the commission brought 2005. [unintelligible] my manager didn't inform about my absence. i was short. nobody asked me for those reviews. i have you with me, so [unintelligible] going back to spare usage of the spare vehicle, when you come available, fill out the form. i did not keep these forms, so to me, we need to understand. the cars, they're really

fragile. it's deserving of two or three years max. the cars almost broke down. either the transmission or back doors, it doesn't function. i didn't do any fabrication of appeal, to be on-time is not a crime. we have tehe ending shift. i was always on time. once again, like i said, i was guilty and wrong. i admit that. i promise it will not happen again. i brought my 2010 waybill.

that's what i'm doing right now. i mean, it's easy to do nothing and like i said, that was my mistake. i'll pay for that. that's all i have. i put those letters of people that called me on my cell, they needed help, those rides. [unintelligible] i did provide the service to those people.

i think we covered it all. yes. please consider my appealing. thank you. commissioner garcia: i have a question. dro newve a -- when you drove a spare, was it a rabcab? y >>es. -- >> yes. >> only recently? >> if your car is broken, you can take any spare in the garage. >> thank you.

any public comment? seeing them, would you care to have any rebuttal? you have three minutes. mr. sinitsyn, you have anything else to add? the matter is submitted. >> this is difficult and this is horrible. when we get a lot of these cases, the decision we make is going to affect some one substantially, financially. in order to get a medallion, there are two requirements. you keep track of your bills. so that they can determine whether or not the full time driving requirements were met.

i would hate to think what if there was no fabrication, the situation where the spirit have was really the fault of luxor as much as it was of this individual. all of those things can affect you emotionally and intellectually. the fact remains that in order to get a medallion, you have to have proven they you have driven a certain number of hours. you have to keep records. i am entirely sympathetic to this individual, but i see no way that my fellow commissioners can decide if the records were not kept sufficiently.

>> i think that is part of the case here, however, there are two items that this is predicated upon. one is the correlation between the spare and the medallion, the primary car itself. we need that information from luxor. the department should analyze those documents. third, if the analysis that the department should do related to the spirit cars -- spare cars, i would be curious what they would do to luxor.

if they did all of these things, they have substantial culpability. there are limited number of medallions, this gentleman pose the issue is related to his own record keeping. -- and this gentleman's issue is related to his own record keeping. if you have a situation where you are renting a medallion and you are providing a car, you must provide the maintenance. what is the sense of having a medallion which is for a certain purpose, 70% in the shop?

>commissioner garcia: commissioners, i will recommend we continue this item. and the correlation between medallions, assignments, [unintelligible] and to analyze the 2005 waybills. >> since they found fault with that, he could still possibly, by examining 2005, be within

compliance a everything is ok. -- if everything is. -- if everything is ok. >> further comments? president peterson: on whose shoulders would like to place the responsibility to get this information? commissioner fung: there is only one that has the ability to make a color scheme do anything. how much time do you need? >> which years are we looking at? just 2009?

>> i believe that you only look at 2009. >> it took us quite a while. >> the rest of the year is quite busy. i don't know if you want to wait until january. >> that is okay with me. >> before this gentleman response, is our promise correct that you examined 2009, but it is four years out of five. i don't want to attach an adjective to it. if it turned out every other year was all right, he would still be eligible? >> that is correct. the primary issue is that because of the problems that we

saw, we are hesitant to give credit because we are unsure of the validity of the way bill. >> you have the issue of some fabrication. >> maybe there is more that will be seeing. that is our primary concern. >> that is not to create a greater burden as much as the fact that it would be a separate issue to deal with. and it might not be the various problems, it might be a question of record keeping. -- nefarious problems, it might be a question of record-keeping. >> thank you. the motion is to continue this item until the january 12.

>> do you want to talk about the continuance? >> speak into the microphone. >> if the car had a flat tire, it's considered to be broken. if it's waiting for an oil change, it's considered to be broken. i don't think they have files on that. the body shop, that is another procedure. i am not sure they have that. president peterson: the agency is going to take additional time to look at the records, and we will come back and discuss the records. commissioner goh: it sounds as

though he is saying that it is pointless to try to get those records. >> they will still have to explain whether it is an oil change or what ever the issue is, why 30% of the time, it is available to the medallion holder. that is not acceptable. there might be some structures against that. your bigger worry is that some other years of your waybills pass the test for the full time driving requirement. the issue is a concern, and i am not sure that is the issue here. >> they mentioned in the

pacification of waybills. [unintelligible] >> they did fabricate some? >> people said i did. >> we threw you a lifeline. we're asking you not to argue the case any longer. we're asking you what you would consider to be reasonable day. right now, what is under consideration is january. >> commissioner, i agree with you that the information particular with regard to luxor, i wonder whether or not it makes sense to put that sfmta resource

to use on this. i initially supported commissioner garcia's comments. you still feel it would be useful given the comments that we just heard? >> i did not hear from npa -- mta that there is no data. >> luxor didn't provide it. >> maybe you should address your question to mta on if it was available. >> only luxor could answer that question. that might be the reason we never got it in the first place,

but i will have to check. >> the to save that of course -- they could say that of course it is not true. it is available more than 30% of the time. to me, it goes toward fabrication that it was available and for whatever reason, he fought -- he put down the wrong number. >> i agree. >> i will suggest to january 12. >> that is okay for the mta. >> what documentation are you allowing any additional briefing?

>> let's maintain the standard briefing schedule, and both sides can submit the three-page brief. president peterson: i ask that your document to be submitted prior to the hearing. you can submit a three-page brief in response to the documents submitted. commissioner fung: if you would selectively choose any other year, i will be satisfied with that. i think there is some statistical validity to that approach. >> call that motion, commissioners? >> the motion is to continue

this matter and the january 12, 2011. this will allow time to allow the parties to submit additional information pursuant -- mta is due two thursdays prior. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. th >>e vote -- >> the vote is 5-0. president peterson: why don't of>> , in item nine.

-- calling item number nine. the property is at 2037-2039 jefferson street. this is appealing the nile -- this is appealing the denial of a permit to alter a building. >> good evening, scott sanchez, planning department. there was an application to merge two dwelling units. the second unit was added in the early 1980's the certificate of

completion was in 1984, approximately. the project sponsor is looking to remove the second unit. they requested a mandatory restriction area review -- discretionary review. to take this review and deny the request. the planning department requested a denial because they found that it did not meet the majority of the opinions and there was not a majority of the italians -- of the opinions. this is a rental unit. this was stated on the project's sponsors application. this is intended for owner occupancy. this met the third findings of

prevailing occupancy. there are quite a few single family dwellings. this did not meet the fourth finding which is that it comes closer to conformity with the prescribed zoning paren. the final finding is that this was a dwelling unit that was added fairly recently in the 1980's. the project sponsor has raised issues but really there are functional deficiencies which would preclude the enjoyment of both of these units. it is with those findings that the department recommended the denial of the building permit

application and that the planning department denies application. a letter was submitted after the planning department had prepared the initial and before the hearing. this was presented to the planning commission. i would like to point out that the application itself said that this is a tenant unit and this is in fact a rental unit. for those reasons, the board upholds the and -- we request that the board upholds this. >> does this give it any way to the fact that the work will return to the way it was when it was billed? >> this is a chilling in its and there are other alterations that

can be made to the building that can pertain to the dwelling units which would be appropriate for the design of the building. this would be appropriate to to remain as a two-unit building. >> the rental unit had been vacant for a year. did your department to verify that? >> we have not verify that independently. the issue here is to meet the finding and this seems to be owner occupied in currently this is not owner occupied. >> that made me think of something else. both units are rented now? >> the owner does occupy the

lower dwelling unit and this is the upper unit on the third floor which are the rented units. >> i think the owner occupied thing probably comes from jersey street and we have done some of this. i don't know if you remembered jersey, this was one of the first that was done. it seems like you can come up with something other than that. on the owner occupied a share, the fact was that no one was living there and the couple was occupying both floors. the thinking was that it had more to do with the fact that someone was going to be effected from the unit and the board was

trying to prevent that. i don't see that being the case. the tenant has written a letter saying that she intends to be a temporary occupant of that building and it had been vacant for a while. i would have some real problem with defining that criteria. you have said that this is ok and the owner is going to occupy one of the units and will occupy one of the units when done. the density issue is not a problem. the only time that someone could remove a unit, i am trying to get him to respond to the fact that i don't feel like all of them respond. the one having to do with the

zoning is that if someone has two units, this is illegal so they would be required to move it. there seems to be some logic to this bunning thing. they could have the two units. >> our department has to take a look at to the fact that this is a rental unit and there is a tenant in there. this is a finding that is at first. they might want to consider additional information and make more of a judgment call on that but we did not find that there was sufficient evidence with that. in regards to the finding about the zoning, this really is relevant because of we were talking about a unit, this would be coming closer to conformity

because there are many noncompliant buildings in the city. there are cases where they don't have the amount of required parking or open space. somehow -- >> the parking situation under that particular zoning would not be allowed, the tandem parking? >> tandem parking is allowed under the parking code. we have the tandem parking in response. >> this has to do with

affordability or something like that. i was shocked to find out that the unit was considered affordable at this price. >> this is a market rate that is not subject to rent control. once this is merged, the rent will be much higher.

we consider existing housing to be more affordable than new housing. >> i am to stand when you raise example of nonconforming -- and this is something that is more conforming. should this be the key units? >> i think i understand the point you might be making