good evening. she is joined by president swig attending remote.

tina chang and commissioner jose lopez. also present is deputy city attorney brad russy provide with legal advise for all cases except case 8 and 9. for the taxi case we'll be joined by wrakary who will provide with needed legal advice. the board's legal system and the board executive director. xhornda resigned the board has a vacancy. we'll be joined by representatives from the city departments presenting this evening. tina tammy with planning. green, senior belling inspector and philip crana enforcement for the tax and he accessible services. leo public works. the bureau of street and mapping. henry lipton the d. public health and chris balk urban

forestly and urban forestry. board meeting guide lines as follows. turn off or silence your phones. etch responsed others given 7 minutes to present their case. members of the public are not affiliated have up to 3 minutes. at this time, members of the public may address the board on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the board except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the board will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. when the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the board has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the board must be exercised during the public comment portion of the calendar. each member of the public may address the board for up to three minutes. at the discretion of the board president, public comment may be limited to two minutes. if it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the president may

continue public comment to another time during the meeting goff goff sf goff is streaming line. they are providing closed captioning for this meeting. watch on tv go to sfgov tv tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p.m. on channel 26 a link is on our wes. public comment can be provide in the 3 ways, in person, zoom. or by phone. call 1669 and enter 8439641.

therefore it is important this people calling in reduced or furn off volume otherwise well is interference with the meeting. if the participates on zoom need a disability accommodation request in the chat function. or sends an e mail to the board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used for public comment or pregnancy. we will take public comment first from members who are present in the room. now. we will swear in or affirm as you those who am testify. any member may speak without an

oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you wish to testify raise your hand and say, i do. >> doure swear that the testimony you will give william be the truth and nothing but truth. >> put your zoom speaker on mute. we are now the item 1. a special item consideration and adoption of resolution which makes findings allow teleconferenced meeting under california code 54953 subsection e. do we have public comment? this is for adoption of a special resolution to allow teleconference hearings. >> i don't see combvenl i see

one attendsee in zoom. this is public dmoent adopt a resolution to allow cell conferenced hearings. i want to can't read [inaudible. this is public dmoent adopt a resolution to allow cell conferenced hearings i want to can't read [inaudible. this is public dmoent adopt a resolution to allow cell conferenced hearings i want to can't read [inaudible] i'm sorry i don't understand when you said. this is du want to provide comment on the resolution that is being considered? no. i'm trying to get a handle on the agenda. are you contemplating taking away the business of someone like me who has heard the city of san francisco for 50 years? if you did for me?

i don't see public comment for the first item we need a motion and vote. >> i will make a motion >> we have a motion from president swig to adopt the resolution on that motion. commissioner lopez? >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. why that carries 4-zero and it is adopted. we are now moving on to item 2 general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak in the board's jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar. i understand we have some speakers this evening. mr. mc mur doe, go ahead. >> thank you, julie. i wanted to say kinds words about darryl honda. i think it is rare to find a

city commissioner with an enthusiastic important i want to applaud him for the compassion he showed for the disabled taxi holders. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the caller who's number ending in 1405. you may need to dial star 6. sorry. but i did not get an answer to the question. is there anything on the calendar that will take away the business license of machine who has served the city of faithfully for 50 years? >> this is not a question and answer time this is public comment.

sir. >> can i get an answer to the question. >> at this point it public comment do you have further comment. go ahead. >> that is my public comment. a mere question. >> we are not answering questions. this one person. julie i believe i recognize the voice from previous hearings this gentlemen is in the taxi cases and there are cases forth coming. could you identify the item numbers for taxi case >> items 7 and 8. george hor balis next 7 and court sos is item 8 >> raise your hand. we have -- that person spoke.

so -- i don't see further comment. we will move on -- to item 3. commissioner comments and questions. >>, i like to recognize darryl honda for his long service to the commission. he was here long before i was. and his attendance record was extraordinary. and dedication the same and i think -- everybody who served with him on this commission appreciates his efforts and energy. and we will be sorry and miss him and thank him for his service. >> can you turn year microphone on. touch the icon on your screen.

who are you talking to? no audio... julie i can't hear a word. >> i was -- president wig we are having microphone issues here.

i wanted to echo commissioner swig's comment on commissioner honda. i think he will be missed. he welcomed all new in coming commissioners with welcomed arms and really took this role seriously. and i wanted to thank him for his incredible service all these years. >> yea. i'd like to echo those sentiments. i think -- you know definitely want to thank darryl honested for his service to the city. for his passion and i think it

is rare to find a public servant who cares as much as he did. as he does and it was just a very welcomed dynamic for me. and i have to thank him for showing me the ropes. the newest member of the board. he really did a lot to bring me up to speed with how to -- be effective on this body. and so i thank him for that. and he will be missed. >> i'd like to [inaudible]. thank you. >> public comment on this item? please, raise your hand. >> i don't see any. we move to item 4. which is commissioners the adoption of the minutes for discussion possible adoption of the april 20, 2022 meeting.

are there additions [inaudible]. may i have a motion to approve? so moved. >> we have a motion from commissioner lopez to adopt the minutes is there public comment. raise your hand. >> there is no public comment of that motion vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 4-0 and minutes are adopted. we are moving on to item 5. this is the rehearing request. subject property at 436 eureka street. susy chen, appellant, is requesting a rehearing of appeal no. 22-013, susy chen vs. dept. of building inspection, planning dept. approval, decided april 13, 2022. at that time, upon motion by commissioner honda, the board voted 4-0-1 (president swig absent) to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition it be revised to require the adoption of the revised plans which are in exhibit 9 of the permit holder's brief. this motion was made on the basis that the revised plans are code compliant and address some of the appellant's concerns. permit holder: steve

martisauskas. permit description: horizontal expansion at rear of all levels; new interior stairs to connect all levels; remodel and reconfigure interior walls throughout per plans; excavate and expand existing garage; new doors and windows per elevations, two new bedrooms and two new bathrooms; in ground hot tub location in rear yard; remodel kitchen. permit no.: 2018/10/09/2526 and a preliminary matter. president swig have you watched the video and read the materials for the hearing on april 13th. >> i have. >> we are ready to proceed and we'll hear first from suzie chen. >> her attorney mr. patterson. welcome. >> over head, please.

or laptop. thank you. good evening. ryan patterson. statement made in the last hearing the board of appeals has to take directives from planning. with all due respect, commissioners it is the other way around. public depends on this burden to be a back stock to ensure the department follows the code and law. this board has the most important role in the city in many ways. first in this rehearing request manifest injustice. section 311 d requires mailing of my and the mailing shall be verified by mailing signed under penalty of purge real. there is in the one. the department cannot find temperature you have numerous signed statements from neighbors saying they did in the receive a

mailing. and the department's defense is their staff never mentioned anything was migsz. seriously. commissioners, this is an extraordinary clear cut violation of law. the public was deprived of arrive review. my client was harmed by it. the tenants are losing the light to their bedrooms. walling off their light well without notice and the right to dr. this is manifesting justice. new information. in the last hearing the permit holders claimed our compromise was not part of the officer does not block the light well was infeasible without an opportunity to responded. the engineer andrew scott reviewed claims and issued a report saying it is feasible. mr. scott's report confirmless the statements made were inaccurate and the new facts could have affect the the

outcome. >> additionally. the permit holder allowed to present a shodo analysis during your deliberations. after our opportunity to respond was closed. that shadow study had the wrong baseline. instead of comparing the existing conditions for the proposed the project's impact, that study comparris different variance of the same proposal and hit the impacts. we retained design consultants to review it in your packet confirming there will be severe shading impacts. >> 30 seconds >> appropriate in the the hearing permit holders defense is that they e mail today to me on april 7. this is the evidence from their brief. that is not my e mail address. i did in the receive it. in conclusion this is manifest injustice caused by wrong information given to you at the last hearing there are now and

different facts that contradict that bad information. the criteria under section 9 of rowels and request a rehearing presented to you. >> time. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will hear from the permit holder. mrs. barkly. welcome. >> over head. please. >> good afternoon. commissioners. i'm [inaudible] representing the permit hold spfrnlts i a pol yoiz for not double check my e mail to make sure my response was sent and it was my fault. project experiences presentation appellate rehearing request failed to provide with new

evidence and could not have been produced with your [inaudible]. [inaudible] planning commission's list of organization that may have interest in the project from the department's website. e mail evidence was provide that the department did in the mail the required 311 notices. the shadow study in exhibit 1 that i. you have before you, presented to the board as the april 13 hearing sent to the appellate on april 7th. to the response sent to the experience on april 12 at 7:58 p.m. that included a sun angle shadow study dated april 8 that appellate submitted to this board at the end of the last

meeting in april and included appellate's unusual angle design on the 30 degree sun angle in the april 8 shadow study. >> appellate shadow study presented to the board today used a new methodology that is nothing but an attempt to provide evidence that could have been presented at the last hearing. since appellate's response was received in the evening before the april hearing the affect was unable to speak to the project until 3 p.m. the day of the hearing that enable him to present the initial thing.

it is it is similar to the roof. exhibit 4 is a letter from the project engineer state thering is no known history of -- 7 seconds. unusual wall design which may be subject to not previously understood or appreciated in current -- building code -- dictates the use of the slopped wall design. could have presented new evidence if she had exercised diligence before the april hearing. thank you.

>> appellate -- thank you. mrs. barkly. >> we will hear from the planning department. >> good evening. president swig. vice president lazarus and members of the board. i'm tina tammy deputy zoning add administrator this . is a rehearing request for appeal heard before this board on april 13th. 2022. at the hearing the appellate cited inadequate notification and impacts to her windows. during the same hearing the neighbor both owners and occupants of 150 feet radius of the property sent a written notice and a copy of the plan. the notification period was extended for 3 weeks because of the pandemic. appellate now arc cert there is is no declaration of mailing

found and concludes notification was not done proper low for the project. to be clear, no declaration of mailing was found guz because it is not required. it is only done when a project requires a public hearing a variance or a conditional use. but we have in the fail file is an upon receipt sent the job order for the project to reapo mail temperature is the company that we contract with to send out all offer 311 notices. we have a declaration of posting signed by the owner in the file demonstrating it was posted the front of the property for 30 days during the notification period. there is no new or different information about the appeal. where information is known at the time would have affected the outcome of the april 13th hearing the department recommends the board deny the

rehearing request. this concludes my presentation. >> we will hear from the department of building inspection. good evening i'm matthew green representing the department of building inspections this evening. subsequent to the april 13 hearing the appellate filed a complaint about redistricting the complaint alleged work without perimism rear porch expandd and closed converted to habitable space. senior building inspector closed with the comments. record research through san francisco property information maps revoltd that since may of 2002 the rear porch has not changed. and always enclosed.

research hoes october 30 of 1953 permit number 160181 was issueed enlarge the back first in 1954 permit number was issued to dig out head room under the porch expect wash baseince from the new area below creating habitable pace and the porch was extend in the this permit. brett howard closed that on april 22nd. dbi does in the have an opinion on the difference of opinion of the engineers and recommend this rehearing question be denied i'm available for questions. why thank you. >> we are moving on to public comment. vice president las lazarus you expressed concern about the length of the agenda. why prudent to limit to 2

minutes is there anyone here to provide comment on this item. please, come up line up and after you are done complete a speaker card and hand it in. thank you. you have 2 minutes. >> thank you very much. i'm mike. myself and 5 people here as well as twhoon is anticipating via zoom are here to support the rehearing. to keep it brief i will speak. now there are statements from residents and niches that day did not receive the 311 notice. and building a wall along that property line is going to have a severe and permanent impact on the tenants and susy as well. and it unjust they were denoticeed have objections heard by the planning department. the right to do you process was violated we ask the board grant the rehear to apply the law to

this case. >> complete a card. >> next speaker? >> good evening. i would like to handle some documents. you have 2 minutes. thank you for hearing our ment. [inaudible] i'm company of my [inaudible] we are the current tenant of 422 eureka street. i want to show 2 statements from neighbors. elaine and david, they did also not receive the notice. and the original hearing the represents the first floor rooms get little light only when the sun is over head. living in the unist we tell you the statement is false. there is direct and bright light with at least 10 and 4 p.m.

the shadow study based on the project information provided at the last hearing. show list is light for numerous hours of the day and it will cut out the light permanently. total loss of 506 hours and 1,000 hours for the sunlight for the [inaudible]. comparing to the study i say i'm an architect and designer and in my opinion this is not a shadow study provided and official shadow study is done boy a professional. >> and third party emphasis the sponsor used to show their plan would not have a major impact on our light this could not be fourth from the truth. the study showed different setbacks on the blank walls did in the compare the existing

continues to the proposed plan. based on when we have presented, we request rehearing to the present this new information not available until this original. >> that's time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> give a speaker card to mr. long way good evening i'm christine kelly a former tenant on the first floor adjacent to the light well issue. this request is in the brought to regurgitate the same information. it is brought because it fits in the cod fies definition deserving. a rehearing. rehearing requests are grant in the extraordinary cases to prevent injustice or new and different facts or s arisen that if known at the time could have

affected the outcome of the hearing and could have. not would have. extraordinary case. what is an extraordinary case? the case this is in the ordinary. is it ordinary for the san francisco planning department to refrain from providing proofs of services on notices? with much respect, i say, i believe it is an injustice to refuse a rehearing morely because the failure of the planning department to follow codified protocol bottom common place. mailing list to give proper notice. is it ordinary for planning department to say, here other mailing lists for something and he wills i third party is mentioned. assume tell is maimed out. is it ordinary for the of board it agree with the planning department even hoe there is no

documentation to back it up. issuing the permit is it ordinary to approve the seal nothing of light list. ordinary 7 different people arc tested not receiving notice. misrepresentation. can i go on. my support of susy chen is not pointing an if anything are at the department for lack of protocol this is an opportunity to correct where susy chen has been wrong. >> time. thank you. >> thank you. is there further comment on this item. raise your hand? seeing 91. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> we can't more you commissioner chen. why now? can you hear me?

i was asking my fellow commissioners if we feel new information has been submitted that we did not receive. [inaudible]. i'm not sure i heard that this evening. i did want to i'd like to turn in questions for you. do you know if well is guidance under the code on this -- the definition of adequacy for the notice? in this type of situation? >> commissioner. the provision of the code cited by the requestor here is under the section this deals with my to neighborhood groups. it does say notice shall be

verified by mailings signed under penalty and purge real. i defer to planos how they intercepted this section in the past and whether or not there is a different interception that is applied or this type of notice opposed to worn one i think the verification is require when there is a required hearing before the planning commission. >> if we could direct the question to you. it is planning adopt that point? good evening upon planning department. what's your question? i'm sorry. >> i think the what we are hearing is that the code may point to proof mailing -- well

is a question how the planning may or department may interpret that section of the code? >> thank you. >> yes. i stated earlier the declaration of mailings are done when well is a project that requires a public hearing. like a variance or cu, examples of projects that we fill out and sign off on the declaration for mailing. for the other projects this don't require public hearing we don't do those. >> thanks that answers my question. >> i will attempt it respond. i don't believe there has been new could not have been provide earlier and i don't believe that going out and commissioning a new study getting a new architect engineer's report after the hearing would that do

that you are entitled to a second by the of the apple -- [inaudible]. . so -- from my way of, there is -- not [inaudible]. i would agree on the seconded [inaudible]. anybody have a motion. >> i like to ad that you know i want to thank the public upon commenters. for coming by and sharing their perspectives and -- mr. russ and he tammy for their including clarification on the notice question. i agree with vice president lazarus -- conclusion that -- both on the manifest injustice and new facts present today does not give rise to round for

granting them the request. >> so moved. >> you want to move to deny the request on the basis there is no new evidence or man guest injustice >> vice president las lazarus. >> aye >> commissioner chang. why aye yoochl president swig. >> aye. >> that motion sxaers the rehearing is denied. next 6. subject property at 757 3rd avenue. letter from harold nathan, requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over site permit no. 2018/12/19/8795, which was issued on may 7, 2021. the appeal period ended on may 24, 2021, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on april 11, 2022. permit holder: vera cort . permit description: horizontal addition at rear yard, two stories and basement; one bathroom and two open living areas

we will hear from mrs. gross. welcome. you have 3 minutes. she is requesting the requestor. you need to unmute yourself. >> we still can't hear you. let me see. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> i'm here on behalf of mr. harold nathan make a request there were not notified of approved new construction. variance does not examine the proof. i would like to pause to show this other disclosure document. in which you will see that will show that mr. nathan was notified the permit granted for remodeling and not notified that

the neighbor's property was going to have a new addition built. also there is a file permit for residential elevator on the property on the third floor i would like the minutes to show the document. >> we can pause the time. >> okay.

all i see is the window on the screen where tell hoe me to share the document. >> you can use the desk top open the document and should be in the queue like in the practice. that we. >> right. >> exactly i'm not seeing all i see is a small video of myself and not here i will open the documents. the document is opened but i'm on rowith you and not seeing -- i don't know if you see me.

okay and so if you see. we see it. >> and so -- on this page 2, you see the 2a is marked and then it says neighbor to property received a permit to model a portion of the house. they are showing that we did not know mr. nathan did not know there would be new construction only aware there would be a remodel. and therefore, we are just respectfully asking for the board of appeal its reopen the appeal so we can review the project and make sure it is in the adversely -- affect us and allow us to foil a formal

appeal. okay. are you finished? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from mr. daniel paris the agent for the permit holder yovm hello. >> welcome. >> you have 3 minutes. why thank you. >> good evening. i'm dan paris the architect for approved permit here. this request provides no indication of missed notification. 100% notifications proper low conducted. the requestor purchased it 2 months after the date of the approved permit there would not be a >> reporter: by the city or the owner at that point. the previous ordinance of the requestor's property the most engaged party in the permit process including their filing of a review. at the planning hearing the commission did if the take a dr

the current design meets the guidelines and requires no variance. could be no new argument against the permit already addressed. no action on the part of the city or entity caused requestor to be late in filing this provides no indication of any missed notification. appears the seller's documents might have failed to disclose what is indicated in the permit description online. please deny this request. thank you. >> thank you. >> we hear from the planning department. >> tina tam. the property at 757, third avenue in rh1 zoning. construct in the 1916 it is historic demolish a porch and new extension. the permit file in the 2018.

approved by plan nothing 2020 and issued in 2021. the pelt is the owner at 751, third avenue the property to the west. in his appeal application the appellate stated he bought the property in judging 20212 months after the permit was issued. did not learn about the project until the demolition and construction started on the neighbor's side. the deputy is sympathetic the department did not cause to file late. he islet in asking by his own oshg mission purchased the property a year after the process. notification processes completed. sent to all adjacent and near by ordinance including the owner who sold the appellate the property. seeing how the permit was reviewd and issued the department recommends to deny

the request. thank you. . d. building inspection. >> good evening. matthew green with building inspection. permit application 2018, 1218 for horizontal addition filed in 2018 after prove by planning the site permit routed to plan check. on december second of 2020 and approved on march 8, 2021. permit issue on the mi7, 2021. construction arc did you understanda has not been approved. dbi forwarded comments on september 9, 2021. applicant has not responded. dbi believes the per mir was approved properly and the prove for the construction is prosecute seeding.

dbi recommended this request be denied. the requestor mentioned an elerator permit this . is a permit file in the 2003 and abandoned in 2005. no bearing on this application. thank you. and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. we are moving on public comment. is there anyone to provide comment comment? >> i don't see comment this is submitted and a request from sfgov all commissioners speak clearly in the microphone they are not pick up your comments. >> [inaudible] i'm happy to make a motion. comments to deny the "bases the city neither intentionally caused the requestor to be late.

okay. so -- vice president lazarus motion to deny and base the city did not cause the requestor to be late in filing on that motion commissioner lopez? >> aye >> commissioner chang. why aye >> president swig. >> aye. yes. >> thank you. that motion carries 4-0 and it is denied. now asking deputy city attorney to leave and welcoming deputy city attorney wrakary we are moving to the taxi medallion revocation cases. welcome. okay. we are now moving on to item 7.

appealing the issuance, on july 9, 2021, of the decision on reconsideration: sfmta v. george horbal (revocation of taxi medallion no. 1303: george horbal does not have a current california driver's license and is not eligible to possess an acard. without these licenses, the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the transportation code. the notice of nonrenewal issued by sfmta taxi services is upheld and the medallion is revoked). for further consideration. note: on september 1, 2021, upon motion by commissioner lopez, the board voted 4-1 (commissioner lazarus dissented) to continue this item to november 17, 2021 so that the sfmta could provide data on medallions that were revoked on the grounds that the medallion holder did not possess a current ca driver's license or acard; the board requested that the sfmta provide data, if possible, back to 1978, but if not possible, then at a minimum since the records were made electronic. on november 17, 2021, upon motion by

president honda, the board voted 3-1-1 (commissioner lazarus dissented and vice president swig absent) to grant the appeal and overturn the sfmta hearing officer's decision on reconsideration, on the basis that there was not an adequate basis for the revocation of the taxi medallion. lacking the four votes needed to pass, the motion failed. upon motion by president honda, the board voted 4-0-1 (vice president swig absent) to continue this matter to february 16, 2022, so that: (1) vice president swig could participate in the vote, and (2) the parties could provide additional information to the board on the three taxi medallion revocation cases cited in the appellant's brief which were heard by the board in 2003. february 16, 2022: upon motion by president swig, the board voted 2-3 (commissioner lopez, commissioner honda and commissioner chang dissented) to deny the appeal and uphold the determination on the basis that it was properly issued. lacking the three votes needed to pass, the motion failed. upon motion by commissioner honda, the board voted 3-2 (president swig and vice president lazarus dissented) to continue this matter to the call of the chair. on march 17, 2022, president swig recalled this item from the call of the chair and put it on the may

11, 2022 calendar. gauze because this matter of heard the parties are 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal we will hear first in the appellate and i believe mr. mc mur doe will be speaking. >> thank you. you can hear me? >> yes, we can. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> we had planned to argue relevant case issues further continuance now we are a vote short. i want to point out throughout this appeal we have argued the agency should be designated appellate not mr. horbal. hearing [inaudible] denied the agency nonrenewal of horbal's permit on june 10 of 21. at that point, the city attorney office illegally and unethically

bullyd and intimidated the section which is their undergroup. we put this in the appeal in the horbal appeal august 10 of 2021. we attached a letter it shows mr. emory engaged in illegal communication. but beyond that, the code section 1120 -- we attachd that as an exhibit. i will read it says the hearing officers ruling is effective quote, from section 1120c2 it says the hearing officer's decision take affect on the date that the notice of decision is served on the respond act. and so -- when emory's office overcity attorney came in to bull and he intimidate that was a done deal.

decision was issued and the recourse the city had was to follow appeal. they then and there because in the case of mark paulson that happened the city paled against their own hearing officer. we regard the fact that your board has not addressed the issue and wanted it address tonight. we hope that commissioner lopez will ask the city attorney or make a motion to 3 this case out the city is supposed to be appellate this is illegal. i want to turn it over to george horbal to speak. >> thank you. mr. horbal are you there? we can pause the time. >> time is paused. he was here earlier >> mr. horbal? >> he is on mute. >> we can't hear you. can you -- can you hear me now? >> yes.

why go ahead. sir. >> i'm george horbal. i like to tell like to give a heart felt thanks to commissioners honda, chang and lopez all comapproximationate people and true social justice warriors trying to improve the lives and the human condition of disabled people like myself. and to those other people, 30 seconds who conpyre to take the medallion from a blinds man or man who cannot walk that is a special kind of e vil and truly regrettable that such people are given power over our lives. in closing i like to say to commissioners hondza, chang and lopez. blessings upon you please keep up your great work we love you and thank you very much. that's it. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we hear from the sfmta.

welcome. >> thank you. commissioners. sfmta. this is the fourth hearing on this matter and the circumstances have not changed. mr. horbal does not have an a card it is required to renew a medallion what is basis of the decision made by the agency to deny his renewal 2 years ago. requests that the hearing officers decision upheld the denial of the renewal upheld. thank you. okay. thank you. is there public ment on this item. raise your hand. anyone here for public comment? >> 2 minutes. 2 minutes, okay. so -- we will hear first from michael nulty.

go ahead this . is motorcycleal nulty. [inaudible] i have been here [inaudible] when they were [inaudible] and i'm sorry, step, way from your microphone is scratch and he loud. restart the time. go ahead. yes. this is michael nulty. i wanted to point out that you know -- we in san francisco have the san francisco mayor's disability council and you know i think that everyone has a right to -- participate and get approximating permits and i understand that there is an issue about somebody blinds but the person had a permit at the time when i had the ability at the time to get the medallion at

one point. and you know and as somebody mohad cataracts in the past i understand your eyesight changes over time and think there should be exceptions and the mta is enforcing something that should be not done and should san francisco is the city of st. francis and should be compassion when these things are happening. thank you. why thank you. we will hear from our fellow -- [inaudible]. mr. fontsecka you have 2 minutes. [inaudible]. go ahead. >> can you hear me. >> yes, >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm marcello a member of the taxi industry. i'm calling in support of my colleague george horbal. the first time he paled his

case -- a decision was made in favor and [inaudible] and until the city attorney's decided to twist arms and reverse it. you cannot change that is in affect. and this is the fourth time he appeared argue his case. . he should not be here as an appellate. what a shame that some of you are caving not guilty powerhouse that be in the stele government who are going after disabled medallion holders. i urge you not to allow the mta to revoke permits from career cabdrivers who served the city for decades. just like municipal emdrivers, all of us medallion holders like to retire and leave the industry with dignity. and the thing is based on prop

k. prop k is 40 years old. this the language should not jeopardize public safety by forcing medallion holders until they drop dead [inaudible] i urge to you look and not allow the mta to revoke taxi permits from disabled medallion holders who have begin their mental, physical health to long -- proud careers. thank you. why thank you. >> any further public comment. raise your hand. i don't see other hands. commissioners this matter is submitted. we have a raised hand. why if you could speak loud low and clearly in the microphone.

you can move it toward you. pull the whole thing. anyone wish to start? >> gary say there was somebody with a raised hundred in public comment. someone did raise their hand. >> vice president. we have someone who raised their hand a little late. let's go ahead. evelyn du want to provide public comment? >> yes. can you hear me. >> go ahead have you 2 minutes >> thank you. good evening commissioners i'm evelyn president and owner of alliance cab. i'm here to call your attention not to revoke the medallion of our handicap owner george horbal worked for 45 years and gave his

most productive years to serve the city of san francisco. now this he can no longer driveway he is handicap and broke this medallion you are trying to revoke is his hope to escape poverty. what good is it going to do to the city to revoke his medallion. what benefit is the city going to get? this revoked medallion will sit in the draw and deplete the taxi float in the city. frankly i don't see a world in which san francisco airport will not have a san francisco taxi waiting for tourists. more so now that the taxis partnered with uber. this medallions will have a surge in demand that we will revitalize the taxi industry. there will be a pilot to start in august. that will rejuvenate demand for the medallions.

i ask for your compassion to let this play out until time the pilot program ends. that will be in august of 2023. thank you for your time. >> thank you. yoch okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. president swig, do you have -- sure. get started. >> love to. >> i sat on commissions for over 10 years and it is more like 15. and i sat on 2 different one redevelopment and one this. and and our responsibility in both commissions was to add here to the laugh. responsibility is it add here to previous legislation. and legal press den which has been presented to us and for us to maintain. let me tell you that in and

especially with the redevelopment agency, the word compassion was a weekly event for us to exhibit. and i resent the implication in any of us on this panel are not compassionate. do i agree necessarily with the legislation that has driven us to this points? not my job. do i agree with some of the activities that lead us to this point? not my job. our job is toup hold the legislation and the legal precedent this brought us to this point. and if we feel that there has been a legal precedent abused this is where we take action. on that. and it is very hard that this is a very hard wagz. well is no way you are other 2 commissioners want to impact the

life of any individual. but we are put in this position toup hold the law and legislation. and in in case, that is when we are doing and what i would do advocate and deny thanksgiving appeal. i'm sad and sorry. but that is my job and it is really hard.i'm sad and sorry. but that is my job and it is really hard. i want to echo president swig this is hard for us. and note that -- more often than not as a body we -- come out to pretty similar conclusions as a body. these taxicab medallion matters

have kind of -- surfaced this. there is different ways ever different out come we as commissioners -- you know00 oop the right resolution. i don't think that i think that it is a question in which reasonable minds disagree and disagree i wanted echo that i disagree with the conclusion that those the resolutions are both indicative of a different basis for compassion and individuals on the commission have for -- the affected individuals. i don't think that is fair or right. i do think for speaking for myself personally, that the way

that this is being enforced and the equities that i think can be read in our city charter, in this situation in my opinion call for granting the appeal. that's how i see this case and i would say that -- in my minds this given the understanding that there is potential -- conversations and -- and -- opportunity for -- medallion holders to incorporated in the ride sharing services that widely available in the city. i think that has a knack drop for this conversation. when -- lends itself to tabling

this further. in my mind. but if this is not an outcome we can reach today with the prospect of the pilot program, we have being reinrigerated. if this is not possible just based on when we heard before and the other facts that have not changed prior to today i would not support denying the appeal. >> i share commissioner lopez 'sentiment there is has been an immense amount condition fusion to medallion holders. and direction given on you know renewel of the medallions. understanding and appreciate mta's efforts to date and

understand also that -- search doing their job to the best of their ability. i think that there is -- reasonableness to -- the granting the appeal as well. i think that we are clearly very split on this board. so i'm not sure how far those our sentiments will go in advancing this position. but -- put that out there at least. >> somebody care to make a motion? i will make the motion to deny the appeal on the basis i guess that mta acted appropriate low. >> denyup hold the decision on the basis it was purposely

issued. because mr. horbal does not have an a card or california driver's license. we have that motion from president swig on that motion commissioner lopez? >> neigh. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> no. >> okay. that lacking the 3 voted needed that motion will failless we have another motion on the table? move to -- grant the appeal on the basis that mta aired on their decision based on prior guidance given to the appellate.

>> based on what. prior guidance given to the medallion holder. >> okay. >> so -- with respect to or whether to hold on and how to renew it. and the requirements required -- to renew orup hold medallions. >> i think you said grant the po and the basis the holder relied on sfmta staff members. >> correct. jowl want to can you expand on the representations for the record. i believe it was that the a card would not be required -- in order to maintain the medallion. >> a card not required and he would not be required to drive. he could hold on to his medallion. >> okay. on that motion to grant the

appeal for the reasons stated, commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> swipe lazarus. why no. >> president swigch >> no. >> okay. so that motion fails the vote 2-2. and looks like we have a steal sxhat there is not another motion on the table? is this correct? so -- no. i have a motion to condition the matter for 6 months. >> to the call of the chair or 6 months. a date in the future to see if -- let me look at the calendar. so -- that would be november we have november second. the 16th. 4:30. does not matter to me.

i would like some [inaudible] around that, please. i'm prepared to support but want bumpers to why we are doing this. commissioner lopez, i think what you are doing is to gift opportunity for a change in legislation or law that would change the current conditions on the medallion and the activity with regard to sale? correct? >> that's correct. i would say -- the one clarification is noted a change in legislation or law but a change in the city's degree of cooperation with ride share services that give rise to the

medallion. >> can you put in -- this is your motion. i don't want to mess with it other than -- i will support it if it has some caveats. i will not support unless there is more the direction that you are you are discussing. so if you can frame that better you will have my support. great. my motion would be to table this to the november dates -- november 16th. >> on the grounds that we like to give time for the development of either legal development, legislation or changes in market conditions with respect to the

liquidity program. >> can we -- can we sorry for word smithing. can we change that to pending a change related to blah blah blah? sue. that works for me >> if it where i'm getting if nothing's changed then this appeal is denied. and if something has changed, then the door is open for the appeal to be reconsidered. >> that works for me. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i was about to go there. i'd like the city attorney so we don't get ourselves in a legal

trick bag. unlike the city attorney to -- recommend language both myself and commissioner lopez will be happy with that discuss or references this caveat? please? mr. covid bit me and got me. i wish i was there to be with you. typeset did in the work out that way. joy believe the motion is specific. you have a date certain when it would be recalled andure stated the conscience upon which you were going to evaluate the case. so -- as stated i think it is sufficient. >> thank you. joy would like to restate and

clarify. you had stated a number of reasons but the primary over arching reason there is a change in conditions that would affect value of the medallion and the conditions could be the change could be through legislation, policy or collaboration between taxis and ride sharing service which might add value >> correct. >> and that works for me. >> if you get to november 16th and nothing changed would be the intent? we take it up and take finish it. >> what if -- by november there is discussion that you know legislation has not been passed just that there is move am and progress we know how long legislation can take at times. i think there should be consideration about that as well. >> commissioner i woulding

suggest we keep at this time way it is and when we take it up. and there is something pending that -- and if it is real penning instead of continued discussions like today, then we can woulda coulda shoulda on that item we close it right now as what intended i'm fine if there is recognition if there is progress we acknowledge it. >> we have to take another vote anyway. if the is shes have changed or well pending conversation i know this members of the board if i'm around or lazarus is there will be another commissioner there will be full discussion on the matter. i hear you and i agree with you

and but let's 3 where we have it now. my recommendation. nobody is being harmed. >> okay thank you. we have that motion on the table from commissioner lopez the reasons i stated. to continue this to november 16th on that motion vice president lazarus. why aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. why that motion carries 4-0 and conditioned november 16th. >> thank you. item 8. appealing the issuance on july 22, 2021, of the reconsideration of statement of decision: sfmta v. james cortesos (revocation of medallion no. 753: james cortesos does not have a current california driver's license and is not eligible to possess an a-card. without these licenses, the taxi medallion can be revoked pursuant to the transportation code. the notice of nonrenewal issued by sfmta taxi services is upheld and the medallion is

revoked). medallion no. 753. for hearing today. note: on november 17, 2021, upon motion by president honda, the board voted 4-0-1 (vice president swig absent) to continue this matter to february 16, 2022, upon the request and with the consent of the parties and with good cause shown, more specifically so that vice president swig could participate in the vote and so that the parties could provide additional information to the board on the three 2003 taxi medallion revocation cases cited in the brief submitted by mr. horbal for appeal no. 21-064 which were heard by the board in 2003. february 16, 2022: upon motion by commissioner honda, the board voted 3-2 (vice president lazarus and president swig dissented) to continue this matter to the call of the chair. on march 17, 2022, president swig recalled this item from the call of the chair and put it on the may 11, 2022 calendar so. because this case was not heard

each party will have 7 minutes and to present and 3 minutes rebuttal and hear from mr. cortesos. >> yes. i talked to jim today he lived in depression i will keep this down to 3 minutes i want to thank commissioner swig and lazarus for the continuance in the prior case and we ask for the same here. when we put the cases together. hype thettic i brought up at the last hearing was case said the medallion holer had to wear the intention to drive. somebody believed be in the industry for 40 years guest rear ended and paralyzed the city's position the that the person

with the medallion lose it buzz they could not drive and get a california license. this is so bad for ada. [inaudible] to say that you can take, way a permit because someone does not have a cdl. i don't want to belabor that is the credit union lawsuit and the parties the city and the union wanting to get the older prop k holders off the street loishg a low hanging fruits of the people who bought them. there were [inaudible] few are cabs. that is resulted in the case now. i'm getting feedback from people when they now the city is allowing all the taxys at times to serve the airport. there are hundreds of people screaming for cabs who don't

have uber or lyft apps it is messing with tourism. people come to the city who can't get in the city because they can't get a taxi because our cabs can't service the airport no one is willing to rent our taxi. policies need to change. i appreciate tiwill back off and thank you for your compassion all of you. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will hear from the mta. >> good evening. [inaudible]. again this nonrenewal is based on mr. cortesos active a card and to get this card he needs a valid california driver's license. neither he has. the hearing officer upheld that decision and the basis for the appeal buffer today. i should note that -- 1116a2 a

medallion holder subject to the full time driving requirement. to surrender it to be eligible should [inaudible] come up [inaudible] sale. holder who is subject to the full time driving requirement demonstrate that the date the medallion is surrendered. the transaction is the post holdtory strernd and transferred to a purchaser. and it is a transfer ferable medallion this is a different class of medallion. holder has been a full time driver and prove they were full time driver for 4 of the last 5 years he would not be eligible his name come up on the surrender list. hoe is not eligible to surrender his medallion for consideration.

the nonrenewal he did in the have an arc card which is a >> reporter: and if we continued this to november and if all of the medallions on the list to sthl is again a different class take precedents on the list to surrender. if his name came up he would not be eligible for consideration. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public upon comment. raise your hand. >> i have a question. >> president swig has a question. >> i didn't get to that fast. sorry. >> so -- you just said that he would not be eligible to do anything surrender his medallion does that flown is no way that he can sell temperature it has no value. hoe does not have title. give me a real estate opinion on

that. making a metaphor. does he have legal title to that medallion ownership has he voided any title legal title and are you saying that it would have no value because he could not sell it to me or anybody else? there is no property interest in medallions that is also in the transportation code. ing eligible to surrender it. if before i walked if he renewed his driver's license and arc card we would renew him and i would move on. this is the under pinning so all the conversations is hathese gentlemen now in position on senior in life no longer able to drive and put in decades of service, risked lives and cabdrivers risk lives every day

we know that. that -- that -- the whole under lying discussion here is about the ability to get value from being a holder of a medallion is that what you are hearing. i want to -- get feedback from yourself if that is what you are hearing. >> yes he earned his medallion the rules at the time. he did not put forward any monetary consideration to receive this medallion unlike the trashables who have an active one >> this one i'm getting at here does this medallion have monetary value whatever to him as the current holder of this medallion in any way? can he sell it under any circumstance if there is a

change in some legislations that we talked about not guilty last case? >> no. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. why we're moving to public comment we hash from marcello first. >> go ahead. >> can you hear me >> yes. >> welcome >> i'm marcello. long time member. again what he said has everything to do with interpretation of the language of prospect circumstance a 40 yearo proposition. for me to sell my medallion, well, before i was granted my k medallion i had to prove i drove full time the prior 4 years to my name coming up on the list. now there is this new

interpretation or -- that for mow to sell my medallion i have to drive 4 years prior to someone being interested in buying my medallion. it has everything to do with prop k a 40 year old proposition and the misinterpretation of the language. as i thank you for your compassion on the previous case i ask you again to continue this case -- further until there is some checks and balance of this legislation. this transportation codes from the mta. there is a lot of confusion there. there is missed interpretation. and i urge you to again, condition this until -- well

give mr. cortesos the same time you are giving to our colleague george horbal. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there further public comment. someone number endses in 1405. press star 6. why go ahead. >> i 2 points one is you have to discretion and sfmta heads discretion. they are not bound by black and white rules. that is one point. point 2, the taxi -- driver can lease his or her medallion and receive money for it from a [inaudible] and so that is money lost by hour friend in thailand.

>> thank you. you said you had trouble understanding, me. -- it is my words clear and -- >> yes , sir. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. why is there, okay. i see michael nulty. go ahead. >> yes. this is michael nulty. seems to me that there is still misunderstanding about why somebody gets i medallion the parameters and how they maintain it. and soundses like the sfmta is coming down heavy handed on the medallion holders for various reasons and there seems to be conflicts and issue going on. i would try -- support an idea

of a continuing this. and -- item 8. because -- it is only fair that there would be some more clarification and could be pending legislation. i would push i would push for pending legislation because the fact that we need to increase our tourism in san francisco and one of the ways tourists get around is ride share and taxi. taxis have been the min stay for year in our city and we need to continue to support tourism. in all forms. thank you. why we'll hear from evelyn. go ahead. >> can you hear me, julie? >> yes, woeful can. thank you. >> yes. there are rules we have rules -- and the ability to trust them is

what allows a society to function. some of the rules are reasoned, others are not. fact they are hidden makes them not less critical i have been front and center in the roller coaster roadway with the mta and seen how they can change the rules to suit them. we should ask why are the rules being changed and enforced? all of the sudden they are asking for the california driver's license. before it was okay for this medallion holetory renew without them. if you look at the reason this is is only after a san francisco credit union sued them and they have to show that these failed program they created is still going on and now they are these

other rowels that made them change it. for the record, this medallions were selling for 250 thousand before. the values are down to half it would be enough for the holders to get out of poverty. am i'm -- pleading with you to look at this in a bigger picture. not only with them enforcing the rules. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any further comment. raise your hand. we will move to rebuttsal. you have 3 minutes. thank you. you caught mow by surprise. i don't have rebuttal a little

bit. i want to talk about the fact the surrender program which is for the sales program is separate and arc part from what he mentioned the value of the medallion like mr. cortesos hopefully 6 mons from now we can lease it and make $500 a mont. and as far as the things mr. crana quoted the conditions on the surrender program, these are rules the mta concocted like boot strapping their own argument. they puttent rows in the code that the intent of the meat mediated settle am agreement. idea was that when -- the city will roleized that we did have disability rights they said, there was a time when the market for people want to buy them

exceeded that oft people wanting to sell. we will get compensation. it changed and there are no buyers for the concern price but the intent is to let us participate. mta pass rules that make it impossible for the intent of that program to be implemented. that can change. we can convince the mt aboard if they seem to have prevail in the the lawsuit against the credit union i don't know why they want to continue pushing against the older medallion holders the public needs our cabs. people will come in the city and they don't have the lyft and uber app they need taxys. we can't stay if mta is push you go us i appreciate if you delay for sick months and give

consideration. a bunch us will get in front of the board and convince of the policies. biting my tongue. there are people at mta that blocked the board from having the mchlgz it needs to make proper decision. thank you very much. >> thank you. now sfmta. are you have 3 minutes. commissioner lopez has a question. >> mr. -- to clarify, one point. you know in the briefing in the cases there is past reference to different facts. you know in the related matters but can you -- there is a point in your briefing that based on reliance on the guidance that the sfmta and predecessor in hearing the cases, had been a

different guidance received by medallion holders in the past and relines on the guidance partly influenced mr. cortesos decision to leave country. i did not see that in writing. for example in the briefing and the same way that we have stheen guidance from the mta to situated medallion holders. what was the guidance received by mr. cortesos. that lead to rely on on that. my age, 2. my head can spin quickly i don't know what is in each brief.

jim told me in the past that one of the attachments in the -- it was a letter from page stanfield compliance official in writing telling people they did not have to will renew arc card meant cope a california driver's license as well if they were in the disability relief program mta set up and jim cortesos was in that program and spoke to mrs. stanfield and relied on that advice. i than for a fact i don't know if it is in writing and apologize if it is not. other aspect is hafor years like dirk had call in the after stashed in the eye and blinded from a taxi shift for 24 year allowed renew his permit and now

a new rule he needs a california driver's license he can't get because he is blind. i appreciate how you mentioned the tash brought that up. i hope i upon answered your question. >> it sounds like in the community of medallion holders, perhaps specific low that have been a part of the disability program in the past, that guidance was circulating within this community of drivers. is this a fair. >> it is but a funny thing because have you on the one hand a person like george horbal not on the chat forums and -- he was un, wear of the policies. he did not rely on that peculiar aspect he thought swore the intention to driveway and prove today and judgeod that basis.

but it is true that word got sxoornd some without get nothing writing when they within down they asked. do i need an a card and mrs. stanfield, no. indicated we had disability protection. that answers the question. the word that circulate. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the mta. >> you have 3 minutes. >> i don't think i can i like to object to the here say, he was referring to a conversation that mr. cortesos had with mrs. stanfield. i also loushg to point out that -- if the e mail they base this detrimental reliance upon was to another person. that is not directly to any of the parties it was -- a third

party. who i note had similar issues and also resolved them and was renewed. yea. it is interesting what they would know about this e mail to a person but not the policy. unfortunately i don't know whether or not notice we provide than a legislative policy. but this is all not really relevant because 09138 excuse said drivers if the act of driving we are here because he does not have an arc card. i have a question. >> i think it was said that the rule regarding the a card is a new rule. 2015 it is in legal i you can click on the amendments at the

bottom i believe it was in 2015. it has been in affect for arc while. >> correct and the other aspect is what brought us here to begin with is that the enforcement on this was initiated only reasonable. >> 2019. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so commissioners matter is submitted. commissioners? i want to keep us focused. because suddenly this hearing turned in to -- scratch that. i'm over stating. leaderships of the hearing and the subject matter brought up is discusses what should be mta policy. good for tourism what is not

good for tourism that's not when we are here for. and i really like to advise the commissioners to disregard that information. it is good information and not doubting it but in the why we are here. whether tourism is affected by the lack of cabs or not, is not an issue. of course it is. but it is not an issue in this case. what is issue in the case is whether a medallion holder should hold his medallion. as a side bar, for the information of the -- people who testified today interesting experience. in the last 10 days i spent in new orleans. and -- in new orleans traditional low they have a tremendous taxicab system.

i use today religiously it is great. my first day i was there i flagged down a taxi driver and asked him. and he said no , i can't -- it is in the like the old days. implying and i said what do you mean. he said we are down over a thousand taxi cabs. and the reason for that was obviously the conditions of the marketplace. let's not get in what is good for the city we know tourism is good and cabs are important to tourism that is not what is hat everat hand. stay focused whether it is the legal and statutes that will driveway our decisions and with naagain with that clarification that the medallion discussion

holds no value. to the holder -- again, i would motion to deny the appeal. on the basis that the action by the mta was appropriate. and supported by past behavior in legislation. okay. are we in discussions or -- i think so. just -- quickly before we vote. i hear you president swig i don't disagree with your conclusions. however i wander if -- you know it makes sense to give the same continuance in the same amount of time for the potential policy and legislation to discussions to be had in the event they being be more encompassing gifrn

how similar the cases are. >> i know before i answer that, i need information, i want to ask the mta what if we waited 6 months what is the harm to the mta and the harm to the city in what is the harm to the circumstances even though i'm in agreement with your position. what is the harm of with the fixed date in november and caveats with that date swhat harm of letting him hold on to his medallion? could you answer? i can't think of harm. however -- that's fine. you can't think of harm. so commissioner chang you got it. >> okay. then00 eye will support that. move to continue this case to the november date as stated in the previous case. >> same reason.

>> yep. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to continue the item to november 16th for the same reasons specified in the appeal number 21-064 george horbal. >> and the same caveats. >> right? >> right. >> before you i'm sorry before you go to vote may i. >> please how i will vote. >> i voted reluctantly the last time and i appreciate nain that case may be things were going to change. in general, we can continue every item or number of items on the basis that the planning commission may change rules or may be cbi or the health department which has changed the rules. and so -- i have to say general low i don't think that is an

appropriate approach. in many of the cases. and i think in this case i will vote, no for that reason. >> okay. >> so. i say that -- normally now i will not be accused of being without compassion and i would support commissioner lazarus 'position and i am very rigorous on setting a precedent but in the issue of with regard the issue of compassion and the picture that the city -- stated nothing will change no harm no foul that is the begin 2 commissioners are passionate about this issue this is why i'm deviate whatting is a regular behavior of mine. if that helps lazarus i'm agreeing but in a different

direction. >> so. we have a motion from commissioner chang to continue this item to november 16th the reasons stated the horbal decision on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> no >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carry this is is continued. and one issue we did not address the horbal and this case is whether the board will allow supplemental briefing. do you want to allow the parties -- provide supplemental briefs. >> i would recommend against it because we set again this is the whole reason i was chatted about putting bumpers around this. is that unless there has been a significant change in legislation or there is a serious official public

discussion occurring that may change that legislation nothing is will change the change would be what commissioner chang is hoping for. you upon a verbal update. >> we need to know if there are changes. we will have a verbal update. >> okay >> that concludes this hearing approximate it is conditioned. we are moving on to item 9. thank you deputy city attorney. wait a moment. thank you. anybody need a break? president swig, how about you. >> i'm fine i'm going for it. i think we are moving along at a good pace.

welcome back. okay. we are moving on to item 9. 459 somerset street. appealing the issuance on march 14, 2022, to gte mobilnet of california, lp, of a wireless box permit (installation of a personal wireless service facility in a zoning protected location). permit no. 21wr-00109. for hearing today. we will hear from the appellate first. >> julie i had ponent to the appellate and going to request referring to join by zoom. i never got a response back to give them the link. and don't know if she has attends thanksgiving hearing. why you never got a response back whether. i called 3 times. noted in the data base never got

a response become from her friends. did in the have any access to the -- i could call if you wish? >> okay. vice president lazarus did not provide a brief or respond to the inquiries you want him to try to call her now she is not present. i say no need to pursue it. to me the indication of interest in pursuing is whether you submit a brief. >> you could make -- see if she is on the call. may be on the zoom. okay. if there is manage in the attendsee queue for item 9 appeal 22-019 is the appellate here. or her representative, raise your hand. if you -- i don't see phone

numbers i see people joined by zoom. and what was the name of her representative. did she give you. did not give me a representative name. okay. i don't see. raise your hand if you are here to representative the appellate for item 9. i don't think he is sheer. do you want to hear from the other parties from gte mobile net? >> they have the right as well as the department to speak. hopeful low brief and they don't know when they are -- the appellate is not (we will hear now from the attorney for the permit holder. >> welcome. i believe she will make our presentation this evening. >> i appreciate the welcome. you did not see her. >> can you see my screen i'm sharing a power point. we will make this quick.

we have a full team today here to answer questions. that you all have. the proposed facility is 4, 5g on an existing utility pole near sommer set and wayland the pole will not be replace today is not having a height extension. we merely added a 6 foot cross arm here with 3 antennas on it. the church which is adjacent to it the closest window is 16 feet away. here is another angle the pole is at a corner. >> and -- you can see here this is the equipment this we are adding the cross arm. 3 antennas and a small demarcation box and meter. and there are not any radio boxes here as the 5g antennas

incorporate the are i that are integrated versus the large boxes you see on the pole. 3 departments review third degree flkz. department of health. plan and dpw all 3 have approved this application. and then brought upon noticing but we did follow all noticing procedures. and we -- mailed notice to all of the intrierzs. the church the school and all the other neighbors. inform the site. 3 supervisors received notice ronnin, walten and safi and posted notices. these are the locations that which the notices were posted. here is what the posting looks like. we also despite the fact this is not required we e mailed courtesy notices to the

neighborhooding organizations and the supervisors offices. we have r, j here the only issue that the appellate raised was related to safety, if i could ask him to briefly summarize his firm's findings on the site. >> good evening. i'm with hamlet and edison an engineering firm i'm a licensed enginey. our jobs to evaluate cites for radio frequency exposure. we completed that evidence for the site and find it will comply with the fcc limits the max power exposure level at the church building is 47%.

and the levels there are about 7 times below the limit. the max exposure level at the school across the street and grounds are less than 1% of the public limit and which means they are over 100 times below the limit. i'm available for questions you may have. >> vehicle. >> i think that concludes or presentation unless you have questions. >> okay. thank you. >> we'll hear from the department. yoom good afternoon president and vice president and the board. i'm leo representing public works. we believe this is in compliance with the permitting procedures in code article 25 or personal

wire service. article 25 requires public works to refer wireless applications to the department of health and planning. both departments determined this application complied with article 25. public works issued i final determination approving the application. after the applicant maild and posted notice of the final determine egg. public works issued the permit. planning is in attendance and can speak more regarding planning review if you have question the healing department can take comments through e mail >> we have a request from president swig. we heard dozens of these. can you refresh my memory with regard to special conscience or considerations related to churches and schools and seems there have been some those in

the past by a school or a church special that's when the red flags come upper this special conditions and considerations regarding churches and schools? there are no special conscience or considerations. >> okay. thank you. >> >> thank you. we will hear from planning department. >> tina tam. the project is to instul a woirless on an existing pole on sommer set and wayland. the immediately neighborhood have 2 and 3 story tall school and church and single friendship dwell withes. dpw was sent it planning and the wireless planner determined the facility met the compat ability

standards. it would not detract from the character of the district or any known historic buildings. the industry the pole is on has average street views. the facility design in the a stream lined manner and not change the height of the existing pole and the department recommends the board deny the appeal. >> thank you. any public comment on this item. raise your hand. >> there is no rebuta tr is time available for the holder or departments >> want to respond to president swig's comments while there are not special considerations due to the fact there is a church and school near by the same considerations for all properties are here which is that verizon has to submit a

testing report after the facility has been installed and turnod and neighbor can request testing from their building or residentses and verizon will do that. paul, did i cut you off. >> no we had no rebuttal but well said. >> okay. thank you. why would the departments like to add anything further. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> go straight to a motion. yes. thank you. be my guest. move to deny the appeal. >> okay we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal andup hold the permit it was proper low issued. commissioner lopez. >> aye >> vice president lazarus. >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 4-0 appeal is

denied. thank you. move to item 10. 733 polk street. appealing the issuance on march 8, 2022, of a dph director's hearing order (suspension of retail tobacco permit no. t-75812 for thirtyfive days due to the sale of tobacco to minors). dph hearing case number smk-22-01. for hearing today >> we will hear first, in the appellate. and -- welcome. thank you for your patience. sorry to hear that. okay. you have sments and feel pro to stand you don't have to sit. >> hi. welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> i'm [inaudible] i'm the owner of the that tobacco barn.

decoy under cover with mask like most of the face and the hair down. [inaudible]. i will not justify the mistake i did but the only thing i fell for [inaudible] locked like my regular i hahn her the pack of cigarettes and without she is asking i know her brand. anyway. 5 minutes inside and -- i know you [inaudible] i went to court the court dismiss it. and hand it to the da office. the d, put me through classes. put me through zooming and everything. classes for hours. and i learn a lot from that. then they closed the case.

said now we gotta go to the health department. health department i did not know. you have to buy the device. [inaudible]. and -- which is good i wish i [inaudible] they said, okay. this 35 days. and [inaudible] [cannot hear speaker] it heard to get the customers back when they get used to somewhere else. 35 days is a lot. tell put me behind and hurt the business bad i'm appealing to [inaudible] for them or the board to reconsider this decisionmaking a little bit.

you know thank you very much. >> thank you. >> you can stand somewhere. sorry about your back. hear from the department of public health. welcome. deputy city attorney. why good evening this is deputy city attorney on behalf of spondants the department of public health. i think just 3 points here -- first this is the not first instance which the appellate cited for violating california penal code section 3081 prohibits the sale of tobacco to individuals under 21. was sight in the december of

2019. consequences for violating a second time. that occurod number 28, 21. when sfpd officer martinez cited the appellate again for violating the penal code section 308. contrary to when he said the department issued a notice of violation the first instance in 2019 and this is the second time the appellate has violated the health code. second points is that the appellate had the opportunity to reduce his suspension from a total of 40 days -- using one of the department the department's mitigation strategies. which as appellate mentioned had the opportunity to install an

age verification device reduced his suspension from 40 days to 35 days. and presented the opportunity to reduce his suspension by an additional 10 days had he covered his tobacco products with glass. he chose not to do this and the fact that he -- could have reduced his suspension length under cuts his argument that 35 days is too #or long. and the final point i would like to make is that -- the through the health code and also the penal code the board of supervisors and the california state light brown apple mother made it clear it illegal to sell to under 21. the reason the laws exist is the

harm that tobacco products pose to minors if than i get hooked at an early age. department has a strong interest in reducing the sale of tobacco products to minors. this sentence or this suspension violation -- furthers that purpose. i'm am happy to answer questions the commissioners have. but we question that -- the boardup holes the hearing officers hearing and denies the appeal. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. we will move on to public comment. is there anyone here for public comment. i see one. mr. nulty. go ahead. >> i'm michael nulty. and a member of the neighbors as

well as the north market business association. and people are made aware with they sell cigarette and get a license there are rowels and i would just don't think well is s to not deny the appeal. thank you the appeal should be not denied. thank you. >> thank you. further public comment. raise your hand. >> okay we'll move on to rebuttal you have 3 minutes to address the board. if you could wait until you get to the microphone. please. i have been in business for [inaudible] the first time believe i hire college guy [inaudible]. [cannot hear speaker]

[inaudible] >> okay. thank you. now hear prosecute we have a question from mr. lopez. a commissioner as a question for you. if could come back. no problem. commissioner lopez has a question. >> i can't hear anything. please. >> sorry i got the mic on now. my question was -- could you

speak to the decision not to use the covering for the cigarette display. >> [inaudible]. [condition hear speaker]. can you speak in the microphone. they ask me to take all of the everything display down. it is -- minad well kill the business, too. it is not but -- we took all the signs and even i have a clock by camel i took it down all the sign and stickers down. they want me to take the cigarettes the box under the counter. which is -- that will in the work. motorbike as well shut me down. >> and i say -- no , i don't want top do that.

but we meet every demand. the stickers and names they put -- only the price. nothing else. it is stickers even the clock. i took it down. that's it. >> thank you. one mobile home. president swig can you hear okay? you are on mute now. >> yes, i hear. thank you very much. >> mr. you can go stand in the back. hear from the department. mr. lipton you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. so the appellate referred to in terms of removing the advertisements was his first compliance agreement when his employee violated the health code selling tobacco to minor in

december of 2019 that is exhibit f. i submitted part of my brief. again, under scores the fact that appellates employee and appellates -- employee and violated the penal code. and the appellate entered in the agreement he had knowledge of the consequence of future i have lalgzs and also responsibility for his upon employee's actions. so -- again i want to under score that -- unlike -- i think it it is fairly known that selling tobacco products to minors is a well known rowel but it is so in this case when the will appellate entered in compliance agreement. we urge that the boardup hold

the hear officer's decision and deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners. questions or otherwise this matter is submitted y. i have a question for city attorney. is i'm sorry can you poke in the microphone. i have a question for city attorney. the appellates mentioned the request remove everything from the walls that you stated that the request was for an opaque case. is it is idea that everything all of the to becomeo products required to be in a case and not visible and -- to the appellate's point, one in the same as removing all the products from visibility all together. >> thank you for your

question. so -- the compliance agreement and requirements set out in the department rowels require the installation of oshg peek glass covering tobacco to questions of law foil for the 10 day suspension reduction. i cannot speak to the statement by the appellate that he was requested to put products in box. i do have with me the hearing 2 inspectors from public health. i would give them an opportunity to see if they can clarify as a factual matter. what was of asked of the appellate. but -- again. as a legal matter. there is the rules provide for that 10 day reduction and the appellate did not avail himself of that the question to be

clear, it is to put everything under an opaque glass that would be every product so it is not visible is that the intention and the spirit behind the request? >> good overing i'm senior inspector young. i will was the inspector at this sight. yes. that is correct. when we give the option of opaque covering it is for the intention all the tobacco productless will not be visible. and often we have -- operators and business owners that tell us that building cabinet system expensive. we give them a second option it have existing cernel pace and you cannot seat products that you can move the tobacco

products under your counter space that isune how many of the business ordinance will utilize that option. how they meet the criteria. >> thank you. in this ins everinstance the whole business is will suggest tobacco products the appellate required to take all products and place them in box of the suggestion if cabinets is not financial low viable. option. they would like to pursue. . is that correct? >> yes. we will work with our business operators they can come up with a plan and present a plan on how they can make sure that none of the products are visible. and once they present that plan we can go and get approval from the program manager.

>> is i'm trying to be creative here. i understand that it is seems like this is a huge financial burden for the appellate. would a potential solution be if all products removed would -- another indication of what products are available be possible to pursue like a poster that indicated which tobacco products were for sale so appellate could continue business? while the products were covered? or is this against the rules? so, in the first compliance agreement. the appellate already agreed they will not is any advertisement for the life of the permit as longs they are the permit holder. putting picture and posters would violate that original

agreement. what about like a price sign. >> i'm not a tobacco user a pack of mar significant wets. 5.50 would that a price list considered an advertise am >> i we approved of the price like a stick and process and the name of the product and price on a list of some sort. but this -- the appellate did not want to do that option. and i don't know if he has changed his mind. is this something you would consider soundses like -- the healing department would reduce your 35 days to 25 if you could

cover everything and in lieu of having the products on display you display a price list so customers would be able to bench and see what you are selling. >> please. come to the podium. thank you. >> it is not doable. it is not doable we have a lot of product. and -- every slide has a brand. this is [inaudible] there is no room we are to remodel. it is not doable. i would love to but not doable. i mean -- not like -- i don't

like to motor vehicle. i never motor vehicle my kids don't smoke. cigarettes in the allowed in my house but i end up in this business. them it is when they are asking it is not doable. you can peek in the motorcycle row phone. sfgov tv can't hear you. why i guess we are trying to figure out how to come to a compromise. is there another. >> 35 days my regular customers will go a block up and will not going to like but it is punishment for me and it is for a mistake i did. i foind out it is so #. not -- do anything to the community. i mean one block up is a cigarette store and liquor

store. but -- i made the mistake i admit it. and -- i don't know. will put me behind a year to track back my regulars going somewhere else for 35 days itself -- that's what my concern. what would you propose. cut it down a bit. and00 eye could survive. -- you know. because we are admit liquor store or grocery store we depends on tobacco. i would life to open up to others. >> thank you. >> okay. commissioners this matter is submitted. gi 2 questions.

mrs. young. she is here. mrs. young we had a number of case over the years and obviously we are of a similar nature. do you have any idea or information and i'm not expecting you will. on -- regarding the ascii the punishments have had on other businesses. because i think we heard the same concern that you know tell put them out of business. i wonder if you -- have a dhoons go back and look at what happened with some of the stores. that have come under similar restrictions? >> um. prior to the pandemic the businesses that served more than 30 days -- did bounce back. since the pandemic we had may be

a couple of businesses that served um -- 30 days or more and they have survived. but i don't feel that this enough businesses for me to really state what the outcome may be for this business. >> that's fair. gi wanted see ficould get perspective and i have a question for the city attorney. what are the parameters on what we can and can't dom if we were to try to reduce this. i know sometimes that is not possible. right vment >> good evening. the department of public health has rooms to regulate.

one is the length of suspension based on the number of violations the code would authorize them to suspend i permit for a max of 90 days and in the regulations they have gone down. they don't provide any discretion. as to reducing the spent beyond the measures discussed tonight. does that money we are under the same constraints. that adopted health regulations are binding on the board. >> thank you. commissioners. >> my thoughts on these are that are -- especially when they are multiple violations -- and when

way had multiple i have lalgzs and the owner not involved and human resources have created the violation. unfortunately. that we have to support the health department. and their rowels and regulations. once we start bebdz bends and compromising next week something will come in with a wagz and point to an action where we compromised and dillowed the rules. and -- that would be a problem for the system. so -- i'm understand the appellate's position. we heard commissioner lazarus you and i have heard before. but did not break the rules. and -- there -- health

department is responsible are holding operators accountable for the rules. and the measures are what they are. i can't support any compromise and there is sorry. there is no compromise surfists that when you comprehend myself our integrity dealing with issues like this in the future. i can't support for the appeal. a motion y. notion to deny the appeal and -- that the -- permit tobacco was revoked for a period of time appropriately. >> okay. deny the appeal andup hold the determination it was properly

issued? >> you say it better than i. >> on that motion. commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4 to zero and the appeal is denied. so --. the suspension will go in affect. thank you. we are now moving on to item 11. 234 myrtle street. appealing the issuance on march 22, 2022 to van ness property llc of public works order no. 206262 (approval to remove five trees along myrtle street without replacement; these trees exhibit extensive damage and overall are in poor condition). order no. 206262. for hearing today

we will hear from mr. nulty first, you have 7 minutes. >> great. i'm on will need help with my slide show did you sends them in advanced? >> we see them. >> okay. is that your cover sheet. there is text on all i sent the slides.

i wanted -- okay. i will start now. good evening. and members of the public. -- next slide. the exact copy of dpw postoth website for removal of the treeos myrtle street will be replaced -- pictures taken shows dpw remove a posting on any of the 5 trees on myrtle street to comply with 806. posting 30 days on trees. and the video recording of the hearing supports the statement. no parking signs are posted on

both sides of the street. no damage to the trees. [inaudible] the construction and equipment for 1001 vaness. damage to these trees. again. no visible damage to the trees. near completion of 100 within vaness and project cars parking [inaudible]. on no park sign location. i did this. measurements were taken on both sides 9 inches [inaudible] for the location in the corridor.

[inaudible]. >> and 2019 no damages to the 5 trees [inaudible] current damage of the trees. during and after the construction removal of no parking signs on both sides of the street and moving the street light from 100 within vaness to myrtle to the other side of the street. [inaudible]. during and after the construction no parking signs on the street. contributed to the damage of 235 myrtle. and part of the better street plan pursuant to planning code section 13.1 developed vaness

avenue and street scape on march 2021. required planting on both sides of the street withancy walk measurements and no new trees to go in on the north side of myrtle now it is time to replace the trees on the south side. and the post. the map [inaudible] 36 feet across and circumstance fmta regulates the working in san francisco. [inaudible] october 21 section 3.28. requirement each [inaudible] 24 feet [inaudible] 2 way street would leave 12 feet for parking on myrtle. standard -- [inaudible].

of signs [inaudible] parallel parking spaces. the block map still in the exact frontage for each on the block. no parking signs placed for the enforce am of the 100 feet from the side in both direction evereksz doctor legally required. no new trees planted the sidewalk width about this sides of the alley showing illegal parkoth street. the small basins used for the

current new troll planting 1001 vaness on myrtle. the new replacement at 234 myrtle have small are basins and comply across the street for the new replacement 1 thousand vaness the gooing maps 94 inches on vaness and 85 to 90 inches sidewalk including curbs on the south side myrtle street has multiple trees planted all fronting parcels lace the alley.

4 feet is the requirement on myrtle street. therefore this basin is code compliant. there are no more slides. i have -- no parking basin permitted public works order number 187 tw 46. 30 seconds. >> showing the new street plan 1 where are 01 vaness on myrtle street side under 7 feet and 6 inches rule under a window. so why not across the street.

tha is time. thg thank you for your consideration. >> we will here from the determination holder. know an drew is here. >> good evening i'm joined by david fletcher. we are here on behalf of [inaudible]. welcome. you have 7 minutes to present. >> thank you. appreciate your time and mr. nulty thank you for your dpamination of the issue. we worked with both related companies [inaudible] an agent hub. and worked for the hoa members on the improvements of the area. the trees planted in question

tonight were planted without a permit and the width of the sidewalk does not conform to standards to allow for trolls to be planted there. we worked on behalf of companies with the hoa. with their approval that the trees should be removed. introduce new soft scaping on the area and are coordination with them and related companies. thank you. do you have anything to add. why no that covers it. one issue to note the trees are ficus and known in all like in california communities for jacking up concrete they are aggressive and so -- i can only imagine the concrete will be replaced many times.

>> okay. that concludes. >> thank you. >> the department? urban forestry. why can you hear me. >> yes. i hope to join you in person next week. so -- great to see everyone coming back in the hearing room i will share a screen and show images in a moment. >> so i emspend time to the existing trolls a lot is about replacement trolls adjacent to

the site at 234 to 248 myrtle. trees were planted without the benefit of a permit many years ago. its ficus and there is damage from the sloulth there is damage to the trolls before this project every broke ground it is fizzable on google street view. i wanted to show hat site looks like when you look up and down the walk for will possibility of planning trees there are a lot of bay windows and a few across the street and go higher in hite increases. the proposal is the removal to 5 trees due to narrowness of the sidewalk. one thing public work system

relieved about is well a piece here with the individual 8 property ordinance 2 there are to 248 myrtle the hoa that supported the removal of the trolls with replacement and later submitted letters of support of removal without replacement with walk landscaping as shown. looking at the existing 5 trees. again. won't don't believe they are sustainable in this site that is why they approved the removal without replacement. the bay window and it is amount of damage that occurred over the years. the more recent, young are, light are bark jumps out. ready low. but there is old damage to the troes. this illustrates why we try to

prevent planning trolls in walks that don't meet a minimum width had is an old injury. old injuries -- not related to construction. so our code what does the code say it is director's order out lining the planning of troes in the public right of way. we want a 7 foot minimum sidewalk we have a 4 foot path of travel and 3 foot deep basin this contemplate and includes a sick inch sidewalk it is 7 feet. from the edge of curb. just upon boint of clarification is the appellate stated as of january it is untlufl approve removal without replace am that is referring to a different

section of the code. the upon this part of our code did not change. an owner can remove trees and a troll replacement troll is required to be planted. if there is in the room to pleasant we make finding there is is no room for replace am trees. the couple of big picture things i want to point out. there was illegal removal of 14 trees reported this project. the current upon fine the add vo kase kaes of mr. nulty and others including the commission the fine we issued was 48 thousand dollars. the fine as we are hear now today i will stop sharing would

be 10 thousand dollars minimum per troll that fine if occurred this year would be 140 thousand dollars penalties that illegal removal. odd low enough they had gone through the permit process. but right before they -- hearing the trees were moved boy a different contractor. i don't believe any of the current ordinance of the myrtle street properties were were protesting or appealing that. and that item did not come to you as commissioners at the board of appeal. in addition to planting landscaping. it is in the the street trees as desired. landscaping installs and assess the in lieu fee of 2, 300 per tree times 5 planting cites. public ws will receive 11, 750

to plant 5 trees elsewhere. again. we have an hoa with unanimous support of this plan. the find was paid by the experience. and what this come down to is needs space to plant replacement trees. we look at every site individually and we are looking at the bay window and it is distance, we are not seeing it happen. there are some sections across the street that are similar width the bay windows are different low. and the property slopes down there is greater room and the bay windows disappear. the walk widens and more room. that's public process for planting the trolls is initiated well before years ago.

you know really years ago. so that project received approval from the public rerowel with troes going in on myrtle officialage. that's why we have what might arc peer assage issue in consistency in applying this. each site, thank you. each site is individual and looking at 234 and 2 photography we don't thbl is a sustainable place to plant street treeis wanted to explain the upon difference from side to side. thank you. there issue a lot of situations in the city where an example is

here. correct. >> correct. >> okay. and you know i have great sensitivity to the inventory of the tree canopy. the way that you manage the situation so that when there are ill advised tree plantings that need to be removed then septic is what you described which is an in lieu fee to ensure the same trees are planted somewhere else. why correct. >> thanks. no automatic several years younger and not mature, ultimate

low you are protecting the inventory in situations like this. right? >> correct. >> that's it. thanks. why thank you. we are move to public comment. raise your manned everhand if you would like to provide public comment. okay. sir. thank you.okay. sir. thank you. i live in the neighborhood, 5 blocks away. the trees are important the urban canom seperson for sequestering carbon. you want to know about how things are going about green house warming 1 penalty 5 degrees hit it in 15 years they

hope 50 years. the rate of green house changes is accel raying a reason is human responses. defensive responses. populations, movement. you imagine what the e missions will be when you take a first world nation of 45 million dollars androus it to rub and he will try rebuild it. this your is called an economicist from the 19th century. my suggestion is you condition i bunch of things. we know mature trees sequieter more carbon than new trees. my suggestion is wait 25 years until the new troes come in get

mature and cut them down then. think about it in 25 years the hearing will be over with. i will not be here. why the nulties will be gone by then. wait 25 years. we will hear from michael nulty. >> yes. um -- needs to be proper mitigation for what is going on here. the -- what mentioned we did the vaness corridor and rt and lost trees during that and we now see that -- homeowner association all they are trying to say is to the commission is or the board that they want to build a park

on the sidewalk. when they filming and it is and um -- so all the other issues are side issues. and here to go and an invoens for those that want to enter and exit their buildings and put park nothing buzz they v access the [inaudible]. the other is -- there were permits but the troll has to be per of the process. when they were initially planted.

and the city is just then going out of the way to find ways to make sure the trees don't stay. they could have smaller basin and that way they could be replanted or stay there. i think there are ways to mitigate had. and chris come up with the way its mitigate and -- time. >> thank you. mr. nulty. we will hear from the caller in 7550. go ahead. press star 6. gentleman ahead. why this lance, i wanted to argue that the appeal should be

upheld. and deny removal of the 5 mature street trees. one thing that is alarming is that there is the rush to remove the trees from the building manager/owner and the residents. and the rush to get them removed by [inaudible]. i think having street trees on i lane like this is a blessing. the city 125,000 trees was examined and begin a recommendation maintenance rating. and the recommended maintenance rating for 5 myrtle street is priority to prune.

this is the second lowest rating after priority one, 2, 3 remove and priority 1, 2, 3, prune. forest row uses them to prioritize maintenance the trees are scheduled for prune nothing 2022 and 23. within the next year they will issue prouned and the trees will look better when pruned. as a result residents will have 5 trees to line their street at no cost. i spoke to an arborist. >> thank you, >> your time is up. >> any further public comment. raise your hand. >> i don't see any. move to rebuttal. mr. nulty you have 3 minutes

. geez. can you hear me. >> yes. >> couple issues one -- i did look at the again the -- they did move street light that was on 234 myrtle site. on the 1001 side of the street over to -- myrtle [inaudible]. have a conflict with the tree that is there. they also took away parking signs both sides of the streets. they were -- position 1 h

nought vaness property lined their side of the street with their cars and so they are -- are -- narrowing the street and it -- already 36 feet wide and needs 24 feet for 2 way street for leaving 12 feet for the parking parallel for code and so -- that is the [inaudible]. that's not [inaudible] and i saw. cono owner delivering take out of our car and parking on the front of the building 234 myrtle to unload groceries and take them in her house. parking half on the street and half on the sidewalk.

and i have pictures of other cars parking on the sidewalk, too. so. the if we were simultaneous are basins and the -- trees are set last tree up the block is legally and so that one should stay. for the code. 4 feet wide. and on the sidewalk. therefore, some -- and there is also the section the -- 30 seconds. the basins can be small are like they are across the street and can be -- if they are willing to compromise and keep the trees

urban plant as started with the [inaudible] the project was started. >> following the planning code and would [inaudible]. time, thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the determination holder you have 3 minutes in rebuttal. >> i want to reiterate the removal has the full support of the hoa and poke to the fact there were issues with previous tree removals related has taken pains to work with the hoa to identify a solution and they don't think the trees should remain in the location. the, item is also that as david pointed out this tree is known for taking up walks and this does in the work limp this creates accessible for residents and the public in this vicinity.

and further i think that the presence of the trees have a legacy of damage due to not planted with a permit and present a challenge to be replaced in kindness in a location. we believe as agents the personals of the urban canom seof importance but this location is in the fitting for the replanting of trees. thank you. why thank you. we will hear from the urban forestry. thank you. just a couple notes. just to correct one comment and i appreciate the feedback. the upon landscaping proposed will take up more sidewalk space when you look at square footage. there will be one gap in the middle where well is utilities.

or close to it. otherwise there is more surface your that will be occupied by landscaping that will prevent that illegal parking on the sidewalks. i wanted to correct that -- the landscaping will prevent that type of activity that was described and certainly we are not rush to do anything. this application was received i believe in july. it is like a slow motion process here. but i do appreciate the feedback and we look closely when and why and how to pleasant replacement trees. and we will take it site by site and will advocate for the tree and the community first. this is a site where the trees are in poor condition and we are glad the hoa is on board with the plan and we are not here

with an hoa at each other. i appreciate everyone's time. thank you. >> thank you. >> president swig. >> yes. i heard something in public comment that got me interested. and that is the issue of sequestration. and yes 25 years from now. when we taking down today will be recovered. this is out of the -- context. my senior memory cause mow to forget temperature can is there a possibility for you all to consider a different rit i don't of replacement and consideration

that a baby tree will not come close to what a mature tree does. and i -- also point this out. being realistic about this fact and may be you come up with a concept top do a 2 for. mature tree replace with in kind -- or 2 trees that's all. not a question i want it on the record. >> thank you. noted. >> thank you. >> commissioners this is submitted. thank you. i think that tom me it seeps that the proper low issued the permit to remove the trees.

and it seems like -- trees were, yes. help beautify but the sidewalk was in the narrow enough or wide must have to accommodate the trees. and it seems like there is a nice viable -- proposal in place i think this does in the resolve the appellate's over arching

concern that moving the tree canopy but in this instance the trees were removed or that the approval was purpose leave issued. the question i have it is a side for buff to answer which is -- and we don't have to address in this hearing. may be an appropriate matter for a different hearing but what -- buff is dog to increase the canopy. i think well is discussion about that on the body. and the city at large. that it is the concern that -- appellates like mr. nulty have it is my feeling. >> no other comments. a motion? no other comments? move to deny the appeal on the basis the purmitt was proper low issued j. a motion from commissioner chang to deny the order on that motion commissioner lopez. why aye. >> vice president lazarus. why aye >> president swig. aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 it is denied that concludes the hearing. >> thank you. see you next week. >> thank you. >> i will test negative i'm sure. >> thanks.

>> thing goodbye. >>