Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 22, 2010 12:30am-1:00am PST

1:30 am
>> 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.
1:31 am
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
1:32 am
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
1:33 am
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
1:34 am
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
1:35 am
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.
1:36 am
>> 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
1:37 am
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.
1:38 am
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
1:39 am
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
1:40 am
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.
1:41 am
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
1:42 am
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%
1:43 am
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
1:44 am
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
1:45 am
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.
1:46 am
>> 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
1:47 am
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.
1:48 am
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.
1:49 am
>> 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.
1:50 am
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 would be the one giving you the keys. the issue for us is, how did the driving that he claimed to have
1:51 am
done even happen? we are not sure if he ever even drove. we're not convinced that he drove it at all. >> is there some kind of check between which medallion goes out with the car? >> and the color schemes provide us a mechanical breakdown each week so that we know if it is the 9053, the car is in the shop and we know that it was likely a spare this week, the following week. i don't have records for 2005, or during that time period. we are enforcing it heavily now to provide a weekly mechanical breakdown log. >> is that a computerized
1:52 am
system? >> the currently used computerized systems, yes. >> it occurred to me that even though it is possible that someone could drop someone off at the airport and recorded by the transponder. but when the transponder recorded the cap that was supposedly driven that particular evening a by the appellant, he did not have anything on his waybills. correct? that leads one to believe that fabrication has taken place. >> it does happen that you go through your day and you may have forgotten. there was one instance where there were six trips to the airport and it would be impossible to forget that you made at least one. >> in the same day on the same
1:53 am
shift? >> correct. >> on the mechanical breakdwoown logs, you do not have them under review? >> i would have to check it again. for lack of a better term, it wasn't always enforced of the way that it should be. there were times when the company sent them and end times when they didn't. -- sent them in and times they didn't. we are trying to handle that now, but we would have to look again. >> with respect his application, you would need the spare? >> it would not support the
1:54 am
overlapping with the other drivers, but it would support the times he says he drove. >> you said that before, we talked about the mechanical logs, you were describing another way in which you could get information from the company because they are the ones that issue keys. you're not sure if he fabricated that or not. it would seem to me, and i don't know if you have -- if a company would have to provide that to you for purposes of your review. but you did not have those? whether or not the company issued the spare so you could confirm or determine whether or not he used that spare.
1:55 am
>> let me see if those documents were requested. that's right. i apologize. it was requested but never provided. i think it might be in the hearing office's -- they said they were not able to get the records either. unhook >> i think commissioner goarcia was saying if we went with the medallion, you would consider investigating the full time driver requirements? >> we would do that regardless.
1:56 am
right. president peterson: mr. sinitsyn. >> can i ask you one more question? given that you did not get the records from luxor or you were having enforcement related issues, to the extent that there is any, what would you do as part of this? which you conduct further investigation? >> we would look into the role that the company has played in terms of what type of control they exercised or did not exercise in this matter. assuming that they are, for example, running as per vehicle -- a spare vehicle and that at
1:57 am
the same time, that is more of an issue against luxor. we will also hold them responsible. >> thank you. president peterson: mr. sinitsyn. >> thank you so much for your time. when i came to this country, my only desire was to work hard and be rewarded for that hard job. iw as d -- i was driving a cab. i did good to serve the community, and i was really bad with my paperwork.
1:58 am
i am admitting that. and like i said, we need to understand the notion of this job, how we're working. luxor will say it is the most stressful job. yes, it is good. like i said, i don't have that smart card. i don't see the value. i dropped off, and in the meantime, what is the average time waiting for a cab? two to three hours.
1:59 am
i dropped people at the airport because they were begging. i drove to the apartments and i give them a ride. and i did not put them on my way bill, but i don't feel like this is a crime. for those years, like i said, i did provide good service. i do not feel i deserve to be punished. on monday, we have one acquisition. -- on one day, we have what acquisition. -- one acquisition. the last four years,

57 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on