everybody about a permit we'll tell people their options if people are unhappy we told them there's an appeal and jurisdiction and nathaniel refer people over to the boards office again, i'm not familiar with this case i don't know what happened then. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners in looking at the briefs and hearing the whole testimony the question is whether the department or departments inadvertently or i'm

not ready to support the appeal move to deny the appeal the department didn't i think vertically create a lack of notice. >> so that's the motion from commissioner fung to deny all 3 requests. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that carries 4 to zero thank you, commissioners we'll move on to the next item another jurisdiction request item 5 subject property is an leavenworth street the letter from mark attorney for two folks

requesters asking the board take jurisdiction over the matter which was issued on march 11 by the department of building inspection the appeal end and the jurisdiction was filed on april 13, 2014 the permit holder is darwin to document the occupancy of the 4 story building with unit bans a site inspection for discrepancies obtain permits and additional addresses we'll hear if the requester - - did you call for - okay. >> we're off

>> interesting. >> how was our week. >> can i take a nap.

>> okay

thanks patience we're having attributable with the timer while we wait for media services to come and help us we'll use my phenomenon if the representative for the requesters about step forward is there anyone representing the

requesters mr. filling baxter another technical difficulty someone representing the requester madam president would you like to hold-off or would you like to proceed. >> we'll precede all right. so we'll give the representative for the permit holder a few minutes and sorry but if you like i can give you a warning or you'll hear the beep in 3 minutes would you like a 30-second warning. >> we'll be good with that minutes you can cut me off whatever. >> go ahead. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board

appellants or go petitioners make 3 requests. >> identify yourselves i'm helen i represent the permit holder tenant in this case request jurisdiction to be reopened for 3 reasons one they claim, i.e., they didn't receive notice and the permit was on the in bad faith and 3 the permit concealed to them after the appeal period last well, the response one no notice required under any regulations or law by the city or the landlord to give them notice for this particular kind of permit this permit was requested not a permit to determine whether the unit was code compliant or not a simple permit a permit to determine

whether that was a legal four unit building and as soon as the gentleman received notice or claims of allegations that his building and particular the tent unit was legal which we heard for the very first time in 12 years he contacted the department of building inspection and requested them to come and look and am i under the wrong belief i purchased this building have records that indicates it a 4 unit legal building now the tenants are supposedly claiming it is illegal he visited the department of building inspection to come and please conform what i believe to be true so in response to the tenants second claim the

jurisdiction should be reopened the permit was not obtained in bad faith only the building was a 4 unit building and to that stent it was issued the certificate was issued and third the permit was concealed i've addressed no rules or regulations no requirement that the city or the gentleman give notice of permit there is no fact, no allegations nothing in support in their briefing that indicates there's an intent inadvertently or otherwise by the city to conceal that permit and then in regards to the - there's a - after the gentleman contacted the building person

there was mediation to resolve the matter between the tenant and the landlord the tenant decided to file suit there is a spate litigation can the claim be resolved later on. >> your time is up. >> if you wouldn't mind giving the clerk a business card just checking to see if anyone is representing the requesters any departmental comments? >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the this permit under our jurisdiction is a permit we typically give with a 3-r report we get that a lot and they come

to me, i'm on the third-story i'm one the senior inspectors that look at them it is put together by our records people and the records assessor's records a san born map anything relevant to the number of unit i remember this one the people were in a bit of a rush to get the permitted i thought the refinancing to be honest there was a litigation but that's okay. an okay. an known 3-r it is a building permit to get something in the record that will give it the number of dwelling units and certificate of completion so going forward we have the accurate records in this case, i

have them draw up plans showing you the lascivious we didn't have anything in our records in the history of the building that's not unusual so the language on the building is or on the permit so document the legal use of the 4 story 4 residential unit based on a site inspection including the careerss records it corrects the previous records i'm not sure what the language it is not something i put in but basically telling you that we did a site velocity i was out there didn't go inside but i counted the doors and some reason you don't get into all the units i don't have to do the records showed that was a 4 units i was happy

and surprised when i saw the jurisdiction request i'm not sure what that is about but there was a certificate of final completion issued on the 13 of march we signed them off there's no work on the permit their administrative permits to go back to the records people and say hey, this is what i have and it didn't change the 3-r report to change it from one to 4 unit so if the requester thought something would go e was wrong with the permit they have the option to speak to us and letting us know you guys made a mistake we were not contacted that was something inform mention we could of looked at this if i made a mistake he would want to know but i had records and made that

determination. >> mr. duffy i thought i read the previous 3-r was 2 unit. >> that happens there's a san born map 2 unit but when you go there it is 4 unit and that it looks like the entryway i look at the age of the building and the trend it looks like 4 units were there as part of it some think that was two building that common lobby area as you go up the steps so the history of the buildings is so strange its all over the place appellants belief indicated the map kaltsdz or excuse me.s -

accessories record is in the belief i was happy with that so. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners no, i don't think the department inversely mislead the appellants and therefore i'm support the appeal. >> any other discussion. >> no. >> a move to deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not inversely mislead the appellants on notice. >> okay. so then we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny the jurisdiction request commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda

commissioner wilson thank you commissioner swig is absent that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero move on item 6 appeal sf american taxicab the american dispatch versus the transportation agency appealing of the revocation on december 8, 2014, of a dispatch permit this is on for a full hearing we'll start with the appellant mr. turman you have 7 minutes to present your case when you're ready. >> thank you, ma'am executive director i want to reserve 3 minutes. >> you wanted to reserve 3

minutes and 3 minutes for rebuttal later would you mind using the other microphone. >> this is acquit all right. thank you. >> go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners sf america taxi appeals it's recognition of the permit to dispatch taxi services transportation code section 1107 which requires at the time that the recognition revocation was issued have 50 medallion holders as well as a visual 2 hundred and 50 service calls for services the problem with the section 1107 is that the stated

purpose for the to increase economic activity and utilities of the counterpart transit and other services the problem with section 1107 not a measure that is geared towards increasing or murray's economic activity it is a measure towards protecting larger taxi service dispatch services the problem is sf american taxi is is a small business serving san francisco for thirty years and switching from an original model to one which it must now report the data for a smaller number of taxis to service serve it didn't receive the volume of 2 hundred and 50 to make sure that a taxi

service is in addressing the economic activity and meeting the service calls a measure should be geared that taxi calls are not being refused accounting the number of calls and medallions that come into a service did not in must way serve it it only protects larger services the question the department the sf mta says that the failure of companies to meet even though service goals that the consumer dispatchers called for services that required is caused the increase of the serviced as lyft and uber it is a different business model there's equivalence but the conveniences

offered by the serviced we should stamp out the conditional model it takes time to adapt 1107 forces all too much infrastructure on a very xetsdz base it protects larger organizations to the detriment of smaller organizations i'd like to have mr. phillip president of the sf american taxi share on what we're trying to meet demands of section 1107. >> hi commissioners we had numerous complaints from medallion holders that tried to move to our company and they were discouraged by sfmta staff to not to come to our company to

go to another company we feel that that probably it is one of the reasons we'll not be able to grow as fast our drivers independent contractors and some of them you know don't take calls only prepared to work the streets and sfmta didn't require them to take so many calls no requirement for the drivers we don't have any customer complaints about our service and the reason one hundred medallions that favors the bigger companies and tries to squeeze the smaller companies out of business we're doing our best to comply with sfmta but it takes time. >> and latest the gentleman raise an issue that's important

section 1107 is calling a business model chance not permissible by law asking that taxi companies step in the roles step into the role of a business their independent contractor that have no power to control they have no ability to compel taxis drivers to answer service call or do their business differently sfmta issues medallions certainly has that ability section 1107 is a measure with a - which is supposed to have an economic activity component and to meet the services of the community it misses the mark in its

treatment of smaller companies because it did not geared towards that and forced them to change their business model adapted and accepted by state of california and taxi drivers are not employees their independent. >> thank you are you finished, sir? you finished >> i have several questions. >> first is did your client raise those same issues in front of of mta when we adapted this measure in 2013. >> my client, of course, my client was not fully aware and didn't have the experience of how this measure will impact

certainly i know in 2014 i presented a letter similar to many of those raising some of the issues presented to the san francisco municipal transportation agency. >> there was one line in our belief that referenced the business relationship of our client to the third party provider where you couldn't easily get reporting? and i wasn't sure what that meant >> fly whole is an organization in which taxi drivers place the day's within each taxicab to measure certainly activities like service calls it is an organization that i can show you e-mails my client the information was not from the

american taxi but verbal from fly whole my client did several requests to report the data for the first time we're being told by the sfmta brief there was some reporting so that information is never recorded or addressed to my client before reading the sfmta brief. >> but fly whole is paid by our client for the services. >> there's a contractual relationship to provide the data but that information was provided directly to sfmta for the needs the manner in which it is verifiable but we didn't have this information prior to read sfmta's brief. >> that is more subjective why did our client enter into a

contractual agreement with the same manufacture. >> measures it was a measure done others mediation and trying to comply with that information trying to meet - there's no question that they need to comply with section 1107 until somebody hopefully, this one there is a measure not having to comply with and the gentleman stated there's been medians and they've attempted to comply with that measure it is been impossible to do that and fly who's also lack of information the ability to have driver to impose a standard upon independent contractors to report back this information is

still another. >> last question is the perhaps on a personal note the - there are two ramp van affiliated with our client yet they picked up no assessable needs during the report or record of reporting period. >> again, i don't know the status of those vehicles i don't know and again, there's no ability to necessarily force those individuals to turn on their dries i device or report to use the device and certainly my client told me the two ramp advancing were operational why there's no data is another

question. >> council you took most of my questions that's okay. it's helpful i'll be microwave just a question about the stipulated agreement i notice humanitarian comments in it so in the i guess exhibit a do you knows anything about that and how that happened american people was it part of the mediation. >> it was signed at the conclusion of mediation they expressed they have trouble complying and that that would be a difficult task that's why the statements are stated it would be a difficult task their obligated to do their task but entering into the stipulation they were not sure they could ply with the service but do

everything possible to do just that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. we hear from the department now, mr. murray. >> didn't go board members jarvis murray enforcement san francisco municipal transportation agency taxis and assessable services based upon what american dispatch has stated frankly in pits utilities briefs and comments today they demonstrate they shouldn't have a accountability for improving their dispatch or operate a successful factual our transportation code rules section