> the mta did not give us that answer then. >> but do you think that it is the role of the puc to ask the information. >> it is the role of the puc and like i said we gave our best shot, at coming up with a set of requirements to promote public safety and we are open to modifying our rules and we

are not saying that they are final, we are open to modifying based on the data. >> what is the message to the disabled individual who has seen a decrease in cab service who has an industry that is not required to have vehicles that actually are accessible to them? what is the puc say to that individual? >> my message is that when we open phase two and if there is indeed discrimination, we will make sure to include rules to adopt the rules that such discrimination does not happen. >> and when do you open phase two? >> well, we are going to get, we could open phase two, as soon as september, or as earliest than september. >> and then, what is that person supposed to do between now and september? >> there are still taxi drivers. and are you. are you telling me that they

are absolutely no taxis in this city that provide disabled community access? >> well, i think that the information. >> i am asking you. >> i think that the nfrg speaks for itself. >> i am asking you, are you telling me right now that there are zero taxis in this city that provide access to the disabled community? >> no what i am telling you is the information that was given to us by the mta, which shows specifically in 2013, wheelchair service by taxis declined by more than 50 percent. and i am also telling you that according to the mta, 25 percent of wheelchair accessible taxis are not in service in san francisco. and when we are talking about a 50 percent reduction, in service for an entire community and you are talking about a 25 percent decrease in a fleet that is there to serve an

entire community i think that it is a problem and i do think that it is a problem that the message from the puc is you know what? stay home, wait until september. >> that is not the message from the puc. >> if you are appealing to the audience, that is great. but that is not the message to the puc. from the puc, the message from the puc is that we, this is a new industry. that once we see the data and once we have information, we will make sure that there is regulation in place to prevent discrimination by anyone but we can't just make decisions on the fly just because. and i mean, if this city wanted to make regulations and the regulations you are free to do so. ahead of us. no one is stepped in. there was not one local government was not here when these companies were in place so i ask you, where were you?

>> well, i think that we are here today. and that is... >> you are here today because we have 28 sets of rules and regulations in place and we are willing to improve it and we are willing it revise it and add to it and we are not saying that we are not adding to it, but you have to give us an opportunity to do it. >> well, i think that you have had an opportunity to do it. and you are choosing to... >> we have not closed the case sir, we have not closed this proceeding but we would like due process and we would like public participation and we would like to see evidence. >> well, let me ask you a question, what is your understanding of where the state jurisdiction ends and the local jurisdiction begins with respect to this industry? i believe that the decision has said that because we have the state has jurisdiction over prearranged, over the limo that the transportation charter

party, and we classified these companies as transpower passion charter party carrier and again we look to the legislature to redefine that if they choose to and if at such time, they will be under our jurisdiction because they are not being hailed. >> and so your perspective, and i will turn it over to the colleagues that the puc has occupied the field and that there is no local jurisdiction or regulations that are permitted? >> it looks to the legislature for guidance on that. >> if the legislature says that some and another body should take over this, that would be, we will follow that guidance. >> but, as of today, your position is that the regulations are controlled by the puc and no local jurisdiction, and no local regulations are permitted? >> yes. so long as those local rules and regulations do not supercede ours, or are in

conflict with ours, yes, that is exactly what i am saying. >> okay, is that based on any kind of case law or any statute? >> yeah, i think that they are all part of our decision and i would urge you to look at that decision and we have a jurisdiction section in that decision, and i have a copy here if you would like. >> okay. >> so supervisor mar? >> i think that the last thing that i want is for you to be defensive because we want to work with you to strengthen the tnc policy to make our streets safer, but i guess that your tone is very defensive and i don't want it to be because i know that there are a lot of stake holders here that want to strengthen the policies. and i guess that i will just say that part of the goals of the hearing is to follow up with more data, you are going to hear a number of people talk about the discrimination that is out there because of the tnc and specific example sos my hope is that you take this information and work with the different stake holders disabled community groups and others, to really help you have that data that you need to

strength it at the state level, and we will also do our best to come up with data on the economic impacts and other information as we move forward with the strongest policies. >> and i would appreciate that and thank you. for that, and we, i think as part of when the puc opens phase two, everything that has, and everything that we consider has to be part that have record. and so a party has to introduce that into our record. and it would be great to get that information give that information to me, but unless it is part of our record, the judge and the commissioners can't base their decision on that. >> we will make sure that is part of the record. >> i appreciate you can here and listening to the communities in san francisco. >> >> i appreciate the approach to

all of this, but one thing that i am nervous about is the self-regulations of the people reporting and i know that there are other examples of other industry where they might do someself reporting, but i also know that often times, the responsible organization, or agency that is collecting the data may do audits on, you know, spot audits to be sure that we are getting the correct information, is there any plans for the puc to actually do the audits on these tncs. >> we are going to be doing audit and will do investigation and we will do audits and as part of our decision, the tncs have to comply with all of our requests for information and the audits that we conduct, but

i agree that if we don't do the audits, it becomes a completely self-regulated industry and so we do have to do the audits to insure that the rules are put into place are being followed. >> thank you. >> thank you so much for being here. and let me just say that first of all that we have about 40 cards but i wanted to first ask if chris dolan who is the attorney for the lou family could come up and speak first and then i will be asking janice who is a leader in the disabled community to also come up but mr. chair could we open the public comment at this point and i am going to be letting these two speakers come up and there is also steven from the sffederal credit union as well. we are going to be asking people through the chair to limit their comments to one minute, per person. and i am sorry that we have to do that because we have a number of other items on the ago agenda.

>> so is there dolan here? >> right. >> and again, condolences to the lou family. >> thank you for holding this hearing and on behalf of the lou family i have been asked to come here and say please keep our streets safe, this child died unnecessarily because of the use of an application in the provision of uber services and uber, is denying all responsible to this family for what happened. these services show empty vehicles, that is what they sell, this man was on the service, he was an empty vehicle, he was providing goods and services for uber and they are turning its back on this family, and now i have heard that this is the new industry. and this is not a new industry, transportation and people have been around for a long time, it is changed from horse and buggy to now, stage coach to now these tncs there is nothing new

about the need for safety. and these companies are shifting the responsibility for the harms that they cause and the costs of their operations on to the tax payers. because the lou family does not have insurance, so who do you think is paying for their healthcare? >> us. not uber, us. this is a very real risk to this city in picking up these expenses. >> so mr., dolan please elaborate on the economic impacts on the city. >> well, given the fact that uber has read the puc's rulings in the transportation services they say that a vehicle that is logged on, they will not cover, unless they are going to pick up a fare or carrying a fare, so the city, will pick up the injuries to those people if they don't have insurance, no workers compensation, if a driver gets hurt one of the drivers who was unknowingly participating in this scheme, gets hurt, the city will pick

up that person's wage loss potentially under the ga. and it may pick up their medical expenses and it is other vehicles that are hit that don't have the appropriate insurance, and the city will be picking up their tab as well. so this is what is happening is these businesses are shifting the cost of safety that the taxi industry builds into its pricing mechanism that the taxi and limo commission takes into account and why these companies are being so successful is it is pushing off the cost of safety, maintenance and driver training and the injuries that is causes on the community and these taxi drivers and yes, i see them too and so no love loss there. but these taxi drivers are not going to be able to compete and what is going to happen is that we are going to destabilize the transportation industry, if the taxi cabs are driven out of business and then these folks get to surge the price and which means that it is raining and we are going to double our

price and it is new year's and we are going to triple our price and then the people are not going to be able to afford the transportation and it is this body's responsibility to do that. i disagree, and like to answer supervisor campos's question about predecember on, good questions, folks, you are not preempted, the rule making is not closed section two has not happened and they have not made the rules on the issues. i was researching the case law, which states that you have the authority to tax. for revenue purposes only. so you can tax the hell out of them if you want to pay what you are having to pick up to pay for. [ applause ] >> additionally, as a lawyer i would challenge preemption. because they said that it is a floor not a sealing.

not what ne could do but as much as they can so far, but i believe that there is much that you can do. and these insurance gaps are not only effecting the people who are run over, by these cars, but the drivers themselves who are vulnerable, and they could lose everything if they hurt somebody and they get sued by somebody like me because uber will not stand behind them. lift will not stand behind them. >> thank you so much, mr. dolan is there anything else that you would like to add? >> i would like to say that because this is technology is in its infancy, they should not act as social infants that they have the responsibility with the 200 million dollars of backing to pay for the cost of their service so that there can be fair competition and that

does not exist currently, in the rules put forth by the puc, they are inadequate. and there is an insurance gap. people are suffering because of it. and these businesses are turning their backs on the citizens and what is going to happen is ultimately somebody is going to have to regulate them because the taxis are going to be gone and you are just going to have these unsafe vehicles out there and so you will be regulating a whole, new provider, not a new industry, in the same old way. and there is nothing new here. except who is making the profit. [ applause ] . >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so much. >> please. >> i have to wrap up quickly. >> i have written comments that i would to submit to the clerk and i have others available if they would like them as well. >> thank you so much. >> jonathan myan, is the next

speaker. >> i did ask if there are any reps from uber, if they would like to make a comment as well. >> and i have also called steven staff, and so to the right, mr. lions? >> thank you. >> i am going to start calling a few of the names too. tom deso, mark gruberg and rula brafis charles rat bone, ethan deble. os, ron, walter, and barry toronto and mr. lions, the microphone is on. >> okay, great, thank you. >> first of all, i want to say thank you to supervisor mar for calling this hearing. and i also wanted to thank supervisor campos for some very what i would see as very

poinant questions and so i want to say that i am a proud resident of district one in the richmond district and i became an uber user probably two years ago, for you know, no other reason than the fact that it is a multihour affair frequently to call a cab on the west side of san francisco. and so, but sense then, going back to some of the questions of lack of evidence, of discrimination, i am here to tell you that i am living proof that discrimination exists and you know, i want to tell you a quick story and i don't want to take all day and i know that there are a lot of folks here with their own stories but a couple of weeks ago i was on the way to a job interview and hail took ten minutes to show up and i got my text message to go down stairs and i was in there in 90 seconds. >> please continue. >> and about three or four minutes later i got a text

message from uber saying, we are sorry, your driver had to cancel your ride. there i was standing on the side of the road with my guide dog, knowing full well that the driver was probably within visual range of me, saw me with my service animal and opted not to take me. and so, i had no other choice now, knowing that i would be late to my interview, but to hail another uber. of course, low and behold, surge pricing has gone into effect and now the $12 ride was now going to cost me $24. this is all to add insult to injury this came a couple of months after another ride that i hailed, and the driver said to me, he got out and was all, super sweet to me and said, don't worry, i am in a good mood today and i am going to go ahead and take you even though i don't normally take dogs. i explained to him that he was

my service animal and he explained to me that he didn't care. and the whole ride he explained to me how he is normally a nice guy and he just took me because my dog looked nice not because he was a service animal. i complained to uber and uber explained to me that each of the drivers are individual contractors. and uber is not responsible for their ability or in ability to follow federal and state law. i am here to tell you that you know, i am pretty dialed in into the disability community and you know, i know for a fact that i am not the only person out here having these kinds of experiences let me be clear in closing that discrimination among these organizations exists. and people with disabilities, have fought too damn long and

too damn hard to be discriminated against by public entities. people, african americans, long ago, achieved the rights to eat at any dinner they wanted despite the fact that any business owners or the diner that did not want to serve the african americans and did not have that right despite the fact that there was a diner next door that would. every single business is responsible to serve every single resident and if these companies, if these companies and the puc, won't step up and do what they have to do, and then the disability community will fight this, and we have done it before and we have succeeded before and we will keep fighting. thank you. >> next speaker, and i have called a number of people already. but you know state your name and if everyone could try to stay within the one minute limit. >> good morning, steven with the san francisco federal credit union and also a resident here in san francisco

we do primarily taxi medallion loans and we meet with each holder and one of the first things that i want to say that they are small business owners and i have yet to meet one of them as a millionaire, but they are hard working individuals here in san francisco. performing a very vital service. one of the things that we would ask is that we exercise jurisdiction over ours here in san francisco, and the death of sophia lou was tragic and preventable and we have described this to the puc and the lack of insurance and action has not been taken. >> individuals are picking up our children in front of schools and an uninsured situation. and it is time that we make sure that we close that just this morning the mayor said he wants to make the most walkable city. if we have an unregulated car service we will not have a walkable city. so we would ask that the

specifically that the city attorney be asked if jurisdiction can be exercised by the council and by the mta, in this issue to as you saw the number of gaps, in hayashi's testimony. thank you. >> thank you. >> i called a number of names, if the people could line up on the right side of the room that will help. >> good morning, supervisors. >> thank you for this hearing. my name is tom desoand, i have been a driver since 75 and got my med dallon in 88 and here we are today. i think that the city should stop seeing us as a bunch of cabs driving around all over the city but as a transportation system to help relieve the traffic congestion and the public use us more if we could just be a little bit more efficient and get some rules like whatever muni and the cabs can do, left turn here and there that would help things and i think that the

time has come that this would be a good opportunity to stop all of this arguing and get to a compromise, we need this technology. and i think that all of these uber calls should be redirected to the cab industry. and so all of these calls that we are getting we need them, and the public needs them and instead of going to these black town cars, that are just polluting the city, my car runs on cng and all of the cabs have to be clean and burning vehicles and put all of the passengers that uber gets into these clean burning taxi that have been serving the city for as long as there have been tixy cabs. >> thank you. >> to the people lined up, i have called about eight names and going to continue calling from the list so that it is more of a first come first serve. amin, jim galestbi karl

macmurbo. william benou craig catra. >> and if i may, before we do that, supervisor i know that people feel very passionate about this issue, but, to keep the meeting flowing, i would ask you to refrain from clapping, you know, you can signal your approval so that we can hear as many people as possible, thank you. >> microphone. >> so it should be on now. >> yes, thank you, mark and speaking for united taxi cab workers and i can say that as a participant in the cpuc

proceedings they were not fair proceedings and these companies went into business complete lie against the law and the cerebral palsy who gave them their blessing after having started the proceedings and then in the document that initiated those proceedings they said, these proceedings are being called to determine how to regulate this industry. and not whether to regulate it, not whether they had the authority and jurisdiction to do so. but how to do it. and it went on from there, we never had a fair shot at this. and right now, they are saying, we will have more hearing, you know, maybe later this year, people are dying. our little girl died and people are being injured while they are fiddling, and their rules do not protect the public. and this is uncontionable. what can the city do? an auful lot. these are taxi cabs in every sense of the word they are taxi

cabs and the cpuc does not have the authority to override state law, which gives cities the exclusive authority over taxi cabs. >> have you that authority right now. >> thank you. >> next speaker? >> i think that we can. oh, it is working wonderful. >> hello, my name is ruba grafis and i have been cab driving for 40 years. i also teach the city mandated class for new cab drivers. this includes several hours of sensitivity training, for the people with disabilities. the puc spokesperson was a complete disappointment. she sounds like the famous court craze that argued that separate and equal were going to