we have, we just talked about times to prove the accurate information. through 2009, the car was in the shop. it was accurate evidence and proof that the car was broken. that is why i used a spare for that. in the rules, 1104, only written ones can be submitted. it is like any other country's. i have my experience how to work. many times, computer will be broken also.

i will have to go back to the garage and fix it. speaking of accuracy, [unintelligible] i have 81 log in periods of time. it is completely accurate. speaking of -- the rules are that four out of five calendar years. we talk about 2009, 8, 7, and 6. i have evidence for 2005. nobody asked me to provide the

others. like i said before, i have my wife that watches my kids all the time. i have co-workers with me. yes, i did work for those 17 years. i am planning to continue this as well. i was not accurate, but i p romise this will not happen again. please consider my explanation. >> and when i looked at some of your list, i did not exhaustively total them up. sometimes, you were in for only two hours or less. is that common? >> if the computer system is

kicking you out or the gps system is dropping johann -- you. like i said, as of today, we have 1500 medallions. we have the company that is using the system. and basically, [unintelligible] it should be below for everybody. i think it should be pretty much accurate. >> when you drive a typical shift, how many miles to drive -- and do you drive?

>> the e-100 miles. i make a lot of trips. it will be increasing the number of miles. president goh: is their public comment on this item -- is there public comment on this item? >> good evening, commissioners. you ask for the electronic printouts. we supplied them. you asked for mechanical records. the mta says these things don't happen. if you want a copy, i can give

them to you. these are not -- the mta is wrong saying they don't break down. they are vans converted into heavy lifting lifts. with the the roads in san francisco, we know that they are the worst roads in the world. the hills are the worst streets to drive on. this is the worst city to drive- in. bottles everywhere -- pot- holes everywhere. there is oil changes. we have preventive maintenance.

that is when you want to get a spare and put the vehicle o, hae the brakes looked at. commissioner fung, you mentioned two-hours. every time you go to the bathroom, if you're not there, you log off. if you go through a million waybills, you will see these in- and-outs all the time. the machine will automatically log you off if you don't enteanr a trip call. president goh: any other public comment? the matter is yours. >> mr. murray, if i could, sir?

even though this is the second time -- [no audio] aside from the issues of if the waybills were manufactured, if they were to be excepted -- accepted -- >> if we take into consideration that each is accurate and valid, for the years he submitted over 80 waybills. >> how do we know for sure that when someone else is -- is that

the medallion number? if two individuals have submitted waybills, how do we know that the individual -- [no audio] in otherwords, two people could not have unless it was an error. they indicated that as per habit, he'd write down 95. let's assume he was the one who and driving. how do we know that someone else did not claim to be driving? >> if you look at the shift

times, you see 93. they are both overlapping, he was out from 10:00am until 8:00pm. there is clearly a problem and because you are driving the same car between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m.. >> i don't understand how you -- the appellant is the individual as opposed to the other individual. >> i see. the individual we are looking at is here. in his case, if you look at the

log ons, he wrote 9053. it shows 224353, but he wrote 9053. it overlapped with someone else. or we look at smart card records. we look at a similar waybill. it will show that he was at the airport, and there would be no injuries. i don't believe he has a smart card to pick up out of the airport. we will be able to find pretty

quickly whether they are at the airport or not. >> will let also prove that he was not driving under a different medallion? >> assuming that that were the case, we would still check. it goes to the person, not the vehicle. we show that whoever is holding his car to check in at the airport. -- card checked in at the airport. we have to look at log ons. it is determined that you were actually in 2223. it is a tiered process. we have to look at other corroborating evidence.

and they can be written down in any way by any person. >> that might have more to do with the poor way i ask teh question - -th- the question rather than your answer. we have established he was not driving 9053. how do you know he was not driving another car? as opposed to his not having driven at all. and having fabricated a wybill? -- a waybill? >> the absence of teh lohe log n would lead us to believe that he did not drive that day.

>> it has been quite a while since we have heard this case. he had driven approximately half of the year. was the department given his waybills for the last half of 2010? >> we did not request 2010's waybills. we requested 2005. >> i believe there was testimony made at the previous hearing that he was driving significantly during the first half of 2010. but i just remember that? >> we would not have had

waybills after he had submitted his first round. if we had any evidence, we would only have had it up until that point. >> isn't that pro-ratable? >> the rules are constantly changing. it is possible. at the time, the hearing officer could have chosen tthe number. but they did not do so. >> you have a copy in front of you that does not allow for pro- rating. >> it does allow other

corroborating documentary evidence instead of the written waybills. right? >> right. >> i have a question. in your mta analysis of the waybills and discrepancies, going to the question that commissioner garcia was asking, that it was not the other driver misreporting his or her record, where if any areas in your analysis would there be a question of doubt?

in to what extent did your department to give the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. >> there are blind spots. for example, one thing we would have a difficult time being able to look through his if there were no airport pickups at all. if we went through the entire year, we would not be able to look at any smart cards. we don't have anything that says that you were at the marriott for st. francis. in that sense, we give the benefit of the doubt to the driver because we are not going to disprove what you have, but if there is an overlap, we have to bring in what the other drivers have.

that is a complete blind spot that we would have a lot of difficulty resolving. >> in terms of resolving the d't he say that in 2005, he was at a modest because it was believed [unintelligible] >> correct. >> thank you. president goh: comments, commisiosioners? is it submitted? commissioner garcia>> i have a t necessarily a position yet. the medallions, the numbers are being expanded. there are issues related to the

sale of the medallions. part of me says that something somebody has waited 17 years for, if it is significant to their financial situation, you would think that they would want to keep better records for themselves. i understand it is not always easy to do that. but when you are tied to something that is your own well- being, it is less acceptable. the issue here is not necessarily the fault of any agency or the department, it is the individual's who somehow

never keep track in an orderly way of their driving records. part of me thinks that it is their own fault, why is it that this board bails them out? part of me recognizes that it is not an easy profession. and is there some level of -- that we would allow for that and provide them with some level of equity. i am not quite sure what i want to do with this yet, but it is becoming quite clear that we are hearing a significant number of these cases and it is always the same thing. missing waybills for one year. and at some point, we are going

to wind up with a more defined position in terms of how we view who is responsible. >> i think mta is moving to a position where less is required, some sort of electronic analysis. it seems that for a number of years, we would have reached that point a long before now. someone has driven for 17 years, and you want to go to equity. for the most part, the shortfall is relatively minor. no offense intended, but it brought forth a certainly probative -- i don't feel that they totally [unintelligible]

the argument was weakened having to do with whether or not a spirit taxi was driven -- spare taxi was driven. if a color schene ime is required to keep records of a spare cab and other issues, we don't hear about action taken against key color scheme -- the color scheme. where is the form that corroborates that? if we felt like it was an even playing field, what was sought was trying to help the driver prove, we have heard many times that a driver is out there until 2:00 or 4:00 in the morning.

they have to recreate their waybills. that leaves a lot of room for error. by my comments, someone could assume where i am leadining. >> i am also taken by the letters from the customers or passengers, a number of whom have used this tax and service for the last five years, many of whom were physically disabled. i don't know if this is corroborating evidence or not, but it seems to have used the services for five consecutive years or greater.

as to the increasing numbers or the relative frequency with which we see these types of clients, i feel there are probably a lot of people getting medallions whose issues are not brought before us, whose waybills are proper. the most critical fact is the fact that the appellant was admonishing in 2005 for not having proper waybills. that is critical to me because there was basically notice of the importance of these documents. >> i tend to agree with that. i am leaning towards believing sfmta, the credibility of the waybills. the 10 hours to the minute where

you have to wait in line and check in. it seems like it's not likely that time after time you get thhat. i'm leaning towards supporting the department. >> did you wan ttt to make a motion? >> is there a motion? >> i move to overrule and grant the medallion. >> can you call the roll,

please? > to grant the appeal and grant the medallion with findings to be adopted at a later time. president goh: no. commissioner garcia: [no audio] commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: no. >> the vote is 3-2. the city charter requires 4 votes. absent another motion, the denial will be upheld. president goh: seeing no other motion, can we call the next

item? or would someone make a motion? >> the motion to grant -- there is no reason to make it? then call the next item. >> moving on to item number seven. >> appeal 10-132. with planning department approval. it is the protests of the issuance on november 24, 2010, to the community housing, permit to alter a building.

president goh: we can start with the appellant. >> president goh, commissioners, i represent cbs outdoors. i don't know if it is the first time to come before the board, but it is unusual. let me explain the facts and circumstances. hon september 28, there was an issue requestiongng that complete information be acquired. the sign is permitted. the only issue is that the

planning department wanted to correct placard information posted. the operations department inadvertently proceeded to obtain a permit rather than to oppose the correct information -- post the dcorrect informatio. the operations department obtained a permit on november 24 to remove the sign. it was a non-structural sign. it was just it will sign -- a wall sign. they requested an inspection, in the city inspected the wall. the structural thing was done, they just removed the sign.

i contacted both planning and building department to explain the mixup. neither of them had a solution. we did the very next day. the property owner assumed that they were taking care of the black issue. since the mistake was inadvertent and it was premature in violation, cbs repeals the validity of that inspection. it provides that work under a demolition permit shall not begin until 50 days aftee