that shows the addition. where that was in relationship to where it is currently. from the aerial photo, it is hard to tell. it appears from the older photos, the exterior reader was not as far out as currently. the variance was predicated upon the reader wall line. >> let me grab one more area.

when we are talking about the syrians, we are talking about the second story addition. >> my understanding is that there was some discrepancy as to the thing that you pointed to as being the lower rear wall.

there was some discrepancy as to what the actual distance was compared to the back and the front. inadequate information was provided. i thought that some proof would be offered that out of the original dado was inaccurate or by the other side, it was accurate. >> ok. let me review some of the materials. >> maybe someone else out here has a different feeling and they can disabuse me of my feelings about this.

>> while we are waiting, is there any public comment on this item?

>> hopefully, i can make this a little bit more clear. let me put something on the overhead real quick. going out to the site, this is the rear building we are talking about. this one down here has not changed, the foundation has remained the same. it is kind of irrelevant, because the art kind of starts here -- yard starts here. it is this portion here. this rear building is not really as pertinent to this case. it is really the measurement here. >> that is true. but the appellant or someone had

raised the idea that that will -- wall is ground zero and had been pushed out. we wanted some proof that that was the case. then, the variance is greater than the foot and a half of what ever that dimension was or is. >> again, the foot and a half azov of that second story addition. -- is off of that second story addition. the premise on the existence of the underlying floor. >> that was my memory. let me back up one step.

is the lower floor rear wall line within the rear yard? >> no, it is in the visible area. it was up to the rear yard. it was for the second story. when we are talking about the rear wall, it was always in the billable area -- buildable area. commissioner garcia: for some reason, multiple members looked at this differently. >> of the appellant raises the issue of invalid hardship because it is a hardship created

by the owner. let's remember that for a second, forget about for a second. that would mean that they would have to get a variance in the first place. that is my memory of the case. >> and administrative variants? >> when it is within those limits or those parameters, it is granted automatically because it is considered cannot be that great. -- to not be that great. >> they did not apply for the administrative variance. >> the planning department shows -- chose not to apply that. it was created by the fact that the permit holder did things without a permit.

which greatly muddied these waters. >> they are trying to legalize illegal construction. the planning department does not look at that favorably at all. in this particular block, there are lots of encroachments. there is a very significant setback of over 20 feet. >> i am confused. i am looking at the old -- i don't know when they are from. it looks like if your looking from front to back, it is 62 feet. looking at the 2009 measurement is 66 feet.

>> one second. that is the first floor that you were saying was not within the required rear yard. i thought that was teh issue. -- the issue.

one more quick second. put something on the overhead real quick. >> i think you're referring to here? this your verses -- here v ersus the 62.

these are taken from two different sides of the building. it doesn't account for the stacks in the front. it should be even deeper. >> the number should be greater than 62? >> i don't have a scale on thme. >> thank you. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner garcia: what are we dealing with here, a protest of variance? i suggest that we uphold the variants based on the things that have been set by the planning department, based on the 5% rolule.

not sympathetically, i am sympathetic to the permit holder's situation with his wife. but he started the project without benefit of a permit. >> for someone who deals in graphics a lot, the first thing that a senior architect knows is to not use a scale. and drawings are not necessarily totally accurate. what greeted the question in my mind, when you look at the -- not the aerial maps, it was the three dimensional pictures where

you're guessing the wall on that side. it looked to me to be quite a bit further into the rear yard. in terms of where it is currently, as compared to an earlier total -- photo. i cannot find anything in the submitted documentation. therefore, i would support it. >> i would take the opposite stance based on the photograph

that showed the mismatch and how far the building had come out. the drawings seem to indicate it is further now. and that the applicant created the hardship. >> i have nothing further to add to the comments. it is complicated on both sides. but based on the evidence, i would uphold the variance. >> i would reluctantly go in that same direction. it would allow me to -- no

return. >> move to uphold. >> is that the basis where they found the findings? >> reluctantly, yes. president peterson: call the roll, please. >> on that motion -- commissioner fung to uphold the variance that they did not abuse their discretion. commissioner goh: no. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> vote is 4-1.

the variance is upheld. president peterson: when you are ready, please call item no. 7. >> before i call the item, was there contested rescheduling? president peterson: it was withdrawn. >> the division of taxis and accessible surfaces. appealing the denial of august 16, 2010 of regular taxi medallion. president peterson: we will wait until commissioner fung returns. thank you.

we requested that. it's for the file. thank you. >> two-zip, top of the fifth. president peterson: you have seven minutes. >> thank you, members of the board.

just really quickly, for purposes of this as well, i gave him a copy from the officer's division as was requested by the board. beyond that, this is a simple matter. he is currently a medallion holder, his vehicle is a wheelchair accessible vehicle. he obtained it in 2003. this is his appeal of the nile of a regular -- denail of a regular medallion. they are a primary source documentation in order to determine eligibility. primarily centers around whether it is a full time driver.

they submitted records for the years 2006-2009. on base value, it appears they had met the full time driver requirements. because of numerous discrepancies that we received, we found that the documentation was basically unreliable. and the way that it was submitted was questionable. it cannot be relied upon. a lot of this is in my brief, and i am not going to go through every single thing, but give you the finer points and the primary issues. there are -- he was driving while it was operational. let me give a quick explanation. when you have a medallion. that is the medallion you put in the car.

you drive those two shifts a day. what is happening, someone would be driving the vehicle while he is driving another vehicle. this is an illegal practice as far as taxi services are concerned because it is one medallion to a car. basically, two vehicles are operating under the same medallion. what you also saw in my brief, without going into too much detail, some numbers matched exactly. and the following day, it was

the exact same day. there are zero ways exactly 10 hours. this is equivalent to having a time stamp of going in to work and clocking in, and always having -- clocking out exactly 10 hours later. when you are doing a shift change, it is generally are around the same time. they take your keys, your gas tax, and goes to the next guy. they have an exact -- who have an exact 10-hour bill once or twice is possible, but virtually every time is almost

impossible. he was in a spare taxi over 70% of the time. he was saying that his car was broken down 70% of the time for the past couple of years. we have the spare program in the first place. to have it down to 70% of the time, it just doesn't pass the smell test as far as we're concerned. he doesn't have a smart card. in order to go to the airport, he must have one. he has been in san it is within the city limits the entire day -- in san francisco, within the city limits the entire day. the vehicle that a claim to be

driving was at the airport. those are the issues that we saw that made us question him and say that we can't rely on him to show that he is operating within requirements. i brought with me mr. scott leon who conducted the investigation. as far as we're concerned, we do not believe that mr. sinitsyn is eligible. at best, he padded the numbers. >> let's go backers with the the points you raised. -- backwards with the points you raised. with the transponder, is there evidence that it occurred as a

drop-off, or when someone has gone through the gate and is picking up a passenger? >> the strength -- the transponder will show whether he did that. >> i understand that. so you could be at the airport and have it be recognized by a transponder, but you could be there because you're dropping someone off. i have a problem with that and maybe we will get to that later. does he operate his own vehicle? he owns some vehicle, or it isn't an owned by -- it's something owned mby luxor? >> i don't know what their current relationship is.

>> it seems that it would be a violation by luxor. >> if the waybills are accurate, that would be true. >> either the appellant is fabricating or luxor is fabricating, but it could also be a third person fabricating. >> i have not reviewed a third person's records. i hear what you're saying, sir. it is quite possible that one of the other drivers could be fabricating. is that what you're saying? >> yeah. unless i missed something, i'm not quite sure what the shortfall is totally for the

ftdr's that cause the appellant to be denie. -- denied. what is the shortfall? >> at face value, there is no shortfall. but we decided that we can't rely on the waybill. >> i meant in quantum. >> based upon the one that we submitted, there is at least 40 waybills we can point to with an accuracy for the year 2009. >> you just did a slice, and that is all you need? >> we get a sample, correct. >> and he actually should have brought that he was responsible

for 2005. >> it is up to him what he brings in. i wanted to point out that we let him know the bring 2005. >> you raised the issue of time stamps. i remember reading that he had gone backwards in time, suggesting he had been using some other clock-out method. what happens to this individual's medallion if we were to uphold taxi. >> he would maintain his regular medallion, but he would likely look at proceedings -- correct. we would look at that --

>> but he is still a driver? >> that's right. >> will you talk about the briefing, you mentioned the incomplete waybills. how does that work? >> he was admonished for his lack of driving in 2005. at that time, it was believed that he had not completed the full time driver requirements. you still must comply with the full time driver requirement and drive 156 shifts at 4 hours each. each year, we do an audit of the medallion holders. >> and that was true in 2005 when your system was different?

you were not mta -- >> correct. the administrative -- he received admonishment under that. >> if the primary car is owned by luxor, how about the spears >> of the spares -- how about the spares? >> the spares are definitely owned by luxor. >> [unintelligible] >> at this time, they use a check out sheet where the drivers have to let them know. luxor