the shift meaning 10. if that is the case, then the shortage could be much greater than the number of ships that were short depending of course on the bills that were misplaced. >> i'm not sure which years the respondent is referring to regarding the shortage of hours. it is possible that that is here that he had more than enough. i don't know what you are referring to. >> i guess i do have a question you reference to 2009 and the 2010 bills and yet i did not see them in your brief.

>> we have them. >> no one has a chance to look at them and see if the dates are wrong. this might be that there's not sufficient proof. >> the reason we did not attach it in this case is because my understanding is you are limited to the record on the underlying action and that is why we did not submit this. >> ok. thank you. >> that is why we are willing and able to. >> thank you. >> anything else? >> that is it. >> we can move back into public comment. if you wish to speak, please set forward.

bernanke. >> -- thank you. >> i am the manager and i have known ramon for fifth -- i've known omar for 15 years. we have worked together very closely. he is a very good driver. he is very disciplined. the reason that this could be some kind of discrepancy in our job and sometimes we lose the

bill, even during the process of checking. there was a time when the lost. the companies had it for five years, 10 years. there was about five or six hearings during the process. there was a time when they were allowed to present each candidate for four years. they would get their medallion. in four years, only nine bills. the other guy, only 8 bills.

the department is four years. within the consistency, i can understand. there's nothing that we can do about it. there is not consistent work. he works so hard. i should not be here today if he is not really a person who never worked or a person who is not working that much. i cannot be in front of you. he is a good driver. >> thank you. >> i have a question. when did this lack of consistency occur? >> approximately the guy's got the time that you wanted the dates. -- approximately the time that

you got the dates. there was a time when the hearings officer, he took three years and i think 6, 7, eat. then they took seven bills. those would be counted as one full year. mr. omar had two bills. >> i heard that. >> he also indicated that certain schemes throw with their bills quickly. is that the same with your company? >> no. he for it himself to me directly and i give you this many bills.

i am not expecting him to lie in front of you or anyone. there is no way that i can tell. >> thank-you. >> is anyone else here to speak? >> i would like you to keep in mind that we are still disputing the pills that he has. when he used those numbers, i based upon all claims. the number he submitted was a lot lower than what he is claiming. you have to make the 800 hours

each year. in terms of the company throwing away bills every two months, that is not true. all of the companies have had their bills for at least six years and we can go back and you have seen people who have had them going back 2005, 2004, to maintain those bills. there has not been any indication as to how they were lost, if they ever existed, or what happened, if this -- and he said that he gave him all that he had and he came to me and said that i lost them. this requirement is not is rigid requirement, this is a minimum.

and you can drive for nine months two days a week and still fulfill this requirement. i believe that mr. omar has an occupation besides driving a taxi cab but he is aware that he is short and he has been aware that he was short. people know who he is. we did not dispute this. this is not mean that you are out driving. the primary issue here is whether he fulfilled a full-time driving requirement. he did not. we cannot get out a permit for people who do not.

with that being said, nothing against mr. omar, but we don't believe that he fulfilled a the permit requirements. >> i have a question about the types -- i am assuming that you are the person to ask. when people are up for a permit, and medallion, are you seeing people having difficulty meeting the driving requirement. obviously, once they come to us -- >> that is the primary issue. >> what is the percentage of people who get on this list and cannot meet the requirements? >> i would say 1/3, 50%. we will send out 20 of the

letters that only 10 will qualify. a lot of it is a function of that has been a long time. sometimes we stop driving and i am close to the top. they come back to the company and, i did not drive that much but i will start driving right now. that is what we see, people have been waiting and then they realize that they're close but they are light in the first few years and they are heavy in the last few years. we want to take this seriously. many did not take this requirement until they realize that they have to do this to get a permit. >> can you talk about the gps.

>> there's nothing about using gps. it is true that many of the cars are beginning to get more of the gps data in fault. i have seen people who have it on their smart phones. we have the requirement that you need to know your way around the city. >> is this a specific address, a landmark? >> this is not a specific address but a landmark.

we will ask you about the bigger hotels, that kind of thing. we want them to know the basics on how to get around. we want them to serve every part of the community. >> could you speak to the notion that one does not need to pass the test, just take the test. >> been there would be no point of the minister in the test. the section says that you must take this as required as part of your medallion application. >> any comment on that there's no consistency in your review

process. >> i am unaware that anyone who has been granted a medallion for three years. i don't know situation that has occurred like that. and that has not happened. >> this has been with the mta for about a year. >> for about a year and a half. i believe this was in march of 2009. >> thank you.

>> one of the questions asked is what st. the entrance to city hall was on. two of the answers were polled and the growth. mr. omar. both of them because this was at the corner. in actuality, this is -- the test itself at the wrong answer. the best example of the questions they asked with respect to finding locations in the city. with respect to throwing away the bills, this happened years ago and not necessarily in the past two or three years. i believe that there was a rule that was instituted about keeping the bills for a certain amount of time and the possible

20052006 and to go back and look. with respect to how many people are denied their permits, let me just say that i have been representing this for five years. i've gotten calls from people who are being denied permits. it seems that once the mta to go for, they became overly strict and their application of the rules. the way you can look at a bill and whether or not this is accurate. this might be one of the problems, in the past, it was granted for three years and a little bit of the fourth year and all of a sudden it is not. in closing, we believed that the application and the decision to deny this is contrary to the

lock and to the evidence and we request that the application be granted where the decision be overturned or alternatively, it gives omar a fair shot at taking the test again and submitting the bills from 2009 until the present. if you have any other questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> are there any questions? commissioners, the matter is submitted.

it is hard when you hear testimony that he is a good driver and he has worked so many years. it is hard because i don't see that he needs the driving requirements and i'm not sure what we can do about that. >> i am in agreement with that statement. this is not that difficult to achieve. this would be only three out of the past five years.

they have discounted the way bills and the airport trips, and still leaves a number of years short and by not a very difficult threshold. if there is no further comment, i will make a motion. i will move that we reject the appeal and uphold the

department. >> thank you. >> this is to uphold the nile on the basis listed. on that motion -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the denial is upheld. thank you. >> we can move on to our last case, item number seven. i think the parties for this

case for staying so late through the other items. -- i thank the parties. >> calling item 7, appeal number 10-102, dijeau poage construction appealing the revocation of a street space permit. >> typically we would hear from the department first. ago >> good evening -- >> good evening, commissioners. had this berman been administrative error or an oversight, we would not have revoked the permit. the brief by the appellate party is factually correct, however there are certain

difficulties a present. we informed them that they can only have a four-month extension. i provided them with a piece of paper and wrote in pencil, unfortunately, saying that they were allowed a four-month renewal. at some point, the applicant came to my staff and provided a

handwritten note. my staff as i waited this and noted that there could be some discrepancies and they contacted the home office and talked to one of my permit staff. per discussion, they were authorized a four-month permit. this is not answer the question that was posed that how what an individual was given this, it

would somehow change from how it would change possession. based upon this information, some have a document and we have to revoke the permit based on what appears to be fraud. had this to build a building permit or a planning document, someone would make the change. deep building believes that we acted appropriately -- the building department believes we acted appropriately. but appears that someone had manipulated information.

>> it is that your handwriting? >> that is my handwriting except for number 5. >> what are the word spread of four of the line at the bottom. >> that lists 30 linear feet. >> i just want to make sure. >> when you put to that, you had written it the number four. there was no extension at 38 linear feet. >> that is correct. >> when this was presented to the staff, the four had been changed to 5. >> that is correct. >> on principle, you took the action of revoking. >> it was not so much principle but it was it was a case where i

would not have it at that point. someone change that piece of paper. >> when you were first presented with a question of the extension,, it was asked if you for five months. >> ok. >> i would like to reiterate what was stated in the letter on

october 18th. to comply with the rules and regulations, i went down to the offices at 1660 mission and subsequently went to 875 stevenson. this process is not new to me. i have been in -- i have been doing this for quite some time. previously during might to your employment with the local real- estate company. no fraudulent affirmation was submitted by me or anyone else. there is an obvious discrepancy. there was never any

disagreement or opposition to the amount of time granted to us for the renewal. i followed all the rules and protocols as laid out. on september 5th, i received the notice and i was shocked and confused why they had submitted a letter and the fraudulent information had been submitted. on the advice, they said it would be a good idea to try to resolve the issue outside of the board of appeals. i went down and visited him at

his office. i did this so i could put the issue to rest. this is why i am bringing it now to you. i just asked about the evidence that i submitted. each year we start 10-15 new projects where similar permits are pulled and they have never been accused of such allegations and the board will recognize our credibility and we can move on and continue the remaining 12 states that we have on the existing permit. in addition, i am not looking for any extension or monetary

reimbursement. in the duration that this whole appeals process happened, the permit was renewed on september 3rd which is a friday. on the following monday, we received a letter from mr. fung's office saying that the permit was revoked at which point we removed all of our employees from the property because we did not want to incur a fine. for about 15 days, i made an attempt to reach out and resolve the issue and before that 15 days, from the fifth until september 24th when we received another notice from the board of appeals offices, we did not have our signs up so we lost 15 more working days with our