Skip to content.
Skip to page navigation.Skip to content.Web site accessibility
SF MTA homeSF MTA home SF MTA home
Page title as stylized text

Rules and Regulations Subcommittee


December 5, 2007 at 10:30am

City Hall,1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place               

Room 421


Present:  Breslin, Oneto, Gillespie

Absent:   none

1.       Call to Order/Roll Call

2.      General Public Comment (Please limit public comment to items not on the agenda)

  • Marty Smith: We should have a meeting solely to discuss workers compensation. 
  • Com Breslin: I will request that this be put on the regular commission agenda to form a subcommittee and see if the commissioners would want to do it.
  • Hansu Kim: I’d like to aggressively talk about what I think are serious problems about our rules.  Many of our rules are being applied not consistently.  Rules are based on the older model of the Taxi Industry.
  • Com Breslin: Are you saying throw out this rule book or continue doing what we are doing?
  • Hansu Kim: I’m offended that we are trying to pursue old rules that do not apply.
  • Chuffa: I’m for the driving requirement until it’s changed.  For the first year you have to drive 156 shifts.   People should get the chance to choose between 800 hours or 156 shifts.
  • Nate Dwiri: (Presents document showing tracking of a cab).We can present this information anytime to the commission.
  • Tariq Mamoud:  I don’t appear in the minutes.
  • Com Breslin: Most comments are related to action.  Not everybody needs to be included in the minutes.
  • Tariq Mamoud: I represent a large number of drivers.  I am surprised this rules committee is still going on, we are going to MTA.

3.      Adoption of Minutes from the November 5, 2007 Subcommittee Meeting.

Adopted without objection.

4.      Consideration of Amendments to Taxicab/Ramped Taxi Rules & Regulations, Section 3, Definitions [DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION; EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS]

  • Com Breslin: I would like to reorder these and pick up where we left off, on section 4, Vehicle Operation Standards.  We have some commissioner and subcommittee recommendations.
  • Jordanna Thigpen: Clarifies record from November 5, 2007 minutes; regarding Section 4A7.


  • Com Breslin: We are looking at keeping it the way it is or changing it to include the driver. The other alternative was to drop off “only”.

Public Comment:

·         Rich Hybels: The car has to be in the company name, I’m not going to be signing any notes for anyone. 

·         Com Gillespie: Are you advocating for changing?

·         Rich Hybels: I guess so. 

·         Chuffa: Why don’t we leave this rule as it is?

·         Com Breslin: To me the question is; are we going to add the driver to the registration?

·         Marty Smith: If he’s buying the car, the driver should be.

·         Jordanna Thigpen: My concern is the problem of brokers.

·         Michael Spain: All pink slips have a title and a lien holder.  The title can be in anybody’s name.

·         Marty Smith: In the controllers’ report they talked about the long term lease as being a discounted gate anyhow.  The brokers are doing a good job running sub-businesses.

·         Com Breslin: Right now it says “Medallion holder and/or Color scheme holder.” Can it say, along with the driver if applicable?

·         Tariq Mamoud: Whoever owns the car should have the name.

·         Nate Dwiri: We should allow drivers to be on.

·         Hansu Kim: We should add drivers to adapt.

·         Barry Taranto: Problem of brokers.

·         Tom Oneto: I am not against adding the driver, but we need to put more teeth in Section 4C.

·         John Lazar: When you buy the insurance on the car you notify them of who is the owner and who is driving the car.

·         Mark Gruberg: There’s a simple notion that needs to be injected; who is paying for the vehicle?

·         Tom Oneto: Motion that we add drivers on to this. 

·         Com Gillespie: Second

AYES:   Breslin, Gillespie                                         

NOES: 0         


5.      Consideration of Amendments to Taxicab/Ramped Taxi Rules & Regulations, Section 4, Medallion Holders [DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION; EXPLANATORY DOCUMENTS]

  • Com Breslin: 4.A.8; was discussed last time.  4.A.9; shift changing on color scheme property, last time we discussed shift changing at BART Stations or other places.
  • Com Breslin: I am concerned about shift changing off property because of distance to drivers. A lot of people are doing it.
  • Com Gillespie: Distance is an issue. 
  • Tom Oneto: Even if it was allowed what would preclude if they were going to change a shift at a BART station? Why wouldn’t a cab driver be able to pick up that next driver at the BART station then go into the yard?

Public Comment:

·         Robert Cesana: Why is the medallion holder responsible and not the color scheme?  I have no control of my cab when I’m not driving it. Crime and safety are big risks.


·         Hansu Kim: This is an antiquated rule in my opinion We have 30% of the industry doing long-term leasing.  This rule hurts public service, I cannot think of one good reason to keep this rule.

·         Barry Taranto: This is my favorite rule to change.  There is an existing violation everywhere. It should be within the city so SFPD can control it.  Long-term lease should be within the City & County of San Francisco except that there should be proper documentation at the Color Scheme, Taxi Detail and the Taxi Commission so that they know where the cab is located when it’s not in service.

·         Michael Spain: New arrangements have resulted in people passing cabs off wherever it’s convenient.  This rule only helps the regulators.

·         Ruach Graffis: If there’s no room for a driver to park the cab at the company lot we may end up with a mobile trailer calling itself a cab company.  Color Schemes need facilities.

·         Saam Aryan: If they don’t have enough room, they should be allowed to shift change at overflow lots.

·         Tone Lee: Muni is allowing shift changes throughout the city for efficiency.

·         Dan Hinds: Shift changes occur off property primarily due to preferences of the individuals involved.

·         Wesley Hollis: This rule is an unreasonable intrusion. Drivers should change shifts wherever is reasonable to them.

·         Chuffa: Rule 4.A.9 is interfering with the business itself.

·         Charles Rathbone: Color Schemes need to know who is operating the cab and where it is.  Why not restrict the privilege to cabs that are GPS enabled? It might be an incentive.

·         Nate Dwiri: There are practical realities that infringe upon business.  The fleet is about to be expanded and companies would have to have more room.

·         Tariq Mamoud: Cars have been stolen many times.  We should allow shift changes in the City and County of San Francisco. 

·         Rich Hybels: Its better for the public to shift change in the city.

·         John Lazar: The Color Scheme should be responsible for collecting credit cards, paratransit and waybills.  They should know whose driving the car and checking the safety of the vehicle. 

·         Marty Smith: I am for changing the cabs in the city.  Muni changes shifts all over the city. 

·         Jordanna Thigpen: We should try a pilot program, allowing a specific company that would agree to report the results accurately.

·         Com Gillespie: A wholesale change would result in a major backlash from the public.  I understand that there are long-term leases but I don’t think the city wants 1500 cabs parked on the streets.

·         Tom Oneto: We can’t allow any of these changes where SFPD does not have jurisdiction.  Muni does allow shift changes but they do have a place to park those buses when there not in service.  I have a problem with changing it.

·         Com Breslin: I agree it should be in the city if we go forward.  I like the idea that was suggested that it should be limited to those taxis with GPS systems. 

·         Com Gillespie: How many parking spaces are there in the San Francisco taxi industry?

·         Barry Taranto: Gates and gas cabs still should be changed on property.  The cabs have to be changed in the city no matter what.  There should be huge fines if the manager cannot locate the vehicle within an hour. 

·         Dan Hinds: Lost & Found is handled by the driver calling in.

·         Marty Smith: Companies that only have GPS should be allowed to do this, that’s unfair.  It should go to everybody.

·         Carl Macmurdo: Long term leases should be given maximum flexibility.

·         Michael Spain: What is this obsession with SFPD controlling? Everyone knows there are lots of drivers in San Mateo County.

·         John Lazar: People are driving cabs without even having an A-card. It’s a breach of security.

·         Tariq Mamoud: The issue today is the long term lease holders not 1500 cabs. 

·         Com Breslin: I’m going to propose that we are at an impasse here on this particular issue; we need a little more information. 

·         Hansu Kim: I think there is a misunderstanding the way we are looking at drivers and long term leases. 

·         Tom Oneto: Motion to move everything after “pursuant” in 4.A.9., to the Color Scheme section.

·         Com Breslin: Second, Jordanna Thigpen to prepare report on how many people have requested under 4.A.9 to park anywhere. 

AYES:   Breslin, Gillespie                                         

NOES: 0  

  • Com Breslin: I recommend that we strike section 4.A.10.
  • Mark Gruberg: Public interest should dominate
  • Robert Cesana: It is not in the public interest to have this rule. It’s up to the Taxi Commission to find an electronic way to verify waybills.
  • Barry Toranto: It is public interest for medallion holders to drive their own vehicle.  It’s a public safety issue.
  • Carl Macmurdo: It does not service the public when a cab has to sit in the lot.  I appreciate Patricia wanting to take this rule away.
  • Mark Gruberg: This rule needs to stay.  Fraud is an enormous problem, this doesn’t belong in this committee, this isn’t a rule its apart of Prop K.
  • Ruach Graffis: I agree with Mark and Barry.
  • Tariq Mamoud: Let the cab go and let the cab serve the public.  There are many other ways to track the waybills.
  • Chuffa: If he’s not driving his own cab it means there is some kind of problem.  Fraud is every where; don’t tie everything to waybills and the driving requirement.
  • Marty Smith: I think this rule should be done away with.  What does it matter what cab is driven as long as the driving requirement is met?
  • Tone Lee: Many permit holders are old and tired of driving.  As long as a cab is ready, who cares?
  • Com Breslin: Fulfilling a driving requirement is not remotely related to what cab fulfills it in.  Let’s tighten up the condition of the spares.  I move to strike 4.A.10.
  • Tom Oneto: I would have to vote no until the two committees have a dialogue.
  • Com Gillespie: I have mixed feelings about this because I understand that it’s wasteful to have a cab sitting in the lot during rush hour. I think maybe this can be a percentage thing.  I think most medallion holders want to drive their own medallion. 
  • Com Breslin: The motion to remove this rule was not 2nd but we have it on record.


7.   Adjournment.



Skip bottom navigation and boilerplate text.Begin brief site navigation and boilerplate text.