Transcripts For SFGTV Board Of Appeals 20230110

are as follows. each are given 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes to rebuttle. mr. long way our legal assistant will give you a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules please email board. now public access and participation are paramount to the board. sfg tv is streaming and airing this live. sfgov tv is also providing live captioning for this meeting. please note that it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 5:00 p.m. a link to is found on our website. now public comment can be provided in two ways. one, via zoom, go to our website, and click on the hearings link and then the zoom link. or you can call in by telephone, 1669-900-6833. and and again sfgovtv is broadcasting live with the phone numbers. to block your phone number on calling in, star-6 and then star 9 which is equivalent to raising your hand so that we know that you want to speak. you may have to dial star-6 to unmute yourself. our legal system provides you with a 30 second warning before your time is up. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast on the interness. it's important that you turn down the volume on other computers or tvs. if anybody needs disability accommodation, you can make a request to elcon way or send an email. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comments or opinions. now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the board may speak. if you intent to testify at any of tonight's proceedings, raise your hand right and say i do after be you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> i do. >> thank you. >> if you're not speaking, please put your speaker on mute. we move to item number 1, this is for anybody that would like to speak on item not on tonight's calendar. is there anybody here for general public comment, please raise your hand. i do not see any hands raised. so we'll move on to item number 2, commissioners? >> first i would like to wish everybody a happy new year and a safe and healthy one. and apologize to ninnie member of the public that was inconvenienced for the rescheduling of this meeting. i health and security issues, i felt this was a public health crisis with the weather today. we rescheduled and i hope nobody was inconvenienced. thank you very much for your patience. tonight, commissioners when you have a question, would you please use the, i believe alex we can just use the raise your hand >> yes. >> and i can identify you. anyone anybody participated in our saop events. that's the protocol for this meeting. given that i'm out of practice as i am. >> commissioner lindbergh has his hand raised. happy new year to all. i wanted to acknowledge something so we commissioned had to do a harassment training before new years. i want to share something which is that it is my responsibility as a person with a non traditional gender identity to announce my pronouns and other things to my fellow commissioners. and my preference is that i use i identify as non binary and rather than the term mr., mr. or ms., i use the term mix spelled mx, and that is all i wanted to say, thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? please raise your hand. we'll move on to number 3, adoption of the minutes, before you or the minutes of 2022 meeting. >> i move to adopt the minutes. >> is there any public comment on that motion? i don't see any public comment. so commissioner motion to adopt the minutes, vice president lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lindbergh. >> aye. >> epler. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. we're now moving on to item number 4. housing implement program manager with the planning department. will give a review, a b2011 and sb330. welcome ms. connor, we look forward to your presentation. >> thank you very much, i'm going to share my screen. >> can everybody see it? >> yes. we can see it. >> good evening, president swig and commissioner kay connor, thank you so much for having me. so this presentation is going to include a san francisco review process. and i'm going to provide information with sb35 as well as the sb35 process. then i will discuss planning commission above discretion, i will then provide a quick overview of ab2011 and end with the crisis act also known as sb330. the bonus law was established by the state of california in 1979 as an incentive base program for provoiding onsite affordable units. the program has started eligibility requirement, name laoet project must contain 5 units or more, must be residential or mix use and must provide affordable units onsite for a period of 55 years. if those affordable units are counting towards san francisco requirements, the units must remain affordable for life suppression. state density bonus, has three components, incentive and concession as well as waiver. so the amount of density units is is the level of affordable provoided in the project. if you provide more affordable units, you will get additional density. in order to a accommodate, a project m*uft need relief and this can come in a form of incentive concession or waiver. an inventive these can be development standards and they can include such planning requirement as planning space, right and ground floor ceiling height. if you were to review the brown court--so what is a waiver? a waiver is an exception to a development standard. these are volley metric requirement that are necessary to accommodate the project with the increased density and requested incense i have and concession. examples can include height, bulk, rear yard. a project may require relief from the requirement in order to accommodate the extra units. as you may have noticed, i included height as a potential incentive. how can you determine whether an exception is a incentive or waiver. we have to look at each project individually, the same code requirement can be an incentive or a waiver depending on the specifics of the project. we've also seen height as an incentive and high-rise construction or maybe that extra height is not necessary for the project. but the project demonstrate that the additional height reduces the overall cost of the project. again with waivers and limited, we can only deny a waiver that is deemed unnecessary, or would have a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety. so what is he shall is wondering what is that intersection with san francisco inclusionary program? so considering 100-unit base project. if the rate is 20%, the project is already entitled to a density bonus understate density bonus law. although the units must be market rate and the number of affordable units remains the same, in san francisco we do apply the housing c. housing works by applying the entire project of provoiding the project on the onsite means. so given the complexities surrounding state density law, the department has implementing the bonus law. this bulletin details san francisco interruption how long how we apply density law in form base district which was something until recently the state did not contemplate. the bulletin will also detail how reprocess the density project. for conventional state bonus project, whether the project has an adverse impact on public health or safety. and these findings are discretionary, if there is an underline or a large project authorization, the process will remain the same, however, the planning commission discretion is incredibly released to this proj eblgt. finally, in and of itself, does not request ceqa review. but this is where sb35 enters the picture. so sb35 is fairly new, not that new, it was effective in 2018, time flies. it provides for a new path which is no ceqa and this is for a certain ability level. it's a state wide program and based on protection. so there is victimly two programs with an sb35 one for the jurisdiction that rund producing above moderate income and one for those under producing low income and below. current san francisco arena production goals for the above moderate income but we're not meeting bet low emi, so applicable is to provide 50% of the units at 50% ami or below. so what can an sb35 project expect? well there is no secret review because it's a minute stirial review pack. there is also no discretionary entitlement, that would be your large project provided that all the eligibility criteria are met. there are expedited review times and before when we were talking about state density bonus and where the sole does not expect process or ceqa, when you couple it with sb35 neither secret nor entitlements are required. so the state law outlines a number of criteria to qualify for sb35, i mean this includes controls and demolition and project must comply with objective standards. so objective standards have been used throughout the state law very often. so i want to dig into that definition. bear with me p the actual definition is long. but objective are standards that volve no personal or subjective judgment and verifiable by reference to external and knowable by both development a mrik attribute or proponent and official prior to the middle so. more simplistically stated, you're thinking of something more quantitative, like rear yard, setback, height, when you're thinking of non objective or subjective requirement it more design guidelines that are determine anising. so sb35 recognizes state density bonus projects, including all the necessary waivers incentives and concessions as needing objective standards. from a planning perspective, we've broken this up to two project types. 40% affordable and 60% of the units as affordable. if there is no response for california american decline then the actual timeline will begin when the project sponsors with the building permit. so the notifications with california tribes must be done and completed prior to the timeline starting. there is no neighborhood notification, with just creeping the interpretation sxz how they handle permits and no discretionary review since that is in and of itself approval. and project looking at 180 days for planning review. so in terms of implementation strategy and then we followed up with a application pact once it became a tech tiff. in terms of project approval, since january 2018 resulted in over 2600 units and over 2300 d-restricted affordable units. the fact that there is a lot of afford abilitied, the vas majority are the 100% affordable project. we've only approved 3, 50% affordable projects. in addition we have 10 new projects that are in our pipeline. and i do apologize, slightly out of date but this is only showing only 16 of the 21 projects. so you can see where they're located. there is a concentration on the eastern side of the city downtown and all but one of these projects was a state density project. so this gets to the question of what we have. so design demonstration, material, those are all something that we can really weigh in on. but again the city is limited, we cannot reduce the density, or cause shift to the project, and that is pursuant to the housing accountability act. and in addition, we cannot deny the waivers without findings on public health and safety as defined by state law and na is a incredibly high bar. both of these programs are state law which are required to comply with. and although our discretion is limited and i think it's been very challenging not only for our commission and elected official, but also for staff, we have been able to approve over 4300 units which is notable. so now i wanted to look a little bit at a b2011 which will be affective in july of 2023 so we have a little bit of time. i wanted to pair this with sb35 because it's a minute stirial program and we have an approach with some additional resources devoted to mapping and identifying eligible parcels. so they provide that review but it does have different eligibility criteria. and one for affordable and one more mixing. we wanted to take a deeper look, if you were 100% affordable project, what is the difference? and a b2011 does have less labor position, it does permit you to demolish housing. it does have potential density and height increases depending on the location. diving into the details. and those projects must be provide between 12 and 30% of the affordable and that has to do with the tenure and projects of 50 or more units must provide healthcare and pren tership program. and all eligible project must provide relocation for existing tenants, they have to phase a phase one assessment and they cannot build any units with the 500 feet for freeway. and wlml and smes that is a variety of random districts that you would not think would be able to take advantage of these. and while these districts permit retail and office or most of them do, they don't quality either because they don't permit commercial uses to be one-third of the total development. this law was geared as being able to develop commercial quarters and take advantage of commercial zoning. so the yellow demeet eligible and then the blue areas are eligible for streamlining and so unless the existing zone ising more generous which in many cases it is, when you look at the eastern side, then you can get a density benefit of up to one unit of lot area and height benefit of minimum of 65 feet. so for mixed income project, it the same height and density benefit. but also requires that project has 50% of projects on streets that are 70 to 100 feet would ied. that's why there is such a reduction of numbers. both the eligible districts and specific parcels, as described here, are really shown on the map, how they're shown is very preliminary because there is the eligibility requirement in terms of, like for instance, if it's on a core tez island or if it has protected species and that sort of thing. so this is just really looking at the zoning and really looking at the red wit. so diving into the projects that don't qualify. so the additional restrictions both 100% affordable do not qualify on hazardous substance or within a protected species habitat. so a b201 derives directly from 2035 and one note, did make some modifications to the cortez criteria and does allow the water board or local agency to provide a letter stating that the height is suitable for residential uses. in addition, sites cannot could be tain anything that is industrial and for mix income projects, they don't qualify if they're demolishing housing has been occupied for the last ten years and this is taken for sb35 but this requirement only applies for the mixered income. so they have minimum but projects must also meet inclusionary requirement which are typically higher. in addition, there are design requirement for the mixing projects. there is some parking setbacks, there is some setbacks alongside streets and then some of the setbacks may be reduced by ordinance by the board of supervisors. but project must meet all objective design standards in the underline zoning, similar to sb35. so this will be similar when you look at state density to be cocompliant including the incentive and waivers, those density bonus project can also take a look at sb2011. so like sb35, there is some streamlining benefits. the reviews on ministerial basis. and affective ones as sb35. 90 to 100 days depending on the size of the project. so before i switch gears to the crisis act, i want to mention that sb2011 is not affective until july 2023. so if there is any interest, i'm happy to come back once we get all of that ironed out. so now with the housing crisis act, became affective in january 2020 and that was senate bill sb330 and revised with sb8 in january of 2022. expedite the permitting of housing. and three main areas of the bill, this is a kitchen sink of a bill, it amended multiple sections of the government code. we broke it into three different categories. changes to the project and replacement of relocation requirements. we've also published yet another bulletin to detail how san francisco is implementing the zone. so looking at new development standard , we're looking at a housing emergency. we cannot have design guidelines that are subjective. also we have to tie any reduction to an increase. so if you're down zoning any parcel, there has to be a corresponding up zoning that happens at the at the same time. and also include moratorium on housing approval. so anytime we try to put that cap on the housing project. so there are also several cases of housing, to put streamlining act just to change the timeline for projects that are subject to an eir and how quickly they must be approved. and preliminary application and for the preliminary application, it's set to freeze requirement. and it kind of vest the project in a way. and so we've created a preliminary application that does do this. and then for cocompliant projects, there is a limit of 5 years, and this includes continuances. and it does not affect ceqa so ceqa appeals will not affect it. and at the same time the application is considered complete and this prevents any jurisdiction from trying to landmark the property and kind of stopping the development. so the final bucket, it must create as many units demolished and removed as part of the project and also a protected unit. and a protect thed unit can be one of four things, unit deed, and one subject to rent control and price control are, a unit that is rented to low income household within the last five years or unit that has been withdrawn from the rental market within the last ten years. so the protected unit definition becomes really important because there is special provisions for replacement. so for instance if you have deed replacement units, it must be at the same income level, if they're occupied by low income units, they must be same and also restriction. and then finally if the units were rent control they must be in the building and ownership building. and we'll do this only five-year look back and that is required by state law. and then finally there are, right of first refusal. so for lower income household, a right for right of refusal is required for single family homes as well as 100% of affordable housing. low income households are eligible for relocation. what is offered at a local level in the city of san francisco is more beneficial so we're looking our local. and there is a right to remain unit and finally how are we documenting all of these requirements. so currently, we're finding in the planning commission. and also craft conditions of approval. and with that, i'm happy to answer any questions. and as i mentioned earlier, i can definitely be available to return and provide a presentation on sb2011, i know that is a lot of information but happy to answer questions. >> thank you so much, we have questions from president swig and commissioner epler. >> thank you for that very thorough, it's like hooking your water to the hydrant presentation, i'll be extend a further review, what i was finding is that a lot of rules are changing or there seems to be a biforcation. it will be interesting for us to sort out in the future. this may be covered in the presentation but i want to clarity on it. part of the streamlining there was a reference to a limitation of total hearings, is there any restrictions to on, on appeals? the only hearings that are not included are ceqa appeals because they're not requirement any environmental review. so that's something where we've advised our planning commission where we're looking at a number of hearings that you know, we can't be continuing things that we used to, we really have to act as quickly as possible because we only have those five hearings. that being said, if you exceed hearings, but it's something that we're trying. >> so if we happen to be the 5th hearing and we find, some lack of information or something that is a hurdle, that prevents us from making a decision, that's where we may come from in the future? we have an item where a new structure was built mid-block in the marina district, and it fell under the new, help me somebody, the new state law that you can build something that in, that you couldn't build before basically. it was interesting that it was in direct conflict to something that was, that in a variance hearing would have been a non starter in that it was, something that was completely out of character with the neighborhood, yet under the new state law which over rules the local law, it was perfectly acceptable. and it caused people like me who have been doing this for a while to scratch our heads because what we have been, was beaten into our heads, for a variance, if it differs from the character of the neighborhood or something 245 tha* is not in keeping with the neighborhood, that's hay no-go but in this case, the state law says that does not matter anymore. this may be an impossible question for to you ask but, where do you see that we will run into these new state mandates coming into direct conflict which have been tried and true items under san francisco rules? >> tt a great question, it's something that i think the department has been struggling with, i mean when you're looking at something, having an accountability act, we can't be making any sort of reduction or density and footage. if it was going to be a change to response of context for instance, that is something that we will not be able to do under the act. if it's full compliant, and right now, san francisco our residential design guidelines, you know, as robust as they are, are not objective. so they are really relying on subjective determination. so there is been a lot of discussion of trying to develop objective design standards. if you're looking at things like state density bonus, that also becomes very tricky especially with speaking with the community as well as commissions, in a way, the zoning is, it provides guidance but, you can exceed your height limit. you can exceed your setback. you can exceed all of these different requirements that we built our code on. so it's a big shift that i think the department is trying to respond to as well as our rereaction to community groups and how these projects are coming in. and what limits and discretion the city has. >> so in summary, there may be some sacred cows that may not be so sacred anymore. >> correct. >> okay, i yield to mr. ler. >> the difficult is even if we can wrap our heads around knees rules on a case by case basis. with respect to the general rules, i wanted to ask a couple of questions in looking at the density bonus, we have instead of concessions and one buckets and waivers in a second buckets. the only difference is that you have to show, you get the 1 toe 4 incentive and concessions depending on your affordability level. but for the waiver, you have to show that it increases the financial feasibility, right? >> it's the incense i have and concession that have to deal with the finances. they space to accommodate the project. >> not to create it in and of itself, okay. that's a good clarification. the second clarification is when it comes to figuring out, what standards we can apply and what counts objective. and which can't enforce any enforcement that is feasibility. that goes back to financial feasibility and easy to understand how that lays in. but there could be thaingz are less clearer and particularly feasibility and infeasibility those are two lines. how does the department figure out what makes something infeasibility? >> so the infeasibility, if we are, i'm just going to make a hypothetical project, let's say that we want to remain a front facade of a building that may be historic and requires the mast to be shifted. and that ends up so much more financial infeasible that it's still a cocompliant project, we have to be able to approve it. for the density for the incentive and concession, at the w*e do require that they have the cost saving is. and depending upon the complexity, if it's, a very clear cost savings, we can also ask for a third party to review it as well. and we've done that in a couple of circumstances. for instance open space, if you don't comply in open space, you have to pay a fee. we've had where they wanted to provide more parking and additional revenue is offseting the cost of providing affordable housing. >> only the sb2011, all new for me. a couple of questions, if you have a project that is in a dense area and has at least 65, but height limit. then the benefit is the streamlining not additional building form benefits? >> that's correct. >> okay, and i noticed what wrafpz and what does not qualify. how does that industrial use get defined? we have varying degrees here. >> that's a great question, i may have to follow-up with you with that once we figure out our implementation strategy. i know we have been looking at the actual buildings but this is where implementing state law is so trickly, maybe the state considers those to be industrial and maybe they don't. >> all right, i look forward to the update of a b2011, maybe we'll be closer to having that figured out. thank you very much, i appreciate it. >> thank you, now we'll hear from commissioner tresvinia, who lost connection and now joining us through phone. >> i appreciate the enlightening presentation but it's not enough to get me out of the dark. i'll be previous, it will be useful to have from me or mr. gibbler, what are the matters that will come before the board, and then second for the matters that remain, are there any aspects of a case? are there any consideration that we're no longer allowed to make under the law? and provide that for us and also really the audience would be the public. because the public needs to know what how the process works and not everybody is on the call tonight and something along the lines would be created. thank you. >> last year or the year before, basically what this bill did was i wanted to ensure that any of their subsequent permits should be handled minisculely. building inspection and develop ledgelation that would memorialize what that intent, either minute steerial permit. if you were going to appeal and appeal based on context and planning, that is not grounds for an appeal. really the grounds dpoer appeal would be what sb35 apply. so we were working on this legislation, i think with the two proposition d and e that were coming on board as possible ministerial program. as pertains to all of these minute steerial projects. >> thanks very much. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. okay, i don't see any hands raised, so this concludes this matter. thank you for spending time with us this evening. >> thank you everybody, stay dry. >> okay, we're moving on to item number 5, appeals 22-803 gina white of building of inspection appealing issuance on november 1, 2022 to matthew of a site permit addition of first and second floors extend by nine feet adding 224 square feet to each level. relocate powder room and replace wood deck and new sliding door and add new bedroom, laundry and sky lights and renovate kitchen. and we will hear from the appellant first. i believe the a pel enter's attorney mr. brian o'neil is here to represent the appellant. >> okay, i was going to start first and hand it over. >> okay, welcome. you have 7 minutes. >> i'm the owner of 278 eureka where i live with my small family. i was caught by surprise when i received a letter that a permit was granted. i learned about the plan and developed about the concerns and privacy of my home. when i saw the plans with windows so close to my upstairs window i was concerned about my appreciate. however i still have significant concerns about the impacts. exhibit seems to home only receives direct light in the winter. i have two rooms in the back house. never received any direct lights in the winter. every light was extremely important. this project will plunge my windows into darkness. i sleep here every night, i've been available to speak to mr. man at any point. mr. man topple father greg wrote that we had a cooperative relationship and i agree, i would call amicably. the further shock to learn from exhibit b of appeal response that preep notice was returned to him undelivered to me. he did not knock on my door send a text or make a phone call or put a note in my mailbox of the i was left unaffair of the project and had no choice but to file this appeal. i think it's reasonable to stop and listen to my concerns and give them the same consideration they would have received if i would have known about the application meeting and have been able to intend. i'm not a very good public speakers and don't have experience on these hearings so i'll ask my lawyer to speak on my behalf, thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. as you heard, ms. white's concern is what this project will have. i will like to briefly address some of the response wraoef. first the response suggest that ms. white's window receive direct light and mr. mannedfell argues that his home receives light. you heard from ms. white that her windows did not receive direct light. the situation at her home is simply different. as you can see the homes on the southside are much taller and eureka is to the south. this is the photo of 20th street in the tall buildings running up it. this white home is closer to the home of eureka and 20th and they block any direct light. that will is why the indirect light that will be blocked is so important. it's the last remaining light that reaches a rear windows and must be protected. the response also suggests that neighboring properties are only protected by shadows. both direct and indirect, planning code seeks to ensure that properties have adequate light, period. whether it will cast shadows is inadequate. in this case, the answer is no if they'll receive direct light. the photos shows that the project will impact the light that reaches her home. due to the unique orientation of her home, this project will plunge her windows into darkness. what is not shown on the permit owners plans are the houses on the southside that you saw on the earlier foetsds that directly block the light. the proposed expansion is built directly up to the lot line on the lower floor boxing in ms. white's home and blocking the little bit of life she has left. the changes so far have made the situation worse. the upper floor was designed as a nine and a half foot extension but extended even further to 13 and a half feet. blocks even more light than the original design. these impact can be greatly reduced by providing a modest setback and eliminating the kantleaver portion of the upper floor. this would still provide room for expansion while improving the situation for ms. white. the only modification that has been offered is to remove a plum tree. first remove has been a project. it's not a concession made out of concern. but more importantly as you can see from the photo, the tree does not have leafs and does not have block any light. finally, i would like to address the statement that adequate notice was provided. exhibit b shows that was certified mail and confirms that the notice did not reach ms. white. in other records, mr. mantfell knew that ms. white never received it. it's not about doing the bear minimum. it's about notifying your neighbor and conduct meaningful out reach to avoid appeals like this. that early out reach unfortunately did not happen here, and mr. mantfell was clearly aware that ms. white did not receive the notice when it was returned to him but failed to take any steps to reach out to her even though she was next door. mr. mantfells response that coster relationship is important . --30 seconds left. >> those changes will not protect the last remaining light that reaches ms. white and made the situation course. we therefore respectfully request that you grant the appeal and condition the project to provide a side setback and eliminate the upper floor to protect the light that reaches ms. white's home. thank you for your consideration. >> okay, thank you. we will now hear, i don't see any questions at this time. so we'll hear from the permit holder, mr. mantfall. >> thank you, commissioner, i just wanted to introduce myself. and i i have lived on eureka street my whole life. and i was so excited, on ren o rating my childhood home and start my family there. we have many conversations to raise our kids in the city and it's a sense of pride. in terms of the house itself, it's a very charming victorian and we really don't know how old it was, because the records were burned in the court house in the 19 06 fire. and as we're getting ready to start our family, we needed a bit more closet space in the second bathroom where the tub and shower for our kids. we noticed that many of the houses have these shortcomings with addition. we really want to be consideration of adding the least amount of space to be respectful of our neighbors. which we didn't add any bathroom and only essential. i believe the city light up to 45% with the depth of your lot, this is not one of those type of projects. when we started to roll up our sleeves, we relied heavily on the city on how we should do and what, so we paid attention to what they told us to do. and i've included a fairly detailed timeline, and at a high level, we conducted all the out reach that the planning department laid out for us. that is outlined in exhibit a. no worries. notice about 13 diva dresses and various neighborhood organizations. so we sent that by certified mail and was available for pickup for 18 days. i would like to point out that the preapplication is still listed as in transit and it never reached the architect. and you can confirm that. >> yes, we did not receive the letter back to my address. >> thank you. in addition since our other neighbors appeared at our preapplication meeting, we believed notification was given. a few things that they want us to consider and we took their comments to our planner and asked for suggestion to see come date. exhibit b, shows that our planning with architect and told us to make changes to the second floor only, which includes having a five-foot setback. and also requires privacy. the windows that go above your head and allow some light to enter. though this design was not our first choice, we're more than happy to work with our neighbors. which i believe is the 311. and and specific part of the facade not to high or too low. i just want to point out that ms. white and the others, she appealed the appeal on the list and you can find that there as well. at that point, the neighbors that we met in the 311, and we 311 period expired we didn't hear from anybody else. from there, we got ahold of the building department and public works and public works and fire department and we got our permit on november 1, 2022 that's when we received ms. white's appeal and another down the street. i spoke to ms. porter, we had concerns with her windows but she withdrew her appeal after we spoke. ms. white and i met twice and in my opinion, i think we're good neighbors there is no doubt about that. i convey to her that we made the conditions as modest and worked with our neighbors and revision to come wup a design that is intentional, also offers to do more by taking out a large plum tree because it allowed in more light. exhibit shows that tree. as exhibit g shows for context, directly west, we were down the hill from ms. white and she is on the south. in relation to her houses, and you will see that a modifications to our home, should have no impact to light her home. our neighbors are north side, have a 30-plus addition into their yard and i can say it's never been an issue for us. it does not cast a shadow on our light. okay, exhibit h, after our meeting really took ms. white's concerns and we wanted to be accommodating and we offered to remove the windows. >> 30 seconds left. >> to keep the windows approved, we also as part of the community we want to be good neighbors. throughout this process, we have talked with our neighbors, 270 eureka, 246 and 282 eureka and based on our conversation we revised our plans one time. >> time is up. >> thank you, you'll have time in rebuttal. we do have questions. >> thank you very much. can you please mute yourself. thank you very much. i very much appreciate that you're responsibility of going through all the processes working with planning department and listening to their feedback and making adjustments, working hand and hand with him to get a if i nality. unfortunately the fly in the ointment which is all you had to do was ring the door bell, was there any reason given that this was, and this is going to become the kruks of this discussion. there is a sense of sensitivity. you guys are going to be living with each other for the rest of your life to come in a sweet and constructive fashion. so work hard at that. did it ever process your mind or did you think to go next door and ring your neighbor's door bell and hey, i have not heard from you and i really want to make sure that you were comfortable with this process? >> that's a fair point, this is my first time going through this too. and like i said, we sort of leaned on the city to do things and when we should do it. i think we note that the application of 13 different parties. not hearing back, i just assumed that that everything was okay. i look it from there. which may have been my mistake but that's what i thought. and given the fact that there is another notification on 311 and other catch alls if something was missed on you. >> i'm not picking on you, but i wanted to let uno me what you know what the major issue may be here. what we wanted to hear is is there any deviation from anything which is not code or isn't standard or, is this, is this project anyway out of compliance which is what we're here to really make sure about. and i'm sympathetic, there is no manual that they give you by your house. >> sorry, i do recognize that we're al going through this process. and to grant one of the main request and i recognize that. that i appreciate as well too. and i'll pass it on. thank you very much. >> thank you, president swig and i appreciate the presentation. before i ask the que, the pathway from one house to another, the two-way street, and it's, i'm wondering, perhaps i should have asked his wife this. how long before, you're aware that the appellant was aware of the development did, did you contact you? or were you the contact initiater? >> we can't hear you. are you on mute? >> sorry, i did not know that question was directed to me. i'm wondering, well, let me just ask the bottom line, which is you didn't have the initial contact, what you intended to do to comply with the law of having read and received by your neighbor. but now you have, some indication of what your concerns are, wondering whether as i understand your testimony%backer testimony, you have been able to communicate and accommodate to some extent your other neighbors's concerns. do you feel there is additional time that you both can use as long time neighbors and as your neighbors of second generation, knowing both generations of your families and testified, do you think you all can use more time to resolve the differences? >> we've met twice, and i think i absolutely want to be accommodating and one there is a few things, a light concern and privacy. and i said, i let her know that i'm willing to grant the sektd part of it, and that's the medium in the middle of of the two-way street. i don't know how much more accommodating we can be, how much time can you help with income taxer already given one half of the appeal. >> thank you. i don't think we have anymore questions, so we'll hear from the planning department. >> thank you, good evening, president swig and vice president lopez, i'm tina tim, deputy zoning administrator. single family and 40-feet height instructed in 1905, potential historically building. the project is a new two-story extension, i would like to clarify that the extension is two stories tall and not three as described in the appeals. it will extent about nine and a half and 13 feet from the second floor. the two tory of the he addition will be sent back five feet from the property line. neighbor to the south at 278 eureka, and her concerns were there was, new additional will have light and privacy impact. because the project is a proposing an addition of ten feet or more a preapplication meet ising required. it serves and intended as a way for the applicant to review the project before the funding department reviews the project. according to the awful of conducting a preapplication meeting signed by the project architect jack, via upufps to adjacent neighbors on september 28, 2021. the preapplication meeting for the project was held via zoom on october 8, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. per the signage there were at least three neighbors that attended the preapplication meeting. ms. white claims she did not get notice. because they are proposing to increase, neighborhood notification of the planning code is also required. according to our records, mail who is the department vendor received the job order for 272 eureka traoet and confirmed via email that the three notices were mailed out on april the 1. all owners and occupants within 150 feet, were sent a notice and copy of the plans. in addition to the 311 notices, a poster was also taped to the front of the property informing neighbors about the project. while gina white is a neighbor, gina claims she never saw the poster nor received the 311 notice and did not file a dr to oppose the project. seeing no dr was filed during the 30-day period, the planning department signed off on the permit and the permit was issued. as noted by the applicant the current design was a recommending from the department staff architect. while the original design was submitted was the permit missed provisions of the planning code most of the new was located towards the north side of the property which is closest to the telus property, to main miez my potential light impact, the department asked the department architect to revise. with a five-foot set bark the department believes the project is more compatible than the original design. in addition to changing the location of the two-story massing, the applicant incorporated clear story windows to reduce any privacy concerns. in conclusion, the department believes that the notification processes associated with this project were adequately conducted. this includes the preapplication meeting and section 311. the project meets the planning code and complies with residential design by light. while the department acknowledges that the project like was most project in the city will result a change, we believe the project is modest in size and sensitive in design. the project is compatible with context and reduces potential of my light and privacy impact. the department recommends that the board deny the appeals and uphold the issuance of the permit on the basis that the permit was properly issued. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, we have a question from president swig. >> so from your view, there are no, from your view are there any non compliant or worrisome issues that exist in this plan? and that would be a deviation from anything that is that you normally approve? >> yes, thank you for the question. no i don't see any, and typically we don't initial the 311 notice process unless the project complies with the code. and with the appeal, we had a second look at the project and still believe that is still the case. >> so you have no reason to believe that there are any issues with regard to the issuance of this permit. >> that's correct. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good morning, president swig and vice president lopez and commissioners. i'm makt ooh green i'll be representing the department of building inspection. after planning approval because it was routed on june 6, 2022 after review did i dbi and fire department and department of public works and puc the permit was approved and issued on november first, 2022. dbi believes the project was reviewed and approved properly and code compliant, recommended this permit be upheld if the permit issue wishes to remove the windows, we would support that. there will be further review including the structural and energy compliance matters. i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. president swig has a question. >> same question, is there did you find that there are any aspects of this project that are non code compliant and that we should be worried about? or is this a clean issuance from your view? >> we believe it is code compliant and should be upheld. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay, is there any public comment on this item? please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. so we will move to rebuttal. so ms. white, you have three minutes. >> quick points. this project does have impact to ms. white. the map that was shown with the kun coming from the west, was not taken into account with the tall buildings, so this project is going to block in ms. white's home and the last remaybing indirect light. but mr. mantoughle, seems very flexible in his design. this is not about adding rooms, this is mostly about adding closet space and a second bedroom and there is a lot of flexibility and he has shown a lot of flexibility. when the northern neighbors who did receive the preapplication notice showed up to the meeting, those concerns were taken into account by the planning department and there were significant changes to address the concerns of northern neighbors. and unfortunately ms. white was not able to participate in the preapplication notice on the evidence that was shown, she did not receive that preapplication notice. and to answer the question, ms. white, as soon as she found out, when she received the notice she did reach out via text to mr. mantoughle and his father who ms. white has a relationship with. due to the short time frame, she may have had the wrong number but due to the short time frame did not get a chance to sit down and talk to mr. man tufl until after the appeal was filed. so, this project will have impacts to ms. white's rear windows and i think that additional time to work out that issue to see if there is a way forward to move some stuff around and provide a little bit of a side setback seems like a reasonable solution in this case. thank you. >> okay, thank you. did we have any questions, president swig your hand was raised, okay. thank you we will now hear from mr. mantfull, sorry i pronounced your name wrong. >> no, everybody is doing great. you're fine. i appreciate that, i just wanted to summarize by giving the totality of explaining what really had to our ton of our neighbors and totally, productive talks with neighbors. at 254, 264, 270, and 282 eureka and you know, based on those conversation provided plans and as mr. o'neil pointed out, i do want to be flexible and i want to reiterate, we're offering to be flexible in granting the main point of one of the two points of ms. white's appeal which is removing the bedroom windows. that's something that we offered and we're here to offer it again. we did follow the city guidance and procedure and neighbor notification which includes mailing out the preapplication september of 2021 and 311 process in april 2022. and carried more conversations. we've gotten all of our approval from all the departments and respectfully ask the board to uphold our permit as is and lift the suspension and thank you for your time. i appreciate. >> your architect would like to speak as well. go ahead please. you're on mute. can we pause the time, please. >> you have a minute 36 seconds. >> i just wanted point out one thing t the adjacent to 278 eureka are further back so the homes even though, what they're up slope from them, does not really impact the house that 278 because they're, they don't go back as both matt's house and ms. white's house. and so i just wanted to point that in terms of light, affecting it, i think that it's a, it's a reasonable case. the other thing is, i think the staff architects when they did the setback for both the house to the north and the house to the south, took the consideration when they did a symmetrical when they did the setback on both properties. if you looked at the south plan, the house to the north of us, which has an addition, they're being impacted a lot more in terms of light view and those types of things. >> 30 seconds remaining. >> than the adjacent home. >> okay, thank you. we do have a question from president swig. >> thank you, i got a little confused in the chronology mr. mantufl. so any conversation that had you with your neighbor have occured since the appeal was filed, correct? >> yeah, exactly that was the first to my knowledge that there have been any concerns, yes, that's correct. >> and specifically what were the requests made from your neighbor to you related to changes that she wanted? that lead to the, for example the window, you offered to remove the bedroom window, can you detail those please. >> yeah, no problem. it was really what was written in the initial appeal. was privacy concerns and light concerns, privacy related to the windows. and light concerns to the sides, basically. so reducing the sides. and that's when we met a second time and that's when i said, let's compromise and meet in the middle and take the windows out to eliminate the privacy concern. >> and other than that, it was really the massing or the bulk and size of the project which she didn't like? and were there any. >> that's right. >> were there any other other than the windows which which, currently that adjust is often made, but were there any other specific items that would help soften the blow of your project? other than to help with the west light as well. >> but physically from the building stand point, the window is was it concession that was discussed and concession that you offered but other than the general massing of the building which is a grander discussion but seems to be in compliance from planning department stand point, there is, there is nothing else? >> that's correct, yeah. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the planning department. you have three minutes. >> thank you, i really don't have any rebuttal remarks other than to clarify the question that president swig asked. there were three things that were listed in the appeal brief, things the eliminate the window and skylight which i believe the applicant is willing to do. two, set the addition setback by six feet. i mentioned earlier that the two-story portion of the addition is setback five feet. and then three reduce the extension to nine feet. as you heard the ground floor is extended proposed to be extended nine and a half feet and then the second floor or so. this project is modest insight and well within the development buildable area of the lot and it's, designed guidelines and we recommend that you uphold the issuance of the permit. >> president swig. >> i'm going to be redundant. so those the project lines are what you would expect project, that's why the person would be doing the project in the first place. >> yes that's correct. and there is more space that you can actually extend to but that would be still well within the buildable area without maxing out in other words. >> thank you, very very much for bringing that up. that's something that i wanted to surface and something i want today bring up to the appellant and the question that i would have raised for the appellant and i'm sorry that i forgot but i can raise the question and you already answered. you recognize that the fact that this project could have been a lot larger and still would have been code compliant and still fit into the design guidelines and so, i'm sorry i didn't answer that question. it's a very very important point in this case. thank you very much, i'm done. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the department of building inspection, anything further? >> nothing further, thank you. >> thank you. >> so commissioner this matter is submitted. >> commissioners any comments? seeing no hands raised up. my thoughts are, that it's very unfortunate that there was a communication issue and u.s. ps did not perform or if it did perform that the recognition that we tried to get to you but you, we couldn't find you didn't respond and any response from the appellant. but given that the evidence that there was a community meeting, given the evidence that there was other dialogue and some flexibility on the for the sponsor part to make changes relate today other neighbors comments, clearly there was an effort made, it's just unfortunate as murphy's law would be that the next door neighbor was not included. i would if the if mr. mannedful still up to it, i would suggest to mitigate some of the concerns that we while, denying the substance of the appeal, include the removal of the window in the final set of plans. hopefully that will be some solve to neighbor. would anybody like to make a motion on this? or should i give it a shot. >> i just want to say that if that's the route, you'll have to grant the appeal on the condition to be readvised. i could reference the revision setforth in exhibit l namely removal of the south facing bedroom windows. >> that's exactly what i would say. and you're making this in the basis that it addresses the privacy. >> yes and the was issued. >> is that your motion. >> i want to hear if any of the commissioners have any further comment if not we can move forward. that's a motion. commissioners, anybody? seeing nobody. >> go ahead. >> i'll briefly add because i am on the recipient list of 311 notification for the castro neighborhood, that i did in fact receive this particular notice back in 2021 for the prea mrik a ition and 311 notice, so i can personally vouch that and that being said, i would be in support of president's swig motion, it's about to come out at least. >> anybody else? >> okay, thank you. on president swig's motion vice president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner linbergh. >> aye. >> commissioner upler. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0 and i will reach out to the permit holder tomorrow. we still have a window of time where a request can be made. okay. thank you, so this concludes this matter. and we're now moving an to item number 6, appeal number 22-081. jonas pelkaskas. subject property 3312 clay street appealing the issuance on november 4, public works order. denial to remove a street tree without replacement. the tree is in good condition with a wound. we will hear from the appellant first. and i believe he's represented by mr. sucker, please go ahead. >> good evening, my name is gionas, and i'm the owner of the house on 3312 clay street. i appreciate the removal tree. i lived on this block with my wife and three children for about 8 years now. ar we have a assessed the building which is over 100 years old, it was concluded that it would require extensive work. and once we started to work with our structural engineer given the foundation work, we've decided that adding the garage is feasibility. we would very much appreciate having the garage where we can have our car and other things and charge my electric scooter and because of historic preservation consideration, the only access for the construction machinery through the opening is the brick wall with a western tree in front of it. we absolutely want the tree to remain in front of our house and will follow every recommendation under the tree protection plan. the eastern tree were not to survive our architect has informed us that the tree can be relocated west. and our neighbors on those sides of the house, affordable house i would like to ask you to approve the tree removal therefore allowing our house renovation proceed. i would like to pass the word to our legal advisor. >> fwaod evening, justin interest ribbon and roads on behalf of the appellant, i everybody is staying safe and dry. needed to replace this for this over 100 structure which is in need of repair. third the project relies on with urban ordinance section 806d for addition of a new cut and garage. finally one of the two existing trees, the eastern tree will be preserves and not anticipated to be adversely impacted. and while the city has raised concern, mitigation measures are available to ensure the tree is front of the property. the foundation for this structure, some of which is originally built in 1910 is compromised over the years. this proposed to be replaced so this structure can we main for another 100 years. as mentioned, considering the work needed to replace the foundation, the garage addition is also proposed. first moving equipment will gain access by gaining a facade where the facade door is proposed and going down and under from there. if you have any questions, project is available. it's not possible to obtain elsewhere due to the historic elements of structure including stairway as well as utility complex to the east. only two other properties do not have driveway. in those instances variances were obtained. here the project is code compliance. no variances is necessary, neither from the public works. denial of the tree removal permit is an abuse discretion. tree requirement project to add new curve cut and/or garage. one street is required for every 20 feet straoe. existing trees--with the property 27 and a half feet wide only one street tree is required in the property. one of the trees will remain, a robust tree plan has been planned by a certified arborist. appellant appreciates the to the eastern tree well that a restrict replanting a tree there if the existing one were to fail. aftercareful analysis, it's been determined that the eastern tree well can be relocated away from any utility conflict. requiring the eastern tree be relocated setforth in exhibit b to the brief and support shown onscreen and replanting a new screen tree. le we appreciate the project result in the loss albeit a challenge as noted in the brief, willing to replant two new trees. responding to the department how they're willing to pay the associated--unless this board--waive it. i now turn it over to arborist to address the condition of the free. >> thank you. tree appraisals start with research. from there information is arrived at a basic cost 13,059 for the tree in the two photos. take a look at this tree to the right there, there is a lane to the east and arrangement which came from nursery. typical and carries on. tree a phrase al appreciation has three factors, helps structure form, one factor as these problems decay. the structure for with the lien branch attachment and all the wood. second factor >> 30 seconds left. >> the sektd factor looks at the location and function, our challenges here, soil volume and concrete. external limitations, laws and regulations, the homeowner has no control. the city takes care of the tree and most of them appreciate them. there was a lot i just had to digest i'm available for any questions. >> okay, thank you. we have a question from commissioner trisvina and then commissioner lunnbergh. >> thank you, i think i want to direct my questions to the council. does the creation of the garage space enable your client to park on the premise instead of the street? >> yes, the garage addition will allow for two off street parking for the code, if folks get creative, things can be a little bit tighter but two standards cars will be able to fit in there. and having having cars off the street, create a safer environment for the bicyclist? >> i would think so, yes. i would admit that i have intentionally doored while exiting my car. that occured and those are real urban problem that's nobody likes to encounter. and another urban if home en is forced to park on the street, that is a potential risk, to go for your car as well as whier person in san francisco, would you agree? >> i had my car broken into on more than one occasion when i lived in san francisco. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner linbergh. >> my question is for mr. wholecox. your last slide was about valuation and it was a side by side valuation both by yourself and by bob. and i'm going to ask mr. buck, the same question but, why do you, in your opinion, mr. willcox why are the valuation different dwaoen your analysis and buck's analysis for the tree? >> i understand that. in a minute, i will not be able to explain too much. but there are several reasons for the differences. the cost of a available blocks is not 100, it's less than two types. and the tree itself is one-third of that part. so the tree convention that we look at, you know so help forward. that, sorry so that also is one of the, unfactor. the second factor and limitations, is an affordable one. the location itself on the street, but also the back you're looking at a street that has got a wind tunnel coming from the west and that tree leaning because of that. so the location is, not very good for that tree. there are other trees that will do quite a bit better. this one is suffering quite a bit because of the location. so in the third section is for external limitations. and that one i didn't make. there was not a lot, simply because the trees are the responsibility of the city. [indiscernible] but you put the things together and multiply the three depreciation factors and multiply that by cost. several things, my estimate level and i have a will the of experience with trees. but a lot of experience with this particular type of tree and they're all showing up. >> thank you. >> thank you, we'll now hear from the bureau of urban forestry. welcome mr. buck, you have seven minutes. >> good evening, i just want to confirm you can hear my audio? >> yes, we can hear you. >> great. i'm great to be here i came in out of the storm and will be heading back out to help determine if trees are private responsibility or maintained by public works, so it's going to be a wild 48 hours, so i hope everybody stays safe. and thank you for allowing us to be remote because i think it really does help us all maintain safety, i appreciate that decision bit commissioners. i'm going to go ahead and share my screen, that may take a moment here. let me bring this up. okay, thank you. so again, chris buck with public works on the urban forester for the bureau of foreign forestry and we received application for removal of tree without replacement. i will not go over a lot of ground na has been recovered already, here's a view of the property with the brick. and with the credit, they're start withing two trees, which means we're feeling favorably for the applicant. they voluntarily planted these trees years ago and maintained in a well maintained manner and public works assumed responsibility for the trees in 2017. so the subject tree, the tree to the left or the tree to the west. there are a few issues with the tree and we noted that in our a prail al, but it's a really hardy urban street tree that p.m. really really well, other than the decline which we'll talk about a lot more this evening. so it's a broadly faber green tree, has good vigor, the structure issues by the applicant and applicant arborist, we agree and acknowledge that it does not have perfect form but the way that this species performs, those structural concerns are really not impacting the overall health of the tree. and so, our overall a assessment that it's in good condition. the lean is very very minor, it's corrected and it's grown its entire life in a lean. and because the tree cannot be replaced, we consider it removal without replacement. about this dog and cat for a lack of a bert expression because existing and curb cuts. and as a matter of bert record so many of these end up getting approved, that said over the years, we fought hard to increase this sort of value and benefit of these trees when they are approved in our decision to deny is overturned so we're getting something for the loss. and it's taken us a long time to get to this point. so we're not looking at this site simply through a single operation, what is the impact of everyone today, went out and did some work that quote unquote necessitated removal of the tree. the tree that will remain is the tree to the right. probably planted without the benefit of a permit because it's too close to a sewer line. not a reason to remove it but about the same diameter and condition. same species. very few structural issues with this tree, broadly faber green. the one thing i want to talk about and this is showing the utility complex, there is a pac bell or communication, there is sewer and gas line. so we're very limited. and the reason we wanted talk about it, if one tree gets approved, what happens to the tree that remains? we wanted to have everybody an idea of reducing the creation of driveway but the fact that the species has been suffering something referred to as petis form decline. it's not a well understood, sort of pathogen or disease but it's thought to be caused by drought impact and canker. again, not the perfect structure but as a species it tolerates not having an ideal structure, the way the fica trees would. so very serious or minor defects in either tree. what will is petis forum look like. this is an example across the street, the top of the can a pe is dying. they're not showing that sign of decline there is a little bit of thining but it's not severe even moderate. here's another example, same block, the tree is healthy, this is how it should look on the right, this is the tree showing pitting forum on the best. i want to be honest about that, we don't want to draw the line and say this tree is perfect and if we save one tree, this is going to be great. it's possible that the tree to the right could be impacted by construction and/or also decline. and others to healthy trees now, in five years there could be zero trees. so that's our concern with this particular application. and we'll probably talk about the appraisal process. it's quite a process, you have to receive training to conduct, public works, urban forestry, performs appraisals for many years. i did just look a few hours ago at the counter a phrase alto try to understand why the two were so far apart. -- ~>> 30 seconds. >> in ideal world we could be off by 5,000 and we can split the difference. we did reduce the overall structure of the tree. we did ding it for that and we did also reduce some of the ratings for other reasons. but i really feel like, this is where the conversation will probably focus, is where are we on these appraisal? so recompany to deny the request to remove the tree. >> thank you. >> if approved. >> thank you, you'll have time in rebuttal, but we do have questions from commissioner lindbergh and and commissioner binga and president swig. >> i want to ask the same question, you were getting there, but if you can finish your explanation as to the difference in the -- ~>> >> sure. in ideal world we try to be as ideal as possible. we try to have another arborist and they do an appraisal and they say ours was greater. and to avoid situations where we are in this position. i with say that there are a couple of things. i do want to acknowledge that, part of this landscape appraisal is to acknowledge that large trees have val far greater than the young replacement trees. so it's going to take 20 years to achieve a tree of this size. so this is a value in that landscape. and even small discrepancies and we may off from each other's appraisals. the industry tries to avoid that. but we did reduce the value of the tree. we knocked it down to 65%. the, you know, i'm looking at the overall condition rating beinger was a 78. even though we're seeing the condition is perfect. i think the where the, you know arborist for the applicant reduce the tree, you know, kind of reasoning it's a street tree in a sidewalk, all of our trees are surrounded by concrete. one thing i want to introduce as a bit of a factor where i think our staff could have reduced our valuation, is this this decline. that using that is external and functional impacts. i do, we were very up front in our brief that in five years, this tree can be declining on our own. and i was clear in our brief about that and so, i think where the project arborist has reduced its value due to value for being a street tree and concrete, to us we're one of the highest real estate values in the world, and then the neighborhood in particular is one of the wealthiest in the cities in the world. there is a impact to that, something that is valuable to this property is going to be very value. it may be seem like a lot of money but it took many years. it could be very lengthy conversation but i did want to point out there is a little bit of a wild card. we acknowledge that we can't guarantee that the tree that remains is going to remain and remain vigorous for ever. >> thank you. i have a separate question which is that, when reading the materials. what i wanted to ask you, is that a, if they would have applied for removal with replacement would it be granted? and b, i forgot the second half of my question. if you can answer the first question and then i'll remember the second half. >> did you pass that question over to me. >> yes. >> sorry, so real quick, so removal without replacement. so hardless of how somebody approaches it. what we want to focus on is what the other allows, there is an effort by that entity to plant a number of trees throughout the neighborhood. what i'm saying is we're losing this site. we try to stick to what is occurring on this frontage and the appraised value in this particular case is far greater than a basic replacement tree, you know a couple of replacement trees. so the offer of replacing the two trees, we're not getting a value. the other trees are going to be planted there anyway because of plan. it's less than a benefit than it could be to acknowledge the permanent loss of a site and appraise and value wased by that action. >> and that reminded me of my second half of my question which was that similar to what we talked about in our last meeting with the ucsf project what would be the actual replacement equivalency of this one tree that we're talking about? at ucsf, there were a number of trees. >> thank you, commissioner. so if, one way to do is a direct diameter. how many 24-inch box trees could you, would it take to reach that same die a meter to remove. so 50 inch diameter, you can divide by one inch depending on where you're replacing the tree. depending on where the caliber is measured. so we don't have an exact number for that that public works uses. but it would be more like, 1., it would be somewhere around say, 7 to 10 replacement trees to get that diameter value. >> thank you and one short follow-up question to my fellow commissioners, it sounds, i believe i heard that replacement in this location is not an option due to various factors. similar to what we talked about last week, if there were these replacement trees ordered, could there go in other parts of this neighborhood or other neighbors across the city. yes the way we do it is assess the priced value and that goes into the fund, which does fund the planting of trees elsewhere across the city. so we do use those funds to do that. it's indirect, it's more part of a larger fund that helps support the planting of trees to achieve our urban forest plan. so not always specifically tied to this particular permit. for instance, if the applicant were to have to plant 5 or 6 or 10 replacement trees, now i've got to keep track of this. and if we're going to plant 16 trees, we know where they are and they're part of this group. it's from a management perspective, you know, and to be consistent with how you handled similar cases, we looked at loss of replacement value, loss of value and use those funds to plant elsewhere. >> and that's essentially what this trust is doing. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. buck for your continued work especially tonight when you've got the storm, your team is risking their safety. and no matter how successful they are, we're going to lose some trees in san francisco. hopefully it's a small number. i was interested in your submission. and as i read t i want to read it for my colleagues, i'm wondering how, how those requirements are applied here. and as i read it, if trees reposed for removal, you cannot be replaced that matches or exceeds the canopy to be removed, public works may grant the removal application. it seems to me that you have the ability to grant the removal, and i'm wondering what factors went into not applying your authority under 187246. >> thank you, commissioner great question. so one of the things to point out is is the challenge of when you remove a tree, it's 15-inch diameter trunk, realistically, you're really constrained with planting in the sidewalk. it's that large, it's much easier to do that on open space area, you know, at apple park and cupertino or golden gate park, but really difficult to do that in a street tree because of the amount of roots that you need with a replacement tree. one thing i will say, is we have, we have used that section of our code when the subject trees are a little bit smaller. we have lost some trees, we know for a fact that they can be replaced. where you can look at them to be removed. i do want to say that we try to find ways to be creative and not just stand on principle alone but say this is realistic, this is fine. the affective, public works didn't maintain all the street trees. so it was not really suggest to property owner if they remove a tree and can plant the diameter equivalency of a tree, like a 15-one-inch trees. we could not guarantee the maintenance. we do need to be looking at equivalency diameter replacement and try to spell that out perhaps revise it to come up with other ways. you're right the director may approve that but it's not realistic. >> one other question if i may, from ecological stand point, is there a difference between planting a tree on that street in front of that house as opposed to one on the other side of town? the urban forest plan has performed a census of all the trees that we have in the city. and there are certain neighbors where historically folks have been interested in eager trees. we do have urban forest and adopt a tree, in the areas that have the lowest canopy cover. we know where most of the new sites can be. so it will go towards planting goals in the community. >> thank you, president swig? >> thank you, i'm going to go on a different track. after hearing your presentation couple of weeks ago, on why we do not allow trees to get cut down and and we discussed many examples of that. is confusing. especially when it's in the context of not only adding support to a foundation of a an existing house but really the addition of a garage. what is not not tirely, i'm really on the fence on this, does not entirely pass muster. if the cost from an environmental stand point and a tree beautification stand point, there was the sacrifice of a tree to get a car or two in a garage. why shouldn't they be a forded the same opportunities as others who have come before him, when they have applied and received permits to build garages and at the cost of a tree. that is a thing that is bugging me. i need you to give me some prayer on this. we said trees are the holy grail and we don't tear down trees for any reason what is so ever almost. it's a dire situation and we really really have to. and then, there are the fees associated with that. and here we have a dire situation, they can probably redo their foundation without tearing out this tree. but really accommodation of a garage which has been given to neighbors. so why shouldn't it be given to him. give me some testimony on that, mr. buck. >> thank you, commissioner swig. i think one way to respond to that is that, and then the applicant realizes we need a permit. they have the applicant going to us first to understand what is going to happen with the tree. who may here on advocate for saving the tree. but it's a one that improved because for many years we were coming to you all and, projects were literally issued and there was a site permit. that's one indirect way of answering this question. one answer is, when somebody, we were not able to assess the appraised value sml somewhat recently. if somebody can plant a replacement tree, even if the tree was tiny, it was considered double dipping and carla pointed out that we always preferred a replacement tree than taking appraised value so that was, that was a factor. so one thing that has been changed is, folks have said, you know what, if this is the way it is, then bureau of urban forestry needs to be compensated of that landscape material. you have the planning department that wants to work with what is permitable. so we've come before the board of appeals, again and again and again, where we're saying we're just not there in approving this. we need to stick to what we to and what our mission is. now na said, you may have the public that says that's not a good deal. so there is no easy answer on it. it's a constant con mrikt. necticut flick. conflict. i want to emphasize that if the tree is in poor condition, they could value the low value of the tree. that particular tree, no removal, it's a removal candidate. so a lot of times through coincidence, we see people say you'll never have me remove this tree, i love this tree and we'll see a crack. every situation is different, it's unique. but we're always, we're always here and i understand your frustration. >> am i, just to finish up, i want my fellow commissioners to hear this question and cause i don't have a direction. i could see, is there not a slam dunk case, that well we cannot tear down this tree because it's, only self-serving to the please don't take offense to this, it only serves the appellant and his own private nature of needing a garage so, you know, based on what buck has always told us, trees come first and garages come second so we've got to keep that tree that's the way it is. or if for some reason, buck moves on this, the fee should be very high. or is it a slam dunk the other way, where of course this tree can be taken down because precedence have been set with in the neighborhood multiple occasions where trees have come down to build garages to get cars off the street and protect the interest of the neighborhood and the individual. so there is a slam dunk there. do you have something for me or leave it to the commissioner and then we'll pass it to mr. lopez. go ahead, chris. >> well i think we try to look at what is the oifr all health of the tree. for instance, we've never judged a driveway or garage based on the fact that it's mid-century, or you know, we're, we start with blinders on. what is the tree itself? it can be a tree in poor condition, removed sidewalk damage and when you make that repair and install the repair, no realistic way that we can work around that tree. so we start with tree health itself. and there is room to replace it still at the site. what i do want to emphasize is at least to this applicants credit. and we're not there, we're going to have existing number, the east will remain. and i think that is significant, is that they're not removing and removing both trees with zero replacement but they can remain that tree one. but also paying the appraised value for the loss of what is being removed. at this point in time, we feel that's the best we can do. our preference is to keep it but as you said precedence has turned out differently. >> thank you. >> we'll now hear from vice president lopez. >> thank you for the presentation. mr. buck, a couple of questions, on that note preservation, if we go down the hypothetical five or ten years from now, we have a request for the removal in the of this tree one, is there infrastructure in place to have a record in for removal requests. >> yes, commissioner lopez. one thing the applicant or appellant had proposed was a nine-no look back. what i would remove at a minimum would be a five-year look back. i do think a look back puts us in a issue and i'm sympathetic to the applicant who would agree, it's not their fault that the species is acceptable to those impacts. and the condition tb approve an--should it decline that it requires removal in the next five years. thats something that we can put in the permit so that there is some assurance that that would alleviate the bureau. >> to the question that you touched upon different neighborhoods being more receptive to new trees and presumably to new trees, planting in terms of available sites and fund partially intended. what are some of those neighborhoods? what are those neighborhoods and where does this neighborhood fall in that spectrum? it's where we have the greatest number of now the power plants are shut down. but unfortunately, yes. the environmental justice issue to the green and brown field concept. we have a grain deficit, so day view, hunters point, and excel visitation value and outer mission, you know, little hollywood and then the sunset and enrichment some areas of the west because of the wind have very view trees. and again, it's not because people are not wanting to have a healthy environment it's just a matter of discretionary time. with that said, yes, we have the tree counts. the city planted only one-third of the trees in the thorough fair sxz corridors. so neighbors that have residential, one of the first things you do is plant a tree and make it your own. that's a tradition that a lot of people have filed. the older neighborhoods that were built first, this is not to knock anyone but some of the neighborhoods are literally older. so people have been around longer and living there longer and taken steps to plant trees. so part of western edition. and some parts of the pacific heights as well. anyway that's a little bit of, took too much time but a little bit of of an overview. and the reasons and challenges. >> so to narrow it down to this decision, if we end up going the removal and 11k route, that 11k will go towards planting trees in needs areas? >> yes, absolutely. >> thanks. >> thank you, commissioner lunnbergh. >> sorry, one more question, i want to ask the foot site of what president lopez just asked. and if we were to uphold the decision, the dpw decision what would the next steps be? what would their next step be? >> is that a question i should tackle? >> yes. >> can i just interject, matthew green told me the permit has not been issued. >> ooh. >> so commissioner, the typically, the proposal is theory, typically, what we ensure is that a project does not stall and we have trees that get removed and not a project. so they would want to see that, proposed tree removal has been approved and overturned. so that's something that we do internally through tracking system. their brief is admirable so we have the right to protect that tree right on in the right is clear. not a lot would have to happen, we would just communicate internally that the removal would be approved on the condition that all others are received in the project. >> thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> we're now moving on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item. please raise your hand. we don't have any public comment. we move back to appellant. you have three minutes. >> victorian box are declining, it's likely that the box will decline. this is an opportunity to install two more appropriately straoe trees or receive payment to go to a adopt a tree fund that will adopt trees elsewhere. it will be replaced in a relocated tree well. that seems to be excessive, considering it takes three years to become the responsibility for the city and the fact that throughout impact and tree maintenance which is the responsibility of the city both are outside of the applicant control. this tree could result and decline for other reasons not related to this construction project. additional because the property is in a historic district. they will require design. will not impact structure ability as a tributer to the district. we appreciate the nobodisinger that trees will be added in the future elsewhere, however, planting trees now gets trees in the ground now and ads to the urban canopy now, not in the future. and time is result of trees becoming mature. the project is compliant with the urban ordinance. a robust protection plan has been established and followed. the free protection plans calls for enlarging the eastern trees well by more than 175 percent, erecting a fence barrier and post instruction. the tree to remain a given a new lease on life with these mitigation measures. we appreciate there is a difference in opinion on valuation on trees to be removed. >> 30 seconds left. >> common ground, either through planting two trees near by or through payment of the appraised fee. i request you grant this appeal. thank you and we're available for any questions. >> thank you, i don't see any questions, mr. buck, do you have anything further, you have three minutes. just a couple of things, these are very challenging cases. the permit and we don't believe it was issued in error, we believe don't believe that the permit was issued in error. we try to be as consistent as possible. so that you don't have arborist, we try to focus on tree health and when we come across a tree or trees that are in good condition, in a generally good species, we advocate for their retention. again overall to be consistent this tree, can't realistically be replaced as is, as one of the commissioners brought up, we have been trying to be creative, we have been here with smaller trees. and when we heard that feedback, they can replace this with a brand new tree, why are we here? smaller trees, we're doing that. we're trying to do what we can to protect the urban forest and be reasonable. and a lot of trees it has to do with tree species. i will say one curve ball with the case before us this evening is that this is up until ten years ago, a great great street tree. we have thousands of these trees planted throughout the city, all across in every neighborhood. the so it's not a fringe tree spicis. it's one, we have a number of them on block. i put that on any brief. so the block in the city is slowly being impacted. but it's not a death sentence, and respond differently. we can't issue a flat out, you know death sentence for the trees just based on the species because a lot of them will proof us wrong. i will say overall, we're very happy with the tree protection. we're very pleased with the tree protection plan, the efforts, the appellant has put into the brief, the applicant has been reasonable to work with. we're just stuck in a policy bind. so if a decision is overturned, we do ask that the appraised value of 11, 200 be assessed as part of that permit approval, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, issue submitted. >> let's start with commissioner lopez. >> thank you, president swig. yeah, i do, i do consider it a a tough case, it's close to the line that my initial reaction to be to support denying the appeal or granting with the conditions that the assessed value, be honored and also preserving a five-year look back buff proposed during mr. buck's statement. and the assessed value, there would be, you know, i think a lessening of the impact to the canopy as a whole, even if it's going to be further into the future once the newly planted trees would come into maturity. i think we can probably assess these at a higher levels. but, that that's kind of a collection of my thoughts. >> commissioner. >> thank you, president swig. i am always informed by mr. buck as to the issues that are facing the city with the urban forest and the county and also the different the different conditions and circumstances of our various neighbors. so as a see in here, i appreciate mr. buck's willingness to acknowledge the work of the appellants and the terms of the plan and alternative solution. i would say that we should not air there is a danger in minimizing the importance to the homeowners as and/or comparing a homeowners single homeowner to an important institution like ucsf, there are clearly differences dwaoen the two. but as for the person in their home, they're safety, their property is extraordinary important to them. and i believe that the there is the ability within the director's order which i read to look at the public aspects of having a car off the street and in a garage and as well as just not just an individual benefit but more of a public benefit. and finally, i would say if we resolve this in a way that increases the number of trees, we are able to in affect, have an impact on areas of the city that are more tree deserts rather than areas that have a high degree of tree presence. so i would my view is that we should grant the appeal along with the requirement of payment to have at the amount that the city has determined. >> thank you, commissioner linbergh. >> my logic follows a different line. i agree with his conclusion and i think that's the best is granting the appeal with the assessed value for replacement. that's all i wanted to say. >> thank you, commissioner. >> thank you, we're approaching a conclusion here, because my conclusion is the same for me. this is a set of balancing of considerations policy and considerations and you know, the policy considerations have changed they changed on both sides of the equations. one is we have the right to remove trees at certain times when other projects were done in parts of the city that have great deal of canopy. and secondly, the tree itself is not the contributer to the urban forest na it once was due to issues. so getting hung up on a particular tree in this location is a bit of an issue and counter bailed by the property rights of the owner that said, we do have a policy for increasing and maintaining the canopy and this is an opportunity through the to add to the canopy in places to have in time. so i do get to the same conclusion as my fellow commissioners. >> thank you, commissioner for your summary. i agree with it. and would go along with motion of yours following the same path. i'm a little sensitive to the fee although, i would accept fee. i agree with commissioner lopez, vice president lopez, that it's a low price to pay for such a substantial tree. but i would go along your motion as you presented it unless vice president lopez wanted to further argue that point. >> or mr. buck has any further comment. >> regarding the fee. our basic in lieu fee is 3202, so the appraised value of 11,200, allows us to plant 4.6 replacement. so we can plant nearly 5 trees in an area that needs trees. that is a real value while also projecting and preserving an existing tree providing that perspective. >> does that work for you, commissioner lopez or do you have an alternative. >> that works for me. i'm hearing lineman on that point among the commissioners. i would ask some of my fellow commissioners for some input on this look-back period. whether that's something that we're comfortable with. >> why don't we ask commissioner trasvina whether he would like that as part of his impending motion? >> i have no strong vaoez on that point. i would entertain an addition. >> i would like to add that. >> i would like to make a motion. >> i would like to clarify for the third condition regarding the east trees, if it requires removal within 5 years of what the issuance of the certificate of final completion. >> is that right? >> yes, exactly. that would be the when the project is fully completed. >> i think that's part of the objective right to wait until the project is completed for any kind of adverse impact that it may have there. >> okay, so commissioner, did you want me to capture your points in a motion? or did you want to make your motion. >> that would be fine. >> okay, so i believe the motion that commissioner tra*vina would like to make, the issue to revise require one to allow the removal of western tree, 2 require the determination pay 11,200 appraisal fee to the city's adopted tree fund. and 3, if the east tree requires removal within five years of the certificate of final completion of the project, then the determination holder will have to remove and replace that tree. can we clarify where that replacement can be? they identified a reasonable location where that replacement tree couldkoso i believe there is room as they highlighted in the brief. >> they didn't specify a location? okay mr. sucker? >> yes, it's exhibit d to the brief and support identify the location where the tree well can be relocated. >> okay. thank you. we can make that part of the order then. >> and what is the basis of this motion, commissioner? >> the basis of the motion is that the department aired in not fully not really taken into act. >> okay. okay, so on that motion, one moment, vice president lopez. >> hi. aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0. that concludes this matter. does anyone take a five-minute break. >> can we take a five-minute break. let's be back at 8:00 o'clock, let's do 11 minute >> continue to practice of having the boa related to tax-free decisions. on november 6, commissioners considered the possibility to send a letter which explained the factors considered by the board and two discussed whether other agencies have the authority to add or take away the matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the board appeals. the commissioners agreed to place item on the agenda. on december 5, 2022 after the jennifer hearing had already been published. the purpose of rescission was to allow the time to engaging further consultation at the matter at the board level. on december 7, 2022 motion board voted 5-0 to have a draft letter covered by commissioner lopez, one whether it was appropriated and two bo a would no longer hear appeals. the factors is considered when making decisions on the cases. the draft letter is being considered tonight. so vice president lopez? >> yes, thanks executive director. you know, the agenda includes the letter that i drafted. and so, you know just to quickly touch on the high level points for the benefit of my fellow commissioners, the benefit of the public, we're essentially, you know stating that there are some public benefits, some decision benefits to having these matters stay with the board including, you know, having an independent body composed of members appointed by the mayor and the board of supervisors. and then also, you know, touching on you know, if the agency does decide to move forward with its initial plans, that are as of today paused, you know, we wanted to kind of submit for consideration some elements that we think are important for the agencies hearing officers or if there were to be some kind of legislative amendments some day to incorporate another forum for hearing of these issues. i think the point in my find we want to convey is that issues, you know related to you know administrative equity should be considered things like, the term is failing me for a second hearing. but i'm judge reliance on agency guidance that the medallion renewals did not require any card. and in other equitable, you know, principles that made, you know, also be potentially possible in other hearings that may arise in the future. and generally speaking, there have been a stance that, that you know, if it's not in the within the listed elements in article 11 of the transportation code that that was not to be considered by the officers or even in our decisions, and i think we saw in a few of these cases, not in all of them but in a few of them, we did see that it was appropriate to look at some of these equitable principles when reaching a decision. and lastly, i think there is a point here back to the question of whether the matter should stay with the board, there is been in at least a couple of cases that have come before us, some not unjustified questioning of the independence of the process, really related to some communication that we saw in a couple of cases related to you know, i did it want to make, you know summary conclusions based on that because we did it really delve into that deeply. and i think it's weighs based on being considered. ideal to promote a sense of trust in the independence of that process, so i do think by contrast you know, our body and our process and our body's composition does lend itself to withstand more of that scrutiny should it come before us. that's a high level overview of what is in here. obviously, it's, it's, you know, drafted by me but coming from all of us, so i think it's really important to get everybody's input and welcome your feedback and look forward to incorporate that input if you want to make revisions to us. >> commissioner? >> thank you, thank you. i want to thank vice president lopez for his initiative and leadership to craft this letter, it's an important message to demonstrate our commitment to work with another city agency and delineate from the public our respective governmental and institutional interest. i don't have to subscribe to every phrase and point in the letter, to endorse it, it's over ar fpg principles and i do. i'm concerned by the likelihood of misunderstanding associated with describing equity in receiptsing to decision making. as mr. lopez and other lawyers in this committee now, as seen in article 3 of the constitution, describing cases and law and equity. but there is the common use of term related to fairness, based on legally protected classes and historic discrimination. i would want use of the term in the letter to suggest that we did not define cases on matter beyond the record. nor that we are over reliant on the exceptions in order to justify a particular outcome. i believe that our recognition with evidence related to drivers with disability with the local applicable law and not for the purpose of equity. there is nothing that we can debate that the issues of equity all night, i would not want to do. i just think that it ads, it creates a little bit of confusion as to our role has been. to me, the letter comes down, very effectively comes down to this. importance of independent review of agency decisions, that's the reason the mayor and the supervisors and the city have established the board of appeals in the first place. the answers of value and expertise of the agency and making its own decisions, but that valley can still be obtained, we're not excluding the agency from its role, they're the initial decision maker, and the agencies is presented to our board. what we provide is the expertise and experience in evaluating arguments and public participation and following appropriate procedures. the agency itself is less able and seems less able to balance its own needs. i say that that advisely and particularly appreciative of vice president lopez highlighting as he did in the letter and as he did just now about what we heard about the mta attorneys going back to the hearing officer after hearing an adverse decision that deserves explanation. finally, the decision by the agency to pull back its future cases from this board is too closely associated at least in time and in the view of many in substance to the adverse decisions this board has made. so i would recommend to my colleagues that we support the letter and that it becomes a unanimous vote. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner lumber. >> thank you, i echo what commissioner trasvenia just said. i agree that the phrasing of equitable principles is used twice which can be miss laetding. i've been trying to craft a specific replacement for it, but i, i think something that goes into a little bit more detail rather than equitable principles something along the lines of you know, equitable defenses of available in courts of law or something long that line. and i would also suggest the inclusion of additional equitable defenses. i'm self admitted lover of equitable defenses. and i would at least would want to include in addition waiver on hands and matches which i think kind of for guide post for decision making in both courts and in this body too. yeah. so that's, that's my feedback. other than that, i completely support the letter. i think it was well drafted and i thank you for drafting it what i think is a very important letter. >> thank you, president swig. >> i agree with everything that has been said. i have a great believe on the board of appeals, it's a body which is accessible to just about anybody who wants to, challenge either the issuance or the non issuance of a permit or a license. and if we take that away, especially from a class like the taxicab drivers, that's really not visible and really undermines what the city offers in the form of board of appeals. so my fellow commissioners have given details on legal precedence and other things. but i'll just base it on accessibility to being heard when you have something that you think is unfair resulted to a license. and i don't want that taken away from that group of people. thank you. mr. epler. >> yes, first i want to thank mr. lindbergh. something i don't want to cross in trans very often. it's a good very miepder. i want to thank the affective director and vice president lopez for this letter. you know, i'm sensitive that we're riding as the land kind of changes under us, as we were geared up why we needed to keep this and now why we should thank you for letting us have this. and why it is that we need to keep this. so the pos tour changed a little bit. i think that you know, emphasizing our independence is very important. i think that's our greatest value that we add and the greatest value add to the other possible process that we have here. and otherwise, will sign on to this letter with what minor additions will be taken. >> thank you, we do have to take public comment. i see a caller who's number ends in 3250, please go ahead. you need to press star-6 to unmute yourself. okay. >> hi, marrian i'm a taxicab driver. for the past few years, the mta have been riding a few shot at seniors and groups that are not equipped to fight back. perhaps of a as a result in the recommendation of all final report. one of those being na the count of medallions be reduced. and here they describe as streamlining, the permit process which is great. if you're talking about buses running on time. but these are people's lives. some have fallen behind because some do online, some have memory loss and they need extra assistance. so in that respect, they're not being properly noted. and at president mt a do not allow for ex tenuating si,z. as you said in your letter, given to the communication, several decisions may have been considered by mta officer. a reasonable member of the public, my question if the officers are independent? so yes, i'm a member of the public and i do question that. so taking it all into action, we need the right to appeal mta decisions, thank you president lopez and board of appeals all of you and this letter is excellent, thank you, thank you, once again. >> thank you. >> so we will now here from marcello, can you promote him to panelist, please. >> yes. okay, mr. fonseca, please go ahead. >> thank you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i'm marcello, i'm a career cab driver, since 2009. i would like to thank you for being fair to taxi holder. you heard every case and gave every appellant a fair chance to present and argue their case. i also also i would like to ask you to thank you for working on this letter. and just so you know, and i hate to say this, i do not trust the mt a and neither do i trust the city attorneys. arms have been twisted and they brag about ethical wall has been jumped over so they can land on the throat of medallion holders. and also the opinion letter sent to you about prop a of 2007 claiming it has given the mta power over issues, is dubious. does prop a really give the mta authority to supercede the city charter and the business code to take aware our due process rights to this board of appeal? i would like to know that. and since, no one seems to be clear on that, i sure hope you will challenge it in your letter. and since the mta allow 3-year medical exemption of their driving requirement based on temporary medical conditions, i suggest that you also address in your letter, the need of an extension for those medallion holders who are faced with permanent disabilities. the mta rules are oppressed and unfair and ooh mill ating and in violation of ada laws. medallion holders cannot comply with the draconian regulations. we fear that if you do not challenge this assumed claim of power and do not establish jurisdiction over taxi appeals, the aging population of medallion holders. >> 30 seconds left. >> the aging population will be faced with the same abuse you heard in previous cases. thank you very much. >> okay, thank you, we will now hear from karm, thank you you have three minutes. >> thank you, if you can hear me right. >> the entire taxi driving community, pledge your board for submitting due process rights. because the city charter and tax code regulations both provide for these basic rights are also requiring you to hear our deals, the august 22, 20022 city attorney's opinion letter that uno longer have jurisdiction is very suspect as to its accuracy. it also behooves you to stand up to the bully. commissioner lopez has written a articulate letter, there is a sentence you may add, on page 2, the first paragraph begins with, if the mta ultimately decides that the boa should not hear taxi permit appeals, my suggestion in addition is to first note the dubious nature ishtd by the two deputy city attorneys of 2007 over rides in the business and taxi code regulations. on his second attempt mta board codified the gist of that advisement. we hope you stand ready if necessary to defend your own turf. on a straight but related matter, the 9th circuit street in the case appeals specified compensation rather than permit revocation who have become disabled. however the city attorney and agency continue to design policies which contravene the nineth circuit agreement which the city signed in the year 2009. there are other things that i'll say in a future meeting about some of the drank tonian policies. thank you very much, for excellent draft letter from commissioner lopez. >> thank you, is there any further public comment on this matter, please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. i do see in the people in the attendee queue. any further comment, please raise your hand. okay, so i don't see any public comment. this matter submitted. president swig. you're on mute. >> sorry, so what you're doing is making a motion to affirm our support of vice president lopez's leter on our behalf is that correct? you're on mute now, julie you're on mute. >> got me, okay. wee be making a motion to adopt the letter. i do believe that a few of the commissioners wanted revisions. so we can adopt the letter on the condition that it be revised by you and commissioner lindbergh and then direct me to send the letter out. i can work with commissioner lopez on incorporated those revisions and once approved, we can send it out. vice president lopez. i'm sorry, president swig. >> i'm asking for procedure direction to move forward. and i was remiss in not thanking commissioner lopez in writing this letter and the act of writing this letter, with of course your support, ms. rosenberg, thank you. >> funny you should mention, i would be remiss in not thanking executive director rosenberg for her support with this. by my count about 50% plus our motion are not made without her help and this letter was no different. and would not have been possible without her work. so wanted to make sure that i corrected that in the record so thank you so much julie. >> thank you. >> and i think the, just to comment on the suggestions and additions totally agree and happily adopt those changes and look forward to incorporating those in the final letter. >> there is one further thing i wanted to add on this which is very important especially to the majority of commissioners who have a limited tenure on this current limited tenure. this, this is what this commission can do, we're able to do things like this. and i find it admirable when commission as a whole, step up and say, we need to be heard on this issue. which need to send a message to the appropriate department or the board of supervisors for that matter. so this is just, this is just not, a semi weekly quasi judiciary body that rules on this permit or that permit, this is where we really get stuff done. thank you very much. mr. tresenia. >> thank you, i want to reiterate my appreciation as well oz our executive directors. reflecting upon what we heard tonight, i think we, and as you said president swig, we have a role but there is also a role that we don't have, we don't get to substitute our judgment as to how best taxi industry is to be run in san francisco and how another commission should be run. but how appeals come from various agencies. so i, i heard some suggestions and other things added to the letter but those are things left up to the jurisdiction of others in and around city hall. but to your final point, would you be open to ccing the letter to the board of supervisors and the mayor so that they can see that they can get firsthand of our board. >> i would have no problem with that. >> thank you. >> i'm supportive of that too. >> thank you, president swig you're on mute. >> who has a motion. do you want to make your own motion, vice president lopez. >> sure i'll make a motion that we approve the letter contingent upon incorporating the input that's been voiced by the commission this evening. and ask executive director rosenberg to send the letter to mr. tumling ccing the mayor and the board of supervisors. >> okay, just so just so we can specify for the record the revisions. you're moving to adopt the letter on the condition of it be revised to incorporate the revisions by linbergh adding ordinances in rule of law and including the amendments by president swig emphasizing how the board of appeals is accessible. for the tax i object dust reversus other members of the the court of law and then we would be ccing this bert to the board of supervisors and the mayors. is that right? >> i would add, would i say that the list of equitable defenses >> including but not limited to. >> yes. >> okay. >> i would add another one that commissioner transvenia voice which is also compelling is because i think it addressed some of the points that it had been raced about the lack of expertise in this body. i would like to include na, i think that's a compelling point. that there is a interest with our independence and by having the agencies appear before us. we get the benefit of their expertise. >> i will incorporate those changes assuming that this is adopted and i think we should send it as soon as possible because i think the mta has a board meeting on january 17th. okay, on that motion. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0 and the letter is adopted as revised tonight. that conclude the hearing. >> okay, and now nobody has to drive home, thank goodness. >> thank you all. >> stays safe and dry. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> shared spaces have transformed san francisco's adjacent sidewalks, local business communities are more resilient and their neighborhood centers are more vibrant and mildly. sidewalks and parking lanes can be used for outdoor seating, dining, merchandising, and other community activities. we're counting on operators of shared spaces to ensure their sites are safe and accessible for all. people with disabilities enjoy all types of spaces. please provide at least 8 feet of open uninterrupted sidewalk so everyone can get through. sidewalk diverter let those who have low vision navigate through dining and other activity areas on the sidewalk. these devices are rectangular planters or boxes that are placed on the sidewalk at the ends of each shared space and need to be at least 12 inches wide and 24 inches long and 30 inches tall. they can be on wheels to make it easy to bring in and out at the start and the end of each day. but during business hours, they should be stationary and secure. please provide at least one wheelchair accessible dining table in your shared space so the disability people can patronize your business. to ensure that wheelchair users can get to the wheelchair accessible area in the park area, provide an adequate ramp or parklet ramps are even with the curb. nobody wants to trip or get stuck. cable covers or cable ramps can create tripping hazards and difficulties for wheelchair users so they are not permitted on sidewalks. instead, electrical cables should run overhead at least ten feet above sidewalk. these updates to the shared spaces program will help to ensure safety and accessibility for everyone, so that we can all enjoy these public spaces. more information is available at sf.govt/shared spaces.. >> i just feel like this is what i was born to do when i was a little kid i would make up performances and daydream it was always performing and doing something i feel if i can't do that than i can't be me. >> i just get excited and my nickname is x usher my mom calls me i stuck out like a sore thumb for sure hey everybody i'm susan kitten on the keys from there, i working in vintage clothing and chris in the 30's and fosz and aesthetic. >> i think part of the what i did i could have put on my poa he focus on a lot of different musical eras. >> shirley temple is created as ahsha safai the nation with happens and light heartenness shirley temple my biggest influence i love david boo and el john and may i west coast their flamboyant and show people (singing) can't be unhappy as a dr. murase and it is so fun it is a joyful instrument i learned more about music by playing the piano it was interesting the way i was brought up the youth taught me about music he picked up the a correspond that was so hard my first performing experience happened as 3-year-old an age i did executive services and also thanks to the lord youth groups people will be powering grave over their turk i'll be playing better and better back la i worked as places where men make more money than me i was in bands i was treated as other the next thing i know i'm in grants performing for a huge protection with a few of my friends berry elect and new berry elect and can be ray was then and we kept getting invited back you are shows got better we made it to paris in 2005 a famous arc we ended up getting a months residencey other than an island and he came to our show and started writing a script based on our troop of 6 american burr elect performs in france we were woman of all this angels and shapes and sizes and it was very exciting to be part of the a few lettering elect scene at the time he here he was bay area born and breed braces and with glossaries all of a sudden walking 9 red carpet in i walgreens pedestrian care. >> land for best director that was backpack in 2010 the french love this music i come back here and because of film was not released in the united states nobody gave a rats ass let's say the music and berry elect and performing doesn't pay very much i definitely feel into a huge depression especially, when it ended i didn't feel kemgd to france anymore he definitely didn't feel connected to the scene i almost feel like i have to beg for tips i hey i'm from the bay area and an artist you don't make a living it changed my represent tar to appeal and the folks that are coming into the wars these days people are not listening they love the idea of having a live musician but don't really nurture it like having a potted plant if you don't warrant it it dizzy sort of feel like a potted plant (laughter) i'm going to give san francisco one more year i've been here since 1981 born and raised in the bay area i know that is not for me i'll keep on trying and if the struggle becomes too hard i'll have to move on i don't know where that will be but i love here so so much i used to dab he will in substances i don't do that i'm sober and part of the being is an and sober and happy to be able to play music and perform and express myself if i make. >> few people happy of all ages i've gone my job so i have so stay is an i feel like the piano and music in general with my voice together i feel really powerful and strong calling the meeting to order. welcome to the tuesday, december 20, 2022 meeting of the san francisco entertainment commission i'm ben bleiman the president. we'll start with announcements. >> start with the lands acknowledgment. we the san francisco entertainment mission acknowledge on the unceded home land of the ramaytush ohlone the african-american inhabitants of san francisco peninsula. as stewards of the land and with traditions the ramaytush ohlone have never cd, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as care tashgs as well as all peoples in the territory. >> as guests we recognize we benefit from living and

Related Keywords

California ,United States ,Paris ,France General ,France ,Marina District ,San Francisco ,American ,Kay Connor ,Shirley Temple ,Faber Greentree ,Andel John ,Tina Tim ,Matthew Green ,Jose Lopez ,