[gavel] >> the meeting will come to order. welcome to the monday, june 17th special meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i'm super gordon mar, the chair of this committee. thank you to this committee's. >> clerk: john carroll. and also thank you to charles and maya at sfgov for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements. >> clerk: please ensure you silenced cell phones and other devices. you wish to have as included as part of any of the files, should

be committed to me, your clerk. items acted on today will appear on the june 18th board meeting as a committee report, unless otherwise stated by a motion that prevails. >> please call items 1 and 2 today. [reading agenda item] [reading agenda item number 2] >> thank you. i'd like to welcome carol from the department of human resources here to present on these items. miss eisen? >> supervisors, my name is carol eisen, i'm the employee

relations director. thank you for holding this special meeting to consider the two m.o.u.s in front of you for representing the licensed nurses and the supervisorring nurses. the first group represented by service employees international union and the second by the teamsters local 856. similar to the presentation you heard at our last committee meeting, when you considered the rest of the m.o.u.s now pending in front of the board, both of these m.o.u. follow the same same general wage pattern attempt -- settlement and overtime, compensatory time, their grievance procedures, the issues that we ever covered in the last hearing. i'm not going to go into those at length. i will tell you that in the -- in the nurses' contract, there was a lot of concern from the employees about staffing levels in various units, especially in

san francisco general. but also laguna honda as well. we entered into a first-ever side letter with that union, that does provide for specific guarantees in numerous centers throughout san francisco general and laguna honda. and provides for an instant arbitration process, if the union believes we have not met the commitments in the letter. they have been submitted, as i understand, as technical amendments to your budget, to make sure those positions are incorporated. the negotiating committee, from the sciu has recommended a "yes" vote for their membership. they're in the process of ratification, which started last week and will end on june the 28th. so this is your part of the ratification, which is to adopt the m.o.u. and the union is engaging in their own process. and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor mar: thank you.

any questions, colleagues? okay. >> this is it. >> good work. thank you very much. >> supervisor mar: now you get to take the next couple of years off. >> i don't know. charter amendments. that comes next. >> supervisor mar: oh, yeah. well, are there -- we've got a public comment now. are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> mr. chairman, i would make a motion we send items 1 and 2 to the full board, as a committee report for a special meeting of the board of supervisors on thursday, june the 20th. >> okay. >> the motion passes, yeah, without objection. [gavel] thank you. any further business? >> there is no further business. >> great. this meeting is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you. [gavel]

watching. >> ever wonder about programs the city is working on to make san francisco the best place to live and work we bring shine won our city department and the people making them happy what happened next sf oh, san francisco known for it's looks at and history and beauty this place arts has it all but

it's city government is pretty unique in fact, san francisco city departments are filled with truly initiative programming that turns this way our goal is to create programs that are easily digestable and easy to follow so that our resident can participate in healing the planet with the new take dial initiative they're getting close to zero waste we 2020 and today san francisco is diverting land filled and while those numbers are imperfect not enough. >> we're sending over 4 hundred thousand tons of waste to the landfill and over the 4 hundred

tons 10 thousands are textile and unwanted listen ones doesn't have to be find in the trash. >> i could has are the ones creating the partnerships with the rail kwloth stores putting an in store collection box near the checks stand so customers can bring their used clothes to the store and deposit off. >> textile will be accessible in buildings thought the city and we have goodwill a grant for them to design a textile box especially for families. >> goodwill the well-known store has been making great strides. >> we grateful to give the items to goodwill it comes from

us selling those items in our stores with you that process helps to divert things it from local landfills if the san francisco area. >> and the textile box will take it one step further helping 1230 get to zero waste. >> it brings the donation opportunity to the donor making that as convenient as possible it is one of the solutions to make sure we're capturing all the value in the textiles. >> with the help of good will and other businesses san francisco will eliminate 39 millions tons of landfill next year and 70 is confident our acts can and will make a great difference. >> we believe that government matters and cities matter what

we side in san francisco, california serve as a model phenomenal in our the rest of the country by the world. >> whether you do not to goodwill those unwanted text told us or are sufficient value and the greater community will benefit. >> thanks to sf environment san francisco has over one hundred drop off locations visit recycle damn and thanks for watching join us

>> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors. i am the chair of this committee, aaron peskin, joined to my right by supervisor ahsha safai and sitting in for

supervisor matt haney is supervisor gordon mar. miss clerk, do we have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. could you please call the first item. >> clerk: yes. would you like to make a motion to excuse supervisor haney in the meantime? >> chair peskin: i believe that supervisor haney is going to be joining us shortly. i can make a motion to excuse him for the first items until he gets here, so i will do that. i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor haney until he arrives. that motion will be passed without objection. first item, please. >> clerk: item 1 is a motion initiating the process to install plaques at 3899 20th streets to commemorate them as

the few working fire hydrants during the fire of 1906. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. i think this item is really cool. there are a handful of fire hydrants that unlike vanness, survive and continue to provide water to a number of engines, and as we deal with things like the eser bonds and the seawall bond, and we all know the reality of not if, but when, we have a 70% chance of a major seismic event in san francisco, honoring these fire hydrants with commemorative plaques is good for the city, good for

history. before i bring up the guardians of the city, i would like to start with our department of public works, mr. jeremy spitz. mr. spitz, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, chair peskin, supervisors, my name is jeremy spitz. i will say that public works is in support of this resolution and we're happy to support this process going forward. i can go through the process if there's any questions, but i can turn it over to kyle to give some opening remarks and i can answer any questions if needed. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. my bad. i should have said that this resolution has been sponsored by our colleague where in those

miraculous fire hydrants exist, and on behalf of supervisor mandelman, kyle sweeley. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kyle sweeley on behalf of supervisor raphael mandelman. the hydrants have over time taken on affectionate names. the little giant on 20th street near dolores park and the twins near vanness. each year, the residents paint them and leave flowers at them to celebrate their history. what we want to do is intend to provide a plaque on each to commemorate the water that each one of these delivered to stop the spread of the 1906 fire.

we have james lee here. he is the guardian chair, as well as jeremy spitz from d.p.w. who can answer any questions. thank you, members, for your time and consideration. >> chair peskin: thank you, chair, and so far as we heard from kyle, james lee? >> thank you. through a resolution from the board in 2012, we were challenged with the job of protecting all of public safety and history in the city and county of san francisco, find surplus documents, log books, etc.

they send them over to us, and we preserve them, categorize them, and make them available for public display and consumption. so with that, we're asking that the three hydrants be memorialized with a plaque, but on that plaque, there will be a board of supervisors resolution which will allow public citizens, through our website or the board, clerk of the board to find out why these hydrants are memorialized. so if there are any questions from this committee, i'd be more than willing to answer. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. lee. i have one question. does your organization have any fees relevant to the installation of said plaques? >> i asked, and there's some

cost that this organization will have to bear. we're a nonprofit organization that lives and dies by public subscription, so if there's anything that this board or board of supervisors committee can do to alleviate that, that would be greatly appreciated. >> chair peskin: deputy city attorney givner, is there any way that we can waive the fees which i believe total approximately $700 american? >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. the board could waive the fees, but that's not something that can be introduced today, but a supervisor could introduce to waive those fees. >> chair peskin: thank you. so to the office of supervisor mandelman, if you would like to ask the resolution to waive the

$700 pass, i would imagine it would. i want to thank the guardians for their preservation of city history. this is an organization that holds a number of old pumpers and engines that are sitting on treasure island exposed to the elements, and i intend to hold a hearing and take future actions on what we can do as a city to better steward those historic resources, so i just wanted mr. -- captain lee to know that, and mr. smeley, you can take that back to supervisor mandelman, maybe hold a bake sale. and seeing no names on the roster, i'll open this up for public comment. is there any public comment or questions for captain lee?

seeing none, i will close public comment and make a motion to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation, and we will take that without objection. madam clerk, next item, please. >> thank you, mr. peskin. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. lee. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: so this resolution which urges the hearing that we are about to have based on the actions that the m.t.a. and san francisco international airport have taken with regard to rules around taxi pick ups and t.n.c. pick ups at san francisco international airport in san mateo county was introduced by supervisor safai, and i will

turn th turnov turn over this hearing to supervisor safai. supervisor safai, the floor is yours. and i would say that we have been joined by supervisor sandra lee fewer from the board and we may be joined by others as there is interest on this issue. we have heard from taxi drivers who bought medallions about the suffering they are going through. and with that, supervisor safai, the floor is yours. >> supervisor safai: i want to thank the airport for coming out today, and sfmta, and the taxi drivers. this is something that i think has been vexing san francisco

for some time. i know that supervisor fewer and supervisor haney and i were discussing this. it's one of the reasons it was motivated by chair peskin. we've heard over and over again from individuals that purchased their medallions and what that mean to those purchased medallion holders, and how they feel like they got left out. i know that sfmta has made an attempt to adjust that and is thinking primarily about how that impacts purchased medallion holders, but there were also some pre-k holders that were a part of this decision. this decision boils down to restricting access to the airport or increasing access to the airport. but there was a secondary goal, and that was to increase taxi service in the city and county of san francisco. i know for all of us, that's

important for seniors, that's important for us that are disabled. that's also important to connect and work with accessing other forms of transportation. so we wanted to have this hearing and give the appropriate amount of time to look at the data, althou. although that data might not be complete, we certainly have a snapshot now of some of the early changes that have resulted. have we actually helped those that purchased their medallions? have we decreased or increased taxis at the airport in terms of access for those who need it most? i can tell you myself personally when we had -- my own family was in a very severe accident, and no one was hurt. but i can tell you i jumped in a taxi at the airport and i was

home in 15 minutes, and i wasn't waiting for somebody to pick me up. so taxis serve many different purposes even in situations of emergencies. so we want to look at the data today, and we want to get some answers to our questions. i wanted to give the opportunity to chair peskin if he wanted to say some remarks, and chair fewer, and thank you for joining us on this. >> chair peskin: so i will defer to supervisor fewer. i do have a few remarks, but i do want to thank supervisor safai for having this hearing and asking these questions. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you, chair. and colleagues, i want to thank you for holding these hearings so we can evaluate the new medallion rules set forth at

s.f.o. i have been very concerned for the taxi industry, and not for the medallion holders that purchased the medallions for $250,000 and $125,000, but for those that have earned their medallions. i want to say that i'm here today to hear about an update on what is happening at s.f.o. i'd read in the newspaper that we have some positive results, but i just want to also say that this is not the real solution to what is happening to taxi drivers and to those that are still paying off the $250,000 on their medallions. and then, i am a little

concerned that we are still selling taxi medallions to people or to the industry when in fact we are learning more and more that these medallions are losing value every day. so i think it's a very complicated issue. i have gone before the m.t.a. board myself to remedy this. i personally don't see any way out except to actually blow up the whole thing and redesign the whole thing all over again. but i am here to learn, and i offer my apologies that i am unable to stay for the whole hearing because i have another meeting. but i also want to say that this is the first steps, again, a band-aid on the real big issue. >> supervisor safai: thank you, supervisor fewer. i know you've been consistently engaged in this issue.

chair peskin. >> chair peskin: so let me thank both of my colleagues who have spoken for their comments. and without making light of it, when i first ran for supervisor in the year 2000, which is getting on to 20 years, i would walk up to the corner and would do something kind of odd, which is walk up to random people and tell them i was running for supervisor. people would tell me about landlord-tenant issues and potholes, and when i ran, i had no idea that i would spend a large amount of my time on taxi

issues. this is long before the advent of machines that have complete changed the face of transportation in cities across america and the world. and in those days, every aspect of taxi regulation was under the jurisdiction of the government, which part of the government that governs that has changed over time, for which i am somewhat or partially responsible. but whether it was the gates, the drop, the rates, the number of medallions that we issued, that was part of a regulatory scheme not only in san francisco but chicago and you-name-it. i could write a doctoral dissertation on this, but i'm never going to get a doctorate. there's plenty of blame to go around.

there's plenty of blame on the industry that fought the government on the issuance of more medallions when the part of the city that i represent was well served by the taxi industry but folks in the outer sunset and the bayview and supervisor safai's district couldn't get a taxi to save their lives. that was part of the problem. and then, of course, was the advent of the t.n.c. companies. and i do want to say that many of you, mr. drury, will remember her name, miss hayashi, former deputy city attorney, did god's work in trying to stop the california public utilities commission -- no relation to the san francisco public utilities commission that provides our water and sewer, mr. scarpulla,

but your best bet is to go and work in sacramento and preempt any regulatory attempts. and here you are. and i agree with supervisor fewer, that this has been devastating to a whole bunch of people who made their livings and indeed it was a living in the taxi industry. and as the entire world was changing, we the city, by and through the sfmta, that we would do what other cities had been doing, that we would sell these medallions at the moment that they became a lot less valuable. and so we hear literally every tuesday from folks who bought these medallions, and our hearts go out to you.

we are aware that this is also the subject of litigation -- which, by the way, is not what should motivate us. and i do concur with supervisor fewer, it's not just about the people that purchased them, it's about the people that earned them. there's a third class of folks, the pre-k, and i think it's 176 medallions that are earned by 133 individuals. i'm making that number up, too, but we'll get a powerpoint presentation in a minute. but this is all by way of saying that i sincerely appreciate s.f.o. and miss tran and the sfmta who are cooperating in a way that you rarely see between two agencies, particularly, two agencies that actually have little if any relationship with one another. the only place that the city

and county of san francisco can regulate t.n.c.s ironically is in another county, where we have an airport that we own that is not subject to the preemption by the california public utilities commission. and i want to thank the leadership of san francisco international airport for being so cooperative and look forward to the presentation that will be forthcoming. and with that, i will turn it back over to supervisor safai after that cliff notes of my doctoral dissertation. >> supervisor safai: no, i think that sets the context. i think it plays to many of our sympathies. i think it's sad to see someone spend their life savings or

mortgage their home to buy a medallion. many people believed that would be their retirement and would be something that they could look forward to for their family. so i understand we're in a very difficult situation, trying to balance all those things out. also, as supervisor peskin said, the irony of it all is the one place that we have less jurisdiction than the state does is at the airport, and that is the one place where there has been some changes. so unless there's anything else my colleagues would like to add before we start, i think we're going to start and get a little update from eva chong. she can give us an update on what's happened most recently at the airport in terms of congestion, some of the policy changes that you've made in terms of the industry, taxis, and so on. so if you could take a few minutes to talk us through that, that would be great.

>> sure. good afternoon, chair peskin, and members of the committee. my name is e va chong, and i'm in charge of commercial transportation at the airport. over the past two years, the airport has continually evaluated and adjusted commercial pick up zones and drop-off areas to help manage the congestion. this includes van ride areas, charter pick up areas, and taxi pick up areas. while this provided some relief, there continues to be a congestion problem, particularly in times of the afternoon and the evening. last year, in an effort to alleviate congestion on airport

road ways, we set out some guidelines in order to improve the passenger experience. first, we wanted to maintain a minimum average of 15 miles per hour on the inbound road ways. second, we wanted to achieve a diversion rate of 15% of t.n.c. vehicles during the peak hour of 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. to midnight in the garage. the ground transportation market at s.f.o. is driven -- is market driven, and we have seen shifts in modal transportation in recent years by customer choice. over the past year, the airport has set out to redesign the domestic passenger garage for passenger pick ups with a goal

to reduce congestion on the curbs during pick up times. t.n.c.s were targeted at that time to be moved to the garages. the t.n.c. pick up operations commenced in the garage for all pooled and shared services in july of last year, and we also implemented a premium pricetor curb side access to encourage the use of the garage. additional zone adjustments were made at the international terminal because there was no easy access to a garage where we mosted them to the center island for both pick ups and dropoffs. despite those changes and an additional reduction to the garage pick up fee earlier this year, we only saw about 21% of pickups being diverted, considerably shy of the 45% of transactions that we had hoped to achieve. as a result, the airport announced that all t.n.c. pick ups would be moved to the

domestic garage on june 6, last week, wednesday. while the operation has been successful in reducing terminal curb side traffic, we do still need some improvements for the customer experience and to manage the congestion into the garage during the peak evening hours. as expected with any great change, there are driver and customer education issues that will need to be addressed over time into the next few weeks. the changes to t.n.c. pick ups are less than a week old, however staff are reviewing potential mitigation efforts to mitigate traffic in and out of the garage. while t.n.c.s certainly affect congestion, there are many more ways to alleviate concerns. over the years, we've increased the staging lot size several times, we've developed a geofence tracking system for

taxis making short trips out of the airport to be able to return and cut in the line, and developed a taxi cue management app which provides drivers with real-time status in the airport staging lots to help them manage their time better. more recently, we've reduced trip fees that go into effect in july. in 2017, to address congestion resulting from taxi oversupply, the airport developed a new plans for or taxi queue app. a driver wishing to enter the taxi lot when it was full would be added to the waiting list. with a space opened up, the taxi driver would be notified that they had a certain period of time to come to the airport and under that, no one would be turned away. using the taxi app properly, driver's wouldn't be turned away, and it would safe them time in waiting and reduce congestion on the airport road

ways. airport at that time held several meetings with drivers to obtain feedback on the app and other congestion relief drivers. the proposal met with strong opposition about the industry, and 60% of the 1,338 drivers who responded to the survey were opposed to the proposal. the airport therefore stopped plans at the time for developing the app and agreed to wait for the report and a broad broader platform for reform could be addressed properly. the airport has started development of a new taxi virtual queue and has once again established an advisory group to provide feedback. it is expected that the taxi queue may be available for implementation in 2020. goes clue by maximizing

revenue, reducing congestion by ensuring taxi supply does not exceed lot capacity, reduce emissions from idling taxis, and ensure supply during peak times. the airport will continue to work with the taxi industry and continue to provide input on how the medallions are affecting operations. thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor safai: thank you, miss chong. supervisor peskin, do you have any questions, or supervisor fewer? >> chair peskin: so i'm looking forward to the actual presentation on how the first 90 days numbers looks like, and i've reviewed the slide deck that you'll be -- or the m.t.a. will be showing us, but a

little while ago, on s.f. gated, popped up an article last evening, which is of course your highest peak of the week, sunday nights, being somewhat chaotic, and i realize this is at the infancy of the second phase of this program. but would you like to address that at all? >> we did have some issues -- well, serious issues last night with congestion in and out of the garage. understand that -- between 9:00 and midnight has been problematic for us even when t.n.c.s were on the road ways. we are looking at the road ways and how we can mitigation that. we think that some of it is a driver education, and some of them are not familiar with the

garage, so i believe some of that will be osmed over time -- will be solved over time, and we will be looking a close look at that going forward. >> chair peskin: in relation to that, are the platforms, uber and lyft trying to educate their drivers or are you working directly with them so they can educate their drivers on the situation? >> yes. all three drivers have committed to educating their drivers. we have tents setup to educate drivers, and we created our own video on youtube to have them watch. so we're doing all we can to help the drivers understand how the system works. >> chair peskin: and back to the queue because this is

something that i'm interested and concerned about, and i'm sure that my colleagues share the same concerns, the queue, part of what we are trying to incent is people serving taxi drivers serving the city serving the airport. when do you think this will actually be effectuated? >> we weare aiming for summer next year. we have a developer on hand, but we want to make sure we have industry feedback before we put out what the app should look like. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss chong. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. i just wanted to make sure i got these numbers right, that in 2017, pick ups were 70% --

>> no, they're 50%. >> supervisor fewer: and then, we heard at another hearing that number was approximately 880,000 pick ups in one-way trips -- >> those are pick ups and dropoffs combined. it's in the high 800,000s for pickups and dropoffs. >> supervisor fewer: and have you had any feedback on b.a.r.t. ridership? >> we've been working with b.a.r.t. to try to improve conditions, but we have seen a decline in passenger b.a.r.t. usage. >> supervisor fewer: and what kind of number have you seen? >> i'm sorry. i don't have that number off

the top of my head. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i imagine we can get that from m.t.a. thank you for your time. >> supervisor safai: i think it's important to note from some of the statistics that i've seen presented, almost 40% of people that are in the city, in taxi or otherwise, is generated by -- 40% of the income of drivers that are in the city, taxi or others, is generated by the airport. because we have that significant leverage, it's important that not only you're working with the m.t.a., but you're working with this body in particular and the members that are part of this body that care deeply about this. because i think that the lesson that i've gotten from this presentation and working in the

industry, this is a minefield to step into. although it is a minefield, it's important for the city that we get it right, and it's important for the people, as we've talked about today, and we'll hear from the people that have come out. but the lesson is we're not going to go back to what it was. we're not going to go back to a situation where people just sit all day at the airport and wait to take people back to where they want to go. we're not going to just support the taxis on the road, but we're going to support the taxis there because they fill an important role, and we haven't seen the initiative taken -- taxis play an

important role. in emergencies, when you need to get off a plane immediately, which i never imagined i would, i needed to have something like that there as an option that would never be replaced. so i would say continue to work with us so we can get an update in terms of what it looks like. i know that june 5 was the first time, and we're going to get some education, but this is the first time in our city that the ride hails are being regulated, and they're being told to do something that was not in their control. they were asked to move to a parking structure, so there's going to be push back, and there's going to be people that refuse to adjust, so we need to know on your part what you're going to do. are there fees -- i know that every time someone comes into

your airport, a fee is collected. but we need to know what penalties there are going to be if people don't participate, and that's something to think about. because if something is not going to follow the rules, then there has to be a way to refer that person to the company and to the airport, so we need to understand how that's going to play out. >> and we do. so there are administrative fines that are issued daily to drivers violating any of the rules of the permit that are there, whether they're picking up or dropping off in the wrong location, or as simple as not having a placard in their car that's required. >> supervisor safai: and that's good to get that on the record. we're trying to get this flow good for everybody. if there's no other questions -- oh, supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> supervisor safai: sorry. >> supervisor mar: i just had one question prior to sort of

this new rule of having t.n.c.s do their pickups in the garage. were there other rules considered on the t.n.c.s on the airport? >> yes. so since t.n.c.s have started and grown, we have certain doors and curb side that they were able to pick up on, and limit them, so customers would go to those doors. that was the first traffic calming effort that we tried, and it just wasn't enough to manage during those peak times. >> supervisor mar: and were there other regulations that have been considered but not pursued at this time? >> i think the garage has been our main relief valve that we saw for the domestic terminals. as we said in the international terminal, we put them at the curb. we don't have that in the domestic terminal, and we're

managing a large group of vehicles, but accessing the road ways, and how the customers are getting to and from the road ways. we did consider the arrivals level, but that wouldn't help us on the p.m. peak time, either. >> supervisor mar: thank you. >> supervisor safai: did you have another question? >> supervisor fewer: i have one question. so i see that we're trying to do this, and it's not -- and it's really, i think, from the airport's point of view, it's really about the congestion, and the congestion that all of these single rides have caused. but i'm still wondering, if you still feel like you have congestion, how far can we go on this on regulated t.n.c.s? can we completely regulate t.n.c.s pickup and dropoff? is that something that we're able to do or is that something that we're unable to do? >> i'm not sure without asking

legal if i can say that we can do that. my understanding is it's not something that we can do because of the choices. we offer a wide variety of choices to customers and the public. and what we found before the cpuc regulations were in place, the t.n.c.s were operating at the airport, and that it was something that the public wanted to and from the airport. so we'd risk getting into a situation where they're not regulated at all and we'd have difficulties enforcing against them, reason if they took their dress off and decided to hide, it would be difficult to judge if they're doing a transaction. >> chair peskin: and in san mateo county, we probably need an m.o.u. with san mateo law enforcement. that's not legal advice because i'm not a lawyer, but i think that might be the answer. >> okay. i can try to get an answer, but

i don't know if we can restrict them fully. >> supervisor fewer: well, it's my opinion, and i might be alone in this, we might try to push this as far as we can to eliminate their access to the airport. we have how muany millions and millions of dollars in transportation to the airport, and taxi drivers that are losing their livlihood, so i get that the public wants that immediately. it may be that the public, instead of just going to the curb -- i mean, they want to go to the curb and get a taxi. if they want to make a few more steps, they might have to take a shuttle bus. like, i'm going to be honest. we should try to push it as far as we can. but having heard from aaron

peskin that it is san mateo county, i know that this is just beginning now, but i'd love to see the impact of this. but if this is the only place that we can regulate, then i think we should regulate it, and we should do everything in our power to regulate it. you might see it differently because you have to worry about customers. we're worried about the livlihood of people. >> supervisor safai: thank you. we'll call you up if we have any questions. next speaker is miss toran. >> chair peskin: kate toran, thank you. >> my name is kate toran, and i want to thank sfmta for the implementation of these new taxi rules. and i'm here today to report on the -- our progress related to

our new taxi rules at s.f.o. which were implemented on february 1. and before doing that, i'm just going to give some background just to make sure we all have the same context. okay. i want to start off with the important role of the taxi industry? the taxi industry has a lot of pride and has been part of our paratransit program for many years. it's actually been part of paratransit since 1981. we've had wheelchair accessible ramp taxi service since 1994. taxis provide the only level of on-demand service where you can

have a street hail. there are a higher level of safety in the taxi industry. drug and alcohol checks, background checks. our background investigators review and investigate every sing single complaint that comes in through 311. we have professional drivers. we're proud of our clean air fleet. we have 95% clean air vehicles at this time, and taxis are part of our commitment -- it's a safety net service. taxis are required to serve all neighborhoods. you don't need a smart phone or a credit card to take a taxi. taxi fares are regulated, and as i started, taxis serve seniors and people with disabilities as part of our paratransit program. quick snapshot of the taxi

industry. we have 24 companies and color schemes. we have 8 dispatch companies. we have 1474 medallions in service, and we have about 14,000 active drivers. this taxi timeline is important to spend a minute talking about? prior to 1978, medallions were freely transferrable, and there was no driving requirement, and individuals or entities could hold more one medallion. when individuals and voters voted in 1978, it established a new regulatory framework, and medallions at that time were no longer freely transferrable. they had to be held by an individual, a driver -- taxi driver, and they were earned based on seniority on a waiting

list. and so that was established in 1978. up until 2009, when the voters voted prop a in 2007, and then, 2009, the board of supervisors shifted the regulation of the taxi industry to the sfmta, and so right directly prior to that, the taxi commission had oversight of the taxi industry. and what's important to note here is that i think some of the challenges we talked about earlier, that new regulatory frameworks were put in place, and yet exiting medallions -- existing medallions continued to operate. so we just layered in new medallion types and ended up with very complicated, complex classes of medallions. and in 2010, the m.t.a. engaged in medallion reform. and if you note on the timeline

that this was the very same year uber black launches in san francisco. so as the m.t.a. is launching the medallion failed pilot program again, the world is changing in the transportation sector. who would have known, but looking back on it, we can see this timeline really helps depict the challenges that we are now facing. also, in 2012, when that medallion failed pilot program became the permanent program, that's when uber x, inside lyft launched. here is what you were looking for earlier. so currently, we have 79 corporate medallion holders. you'll see that on the left side of the slide, held by 22 corpses. we have 172 pre-k medallions

held by 133 individuals. we won't have a quiz on this at the end, and maybe my point of this is the complexity. also, the terminology, we shift over into the 1978 framework to 2009, and we have post-k medallions, sometimes referred to as k, pre-k, post-k. we have 158 earned drivers, and many times, drivers talk about the sweat equity for that medallion, but there was no charge for the medallion. again, under the fail medallion program, they were sold for $125,000. i often get this question, well, who benefited from the medallion sales? m.t.a. made a lot of money. and i think it's important to

note that more money from the medallions went back into the taxi industry than to m.t.a. abo $63 million did go to the m.t.a. from medallion service, and that did help transit service coming out of the recession, 2009-2010. so medallions have been a long topic of conversation. there have been many efforts to level the playing field. we take our duty seriously, the historical c historical context, and the current reverberations from that context. we have been engaged with many years with reducing fees in the taxi sector. so we've reduced over $10

million worth of taxi fees. we've eliminated certain fees, we've engaged in regulatory reform, so we've changed color scheme requirements. you name it, we've looked at it. we want to make sure the existing regulations reflect what are the best set of regulations to provide a safe service to customers and to allow the industry to compete. we have a very robust ramp taxi incentive program. we have two $10 per trip ramp taxi trip, and ramp taxi drivers can earn up to $600 a month for the purchase of a new vehicle and ongoing operations. we've also engaged for many years, and chair peskin noted,

direct