2008 into 2009 -- we are talking about the whole year of 2010. if there are still no waybills, and you are not making copies even after these difficulties -- >> if i could respond to that comment? the rules require him to submit his waybills. >> we are thinking about a continuance. >> i apologize. i did not understand what the requirement was. commissioner fung: we would want

mta involved in the verification. vice president goh: i am sorry. i did not follow. >> you are asking mta would have an opportunity to submit a long response? commissioner fung: they could do the verification they do on everything else. commissioner garcia: we're going to continue this and hope that either sfmta and the appellant -- more week to request or to find that we want this

individual placed a new on the list, such that if he were to be heard in 2011 he would have the potential to get a medallion. what that would demonstrate, what the way bills would demonstrate to this board, or at least to me, because it would not be of interest to others -- we know that his claim was that he had a fire and things got stolen. if he could come up with waybills that show that, he would absolutely qualify for a medallion. that is what we are trying to do. so the issue is to continue, and how far out in order to hopefully produce this information.

it seems as though they have the power to tell him to produce the documents. has there been a motion? i guess the motion would be -- do you want to make the motion here? the motion would be to determine a reasonable date to continue this to such a date so as to have that information and then make a termination after we have that determination for whether or not we then want to request this individual be placed on the list for further consideration. so the motion is -- would you approach and give us an indication how long? >> i would like to ask -- i have not discussed this. commissioner garcia: i think you can have more than 30 if you want it. but you also have to make some quick determination. are we allowed to leave that

open to wear if we end up doing this we can retroactively decide rules apply? >> before we go into this complicated question and analysis, there is a need for a motion. commissioner garcia: continuance? >> how about 60 days unless things are in storage? commissioner garcia: you are losing an opportunity to opt for the current system and are going to take continuance for 60 days. we would be forced to insist on the rules that exist after december 16, 2011. i am sorry to make it complicated, but it is complicated. >> i am not sure what the current system is. i did not understand the system. commissioner garcia: we are not going to continue to next week, so i think you are stuck with what happens after december 16.

>> after that, there is no prohibition of the hours. you need four of the five previous years with no proration. commissioner garcia: we cannot stay that. >> proration would not help him anyway because he would not have a boy your years of hours. -- not have four years of hours. vice president goh: we could also not move for a continuance or vote on a continuance. i think there is some feeling that we might do that. in order to overturn the department, you would need four votes. discontinuance even though it is in perfect for you might be the best case scenario.

>> when i read the existing reports, they made no sense to me. they omitted them and i read an -- commissioner garcia: i do not want to cut you off, but -- >> a clarification. you are asking for the appellant to submit waybills for calendar year 2009 and 2010. then would you like mta to -- 2008 is addressed in the hearing officer's decision. president peterson: there is no point in doing this. as of february 9, there are not

good to be the hours in the year 2011. commissioner garcia: the assumption is he is going to have the hearing immediately after we make a decision, which is not the case. this hearing could be in 2012. >> and you would like mta to review that submission of waybills. i assume board members do not want to undertake the waybill review? president peterson: do you want to allow some briefing on the topic of waybills? commissioner garcia: i want a page from either side indicating a high, low, or medium probability that the requirements will be met or will not if there were to be a hearing in 2011 or thereafter.

five pages of briefings? what does argue pages. -- let us argue pages. >> how far in advance of your deadline prior to hearing will you want these pages in order to be able to review them? february 9?

your documents would be due january 27. is that right? one week prior. sorry. >> this would depend upon the ability of the country to produce those as soon as possible. i do not think we will have a problem with getting them produced. >> the question is how long you need to review them. >> we would actually need a little more time to review them than that. commissioner garcia: we go into march, march 9? >> once we get them, we would still need a lot of time to review them. president peterson: that is the question. how far in the advanced do you need the way bills? >> we need them about three weeks and advance. president peterson: ok. >> so we can count them all up.

president peterson: so you need them by mid-january. i will ask mr. alexander if he wants to move the hearing date out for that reason. >> i apologize. are you going to be looking at obtaining yellow's records as well? commissioner garcia: whatever is necessary for us to determine. what i am interested in is if we had a complete record and knew that sometime in 2011 or thereafter his name would come up on the medallion list. does it look as though -- it does not have to be a final determination -- he would qualify? >> right, but i was asking something a little bit different. commissioner fung: driving records for 2009 and 2010. commissioner garcia: that has

been stipulated to by the taxi commission. >vice president goh: yellow cab was 2004. it is off the table. commissioner garcia: have been stuck with february 9, or is that too soon? >> can go to march 9? -- can we go to march 9? >> i want to make sure the parties and of the deadlines they have. if we are going to move this to march 9, the citadel would be due the thursday prior -- the submittal would be due the thursday prior.

>> i apologize for interrupting, but i can tell you right now that assuming he drives 2009 and 2010, that is still only three years. commissioner garcia: we do not want them to come up prior to his having gotten -- >> ok. commissioner fung: february 9 for him. for mr. murray to get the information. >> i will say february 10, a thursday. february 10, you're so middle -- your submittal is due.

that is prior to the hearing. i think we have a motion. commissioner garcia: watch it failed after all this work. >> the motion is from commissioner garcia to continue this matter to march 9, 2011. the public hearing is held and closed. it is to allow time for the mta to analyze the way bills for 2009 and 2010. additional briefing is allowed by both parties, with mr. alexander due four thursdays prior and the mta due one prior. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: no. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> the vote is 3-2. the matter is continued to march 9. thank you.

president peterson: when you are ready, we can call item nine. we have already taken care of item eight during housekeeping. >> : item nine, our last item. appeal number 10-19. wayne allen and theresa fulks versus the zoning administrator. it is the protest of the granting of a permit to carmen roman mariurray variances to construct a structure on a vacant lot. president peterson: we need to wait for some of our commissioners to be back. i appreciate your patience.

we are ready for you. i'm sorry.

>> now we are ready. >> my name is theresa. i am one of the appellants. the building the murrays want to build is very upsetting and stressful. we do not believe the city would let them to have the small front yard setback. in the appeal we recently gave on the conclusion para representative, we referred to

planning cut section 132 that required a 10 foot front setback. we think there may be a mistake in how this was arrived at. our house is 143 feet wide. in the middle of the front of the house is a step to our front door. they extend for feet from the house. our actual house has a setback of 14 feet. the house on the south side had a further setback. we believed the setback for the project was to be set sometime between 1956 and 1968 when it was being decided how far the setback should be. it appears it was not calculated with our 14 foot setback, but from our steps in the front of the house. the original front yard setback may have been tucked elected correctly. we think there front setback should be somewhere between our house and the property at 1968 great highway, which is a larger setback.

it appears the house should have a 14 foot setback or more according to the planning code. even if the murrays had to build a house with a point setback of 14 feet to make it even with our house, they would still have paper 25 foot by 40 foot tall for story building that would have about 2,500 feet with two units and a 1000 square foot garage with a large square footage of living usable space behind the garage wall. that would be an approximate total square footage of about 3500 square feet, less the internal stairs. this is more than ample space for a two unit building. pushing to get every square foot they can get is not fair to us or the other people who are required to follow the building code, especially since i told them i would not like they're building to go past hours. there is a reason for the code.

everyone knows there is a building the want to build with a setback that is too short. in our appeal letter, i mentioned the murrays told us they were born to sell their other properties to pay the balance of the lot and have funds to pay for the house. we feel there would not have to acquire a building on, which are very expensive with high interest. one of the reasons they give for meeting a larger building is to get a building one which the cannot get with the smaller building. this contradicts what they told me. we hope the board can see our concerns are valid and should be considered, and see the whole picture of what this project will look like sticking out this far. there is a short 7 foot setback which was targeted with the wrong required setback from the beginning.

we hope we can reach out with the code-record set back. this is only the bare thing to do. i would like the murrays and the allens to be able to enjoy their property. big is not always better. we dropped up exhibit showing our house and documentation from a respected architect that had designed and built our house at 1966 -- 1956 and lived there until 1946 when he left, passed away. the family kept it until we bought the house. the exhibits show a small fraction of the house and other properties he designed. there were many articles, books, and other media written about his unique design of buildings. the california historical society in 1983 sent a letter wanting to preserve the plans and drawings left by him in a file cabinet in the garage after

the house was sold to our family in 1968. they got this information from his son. our house is a very important, unique design. the size of the front setback will negatively affect the look and use of our house. i understand why they need the four floors to make the building viable. they can still have a viable building with a larger setback. we had told the murrays what we tried to build and were denied, if they wanted to build a larger building and would not. we would understand if they did not want to buy the lot. we told them what we tried to build -- a two unit building on the same lot in 2000-2001. ours was about 28 feet by 38 feet by 27 feet. there was a setback that was larger and a much smaller

building. we were denied and denied and only allowed to build a 29 by 25 ft. 3 story building, which was not viable. we give up. this is very ironic that our smaller building was denied by scott sanchez in 2001. the larger building of 47 feet by 20 feet, by 40 feet is granted by scott sanchez, zoning administrator. a 40 by 25 by 40 foot building is more than viable. we hope that the board may rescind their granted front set back. i was trying to make sure i got it within the seven minutes.

basically, if you look at -- i actually have the 2001 planning department that we received and we tried to build our building, with mr. scott sanchez on the form. it just does not make sense to us that we were trying to build a 37 by 20 -- the 38 by 28 by 38 foot tall building and we were denied. now someone is trying to build a 47 by 25 by 40 foot tall building and they are being granted. it does not make any sense to us. we know they could build a smaller building. >> i think you will have time in

their rebuttal. let us hear from the other side. commissioner hwang: i want you to put on the overhead the 2001 decision by scott sanchez. >> here is the front of the thing. commissioner hwang: does it say his name on it? ok. >> that is the front of the region commissioner hwang: ok. can you pull it down a little bit? i do not see it. oh, i see.

>> here is scott sanchez's name. here is the front. commissioner fung: who set the sales prospects -- sales price? >> the sale price for the lot or the house? commissioner fung: the only thing sold was the lot. >> you mean when we sold the lot to them? it was a broker that we had. commissioner fung: but who set that sales price? did you set the sills price? >> the price we asked for to sell the lot? we thought we could get more. but at the time because of the recession, we know it was a

small lot and we knew what we went through to get something built. we decided to lower it. we needed the income to do some other investments. we lowered the lot down to 390. commissioner fung: thank you. >> we can hear from the variants holders now -- variance holders now. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is carmen roman murray. i am here with my husband, john. i cannot go over all the numbers that were mentioned, so i am just going to address valuation. one of the main issues is that at the time that the brief was to be submitted, it was never submitted. so we could not argue about what

was not presented. so at that point i was told by mr. pachecko that i could request the original variants -- variance i asked originally. that is what we did. what we did was to request that the appeal should be denied it because they never presented any arguments to what they were appealing. secondly, that we would be granted now the original variance because they mentioned that the structure that we're going to bill this very large.

-- to build it is very large. if i can show the picture here. here we have this massive structure sitting in the two lots. this is the house that mr. allen owns. next to it is the lot we bought from them. you see how narrow that lot is. what we were asking with the building -- let us build here. it is a unit structure. they have different set back very large because they are sitting in two lots. this is a single unit home. we said let us look at the rest

of the homes. we should look at the rest of the homes and build that way. i am going to match myself to the one that is close to the unit. that is what we said. but as go up to that building. that is what we got the variance for. on the south side, there is a church. there is another building that is set back because they are buildings. three lots. i cannot compare this merrill lot to these older buildings. -- this narrow lot to these older bear -- older buildings. we were grateful that we were given the variance in the middle. they said let us not give you everything, but let us give you something. now that we have the