we're back to the trasvina rule.munication would have been very convenient in this case, but it didn't happen. so there was no problem before a door was illegally added to the to the space in the back. the garbage could be taken out. according to the ccnr's, there there was no adverse effect to the neighbor, when the door was added as a convenience, to the permit applicant, that's what triggered the whole mess. because there was the assumption that the they just had the door because it was good for the airbnb, that was added and there was no consideration for the adverse effect, which should have been considered to the neighbor, pure and simple, was the door that was added, code compliant? yeah but the door was code compliant. it was the rest of the mess that was triggered by giving access trespassing to the neighbor's property, which could have been handled very simply through as mr. birmingham said, a if that. that's what they want to do. we need mutual permissions. done deal. it wasn't done. so now we find ourselv

. >> commissioner trasvina. >> we have yet to hear from the property owner, or from the department. and i was reluctant to bring this up earlier, but it's the deputy city attorney quoted from i think, part fine of our rules, rehearing request, but didn't, didn't go all the way to the end. which is e says this section shall not be apply to any motion made by the board's own commission. as a distinct there is what is known as the board, a motion to rehear the case made bit initiative where the restructions which you just described which says the section does not apply. so i am, i am perhaps i don't have a question but i do want to layout my reading of section 9 is that, all of those requirements are not necessary for us to do what you seem to try to do which is to try to get the best possible resolution here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, you can be seated. we'll now hear from the permit holder. >> can i get the overhead, please. >> computer. >> speaker: good afternoon, justin sucker here on behalf of the permit holder. we're here on a rehearing request brought to you by the a

we have a we have a comment from commissioner trasvina. first, without delaying this, i'm a little bit confused as to what it is you envision. if the public comes in and says, we made a drastic mistake in june or july, we should be able to change our bylaws or our rules at that point. so i'm not sure what. when we say we were reconsidering them, if you're if you're asking for the president to report back on whether the whether the bylaw changes have worked and whether there are any other bylaw changes, then that's that makes sense to me. the intent was to get these things passed because there isn't anything radically controversial or a change of direction as as i've read these and also take your suggestion that there may be other items with regard to policy or or other activities that the public or yourself or another commissioner may want to surface. and this gives us a parameter during which time those those opportunities may be taken to the executive director and no later than six months from now. we have to deal with it all right, comm

i'm john trasvina, district 11 home owner and native. i'm upcoming here to oppose the legislation.ned to hear that that we're talking about compromises and doing doing some additional work because obviously waiving civil rights laws, waiving protections is not something we should do every day. and i don't think it's something we should do at all. i haven't heard as the as the colleagues have have spoken about, what's the connection between having in our law protection, protecting city workers against sex harassment by contractors, lbe a level playing field and prevailing wage? why are those barriers to getting vision zero done on an expedited manner? i haven't heard the data and i don't know whether whether it's out there, this law, this bill as it is now written, would waive in 14 b and administrative code section six, some very, very important protections for women workers. even what you've described as coming up with a list of, of contractors that wouldn't protect women workers or our city workers against sex harassment by contractors that is waived under this legislation. so i