tv [untitled] May 11, 2012 5:00pm-5:30pm PDT
>> one more question. how long -- the director? >> three years. >> -- how long were you the director? >> it three years. >> how many color schemes were applied for annually? >> 1 to 2, maybe. >>, many did the commission grant? -- how many did the commission grants? >> i think the commission granted most of them. " what criteria is applied in granting or denying a color scheme permit? >> things like whether the person has -- they have to have a medallion, obviously. or they have to be in partnership with a person with a medallion. in addition, they must show that
they have the financial wherewithal, that they have a piece of property and an office and the ability to run a business. >> if we grant jurisdiction and we are persuaded o merits that mta should receive applications for these permits, what does it gets the request if mta makes a determination that the permits be issued? it comes right back to us. >> if you were to grant jurisdiction, this board would need to review this permit application. there is no remaned authority. that is an interesting question.
that would be up for this board to determine that question. >> thank you. is this your client? >> [inaudible] >> you are not allowed to speak. is there any other public comment? ok. commissioners? >> i am not clear on what you are seeking. alexander, right? i mean, certainly, you do not think this board would consider it reasonable for us to make a determination as to whether or not your client deserves a color scheme. >> i want the board to enforce
-- every medallion holder may apply for a color scheme permit. that section has not been repealed. they cannot repeal ordinances, they can only adopt regulations. they have yet to do so. the commission raised a whole bunch of horrible -- color scheme applications -- >> remember the question i asked you. it had to do with the point raised by the deputy city attorney when she responded to the fact that if we were to take jurisdiction, but we would be doing would be hearing the case as to whether or not to grant a permanent to your client.
-- permit to your client. i do not think that is within our purview. knowing that, what a relief are you seeking? what is it that you would have this board do? >> accept his application. >> i do not think we can do that. " under the charter, the board's authority is to grant, deny permits. you have the power to review the grant or denial of a permanent. -- permit. the question in front of this board is whether to grant -- to uphold that denial or overturn it. the board does not have the ability to order department to handout permit applications. >> if we except the
jurisdiction, we can ask that they would go to the motion. mta would go through the motions and accept or reject the permit. it is remanded without remanding. >> the board will conduct the application process itself. >> mta may have some legitimate policy reasons for not accepting color scheme permits. we do not know -- i would be supportive of a continuance where, in that time periods, when they have supposedly passed these regulations, they would pass a resolution adopted as policy or allow the applicants
to pursue that process to apply for a color scheme. >> are only other recourse is to go to the court, which is a costly proposition. by the time we get that heard comment that may have done -- heard, they may have done something. we would have wasted our time and we would have wasted our money. >> there is a permanent that was denied. mta is saying there is no permit. >> we will not deny you the permit, we just will let you apply for one. i understand the board's dilemma. there is no merit of the application to because they will not let him apply. there is something wrong where they can make rules and the dark and no one knows about them.
>> i think some of the commissioners are worried that your speechmaking. -- that you are speechmaking. one thing you achieved is that it is no longer being done in the dark. it has come to light. this board has expressed itself, at least a few of us have, as to how we seem to question this policy. let's see where it goes. >> mta said it is their policy. we understand it is a staff policy that has not been adopted by the full commission. but do doubt the merits of that policy? -- but do you doubt the merits of that policy? they could have adopted a policy that says, we will have a moratorium on these permits for
two years. planning has done that when they are in the midst of planning a new area and coming up with new zoning. they sometimes have a moratorium. >> it is a terrible policy. it is a regulation that has not been adopted after a hearing. it deprives mr. aryan to engage in a competitive business. it forces them to affiliate with people he does not want to affiliate with. it is terrible. nobody knows if or when it will change. all this stuff about adopting new regulations is nonsense. there contumely adopting new regulations. you adapt -- they are constantly adopting new regulations. you adapt or you get out of the business. it is nonsense. >> thank you.
>> a lot of the points made by mr. aryan are very compelling. i find troubling the way that this has come out. at the same time, i think the problem, of course, this is not the body [inaudible] >> as soon as this commission is done, you may have an opportunity to speak. >> my view is that it is going to be very difficult for us to grant the relief as requested because i am not comfortable in
doing an adjudication of your application. i do not think -- i think there is merit to all the arguments that you're making, but it is not the proper forum for the relief that you are seeking. >> [inaudible] i just wanted to clarify a couple of things. i want to clarify that the taxi commission, and the mta are two separate bodies. the things that were done under the taxi commission, the rules, that commission has been abolished. the mta took over regulation of the taxi industry. because of that, we operate under the transportation code i
wanted that to be clear. she made some statements regarding the practices of the taxi commission. it was appropriate for the taxi commission having hearings. those things are not under the mta. we are completely separate body. >> thank you for that. >> i do not think i would have a problem accepting jurisdiction and hearing the merits of the case. much like the analogy -- i guess the reason was not justified -- we could hear from both sides. i think mta has given us some
justification for why they have this policy. it does not seem like what we are doing -- but they are doing is nefarious. they have just not gone to the motions of having the commission adopt as policy. it seems like it is happening in the future, in june. i would support continuing this to keep the process moving. so that mta does adopt a policy that says we will have a moratorium or new regulations. >> i do not believe we have jurisdiction over this matter. if mta is going to adopt policies in june, i am sure we
will see this case again. if it is not acceptable to the applicant, whatever policy they adopt, i did their permits is denied, -- and if there permanent is denied, i sympathize with the ability to go forward with the business opportunities for this gentlemen. regrettably, i do not believe we have jurisdiction at all. i would not support a continuance. i sympathize with the cost of going to superior court, but that is the appropriate venue. >> i do not believe it is nefarious. when one feels uncomfortable weighing in and being critical of other departments and other
commissioners actions, but that is what this job is. it seems to me to be a less than well thought out policy that affects this individual. i draw that conclusion from the presentation that one of the main reasons had to do with the fact that it would create a cue -- queue. it would be some sort of administrative paperwork, records to be kept. i do not think it would be that huge. whether or not the way that sfmta operates is the same as the taxi commission, the fact remains of they both deal with regulating the taxi industry. some of the ways they go about that might be different, but i would find it difficult to imagine that since she was over
at taxi that that many more people are seeking color schemes. when we hear about da queue, we are talking about 10. to have given that kind of comfort to people -- you are here, when it is time for us to consider this, it will be considered. the new rules apply to you are the same rules that would have applied to you if we had gone ahead and processed your permit and given it to you six months ago or a year ago. i was led to understand that individuals who currently hold color schemes will be held to the same standards as someone who gets a color scheme. all that said, i agree with the statement having to do with no benefits to continuing this.
there is no real permit. even if we were to continue it, there would still be no permit. what has been achieved here is that mr. alexander and his client go tto voice their dissatisfaction with the policy that is practiced by sfmta. hopefully, sfmta will take their remarks into consideration and will speed up this process. for the sake of people who want to open their own color scheme. i would move that we not accept jurisdiction. do we need a reason? not granting jurisdiction? >> is it based on a finding that this is not a denial of a
subject matter of jurisdiction is not invoked. >> we will move on to item number five. go sheng lei forces the department of public health. the subject property is that 646 washington street. directors case number fd-12-14. we will start with the appellant. the appellant will be speaking through a translator. if you could please give them 14 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. he is the proprietor of the restaurant. i am this friend and i and his translator. i have no financial connection. once in a while, i do each in his restaurant.
past company. earlier, i gave a copy of this report to the health department. can you take this? we wanted to submit the report. president garcia: the you have it already? >> just today. >> they gave a copy of the department -- to the compartmedepartment earlier tod. [talking over each other] president garcia: you are free to summarize its contents if you like. >> we would refer to the department, which gave them a report. president garcia: let me explain the problem, and we can stop the clock for a second. if we are not able to pay attention to you and your
testimony later if we try to read that. >> i see. the department targets -- [unintelligible] that is the best we can do. >> you can also refer to it by putting it on the overhead projector if you want the board members to have a quick look at it. >> thank you for your courtesy. >> [foreign language]
>> he agrees with all the findings of the public health department. he agrees with all the findings of the public health apartment. >> [foreign language] >> he asks to give him another chance in cleaning up the pl ace, which he has been doing constantly. his restaurant is a construction of the city college on the corner of washington street. for the last four years, his business has been dropped because of the construction he
fact that he now says when he is faced with revocation -- let me start it over. he talks about cleaning up when he is faced with revocation by dph, but how about all the other years when they were over and over and over again, pointing out what the problems were and ask him to take their problems and show a great deal of leniency. why didn't he do it in years past? >> [foreign language]
now. >> good evening, president garcia, commissioners. \ i am a senior environmental health inspector, i have a better restaurant inspector for over 12 years. food safety inspectors are charged with protecting public health by educating operators on the health code. we do so because patrons have the right to expect clean, sanitary, uncontaminated food. even more so for the elderly. in the fall of 2010, and i was upside to the southwest quadrant of chinatown. his restaurant was already on
probation for severe and ongoing rat, cockroach, and sanitation violations. at an abatement conference, the department came to an agreement that if any of the violations returned, he would immediately be sent to the director of public health for permanent revocation. in april of 2011, i began my series of inspections. the condition i found was negligent, not only of violation of the prior year, but the intensity had increased. there were more rodent species in more places, more debris on the floors and walls and on the equipment. at that point, i have the authority to close them and send them to the previously mentioned director. i chose not to.
we chose to give another chance to our restaurant that had just used up its last chance. typically, when i go there, we went back and i told them what they had to do. typically, he tells me that it is because of the decline in business. i've always had great sympathy for that. i expressed to him that the cause and effect between business and sanitation is a weak one. i think that if he really had a decline in business, he would have more time to clean and increases the better sanitation. a typical restaurant in good standing gets to inspections a year. it took eight inspections by this department and won the abatement conference to force him into compliance. i would like to show just a few
pictures, right here. i just want to point out that obviously, there was a rat problem. they have packages that are more thorough in terms of my stint in this district. again, not so clear from the overhead projection, but the corresponding number of page 36 in the package, rat droppings in the dining room is very rare. at the very least, they would want to hide that. and we have the condition of the kitchen floor, you can barely make out that it is still the kitchen floor with the debris covering it. i want to move forward now to