i am going to a lot of pain. in the 2007, i had a disability due to the spine problem that i have. commissioner fung: i would like to follow up. was your spine problem continuous throughout that year, or was it for a certain time? >> it is on and off. it is due to where i work. i sit on my back most of the time in these jobs. i had to continue to be doing it. i have children. the disabled van was an expensive type of vehicle to use

in the industry. as a matter of fact, i am on the third van, the fourth band since 2001. it happens that due to the regulatory process i do not pay off each of them before it is removed and a new one is produced. i am still in the business. that has made me accumulate a lot of that. i had to be doing it thinking i would pay off my debts when i get the regular medallion, which is a less expensive vehicle to use in the industry. when it came to my time to get it and they have used the hours to try to deny me the medallion -- commissioner fung commissioner fun -- commissioner fung: i am sorry to

have interrupted. commissioner hwang: it is okay. i see the declaration of lwana cho. it looks like a print out of attendance related documents. the reason i am looking there is i am also looking for a summary of hours you missed per year. you submitted a declaration with your attendance record, did you have a calculation or summary of those hours and days you missed your regular job? >> that are not listed separately. they are not listed separately. but it shows from 2005 to current the number of days that

i was on disability. >> i am wondering if you have an aggregate number so i can equate them. if you are looking for hours crediting, i just wanted to see. could you council put that together for you? >> if i may respond to that, i apologize. the way this works is linus oha tells me there is somebody at dpt who may have the intermission. it takes a long time to track down the documents. there is a key in the declaration of what those entries mean. when mr. linus oha should have been in my office helping me with this, he was on his back with his back injury. it could be done from the key in the declaration. i believe chau nguyen means -- i

believe c means he was out on workers' compensation. commissioner hwang: i am just looking for some numbers. that is ok. i wondered if it had been done. >> it has not been done. commissioner hwang: ok. i have nothing further. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner garcia: could i ask our city attorney a question? an issue was raised having to do with whether or not there is a violation of city charter. would you comment on that? >> it was an ordinance adopted by the board in 2009. the attorney attested to its legal validity. no court has ever held that the

daly/mar amendments are an improper amendment. the court looked at when something is considered an amendment of the voter initiative. it is not considered an amendment so long as it is not in conflict with the voter initiative and is consistent with the voter intent and purposes. the legislature made flesh out amendments and add more detail. it created a prior driving requirement for people on the medallion waiting list where prop k had a list for medallion holders and said preference should go to full-time working drivers. i believe our office would say it was consistent with proposition k. furthermore, relevant to the prison -- to the provision today is the transportation code. the ordinance came into effect

in 2004. the transportation code provision was adopted in june of 2009. it contains the relevance standards for eligibility. the code provisions that were being applied by the officer was that. commissioner garcia: you do not feel that is in contravention of the city charter? >> no. i believe the appellants brief stated as much as well, that the board was in its authority in adopting that code provision under proposition a. commissioner hwang: you said no court has ruled that it is not an improper amendment. has it been subject to challenges? >> no. there has been litigation over whether it contains a driving requirement. the courts have addressed that

question. the courts have addressed the question of whether proposition k requires driving requirements for medallion holders, but this specific prior driving requirement for the waiting list has not been litigated. commissioner hwang: got it. thank you. commissioner garcia: i hesitate to overly simplified this, but it seems as though it hinges not on whether or not -- there is no question about whether the poll time driving requirements were met. i do not think anybody argues on either side. it would seem to be that it is the issue to me, unless i am missing something that was just addressed by the city attorney, is whether or not the various authorities who recommended or clarified proposition k were

within their right to do so, and having done so does it clearly state there is an obligation to fulfil the ftdr. >> i feel as though everything was done properly in terms of deciding that an applicant as well as a medallion holder has to meet certain driving requirements. this applicant did not do so. i feel, pending the comments of my fellow commissioners, that there is no course for us other than to uphold the san francisco sfmta. commissioner hwang: i would so move. sorry, frank. president peterson: any other comments? commissioner fung: i am in agreement. this is not even close to

considering questions of driving. i would say it perhaps is not fully related to the case at hand, in the sense of the constitutional arguments made by the counselor. but the fact that there were no fares recorded at paratransit seems symptomatic of the amount of driving he has done. if you look atñ'fkyk?; the apps brief, he indicated he worked at the color scheme early morning to a certain time, worked his regular job in mthe mta, and came back and drove at nights and weekends.

that does not quite add up. president peterson: i concur. >> does he meet the requirements of section 1104? >> that is correct. >> think you. >> please call the roll. >> the motion is to uphold the denial. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> the denial is upheld. >> thank you. >> we can move on to item number 9. >> item number9 is mukulla and goodwin versus the department of building inspection, appeal number 10-60. the property is at 182 sagamore street protesting a permit to alter a building and at the

start to be constructed at the second floor, adding a new window and door. >> the evening, commissioners. on may 28th, there was a neighboring property right next door and let me get every one oriented. this is the street, this is our neighbor's residence and the issue is a deck that will be constructed which is directly adjacent.

we received notice on may 28th. when she was aware of the project, she thought it was a patio. she was made aware that this was a tax that was directly adjacent. we did meet with the neighbors and trying to work out an agreement on this and we have seen the exhibits which are about to show the commission. this is the debt -- deck. this is now looking this way, this is the back of 182. this is at her bedroom.

the issue that we have this that mr. godwin has a light well in the fact that is the primary source of light into our bedroom as well as her dining room. if you look at the photograph, this is pretty much off of her dining room window. this is different than an enclosed edition. they said that this was to provide place face for the family. this would be about 3 feet from the bedroom. she's concerned about the loss of natural light from the windows. we are working at a couple of solutions in order to give the

neighbors what they wanted. we wanted to see if he could keep the same area but it just oriented it a little bit different. in this case, about 8 feet or so. we even tried to play around with this their configurations. we have to go up and go to the planning process. this was completed, that was a valid concern. here is the compromise that we were trying to work out. we are keeping the deck as it is. we are hoping that they can remove about 10 square feet from the deck and get a stand back. this is the solution they offered. they won to make the portion

transparent with blazing in order to minimize the light impact. this is what we look like from the bedroom. this will help to preserve the natural light. this would help to cover from the noise of. we can get an agreement. we are close and the neighbors backed away from the solution for if you reasons. they would have to amend the building permit and they would have to come up with some additional costs. this would be a minor amendment to the permit and the difference would be about $200. this would be one thing if she was aware of these changes before hand but this was all

discovered after the fact. we're hoping that the solution we are proposing is a reasonable compromise. >> you said it would require some amendment to the permit. what process would be involved? >> i think they would have to modify the structural shrines because they would have to change how this is working out. >> thank you. >> this board made those changes. the plans would come here. we would order the changes to this permanent and a new permit would be made but this would not be able to be appealed. >> you did not submit any

briefing? >> no, we did not. >> did you see this a mission by the project's sponsor? >> we did have a chance to review this. >> i'm trying to understand. is your client's bedroom in the structure? >> correct. >> there are no other windows off the side? >> correct. if you go to the side, that is a light rail. >> this is an extension? >> yes, it was built in the

early 1990's. >> this is the gap that provides a natural light. >> thank you. can we hear from the permit holder or your agent? >> good evening, i am representing my client, the property owner.

we will answer any questions that you have. before that, maybe i can take some time to explain this project. basically, the gap is the side that faces according to the building and planning code. we are looking to preserve privacy, light and ventilation. that is set back 3 feet from the properties. we are trying to minimize any questions raised by our neighbors and we try to respect their privacy and everything. we do believe that a 35 -- 3 feet setback is quite enough to our neighbor, especially they

have a three story building at much higher than ours. our debt is only 8 feet tall. you are looking about 11 feet or 12 feet, this is not even the middle of the building. i don't see how this will impact the light, the installation, or vision. basically, we are facing the property wall. this is what i'm trying to explain. if you have any information, i'm happy to discuss this. >> is the compromise off the table? >> no, we tried to compromise

something with them except it seems that this is too much for us. we tried to offer a class which they asked for. we are willing to spend extra money to install the glass to compromise. they have only the light well which you can see in the pictures and we tried to set this back two feet more to make them happy but unfortunately, this will change the shape and then we have changed the structure as well so it will cost my client something and we will have to submit the plans back to the city because of the changing structure.

we have to spend extra money to install the safety glass we tried to compromise something. this is not really fair to my client, that is all i can say. >> you are willing to install the safety glass but not necessarily a compromise the space. you want to maintain the square. >> we to understand this. >> you feel that this will dressed alike issue, is that correct? >> yes, we agree with that. >> you are not willing to cut into the space? >> that will change the shape. you can see the offset.

would you say that the additional cut has no impact on the light? >> i doubt it. this is slightly over the fence a little bit. this is 6 feet and 7 feet. i don't see if this is necessary to do that. this would create a lot of things for us to do. >> i and stand. thank you. >> are there any comments from the department?

>> just a few notes about the process, the debt is less than 10 feet high and set back from the property lines and it is not located within the required rearguard and this can be done without any additional notification. on the residential guidelines, we would have a setback of 3 feet. this is already set back 3 feet as noted by the project sponsor. this is about 8 feet high. we approved a permit, we would be pleased to work with the project sponsor to develop some kind of alternative if the board desires and they could do that, they could cut back provided that they don't move it any closer to the property on the other side.

>> they need to amend the permit in order to do the class? >> i would believe so, yes? that has been noted for the record. >> what is the zoning? >> this is re -- rh1. they are well within a buildable area. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal >> our understanding is that things can be filed and son in code but the review is still providing notification in case there is some condition that was not addressed by code that might still be an issue and it gives the appellant a chance to address that. we understand that you can come

within 3 feet, the issue is that if you look at the house, this is a natural light well. what we're asking for is quite reasonable. the original configuring of the deck, and now we are looking at pulling this. we have engineers on staff to look at the cost and i have billed decks myself. this is not that big a deal. this is basically 2 feet by 5 feet and this is very easy to frame and this is quite doable. what i want to point out is that miss doblin did try to work with the neighbors and contact them to find out what the plans were. she was confused. the only way she could get a copy was when this notice was filed and she discovered that she had a right to appeal. the appeal was filed and that is when the neighbors began to negotiate. i want to point out the it is

that we had in terms as the deck, where these for offered by our neighbors. i'm not sure why these were pulled out, we are pretty close to getting this. the reason we would like to see this is that is not interfering with the issues but if is not taken out, it would be very for a subsequent owner to have this in the back. this would insure on whatever terms that we would have with their neighbors. >> the reason we would like to see this is that the release was stay in place. this would be very easy for someone to modify the railing back to where was as opposed to staying in the back. >> i'm not following your rationale. i don't see much benefit.

with love to hear a little bit more. >> what we're trying to do is to stand this in the back >> we have this one, the concern that we have, we are using this as a children's play space. what we're trying to do is to keep that as far away from the window as we can. that is why we proposed 5 feet and this was back to 5 feet and that is why we said ok. they originally proposed to the amount will that was there. we would like to of a platform to push that back in the future. >> i would like to see the picture underneath.