>> can you tell me about the fees that are required for the taxi drivers verses the tnc and are there, besides the fees, are there taxes that are paid, can you talk a little bit about that? >> well, taxi drivers all pay business tax to the city, and tnc drivers who are doing exactly the same activity, >> in addition, new drivers pay

an application fee or they pay for the criminal background check and they pay renewal fees and the people who operate, the taxi medallions have paid a quarter of a million and this fiscal year alone that is 30 million of the new revenue, to the sfmta and the holders pay a stiff fee that i believe is about 1500 dollars a year. >> and i would have to say that the largest burden to the taxi industry, is the cost of insurance. and we require, that all taxi drivers be covered by the worker's compensation insurance and that is incredibly expensive but everybody has it

in place, and the lack of level playing field between the tncs and the taxi industry. >> if we are talking about that, we will talk about the tens of million of dollars, from the taxi industry to the city, how does that compare to what the tnc pays the city or the state?

they are authorized for the proof of arrangement to ask to see the phone that was booked for the trip and if there is a lot of white space on that page that is because that is the only thing that the local, authorities are allowed to do, under the cpuc's decision. >> i have been part of a monthly phone call with my colleagues and counter parts all over the country and even over the world, to talk about what is developing in different cities, and the cities that have more experience with it, are often contacted by cities where these services are new. and so, we have been talking a lot about, you know, what the issues are and how we should respond, and so, i know that tncs are actually prohibited in new york city, and austin, and

new orleans and portland and miami and detroit and philadelphia. and the other jurisdictions where they have appear are scratching their heads and trying to figure out where and how to regulate the service and particularly to insurance and that is happening in boston, chicago, and washington, d.c., and georgia, denver, and dallas and houston and pittsburgh and happening all over the country and i am hopeful that there will be coordination among the state and local governments, on this issue. and so that we don't end up with a huge patch work of different regulations and every single town and city. seattle was among the first to act, and just within the last couple of weeks, adopted regulations that limit each tnc company to a fleet of 150 vehicles, it requires primary commercial insurance, and it requires permanent trade dress

and it requires a $50,000 permit application fee and so that has been hopeful i think, to a lot of other cities to start to see, an example of regulatory options. >> and that concludes my slide presentation. >> i think that supervisor yee had a question? >> yes, this last part of the presentation is helpful and because that is to the last was going to say what can we do? and i am just wondering, in regards to what, these, different juriictions have done and are there challenges to what they have done. >> there is an interesting collection of legal challenges among the most interesting is that in the city of chicago, that a group of taxi drivers, sued the city government for failing, to regulate, tncs. and i know that others here have read that decision and i have not had an opportunity yet, and then, the other

lawsuits for unfair competition, again, by industry representatives, and there have been some liability lawsuits, against tnc companies which have been reported in the press, those are the extent of the litigation that i am aware of. >> okay. >> so because, actually i was interested in seattle, because it is so new, we don't know whether anybody is going to challenge this or not. >> i am certain that the tncs are doing everything that they can in seattle to change that result, and because it is essentially ends their business model which is to operate without the cost of regulation. and so, i would guess that there is a lot of lobbying happening in seattle right now and i don't know that there will be a lawsuit. and there might be. >> okay. >> and the other question that i would have is because you are so, tied into these issues at every level it seems like. what do you think the chances

of california's puc to take maybe a stronger stance in the regulatory piece of this? so that we don't have to go after these local type of regulation? s >> we did reserve the jurisdiction to reopen the hearings a year after the decision so that we could see, you know, what actually happens on the ground, and so there will be an opportunity to address the cpuc again, to ask them to revisit some of these issues. but that is the other reason why i am happy that the board is holding this hearing, because i think that we should have this discussion locally, and then, raise it to the state about what we want to see, come out of this process. >> yeah, i think that was my last sort of question, what can we do, locally to influence the state? >> well, it occurs to me that if the board were to pass a

resolution, urging the state to take certain measures, that would probably be very helpful at least it would be a clear communication, from, you know, unified jurisdiction that we have local preferences about how all of this comes out. >> supervisor mar? >> yeah, i just wanted to ask if you could briefly summarize the seattle pilot that was just passed i believe on february 27th by their city council so it looks like there is a pilot program. and there are caps of the vehicles from the company on the street at any one time, could you just summarize what the city council in seattle passed? that is the best that i can do is the things that were the most compelling to me was the cap on the number of vehicles, the permanent visible and disha on a vehicle. and primary commercial insurance and if that is all that we achieved, this will

actually, this could be a way that everybody can live together in the same sand box, in fact, if the tncs can survive under that kind of a business model it actually could be a helpful kind of pique time transportation service but right now it is completely unmanaged as far as the level of supply and demand. >> thank you so much >> thank you. >> i appreciate it. >> the next speaker is marsha from the public utility commission and i would say that we did invite uber and lift and other tmcs to come today, and i would like to ask if any of those reps are here and i would invite them up after miss safar as well. >> and good morning, and my name is marzia, and i am director of policy and planning division, for the california public utilities commission. and i think that miss hayashi touched on a lot of the rules and regulations so i will

quickly give you an overview and take your q,&a. the california public utility commissions began to review in december 26012, however these companies were already in operation before our review began but i am not sure about all of them but i think that lift and uber were definitely in place before december, 2012. and the commission's goal in stepping in was not to pick winners or losers or protect a form of business and rather our goal was to establish the consumer protection rules and promote safety of consumers and i think that local government as well as the legislature could have easily stepped in ahead of us as well and the spot that we were excited to step in and see, we will take and we will take over this. >> and in as an indication of that, when we finalize our decision, in september, 2013

ten months later in the decision on page 2, the commission said that while the commission adopts these rules and regulations, and it will also look for further guidance from the state legislature, should it decide that there is a need for legislation to provide guidance. and in all of you took like i said, ten months and it was a public process and we had a two-day workshop, and i think about 20 different parties participated in our proceedings. and at the end, we adopted 20 different rules and regulations for this industry and divided by between safety requirements and regulatory requirements, and among those, are briefly just mentioned a few of them. we require the criminal background check and sense we also regulate the limo industry.

we require the 199 point car inspection and we do not require the same of the limo and zero tolerance on drugs and alcohol and we have, well, we are requiring the tmc companies, on a quarterly basis, to pull or to do the dmv pronotice program to insure that the drivers do not have more than 3 points on the driving record, and since this is such a new industry, and we don't have any sort of data, to make you know, decisions based on verifiable data, we have asked tnc to report to us on a number of areas, and i think, that, miss hayashi mentions all

of them, and the two main ones that we are really looking to see is that we want to see if 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