>> remote meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president swig will be the presiding leader joined by and lazarus, darrellhonda, tina chang and we expectcommissioner lopez and he's here . >> here we go . >> also present is the deputy secretary who will provide the board with any need needed legal advice for five and six. deputy city attorney brad will provide the city with any legal advice for the other items on theagenda . at the controls of the board approval assistant and i judy judy rosenbergexecutive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city department presenting before the board . tina tam, representing the planning department, matthew

green, senior building inspector and neville correa , product services both from ddi. enforcement and legal affairs manager for the sf mta services, dan young, principal administrative analyst with sfmta taxi services, san francisco public works. valerie lopez, deputy city attorney representing the department of public health, jennifer cal ward, manager of the tobacco program dph and janine young, senior health inspector smoking program for dph. the board request you turnoff or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they do not disturb the proceedings . the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants permit holders and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for remodel. people affiliatedmust include theircomments within the seven

or three minute period . members not affiliated have up to two minutes each to address the board in their rebuttal . mister longley are legal assistant will give you a warning. floor votes arerequired to grant an appeal or modify a permit or determination . if you have questions about requesting a rehearing please email board staff at sfgov.org. public access and participation are of paramount importance and every effort hasbeen made to replicate the in person hearing process . to enable public participation, sfgov tv isstreaming the searing live we will have the ability to take public comment for each item . sfgov tv is providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watchthe meeting, go to sfgov tv able channel 78 . note it will be rebroadcast on channel 26. a link is found on the home page of our website at sfgov.org /boa.

public comments can be provided in two ways. join the zoom meeting by computer, click on the zoom link or call in 669-900-6833. enter webinar id 873 0484 9079. again, sfgov tv is broadcasting the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen . to block your phone number when calling in style star 67 and then the phone number. listen to the public comment portion and dialá9 which is the equivalent ofraising your hand .you will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn . you may have to dialá6 two unmute yourself. our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time isup . there is a delay between life proceedings and was broadcast. therefore it'simportant people

calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tv or computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting . if any participants need a disability combination or technical assistance you can make a request to the board's legal assistant or send an email to board of appeals at sfgov.org. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment. now we will swear in or affirm all thosewho intend to testify . any member of thepublic may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance . if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight raise your hand and say i do after youhave been sworn in. do you affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, truth and nothing but the truth ? >> i do if you're not speaking please put your zoom speaker on mute. we are on item onewhich is general public comment .

this is for anyone who may wish tospeak on a matteron the boards jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar . anyone for public comments, please raise your hand . i believe we weretold in advance mister barnes wanted to provide public comment . mister carnes, you have two minutes. the president limited the comments to 2 minutes given the length of theagenda . >>. >> caller: evening president swig and commissioners . as the market street project 4 people including myself appealed it and a hearing was set for december 15 on august 21 i got an original list and began preparingmy meeting presentation . next slide please.

the list matches the one i've got. next slide. the decision came in monday. it's approved to remove 32 streettrees. next phase . here's the list of trees to be removed. there are 33 trees and i don't know how theboard is going to solve that . next please. here's a list of trees i requested from public works. the trees are to beremoved . it's supposed to be 32. next slide. then what happensto me , i wanted to talk about a certain number oftrees . by the time the board ofappeals

took a vote the trees had disappeared from the list and i was not able to speak about them . let's go back. >> 30 seconds. >> i want to saywhen the board took a vote to approve a list i had not seen before , i've been working on another list of trees. i watched 4 to 6 months of my life wiped out. i believe someone from public works submitted along list of trees . anyway, just to beproductive about this . >> that is your time. >> thank youmister carnes. any other general public comment tonight, please raise your hand .

i don't see any hands raised so wewill move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions . >> may i start my director, mister president? i'd like to congratulate our president rich swig on his first grandchild congratulations rick . >> i would like to before interrupting the other commissioners congratulate my son and his wife on the arrival yesterday. and i've checked enough, he's alive, well and kicking so maybe have a long and healthy life and the same for the parents. any othercommissioners have any comments ? >> any public comment on this item, please raise your hand . i don't see any public comment sowe will move on to item number three, adoption of the

minutes commissioners before you are the minutes of it every night 2022 meeting . >> anybody have any comments or do ihear a motion ? thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt th february 9 minutes. any public comment ? ca nine, on that motion commissionerlopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 5 to 0 the minutesare adopted, moving on to item number four, 21 097 , simran basi and mark dutko versus public works, subject property is 2 vista verde court. continuingthe issuance on october 6 2021 . installation of a personal water service facility in a zone protected location.

permit number 21 wr 00067 on january 26 and motion by vice president lazarus of the board voted 5 to 0 continued to continue this matter to february 16 2022 given thelate hour . you have the minutes. >> can i share my screen? >> no problem. >> you see my documents? >> yes. >> my name is mark dutko and i live at 2 vista verde court. the report strongly supports my position that it will have a significant impact on my solar system for the only reason dd claims the new shading would only impact my entire solar system for 10 to 20 minutes a day. the solar provided by division actually at the bottom of figure s3 shows that the shade is present for hours during the

day, not the 20 minutes read misrepresented by at&t. this study references a general point of the shadow on the roof and gives no mention that it moves across the entire roof for an extended period of time report shows the 20 minutes interval shadow on each section as shown in the key, not 20 minutes full-time as at&t claimed. at&t also claims that contemporary solar systems continue to operate and have minimal loss when partially shaded. my 2008 solar strength is not a contemporary parallel for our system. this means whenever one or more panels significantly reduces the power of all the other panels to match the stated. the revision report states they are unaware of the type of system at my residence at the time of the report even though it weremade aware of these issues in advance .stanford university's guild master demonstrates how shading is one

of 36 elements that can reduce power output by 75percent . the loss of power and installer of the system said solar energy system you have is significantlyimpacted by shading . unlike contemporary solar installations 2008 estimates it will reduce your solar output significantly by overhead shading from the utility pole unlike the modern solarsystems being built . this is why we went to great extent to the panels and our skylights to a completely un-shaded area. and optimal power refused to install them in any part ofthe residence . to demonstrate this issue i did an informal test to cover only one of my panels with a one foot section. as a result it instantly reduce my output by 60 percent. the proposed shading would be

up to to be wide andwould cover at least two or more of the panels at any given time throughout the day . shaded panels and older strength systems like mine must absorb theenergy of an shaded panels which can result in damage to any of the shaded panels from overheating and require replacement . it is definitive that in any parcel shading will cause significant impact and at&t took no consideration in reviewing this model matter until the appeal was quiet. i would be seeking financial compensation from at&t and public works to replace the solar system with a more contemporary system. additionally, we are in the process of plans for a second story infront of our home and i'd like to know if at&t would raise the height to clear any new structures a second time . they only removed one of the polls from this corner to eliminate shading and additionally allowed access to

our property to the polling question. we will no longer grant this access should this poll be changed at&t will need to excavatetwo blocks to remove these cables for access. there is no lines and no notation by at&t regarding this filing permit . when we came here 2 weeks ago we heard sherwood put forth an appeal for empathy in terms of the public exposure. and we heard that what we come to you about is there replacing this poll with an unsightly another 10 feet installation. impacting views from our facilities as well as essentially taking what is already a large pole and essentially putting on top and even larger goal , giving wider larger and the stealth installation as we look at

other installations around our neighborhood as well . it's anything but still, it sticks out. it has equipment attached to it and this is a part of the neighborhood where a lot of cars go but people have views of the bay behind it and we're coming here in our neighborhood. we also don't understand why this makes any sense. at&t's own document states its due north and a 10 degrees decline directly hitting a hill to the left and right and a canyon to the right of it. this situation doesn't make sense and is a risk and we feel is a risk to exposure. we understand the fcc has not updated guidelines but we request more information from

the council department. lastly, at&t did a sloppy job of notification . the notifications posted were useful in the season that occurred around november december and we are thinking in the case here that we are going to be financially impacted i solar aswell as impacting the views and notification . >> i want to add that several residents testified today. rich walker at schilling street, his view is directly impacted by this whole. this poll is nothing like any of the other smallholes in this area. you can look at the poll behind this 10 feet . completely abstracts the bay views. looking out east, or choose me you can see this hikehere at on to the poll . this is a monstrosity. it is not a small poll by any measure and not anything in th

neighborhood, not even any other cellular holes in the area . let's go to this diagram here. also i get a test on the room and continued to mark the tape. this is the poll moving. the shadow is only 20 minutes over the entirepanel system . in fact that's a 20 minute movementright there . this shadowing report was skewed by them and misinterpreted in order to look like it wasn'thaving any impact .>> thank you, you'll have time and remodel. we will now hear from the permit holder and miss blackstoneis here as a representative . >> can you hear me?>> welcome, you have seven minute . >> i'm going to try and share myscreen . as well,can you see it ? >> not yet why is it not

letting me share my screen? i had an anticipation thismight happen so if alex could bring it up . >> he's bringing it, i promise. in the meantime i want to say. >> we don't have to start until weget the visitation on 5108 . >> okay. >> give me a second. >> thank you for your patience everyone.

>> thank you for providing this list. >> commissioner rachel tanner. she texted and i was like it's kind of busy, it's boardof appeals . shesaid you guys still do that on wednesdays ? and i saw franklast night. he gives his regards to everybody .

>> here we go. >> thank you very much. i apologize for that. i've been having computer issues all day but thank you for having us back and thank you for your time. i'm kenny blackstone, director of external affairs for at&t and i have read a diamond and jennifer hodges, our vendor who handles the permit process . phil hammock is here from hannah to answer any questions related to radiofrequency compliance and also erin check who is our outside counsel is here should you have any legal questions . the permit appeal today before you is a small tenant in the public right-of-way and at&t has an obligation to maintain our networks with the network traffic and increasing so dramatically especially in the last two years we're doing everything we can to keep up with that demand and they do

add capacity to the network and usually their preferred as they don't have a lot of extra infrastructure to the public right-of-way. the city of san francisco has about the most thorough review of these kind of facilities as any other city that we work in and because of that, at&t and our vendors are particularly vigilant about following all of the requirements of article 25. the site was selected after a robust alternative site search. our notification was done properly as required and the site has been reviewed by the planning department, public works, department of public healthand was rightfully and lawfully approved so we encourage the board to uphold the decision of the city departments. let's go to slidenumber three . and this is just our timeline showing from application of middle , receiving the sql and all of the different stepsat&t and our vendors had to go through to get to this site .

i'll go ahead and go to number four. this slide shows the poll as it is today on the top slide and then the proposed site is the slide below that shows the additional heightwhich is less than 10 inches in diameter . next slide. this shows the construction for the design of the poll. at&t does need and an additional 10 feet in order to comply with the geode 95. so it will bring the overall pole hike to 40 feet. and as the planning department determined, this small cell and then designed to be minimally visible. it will not impair views nor will it detract from the district characteristics and in fact since that poll has been there for a while it shouldn't be noticeable all after a little while. on the next slide you'll seeall our alternatives site analysis . the round black dots with the

white perimeter, those are the holes we look at in the neighborhood. all in all welook at 16 different polls in the area . and i'll just let you know why they were not selected or why this one was. the poll selected is marked by the yellow thumbtack. the rest of them we looked at, 4 were not viable because the antenna would not comply with the general order number five regarding overhead line construction .two of them and transmission equipment already attached and we couldn't from pg&e.eight polls were not feasible for construction due to structural issues and then one of them would be more intrusive than the proposed site as it would involve tree trimming on private property so that's how we endedup with a particular poll diverging. let me go to slide , skip ahead to slide number eight this is our shadow analysis , kind of the bullet points.

at&t did engage in the provision designed to conduct a shadow analysis to quantify the shadings of the rooftops the shadow analysis which you should have in your packet in exhibit 1 you can see that no new net shadow would affect the rooftop for at least half of the year from the spring equinox to fall equinox and which are solstice it would be a maximum shading on vista verde but that would just a slim shadow of 1to 2 feet and would only affect the skylight and solar panel for about 20 minutes a day . results of the rooftop of nearby 190 would also be impacted mentally and no impact to the skylight for solar panels for half the year and again, the maximum impact of which are solstice adding a narrow band of net new shading to one skylight for 20 to 30 minutes per day.but minimal and transient shading is not

expected to affect efficiency of the appellant's solar panel. i know provision says such shading would not meet standards and that typical contemporary solar installations continue to operate when partially shaded. i understand the appellant mentioned his is older but from looking through our shadow analysis that was done by third-party , the evidence does not support the thoughts concerned alert panels would be adversely affected. if we could go back to slide seven, the one right before this is the certification that shows the site as design will comply with and in fact be well below all federal standards fo radiofrequency emissions . andthen if we skip ahead to number nine , i just kind of want to say that we did work with the appellant from the get-go . we did try to, we had a scheduled hearing. we pushed back due to their timing issues and then we worked with them on trying to

answer everyquestion . about the alternative side, everything that they had asked. and we do feel that we've done a very thorough job of filling out this application and going through every single step as required by thecity . if you go to slide 10, thenext slide is just in conclusion . we followed everyrequirement that the city and county provides . it the site has been approved by everycity department as required . we done our best to answer every question and concern the appellant has asked of us. we do request that the board of appeals commissioners that you uphold this dpw approval from our application permit for vista verde court. >> looks like wehave a question from commissioner honda . >> the question is that i know that you guys provided a solar

kind of footprints impact but that was then the appellant supplied his brief so in response to his brief, because yours is more of a contemporary solar. that's the reason why he applied to thebrief . i didn't see anything in response to his particular brief. >> i will say that we still believe from the shadows study that. >> what i'm asking is particular questions. your company had time to take his brief the solar study was a response. we did not use solar study until he first brought that up and in response that's when we hired the solar company or sorry, the shadowsstudy company . >> they feel the older system will not be impacted . >> they have said and it does say in the quote contemporary

and he's saying is is older. that i may have to take back but i don't believe that and we still believe the amount of time is consistent no matter how old his solar power system it's. the amount of time that shadow will be there. >> that's the reason why both appellants and the permit holders supplied greece sowe can answer . >> and our study was in response. >> second question is if the appellate a third story on the property will it impact the antenna? >> that we will have to determine when we see the construction design . i wouldn't be able to answer that until i see whathe's proposing . >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of public works . >> can you hear me. >> welcome.

>> hello president, vice president and commission. i'm representing public works. we believe this permit was issued in compliance with the permitting procedure defined in publics code are 25 for personal wireless services. this application article 5 requires public works director of the application to the department ofpublic health and planning department, both departments determined this application complies with article 25 . the planning department is in attendance and can speak more regarding the claims review. if the board has questions the health department is available to take questions and respond. >> we have questions from commissioner honda and president swig. >> same question to you. this is the first time from all the hearings we heard there was an impact versus solar, how

does that affect the department and what are the steps for you? >> our job is to make sure that the facility complies with article 25. if the property owner is purporting an impact from future solar, more solar or any other type of global, that's not mentioned inarticle 25 . there's no direction for those facilities and in regards of denying the application it doesn't appear in article 25 so far article is to make sure all the requirements are fulfilled and as i said article 25 does not mention impact for solar. >> that's a consideration your planning department does not look into. >> we do send it to the planningdepartment and they do their reviews based on if it impacts views in the area . >> we have a question from the presidentswig . >> president: i'm on the same

topic as former president honda, commissioner honda. the article 25 legislation has been discussed multiple times, more than 10 times the number of fingers on my hands as to its currency, validity, etc.. and citing health validations from 1996, stuff like that. from my point of view it's an obsolete piece of legislation. it should be changed but i'm just a humble commissioner living in san francisco. what does bother me is and we take liberties to assume that something is okay, even when it does not appear in article 25. mister palacios, why did the

department of public works not seek a legal opinion from the city attorney on this issue? this is not your fault, your fault. i speak when i say you i don't mean mister palacios, i mean the department. this is not the department of public works faultthat article 25 ishopelessly out of date . in my view.and this is a perfect example of that . and whenthis legislation was created , solar panels were not something that appeared on everybody's roofs , the rooftops as is a trend. and probably in the advocacy position of our leadership in the city of california. and so given that this is a readout, why does not in a diligent fashion the department of public works take the right

step in my view to ask the city attorney where does this fit in article 25, should this be an issue in article 25 and should the city of san francisco have a legal opinion on this? why is that step not taken and then i have one more follow-up question after that . >> again, article 25 we are limited in local control as you are aware. personal water seals are done from federal and state law. federal law controls radiofrequency standards and state law gives wireless telecommunication companies the rightto install his abilities and bowls in public right-of-way . sowe're very limited in what we can do .i think we have article 25 but if your concern ranges from future solar and

all these other proposals than i could take these comments in as of right now, the permit comprises article 25. >> my concern is that article 25 is of an age. it's a piece of legislation that is of an age that it includes some obsolescence. things happen. i'm obsolete, i'm old. in many ways. and so these are people's lives we are dealing with. these are citizenslives we are dealing with . i'm very clear on your rhetoric about state and federal on article 25. i'm very clear. i know it, i've been through these hearings with you.

again, dozensand dozens of times. however this is a big hole. this is a question you can't answer. you can't, becauseit's not addressed . and you didn't answer my question . why does not the department of dpw on this element or any element of any other element in any legislation that may not be addressed to see in support of the citizens of san francisco who pay for my feet and pay the taxes to support your department for their care. why is not a step make any obvious hole in the legislation. why is that step not taken to seek a legal opinion from the city attorney whose responsibility therefore is to look at the federal and state issues related to this and come back with an opinion on this. what is that step not taken.

it's a simple step. going to hurt anybody. it's going to be a yes, sir no answer and clarify any ambiguity i have or you have on this item that's is just again, i address article 25. whydon't you take that step ? >> i can bringthose comments back to the bureau to try to give you an answer . that's fine. >> second question.we sat here tonight again and heard commentary from an appellant. as we did last week on something that was not an at&t item but rather i believe a verizon item. and then when ms. blackstone was here a couple of weeks ago, there was the same commentary from a third appellant. and whoever are the approved vendors to post notices on

telephone poles are not doing it with care because they either get filled with moisture and areeligible . they are either placed on telephone poles at a level that neighbors, neighborhood members cannot read them or they are washed away by mother nature. what i am asking here is what steps does dpw take to protect the interests and the interests and protect in general the citizens of san francisco faced with things that are not necessarily comfortable with. that is the installation of poles and equipment in this case and could be anything else but what steps does dpw take to make sure the vendors are being

utilized by these third parties are taking care and protecting the interests of the citizens of san francisco by fixing notices properly, making sure that every step is taken so they are not rushed away. the only reason i bring this up is because three out of, we're batting 1000 over the last couple of weeks on these items where citizens havementioned this very same item . >> regarding public notification. the permit has completed a proper public notification under article 25 which is shown in your brief on exhibits d and e. we have 2 forms of notification. the policy on five poles and

the post-poll location, they alsodo a mailing notification . that goes 300 feet from the approved location. and they did that mailing which showed there's multiple forms of public-key medication, public content so that people who are concerned over this issue have the right to contact us. appeal the application. and you know, any other. any other information from the public and if you could just seethe posting on exhibit e . they posted there on 11 and it looks like to protect from weather. i don't know what else to say. itfollows article 25 . >> i'm not picking on the department. i am just during the testimony of people who are coming in

front of this body and have certain feelings that they are reflecting independently three weeks in a row or three in a row last week.that postings do occur according to article 25 but those postings arenot being done in a responsible fashion . i only ask that apartment look at that and hold accountable either the permit holders or their vendors for doing a job so that when we get into this, these hearings again we can come back and hear validations that the postings were good and that the signs could be seen without distraction. that's all. thank you. >> we will now you're from the planning department . >> good evening president swig,

vice president lazarusand members of the board. i am deputy zoning administrator . it is in a 40 x height in both districts. december 22, 2021 the planning department completed an evaluation of the project and concluded the proposed wgs facility is on balance consistent with article 25 of the public works code and the objectives and policies of the general plan. theproposed facility is designed in a streamlined matter , located on a hole in the same location as the existing poll and will not distract from the other defining characteristics. furthermore the proposed facility does not degrade any aesthetics or impair any views of any important buildings, landmarks or parks from the public right-of-way. with regard to the shadow

impacts to solar panels there are no provisions for this in the planning code. a planning code does state a shadow analysis is required when there is a project that proposes a height of more than 40 feet and is adjacent to or has potential impact to public parks or open space. the project does nottrigger such shadowanalysis requirements . that concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions . >> thank you, i don't see any questionsat this time and we will move on to public comment anyone here to provide public comment on this item ? i do see afew people. jean parada, please go ahead . >> caller: thankyou very much . >> you have 2 minutes, thank you i am a board member of the park improvement club speaking on behalfof the empty ic . empty ic is a nonprofit organization started in 1930

and represents the residents of the 200 homes in the park and businesses in the park. its mission is to promote the collective interest of all persons residing in our neighborhood and to resolve the interests when these are deemed to affect those residents. when there is a purpose in promoting quality architectural design and improving quality of life in our neighborhood. the design guidelines were adopted into the planning code in 1999. last year the park residents contacted ncic and advised us of the 4g personal wireless service facility to this vista verde court. the residents explain their complaint about the product they also shared their research . the mpi seaboard considered all their concerns including the negative impacts of the city

and character of the neighborhood and health and safety and interference with solar production to vista verde court. we are most concerned about the possible negative impact that this facility will have on the solar panels at vista verde and ntic supports their appeal. we will now hear from wesley winick, please go ahead i am a 26 year san francisco resident and i have also lived with my wife for 10 years at 209 schilling which is across the street on the proposed poll. first we like to thank our neighbors for bringing this proposed poll to our attention as we view it as somewhat of a process at&t has been conducting because a mailer that was dropped in our mail contains multiple languages, none of which were english.

so at the time we did not realizewhat was being proposed until our neighbors brought it to our attention . i'd like to say that miss blackstone in her comments use words like minimal and small which we believe to be subjective. the poll will be over 40 feet tall which is a significant height increase from what is presently across the street . it would substantially impair our view and we believe our property value. right now we see acanyon . if the new poll is to be installed we would look directly into a pole . it is not sitting at the immediate neighborhood appeal and we believe it to be a grievous mistake. thank you for giving us the floor. >> is there any further public comment on this item, please raise your hand . i don't see any further public comment so we will move on to

remodel and hear from the appellant, you havethree minutes. >> can you give me one second ? >> no problem. >> one of the things i'd like to start calling out is she did not meal mail at&t a list of questions and we tried to get a response and i got an answer before the day before my brief was due and president hobbit had to giveus an extension . she did not work with us. >> i want to make something clear here . the reports state 30 to 60 minutes and that 30 to 60 minutes is not over the solar panels. if you look at the color codes on this report which at&t has completely misconstrued that means line, the blue line the object is on any given area of those color coatings for 30 to 60 minutes meeting that goal is

at 20 minutes and then as it moves the next section it's in 30to 60 minutes and when it goes to theright it's another 20 minutes . it is ours, it is not 20 minutes . another thing religion needs a disclaimer that they were making the assumption of low-impact but did not know what type of system i have. and also the shading not only reduces five production bike 70 to 80 percent but it actually causes damage to the panels. and a strengthenedsystem each panel is directed . when you shave one is like putting a deadbattery into a stream of good batteries . that battery loads up and it has to take all the current of the other panels and it literally destroys the panel over time. this is a $30,000 solar system and over time it can be reduced to pretty much nothing not to mention the polar production would be immediately impacted . this report is accurate, but it's misconstrued byat&t and

misrepresented because they didn't take the time to understand what it was . and there's significant financial damage involved here. andi have to say this is just incredible at this point . >> are you donewith your presentation ? >> i believe we are. i want to call out i have a utility line going through my yard , through my gripe driveway which has no easement on this poll and at&t did not obtain my permission to access that poll. this serves the entire neighborhooddown below. i am right to remove that utility . >> 30 seconds. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, miss blackstone you havethree minutes . >> just to respond, i am not a shadow study expert. we did contract out with a third-party shadow analysis

study. that assured usthat our interpretation of that shadow study was correct . that's all i'm going to say about that. this is an antenna that will be added on top ofthe pole . we do have to extend the goal of this antenna is 10 inches, less than 10 inches in diamete . we did do the standard notification. this is a notification the city requires and it is required that you have multiplelanguages on that notification . we did post as required anytime that there is any sort of problem because we have to send our vendor the pictures of their postings we are told by dpw if they think that one has been posted in accurately or insufficiently or haphazard if you will. so those postings are done accordingto article 25 which was updated in 2019 . we did work with the appellants and i did not directly but we

do have our vendor that does all the processing of these permits and every questionwe were given we did provide an answer . so we continued to provide answers and we continue to wor with them on scheduling this hearing . again, every department in the city that needs to review this particular application did review it and approve it and w ask that you uphold this permit . thank you. >> we have a question from commissioner honda. >> miss blackstone so given the appellant has said this could potentially do harm to his system andthe report did not address that , would at&t opposed to putting a new poll together? >> you meancommissioned a study from a solar company to take a look at it ? >> just that it was given a general . now that and yes, in his brief and as it was an older system

and it wasn't the company you contacted did not really address that. >> i mean, this shadow study that we at great expense obviously did in response to their brief is not required by the city. we did it just to show in good faith this isjust an extension of the existing bowl . i am happy to ask the shadow study company provision if they could take another look at it but again, this isn't required and i ask that this commission uphold our permit. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now you from the department . mister posse, youhave three minutes . a thing further. >> no further comments. >> does the planning department have anything to add. >> no further comments. >>commissioners, this matter is

submitted . >> commissioners. mister honda. >> since this is the first time that a shadow has come into before us regarding a solar system and the appellant at great expense has put this solar system in and potentially doing that solar system that would be a concern that the board should address personally. i guess we've heard hundreds of hundreds of these cases and this is the first time it's come out. i would recommend you continue this so at&t can answer the appellants concerns . >> comments? >> i have to wonder if that's

within the preview of article 25 which is the governing legislation for this . >> thank you for bringing that upcommissioner . it really does bother me that you know, this is, it really does bother me that there is the assumption by ourselves and or dpw or any other city department that something was automatically assumed as part ofa piece of legislation that was done several years ago . i would like to ask our city attorney whether it would be appropriate of us is dpw, ... i'm sorry mister palacio, i don't want to interrupt.

you didn't sound too excited about asking the city attorney for an opinion on this aspect of article 25 or whether asking our city attorney is it appropriate for this commission to get a view on this aspect of article 25 which may have been a lead out. not maliciously, but just because the legislation ... it wasn't appropriate or wasn't timely or wasn't valid to consider the impact on a shadow on an energy system. >> are we posing that question? i'm not prepared to hold this up until we get that change in article 25. >> i'm not asking that at all. what i'd like to know from our city attorney is the appropriateness of asking the

city attorney be responsible ... >> to address the ambiguity. >> to address the ambiguity on this so that this commission knows how to find on this subject and what may be a future subject when something that is new technology that may not have been considered when the legislation occurred is now more a daily occurrence or more standard than when it was during when the legislation was passed. and how do we get a reading on that and mister palacio is correct.it is not a local issue, it's federal and state but our local city attorneys have to have some feedback from

the state, i don't know. >> waiting for your response from the city attorney accu . >> deputy city attorney brad radford. in response to your question , i'd like to point out article 25 was most recently amended in 2019 so it has been around. it was upended recently. the board review of these permits isconstrained . there are other types of permits such as building permits governed by a discretionary standard where you consider the impact of the project on a neighborhood. for article 25 there's a provision that says the board of appeals reviewed and is limited to compliance of article 25. i've reviewed article 25 and i don't see any conditions or

consideration of the project on solar panels. >> thank you. that takes care of that. >> do we have a motion commissioner honda? >> i'll let someone else make that motion. >> commissioners. >> i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> we have a motion from vice president lazarusto deny the appealon the basis it was properly issued . on that motion, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the appeal is denied. we are moving on to item number five so we will ask deputy to the attorney to leave the

meeting and callhim back after item 5 and six have concluded . item number five disc deputy city attorney zachary brannon. item number five is feel 21, george orville appealing the issuance on july 9 2021 and decision on reconsideration, sfgov tv sfmta versus george horbal, taxi medallion 1303. george horbal does not have a current driver's license and is not eligible to possess a card. without these licenses the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the transportation code. the notice issued by taxi services is upheld and the medallionis revoked . medallion number 1303. on september 1, 2021 on motion by commissioner lopez the board voted 421 to continue this item

so that the sfmta could provide data that he did not provide a driver's license or a card. the board requested the sfmta provide data if possible back to 1978 but if not possible thenat a minimum since the records were made electronic . november 17, 2021 upon motion by president kaunda the board voted 3 till 121 two grant the appeal and overturned the sfmta hearing officer's decision on reconsideration on the basis there was not an adequatebasis for the revocation of the taxi medallion lacking 4 votes needed to pass the motion failed . upon motion the board voted 4 0 1, the parties could provide additional information to the board on the three taxi medallion revocation cases

cited by the appellate brief which were heard by the board in 2003. as a preliminary matter, president swig did you have an opportunity to review the materials? >> i did and i have. >> thank you. we will your first from the appellate and i believe mister mcmurdo isrepresenting him . you have 3 minutes. >> george is going to speak first. >> welcome mister horbal. >> can you hear me? my name isgeorge horbal, i had a medallionnumber 1303 . i've driven a cab in san francisco 43 years . until my renal failure in 2016. when i had a medallion this last few months were some of the most anxiety provoking and terrible ones of my life. i havetrouble sleeping at night because of this and i want to

say something . the san francisco has a bunch of surplus of approximately $100 million and yet they want to harness my medallion. i speak because i'm some of the low hanging fruit theytalk about which is a disabled old cabdriver that can no longer drive . it's not only a type of greed, it's cruel and it's savage and it's got its own kind of evil. please do not let them take my medallion from me because at some point the value may come back and i may have some security and dignity in my final years. please let me keepmy medallion . thank you very much. >> thank you george. recognizing the heavy reliance your board puts on municipal process to decide appeals you point out the taxi laws may

actually contravene the taxi regulations in accordance with the law itself so we ask you upholdthe law and not the code that there is a conflict . regarding the mark hollander case in2003, president jen found there's no requirement , rather you need a case-by-case analysis to see if it's contingent to be required by law if the medallions fulfill that. george needs a california drivers license but he's disabled and can't get one. this seems to be a violation of the law. the agency contends ada applies the temporary disability but every other law says that permanent disability is a cover as well so the agency regulation is in accordance with the law. the lawsuit judged in the agency's favor on the driving

requirement but then on appeal which the city agreed to refer that outand replace it with a template called the slum agreement . that allows for compensation and not revocation of these cases. i ask that you look at page 4 of the agency's brief, the current brief and as a footnote the last line, they changed the code since the september 1 hearing and now want you touse it as a basis for rolling in their favor . the city attorney told commissioner chang there was no change on the item. sorry i ran out of time. i hope you will supporthim . >> we will now hear from the sfmta. welcome, you have three minute . >> i noted there was an amendment to the code. my name is philip crandall, legal affairs manager.

the footnote was intended only to show that there wasn't subsequent prior to when this appeal was filed. as mister mcmurdo referenced the board requested the review and in all three we referred to the full-time driving requirement which is an actual rule drivers mustcomplete 100 hours of physically driving a taxi . all three of the decisions were before this board before prop a which transferred the taxi regulation from the taxi commission to the mta. there was also resolution 0931 . that is relatedto the full-time driving requirement . the stipulation was allowed to plaintiffs or appellants i should say to take part one took part in the pilot so one is to sell that medallion in

the appeal and the other took part in 09138 four medical modifications. i note that proposition a created a transfer i should say to the mta and the charter section 18 101b states that once adopted the agency and that means mta regulation shall thereafter proceed as an adopted ordinance governing motor vehicle hired to duplicate such regulation. although we always talk about prop a this means prop kitself is no longer effective but they were codified in the transportation . i also think we discussed this a couple of times but resolution 09 138 stated that medallion holders are. be incapable of meeting the requirement but this is all

related to the full-time drivingrequirement . again, this is about the fact that mister horbal does not have and a card. the last year about the fact that he did not complete his 800 hours and lastly i know he referenced thevalue of the transportation code to render for consideration to the medallion sales program . a2, a medallion owner demonstrates that the medallion surrendered, the medallion holder has full-time on the last five consecutive years so unfortunately mister horbal would not be eligible to take hold. >> we have aquestion from commissioner honda . >> there's a lot of data and

it's to be continued in a couple of cases andi see your reasons as well as the appellant. i'm having hard time with this week a post k . really, it looks like the law changes on them and the goalpost moved as far asdrivers responsibility . is that correct and how did that happen? >> i'll try to be brief and discussed several items. the reference to pre-k the medallions on are referred to ask , pre-k before proposition k written by judge cobb, created the driving requirement. prior to 1978 one person could hold multiple cars to drive so my understanding of what it was like in those days, there were two people with many medallions

and drivers were subject to that mercy and seeking to reform the industry judge cobb put forth the voters billwhich was passed which changed out how it was regulated . prop k ... >> sorry tointerrupt, what year was proposition k ? >> 1978. after 1978 persons that no longer could be in business could have a one person could holdone medallion and they were expected to provide 800 hours per year . that effectively is what the twohollander appeals were about , were allegations that those medallion holders did not seek their full-time drivers requirement . for several years and that was the basis of thoserevocations . in 2010 when the it failed a pilot which was made permanent but shortly thereafter we made a permanent program and those

purchased medallions are also known as transport medallions. those were effectively transferred after 2010. >> pre-k? >> and transferable. >> they could go to the airport, not go to the airport. >> that's aseparate regulation, yes . prior to 2018, yes. >> there's a lot of briefs here that i've gone through personally and even though i'm writing notes i need a spreadsheet here to keep track of all the contradictions going back and forth from post, pre-and after. we're just trying to sort it out. no matter how long it takes people'slivelihoods are at stake here and that's just the wayit will be . continue and iapologize . >> the transferable, letme back up . i do have dates . 1109 of the transportation code states the full-time drivers

requirement so to acquire his or her medallion between 2010. that's referring to the post came italian holders. prior to june 6 all of those medallion holders were pre-k so you could be setout to the companies and there is no driver requirement . any medallions that were required in between june 6 and march 27, 2010 that's post k. those are required a minimum of 800 hours per day. although they are related they are two separate issues. >> president: is very confusing andi appreciate you taking the time. i have a question after .

>> by and large where the vast majority of these medallions came from work from older medallion holders and i referenced section 1 a. it used to be the older age 60 i believe medallion holders or age 60, you were eligible to report false surrender or sell so what happen is for example if youwere going with mary sue , that gentleman was permanently disabled, he was a post k medallion holder he opted to take part in the pilot so what happened is he would surrender his medallion and that would become the transferred medallion and that medallion is stillout there on thestreet as we know .>> you are on mute, commissioner honda . >> regarding the appellant that

isbefore us right now, when did he actually start driving. was he pre-k, post k ? when did hislicense go into effect ? >> it was a post cable to. >> what year did he serve? i saw thatsomewhere, i just can't find it . don't worry, we can find that later. you very much. >> we are now moving on to publiccomments, if there's anyone who would like to provide publiccomments raise your hand . we will your first from mark bellows , you have two minutes mister fonseca. please go ahead >> can you hear me . >> yes we can. >> my name is marcel us, i am a career cabdriver, full-time driver for more than 30 years and a medallion holder since 2009 and again my medallion was

acquired in 1978. medallion holders are the real victims in this ongoing legal disputebetween the credit unions and mta . and that dispute is what's driving this surge in came italian revocations. this case agreement from 2010 clearly sets the staffforward in the case of disabled medallion holders .but perhaps in their plenary power the mta continues to use disabled came italian holders as disposable pawns for or even roadkill in an effort to harvest the medallions wehave . i mentioned before that during

the credit union trial a witness for the mta, and accountant estimated medallion value around hundred $30,000 . it seems clear the mta is using the power of their office in an effort to obfuscate george horbal's and any other medallions held by other drivers withdisability, depriving them from leading the industry . i urge all of you serving on this board to vote in favor of mister horbal and all other came italian holders facing the mta's misinterpretation of case language and the enforcement of municipal codes that clearly violate aba loss. i thank you very much for your time and your consideration. >> we will now you're from mister cordless, go ahead. >> welcome.

>> my name is dennis and i'm driving for over 40 years. first of all, just some background. prop k and the language in prop k that then supervisor cobb, now judge cobb wrote in there. and it specifically says that the driver swears the intention that he will drive once you receive this medallion. to me, that sounds like a perjury clause that you will drive for a certain amount of time. in your life. it doesn't mean that you drive into old age. it doesn't mean you drive until you drop then lose your medallion. that isnot the way it was written . the language says you swear the intention you will drive. my next point was that our

current sales program that wen into effect in i believe it was 2012 . that the reason it was formed was to give disabled drivers the opportunity to sell and get out when they could no longer drive or when they were told. that program is on hold because of enforcement. mister horbal should notlose his medallion because of market forces . it's why the mta is putting thispressure on him now, i don't know .finally, whatever he's receiving for his medallion monthly if it's just a couple of hundred bucks for somebody living on social security, that couple of hundred bucks matters. while he might be old and obsolete he is not disposable

so i ask you to please not throw his life service. >> we will now hear from rober . >> good afternoon. the first thing i would say is the mta wants to revoke all our medallions so that they can sell them or at least come out. the problem with this idea is people who have invested in the tax industry such as myself and hundreds of others finance the tax industry. the mta wants to take advantage of this. in the last year i also echo

i've heard this amount of $130,000. for the value of a medallion. the mta to the taxi drivers and to your commission says it has no value. this whole question of owning a medallion without a california drivers license has got confused. if you have ada, it is absurd to ask for a drivers license because the first thing that happens to you when you are disabled, maybe blind. maybe your body won't work anymore. you don't have a drivers license because you can't pass

the test. but that has nothing to do with running a taxi medallion. and medallions don't run themselves. somebody has todo it . and for years andyears , older taxi drivers who are blocking. >> we will now hear from charles rathbone, you have 2 minutes. please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> i think i am unmute it now. >> i can hear you. >> board members, my name is charles rathbone and i'm with one of mister horbal's medallion holders. the aging prop k medallion holders like mister horbal who

are no longer able todrive , the problem was recognized and assault years ago with the creation of section 116 of the transportation code. the surrender mechanism in section 1116 was how mister horbal's case on to be resolve . that path is blocked by the agency's own refusal to bunch its yearslong pricing stalemate . please continue this spending until such time as 1116 becomes operable again. mister horbal has an opportunity to surrender for consideration. thank you and that concludes my comments. >> thank you, we will now you'refrom the callerwhose phone number ends in 0577 . please go ahead . >> my name is stan heinz,

president of the national company. i'd like to speak briefly about this agreement . this agreement was intended to resolve a dispute between medallion holders and the city with regard to detection. i'm no lawyer but my understanding is that the city's endorsement of the agreement moves the initial federal district court rule which was underappeal . i'm not quite sure why mister craddick continues to referto this . secondly, the agreement provided for an extended disability protection to the value holders as well as financial compensation for those medallion holders to surrender their medallions. as there was no practical distinction the mta between permanent and temporary disability until medallions

stopped selling. now the sfmta would deny their deferment to a medallion holder because the disability is permanent permanent. why? thank you for your time. >> we will now hear from the caller whose phone number ends in 0654 . please go ahead.>> my name is matthew sutter andi'm one of the 10 representing the medallions in the fight against mta .this is just oracle what's happening. it sounds a lot like the same thing we were in as far as the mta lying over and over about policy issues for their own greed and not admitting they've made a mistake in this program. i can answer the question that was answered to the sfmta about

the contracts and yes, it was changed . this is horrible you guys are even considering revoking thes medallions . these people have driven the streets for 30, 40 years but that is not enough to drive. they would still be driving if they could but they can't because of their physical disabilities. this is just a shame that this is even considered thatyou're going to take away these medallions . and stay to the mta space you're making a big failure. the mta promised it would fail. itwould return our principal and give us the medallions and now they're just looking for other ways to getmoney . to try and save their hides. it's an absolute disgrace . i'm six generation californian and you need to step up and

protect the workers and the people that have picked up all these people for all these years, thank you. >> we will hearfrom the caller whose phone number ends in 4015, please go ahead . >> caller: i'm formerly medallion 244. will be in the coming era, i do want to associate myself with the comments and support. i think it's just remarkable that the mtas finding for the board of appeals. that's my hope is that you will

honor the appeal. of the disabled cabdriver. >> thank you, was there any other public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any further public comment so this matter is closed. >> i have one question. i have one question for the appellant. >> go ahead, i'll follow you. >> let the commissioner ask their questions . >> mister horbal, are you available forquestions ? >> could you please repeat that? >> the question i have is on yourmedallion what do you make on that on a monthly basis ? >> i haven't made anything for several months, they stop payments and i would like to answer. i started driving around 1973

and i got my medallion in april 11 2001. >> when they say you stop payments, is that sfmta sanctioning your paychecks. >> yes, just because of the decline of theindustry . >> prior to that, not receiving any one has been the average monthly paycheck over the last let's say fiveyears . >> i would say it was approximately $2000 a month. >> when it stopped what was it at? >> when it stopped?>> prior to when it stopped. >> it was about $2000 a month for the last several months it's nothing. since the decline of the industry . >> any other commissioners,

commissioner chang, question . >> i have a group of questions but i'm curious about, i want to back up and say i completely value the importance of making sure that legislation is abided by and iunderstand that . i can keep trying to enforce and make sure that the taxi code and appropriate municipal codes arefollowed . i guess just taking a step back from that, i'm curious. i don't fully grasp the intent behind enforcing on these medallion holders specifically given where the industry is and given how many other issues the

city faces. it seems like there are higher priorities that need to be addressed. i think that's my general stance on the whole medallion enforcement issue .so i'll leave it at that. >> are you making a comment or can imake one ? are you going to say something? >> i'm going to ask commissioner lopez if he has comments and then ask commissioner lazarus if she has any comments. then i'm goingto ask my questions and then i'll get back to you . >> i think i'm of the same mind as commissioner chang. i'm not seeing the public

interest in enforcing in these particular cases. i definitely see the downside and i think i keep going back to that initial hearing officer that was since overruled. that's somebody within the mta that's been entrusted with discretionary powers and i do think there's a degree. there's such a thing as administrative equity. right? if there wasn't, if it was just a pure black and white reading of what's in the code then we wouldn't be here. you can do this by algorithm . that's why there's entrusted with decision-making. and i think that's partly what

was probably driving back the initial hearing of the decision that day which is that i know that according to the letter of the lawwe can do this year . but it just doesn't feel right. and it doesn't serve justice. i think that there's this overriding principle that is written in the charter and the code is servingjustice with all our agencies . and in this particular instance, i think we have sense for both the appellants and some of the remarks made by the public that feel like they are maybe in an analogous situation before the mta. it seems like folks are feeling targeted, folks are feeling that they relied on the issuances of these permits in

the past so there's a certain degree of this is topical interest as well. if things have been proceeding normally with certain kind of mode of action and suddenly there's a different enforcement regime that's supplied, i think it's a fair question to say how come this wasn't enforced before? i think that reliance that develops over years, i think i've made this point in previous hearings. if it were a question of unsafe drivingon these records , where people were getting behind the wheel in dangerous fashion, i don'tthink that interest would balance out the same way . but these folks are essentially talkingabout a business license . i do think a business owner is

entitled to rely on what the government agencies that regulates them hasbeen telling them in years prior . that's how i feel. >> commissioner lazarus, do yo have any comments ?>> i think i'm going to be on theminority end of this particular issue and probably will be in the nextcase also . i guess as long as i've been on this board , i've been what i considered an obstructionist. we have laws and regulations and ordinances and we create enforcementdepartments so that those can be enforced . i mean, i guess i question this notion about priorities because this department exists and it exists for the reason of making sure the lawis being followed . there's no disputing the fact in this case. and as much as we'd like to you

know, show some sense of equity because it's another set of circumstances my understanding is that doesn't play arole so i'll leave it at that . >> you. my turn and then commissioner, you can have anotherbite at the apple .i would be the rubberstamp of commissioner lazarus that does mean my does not mean my mind is closed. can you help me here please? my reading of this is why proposition k became something else. was san francisco had ... can i call it the new york model? where a guy like michael cohen couldgo in , by a zillion taxi medallions and therefore big

business could wreak havoc on what is really a small busines . san francisco has never been, has always been known for supporting the small business practitioners . i get the sense that morphing from prop k, from k to post k or pre-k to k, sorry. i get my pre-k's and kellogg's corn flakes mixed up. i get the sense that what happened in 1978 was an intent to protect small business so that small business practitioners could own a license to go out and drive hours and hours a week, build a career. build a lifestyle and it was their intent when they bought

one of these medallions that that medallion, right wrong or indifferent would be salable and be some form of a financial security at the end of their driving career. am i interpreting that correctly? that's a really important thing for me. >> proposition k, there was no cost of medallion. a small fee to get your name on the list and the way that judgment was designed was active drivers, so while you were driving like you said as your small business and the way it was designed was when you were done driving and no longer able orwilling to drive , you would turn that medallion back. unfortunately the way it ends up working out was the list

didn't move. you'll hear many medallion holders say they were holding them for 20 years. so although they did drive for many years for the right to earn a medallion there was no actual cost. they were granted the other industry name for it is earned so they earned a medallion and while they were earning this medallion provided that they drove 100 hours they were leased out from the ships they were working and were able to make additional income. as this loan decision mentions, the full-time driving component is an essential piece of the permit. the transferable medallions are the ones who took out loans. they currently don't have alon . >> before we digress into that,

if i was a driver in 1978 and i was awarded one of those licenses , do you think and again you used the word earned andi think it's a wonderful word . do you think that i would have when taking over that medallion think while i was earning a living that because i was the holder of that medallion and i could turn it in for a potential eat for a significant value at the end of the time i was finished driving that why i was in fact creating value and earning a reward that would accompany the endof my career . do you think that's how i would have thought when getting that license way back then ? >> know because there was no

evidence described, when you were done driving the next person on the list who had been driving for several years earned the right to use your medallion that you turned in. there was no sale. the payment came about as part of the pilot program so there was no, that was not under consideration and it did not exist prior to 2022 . >> so when there was a pilot program suddenly there was value associated with those medallions which were controlled by drivers at that time. is that how it happened? >> yes,according to the lender . there is that point. >> so from 2010on , if i was a driver in 1978 and 2010 occurred then in fact my dreams

were realized and in fact a value had been placed on that battalion which i had been earning and maintaining for that very long period of time, isthat true ? >> there was a crisis point. >> as commissioner lazarus pointed out in the last hearing and i observed her comments, why are we going to this and? i'm going to paraphrase, sorry commissioner if i get it wrong . why are we arguing against maintaining a relationship with a medallion or a driver when really, that battalion has no valuewhatsoever ? if there is no value there probably will be no value so

what are we arguingabout here ? that is really a driver with the medallion today have in the future and looking at that medallion as having any value for theirretirement ? even with the 2010 vote. >> we use the word driver and unfortunately esther horbal. >> i should usemedallion holder, sorry instead ofdriver . that's confusing . should a medallion holder really even with a 2010 intention that they have some value should any holder of a medallion look at those as having any value because of the exchange and circumstances of

the industry? >> the code also contemplates in 1116 84 section does not confer auto medallion holders the right to amend or render a medallion for consideration . like i mentioned before there's no loan on these medallions and the only thing the quid pro quo isthey will be a taxi driver . there are still medallion holdersout there who are actively driving . they are in compliance and wer renewed and as far as i know they are out there driving . >> so in your view these medallions once a driver is unable in this case because fulfilling, not being able to maintain a type a drivers license, once the driver reaches that point in their career that they cannot drive anymore thatthey cannot

maintain the responsibilities of that medallion ,then that medallion , that's what we're here for must be turned back i . there should be no assumption of that medallion holder that there was ever any value associated with that medallion in the first placeregardless if itwas 1978 or 2010 . is that the position you take ? >> yes, and the mta board is clear on that. 1116 and also resolution 09 138. it's controlled, it contemplated a temporary relief of the full-time driver requirement and i'm talking about the full-time driver requirements that those medallions subject to the requirement in order to have a cart you need to have a valid drivers license unfortunately mister horbal as neither a drivers license which would enable him to get a car and therefore because he does not

have an a card that is why we are here today. thefull-time is a separate thing . i think my own admission because i've not driven but it's the fact that he did not complete 800 hours this calendar year. >> i understand that and that' been stated redundantly and i'm clear on that . it's why like i said, i rubberstamped myview on commissioner lazarus . i'm trying to find every which way possible to be fair to the medallion holder and sympathetic tothe fact that he's driven for decades . and you know, due to age, due to his inability to sustain a a-card the value of his driving is being tossed aside without anycompensation and that's what i'm looking at . is there any precedents within 2010 and today where a driver in a similar, in any

circumstance has received compensation when a medallion has been returned? >> that's as part of the sales program? >> as part of the sales progra . >> assume so, yes. i should say there are transferable medallion holders so those help froma post k . >> but mister horbal, let me slice it even tighter. esther horbal's license is not transferable license. a transferable medallion. has there been any medallion holder excluding those who are subject to the rules of a transferable license? as any medallion holder received compensation when giving up theirmedallion .

>> when there were sales, yes. as i mentioned they needed to be in compliance for 4 or 5 years. even at that point, there were contemplated and there were rules but unfortunately ifthere were , secondly the current transferable value holders ... >> your muddying the waters here. where i think i'm going with this is it was very clear to the medallion holders that excluding the transferable medallion holders it was clear to those medallion holders subject to the terms and conditions of the statutes that they were able to sell their medallions given that 4 or 5 year window. and if they didn't, and they

were noticed therefore in that statute that if they did not drive. if they did not qualify based on that four or five year window as a full-time driver and that their medallions woul hold no value. is that clear, am i interpreting thatcorrectly ? >> i would say they would not be eligible for surrender . >> thank you for the clarification. so that was their forewarned forearm. if you think you're arriving at a point in your career where there is a high risk that you will not be able to fulfill it for a 4 or 5 year period the obligations as a medallion holder then you if you do not sell your medallion then the

risk is that you are going to forgo any valueassociated with that medallion, is that correct interpretation ? >> correct. >> then on top of that we have that situation plus we have a situation as in this case where a driver, where a medallion holder is simply unable to drive. according to not being able to maintain a type a license and therefore that part of the code is not satisfied either. so those are the two elements of the code that we're talking about. and where i would probably side with commissioner lazarus and say that although i am sympathetic that somebody arrives at that point in their career where they should be getting some compensation for driving all these years and holding a medallion if they didn't comply to the statutes which were clear, then we're not in the position. we don't have a wiggle room.

and now i'll come to the complication. is there any room, even though with the knowledge that these medallions hold no value whatsoever rightnow . is there any room that if we were to deny the appeal but a caveat that if this specific medallion over the next five year period, yielded any value in the form of sale that the medallion holder forgoing their rights, this medallion could receive somecompensation . is that anyway possible? i'm hail mary in here in the football parlance. >> i have to defer to mister chorion on thelegal question of

that . myinterpretation is the code is clear .maintain a medallion or return it back. the full-time driving requirements , so if you are out of compliance that medallion needs to come back. that was the terms under which that permit was granted. >> and agreeing that that is so and i would support absolutely fat. but what i am looking to do in consideration of a driver that has driven for decades and decades and do either to their age or disability has not been able to sustain that driver's license to continue holding that medallion and a medallion that's worthabsolutely nothing today . we know that . and if for some reason in the next reasonable period of time which is 5 to 10 years is able

to be sold that they share in that value. >> we are in deliberation and even commissioner lopez i believe has a question as well . >> i'd like an opinion from the city attorney whether that's evenpossible . if that's even possible or else i'm just going to go with an and say i'm really sorry but i'm just trying to be empathetic to what you've been talking about. why should a driver work for a longtime , hold the medallion thinking they may get compensation and then find themselves on the short end of the stick? according to the statute without any compensation. can i get that conversation with that city attorneyplease ?

>> deputy city attorney. i would say that his analysis is correct and certainly the code speaks in terms of surrendering amedallion . again, the code is clear it doesn't create a legal interest so prospectively seeing that one day if the value if it reaches a certain value or changes value you could then resurrect your interest in that medallion. it's just inconsistent withthe surrender provision . >> thank you for that opinion, i appreciate it. i'll go back to the commissioners for further. i think commissioner honda, you are next in line. >> i'll let commissioner lopez asked this question first . >> can you just remind us the facts here because they startto blur after a while . am i correct in saying that

mister horbal had a renewal of his permit several times despite not having met the driving requirements, is that right? >>this is a drivers license . his a-card expired in 2018. that's the information i have. first there was a vacancy before me so i don't know prior to my arrival. there was also a vacancy on the permit manager side of the house. i don't know why certain medallions were reviewed or worked during that period. when i became aware of it that there were these groups of medallion holders who were not in compliance leave for the a-card, that's when i became aware of it. that's when this whole effort began.

>> i think if memory serves there were a couple of renewals beckons occurred without the drivers licensein place . did i have that right? >> again, this was my guess 2019 and that's when i wasaware of it . due to timing staff constraints and just procedural on our end they were removed, yes. with the knowledge it was out of compliance. i should add that about half of the medallion holders who i think it was about 316 medallions had 146 that sold their issues. in this case again, this is like several steps. to renew his a-card you need a drivers license. i know where shifting between a-card and drivers license but i talk about that because until he gets his driver's license he can't renew his a-card.

>> thatmakes sense . >> i'll make the comment that president swig, the conversation you just had about you know, that framework that you just presented of not being able to rely on the surrender of the medallion, i think that only works if we were enforcing this properly from the get-go. i think if you go to the desk and you get your permit, then i think from the point of view of the holder, there's no reason that trigger doesn't go off in your mind . where you say i'm on the clock. i need to find ways to surrender this while i still have my 4 out of five in place

in tact so i can access that market . i think that's part of the breakdown that happened here was that those folks probably didn't have that trigger, that alarm that went off to them that said i'd better put up or shut up. because if i don't move quickl , this thing is going to be worthless for a allintents and purposes . that's where i have a little bit of difficulty here and obviously understand mister pratt up that this wasn't in your charge at that point. but i think what's hard is if we as the city communicating that actively, the appellants or folks in appellant's position are getting that message as they go through the enforcement process and there's no reason for them to think

necessarily that their perceived values that they've earned over that decade is at risk for disappearing. so i think that's part of the construct that gives me more concern. i do think that we havethat . they created the environment forundue reliance on those permit allocations that have been issued before . >> commissioner honda. >> we are in deliberation and here we are but since we are here let's just do it. mister crannagh, how long have you been enforcing the taxis? >> 2016. >> you can state medallions have no value other than a surrender . >> according to the code that's the only way they are transferable.

>> have you heard they were sold for up to$250,000, you've never that sold before ? >> the price is set under the agreement. >> but even prior, my dad drove form yellow cab in the 70s to the early 80s and that was constantly a dinner conversation of howmuch medallions were selling for, 150, 80 to 200 so you heard that before . >> those are 3k. prior to proposition k they were transferable. >> we are in deliberation so commissioners, thishas been hard for me . i see your hand up but i got lots and lots of notes here. first of all, after reviewing this case and going through the mass amount of material that is before us and having it be continued . i know we have multiplecases going forward here . looking at what started with fresh eyes and fresh ears wher they're not so fresh anymore .

looking at the decision that this board has made historically in the past, this board as far as what was amended has historically not replicated drivers for disabilities as far as i've seen that has been presented in the briefs . i think that the lack of enforcement over the years and mister crannagh states it was only because he took over 2018 and this has been a long-standing situation for a long period time . whether someone puts the ball with a k, special k, i don't know. we're not talking about just this. we're talking about people's livelihoods that have driven for the city for 30, 40, 50 years and the fact thatyou're so decrepit and you're blind, you had a heart attack means i'm sorry , your value to the city and what you've contributed overthe last four years is null and void .

i don't necessarily see it like that. i see the fact that we're having this long conversation means there'scontradictions in what's the law and what's not the law . even, i lost my page here. even at one of our from our predecessors almost 20 years ago i think vice president herring said i have to say this case pulls out my heartstrings because it's one where equity is more important than the law and as samuel johnson said sometimes law is an ax. i don't see the harm in these drivers holding it. they've made it through the deepest part where rideshare pretty much annihilated the business. now that rideshare has decided they not want to rideshare but turn a profit so if you get into uber or lyft that meter runs so the taxi business has

an ability to come back. surrender for compensation, these drivers are at the end of the rainbow . there's 70 or 80, their disabled. theycan't even drive anymore . you're on one leg, let's stop the other leg off. ascommissioner lopez said , social justice. i don't see the harm. as somebody mentioned earlier, this is the drivers are caught up between the sfmta and the credit union and when this value comes back which it looks like it might there is some value in letting these people live the rest of their golden years with alittle bit of pride . just to remind the commissioners to overturn this requires 4 commissioners. to continue this requires 3 commissioners. i would vote to not, not to

revoke theirlicense . >> is that a formal motion? >> i see commissioner chang with her hand up first. >> to move this forward would be amotion. that's what i'm looking for. commissioner chang . >> i have a question. understanding that currently the code states when you surrender that you shouldn't presume any value. but that's not to say that legislation can't change. and that the current law wouldn't change for example to the law you submit. i guess i mean, sure if you look at the law today you could assume that it states there is nopresumed value . that isn't necessarily what will hold true in the future

because we don't know. but i fall in commissioner honda and commissioner lopez camp about you know, preserving the dignity and on the flip side of the argument if there's no value in what's the point, what are we arguing about, the same could be true on the other side .if there is no value why not let these folks hold on to their perceived value that they have earned over adecade ? >> anybody else have any commentsor anybody that would like to make a motion ? >> i understand where my fello commissioners arecoming from , i truly do . but there is a code that

specifies what needs to happen and we're going to seriously undermine the ability to make all kinds of decisions if we move forward on the basis of in this case something having future value . if i decide to build a house under certain planning rules, and then find out in a year planning rules are changed and i could have built a different house . that's just the way it goes. we haveto apply the law as it exists currently . i hate to talk about presidents but we're going to set one and i think it's going to be very very precarious. if we move forward in the way that i think some of you wish to go. and i will just tell you flat out icannot support that . >> commissioner, would you like

to make amotion ? >> no i would not. >> i'll make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that i guess it's the mta acted according to the current statutes. >> and uphold the determination on the basis that it was properly issuedin compliance with the law . >> yes. >> on that motion, commissioner lopez.[roll call vote] >> that motion fails, do we haveanother motion on the table ? >> i will make a motion to continue this to the call of the chair on the basis that

determining since i don't know how to state this. but since uber and lyft and rideshare have started making money that the sfmta would come back with section 16, surrender for compensation. >> i thinkdeputy city attorney coriander should weigh in on that . >> i'd like to see her smile. >> deputy city attorney my intention here at this point is that the first motionfails . second motion requiresthree commissioners to do it . i feel that there's social injustice here and that there should be somesurrender for compensation . i would like to form a motion to continue. how would i doso ? >> i would suggest you do it to thecall of the chair .we're not putting contingency on it with the understanding that the

chair could then sit back on once those circumstances exist. but i wouldn't put that into themotion . >> just make a motion to continue this to the call of thechair, is that correct ? >> okay, we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue this matter to the call of the chair .that motion commissioner lopez. commissioner lazarus. [roll call vote] the motion does carry, we have three votes so this matter is continued to the call of the chair. i guess indefinitely. >> can we have a 10 minute break bychance ? >> that would be great. >> thank you.

>> we come back at seven. 7:20. . >> today is february 16, 2022 and we are now on item number six, appeal number 21 069, james cortez is versus municipal transportation agency, appealing issuance like 22nd of the reconsideration of statement of decisions sf mta versus james cortezis , revocation of medallion number 763, ames cortez us does not have as her current california drivers license. without these licenses the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the transportation code read the notice of nonrenewal issued by taxi services isrepelled in the battalion is revoked . upon motion by president honda the board voted 4 to 0 to 1,

vice president swing absent to continue this item to february 16 2022 upon request and with consent and with the cost shown more specific result vice president swig could participate and the parties could provide additional information on the taxi medallion revocation cases for by the board in 2003 which wer tied in the brief provided by mister horbal . as a preliminary matter, we saw what happened in the last case so the parties the right to present. i'd like to ask deputy city attorney zach a question. if we should get the direction of the board which seems evident fromthe last case . when we then direct question to the parties to see if they would stipulate to that or if they would like to presenttheir

case ? >> as a preliminary matter, the parties would like to consent or stipulate to the continuation of the matter and then we do a formal motion in continuance. >> thank you. with that advice. just checking in with commissioners, based on the last case it looks like at least three of you are inclined to continue this type of case to the call of thechair. is that correct ? >> that would might be my inclination. >> i wouldn't disagree with that statement. >> commissioner chang and commissioner lopez . >> agree. >> now i'd like to direct the question, the question to the

parties. wouldyou be willing to stipulate to the board continuing this item to the call of the chair or present your case . this is directed to tran sfmta and mister cortezos. >> i think he's having technical difficulties. >> mister mcmurdo. >> i'll stipulate to that but i'll probably call in a comment at one of your future meetings and make comments about someof the discussion .i think there's misconceptions butthat would be fine, thank you very much . >> thank you, mister crannagh. >> is the stipulation to continue to the call of the chair and there would be a motion. >> we have to have a motion but it seems like the direction is the board has three votes continued to the call of the

chair so instead of both parties presenting and going through everything, do youwant to stipulate right now ? we absolutely do not have to if you want to present your case that's fine. >> would be a fair description tostipulate the waving of presentation to go directly to the motion ? >> because it hasn't been hear so at some point it has to come off the call of the chairand be heard . although it does appear to be in limbo at this point . >> so stipulated. >> if and when it comes off it, you would have an opportunity. so commissioners do we have a motion? or we will take a motion and i'll seeif there's public comment . >> would you like to make that motionand if not i will .>> you can goahead. >> i'll guess i'll make this a motion i made last time . >> is there any public comment on that motion tocontinue this

item to the call of thechair ? i see one hand raised . mister corcoran,please go ahead . you need to unmute yourself, go ahead. >> i think my hand was raised from the prior discussion. but thank you. >> we will hear from the phone number ending in 0654. you need to pressásix to unmut yourself . >> this is matt sutter again. i am proud to serve the medallion guys. i'm in a conundrum here but there is an obligation to do the right thing and this is what we've been talking with the board of supervisors because the mta has no good intentions for the public. and it's very interesting to listen to you guys because you

really want to get informed of the taxi industry. i know i've heard over and over with pre-k, 1k and i'm impressed that you're actually having the minds to realize that things are changing and it is time to step in and do what's right for the public. we have driven your kids, your grandkids. you and we've worked for many years. i just wanted to tell you thank you very much for standing up for the workers and the people. we live here. we've earned theright to do th right things for the people of san francisco . thank you . >> we will now hear from

marcelo fonseca, please go ahead. >> can you hear me clearly. >> i'll be brief this time. i want to thank this board for being open-minded about the station, trying to educate about the complex of the taxi industry. when we started driving thecab , all of us we believe in the value of the medallion. we invested our non-official retirement pension. we are hopeful that someday there will be of value to the medallion and we are hopeful that perhaps there will be compensation for it. i know it's very difficult for you to understand the pre-k and post k. one thing that i'd like to share with you is the demise of

medallion value has nothing to do with the city of san francisco or ground zero. the city embraced over and left at the same time themta was selling medallions . [please stand by]

he is back. >> ok. thank you.

so we are now moving on to item number 7. this is appeal number 21-106 union square one spirits versus department of public-health and subject property is 522 fedder street on november 22nd, 2021 to union square wine and spirits by the department of public-health and tobacco are being sold without a retail tobacco sales license and the application for a sales permit was denied on december 7th, 2020 and the establishment continues to sell tobacco and they order that one all sales of tobacco products cease and department staff shall have access to the establishment and all storage areas to conduct inspection to verify is that tobacco products not on the premises and they shall pay $1,800. one hundred dollars for the first violation observed on february 1st, 2021 and $200 for the second violation on

february 10th, 2021 and $500 for the third and each on april 22nd, 2021 june 8th, 2021 and september 9th, 2021 as authorized by san francisco health code article 198 sections 19h.17a and 19h.20 and number four the failure to comply will bring an action for in junction to re strain the business from selling tobacco products without a valid sfdph with civil and administrative penalties and we will hear from the appellant first. i believe mr. jamal.

>> i believe he is logged on. thank you, police. >> thank you for your patients. >> i see that he is on right

now. >> welcome, can you hear me. >> yes, how are you doing? >> doing well. thank you. welcome. you have seven minutes to present your case so please, go ahead, sir. >> i was doing business in san francisco since 1997. i rose by miz in 2019. i start locking for another business. i went to the city and ask if i can move to another location can i change my cigarette and they told me yes. so in july of 2019, i found a business. so i trent to city hall and i changed the address and i paid the fee. they charged the maximum fees in july. in october i get the business. so i went back to city hall and i told them i moved already and they send me to the supervisors and the supervisors told me i have cigarettes you can sell the

cigarettes but you can't buy cigarettes until you change address forecast license. i applied to change the address and what he gave me and they told me the application and the review for two weeks. after 10 days they called me and told me print the license you can buy cigarettes now. so i start buying and selling cigarettes in this location. after one year they said you cannot sell cigarettes in this location and i said why and they said look at the license and i showed them the license they said it was from 2004 and 2006. this is why it is for you but you need to apply for another license and i'm like this application and for the health department. and i did. and i got denied. after i was denied i went to

city hall and told them what happened and they told me your license is active and everything is fine. i don't know what you are talking about. every time they come i go to city hall or i go to city hall. and i pay my fees and all the license fees and everything is ok. they can't bother me and bother me. then this and i told them can you give me a ticket or do anything for me i wanted to take it to city hall and they said we cannot. an you unactivate my license they cannot. can you call the police for me? they cannot. and i said you can't go to it wasn't me so i said i go to a hearing and i sent it back to me and i go and they said you lost your right for hearing there's no hearing for you. after maybe two or three months, another lady starts coming in and starts bothering my

landlord. telling my landlord and i sell cigarettes and the license and they deny i have any kind of license to the landlord and so gave me a supervisor name and i called the supervisor. i said, she told me you want to keep selling cigarettes and i said yes. can you give me a ticket, call the police and deactivate my license so i said stop bothering me, thank you very much. after two weeks me said can you come to your store to talk to you and i said yes. so they came in and they said, you know, (inaudible) to have this license. you have california and you have the city and you need one from us and so come to to the hearing of the health department and i go for the hearing and before two days before the hearing i wept to the lapped lord and they told him he has to pay $200

penalty and. >> val lilo says here to represent them and welcome ms. lopez. you have seven hibbs. >> valerie lopez on behalf of the san francisco department of public-health. we're here this morning because appellant depeeled administrative penalty is pushed total in the amount of $1,800 for unlawfully selling tobacco products without a tobacco sales permit. appellant has made two arguments. the first argument is that appellant transferred his license from one business to another. the second argument is that appellant maintained a license

despite dph's deny this tobacco sales permit application. i'm going to go ahead and address the appellant's first argument. he transferred his license from one business location to another. it's unclear what license appellant refers to. the appellant holds a california department of tax and fee retail tobacco license. this state license does not authorize appellant to sell tobacco in the city and county of san francisco. the city's health code requires any individual or business that wants to sell tobacco products from the city and county of san francisco, must obtain a dph-issued tobacco sales permit. additionally, the health code states that any dph issue tobacco sales permit is not assignable nor transferable.

since appellant would not be able to transfer, a dph-issued tobacco sales permit, which appellant does not have, a pel appellant transfer argument sales. i want to head on to appellant second argument. a pel apartment argues he maintained a license despite the fact that within the city and county of san francisco. further, appellant does not contest the december 7th, 2020 denial the tobacco sales from an application or the fact that he continues to sell tobacco products illegal' after this denial. dph denied tobacco sales permit and specifically, that

appellant's propose new business locations and located within 50o permitted establishment. second. the new proposed lex was located with a directing and that already contained 45 or more and existing permitted establishments the third grouped was the new lox was also in a location not previously occupied by a permitted establishment and despite the permit application denial appellant continues to illegally sell to tobacco products without a dph issue tobacco sells through february 21st, 2021 through october 14th, 2021. there are no grounds to uphold appellant's appeal. lastly i want to address the issues penalties and it does not challenge the authority to impose administrative nor does

appellant challenge the amount of penalty and the san francisco health code authorizes dph to impose admin penalties based on the decisions a person has engage tobacco sales without a permit. there's no basis to challenge dph imposition of the administrative penalties or appellant tobacco sales. additionally, nor is there any basis to try and challenge the amount the administrative penalty imposed. the health code is clear it to impose a admin penalty not to exceeds $100 for the first violation or exceed $200 for a second violation and $500 for a third and every subsequent violation. in this case, appellant receives six notices of violation between

february 1st, 2021 and october . they were for the same thing and appellant unlawfully selling tobacco pout a sales permit. based on this, appellant's appeals should be denied and dph imposition of $1800 of administrative penalties should be withheld. commissioners, i want you to know that dph staff are here this evening to answer questions that you may have for them and i'm happy to take any questions as well. thank you. >> thank you. we have a commission from honda and president swig. >> so, city attorney, hooking at the brief, i mean, i understand from having tobacco cases what the procedure and the protocols is here but listening to the appellant there's a misunderstanding on his part. so, i was kind of wonder what is is the communication like?

have you spoken to the appellant personally and who was a staff member. he seems like that he honestly doesn't know that he is not supposed to sell the product. >> thank you for that question, commissioner honda. i can tell you that i've spoke spokenwith the appellant and wet discussed procedural components and regards to this matter and when it comes to the type of educational ut reach and communications that he had with the department, i'm going to deper to dph staff with us here this evening and i just want to remind you that based on the decorations submitted there were six conversation that's were had in regards of notice of violation but i will defer to dph to answer. >> it seems a gee yus to me but listening to him and looking at his brief, i think he has it confused and a license from the

state of definitely it for some reason he feels that supersedes and he is allowed to sell tobacco and they have a communication that what the reach out has been and tell us how that worked and i see our favorite on the line and i haven't seen you in a year or two. welcome. good evening, thank you so much. i'm honored to be here tonight and so with each of those notices of violations we're actually staff trying to discuss this issue with the owners and we were literally touched out of the establishment and we could not engage in any conversation and -- sorry to interrupt you. when you say staff, does that mean other people or does that mean you? >> that is wanted to speak to the people and with him, right?

>> so, i went out with inspector dang and i've been out there and i think on four site visits starting with the first site visit with the inspector and then after july 1st i was the lead as we were still trying to communicate this information with the business owners so i think i was there on at least four occasions and each occasion, i was yelled at and told i did not represent the city and i was asked to leave immediately and it was very difficult and and there were two owners and they were extremely aggressive and i believe there was even a conversation that my

supervisor and jennifer had and with the business owners and she's here tonight to provide that encounter as he would like to her from him. >> you have been before this beside' many times and i'm glad that we don't see any massage parlor permits in front of us recently and i'm sorry and thank you to and your staff members for endure tag and i just wanted to hear your side as to what happened. even when you are trying to explain the situation, they were pretty much hostile and did not want to hear it and retaliatory. >> that is correct commissioner. we documented those conversations in our infection forks and because they row fused to sign and they speak with us so we had to send those reports by e-mail and mail.

>> >> the due process has been served and you've tried on many attempts and at this point, they refuse to understand they're not able to sell tobacco products. >> that is correct. >> good seeing you again, it's been a while. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. lopez, thank you very much for your presentation and it seems that the significant ambiguity that might be here relates to the issuance of a state license that seems to say that you can sell tobacco products and that might be assumed by a unsophisticated business practitioner it would be ok to sell tobacco products even when a more sophisticated business practitioner would know they would have to get a san

francisco license and is there -- when those california licenses are issued, is there a written document that goes along with them and it says, that the city of this does not and this does not allow the sale of the product without a license from the city of san francisco and does it state on the license that the terms of this to sell tobacco and will not include the city and county of san francisco and is there something that is intrinsically obvious upon the issuance of the california license and it says that don't even think about selling tobacco products and in the city of san francisco without that department health license. >> i'm going to defer that question to staff if that's ok. they deal with this on a daily

basis. >> is we're back to ms. young. >> so, we have actually asking them when people apply for the state license and if they can defer them to us first and there are how many jurisdiction and they cannot see that and so we really they notify our businesses and it's demonstrated by the fact the first visit, we don't issue of notice of violation and we're not talking about enforcement and fines and we're talking about it's just education. i spend in this program since 2010, there's many people who have obtained a state license and we educate them and give

them the option to apply if they apply we tell them the whole process. we are transparent about the process. this is the first time in my career i engage with the business honers. it was hostile, aggressive and just refused to provide us with even an opportunity to try to educate. >> so what you are saying the excuse of well, i never saw that letter in the mail from the city of san francisco. you never allowed the letter to a arrive because you delivered it in-person and are very clear in making sure that they understand what the terms and conditions are? is that correct? >> that is correct. let's go to the issue of going

to supervisors and supervisor staff. and and the fact that you cannot transfer a tobacco license when you automatically and when you move your business even 100 feet and we experience i believe in hunters point. so, how is that, so if i were again, that less than sophisticated business license owner and i again, i said, well, i have this california license and i'm going to go to my supervisor and or staff and get a view on this, is there a risk that an unknowing or less

educated staff member might say, well, it seems that it's ok. you got this license from the state of california, or, what do you do about making sure that the supervisors know it but that staff really is bullet prove on this subject so if approached by a business practice nish ner with the notion that a california business license is ok in lieu of san francisco license that they give the right answer. >> one of the things and we have a booklet that discusses everything how to sell tobacco permits in san francisco and what licenses you are required to have and it has literally has a picture permits and it

administration and like this and the treasure tax collecter and all of those items are pictures and from all the agencies and all into this booklet. when we train new staff and sections we have that booklet and we use that booklet after the guidance and direction so we saying the exact same thing whether you worked in our program for many years or whether you work in our program for just a couple of years. >> how does that move into the ranks of the staff member of the board and is it a possible a board of supervisor staff member might have provided this information and i'm giving them every benefit of the doubt. it's hard but i want to give them every benefit of the doubt. >> i'll let my supervisor,

jennifer cal bert, she can chime in but in my opinion, we usually have supervisor ace it will also contact us directly so, a lot of times supervisor and even i would say of small business, there is so much support the business has and even when we have to say no, we actually.

>> we are moving on to a couple of comments is there anyone to provide public comment on this item. please, raise your hand. i don't see any public comment so we'll move on to rebuttal. mr. tahas. you have three minutes. >> >> you are on mute. it's from 2004. the program started in 2006 so it doesn't apply to my license. supervisor one of the supervisor came in and he said we cannot do nothing to you. they keep coming to the store and they come in and unprofessional and he wants secretary so i stop selling cigarettes i want to keep

selling cigarettes. they went to the landlord and the landlord break the lease and kick me in the streets. it's hard to and we have a hard time in san francisco. all this because of a program and i follow the law and i follow the program. my license i have it original license before that. they said 2010 and i've been selling cigarettes since 1997. i got my license in 2004. and the supervisor he came in one of the supervisors he said we cannot do anything to you unless you want to you want stop selling cigarettes. i want to keep selling cigarettes. without cigarettes i cannot make it. i took a loan on my home to bite business and without cigarettes we cannot make it. we cannot. thank you, very much. >> thank you. we have a question from commissioner honda. >> so, mr. taha although your

license is from 1997, you moved locations, sir. it requires to get a tobacco your license from your previous location is your previous location. >> i changed the city. the city changed for me. it changed address for me. >> but your license you are applying, i'm going to ask the department that same question and once you moved, you need to apply for that new license. >> i just a replied for the city and the city comes in and i go to the city. they tell me your lance active. it's active in san francisco city. every time they come in on call or i go out there. >> is there a reason why when

the department representatives came to your store and you were com pat tive. >> they want me to sign i don't want to sell cigarettes. sign for them. they bring a paper and take pictures and you want to stop selling cigarettes. >> ok. >> that's true. i'm a professional. >> i have no rebuttal. >> thank you, we have a couple questions. commissioner honda and commissioner chang. >> commissioner chang had her hand up from the last time i'll let her ask her question first this time. >> i was just going to ask, the

city is comprised of a lot of different agencies and divisions and departments and so could you share with us who from the city you've called and to who you paid fees and between the authorization your license and telling you that you are lawfully and according to the regulations. >> i go to the tax department. i go there and before i buy the business and it changed the license and i went there and you have two days to pay the fees $10 for each carton and they charged me $3,000. when we got it it was there and they send me to another rom to

the supervisor. they said if you have all sets cigarettes you start sales now and it is the equalization and to change the address and in the sales of california. they give you a california license. and you stel now and i took that to the board and i a ploy and two weeks and after 10 days they call me and they bring the license. every time these people from the health department came after one year. every time they come, i go to the city and i ask and they said i don't know what you are talking about your license is active. everything is fine. just to be clear, you've been going to the tax department at city hall to confirm you have the appropriate license. >> yes. >> thank you. >> >> thank you. >> i have a question, the

follow-up question to the department of eph, i mean, there's some crazy confusion here. [laughter] and so, what is the appellant talking about in regard to the permit holder talking about in regards to the paper that these departments asking him to sign and that he also made a statement that we really can't do nothing for you but will you sign this voluntary thing not to sell cigarettes? >> i don't know what the appellant is speaking about with the voluntary signature. we don't have anything like that. and our program we had notices of corrections and those are the violations and we do ask the business owners to sign that so i will speak to the license issuers. i tried on several occasions to explain what the a tell appellant hash73 alcohol license

business is a beautiful store that sells very high-end liquor and they have the h73 alcohol license. that is the department of public-health director's hearings and he did have the tax collecter's representative to troy to explain to explain that the tax collectors' office does not issue the permits so the permits are issued by the department and then the department and billion dollar the businesses and the license if they have from the tax collect or's office is the h73 alcohol off sale alcohol license. not the h31 tobacco license. >> ok, then the follow-up

question, if he continues on this behavior of ignoring it, will it affect his alcohol license? >> no, this will not affect his alcohol license at all. beer only talking about the tobacco products. >> ok. so, i mean, because he have didn'tly enforcement doesn't seem to be working here. this is the sixth or seventh offense at this point? >> >> comments or a motion? >> i'll try to start and keep it short and wore getting late. a misunderstooding but mr. taha if you are still listening your license that you are paying on is for your alcohol whether you understand it or not you do not have a license to sell tobacco products. your district has the maximum

amount of tobacco stores in that district and as well as your located within 500 feet of another and store that sells tobacco products. sue should reach out to the department and in this particular case, my motion would be to deny the appeal and that the fines were properly issued and this is been repetitive six or seven times. >> sock, and it was properly issued in administrative finds and they were properly student and the order and the fines. >> any other commissioners have any commentary on this item? >> then we move forward. >> i would wonder if given how

much confusion if there was any appetite for refusing the (inaudible) in our jurisdiction? >> i don't think we can touch fees and if they're willing allow some and what they should

be just like inspectors young i've been with the department for 15 years and i've never experienced an owner that has treated inspectors like he did and kicking them out. causing us to repeatingly go back to spend resources and time. and really putting in the extra effort to educate conference calls and there's a lot of stuff that hasn't even been talked about and the amount of time that staff took was significant and i also decided, because of the business and small business

and and the reinfection fees were $1500 and. >> can i remind you that dph was mentioned in three of our earlier hearings. >> oh, no, i was on mute. at this point you see where this board is going and he is already not going to be able to sell tobacco products and if he continues to do so, this board will not give him any break the next time. i've never done this before. i've never reduced a fee.

i would want to have ms. lopez chime in and looks like brad also attorney has his hand up as well. so, i would appreciate this because i have not -- i don't know if it's my call because the director of health and the hearings officer that is designated which is the third party and the ones who issued the fines. brad russ', the matter is above the board denova and you are in the same position to assess the fines that you think are appropriate. the code provides the first violation is $100 and second violation is $200 and after that

every violation is $500 so that would be the constraints and i don't know whether the department of public-health has any other policy with how they assess these signs that i know after the $500. >> could you repeat what you said at first about the commission discussion. >> matter is before the commission de novo and director evaluated the case at hearing where the order was shied. >> want to make one comment in regards to reduction and specifically the department is comment that they didn't already tack on the additional

reinspection fees and i want to plug for you all as the mansion there's $100 for the first violation up to $100 the first violation and up to $200 for the second and up to $500 for the third and every subsequent and here, if dph would impose the max for the notice of the violation it would have came out to $2,300 but here they didn't go the max they already imposed it and reduced amount which is the $1,800 and in addition to not including the reinspection fees so i want to highlight that for the group before you take it under consideration. thank you. >> under the circumstances, and as it was just explained by ms. lopez, i would in consideration of the views suffered s. by the city employees, who went to do their job, and tried to do their job, and were not greeted in an

appropriate fashion, i would be hard-pressed to support any gratuity, any further gratuity because according to ms. lopez, gratuity has been extended and i would not extend any further gratuity. it's been extended and i could not support giving any gratuity for the behavior exhibited here and the number of notices of violations. >> commissioner chang, can i continue with my motion. >> it was very helpful to hear from the rest of staff and the city attorney and getting more color on what was experienced. so, thank you. >> thank you, my motion stands, madam director. >> ok. so we have a motion from commissioner honda on the basis the administrative fines were

properly issued. on that motion, commissioner lopez. >> does that encloud a reduction of fees or not. >> no, no reduction. >> aye. >> thank you. commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0 on the appeals denied. commissioner chang is going to be excusing herself. thank you and have a good evening. >> so we will be moving on to item 8a and 8b. these are appeal numbers 21-115 and 22-001 subject property 734 vermont street and appealing the

issuance on december 17th, 2021 to home field property solutions and a lot terration permit and we can figure first flora addition of 134 square feet and rear expansion infield and remove front door, not visible from the city and expand the back 152 deck expansion and the building area less than 10 feet in height and set in so it's not to require a fire wall. third floor add rear deck above existing second floor roof 126 square feet and one bath and this is permit 2021-1130-3340 and the appellants are joyce book, russell and car brawn. we'll hear from ms. book. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening, everyone. thank you for this opportunity to work with the board and administrative staff. we're fortunate to have a board of appeals here in san francisco to help neighbors like

ourselves, experiencing -- i'm sorry, i'm not good at this. can we stop, i forgot to share my screen. i'm sorry. to help neighbors like ourselves experiencing impacts and the occurring during and after the permit issue is processed. this is a complicated and appeal with events and permit and happening at record pace and we'll start by focusing on what we see are the primary causes related to the adverse impacts our family is experiencing in

broad strokes, we're not feeling like we're seeing a high level of accountability as it relates to specific information being provided by the permit holders and during the course of the permit application and review and issuance process. as we know, we're all impacted when there's a lack of honesty. working together with our city agencies are so important and but this didn't happen at 734 vermont. there was no neighborhood notification, no meeting, no meet and greet, nothing. the real estate group has not been transparent with us. the llc has successfully stayed off the record and blatantly ignores basic well intention business and professional codes

of conduct for license holders for home failed property solutions, for example, it's not ok for a business to install dozens of cameras and point them into our children's bedrooms. this type of adverse impact which the board of appeals can help us address, with dbi and the permit holder are # and again, the result of a lack avenue count ability and lack of verification and on ideas like owner ship, dbi is well aware of these types of misrepresent sensation made by developers and professional house buyers, serial submissions of fraudulent acts, affidavits, signed. look at this. we have permits riddled with blatant misrepresent sensations

and being filed at warp speed. makes literal will he have no chance to understand what is happening with over the counter permits and let alone defend themselves against this level of abuse being caused by permit holders and skilled at this misrepresentation as we'll demonstrate.

about what do they do? they put signs up and they put them up on their house right that hit next door and we've got people screaming at our home and my kids are right upstairs no

neighborhood notice and no plans to neighbors and look at november. we have another permit filed on november 2nd, the work starts to begin on the fourth. and boom, we have four huge dumpsters arriving over the period of eight days. on the 15th of december here comes another permit and on that

very same day, while they're complaining about us so let's go back to this list. this very large list. it's complicated and close to $200,000 claimed on these permits. there are so many errors. it's hard to keep up. you have to go through the dbi system and cree create the file to put it back together. look at this permit for all of this, a gutted building, one kitchen, one and a half restrooms in kind and existing. they knew on the 20th of october. they already scheduled those dumpsters to a arrive and they were going to get that building. so let's bring in some light.

the building was sold in full disclosure and identify why the misrepresent sensations are dangerous and so many items related to this building, need to be addressed. thank you. >> thank you, we will hear from russell and cara brawn. you have seven minutes. >> thank you, very much. i just want to thank all of you and it's hard work that you do and the hours tonight represent quite a bit so we're indebted to the commissioners and everyone attending as well as alec who helped us prepare so a little bit about ourselves. my wife is in her car driving

home from work and i'm here with a young family and i'm a full-time er doctor. we have fantastic long-term rental tenants and a child that enjoys the location and particularly the backyard where they spend a lot of their time. particularly with the pandemic. our concerns if you could, can you pull up the slid. so our concerns echo what joyce says in a different presentation. our concerns regard the otc over the counter process and specifically the second and third in potentially roof decks we're concerned about so in short, we feel that it's four-level remodel that would be

handled otc and we don't profess to know all the requirements but, it really does seem just excessive to go on a four-storey building remodel. and joyce said, the permits were serial, piecemeal and a greater depth and scope of the project. the owners and the contractor have not been transparent and all i have introduced to us as the move in owners when he is general contractor and it really just sort of sets the stone and on one of the later calls with him, he says quote, you want to move as quickly as possible without full planning submission and neighborhood approval. and his example of being disingenuous removal of backyard sidewalks which turned into removal of the full cement backyard and impact choices foundation and next slides.

please. this is what it looks like. clearly this deck expansions ever buried in the documents and they have impact on our house and our neighborhood. you can see drawings of the third floor and you can see in the photograph there's an opening on the north side of the property rooftop and the plans, i believe, the stairs leading up to the rooftop based on guesswork and my concern is that this third floor deck on the far-right could lead and through this outlet a crown roof deck

facing san francisco and a beautiful city views and so we have tremendous concerns about that and next slide. this is one of the documents provided by the owner and regarding privacy and i don't know how to interpret this except to suggest there's a view of sight into the bed rom on our third floor in the back and i'll show you a photograph as well as sound intrusion overlooking the bedroom as well as the deck and we can see it on the next two slides. here is one view. the diagrams don't spell how we live next door to each other. if you could present the next slide. this is the third there were deck proposed and how massive and evasive it is and the second there were likewise is just sitting on top of our deck. and really, you know, if there's

an expansion, if at all there should be a reduction and our concern also is the bamboo planters were placed three tofour-foot- box planters placed next to the property line and could that be a set up for an outdoor kitchen, barbecue, fire hazard and has our concerns. next slide. here is when we first moving into the house, typical winter season there would be sandbags on the garage and clearly there was multiple times of flooding into that garage and we did not see in the plans discussion in the plans about remodel or any kind of work being done on the garage and we think there's a lot to be said. the fact it's not discussed or being entertained in this row model. clearly it needs to be looked at and provided publicly given the

seismic work that needs to be done and the next picture shows the garage. it's a four level structure that is well beyond the scope of an otc. again, we feel as joyce does, that the signs that were placed were targeted racial divisive and certainly not neighborly and really in our opinion is of bad taste and we felt the complaints submitted to dbi on our property were inappropriate and a lot of time that was unnecessary so in conclusion, just some bullets and points. we would like your help to deny the permits ending in 40 and all other related to this replace with the full planning department review and neighborhood approval which we feel is not asking too much. we have received two neighborhood approvals on neighbors and the last six months and we're not sure why we

couldn't expect one on 734. it should include the garage remodel inclusive of the seismic upgrade. we have the second and third floor decks given the proximity of the house and we would like you to deny the staircase and deny future roof decks on the north side of the house and we'd like you to restrict the height and bamboo in supplier hazard between our properties and lastly clarify the fence between the properties. thank you, very much. >> julie, you are on mute. >> sorry. thank you. thank you dr. brawn. so we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holders. mr. patterson, welcome you

have 14 minutes. >> thank you, very much. it looks like the previous slides are still up. >> if you could stop sharing your screen, please. >> alec, are you there? >> sorry i was stuck. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening president swig and commissioners join patterson for the permit holder representative. thank you for your time tonight. i'd like to go ahead and share my screen. bear with me just a moment, please. >> we can see your screen. >> great, thank you. >> commissioners, the appellants have filed something of a

scatter shot appeal tonight and a number of new arguments raised for the first time just now and there's still no legal or factual support for their arguments for permit and i'll do my best to respond both to the old argument and these brand new ones. the and a modest balcony. first the appellant's argue the permit should not have been issued over the counter but not

every permit requires intake and this permit small scope of work clearly qualifies for over the counter review. and it's worth noting over the counter does not mean rubber stamped and plans were submitted to the planning department. planning reviewed the plans and requested revisions. revisions were made and row submitted for further review. the planning department rereviewed the application and approved it. the application also went to dbi and the other departments for their review. and rereview. and the appellants have not stated a legal basis why this review is improper other than they don't like it and they wish they could have had more notice. the appellants argued that the planning department should have issued a 311 notification. but this permit scope of work is not require planning intake or 311 notification. the proposed are within the buildable care and pulled become from the property line and the rear deck is less than 10 feet

above grade. they're asking the board of appeals to do it on the discretionary review it's not what the code requires here. and i think it should be mentioned the appellants and many other neighbors of the project have their own decks. and i'll zoom in here so you can see, just how many of them have decks facing each other and facing the project site. they have a minor and over the exiting first floor in the new cal bonnie over the existing second floor would impact their privacy and cast shadows on their property. in response to this concern being expressed. the project architect completed a privacy study and restained a respected consultant to complete

a shadow study and you can see here, what mr. brawn showed a moment ago page one of the privacy study, not called out in his presentation the privacy screening measures that were enclouded and mature plants are being included in planter boxes and each side and lower deck and on the upper deck as well on the balcony and these blocked views of the appellant's properties and there's no significant privacy impact. and this is in planned view which responds to what mr. brawn said looking backwards into this windows and these are mature plants on his side of the

deck blocking views into his windows and this is a blind wall here and this has been thought through and the project sponsor did include mitigation to avoid any such problems that they're complaining about. likewise on the other side. mature plants, along the property line and the corner of the building and blocks and vows of the windows and of the vast majority of particular deck with the exception of a little sliver of their deck pretty far away. the -- and again i want to mention the appellants and many other neighbors also have their own decks and it would be unfair not to allow it here as well. similarly the shadow study shows there are negligible shading impacts on the project and at most a 3% reduction in sunlight

hours and most the shadow falls on the blind wall. so really no impact. the full 47-page report is in your packets and the declaration is here to answer any questions tonight. and however, dbi inspector grown and mccue issued a site inspection confirming that the plans matched the site conditions and issued a start work order. they have already been found without merit. fourth, the appellants argue the project site was demolished and this is completely untrue. interestingly, the appellant filed a complaint about sheet rock removal relating to the debris mentioned earlier and but

they had a permit it's number 2018 and 03 so it does not make sense and it shows it's being used for some other purpose and on that topic, i was informed the appellant started filing complaints on the permit holder's other construction projects that have nothing to do

with her. this appears to be some sort of personal vendetta which is unfortunate. to end on a happy note i want to note the adjacent neighborhood to the west did sign a letter of support. so commissioners, in a short the permit was properly issued and the appeals should be denied and i also want to respond briefly to a few of the statement this is the previous presentations and first about outreach and saying there should been no outreach to the neighbors about this project and called before the backyard work and e-mailed and texted that he intended and

as well as stop work orders and start work orders and so you know to say that this is some sort of serial permitting exercise, where there's permits, it's not true.

not pointed into the neighbor's windows and so it's up with of those unfortunate situations where neighbors are not happy about construction and unfortunate relationship has arisen here but hopefully with the privacy screening and the data shown in this 46-page report about shadow impacts, that there are no significant shadow impacts, hopefully this can be the basis of these folks moving on forward together and having a better relationship and i'm happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time today. >> thank you. we have questions from

commissioner honda and president swig. >> good evening, councilor. so, i have several questions. first of all, can you explain the notice of violation? >> sure. let me pull that up. if you would like, i'm happy to share my screen. i can show this. >> oral or visual, that's fine. >> well, i'll just go ahead and read the description. unpermitted construction and vacant house north side of falling into neighboring property and infested with ra cons, plumbing lights were cut, construction on back deck and staircase which is attached to neighboring house and there's open sewer and toilets, cutting electrical and gas lines using hacksaw. i would know there were two open

permits already covering work on the property and happy to give you the permit numbers again. and the other things like -- >> what was the notice. i see the notice of violation so what was the violation? what was not in compliance? >> the notice of violation which i can also pull up and i'm happy to show. the interior finish, maybe i should show this. i'll share my screen from here.

>> i said it was the buildings and 3,000. >> i don't want to shoot from the hip. i'll find out and give you that answer when we come back. >> looking at your brief you are thorough and i don't see copies of any of the permits in your brief. >> is there a reason why that is. >> double check. i believe they're attached to a declaration neighborhood. >> the last question was, where is that?

is that there was not altercation with the complaint filed against the city inspectors. >> there was an altercation and there was a complaint filed against the city inspector on page 16 of the appellant's brief. did you not see that. >> there were a lot of strange claims made. >> was there a complaint filed against the city inspector? >> i'm not aware of any formal complaint and there was a question raised about how the notice of violation was issued without inspector gaining access to the property and it is -- >> are any of the clients and -- >> yes, he is in the hearing. >> can you answer that question, please. >> thank you for attending the

meeting. we never file any formal complaints. we just arrived to the property and introduce ourself to joyce the neighbor. she told us that she is well connected inspector and other people in the city as well. >> so a little bit of posturing. >> and then we got the notice of violation and how we got notice of violation without any site visit and it's what we did and we never file official complaints against no one. >> maybe since your counselor explained how did you move 250 square feet and how many square feet did you remove when you demoed? >> prior to and so we got a

permit for removal sheet for the one in 2018 and when we bought the house and as well as the wireing and repiping, as soon as you need to if a kitchen remodel and with all the bathroom. >> your permit, sorry to interrupt you but your permit and the removal of sheet rock 150 to 200 feet and how much did you remove? >> the permit is not saying how many square feet of sheet rock removal that was an assumption the inspector did and we never mentioned any square foot of removal and we remove sheet rock and it's all the old wire and put in a new wire so we demo the sheet rock so we will be able to install the wire. with all the water pipes, the drain pipes, and so we happen to

remove a little bit more sheet rock than what was expect this one there. inspector got in. >> and i mean, you are not the first person to get ahead of the work here in san francisco. second question is that when you were issued the notice of permit did you continue to work on the property? >> what is the question again? >> after you received the stop-work order in the form of a notice of violation, did you continue to work on the property? >> we didn't perform any work but we have a leak in the roof and we needed to have an emergency repair on the roof. it's by understanding it's mandatory -- >> how long did that work take? >> what is that mean? >> how long did that work take to fix the emergency leak in the roof? >> they finished the performance i believe within an hour or so?

>> >> thank you, very much, sir. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig, do you have a question? you are on mute. i am going to hold. >> ok, thank you. we will hear from the planning department. ms. tam you have 14 minutes. welcome. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. once again, this is tina tam planning department staff and 734 vermont street and it's in the zoning directing and a 40x heighten bulk directing and the lot measures 25 feet wide by 10y is a historic resource and the permit under appeal recon fib at living space on the first floor and the new addition on the first floor is an infill and so

it will be under the existing second floor and in other words there's no change to the existing building footprint on the property. the permit proposes and the distinct second there were roof deck in stairs and the roof deck and stairs will be setback three feet from property line and the roof deck itself and on top of the first floor. on the third floor, the permit proposes creating a new roof deck 13 feet wide by nine feet long. like the second floor deck, the new 126 square foot roof deck on the third floor will sit on top of these second there were. seeing the proposal and it's within the buildable area is a lot and the new stairs are less than 10 feet and property line and no neighborhood notification is required. the new reconfigure second floor and the new third floor roof

decks are considered roof decks and roof decks are in the buildable areas and neighborhood notifications. as such this permit was approved over the counter by a planning staff on december 2nd, 2021. the appellants are concerned about privacy and impact of the new decks. the planning department does not believe that the design of the proposed decks are incover sit ant with other decks that are routinely reviewed and approved by the city. they are reasonably sized and setback from both side property lines. the project complies to the planning code and it's consistent with the residential design guidelines including the department handout and the department recommends approval of the project. while the appellant raises other issues and concerns related to illegal demolition, serial permitting and possible illegal exterior work the department did not find any evidence of violations of the planning code.

and based on the photos take not by the senior district inspectors there was no removal of any interior or exterior wall. while sheet rocks and boards were removed, the over all structural framework of these walls, remain in place and intact. and there were other separate permits on file that were row viewed, approved and issue for exterior window and door replacements. with that i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig and then commissioner honda. >> thank you. there's ambiguity that i find between what is serial permitting and what is a series of permits. what in your view, what is serial permitting and then what is reasonable issuance of separate permits which in the

aggregate would amount to one general permit to do an entire project. where is that fine line? >> that's a really good question. we don't know how the definition and the planning code for serial permitting. many people chose to file multiple permits on a project. for different reasons. there is not any restrictions of know of in the planning code that says, you know, for a project of this scale, the scope, you can only file one permit or two permits. people chose to file permits for sometimes work they start with and that work changes over time and they need another permit to cover whatever additional school they may have not not anticipated and or sometimes they anticipate for additional scope they tagger that permit review process and break it down into different phases so when the planning department

purposes, we don't have any restrictions about it someone filing a multiple permits on a project. >> unless it goes out of the buildable area or the previously buildable areas and which point the scope does change because the building gets larger. >> that's right. we pro fer having one permit that is comprehensive so we can see everything at the same time and know exactly what is going to happen and that's not reality. yeah. >> now, i just heard him talk about what commissioner honda described as getting ahead of himself, he started talking about a renovation of the kitchen and other stuff that was not involved in your description of the project whatsoever. where does that come in or was

that handled in a previous permit. >> that sounds like it was handled either under a previous permit or another permit that was recently filed and it's still going through the city process and for review. i don't see the last permit that was referenced that was filed for the property and making it to the planning department yet so that could be that permit that also changes additional layout on the inside of the building. >> yeah and that would be called really getting ahead of yourself starting construction on an item where the permit hasn't been finished yet. let's be realistic and reasonable about this although if i'm a neighbor i might not be realistic and reasonable about this. because whatever this permit holder is doing it's within the buildable area of the building does it really matter if they

were with the exception of the decks, which i review, they're small and we've seen a hell of a lot larger decks than this and in any generic project, as long as you are staying within the four walls as long as you are not making two departments into one and some real fleeing rant stuff pretty much whether you serial permit or you do it, i'm using the word serial permit whether you do multiple permits, let's do it better. they do a multiple permit in succession or whether you do one macro permit because within the bill able area because the

conditions of the residents really are not going to change, because it's within that buildable area it doesn't matter whether it's serial/multiple or done as one permit? >> pretty much. your correct there's no change of youth and the property remains two families and the work that is proposed is within the existing envelope and there are new decks being introduced and there are changes of the the design of the deck and they all sit on top of existing buildings that are already there so there's no technically an expansion of the building on the low but i could see how people could have a concern about well it's a new deck it's higher and taller and from our point of have you it's pulled back from the property line which we like

and they're also incorporating some neighboring design gestures of putting up screening and landscaping to provide a buffer which is ideal and they need throw permits and it's up to them. >> i'm not going to defend the permit holder but chemistry between neighbors aside the process by which the developer attacked the project really, other than the two decks, and argue plea some demolition which i would consider not significant construction in the backyard, we're really not -- there's really nothing that is even at

risk of flagrant violation here. except for the discussion on the >> they might have a different take on what is going on on the property, buton from the plannig department standpoint we don't have any concerns or any sort of open forcement take on the property. >> d.b.i.'s conversation might have to do with the fact that a lot more was torn out than what was permitted to do so. d.b.i. might have a comment on how come they are working on the kitchen and wiring and plumbing on something not permitted yet. the planning portion of it, my points of view are within reasonable boundaries? >> correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. question from commissioner

honda. >> very similar. rick answered a lot of the questions i have. your press deassessor, our dear friend sanchez used to explain when the permitting process, you know in this particular case they knew they were going to do work on both floors yet the permit was only for a small portion. people get ahead of themselves. that is fine. scott explainedthey used the pes to get from one to 10 without doing a full consolidation, if they had taken out all of the work they wanted to do with one permit, would there be a different issue or different permitting issue to look at? >> i don't think so.

i looked at all permits on the property including the one just filed. we haven't had a chance to see it yet. the description on the permits all entail work within the building envelope. they might want to do new finishes for the bathrooms or cabinets or relocate in a different part of the building. i wouldn't trigger an additional review outside of the over the counter process. it wouldn't trigger intake unless there was a lot of walls shown to be removed that is would trigger us to say that could lead to soft demo. >> that is the concern. one of the appellants have photos to show what it looked like. they are going to do plumbing one day, kitchen next day. i don't see a problem if the totality would not change the

scope or process. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will hear from the department of building and inspection. welcome, doctor greene. you have 14 minutes. >> good evening. matthew green representing department of building inspection. there is history on this project that leads to the permit under appeal today. may 27, 2021 d.b.i. received unpermitted construction at vacant house 734 vermont. complaint team, inspectors made attempts to gain access with no success. october 28, the permit was issued for the kitchen and bathroom. november 22, window replacement issued. november 145, 2021 dis--

november 15 notice of violation sheetrock ruse moved from the intear for of the building. the soft work order was issued. november 30, 2021, the building application was filed. this is the permit under appeal today. while this permit was processed d.b.i. received new two newcomb plates with no building permit. i informed the building owner. they were reluctant to allow access to the property. i reiterated no work can start until the site permit. the cover the work done. december 2021 i proposed a site

building. we agreed to the new permit reflected the current conditions on the site. i got notice that it was appealed. this was approved over the councilther. they determine if it can be reviewed within a one hour time so. if so the application can be approved over-the-counter. there is an internal guide that states permits for kitchen remodel, bathroom, residential interior remodel for decks less than 20 feet above what the planning department said can be approved over-the-counter. 503.11.1 is the san francisco existing building codes states removal replacement wood framed occupancy one or two units is

not substantial change. the permit holder appears to have started renovation prior to valid permits. refused access to the property. it was not provided until seven months after the first complaint. currently there are three active building permits on the property. one kitchen and bathroom, one for window replacement and one for the permit under appeal right now. two expired permits in 2018 mentioned earlier. the electrical and plumbing permits are expected. they are complied with the violation and the permit under appeal should be issued. i believe it should be epheld. i am happy to answer questions.

>> thank you. question from commissioner honda and president swig. >> you are burning the midnight oil. you are still at d.b.i. >> i am. >> we are in the comfort of our own home. as i mentioned several times. people get ahead of permits. not the first. all we ask is that the they come in to conformity and go to the department. seven months seem a little bit long for the contractor not to allow d.b.i. access. i am going to ask that same question why it took seven months. in the brief it states there way a complaint with a member of your department. can you elaborate on that? >> yes. the permit holder made accusations he was friends with

the appellant or complainant. i interviewed and didn't think that had any merit. >> another question. this guy is addressed in the sunset. he is a local developer. is there a history of hish shoeses with the city. >> i am not aware. we did receive a new complaint for a property. >> neighbors going at it. >> we did issue notice of violation for the property. >> thank you very much and for your long hours of service. >> president swig. >> what if somebody behaves in that fashion. abuses privilege, abuses the

statutes by going ahead to do the work knowing we will get the permit anyway because we are going to do it anyway and there is nothing wrong with it. how do you prehaven't anarchy and chaos within the developer community? >> with the second notice of violation against the property, this contractor is added to our expanded complaint control watch list. three violations within 18 months they will added to a list of bad actors that will require greater scrutiny and oversight on all projects. >> in this case as planning

there is nothing wrong with the planning issue because the building envelope is not changed. from your point of have you this sounds like more of a nightmare because your department has been abused or the statutes related to how your department tries to we are abused. not as much of a happy camper as she might be. in the long run there isn't anything wrong with this project except for behavior, breach of protocol and general nuisance created for which your only accountability is to put them on the bad boy list, is that true. >> bad boy list.

there is also penalties. i will say he refused access for quite a long time. when i think he had access at the end of december i was shocked to see and i was expecting the worse when we got in there. [indiscernable] >> really nothing in the long run by your admission nothing is wrong with this project other than the way that this project was implemented tactically by the permit holder? >> they did start work. >> i would call that tactical breach. he made a strategic decision to get this thing done.

other than maybe starting early and getting ahead of themselves, as commissioner honda says. thanks. >> public comment. is there anyone here for public comment? please raise your hand. press star 9 if you called in. there is no public comment. rebuttal. ms. book first. you have three minutes. >> first of all, thank you very much. no, i don't knowsion birmingham. i went there that day and i did

see him standing across the street, as most of us had done and know you can visually see through the entire building. it is not just the first floor or whatever. it is three full floors gutted. gone, you can see through the building. folks are in and out of the building now, right? okay i want to get back to a couple of theirs. i know i went fast on some of these items. i apologize. three minutes. it is a lot. very difficult to do. back to the permits. there is a total of four building permits, two of them, one is electrical and one is plumbing. that is the six permits. second complaint we covered the notice of violation.

the once not highlighted is what caused so much fear for us. when you don't know anything. what do you do, you hop on the internet to figure out who these folks are. we discover quickly these are very young real estate professional home buyers, house flippers. they target distressed houses like the one next door. they target, prepare, get in quickly and demo it. they are good at it apvery quiet. we had no idea they were in there with this building. eight days total. they had preplanned all of these full-sized dumpsters to arrive. what we didn't understand that we do now. he has six or seven different

jobs and goes by different names. he needs an rmo, managing supervisor, one to pay to hire to work with. first has criminal charges, lost his license. this is his first mentor and boss. all kinds of corruption, professional business code violations, a lot of stuff going on quickly. loses the license. flipped into a new rmo. we have a lot of proposed solutions. civil harassment and we disagree. this is a soft demo that should be looked at and given one permit. this is our ask. i want one cohesive changes. go