>> joined by honda, chang and lopez. >> and present is deputy city attorney russy provide needed legal add sunrise near all items except number 5. >> skrak will be provided deputy

attorney. joining us with the items. the legal system and the direct. we be ginned boy representatived from the departments that will be (ing before the board this evening >> tina tang, representing planning. kevin bernalingham and philip cranner legal manager for the sfmta access and mobility services. jot board meeting guide lines turn off electronic device. a few health reminders. all individual hos are present in attends nothing person that all health and safety prom cot and building rules adhered tochlt this includes mask and in the eating or drink. failure to adhere may result in removal from the room. >> hand sanitizer stations are available throughout and each

elrirt and masks upon requests at city hall entrances. the board rule of presentliation appellate and permit holders and repondants given upon seven minutes to present and 3 machines to rebut. must include comments in the period. members of the public not affiliated address with no rebuttal. time 2 minute fist it is long or large number of speakers. parties are given 3 minutes each. >> our legal arc cestant will give you 30 seconds before time is up. upon if you have questions about rehear will board rules schedule e mail the staff boardofappeals @sfgov.org am access are of importance to the board. sfgov.org is streaming this live

and we will have the ability to receive comment for each item on the agenda. >> sfgov.org providing closed caption to watch it on tv go to sfgov.org cane 78. tell be rebroadcast friday 4 p.m. on channel 26. a link is found on the home page of the website sfgov.org/boa. >> public comment in person, 2 via zoom. click on the zoom link or by phone. 669-9 huh had been-6833 and id89123755608. now again sfgov.org is broadcasting and streaming the number and access instructions on the bottom of the stream if you are watching the broadcast. >> to block this first star 67 then the number. listen for the public comment portion and dial star 9 equal to

raising your hand. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turnful you may have have so to dial star 6 to unmute. 2-3 minutes. and you have a 30 second warning before your time is up >> there it is a delay with live and what is broadcast and live streamed. it is important this people call nothing reduce or turn off the volume otherwise there is interference. if participates issue zoom disability accommodations make a question in the chat box or sends an e mail to board of appeals. the chat cannot be used for public comment or pregnancy. now affirm all those who intends to testify. any member may speak without take an oath. if you intends to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your hand and say, i do

after affirmed. do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth? >> thank you. >> if you are participate and not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. commissioners we have a housekeeping item of 7 appeal 22-0006. property of 2150 leavenworth with drawn that will not be heard tonight. >> we are now moving to item one general public comment an opportunity for anybody who would like it speak in the jurisdictions but not on the calendar tonight. anyone for general public comment. please, raise your hand. >> i see one person. please, go ahead >> thank you very much. in two 002 the taxi commission designated full time driving as an eligibility requirement.

. [inaudible] a program element vital the law of protections must be weighed. >> for example firefighters up stair ways during a fire. physical fitness is valid. wheel chair person cannot apply but it is in the legal to ecclude a disabled person to being in the public information officer in the job duties are settentary designating [inaudible] >> driving is an important program element that not an essential one. for example ad a law has to protect a medallion hold in act

of driving a taxi becomes disable friday rear ended by a drunk driver. the city attorney disagrees with this interpretation. unbelievable. really. also is the 1978 voter prop circumstance analysis. does not mention driving duties but case purposes as lon. aligning with sales and permanent individual stock corporations. in 2007 filed suit alleging the er violation american disabilities act of 1990 the judge white ruled for the city but the ninth circuit court paled and agreed to expand the program. hundreds availed themselves of add preksz. [inaudible] mr. scomploen not

the hundreds of others medallion holders. the agency false ee r automatic mentioned in the various ramifications buffer under pins all of the actions. otherwise, the city attorney and agency cannot claim the retired person needs a california driver's license to operate a permitted business it was illegal and crew when they took the medallions from a taxi driver blinded during a criminal assault. thank you for considering these points >> thank you. >> any further public comment general public comment. raise your hand. we will move on item 2. commissioner comments and questions. we will mutual on to item 3. commissioners buffer the adoption of the minutes of march 30, 2022 meeting.

>> no a digsz or changes i have a megz to approve. >> i will make that motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda is there public comment on this motion? raise your hand. no public comment. on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye yoochl commissioner chang >> that motion carries the minutes are adopted. >> moving to item 4, this it is jurisdiction request 22-3 property 1685 to 87 haight. all right from conner johnson requestor requesting the board take jurisdiction over notify violation. which was issueod february 9 issue 2022. appeal ended february 24 and the jurisdiction request filed at the board on march 16, 2022. the determination description is as followed planning recorded

records indicate that the property is authorized a retail sales use. 20180142cua. building application number 20196273642. the removal of exterior front door and frame and a new security camera. violation unpermitted alterations without a permit or planning review. subject property is in violationing of planning code 35.14c. transparency requirement. 175 for unauthorized exterior alterations and 607.1 for unauthorized installation of a business sign. we'll hear from the requestors first. mr. johnson? you have 3 minutes.

>> we have speakers here. >> yea. fine. we don't need a microphone people say i'm too loud >> good afternoon thank you for hear thanksgiving item. we believe that this is an open and shut instance of city officials whether intentionally or inadvertently causing a small business owner to believe that an appeal was unnecessary. i will explain why in a second but for context i will explain the business the building and the business in question. the building is -- 1685 haight also 1687 haight. i think the convenience store has a different address. i'm the co-owner of the cannabis retail store on haight occupied 1685. 2 of the notices of violation relate to issues at 1687. which are unrelated my business

and unrelated our jurisdiction q. is it okay if i take this off y. we have to adhere to the ruleless. >> breathe deeply. there are 2 inches of 1687 unrelated the jurisdiction request and our business. those issues have been resolved with planning relating to the visitability and business line what is is relevant to my business is the security gate installed at kwaen 85. i want to provide context to why that happened. instead summer of upon 2020 withup rising happenings around the country. half of the stores cannabis store in san francisco were broken into. sometimes more than once.

in many case the scissor gate installed at the front were pried open. from the bottom or the side and people climbed through them. around hasame time the front windose at our store were smashed on to separate occasions. through our scissor gate. we had to have our co-owner as well as our security standing 24 hour guard in front of our store to prevent it from getting robbed it was scary we were not sure what would happen and our co-owner and security forced interact with them or confront them. >> so we installed a security gate at that time with the input and the oversight [inaudible] i thought you said i have 7 minutes that is appeals. can you pause the time for moment >> no rebuttal not from the

information we gave to you. >> hopeful low you read the briefing. approximate remember at that time working with me director of the austin kauchls we install third degree gate and have i 10 seconds for the next year and a half we worked with the mayor and the planning department consistent low on legislation to legalize the security gates for cannabis businesses and told that enforcement would be staid pending the out economist legislation which is why we did not file an appeal yoochl thank you you should time is up >> we'll hear >> the planning department. first time we see you when you are not on the zoom camera, tina >> good evening. vice president lazarus and the board. i'm tina chang department add administrator this . is a request for a notice of violation of the property at

1385 [inaudible]. construct in the 1906 in the north panhandle historic district the property is historic resource. any exterior changes provide preservation review. approximate by way of background. you know that it is a violation of issues on february the 9 issue 2022 the appeal period ended february 24, 2022. no appeal was filed in the time period. yao know anyone with an appeal the zoning add administrator or board of appeals within 15 days of the date of units of violation. in the case of 1685 haight the appellate failed to file an appeal in a timely manner now requesting the board to grant jurisdiction for the late filing for an appeal to be accommodated. before we issue the notice of

violation we reached out to him and upon [inaudible] he can go ahead and follow [inaudible] the process and wishes to go ahead and provide his [inaudible] and position about the notice of violation. in a timely manner. >> he was aware of the process. the last year and a half. and understands he is saying he has been working with the city on legislation. to possibly amend the planning code it allow the solid security gate to be permitted >> we have not seen such legislation adopted nor introduced or drafted. that's been a year. he asserts the planning department did call him to

believe an appeal was not [inaudible]. saved. we don't believe that [inaudible]. ask the board to deny the jurisdiction request andup hold the penalty. >> i got a question. >> so -- looking at going through the briefs i saw e mails that were going back and forth from the mayor's office. that there was something said for the planning department not to pursue an nov or going after it. that was -- >> i don't believe that we got any direction from the mayor's office. we did allow the business operators both mr. johnson and the adjacent operator, 15 days

to show -- corrective action. we allowed 8 months. after 8 months we have no choice than to proceed and issue a notice of violation. >> and so what i see is something similar to -- vinyl windso in san francisco you when people have come before the body request be that they be allowed put vinyl windows. exhibits he noted a lot 100 properties with solid metal doors are those all illegal or depend on the district. >> possibly. our enforcement program is complaint driven. >> yes. >> we don't drive around the city. >> yes. >> if we have a complaint and

we [inaudible] we do have a responsibility to look into it. and [inaudible] violations will open an enforcement case for the planner and work with the property owner to get compliant. >> thank you very much. >> thank you >> and does not want to weigh? . is there public comment. raise you were hand? are you a member of the party? i mean -- i'm sorry you can't speak during public comment. public comment, raise your know hand? i don't see public comment. commissioners. no. what is the standards. error and abuse. >> good evening. commissioners. we are not done in in awhile. >> the board's rule is the board can grant the jurisdiction

request if there is a showing that the city inadvertently filed it to be late in filing appeal. >> thank you. >> that information. given the last 3 years in san francisco, and given this pacific industry has seen, i mean i think they took it upon themselves to protect themselves i think anyone would have but unfortunately if it is not allowed by planning future legislation will allow it as i saw in the briefs but at this point i couldn't support that. everyone that came would have to over turn it >> at this point the question is did the city intentionally cause the requestor to be late?

filing for the request. the appeal. the opponent assumed enforce am would be stayed. >> i'm sorry. appellate assumed the enforcement would be saved based on [inaudible] that received from the city but it is not completely clear to me that necessarily caused a delay in filing the appeal. i don't know. >> can say i gave him 8 montes to correct the violation. so. >> emi'm not assuming the city having played a part in this

personal low >> i will make a motion. >> move to -- please. >> the rest of the issue we talked about after the 10 day period. if you know, he e mails and i think are arguably conconstitute inadvertent -- intercepted as inadvertent cause for delay. i hear the -- merits of that -- 8 months stay. i think -- i do focus on the 15 day period and if we have that period that -- you know gee. i didn't wish e mails would have been clearir that said hey. this is in the a stay but we will look into it. and i don't think it was that

black and white. you would wish that communication would have been clearer. i see how somebody you know upon if me as a member of the public and business owner is interacting with the city and getting the communications i see how honest mistake can be made that hey this is all pending. that's -- why i'm inclined to support the request. why i will make a motion and we can see where it is moved we deny the request the city deposit intentionally cause the requestor to be late. why a motion from vice president lazarus. the bases that the city did not intentionally because the requestor to be late on filing. commissioner lopez? >> neigh. >> commissioner honda. >> aye.

>> commissioner chang. >> no. >> that motion fails. we need to get a -- 4 votes. so -- the vote of one missing commissioner would not make a difference. if you don't get 4 votes the question is denied by operation of law. so does anyone want to make another notion. no. >> no. >> okay. so -- the vote is split 2-2 that means the request is denied by operation of law. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so we are going to department city attorney will lead the

meeting and welcome department city attorney. we will see you shortly. welcome. department city attorney. >> tag, you are it. why musical chairs. we are on item 522-007 skrak the statement decision. rob skrashg does not have a driver's license or a card. notice of renewal is appeald and 878 is revoked by the operation of the provision of the san franking transportation code.

this it is medallion 8 and we will hear from [inaudible]. welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> thank you. i'm upon representing rabbit skrak, his career beghan 1982 when he worked as a taxi driver to pay for isdegree and his graduate school. at that time, he held a driver permit, a card. and even after he earned his ba he continued driving until become a medallion holder. he did this in 19 upon 97. mr. skrak graduated from ut beshg low the bay your protest that lead to the disabled community getting the curb test and mobility impaired could

navigate streets. he was driving a taxi when the city first cut all the cuts we take for granted like we come to take the ad a for granted it has been around since 1990. on september 20, 2012. he was diagnosed with 3 disabilitied each which were enough to prevent him from driving a taxicab. at that time, sfmta allowed him to renew his medallion every year until 2021. in 2015 after consulting about whether or not he needed to renew his arc card he stopped renewing it on advise of the. manager kate stanfield. we argue that he should continue to be a medallion holder on the

basis that sfmta is stopped him from revoke nothing 2012 mr. skrak passed the opportunity to participate in a transfer program allowed him to be 200 thousand dollars rich are today in exchange for sfmta promise that mr. skrak could remain a holder for his life with no driving >> reporter:. >> number two, sfmta is stop him from revoking medallions staff advised him it was okay to stop renewing arc card and,llow his california driver's license to lapse. now they seek to revoke mr. skrak's medallion because he does in the as well an arc card he was told by staff that was not important. number 3, to support sfmta

relied on section of transportation code that does in the apply to medallion holders. it is satisfied the caby seek to hold an arc card. sfmta is not trying to revoke mr. skrak's arc card it is tlieg to revoke his medallion. he is a disabled medallion holder deserves consideration under their disability policy that would allow him to keep his medallion with yourly evaluation whether to suspend driving requirements. so sfmta dismissed the idea it can be [inaudible] will from revoking his medallion it claimd that [inaudible] is only applicable in unusual instance. when necessary to avoid grave injustice and result will not

defeat a strong public policy. i ask this commission to consider the public policy at issue in this analysis. sfmt acclaimed the public policy to require a medallion holdtory have an arc card must trump the public policy to support our disability community. there is something wrong with this. further more. sfmta add sunrised on 2 occasions to see the course of action he relied on. doesn't it make sense this current holders should be able to rely on the advise of staff to navigate the complicated rules they are forced to comply with? >> mr. skrak and harris said he would not have to drive holding medallion due to his disability. he took stanfields's word he

could cancel his california driver's license that allowed his card to expire. sfmta aushged mr. skrak cant operate without an arc card. taxicab companies operate taxicabs without holding an a card instead they have a color scheme permit. as well dispatch companies operate without an arc card. prepay medallion holders may operate a taxicab in the city without a taxicab and disabled medallion holder may will operate a taxicab admit city without an arc card the reason to have an a card is to drive a taxicab. >> for the reasons stated we urge this board to over turn sfmta's decision to revoke and

allow mr. skrak to remain a medallion holder. thank you. >> i notice my client joined us hello, mr. skrak. >> you have a minute do you want to speak. the time you want to use the last minute. >> i will wave my time. mr. skrak was trying to speak. i don't think he wanted to talk tonight. >> all right. we will hear from the sfmta. welcome. . just a moment good evening. [inaudible]. as mentioned by council the issues buffer not a renewal of 878 there is no disnewt is a post case medallion out lined they are subject to the full

time driving requirements. we discussed in other cases a slum decision district court [inaudible] decision the sfmta is successful low sought judgment on a challenge to the court [inaudible] the port found the driver is an essential requirement. and additionally prop circumstance was passed by san francisco voters. there is no rule that the medallions held by active drivers. we are not on the full time driving requirement that is a separate grounds. medallions are subject to the full time driving need a valid arc card that is separate. [inaudible]. 2020, reviewed all medallion renewals [inaudible] i was step nothing permit manager's sxroel

came it my attention this many medam yons were out of compliance. and based on that review and the staff time need was -- 2019 when i started this. given the time this was june and i did not have staff time to go through all that. we exercised our discretionary -- [inaudible] so00 eye know we are talking council was talking about 1103 assigned drivers seek their a card that is the truth but i said before this class of medallions granted to the appellate on the condition this he be a full time driver and discussion of the what i believe the ad a policy 09-138 a board resolution happened after sloan's decision that allows the

temporary. it it is that policy. temporary pause or release from the periods up to 3 calendar years per condition. and includes the possibility of reduction. i have [inaudible] am say that this person can drive 400 hours the a card rule applies. policy the ad a policy is due to the access it is a temp iary. i said before we're not here on the driving requirement we are here on the lapse of the. d card. i want to point out the 1116 of the coached say there is is no right or interest for medallion holders to sell or transaction a surrender there are no property rights [inaudible]. so i also like to point out that

it was a judge and told the appellate he could novelty have 2 driver's licenses that began that process. that, thank you. >> i have a couple question we had a few cases before us and after. it is confusing. can you explain pre-k, post k and color code? >> sure. are they the same for everybody. >> no. >> why is that? the pre-k [inaudible] the vote was to make it 78. prior to 19 feat they were pre-k. that was before you were born >> right >> they were referred to as pre-k now the taxi medallion they were regulated by sft at that time. i believe will the supervisor

put the prop k [inaudible] the voters approved that. changed the way namedallions issued and held. but those that were on the street the pre-k's were less. they were allowed operate. difference with pre-k and post k prethere was no driving requirement. you hold multiples and transferrable. once you bought a pre-k you could sell temperature there was no decision was not. involved. that's my understanding. the problem is you can no longer transfer them. none remember transferrable after 78. any going forward from 78 pedded to one person. and a natural person you could not have a co operation you had to drive. pre-k you could own 5 or

corporation own 5. the total need 1 a person and you had to drive. enemy that manner prop k in affect, until 2010. in twenty 10 added another lay are the taxi commission started. and tla regulated taxis for 10 years. and then in 2009 i believe prop a. passed taxis from the taxi commission over to the mta that codified in the charter. i think 3. that were called. and at that point takeses came ourndz the mt aboard. 2010 the pilot started. and 2012 medallion program

became per minute navenlt after that. the referred to as purchased or transferrable. >> now by and learning they were not created out of nothing. most the majority some were created. but i should say issued. the majority kim from post circumstance holders the rowel was overnight age of 60 or disabled. and also pre-k if you were over age 60. you were able to surrender for consideration they are in the transferrable. let medallions come back if you were surrendering it and the purchaser would money go to you and the medallion to the purchaser. and that medallion holder had somewhere rowels to post k, a driving

>> reporter:. you hold one. mta has changed those rowel in october of upon 2018. given the chink in the market. purchased medam yons no longer have a driving requirement and purchased medallion nonnatural person a business is the term we use. you may hold multiple. that's a lot of change. >> so. -- the reason why is -- this law am of them having to have an a card when did this take in affect? i believe in 2015. and so in the brief it said that the person spoke to staff member page stanfield in 2015 telling the driver this for him to just voluntarily give up his license and would not affect his

situation. how could this staff member say if the law changed. i believe she was mistaken i don't know >> that is the concern he were is ha -- we have -- 78, 2 where are 09 issue 10, 12 and 18 changes of rules here and unfortunately -- what the department is creating is affecting other people's live lihood. in a previous hearing you state thered is no value to the medallion at this point? >> there is a price. i don't know what the clearing price is today. what was is the last time? 250 thousand dollars. so a medallion holder can surrender it for 250 thousand dollars. has to be a [inaudible]. there has to be a fire the

mechanism it is on a list. there is a list of purchased holders who have outstanding loans due to transfer the medallion. >> do you have an idea how many on both that buyer and sell are list at this point? i want to say 500 but don't quote me. if you want more. >> you are pretty knowledgeable and thank you for bearing with my questions. this is we are talking about someone's live lihood here and on page 3. the transportation code has no requirements for medallion holder just annual arc card. >> is that a correct statement >> i disagree. states that medallion holder subject to the requirement has no arc card they renew it. >> okay.

thank you very much. >> okay. >> you have a question. >> yes. a word on -- the purchase portion of you mentioned that -- 2019 given the time crunch. you did come out with it right away. you renewed the applications for one more year. and you talked about in of the temporary disability context. this there were these annual potential for annual extensions outside 3 years. right? you know was there consideration for longer notice period? or manage like that? temporary disability? just given like commissioner --

pandemic. the pandemic. the fact folk's livelihood. you know will -- curious whether that is the thing considered or would be considered now? >> i think people that were in violation. giving them you know upon -- long are notice period before the enforcement took affect. so they had several years these were ruled the 2015 had an arc card. we are not the driving requirement. i if you don't have an arc card you can't drive a tax i it is right for the requirement like that. again i don't want to [inaudible]. no is the answer to that

question. i was [inaudible] came to my attention what was going on. i was acting the enforcement manager and over seeing the -- the entire vision of the director butt staff and enforcement staff. i said there is w this guess into drafting and draft it and i'm novelty a permitting clerk and a secretary. it is all on me. [inaudible]. i know. >> and the backup staff that gets them mailed. i don't want to go far in that but you see my attention we raised to the director at the time. yes, [inaudible] it is [inaudible]. i asked and you were able to hear >> 350 issues and the

[inaudible] moved on. 120 it was [inaudible] did not appeal didn't do anything. that [inaudible] [cannot understand] >> i hear the constraints. not surprising that broad funnel of enforcement is leading to these down to the neediest situations where it is the permit [inaudible] the ones we get the issues and cases, i think. it is also you 99 that context you know the one thing i offer for our benefit is -- you know we keep hearing similar facts of i was told this i didn't node this or renewed for several

years including after 2015 watch this enforcement that's where in my mind. you know -- theful cost of the -- attached a bit and -- and i see where -- you know if we were to architect this on an expectancyive clock base i. you would have wanted a lot [inaudible] i [inaudible] align with [inaudible] on this point. i think inadvertently seemed that the city lead a lot of medallion holders to believe whatever documents they had sufficed to enable them to open a medallion. i think you are doing your job and telling them that is in the

the case but it is obviously causing a lot of heart 80 and trauma. we can help a lot of holders that is taunting to stomach given [inaudible] like come back monitoring what is happen nothing new york. >> but it is certainly has experienced a lot of hardship with not only the pandemic but in general. >> i will suggest we keep move and we have this conversation. if that is all right. >> if you have questions, please. >> thank you. why is there public comment on this item. raise your hand. >> okay. will i see mr. america murder in the second degreel your hand is raised the appellate used your

declaration as part of your brief it is not appropriate you to comment during public comment. >> that was charles. excuse me. please, go ahead. >> thank you. >> the same basic principle applies here to the prior case related to the california driver's license issue. medallion is a business operating permit not a work or driving permit. disabled medallion holders have ad arc protection perform the sworn intention top drive condition be a never ending driving requirement and the sloan ninth circuit agreement provides disability relief to mr. skrak. i agree with the airports made that his case involved relienls. awful us made aid career commitment in the medallion

system expected permit true remain high. uber devoured the world. mr. skrak relied on legal right to operate the medam yop as a permitted business the permit did not have to renew his arc card and move his female a more affordable city. reno. nevada. apparently mr. skrak received the same advice on multiple occasions and i accompany medallion holders with disabilitied. name low the resolution 09138 extended the program with the

ninth circuit sloan agreement. prosecute allows for steaming disability and for many years. we are on the list many of us a lot of compassion. don't let yourself be cheated. at the pace for became a police officer and in the city working city. they understood the sloan agreement that's my opinion. >> 18aa will revoke permits with medallion holders this violates ad a law and retroactively

violates other principles the development now is that -- this pilot program and uber client base successful to taxi drivers i ask you seek a continueians tonight >> thank you. on that basis. >> thank you. >> we will hear >> fellow [inaudible]. welcome. birch give i have the choice to unmute myself. fwaen i'm marcello long time member of the taxi industry. i drove a taxy full time for 15

and a half years before i was branded a [inaudible] medallion. i invested all those years in the medallion system i believed in and when i was offered the win my name came up on that waiting list, i swore the infent to drive my taxi. there was nothing there that made me believe i would have to drive my taxi until i dropped dead behind the wheel. gi don't have my speech prepared. and i'm going through a second language and i'm emotional tonight because i have a tragic loss of a brother but i'm -- i want -- to call in and support mr. skrak. i don't think any of us should be facing revocation of our per

mitts. we invested many years of our lives. we gave our physical and meantsal health to the medallion system we believed in and prop arc gave them too much power they other sole only sorry the -- in charge of taxi related matters. to change those -- whenever they want. and gentleman after disabled medallion holders is not fair. we don't see it as fair. i know you have to interpret what they tell you the law is. let the cold is but anyway. not long ago the mt aboard unanimously voted in support of

a pilot program to have over as a third party dispensing platform for taxys. cab drivers now want who to they will have access to the uber customers. and those who support the pilot program including the mt aboard they believe they -- this will bring value to medallions. i urge you to support mr. skrak, having keeping the medallion or wait until we find out what this pilot program will bring to the medallion bag. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> sorry for your loss. >> thank you. why we hear from evelyn. go ahead. >> you may node to press star 6.

why yes. why go ahead >> good evening. commissioners. president and owner of [inaudible] we have been in the business for 30 years. you have heard that last tuesday it received the board of sdreshths approved the measure that will put taxis in the uber app. to see this ride hailing giant partner with taxi technology was not in the horizon before. for us to join forces with them is significant will revitalize the taxi industry. taxi driversed uber trip and access to more customers this will expand the drivers economic tuntsz. if tell serve will public giving roadwayers another transportation option. tell be encouraging for wheel chair users tell shorten their wait time. this pilot will be implemented

starting august 5. this is exactly what we mean when we say medallion values will be back. medallions used to sell 250,000 before or would 2500 an among's rent before the advance of uber and lyft now they are down a miniscule amount. a disabled medallion holder serving san francisco, this is their life. now their only surverify ump need to understand their pain to see what they are going through. these people are fighting for the dream and i arc spire when we go to retirement. in the bigger scheme of things when did driver's license be [inaudible] when you see handy cap being vaporized.

uber set i goal put every taxi on the world in uber by 2025. there is so much way to [inaudible] i ask your help in continuing if there is appeal we gift piplot program a chance to play out. inform case of a stealmate make a motion for this appeal and the other appeals similar to this be continued. thank you for giving me the opportunity. >> thank you. is there other public comment on this item? i don't see further public comment. we move to rebuttal. you have 3 minutes. >> i note that sfmta referred to section of the transportation code providing with the

authority to both mr. skrak's permit and i did do a thorough analysis of that section of the transportation code in appellate 3 starting on page 7. so -- the main thing on this is a discretionary enforcement measure -- and -- i would note that one of the good causes this listed under there for revocation of under which sfmta may revoke but does in the have to. is that medallion holder subject to full time driving requirement does not require the requirement the year. however, i mean the analysis when you think about what if this driver is under an ad a suspension of their driving

>> reporter:s during this year could mta go in and will say, well, you know this 1118 gives us good cause to revoeng medallion you did in the complete the driving >> reporter: this is last year even though we had you on a suspension. so. you know it is just a lot of different ways to look at things and i strategically encourage this commission to do this. i want to point out that attachment b of appellate'sef brief has the hearing officer's and not it felt like it had no choice butup hold mta on the decision to revoke the hearing officer did so with, lot of regret and said than i would have preferred to defer the revocation of this and others until the mt aboard had an opportunity to make changes to

the law. i appreciate that the commissioners rescue noise that a lot has happen in the a short time. and -- we would love to see what is next, what will happen next to protect the disabled medallion holders and fingers crossed the mta. mr. skrak could participate in the transfer program and sell his medallion. the hoping that continued and i'm available for questions.

this is refers to the ad a policy. i think now referred the medical modification. determined use, i think. number 5 -- any temporary suspension [inaudible] is not suspension reduction. full time driving >> reporter: you must be requesting provenualy. revocation not.

>> make marequest to reduce or suspend that permit or has it been like you don't meet this requirement. >> i want to separate this is this policy is for the full time deliver. 800 is i straight number. that -- is reduction or suspension that is here today the lack. the back out mr. skrak is in the driving. hoping to have driving >> reporter:s not to have an arc card. that's why we are here. the arc card that was suspended. the full time enforcement of the

requirement for the [inaudible] since the [inaudible] reinstituted that but council pointed out on the fiscalier that does not start until july first. yes. july first. i can't00 eye would not file for revocation on june first because -- i know they are related and i did in the want to make the 2 or arc card, not an a card. driver's license and that's where they are not on the driving. i have a question. there is i believe a transcript of an e mail with kate stansfields it indicates that she advised him he did not need to renew his arc card or driver's license.

>> that's another driver. i have another quick question. it is one decision not applicable only to sloan or is there a general plexability of that decision to other cases. a notice in public comment about this. [inaudible] [cannot hear] um --

that settlement is the way the dismissal is what result in the the resolution but that came out of it. the resolution or the parties of this can is can stip lay [inaudible] if we will go it class action the extent the 2 systems [inaudible] agreed to this [inaudible]. it, ployed them. with respect of when came out of that resolution. i don't disagree with the statement that wider -- but only the parties to the state stip lit to dismiss it i think there is something confusing. the ninth circuit agreement with

only to basically resubmit an appeal. why and a settlement had been reached. why an agreement. money transferred. i don't think it was a monetary agreement. it was submitted but the agreement was i believe one of them were in the other opponents -- i'm sorry i can't remember the agreement. is that the agreement is very explicit when than i agreed to which is flexible. >> thank you. >> commissioners? >> um -- i have been pretty out spoken in the past cases of what i feel. or how i voted similar in this case.

something does not add up as far as if you become disabled this you will not payment. i money that does not make sense to me. and that -- these people did deposit get hand outs they worked for 30 and 40 years in san francisco, which was a tough industry. i am in support of the permit holder. i have similar sentiments, i think that -- that is not to that side with the permit hold in my opinion. just you know result in a patently unfair outcome. the permit hold and in other

case that row locked at is titleed rely statements they received headed directly like we seen at the e mails dooshgs during the period that was required to the -- in affect. to that gives roadway to e stoppel in my opinion. i think we are giving the drivers a choice -- between dishonesty and poverty. i think that type of choice runs counter to the public interests. i think incentivizes unsafe driving. of because if we were giving someone the choice between loyaling to the department and

financial ruin i think you act in your best self interest in that case. motion to grant the appeal. on the basis that -- you want to

say mta is a stop from resulting medallion mr. skrak relied on his conversations with mta representatives? >> that was what you were going to say. would that be okay. >> a motion. advise you that -- that -- the gentleman enities and there needs to be a showing that at least someone -- that it is00 althoughed be necessary to arc void grievance and result would not have a strong public policy. you recognize them they are the findings it is required against the rules i want to make sure it

would be recognized it is [inaudible]. >> i think you said grounds of public safety we would not want the people driving jop i want to make sure have you a record. >> can you say that again? sure. >> yes. >> okay i mean i wrote it down but like clarity on the seconded part. >> the first point would arc void a grave inyesterday. public policy committed to public safety or in general public policy. requiring an arc card and not the policies required.

it would not create -- safety and -- >> i will just -- repoe it for the record. >> that you are making a motion to over turn the determination on the mta medallion mr. skrak relied on conversations with sfmta and representatives and this is necessary to arc void a grave injustice and would not defeat a strong public policy and not create any issues for safety to the public. okay. on that motion -- vice president alaska rus. >> no. >> commissioner honda. why aye >> chang.

why aye >> that motion fails 3-1. we need 4 votes. >> i will make a new motion. continue this for a year on the basis that the sfmt aboard with clare thyifiy their legislation regarding disabled drivers. >> any comments from the city attorney. you can do dh look on this thing and the chair [inaudible] we have a motion from commissioner hoblda to condition this item to the call of the chair >> condition for a year. >> or call of the chair to be continued -- i money we don't have a calendar for next year. anyway. >> a difference with calling for a year and to the call of the

chair. >> you can't you don't want to have a motion that is open ended we need a difintive [inaudible] we have a motion prosecute commissioner hondza to continue to the call of the chair. >> [inaudible] the board with articulate a disabled person to drive.

psychiatric the drivers to commissioner lopez articulated. it sounded there might be legislation in the future that would give mr. skrak an opportunity to sell his medallion. that is happen nothing new york and new york follows san francisco and follows suit you want to continue it for this reason to enact legislation that might give him the opportunity. >> yes. >> good >> thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to commissioner to the call of the chair. to return to the board calendar in a year. on the basis so that00 autosfmta can so that mr. skrak has the opportunity to possible low gain value from the transfer medallion if the mta enacts

legislation. it sounded better behalf. basically to continue the mta -- so that there is an opportunity for the mta to enact legislation to benefit mr. skrak. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i make a comment about this. that is that -- many case we hear are based on policy and code. and your theory anticipating legislation change in code and regulation. and i don't see that has functional. so i will vote against it. >> okay. so we have commissioner hoblda's motion on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus.

>> no >> commissioner chang >> aye. that carries 3-0 that will be policed on the call of the chair for a year. >> 3-1. >> right. thank you. so -- we are now moving on to the next item. item 6 appeal 22 and thank you. let's we need to get department city attorney back in here. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you are great with the mask on. i see it. >> yes. >> thank you. welcome back. the commissionering and she was

[inaudible]. lopez [inaudible] the microphone [inaudible]. it is hard to hear y. speak up upper. we don't very much thank you. i appreciate that. >> so we are move to item 6. appeal 22-018. doctor chung tony kir and doctor ryan kir property 729 vallejo treat of a revocation q. planning requested this the department building inspection revoke building permit 21. the permit approved by plan nothing error on may 25, 2021 and issued on january 4, 2022 the scope of work of the change of use from existing borrow to dental office. and associated interior tenant improve ams no exterior work was

approved. healing service are novelty permitted on the grounds floor. approved by plan nothing error and a permit should not have been issued the planning requests revocation it violates the planning code. a manner to address the issue this is permit 202105250983. commissioners the standard of reviewa error or abuse of discretion. you have 7 minutes >> good evening. i'm doctor ryan kir i'm a dentist. i joined my father's office. he started in 1988 and together we have been at 14th broad way for 34 years. patients from china town, patient number are composed of percentage of economically [inaudible] peopleim grant and [inaudible] elderly. why we are challenge

thanksgiving petition to the zoning add administrator over turn the are vocation. [inaudible] i like to address a number of letters at boarder appeal in [inaudible]. the items are based on a false rumor evicting from the bar and protested to the relocation. the letters came after we applied for an appeal in court. there are humann rumors it was revoked we were [inaudible]. the meeting after we purchased the building nolan shared no agreement to dissatisfaction. on good terms with him and never expressed concerns to us. he was -- seek to close or relocate the bar. and my understanding the bar is not his primary job.

building inspector and travels around. should he have concerns with plans he should have voiced them and documentation on his part. [inaudible]. we have to be [inaudible] the permit there was opportunity for any neighbors including him to voice occurrence. no one did. layers should not color in the board today. than i should have negligence of the planning department. i should state that our serving the community for 34 yers i'm certain we have letters of support of the [cannot understand] closed on current

dentist retires. i'm proud to follow the legacy of my dad in helping to serve our community. [inaudible] i enjoy helping new people [inaudible] who are often appreciative of our service. in 2018 the city brought a project outside our office eliminate a parking lane and outside of our office. very difficult for all. [inaudible] dangerous to be dropped off in front of [inaudible]. all things are ending and thirty-four years the land lord will not extend our lose we are look to relocate. rather than move out of our community we chose a space [inaudible] word of mouth [inaudible] and in a neighborhood. this come down to your board recognizing injustice.

recognizing negligent of the planning department. they made 3 mistakes lead us to pay the cost. today you can right that wrong and enably us to continue serving the community. >> first incorrect information when than i said our existing office is northeast [inaudible] and eligible to relocate within the district. [inaudible] our [inaudible] china town and north beach. this incorrect information lead us down the path to buying the building and starting the construction. secondly, [inaudible] architects questioning approved the shade of use permit. our architect requested michelle about the need for a cu. but she checked with her senior colleague and stated there was

no need. so 9 months later in january of 2021 planning approved the per mitted inform february 9 mobs after the cu permit approval the same planner who approved the change of use [inaudible] revoke today with no acknowledgment of her mistake. everybody makes mistake its is appropriate to feks it in a reason time but in the unacceptable after 9 months. it is fair that they made -- made a mistake. hope return to the planning. we near time to start it and relocate the offices continue to

serve our patients. in this situation we followed every right channel -- >> commit our plans and apply for a zoning permit. they want to make mistake after make and mistake we are paying the costs. i think we have drawings -- objections or commentses. no one predeliberation meeting we submitted the continued use with plan and that had the planner michelle -- planner

remember could try again to double -check and check with colleagues and taken approval. that's how it it is and at that time if there are more. we within ahead and permit. that's it. >> thank you. >> hear from planning department.

the property is in north beach and historical. helps understand how we got here recreate the time line [inaudible]. on -- july 26, 2020 after the start of the pandemic, e mails and planning to the dental office to 727 vallejo. exist and new locations in the same zoning district. did not provide the address of existing office. >> 2 days later on yell 28 the plan are said a cu is required. the planner was clear the dental office was not allowed but with a c ushg a relike of an existing dental office was in the same northeast commercial district would be allowed.

mr. kir asked if a denial office could be allowed if in the a relike. the planner replied 2 days later concern new denial office is in the allow in the the north beach district and said that if it was a relocation within the same district the cu would be required. why >> kir stated the current location 814 broadway in the same north beach zoning district and asked to add parking to the new election at vallejo. the planner philidelphia up and e mail the cu application and fee schedule. in a week on august 7, 2020 doctor kir purchased the property. he said he purchased it based

upon the property planning department's advice. however the planning department did admit add rise him to purchase the passport especially told him it was clear a cu was required. based on the time line, it appeared he was working on purchasing the property. to recap. doctor kir e mailed planning on a sunday july 26. plan are responded within tw days stating a relocation was in the same zoning district required a cu. followed up with a link to the application. and then purchased the property. he followed up with the planner about adding a garage at his new location. on august 21, 2020 a planner

replied saying a discretionary review is required reduce the ground floor commercial space for park and than i would not approve the removal of the historic store front. 9 months later. doctor kir representative file aid building permit at planning information counter on may 25th 2021. it is unclear as to why he filed a zoning permit when told multiple times to file a cu. cu authorize applications conditional be filed at the planning counter. they are foiled on line using a public portal. it is state on the cover of the cu application. scope of work on it ground floor, from a borrow to a new

denial office. relike within the same northeast neighborhood/commercial district the planner recalls aspect of the permit but not all the details. the plan are at the counter reviews hundreds of per mittses a year. so it is unclear what transpire this happened day on may 25, 2021. the planner did incorrect low move that permit. i stated earlier a medical office use is not permit in the the north beach commercial district. and a relocation within the same zoning district a cu would have been required. planner made an error. on january fourth, 20 twoot building permit was issued. a mont later on february 7 the

planner reviewd and found out contacted boy a member of the public and med aware of error. >> the next day the planner reached out to the representative and february the plan are consulted with senior managers of planning new legislation will be addressing the situation. revoking the permit was the only option. >> on march 10, 2022 the zoning add administrator issued the location request because the permit was issue in the error and no planning code to arcllow project to move forward without a planning code amendment. despite the issue planning department regrets the error of, proving it. planner who approved is afternoon experienced planner. her recollection may have confused by the 2 locations. this was like low a scenar i

don't since doctor kir told the properties about all properties in the same north beach commercial district. doctor kir said in all e mail to the plans and indicated on his permit application. why you know this is not true. the old location is near the new location they are 2 different zoning districts. we provided the information with doctor kir and the permit was filed. regret not filing i cu if we would have known that the 2 different locations and relocation was not per missable one was in the choina town. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. why you have a question. why i have a question. so -- in the permit holders broef on page 3 it states our

architect reviews and checking boy the planners successful low obtained the cu per mir in mi2020 but it was never issued >> no cu was filed. >> thank you. >> i have a question. please. would a planner not know from an address what district it was in? they would have. and that's what i think the mistake was made. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> dbi does not want to weigh in. thank you. any public comment on this item. raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. we will move on to rebuttal. doctor kir. you have 3 minute in rebuttal.

no audio. >> i'm the dentist of the dental office asking for the like i was anxiety row to listen to mr. channing the twisted information. i know call in myself i give the -- [inaudible] at that time that's. and the plan are asking for my

number we were having conversations. she does not know we had a conversation. the plan are asked my location i it is broadway. the planner told me okay you are in north beach area. and my new location i said 2029 vallejo. neil medical office allowed. send the application everything. and then because of [inaudible] repurchased the property. then i would say that the [inaudible] the second mistake is when you know -- [inaudible] went in and told me the application. met [inaudible] the senior

planner. and she provide the information and explained to me a 1 again a mistake saying that oh , your location is in china town. it is in the border. it is too close to the border. [inaudible] may not hoe and they made a make a second time. and then -- approved over counter. i was surprised had the e mail about the cu and et cetera and showed it to me. and [inaudible] coming up and say that there is no need for a conditional use permit required. right [inaudible] okay because this is -- allowed by planner. you know provide it is untrue.

she is not the 1 who talked to mow. i i am not the person telling them my office in china town. i'm angry. i think [inaudible] make mistakes accept reality and assume responsibility. and coming and holing the permit because of his own mistakes. and also. to draw attention to the [inaudible] you repeat the mistake [inaudible] [condition understand] here commissioner. they have [inaudible]. >> thank you. >> thank you. why doctor kir. why so -- you said you purchased the building on the 7th you closed on the 7th?

>> close on the 7. when did you open up escrow. >> opened we [inaudible]. we don't need loan. >> so less then and there a week. 2 weeks. >> may be a week. due diligence to find out whether to on the buyer's side it see what you can and cannot do >> there is inventory. and there is only one property within that 200 meter away from the office. that's why we have to make a quick decision i e mailed them on sunday they e mail and the planner offered it call me and they are not calling it either. >> okay. >> know there is a conversation going on there. why thank you, doctor. why thank you. >> you can be seated now. i apologize.

>> we get like that, too. why we hear from planning department, mrs. chan. >> planning department. we stand behind we provided the correct information to doctor kir up until the time change of permit was fileod may 25, 2021. you know doctor kir had purchased the property. we wished we filed instructions the cu. we believe this will had he file today we would have realized it was in the permissible. again we have apologizes. but it was attributed boy doctor kir and his represents we wish we had not made this mistake we

like to offer assistance and options and assisting finaling an althoughive. the department asked the board to deny. i got a question. so -- from being on this board for years i understand when a permit is issue in the error the city does in the stand bind it. in this case, i 19there was a short wind open in escrow and felt they had done due diligence but -- we do not have the ability to over turn it there is legislation this says we can't do that. is this correct? >> you are looking at the city attorney. >> i mean it is clear. on the ground floor is in the permitted. we had a case here 5 years ago that was around the corner on columbus. i guess man was trying to open

something and that was turned down but the board does not have the ability to allow that? right? we don't. >> good evening the board is in the in a position in terms approving a permit that would violate the code. >> that's why. thank you. thank you. why i have a question. >> can't believe that. this is going to so major ignorance. cu permit can be issued over the counter. i didn't think so. >> absolutely public hearing and notification is -- required. >> time and -- the staffan likewising the project and making sure it meets that it is necessary and not horrible and no objection. it is like a sick mont process.

>> generous if 6 montes to i year. okay. >> thank you. >> commissioners. why i think had a question. >> >> it sounds like from the testimony and staff that was provided doctor kir representative did attempt to submit a cup but was told that instead an over the counter permit would sufois. >> does in the recall those sequence of events. permit -- [inaudible] she would have i don't know what to do we don't look at cu at the counter. et cetera. i can't say for sure but this did not happen but when speaking

with her she does not have recollection this came up. i said earlier she made a mistake. >> what if she got the 2 locations mixed up. hard to say it was awhile she does look at so many permits. at the counter. >> yea. she does apologize for the mistake. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner. geez. i'm sorry. i don't know. i'm off guard. so -- unfortunately i don't know if you heard if the city errors in issuing i per commit it is an error they are not in the

position to honor it. i ask the department and the city attorney what other opti s avail us the restrictions in this area are strict they come before the body men times and i mentioned nels kim in a large organization and i know that location is vacant 7 years later the city would not allow this to happen and so there is irrelevant this it is a terrible and unfortunately error and it has been cost low for the kir family. but we don't have the ability to over turn the decision. at all. are there any recourse? regarding nothing. they are not able to open a medical in this your? >> do you mind coming up. pursue a legislative ordinance

to allow this use in that block. that's possible low one option. medical use are allowed on second and third floor with a cu. >> they were trying to put a garage in the bottom, anyway. >> yes. >> all right. >> clarification. my understand thanksgiving in this case cannot be over turned because of of under lying code. in in th case this board does in the have the authority to change the code the only way to change the code is through an amendment. which there are some has to do it is in the fast. and you know things -- the board has done in the past to help appellates or to -- you know --

a compromise like giving both parties more time to help. what you need is the ability to open the medical office on the ground floor and this is not something that the board has the authority to do even if we empathize with the error made y. we do. why and the situation you are faced with. i wanted mick make that understood. >> would the department be supportive of the request to do this? >> at it time the error has been made if than i were to seek further take a step for legislative change >> we can talk to the legislators. >> okay. >> before we let you know you mentioned working together with the appellate or a type of cooperation. can you say another word about

what you might add or if is was communitied. we talked about earlier and see whether there is a way to change the code. at the time when the planner asked about it. in february when this was kind of -- taking place. um -- go back and ask again, may be. so we support putting the office in another part of the building. >> you did they -- cu would allow the second floor. >> cu is not code and planning. it is planning commission. >> used to be board of appeals a language time ago. >> soundses like relocation within the building subject to cu or legislation change? >> or relike they are novelty

there yet. why it is introducing a medical service use on the second floor or third floor as well. and other issues [inaudible] the cannabis office is on the second floor i wondered why they were on the second floor in this neighborhood. >> depends what you want to do. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there a motion y. a motion. >> i move we denight appeal on the basis the planning department upon did not error. why zoning add strirt did not error and use direction and proper low issued. health services not permitod ground floor. thank you. >> on that motion commissioner

lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> hey. >> commissioner chang. >> a heavy heart, aye. >> that motion carries 4-0. appeal is denied now item 8 -- 7 was with drawn. so item 8 is the appeal number 22-018 i'm sorry. item 8, yes. appeal number 22-0 within 3, sousy chen department of building inspection. fur 36 eureka appealing the issuance on february 11, 2022. a site her pit horizontal expansion. new interior stairs and remodel

interior walls. expand the existing garage. now doors special windows. 2 new bedroom and brotherlies in ground hot comand remodel kitchen. and we will hear from the appellate first. >> wait does this patterson in person is this good evening. >> bear with me a moment. why take your time.

we will be a minute we have a commissioner taking a break.

we are taking a 3 minute break. commissioner chang stepped out. thank you, sfgov.org. we are still live. >> okay. may be we should pause, sfgov.org. yes, please. we like to welcome welcome to the san francisco board of appeals item 8 and the appellate will address the board. welcome, mrs. chen you have 7 minutes. >> the computer. >>

>> member was board i'm susy chen and read the site the last 18 year. thank you for hearing my appeal they preserve the 4 bedrooms. notice was begin the plan is noun compliant with residential design and windows were oshg mitted from the project plans which the project impacted from the planning staff. and the project built i second story on top of an uncommitted refer addition and never consistencyy with the planning code. the notice period was suppose to the be active i did in the receive a notice. in did anyone in my building.

7 signed declarations from michelle and hoar is i list of all the niches that i communicated with. in the i single person said than i received a notice and in the, wear of the project until reasonable. [inaudible] provided to my sunshine request. the experience does in the receive the mailing notice, however. 311 notification is i legal rirment and it does in the happen. residential design requires project its consider the context of, i didn'tsant propertyd and list different design modifications to minimize error on the property. include side set becomes. shared walls. slopped officer forms.

here is the project design [inaudible] first floor additions stands fur feet across without providing a matching light well or any setbacks required. only source of light to 4 bedrooms. includes 2 sky lights and a code to install curb cuts the project requires them in the 7 roll locations which is next to where the windows are. [inaudible] we provided a side step out but it has more window and does in the help the windows

face out instead of front of the windows they would help. i don't oppose the invest majority of the project my request is it change the expansion in front of the light well putting the wall 3 feet away from my second floor window. provide a side set become that is directly in front of the light well to mitigate the loss of light. this can be accomplished. the architect can talk about at this time expansion area on their side plan for i stair case. with a 20 foot high ceiling. [stand by for captioner change]

>> it's to request the light well. these are the only ways for the bedrooms and south facing and it's --

>> these are the windows for the bedrooms and south facing and block -- it blocks the critical afternoon sun. and they were omitted from the plans and the first is tenant occupied and it's a great concern. the first floor windows are already enclosed on all sides by walls but they currently get sun from above. this corner is where the existing third floor ends and you can see the direct sunlight in the bedroom and any expansion along the property line here will cut off their light. the project sponsors any compromise plan still show this window at the wrong location, as blocked by the existing building which is self-serve and false. the permit plans omit two bedroom windows better deeper by expanding the building along the property line and the inaccurate plan steered it as the planning

department looked at it. this isn't just important to my client, this is a public right of due process. next, un-- you can see the unpermitted construction is on the property. and they are building on top of it without legalizing it properly, without going through planning the department review. that illegal expansion already blocks the downstairs portion of my client's light rail and those are the only windows for the bedrooms. >> 30 seconds. >> we appreciate the sponsor and offered a -- compromise but doesn't solve the problem and removal is good but for the most impact part, you can see the] line they're offer to go tilt the wall back and the project approved is straight and they're tilting it and you can see the red window is completely blocked by their proposal. the alternative is easy and obvious --

>> that's time, thank you. >> thank you for your time >> thank you. thank you. we'll hear from the permit holder. the attorney is here? >> hi, i'm nate thomas and i represent my client and this is his counsel alex. several notice -- this is my first type doing this. first, i just want to say good evening and you guys are doing well and i want to go point-by-point and -- >> we paused the time, so don't worry. >> okay, thank you. can we

present? >> you're on the computer, thank you. >> great, thank you. it's complagues enter -- -- no notification was given to the department. we refer to the planning department and it was in their court to produce the mailers and mail them out so i'll let them speak to that. the project plans and the six bedroom windows is facing the light rail and we showed the second architect so i did not provide the first round of plans that were originally approved. but i did create the remedy that is in front of the board today. so, we -- there were two windows located on the light well and those have been shown in the plans and we hope you accept those. it was constructed without a permit and the project was not removed from the

exterior wall, sorry, the project would not remove the exterior walls from the property line and the interior finishes will be removed as part of the renovation and building. any defective construction in the existing building and discovered during the demolition phase will be remedied so we understand this was constructed without a permit. anything that, anything located in that area that's observed that isn't up to code would be remedied. i will also state that that level is on the ground floor, that is the roof level of the light well adjacent to that addition. so, there is no impact on the light well of that addition that was not permanent. >> (indiscernible). >> okay. the next section. okay. so, in the end, let me jump to

this so i can -- >> we can pause his time, alex. thank you. >> so, we received, we offered these concessions. they accepted most of them. this is the one main exception that they are, that they are not happy with. we offered them to slope the roof, to allow more light into the light well. last night at 8:00 p.m. they came back to us and wanted us to do this dog leg situation. this morning, i sent that to my structural engineer and i said it's a feasible way to do a sheer wall. all walls surrounding the staircase are shared walls and beyond review, he wrote back and i have his e-mail in writing that i can present to you that this dog leg they proposed does not work well for a share wall and the angle wall i'm proposing actually does, it will work as a share wall but unconventional

method of construction and that will have to be for a special condition. the other issue that they take is that they want confirmation that our roof assembly will be approximately 12 inch so it doesn't impact their house as much as possible. we have not structurally designed the roof yet. roughly the framing will be, you know, the framing itself might be 12 inches but the roof will be sloped for drainage so we can't get a consistent height of the roof throughout the area. we said we would design it and we hope that is okay with the appellant. >> -- this was presented on

march 9th and they never responded to us and they weren't going doing accepted and chair -- it was three feet to four feet and we have [muffled] from march 9th and they would accept that and the only reason we're before this board is that one,

the refi. the staircase is a sheer wall necessary for the bedroom floor especially and so, we were told that would not work and however, the compromise they came up with, there were to retain all the walls around three sides of the staircase, the share wall so we told (indiscernible) and structural engineer and we gone to the other side there and it cannot

be done. and -- engineer and at some point even that has to be evaluated by -- we didn't accept the offer even before this hearing. and i submit my brief letter to this board and i have responded to every single one. >> 30 seconds. >> and each space including (indiscernible). >> i have a question and you saw

time >> oh, i'm done. it's nice to see you ms. barkley and you have a new hair change and i haven't seen you in four years so welcome. so, a couple of questions. you're the second architect, correct? >> i am. >> so, i mean, in my experience, most architects don't use the as-built as a prior architect because of this type of error, is there a reason you chose to use their as-built. >> i used to work for that firm i. didn't work on this project under that firm. their as-built drawing were provided so them and as-built themselves weren't necessarily incorrect, but, sorry. the as-built of the building weren't correct, but some work was done without the permit which is that additional first floor and what was shown incorrectly was an omission. >> the maej concern is the -- -- the major concern is omission because planning doesn't have

the opportunity to address those particular windows. >> right. the omission was only shown on plan. it wasn't shown in the site plan. it was shown correctly and elevation it was shown correctly accept for the two windows on the side of was so the fact there were bedrooms there and that light well did exist there, that was represented in section and also in site plan and in elevation and it was the floor plan itself that wasn't shown. >> okay, thank you. you did okay. you're a little nervous. >> i didn't know i was going to be tv. >> thank you. >> you should have seen me on my first night. >> we'll hear from the planning department. >> planning department. 436

eureka street. and constructed in 1922 and the property is not a historic resource and the scope of work on the permit before you is to construct a horizontal expansion at the rare at all levels and install stair to connect all levels, remodel and reconfigured and excavate and expand the garage. the premises (indiscernible) 2018, neighborhood notification was sent on february 6th, 2020, and during the start of the pandemic, the 30-day period did get extended for two weeks and notice expired march 19, 2020. during this period, no dr was filed. after waiting about a year after the planning site off the permit, the permit was issued february 11, 2022, and appeal filed on february 25, 2022, and the appellant is a neighbor north of the subject property. and based upon the

appellant's, her concerns are inadequate notification and inaccurate plans and negative impacts to the appellant's light wells and windows and condition of the rare. despite the appellant's -- we have a list of all names and owners and tenants within a 150 feet of the subject property who was sent a copy of the notice. the appellant and tenants and neighbors declared they never received a notice is included on this list. in addition to the mailing notice, the property owner also posted a notice in front of the property for a period of 30 days. we have a copy of a photo of that. in response to the plans, the department believes the plans to reflect the light well accurately, the light well is shown onsite plan sheet a-1.00. the plans also show the appellant's windows in the light well and windows are also shown

on the elevation drawings on sheet a-2.02 and a-2.03 and the cross-sections on a-2.04. the response to the potential impacts to the neighbors windows and the impact will be minimal. appellant's building is larger in scale and deeper in length in the subject property. the expansion comply was the planning code, it's compatible with existing developed pattern on the block and con semester want with the residential design guidelines. a portion of the proposed extension adjacent to the about about ael ant's property is -- the appellant's property is setback. it's a reasonable design to respond to the windows in the -- about the appellant's light well. the

windows that the appellant up that wasn't shown or deliberately omitted from the drawings and that's not true. the plan submit the guidelines calls for identifying all windows on the neighboring property where the windows are parallel to the property line. in other words, windows that face directly onto the side property line. the two windows that were referenced that were omitted are on an angle and they're not required to be shown on drawings. lastly, the appellant provided no evidence that the rear portion of the subject property was illegal constructed. for these reasons, the department supports the project as proposed, the design has been properly reviewed by the residential design advisory team and comprising of staff architects and the project complies with the planning code and consistent with the residential design guidelines and we do not further modifications are necessary at this point.

>> question. >> ms. tian and i'm going to ask one, too >> thank you for clarifying that. the appellant also said that she did a sunshine request and she was not, no one responded. considering i just finished my sunshine two weeks ago, very -- are you aware of the sun sheen. >> we provided all required information to the sunshine ordinance and i think it's part of the brief. her brief is -- >> three hundred pages. thank you. [laughter] >> the question is, the permit holders offered some changes. have you had a chance to look at those and would those be acceptable to planning so you're okay with the original plans and you're okay with the modifications? >> that's right. i think the compromise of the modification that i propose are increasing

the parapet and the setback which we all think it's fine. but we also thought it was -- >> okay, got it. great. thank you. >> thank you, we'll hear from the department of building inspection. welcome, senior inspector birmingham. >> you got a full doze of boa and you had the last case. >> i know. >> you're earning your city dollars tonight, thank you. >> i'm representing din and our position was properly reviewed and recommends to hold the permit. >> thank you. nice to finally meet you in person. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item, please raise your hand. okay. please come up. and you're not affiliated with the appellant, right? >> no. >> thank you, please come up. >> so you have three minutes, ma'am. >> can you start the clock when

i start talking but not right now. >> we'll start the clock -- >> i'm kidding. >> my name is christine and i'm a previous tenant at 436 eureka and -- i actually had a different plan speech and discussions, but i can't help and i'll say a little bit, but (indiscernible). 311 small a talks about the purpose. so to give notice so that concerns of project are identified so that neighbors can result of that. i'm aware of ms. chin's -- she consolidates issue. there's no

reason for me to believe she was not given noticed and small b, the notice shall set forth a mailing date and notification and it's my understanding that information was not found in perfect -- of ms. chin. i shall illustrate post conditions in relationship to the adjacent properties, that wasn't done either. although the planning commission stated that there was significant impact. i did hope living there, if that wall is built, there's no light in that room. and it illustrates that room. that's a significant impact. we have a large elevation and (indiscernible) for structures and -- i guess what i'm getting at, there's a lot of shall's in the san

francisco code here. and that promotes mandatory action, shall construe is mandatory and failure to follow the statutory commend and when i say statutory command, i mean san francisco code and they have substantial consequence and i think eliminating the possibility of any light or (indiscernible) to come into the first floor, that used to be my bedroom, it's a substantial consequence and it would be very dark, very depressing and it would be a solid wall for the load not to come in. a slight wall doesn't provide light to a storage room. it's the only light in the room that these tenants live and work. i thought the planning department, if the planning department knew of all the windows that they would have owe >> 30 seconds. >> i think the permit was issued based upon perceived, i guess, absence of this. for the sake of the light on the first floor

tenants, i'm requesting that you require the setback. otherwise, i believe that that the message that would be given is just fail to provide lights, fail to include the note and just push your way through. >> that's time, thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment on this item, please raise your hand. ok, i see someone on zoom. moritz. and olly raza. please go ahead. and we can put you on video. would you like to go on video? >> yes. please. >> one moment. okay. just bare with us, thanks for your patience. okay. you can go ahead, you just need to turn your video on and your sound on. you have to -- click on that

icon. you did it for a second. okay, go ahead. we can see you. >> perfect! awesome. technology is working. cool. thank you so much. >> hold on. >> we lost you. are you trying to share a screen? you've muted yourself. can you unmute yourself? you click on the icon with the microphone. >> okay. no, it's okay. >> are you flying -- are you trying to share something? >> when i tried to share, it unmuted me. is there a reason for that? >> why don't we try. i don't know. it shouldn't happen. okay. >> perfect. let's go. now, wee good. thank you. so my name is moris and this is my husband and we are the current tenants on eureka, 432, so basically the building next to and we're going

to be majorly impacted and we wanted the board to know we love this place and it's our home and cutting off -- with this new building, it will cut off all direct sunlight to our bathroom and to our office. and you can see just, you know, just also just understanding what this mean, right. if you see on the left here, our bedroom on the right, the office and light and sunshine is coming from the top of the other wall. so, any construction here on the high wall will cut off any light and feeling of those two rooms for us that we consider our home. so, yeah. we just wanted to underline here the impact with those two studios if there's going to be a wall. i'm going to hand it over to my, to donta to tell more about this. >> good evening. my name is ali

and i'm also the current tenant in the 432 eureka and i'm the architect and designer so i'm very aware of where the light is coming from. i looked at the permit plans and the project is going to cut off the direct sunlight that reaches both of our bedrooms. so the problem is, all the wall -- all the new walls will be a full story height and part of it will be extending the wall right above our windows, the three windows we have. so the outcome will be that it will cut off entirely the light of our bedroom, so it will -- it will be almost a darkroom since it has one window and this will have a great impact on our well-being. further, it will minimize the light of the second room which is going to be especially my office place and morris is working partially from home it will affect my work severely.

so, the solution is setback the wall a few feet to allow sunlight to come to the first floor and therefore we request there's a setback in front of the window so we can save some of the light to our home. i might, as ask that i had the chance to look at the plans and as an -- internationally working architect, my experience is -- in my professional experience, a light will face another light well which isn't the case on the first floor and now in the new plans, it should be the exact same size as the light on our side which is also not the case. so, this should further underline the importance to check the plans once more. and just to finish, i think that are few opportunities to adjust and optimize the plans -- >> that's time. >> okay, thank you. thank you. we have public comment from a

caller whose phone number ends in 9865, please go ahead. you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. >> hello, can you guys hear me >> yes, welcome. you have three minutes. >> hello. thank you so much. my name is joey kelly and i've lived in san francisco for over 15 years and for two of those years, i lived as 430 eureka street and i've worked in the real-estate business for many years and i'm very familiar with the building and i know susie very well. when i worked in real-estate, i always saw setbacks, he don't know why she's having no setbacks in front of her window and if this is a matter of discretion, he want the board to know i have known susie for over a decade and extremely compassion at and take cares of others and when i lived there and afterward, i

watched her with other tenants as she's always looking out for them and she's a good person and she basically is -- if anyone had immigration issues, she would lower the rent, if someone needed temporary housing, she helped out and she has her nieces and nephews come over on the regular basis placing football in the backyard and she helped with my son's soccer team with barbecues and team meetings in her backyard and i just wanted to show my support for her today. and she just doesn't deserve to have a wall built in front of that window. thanks, guys. feel free to ask me questions, take care. >> thank you for your comments. is there any other public comment tonight on this item, please raise your hand. okay. i don't see any further comment so we'll move onto rebuttal. mr. paterson, you have three minutes.

>> thank you very much. mr. paterson, city appellant. this is actually pretty straightforward and clear case. when you request the sunshine ordinance, proof of mailing of the 311 notice with the planning department, they sent a declaration of mailing. they gave us the 311 sunshine documents. there's no declaration of mailing. we have a list of the neighbors in your packets who said they never received a mailer through the 311 notice so it's quite clear. and the project sponsor doesn't dispute that and agree. the list that was produced was actually the pre-application meeting and you can see that was provided by radio and services which the planning department -- that's not the list. and it should be

the planning commission. and this is dr to ensure light well is not walled off. it's not what we do in san francisco. the project sponsor done this too and the windows were omitted and -- i'm going to show the points and the plans are not here. these are different windows and these are two more windows shown here and they're not there. she said that section 311 requires parallel windows to be shown, that's not in section 311 and on the overhead projector, if you don't mind -- that is walling off windows in light rail. that needs to be reviewed by the planning department and properly

legalized. and as for our negotiations, the attorney said we waited a month to respond to the offer and that's not true. we responded on april 1st, almost two weeks ago now and their responses were, we'll see you at the hearing. we'll see you at the hearing and there were negotiations after that and we went back to -- >> can you not talk in the background. he's giving his presentation, thank you. >> thank you. >> excuse me. and it's helpful and making it as minimal as possible and we agree to that. that's what -- that's what the neighbors have talked about and that's appreciated. what we're down to on the computer place is

this stairwell, overhead land with 20-foot -- almost 20 foot of header over a stair land asking that's not necessary and that's the expansion next to the window. and that's this -- >> 30 seconds. >> the solution is put a jog in it. they're not saying it's not possible because they share walls and architect two says it's not necessary but my client is willing to contribute reasonable cost to work around that issue, she'll help pay for the construction to make that possible. i think we need a very short amount of time to sit down and have our architect or engineer talk to their engineer and resolve the issues. >> that's time. >> thank you for your type. >> thank you. and we'll hear from the permit holder. >> you have three minutes.

>> the applicant show all windows including the windows at an angle so -- number two, as far as the 3/11 of the notifications, we saw first of all, before the 3/11 applicant, they were provided the application and reading of this and i have submitted a lot of those as exhibit 6 as the preapplication and show you that

they received it. the client also posted, which is required, all the (indiscernible). the 3/11 application and (indiscernible). it's to her and her parent. they never return those envelopes to the planning department and the planning department will keep those envelopes and my client verified that. there's no (indiscernible). they submitted -- i understand an e-mail to this board and the board members

and support letter for -- to accept the proposed project design. we're talking about (indiscernible) and talking about the size. we increase it from three feet which is considered to be adequate by the planning department to four feet to address the concern. we have found everything we can -- we have done everything we can including sloping that to get sun through there. >> to -- 30 seconds. >> those rooms are extremely dark as is. they will get sun, direct sunlight when the sun is overhead. which they still will get when whether it's a three story or two-story house. and

they are getting the direct sun. they are not getting direct sunlight all the time, only during when the sun is really high. >> thank you, that's time. thanks. >> so i think that -- >> thank you, ms. barkley. your time is up. >> i have a question, ms. barkley. i have a question. >> alice, alice, ms. barkley. >> i have a question. the appellant has suggested some possible continued discussions about potentially a further compromise. >> i can't hear you. >> the appellant has suggested some possible further discussions to look at an additional compromise. is your client willing to potentially continue discussion with the understanding we would set a date for this to come back but is that something that you would

consider? >> as i've mentioned and (indiscernible) in the mail. they said they will accept all the order we put before this board that was given to them and there's an e-mail in my exhibit that show it was given because -- >> but they're proposing potentially some -- >> the only issue that is not resolved is that roof. >> right. >> angle. and based on the -- we're advised by our structural engineer that that particular wall, the way they designed it, it cannot be -- >> okay, okay, thank you. >> and i actually have an e-mail from the -- >> okay, right >> from the engineer if you would like to see it. >> ms. barkley, considering that

the shadowing was very contentious, i didn't see a shadow report in the brief. did your client prepare one? >> a shadow study, i believe the architect has one. >> i have a shadow study here -- >> we can put it on the overhead. do you have it on the computer or do you want to put it on the overhead? >> i have it, thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. okay. thank you. >> sir, to explain what i did here is that i did a sun study specifically at 3:00 p.m. when they would get the afternoon light that they primarily talked about. and of course, there's one done on 221, september 21st near spring and one on

december 21st. you'll see that, at 3:00 p.m. during these dates, the appellant's own building actually shades certain windows as you see on the left-hand side of the light well and there's a four-foot setback and on the next page we show the additional further -- of course, sorry. you'll see that light right here. there are indicating themselves in a lot of instances and whether we do a three foot setback or four-foot setback or five foot setback, the light doesn't change much on those window and i'm primarily looking at the male window, sorry. this window here and seeing how that changes over time. there's -- it's really negligible whether we do the setbacks or not given the volume and the position of those and we have it as (indiscernible) >> so their building is facing

north, is that correct? >> the northside of our building. >> okay. >> thank you. you'll have -- i think right now we're on the planning department so thank you owe >> may i submit this? >> is that okay, chair lazarus to submit a shadow study? okay. so, let's hear from the planning department. >> dot from the planning department. (indiscernible) about the light well. the appellant of the light well is a large size light well compared to typical light wells you see. for these over size light well an exact match of this light well is unreasonable and not necessary. the idea that is that

the light well at the site can provide its own light and air to the windows that's in the light well. and so therefore we're not requiring that -- provide an exact match of the light well. we propose not to however -- of three feet or four feet, we think it's actually a better design solution and provide more light to this light well and therefore we are -- we're not suggesting any further modification. the reference that was made about the requirement to show, you know, information on the plans is not found in section 311 of the planning code. it's, as i've mentioned, it's contained in the plan submittal guidelines. >> one last question, so one -- the appellant's are saying they never got a declaration of mailing, is that a standard procedure for planning?

>> we have all that information but planning is handling this permit, they did not bring it to my attention that anything is missing and they told me everything is -- >> okay. the second question is that -- planning is in a position that the structure in the back is legal, so it shows on the tax records and as a permit history. >> i have no information that it's feasible. >> okay. does the tax records or sand born map show that structure is, maybe it's a building question, i don't know. [laughter] >> don't go away. >> yeah. so i'm going -- that seems that the -- that the structure that they're claiming to be non-permitted is blocking the light, right. and so if it's non-warranted, not warranted or illegal or non-permitted it

would have to go through a separate process, right? >> right. we don't have a complaint it's illegal and we haven't done the research or investigation and we haven't gotten evidence that it's illegal. >> the appellant's would have to file a complaint and the department will take care of it. thank you. >> i want to clarify something you just said. did you say you prefer the original design as opposed to the modifications? >> we're just saying we stand behind the original design but the modification that i propose are also okay. >> you think the original design might be more beneficial to the -- to the appellant? >> it's a better design approach than like a matching light well because i heard someone go, where is the matching light well and we think in the middle of the matching light well and having a setback that that goes to the back and open to the yard, it's better for the neighbor with the light well.

>> great, thank you. i appreciate it. >> thank you. we'll hear from dbi. nothing further. did you want to maybe ask if he reviewed the revised plans? >> i think that's fine but i'll have that opportunity on their own. >> so, commissioners, this matter is submitted. commissioners? >> sure. it's always me. the brief was quite long to go through. and there's definitely one side and the other and then having oral discussion here, we have to take the directive that if the planning department says it was mailed, then it was mailed. in regard to the illegal or potential illegal structure,

i believe that the -- the appellant can file a complaint and do a further investigation. what's before us today, i would deny the appeal and uphold the permit that it was properly (indiscernible). >> i believe there were revised plans. >> grant the appeal. >> if that's the direction we're going. >> i don't mind because that would benefit the appellant's, not one hundred percent but more than where their at. >> do we have revised plans? >> it was exhibit 9 to the permit holder. is that right? >> it's either one or nine. >> okay. >> yes. >> so i would -- unless further discussion, i would motion to grant the appeal and to modify

-- >> issue the permit to require the plans in exhibit 9 of the permit holders grief. >> a5 or something >> on what basis? >> that it doesn't comply, i guess. >> opportunity comply -- >> it would be a benefit. >> addressing some of the concerns of the -- the concerns of the appellant? >> correct. >> lopez. >> vice-president lazarus >> aye >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4 to 0 and i can talk to the architect tomorrow about the process, i mean, we still are a

>> we have private and public gardens throughout the garden tour. all of the gardens are volunteers. the only requirement is you're willing to show your garden for a day. so we have gardens that vary from all stages of development and all gardens, family gardens, private gardens, some of them as small as postage stamps and others pretty expansive. it's a variety -- all of the world is represented in our gardens here in the portola. >> i have been coming to the portola garden tour for the past

seven or eight years ever since i learned about it because it is the most important event of the neighborhood, and the reason it is so important is because it links this neighborhood back to its history. in the early 1800s the portola was farmland. the region's flowers were grown in this neighborhood. if you wanted flowers anywhere future bay area, you would come to this area to get them. in the past decade, the area has tried to reclaim its roots as the garden district. one of the ways it has done that is through the portola garden tour, where neighbors open their gardens open their gardens to people of san francisco so they can share that history. >> when i started meeting with the neighbors and seeing their

gardens, i came up with this idea that it would be a great idea to fundraise. we started doing this as a fund-raiser. since we established it, we awarded 23 scholarships and six work projects for the students. >> the scholarship programs that we have developed in association with the portola is just a win-win-win situation all around. >> the scholarship program is important because it helps people to be able to tin in their situation and afford to take classes. >> i was not sure how i would stay in san francisco. it is so expensive here. i prayed so i would receive enough so i could stay in san francisco and finish my school, which is fantastic, because i don't know where else i would have gone to finish.

>> the scholarships make the difference between students being able to stay here in the city and take classes and having to go somewhere else. [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> you come into someone's home and it's they're private and personal space. it's all about them and really their garden and in the city and urban environment, the garden is the extension of their indoor environment, their outdoor living room. >> why are you here at this garden core? it's amazing and i volunteer here every year. this is fantastic. it's a beautiful day. you walk around and look at gardens. you meet people that love gardens. it's fantastic. >> the portola garden tour is the last saturday in september every year. mark your calendars every year.

you can see us on the website >> the city has undertaken a pilot program to hook up private privately -- owned hotels. >> the community members say this is helpful for them especially for the seniors and families with kids from seniors being able to connect with the family during the pandemic and too watch the news has been really helpful during this time where they are stuck inside and are not able to go outside. for families it is important to

stay connected to go to school, to get connected so they can submit resumes to find jobs during the pandemic. [speaking foreign language] >> challenges that might seem for the fiber in chinatown is pretty congested. the fiber team found ways around that. they would have to do things such as overnight work in the manholes to get across through busy intersections, and i think the last challenge is a lot of buildings we worked on were built in the early 1900s and they are not fitted with the typical infrastructure you would

put in a new building. we overcame that with creative ideas, and we continue to connect more sites like this. >> high-speed internet has become a lifesaver in the modern era. i am delighted that we completed three buildings or in the process of completing two more. i want to thank our department of technology that has done this by themselves. it is not contracted out. it is done by city employees. i am proud and i want to take a moment to celebrate what we are doing.

-- oh. commissioner haney.