Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Land Use 32116 20160331

Text. Thank you commissioner Vice President cleaveland. laughter . So this is another social media question the preservation and education component, however, you are traveling by foot or car be respect and aware of each other so again what social media was employed in getting out that message im sure youre going on facebook and out on the website putting this message out there ill have to ask the pio did the pio do a presentation or introduced themselves. You mean jonathan yes introduced himself. Maybe it is a good idea to have him delineate on what he is doing hes on the move this is only in february. Lounge do you think that will forefront a social media policy that maybe the best time to come before us. You dont want i dont want to but them on a timeline so it wasnt an easy thing to put together other departments have a hard time drafting them across the country. Perhaps he can come sooner than later and the social media policy will be part of the strategic plan. Im assuming so in what regards. There will be a category that outreachethe essential media policy. Thats a good point. I think that essential expirations that it is included the strategy plan. Good idea. I think i have one more question regarding the times excuse me experiencing better take place on Treasure Island and the yuld you said ventilation leave and slopes. I said some of the buildings on slopes or the building well be doing some of drills you enter at a certain level behind the building goes down the slopes we have had 3 fatalities and serious injuries we want to get it right. This is a wonderful resource yuld and Treasure Island as buildings are being you know either torn down we get a chance to go in and do a lot of good training i wonder have the k9 units on Treasure Island. On Treasure Island there are proposals but as far as where the construction is going on ill have to deter to any colleague. Chief director of training yes, commissioners, in fact, ive been in contact with chief Francisco Many of the three or four concrete buildings on Treasure Island at this point have problems on west side facing the city will be demolished met with the occasion company last friday looks like a good clan to get the dogs in after the demolitions before we roach the pile. That would be wonderful to do that it is i guess a couple of years since i joined the k9 united south of the city and saw the training and the operation and the volunteers that are hidden throughout large buildings and the dog sniff them out it is very, very impressive training one of the things they have so few large spaces in which to practice and to give the dogs practice anytime they come on an opportunity that is an opportunity with a large building or complex building i think we always need to keep in mind the k9 units. I agree and the new area a challenge for the dog. And the dogs are like people in a lot of ways they like new challenges all right. Thank you any last questions oh. Sorry. Commissioner nakajo. Thank you, madam president chief gonzales i have one comment question not comment question in terms of the your report before i do that i do want to acknowledge Public Comment at the information that Public Comment was really appreciated we did have a lively discussion with the city of chicago and that was not my question chief gonzales any update on station 39 negotiation. As far as the negotiate im not at liberty to talk about that but personally lets get it done and workout what we need to work out the money is there we need to fund the positions i see the reality of putting rc4 back into the field. I appreciate your candid. Thank you commissioner nakajo. I wanted to point out that the report if operations with the continuation thats why the dates were in february and operations will be reporting out again at our next meeting so i just wanted to people to know weve ran out of time during one of the morning meetings thats why operation is prepared in february tonight again, thank you to everyone and madam secretary. Item 6 agenda for next Fire Commission meeting an april 13, 2016. Suggestions. Commissioner nakajo. May want and commissioners i dont know how you want to approach this may be a report update from chief lombardi and any update prefixing we ask important unit reviews are those updates chief i dont know the prerogative of the departments and the chief if we might be able to have an update currently with this operation at the airport thats my only suggestion at this time may want. Thank you commissioner hardeman. Nothing maam. May want. Commissioner Vice President cleaveland. Nothing at this time all right. Thank you i know we have several other items that are out there and the Vice President and i will put our pedestrians e Heads Together and format the next agenda. Also a letter from mta from the guardian employees for acknowledgement at an upcoming. If in your packet. Okay. Thank you. Any other matters before us okay. Any Public Comment . At this time. Oh, yes. Can i make a request close the meeting in memory of the people that lost their lives in belgium is that appropriate. Those people that lost their lives in brussels this meeting is adjourned in their memory thank you good evening and welcome to the wednesday, march 30, 2016, of the San Francisco board of appeals the presiding officer this evening is commissioner honda and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner ann lazardus and commissioner swig and commissioner wilson to my left is thomas owen the deputy City Attorney and will provide legal advice and the legal assistant aim sgmd legal assistant aim sgmd scombmd and were joined by representatives from the City Departments that have cases before this board. Chris bucks is with the San Francisco public works and jarvis an Affairs Manager with the muni taxable services and joined by senior intrishs and Scott Sanchez Planning Department will be representing the Planning Commission and the the Planning Commission and the Planning Department pr please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. Have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments. There are Customer Satisfaction forms available. If you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking please stand now okay do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you very much well start with item number one this is the opportunity to speak on items not on tonights calendar. Walter thank you. Good evening board of appeals and why dont we appeal away why dont we appeal away into the night make that turnout right. And hey wont you play none somebody done somebody done somebody wrong and make the appeals Community Based right. I miss any city wont you turn it out pretty and you got no money and you got no home spinning wheels on appeals the stone drop all your troubles at the commission side and make it turn t out right thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other general Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments commissioners no. And item 3 which is the boards consideration of the minutes the march meeting any changes or addition any Public Comment on the minutes okay. Seeing none we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that vote is 5 to zero and the minutes are adopted moving on is item number 4 appeal number sarah, William Francis the third and william versus the department of building inspection the property is appealing the issuance on january to martha from a remodeling units administrative reviews the waltz and adrc one bathroom and workmans comp one electrical and plumbing on separate permits on for hearing well start with the appellant. Thank you you have 7 minutes to present our case. Thank you maam. I am donald i regret im unable to sing any presentation but work on that more next time before we get started i want to request commissioner honda several statements well to respond to statements in actually not relevant to that but statements mad representation of fact that are not true ear rebutting that with the declarations under oath from the two of the appellants and our request permission it be submitted into the record so sarah. No, we dont need to take these do we. It is up to you the board. What do you guys think. It is relevant. Im sorry. If it is relevant to what i think is relevant to accept the assistance. Well not have time to read the material nor the permit holder had access to that at this point. Im sorry, im sorry please sit down. Not at that time go ahead and start youre a i indicated my name is donald i represented the tenants on 22 street two brought the appeal im the neighbor and also 0 a long time homeowners that lives 4 doors down i took the case an pro bono im disgusted of the new owner and the project manager that disregard the rights of tenants and the two united their seeking to tramp on the laws and the insistence that you are less able to defend themselves in cashing out on the real estate boom in San Francisco as we noted in our belief this appeal epitomize the one that is socially and a home against city only the white can reside thats not what made San Francisco what it is today as the letters from over a dozens of nightclubs enough is enough the citys policies and laws must be enforced thats why were before you today first ill to introduce you to the original tenants of the apartment william a 69yearold postman who is on a pension as well as a while serving in vietnam to his right is bill a 65yearold nature that was laid off and partially sdarpd among the misrepresentation their claim it no think it protected in this unit in fact, they claim the 2008 lease is the original lease for this part time that is 23409 not true as the declarations will attest this lease hold comments in 1y69d 2000 and their protected by the virtue of their age and the time the unit the real obviously may seem like a Building Permit but the offering of the owners since the managers since day with an to cash in on the real estate boom by get rid of the tenants and selling the tics to the highest bidder the facts were disputed by the appellant in their brief and another reason weve submitted this declaration awe testing to the statements by the Property Owners and the pshlg about to do piling what i described their acts speak louder than word necessary bought out the twin peaks in the lower units and a protective tenant that lives the unit for 40 years and have the imputing of those two apartments one the containments with the Building Permits applications provide a scant description of the work that doesnt allow the pravpt to do their job they were ripped to the studs and some were removed new plumbing nothing original that remains in either of the units and now precisely what the permit holder seek to do they tried to boot out the parapets and the permit holders id like to an action and in their brief to insult the intelligence by claiming that eviction was not an eviction but the project sponsors to find out the identity of the people the tenants the Property Owners who boulth the building in 2014 knew of the attendants identity because the tenants provided an eis tool a copy of which is provided the dilations weve offered today and if this what was not enough 10 months before the permit holders set a 614 a rent control ordinance with the two recipient they identified every single one of the occupants and the eviction what was brought to muscles them to get them out we were in fact, getting lawyers and the case was promoting terminated by the Property Owners they have no case they know who 9 residents are and no case for violating and p in the primary news we have the Affordable Housing as soon as that section was dismissed within a week they submitted their Building Permit to do what at the did the intent of the renovation to do precisely as described and take advantage and basically abuse a provision on rent control law that allows the Property Owners to evict their tenants up to 10 months for Capital Improvements it is not the type of Capital Improvement by that law it is simply to encourage landlord to keep their units up that requires the evictions so be that that law also allows the landlords to get an extension on the 3 months and as seen from the records weve presented in the opening brief the project manager knows that law well and take advantage of it to keep the tenants out up to a year we precisely expect that why . Because the renovations in the lower units have been underway for a year and still not k34e9d their hope in a year it whether no longer be able to move into their unit theyll philosophical their goal of selling to the highest bidders thats not their intention were here aspect latino to sell as tics this is exactly what they said and absolutely what their actions will be their intention to follow on but the priority guidelines by the citizens and which require projects to maintain go Affordable Housing and economic diversities in the neighborhoods i have of their rentcontrolled unit as apartments they have spent a future rentcontrolled unit well above the 25 holidays not van the economic diversities if we requested this permit urban design denied and enforce the priority guidelines if i may wrap up this will request a few moichgsz first we request more than wrapping up youll have time on rebuttal. Okay well hear from the permit holder now. Good afternoon. My name is a agreeing alex an, an attorney i apologize from my accents i came from rather than i feel im still russia because this was a political speech on mortal grounds ive not heard a word about the actual permits but let me first address the issues were here were here in view the permit the subject property a 3 unit 3 floor building this subject on appeal is one of the steps of the renovations we have the appeal the more calm approach there were consistence with the enforcement we didnt weigh that opportunity today to discuss and then see how the board decides to change it we want to apply for an amended plan in pursuant to the planning code and exhibit a attached to our brief shows the amended plans and exhibit b is the set of plans subject to this so those technical grounds in youll fairness weve addressed the political grounds also has a site that is grounds for them to have the unit at a lower price and on the grounds we disagree weve not singled outburst this unit it was a planning innovation from top to bottom no as a say 75 more than 75 percent replacement of the frame therefore neither the original plan more the amended plan requires a permit for approval there is no issue it is not brought up to our issues of the subject of the approval there are a r officially two bedrooms and one bathroom, under 9 plans i understand the place is used as four bedrooms but the plans are official legal authorized 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms the permit is in line with the citys plans general plan and agenda of housing there is absolutely no change so no change the character of the community or the city and there is for the tenants to move back as the gentleman did on the bus he had a unit renovated and the tenants moved in after the renovation were done we dont know the declarations that were to brought to the copy o to do board i cant comment on this the bulk of the time of my appointment was a political speech to reach i dont know how to respond on the technical ground of the subject i will show instead liv e this looks like only awe applicable point to brought to your attention and the response to the 75 percent category of the innovated floor plan i attempted to highlight the existing this will be the overhead and remembered framing the red shows the removed framing and sorry for any graphical skills to bring this back it shows it in place and. Could you speak into the microphone. The rates between what is moved up and in place is i manufactured it and this is my notes if you can see it is not 50 50 but definitely not 75 to 25 if we accept the lengths of this plan then one and 85 units will be remaining and two hundred 46 at best will be removed and when i say 200 and 46 i tent the contested one a area the building that chars the closet and we send in a picture in our brief i dont hear any rebuttal from the colleagues so with that, i will not take any more time of the board but like to im going to turn it over to the gentleman to address some of the political charges brought. Hello, im the permit holders and an agent for the owners i would like to state that i never had any evictions in the city not a single one i know ive been described as a real estate speculator and yes, he own properties i roommate them most of the time, i hold the properties as rentals our attention to this building to roommate the property from ground up we started with the first floors and will be the third floors i have no intention to evict those people i only done once this type of improvement with the tenants allowed to move on back into the unit and theres no other case ive not been involved in any other cases the previous case that was brought over the tenants to find out what was living there and get information on sarah who has been paying for the apartment. Thank you, sir, your time is up. Youll have time in rebuttal. Thank you. Well hear from the department now. Mr. Duffy and mr. Sanchez. Mr. Sanchez thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department so the Planning Department didnt review this permit and didnt review the interior alterations to this was not up for review the issue was raised the planning code 311 are requires the neighborhood notification in the event that 75 percent or more of the fraem felt entire building is roach that transitions the neighborhood notification this permit before you on appeal in and of itself didnt do that and come first or possibly comprise 35 percent of the framing of the building but provided the copies of the plans for the other units and covet just looking at and doing rough calculations less than 75 percent of the building removed that is before you the reduceed plans we didnt review the whole plans not the whole calculations but an initial review it is less than 75 percent will not trigger the neighborhood notification that is what i wanted report to you ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. In reviewing the smaller plans theyre up to scale is it close to the 75 percent. It appears to be the encounter demolition the upper unit seems to be slightly less than the lower unit and i think that is pretty close to 75 percent the upper unit given you can trusting the calculations of the project sponsor that if it is less than 35 percent that appears that certainly the two units are the permits are not on appeal because their xhejsz the notice got away from us on the units. The second question is that since theyre closed what scrutiny in regards to the department are they taqueria the project sponsor word or some type of justification of the walls or the percentage that has been removed from the units. At this point theres no scrutiny of our department we didnt review the plans those plans were not before us for review we didnt do the calculations in this do board has concerns we could review the whole plan and make the calculations more definitely on that but we will need time and assess to the full plans for all the floors in order to make that determination it triggers the neighborhood notification which gives us the ability for someone to it is early how much time does the department need to review that. Not much time i think it is april 20th well have time provided we get proper excess to the full plans from the project sponsor to make those calculations. Thank you very much. A quick question any indication the first set of plans were 75 percent. No are the 3 units are separate plans submitted for the lower t is one permit in this unit was on a separate permit my estimation of the plan and trying to measure it out somewhat it seems close. Thank you one more question, please, sir i understand the 75 percent change in the overall unit but i think in this case in reviewing the brief not yet in the testimony there was an issue of configuration and you know you can tear down 4 waltz or a building apartment which previously housed four people that are independent parties not living with each other and if you tear down two walls 25 percent of the apartment 75 use percentage might go away and suddenly four people have to live together. In this case how im confused as or need clarification from mr. Larkin how we might view that because were trying to protect housing the city, were trying to protect Affordable Housing if i go off wrong can you help me out and therefore even the 25 percent change which changes the configuration of this apartment takes to units of housing two bodies away out of that apartment kind of flies the face of what the city is trying to achieve can you help me out how you evaluate that. Some Internal Revenue requirements it providing a certain number or percentage of bedrooms, etc. For most of city we dont have that requirement that requirement for a bedroom mix is not in place here if theyre coming in and not changing the size of unit but reconfiguring it and having and are two bedrooms to a fourbedroom or keep the rooms and now this is a media room the planning code didnt speak to that no that springs into place we know certainly units in the city that maybe three or four bedrooms but only one person lives there we cant regulate how they use those bedrooms with the codes it addresses mergers earrings in they are you know noncompliance two unit and only one cooking facility that is clear we regulate it further if they reduce the size mornl 25 percent we can take it and put it towards an existing unit and in fact, that is a merger but that is not the case their own reconfiguring the unit to you know the number of bedrooms or the location of the bedroom it not something we will regulate under the planning code. So the consequence will force potentially two people to define housing if stlfrs a move banking back in kind of like tough luck. Most of scenarios people are remodeling their homes because maybe their kids left and want more space or a variety of things we dont look at it by little issues it is more a red rent board matter. In terms of your comments mr. Sanchez that in the eastern neighborhoods the market octavia and new construction and applies to the worm units in an existing building. In those neighborhoods. In these neighborhood this is. Not a district that is subject to the requirement. What. It is not a neighborhood that is subject to that requirement well hear from inspector duffy now. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the Building Permit was issued overthecounter before the permit continuation more remoldings number 26 plus adding one bathroom, and one laundry room and logically of kitchen and bedrooms on two separate permits i proposed the separate permits it was reviewed by building and wrote routed to the Fire Department under the mechanic plan check in the district of columbia was the routing as well it is a typical interior with a remodeling of apartment it didnt have issues of the Building Code from our Building Code it doesnt appear to have issues from what i seen on the plans anyway the permit they october on the 2015 that is not under appeal it is pretty similar i believe the description and that permit was issued on may 2015 i checked the inspection it looks like it all inspects have been performed theyre pretty much finished the work on those so what i saw in the plans just on the number of bedrooms it looks like an existing two bedroom and one bath apartment and now going to be 4 bedrooms and to bath thats what ive seen on the plans that is an increase the bedrooms but we do so these sometimes the old design people like to modernize them and make the space a little bit better im available to answer any questions. Mr. Duffy references by the project sponsor to revise the permit. Typically we dont see changes to the permits when their appealed theres an suspension sometimes in this case we didnt get a block they saw something on the appeal when the permit was appealed and looks like they got a revision to reflect the previous plans that is the permit under appeal plans dont reflect the existing bedrooms and on this number of rooms this is smoking gun some discrepancies they fixed. It was an discrepancy of the existing rooms. Maybe not an issue with the dining room like converted to a bedroom but i see the revision permit it the package and it is showing 3 floor plans that existing as approved and proposed so looks like they fixed it but that typically we dont see this is something that you will would see on a permit discussed and afterward something that the board tells us to do but in this case it didnt get flagged at dbi and they actually on the 29 of march got a door permit and should have stopped this they may not be valid permits we have in this case we never got the address block i noticed that the last day or two. Thank you. Any Public Comment on this item . Hello. Thank you thank you for the opportunity to bring those issues to the board thank you for the opportunity to bring those issues to the board my name is paul tenant im a neighbor of the mr. Willis and mr. Con den ive also on yoeshg street for 39 years and over that period of time wilted two waves of gentrification through the mission in 2009 i had a small Manufacturing Business the bayview and did business with likeminded entrepreneurs the mission i saw entire warehouses boric acid and gutted and businesses many of them forced to relocation the city and many of them outside of the city and some of them just were not able to adjust and went out of business in 2016 this is the severe wave of gentrification ive witnessed our Small Businesses have largely been dislocated and so, now the focus is on the most vulnerable of our neighbors those who rent with low income and they dont own their homes i would add to the given in life death and taxes change im not one to believe we can stop change i believe that we collectively as a community and city we have a responsibility to each other to try and mitigate the worse exchanges of changes that we see their motivated and advanced through greed, through a kind of shortsighted well lack of care in terms of the larger picture of our communities and whether we own our homes or not ive lived in the mission long enough to know and fortunate after almost 25 years of renting to a block my home were all effected by the changes that happen and ill like to encourage all avenues of redress to our best efforts to as i said smooth out the worst of excesss and speculation is one of them. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . Hello is this the milk can you guys hear me im wendy live directly from on this building where many neighbors live there for 40 years for many years i know that when this place was sold those guys were let me say ive lived there since 95 and not long im not counting the years ive been there for a long time bill and bill and i wanted to say the minute the building was sold they were under pressure to get out it was you know it was really felt strongly i felt a lot of compassion because of difficult it is to move i was evicted temporarily the first home we had i was given a year to move back into where i was to move in the renovations were you less than it looks like theyre trying to do here it was impossible and a completely different compliment i wasnt disabled i was young and it was really, really hard i had to give up any place and i also sit on the board of the latin cultural district the quatro were seeking those temporary evictions spiral into long time evictions over and over and over again workingclass and disabled people dont have the resources to find another place in San Francisco to move i know their given money not much more money that they did in 95 and then to hold their jokes together or just to be able to find a place together for that amount of time to move in i think the two bottom floors were empty for a year it looks like a massive renovation theyre doing all really Good Neighbors and i just feel like this is just a way to get people out it is just not fair thats it its not fair going to be so hard on the existing tenants one question there is a handicap tenants do the renovation allow for that at all . Thank you. Yep. Any other Public Comment . Morning or good evening board diane recipient of the city and county of San Francisco 23 years my daughter is a native it is going on everywhere i think that the tighter we make the marines the more theyll figure out ways the landlords definitely were in the midst of a slow down but still and gentrification period it is california is failing into the ocean in the pacific we have an opportunity to change it i think that requiring bear minimum common sense things from landlord with the permits, the authorized agents, a as i understand document who is responsible for what it is related with the conflict of interest and the chain of the titles if youve seen the big short it is scary wear on the fiscal cliff and theyll not get the money in 5 years it is also be detroit it will be a problem so i feel for you people and thank you to all the attorneys and the probones and those that take the nonprofits and the time miff not getting the 6 million a year and anything the Planning Department or any of the departments can do to make sure the rightful owners the authors agent is who they are there is no conflict of interests with the Architect Firm who is doing the plans i mean, we need really to tighten reigns on purported owners thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment. Hi my name is marie im with the quatro this is the mission is facing a crisis we have a housing crisis people are being veektsd left and right and here we have a 3 unit building that should be under rent control and theyre getting evicted why . Because somebody bought the building and wants to flip it is it is a typical story area terrible one thing i want to address youre talking about the 75 percent how is it that a unit that has all the walls taken out and the electricity redondo, and has walls moved and has 75 percent it sounds like a 100 percent remodel to me anyway, i think this is ridiculous were in our own the Planning Department hell ourselves and why can somebody walk in to industry a unit weve had to fight and fight and fight for ourselves ours it is a very uneven justice in the city and this unit this building i wish you would reject it once again low income renters and people that provide the backbone the city are punished not the weighty they can afford we kicking out rernlts rule u youll not have teachers and firemen they cant afford it so you have to stop it please reject this plan thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . Okay. Seeing none well take rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 minutes. Thank you ill request again your reconsideration of accepting the declaration proper and propose that the permit holders be given an opportunity toe rebutton the declaration i believe facts that are relevant to our Decision Making and it will be a shame not to be considered because the appellants are speaking for themselves and facts those other people have no knowledge and regardless of the 75 percent absolutely without a keep a look out the original that preliminary were roving 75 percent of the walls because there were dimensions of every single rooms were the revised permit last week that can be demonstrated by the full sized planks weve not been provided a copy but that would be helpful for the Planning Department to do precisely that action they can see the notification were there and liquor store not broke out before the planning this permit that displaces those tenants and dexhushg the unit got an orally approval from dbi that is not a means for responsibility for the agents regards with regards to the political statement the politics did adapt prop m thats where we were with the will of the voters and thats what is establishing the priority guidelines con convened regardless of units are apartments or sold ass as tics theyll not be quotes to anyone more available for people with connective diversities the folks that afford the two bedrooms are 5 thousand dollars rents a 4 bedroom unit you can only imagine and many economically diversifies individuals that can afford those certainly not with regards to the number of bedrooms the initial permit applications said theyll have two bedrooms now theyre new permit claims thaig theyll create 4 this apartment is a 4 bedroom apartment for the duration of the time that the tenants had dating back to 2000 that is the declaration the 3 things we want to see if approved number one a months permit limitation and reconfigure the unit so the current configuration that allows the egress for fire safety is available for all the tenants the plan puts that behind the door of a bedroom that can be locked and third no clauses closets provided in two of the bedrooms and under the new situation theyre describing they simply change the label of a den and call it a bedroom and no closets in that room or other rooms their remoldings we request those changes not to be made until this place is habitable and coauthored to the gentleman it is finally with regards not evicted in any tenants calling your attention additional notice of halfdozen of actions weve attached to the opening brief it lists the actions and sued for wrongful eviction of thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, sir. Like to start the reverse order based on our fresh memory the exhibit a of that moving papers shows some Court Actions not all of them brought by the gentleman but some brought against the gentleman not one result in eviction you can see them separate not one syrup action the court so this correction and now ive heard a lot of emotional statements but here for the main purpose of the addressing the permits so for one brief second ill calling your attention to exhibit b of our belief it shows the plans particularly the page a1. 2 ill repeat it on the overhead the page a1. 2 shows the remaining framing which is marked here in green and the proposed in red looking from the architect how and what happened was whatever the discrepancy he happened to have the plan the point of the story is clearly not more than 75 are percent proposed to remove even on that so even at the original plan it is 50 50 what is remaining in terms of the framing that was supposed to be removed now ill show you cabinet a that shows the amended plan and on that exhibit a we have page a2 that the zero ill try there are are two drawings one the eastern floor plan and the proposed on the top the proposed floor plan is 4 bedrooms the. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 2 bathrooms one and two the increase and under addressing commissioner swigs comments on not making relatives living together forces them together and this is just the permit as inspector duffy pointed out the inspections the brishgsz that complies with the inspector duffy indicated the gentleman had k078 applied with the inspection on the lower units the Commission Wants questions for the architect he is present here. Excuse me i like our client came up earlier can you come up. Im sorry. Your client the question i have for you sir, you mentioned your rent of the owner are you the owner or a representative of the owner. Im a representative audience youre not the owner. No. When you gave our history has to bearing to what the owners are doing; correct . Correct but i was answering the brief that was submitted by the other side arrest plaintiff and the entire challenge is based on what i did. And the other in question would be since youre the representative of the owner which are present when they purchased this property. Yes. When they purposed the property what was sdlosz disclosing and youre under oath at this point. As far as being protected over and over not protected. It was presented to those people moistened in 2008, i believe and theyve claimed theyre living there more than 10 years and when the previous owners asked them to submit information on our beef they never submitted the information to prove half a between living in the unit. When you purposed the property it was not disclosed they were there at that time. No. Id like to answer to the question. Go ahead. The protected status of tenants is for evictions of owner movein that is not the tenant for the whole city that is the protected tenant it is the right to claim protected status. Thats not the question counselor what was disclosed at the time of the sale protected and not protected. Weve clarify. Please sit down thank you. Okay. Any rebuttal from the departments mr. Duffy no . Yes commissioners just one point that was brought up the second part the egress for the second egress that bedroom door should not have a lock on the inside of that door ive not on the plan it is a point of order that bedroom goes through the bedroom to get to the egress it definitely shouldnt be electable from the inside it is part of plan but i dont think so it we can do it during the inspections i want to point out. Are you finished im sorry inspector how can be that construed for fire and safety. It is an apartment so not a public building so you can exit through a bedroom you can go into a room that are for the fire cape but the bedroom door not lockable. Theres no code that says there should be a lock. It should be on there it should be. It is a little bit different from the area plan i dont think it is the same configuration. Thank you very much this remains we had 11 lombard we had a building with a lot of work on the Different Levels and it was talked about a relocation and work was done the building i wanted to remind you of that i was speaking with Community College but a multi unit building they were able to figure how to move people around the building that was mentioned just for. How did that workout. It worked out it worked out. Believe it or not for everything so. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for mr. Sanchez. Is there a Legal Definition of a bedroom in terms of it hazard to have a closet. Under the Building Code. Oh. No single definition. No requirement of a closet. I dont think that is, we have lofts theyre not considered bedrooms. Commissioners joe duffy dbi luckily i anticipated this question. Im sorry. No requirement for a closet the room cant be more than 7 feet and have to have an egress window and i checked the plans it shows a window in that room it which will be inspected by the fire and bring to your attention and the ceiling height 7 foot 6. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Im confused between concept and realty the concept being the 75 percent item and the reality that something that is less than 75 percent in some plan in reality becomes more than that i heard mr. Sanchez talk about i think verification of since this year has has been already two units that were adjusted the testimony they remember down to the studs that is 100 percent and that was significantly done that plies more than 75 percent that would be bigger and then plans that indicate it is far less than 75 percent how do we you know, i would hate im confused think outside the box 0 point and how do we get a verification in fact, since there are two units that have been under construction and seemingly are underway how to get a verification, in fact, those constructions or reconstructions have gone according to their plans and dont steady 75 and a implies for the bottom unit. So what is before us commissioners is the legitimacy of the permit not all the drama; right . As a licensed realtor for over 18 years is a landlord and it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that is a profit over humanity and unfortunately, were not here for that but to second yours i feel it would be nice the department to verify the squeamish on the property thats my feeling unfortunately, were not here were here for the permits it is for the legitimacy of the permits but i would feel for comfortable if if the department got involved and from the plans were different in a couple of diversities ways ill feel more comfortable. Your im in the same thing camp i find it troubling those revised permits police chief said they shouldnt have but i feel like there is a hiccup ill move to continue it subject to the verification of the amount of Square Footage or whatever the term is that is being done to displace and some rationalization between the two sets of permits. Okay. What would you im along with that commissioner fung. What material would you allow them to provide. Well, i think im asking. Just the department. The department to form a calculation based on the set of recent permits this is doable. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. So, yes, the permit holder can have the building show the full sized plan well dimension those out and make a determination in the 311 determination will be for the interior framing. I dont know sorry from the mr. Duffys department would provide the changes. I think we could adjourning work on that with the changes of the version seem minimal. It is confronting to know that is the case and confirm 3 didnt trigger the notification of the 75 percent of the removal of the part of building. As part that have can there is given two of the units have been already xhundz can there is a reconciliation of the action in those units to affirm. Maybe the sheetrock stage it is covered up to determine or determine whether or not the framing is covered up in terms of it was the studs are the framing their the studs that will comply with the framing but were happy to review those plans and as long as the are permit holder can provide those. Thank you mr. Sanchez and a reconciliation or does dbi side this reconciliation between the plans and what was asked the units. It will be department of building inspection. Just to we are that joe duffy dbi this scope of the work shows the walls to be demolished and what walls to remain as part of rough frame the inspectors are meant to check as that is part of the plans and only taking out the walls and get an permit instructed by a discretions be notice a revision notice to document the walls to be dooshdz im assume and the district inspector that we had a walls removed were showing on the plans it was done and inspected per the plans we are at sheetrock is just the fact you use the plans approved in 2015. If they choose to postpone an action on that tonight and move to the verification please. You cant you have to go off the approved plans not take the sheetrock off the only way from the Planning Department to measure what was done in 2015 on the approved plans on the percentage of demolition. Thank you and one last question inspector duffy all the fertile was removed. Yeah. For the electrical upgrades blue the 75 percent doesnt effect one last question City Attorney the appellants attorney mentioned do we have the ability to put a time stamp in regards to the board to work to be performed. No. I dont think. No. No. No. Thank you. So ill move to continue the item to april 20th is that our next meeting and ask that the two departments verify between the approved plans and the revised preliminaries it is sufficing of the walls and any additional changes. Say the last part again. Any major or significant changes been the original permit and i will put into the record that was orientated on march 16 we know what were referring to an that motion by commissioner lazarus commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. That motion carries and that will be on the board calendar april 20th. We move on to item number 5 appeal gold star taxi with the muni agency of a color scheme permit revocation of the permit and well start with the appellant. Ongoing good evening commissioner honda and honorable commissioners im heidi representing the gold star taxi company the appellant that boils down to the main question what constitutes good cause to revoke a taxi company they want to dismiss this as a legal technicality we consider due process and sufficient evidence to be more than Technical Technology cattles we hope you feel the same sfmta has asked them to revoke on the 17 reviews that are written by the public over the course of 4 years sfmta asked to you revoke unyou substantiated allegations without any evidence and any due process like everyy hearing sfmta has recycled old citations in a leading efforts to get the board to support their actions we have a problem with the brief of sfmta i prepared a table that id like to offer to this board if youll accept that that in the interest of time and will certainly make myself available to answer any questions and, of course, a copy for sfmta ill ask to be passed if youll accept that commissioner honda. Why not use the overhead and it we have questions well ask. Im going to use the overhead on a trouble and exhibits id like to present to this board again in response to new allegations and i think in order for this board to get a full picture please accept this if you would ill sit that there and let you think about that. Okay. So finally with regards to revocation sfmta asked for a revocation on a safety violation theyve defined as gold star having the wrongs phone number on documents that are on file at the same time mit the sfmta has been able to reach golds star by phone and now present a timeline on the offend projector. Face that like our viewing that. Okay. Thank you. God starring business for 4 years and under the sfmta radar in 2015 and put gold star probation by may 28 july 2nd after inspecting each and every vehicle an gold stars lot sfmta issued an all clear notice with no citations okay. So over the course of the next 5 weeks july 10th to august 12th sfmta issued more saving these are failure to coordinate were issued on the same day for the same offense and september 2nd they ask do for a hearing but they adam in a revocation notice on the citations and because gold star had alleging places this public in danger on november 20th the hearing officer heard the case and gold star wanted to know what happened when San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency issued a revocation that was bubbled with the review the hearing officer after the hearing dismissed 6 out of 12 of the citations that were supposed to help to substantiate sfaufts case for revocation the how fast reduced the fines from 70,000 to less than 2,700 skipping ahead here we are with a bunch of urban substantiated allegations in packages in sfmta brief bearing in mind the sustained allegations we ask the board to focus on those rather than on random arm waving and misleading arguments that are not supported by a citation or any law not to mention die process we would like to give this board good cause to keep the small cab in business they have have been in business for 14 years and not put out of business with civilizations that happened over the course of 3 week half were dismissed gold star invests the Company Despite being under seize he a threat of revocation since april none in theyre right mind will continue to invest including 4,000 to repave the lot i have the reset for gold star fixed all the vehicles sdishz by invested in money in paving the lot and retandz an attorney me and they did invest in new management nun of the sustained civilizations were related to a failure to respond to an email and failure to submit timely paperwork in conclusion we like to urge this body 0 overturn sfmta revocation order if youre using this to shut down the companies i have a formula of yellow cab i would like you to look at the item you have before you and ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Or wait for any rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murray. Good evening, commissioners j jarvis this is gold star taxi company that is held by the permit holder i dont believe the gentleman is here today hes i dont know why but not here so there are allegations that are made in my brief regarding the gentleman i was hoping he would be here to discuss but regardless regarding this matter gold star has numerous problems under the gentleman permit ownership yes, it has been a company for 14 years in that period held by the gentleman a Small Company i think one to 3 taxis at the time it selfhave any problems but under the gentleman it has grown but it is also grown 2, 3, 4 problems and those problems were addressed at the hearing the biggest problem which was at the hearing in high papers one being just force the mtas hand regarding gold star inspections it was a failed inspection of one vehicle and the second vehicle the issue those vehicles kept on operating one after the inspection was done 4 months on the road a safeties issue no matter that is this kind of issue it if something serious happened we didnt r didnt want to wait but that will be devastating the mta will vet and say to everyone in our code that each vehicle is inspected every year and every vehicle over 200,000 inspected twice a year and these vehicles are also inspected when they change the companies there is a constitution of the vehicles this company choose to ignore it was not clear they didnt had had inspection all we know they didnt have one and this happened with two vehicles in the just one vehicle but both vehicles and part of this it gold stars mismanagement of the company the overall mismanagement to the communications with the public and the communication with the sfmta the evidence we presented and the things ive mentioned in our brief is not necessarily not in any information this is information that is ongoing ongoing for 3 months or 6 months or next year well have a consistent problem with be able being able to reach the permit holder for gold star and you can fix the vehicle one time but didnt mean you stop fixing them 3 or 6 months later theyre trying to introduce the vehicles into the fleet that are dangerous vehicles if we didnt inspect them we wouldnt know were trying to raise the level of standards for many of our companies our job to insure that the public can trust with the sfmta says it is a good company from the sfmta has approved and vetted the taxi company whether one cab or 10 thousand carvings the public should know if there is a problem is can be and the and the public should feel comfortable knowing the vebz vehicles are properly inspected and the Company Public should feel comfortable if theres a problem theyll not get the round around who should i talk to and the only numbers are for a couple cell phones for presidios and good luck thats not appropriate our role to do something when he is a large problem we try to work with every company as gold star and tried to work with gold star and encouraged their development and pretty much we said go forward and make as much money but when things go wrong it is our job to step in im not sorry that gold star feels oppressed by the citations but citations are part of what happens if you have a driver that is operating our vehicle not permitted by us this is a problem for us and, yes an incident that occurred and an incidents i put in my brief as an indication of the kind of things to deal with the gold star Cab Companies and had an issue with the airport stopped a vehicle for you know in their opinion they blackballed a vehicle not yes, well cite them and theyll say it is not fair we shouldnt be closed for skipping our violation but good cause under the codes involves a lot of things by any violation of the transportation code i dont think we have to wait for the most severe thing before we closed a company we went to the hearing officer the hearing officer sided us on some issues not others they felt our penalties were too high and not a rubber stamp by the hearing officer this is okay we gave the information to you whatever the outcome obviously the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency will abide by that outcome ill say i feel confident that in a few months if gold star is allowed to keep on operating well be back here discussing some issues whether or not theyll claim no Small Company and the sfmta is going after us we go after any company were here for the public trust and continue to do that thank you. I have a question. Certainly. So the briefs were a little bit different on each does the disparity was quite different so the permit holders attorney laid a timeline of what happens and you were present how accurate in your opinion the timeline she putdown forward. In here brief. That she her oral brief. I couldnt see that well on the performer. Can you give him a copy please. Because in here oral submissions they stated all vehicles were inspected july 2nd and cleared and the other question that like you said your board is not a rubber stamp but roughly 70 thousand to 2000 that is a significant significant number well, i, explain both of those figures so in terms of the inspection that was equipment gold star didnt have equipment in the vehicles routing weve seen them on the street and not a set of equipment for radio equipment so what our inspectors inspected the equipment their investigators not mechanics theyre the ones that do the annual inspection my inspectors inspected the equipment in the vehicles the other thing was cameras we had an issue with the gold star cameras not working inside of the vehicle and at that point yes, we put them on probation and they accident fix those things and fixed the cameras and got the right cameras and did all those things we cleared for the equipment that was assigned to the vehicles the larger issue the daily amount of fines in terms of the sdpaech we fined them for each day they were not on impeach and each day the car remained on the road without inspection our transportation code doesnt well, i take that back your transportation code allows for the day 5 but not on those particular citation for instance, a Workers Compensation fine a per day fine the attorney i think properly pointed out that well, theres a per day fine here and the manifesting attempted to do the same thing not permitted it is true it is not per day if you add up 300 a day or whatever it i understand up the 70,000 range if you want to fine them you have to fine them for each day and couldnt do that. So was think outside the box an error on your department. An error in interpretation we believed we could give a daily fine but the hearing officer sdraurgd with us. So at this point youre not allowed. We changed the code to allow it based on the civilization we were not that is the way it stood. In our brief you provided a lot of pictures but no depression of i mean it is black and white have no idea what this means and close to 70 pictures. Well, yes their photos of un and i guess it is supposedly a reset for whats the problem in that picture what is the particular problem. Not that picture but if you see other ones and some are somewhat obvious but no explanation on the particular pictures and the last question sorry my second to the last question what were the failures for the cabs not the specifics you said two vehicles didnt pass. Correct back up one vehicle never had inspection it was given a date and stickers on the side the vehicles to be inspected they never returned that vehicle for inspection that was one issue and i dont remember that the failed inspection but given an opportunity to return the vehicle it is not you fail the inspection and not come back but fix it and come back. You provided in our belief it failed i assume there is a reason it failed thats the same question youre asking them are the questions were presenting to you when you say a vehicle failed and not knowing what it gives some bearing so how me personal look at it thank you. I have a couple of questions do you routing look at the the yelp reviews you not routing no. And the other this years a most it sfmta put outlets color scheme is revoked how it it allowed when necessary have the right to appeal the revocation. Well at a point it was after it was revoked by the hearing officer so at the lower hearing it was revoked and at a point it was not revoked we sent out a notice giving them time but sent out a notice giving them a week i forgot the timing but a notice they had not appealed they would not be a company and in a lunch so we let ink know we had a hearing it was row revoked start preparing but once they filed the appeal we sent out a second notice with no revocation. I didnt see that so thank you. Any more questions thank you. Thank you. Were going to take Public Comment can i see a show of hands how many people expect to speak no Public Comment . Okay. Well start our rebuttal. First of all, commissioners id like to say that, yes unfortunately the gentleman had to attend to Family Business and not here tonight unfortunately but mel is here and obviously that is an important issue for the family and so theyre represented second of all id like to address some of the things boy im going to go ahead and take commissioner hondas invitation to put my chart on overhead and really cant see it ill offer to the commissioners if you like to accept it and when sfmta talked about for instance, the failure of the vehicle that had been operating the taxicab despite its previous inspection failure that was dismissed number one and sfmta my mind it didnt know what was going on the agency knew that was going on and records that could have communicated communicated to see from the vehicle was used to transport a passerby but nothing was done and citation was dismissed sfaufl it was trying to raise the level of standards great just codify those new standards so the Company Knows what to expect if there is a new standard that says hey, if you fail a inspection we revoke that make that a law so at least the Taxi Companies know what to expect it is due process no problem finding gold stars number the pages on line of we baby boomers like books they called that number on march 8 im not sure what the problem was regarding the inspector of a driver not permitted by us honda has a permit i have a company copy of the gentlemans permit if you want to see it the fact it is white instead of black really . That didnt matter it expires on 4, thirty and a new allegation weve not hunting u had an opportunity to address good codes there are some given to the drivers i want to see the same support extended to Taxi Companies to keep of them in business ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Maam, do you want to address the second car that never showed up for inspection. The second car that never showed up for inspection in fact, one of the allegations there were cars that were routi routine routinely delinquents ill using the words from the brief that the sfmta presented to the board that numerous citations have been given to this but have you seen any citations i havent in fact, not seeing the second notice and this board hadnt seen the second notice which sfmta sent out that said the taxi was in business and engaged the appeals but the bell was rung you cant unring the bell. Youre not answering the question there were two vehicles one didnt show up one m i a. Weve not had an opportunity to aid that because the citations were given even though San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency saying their delinquent ive not seen the citations given for that. Thank you. Okay. Well take rebuttal from mr. Murray. Thank you commissioners, i actually dont have too much more to add regarding the gentleman he was placed out of service in october that was for every Single Company he has issues and complaint and i know that gold star will pretend theyve never seen it and weve cancelled the old card he was caught trying to use the old card at sfmta and stopped him and said you cant use those they looked him on the system oh, youve been blocked since october you need to go back without a separate matter we dont want to skate the rest of the issues those are the things we routinely deal with with that particular cab company are i want to quickly address a couple of things when writing the brief for this matter i did look at the yelp reviews i was wondering what phone number are they using i know i can contact him by cell phone and their management by cell phones certainly but it is a business number i was looking at only the internet what their number and thats why i hadnt looked those before this is the whole thing about yelp reviews but beyond that the issue for us again, we building that the sfmta job to secure the publics trusts regarding the usage of taxicabs if they feel like theyre in a taxicab and not trust and a values reason if we dont push the inspection to make sure our do the right thing and not just about use it is about how theyll operate the company and serve the public that is the primary issue how youll serve the public safely i dont care how much money it is that will be great frankly hope they do but our bigger issue we tried and tried to work with them we spent a lot of time get it together and the only way to create a system so everyone gets citations we reached a point if you guys cant get it together well site you, we did that and someone asked about the timeline the timeline was you know fairly accurate stieshgd and its been over a year and frankly nothing has changed their here saying please lets us keep our permit no indication theyll comply. Sir, did you say before there was a sticker that was placed on every cab that says that is the date you may be getting inspected. Yes. Not an exact day like in front of 2016 Something Like that. So with the references im referring to commissioner fungs question about the second cab that didnt or did get inspected when a cab no shows if a cab is scheduled according to that citation on the windows for the first of december and dont show up thats a yes or no situation no, they didnt show up. Correct. Therefore of they didnt get a citation they didnt show up. Thats right. So when somebody says what about the second cab and it didnt show up it does matter whether they received a citation or not because all the sticker on the window said you should have shown up on december now youre in breach. For the record the sfmta wont issue that it comes from the people that handles the inspection thank you. Thank you. Okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. I have a question for the lady. In mr. Murrays brief and talked about november 30th he was going to fix the electrical motorist on the gate and hire people when this happened and pave the parking lot can you tell me whether those things happened or not. Certainly commissioner first, id like to is that the statement was taken out of context it was sort of more the context of what we need to do to stay in best can we make a deal can we you know need to buy all new cars or pave the lot i will say that no new taxicab company in a its mind would have have found that that cab Company Invested after the hearing they increased the number of managers, upgraded their equipment as previously mentions as july 2nd all clear memo and paved the half of their parking lot upon which the taxis sit if you look at the pictures that commissioner hondas what are the pictures depicting one thing that is struck me the photos showing the alleged unpaved part of the lot is because that is where the drivers park their personal cars so when the paveers came out they were unable to get to that portion of the lot nevertheless, this is a company that make the effort regarding the electrical Phil Ginsberg the gate not a requirement under the transportation code it is something that gold star hsa had conceptualized something novice, however, you can find in the pictures dig through them there is a picture of the gate and analyst a gate there it does lock and that satisfies the requirement. So, yes they they have not purchased any new fleet. Any theyve no idea needed to and having put into the business the amounts of money 4,000 here and 10,000. Why did they say theyll do it. Again that statement was taken out of the context as in what do we need to do the vehicles currently run between ages 2008 through i think maybe 2014 Something Like that. And you bring a certain familiarity with the color scheme would you say that number of citations was unoriented. Ill not say that is inordinate it was a quick failure write of citations the company is trying to hed those. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So followup on that vufrl that is your business i deal with a lot of Cab Companies. I was this executive director for the Cab Companies for years. There was a flurry not indicative of format what is that telling you in in your opinion a confusion or lack of communication or someone got their feelings here. I tend not to speculate i say maybe all the above you mentioned. Sure. Additional questions. Anybody want to start. Im conflicted. Weve gone with sfmta many times i think there was a lot of contradictions and they were different from commissioner swig yes, a crop dead time it says november i get a parking citation i forgot and the next thing i know i have a penalty notice and have to pay it having multi cabs is a plus but at the same time the cab industry is a hurting industry were ground zero for uber so putting them out of business will not be the best interests but that is my comment. The problem is the fact there is probably some issues here indicating that not everything is perfect you know and when i look at it from that point of view then this is not a Due Diligence excuse me a process die process issue issue presented as i initially was leading that way but not leon that way anymore. From the cab has failed and youre coming to the board of appeals and mentioned the cab has failed do you think people will ask why that cab failed was a seat belt so. Go ahead. I didnt write the brief laughter . Someone want to make a motion. Id like to ask a question of the City Attorney. Do we have only the choice of upholding the rest indication or a continued probation. Im not the City Attorney but not heard the board say anything. As things happen no longer be suspended. Or a number of days my point that is an alternative to revocation within the boards and i think that commissioner lazarus question in some instances some type of ordinances we have no ability to modify it is a yes or no the question is this one of these are not. Youre suggesting we have angle option in terms of whether there is a different level of punishment. Right. But i dont know about probation if you explain more of what you envision. Take a step back i dont feel this company has worked the best interest of the public i dont want to have a harsh punishment but allows them to have a color scheme does make sense. Mr. Murray you heard what commissioner lazarus is leaning towards maybe you can help with that. Certainly. I think the main issue ill have is the enforceability any type of option that will assume a probation i mean, im not quite clear for instance, if so a suspension of the probations operations or matt haney they operate from those conditions the issues ill have if i issue a citation because i can tell you right now there is more coming related to other issues that will be seen by the board perhaps that were doing unfairly and trying to sabotage it i would want to act fairly and someone to monitor it essentially to be sure that yeah, this citation because they dont have any draech versus hey, guys i swear that is true and a citation to prove that i dont know im not certain the board will trust the mta in that matter. From the board had specifically actions they wanted to take they could continue the item and have the parties come back the period and agree on whether certain improvements have been made and certain inspectors have been completed and at a point make a determination. As an example move to maintain the suspension for 3 months them to clear all notices and at that point have another periods of 3 months and if they get another notice in those 3 months one consideration there are a lot of affiliated theyll not been able to operate under gold stars color scheme during the period of suspension. But if we maintain the revocation then they could. Correct. The concern i have i might sounds hard lined thats why i asked the question if youre operating a cab and your operating the spirit of Public Safety and a member of the public get in our medallion cab you have a responsibility to as the operator to keep that cab safe and keep it up to a standard as maintained by the mta and a guarantee of that standard is that you complied with getting the inspections to affirm that standard and if we and so the blaerts yes or no nature thats your responsibility a real big deal if were lows on that one issue right there were putting at risk potentially any of us who gets into a gold star cab any tourists from a foreign city lands or otherwise that gets into that cab and assumes based on the fact it is a medallion it is safe and up to standard much less than a san franciscan im sorry that somebody maybe put out of business but more sorry if someone died because there were a safety issue we allowed look at of the flexibility essentially when the sticker. But was that a safety issue thats what im asking this may be apples and oranges but at the same time the car that stopped before me in midtraffic and cut 3 lanes ever had a pink mustache and no standard thats what their competing with at least a standard here and to me the question i have is there are two violations one didnt show up and theres a severe violation whats the severe violation and none can answer when it severe violation was i mean thats like me going to the hospital i was very sick and thank you, mr. Murray. You give them a pass because their competing with others. Did they cut you off. Theyll have a banner on their cars. I believe were not here not here to argue the merits of mustache that cut you off but to augu argue whether the public trust someone that has been given the responsibility as a medallion that is part of that responsibility is that when it sticker says come in on december 1st it is thats the mandated of that medallion and by not coming in on december 1st whether there is a safety violation or not they are breaching the public trust by not seeing a violation thats why the sticker is there in the first time thats why there is a breech of public trust that is the mandate of holding that medallion. Medallion. I think we should take a motion. Yep. Motion to deny the appeal based on the fact that the permit holder did violated the theory responsibility of having a medallion. Uphold the rest indication on the basis. That the permit holder violated the terms of holding that medallion permit. Holding do color scheme permit okay. On that motion from commissioner swig commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner honda no. Commissioner wilson okay. That is 4 to zero and it carries the revocation is upheld. 4 to one my apologies. Can i have two minutes. After that vote no. Well move on to 6 a through 6 j commissioner honda shall i call those items appeal numbers all of them filed by diana from the San Francisco public works of urban forestry at the appeal of the issuance on february 1st to park merced from trees at the following addresses lake merced boulevard and two avenue and sincerely rerano and resources please wait for the commission to come back and well be continuing. Commissioners there is since there are 10 appeals we have conversations with the parties and agreed to a timeline for each side has maximum of thirty minutes to present their cases and 15 minutes of rebuttal on the ground well start ma , maammaam start. So the zeros out, i guess good evening, commissioners thank you for allowing me to present a few housekeeping items that unfortunately, im one person not a team of administrators or lawyerss and not go do get copies printed but filed an appeal against the dpw order that recommended the denials and conditional approvals as an agent of park merced where they held a hearing on december 17th of 2015 i was arrears of the hearing and great they took a step into the community that was an issue the past but dpw involvement in handling this public input in and the ability of the tenants and residents to participate fully other than the 3 minute mark there are several concerns with request the park Merced Development but the permits are before you today so i do have housekeeping items one of the maps that i referenced in any belief was inadvertently left out a burn in 2008 and 2009 that was included in the eir so i have that for you all if you want to look at that. Were fine. All right. Ill put it on the overhead. Could a i get this presentation on the monitor please it this okay. Good. Oil start with new documents that kind of came across any desk this is a tree disclosure statement from the Planning Department signed by robert actually ill do the overhead first for a few items that is dated january 7, 2008, and it says that there are almost 5 hundred trees under the bureau of urban forestry or department of public works purview on the property do you see that i dont know from the overhead is on your screen not on that one. Oh, can we have the overhead. Im sorry. Ill have to flip back and forth so was was as i understand in 2008, so the gentleman has been involved with that property since at least that time and was aware that he had to follow guidelines related to the care of the trees and following dpws regulations related to the trees that one says there are 200 and 98 street trees hes aware of and on the next page one and 98 street trees that hes aware of and he signs again under various penalties this is available if you want it or if project sponsors attorney wants it so really that is a question of clarification lets get started ill do this a little bit different lift evry voice and sing ly by dpw 408dz those permits it limits the public input and the amount of time the public has two or three each and adds an undue burden to process the Public Comment to make a fair determination dpw issued a single order it seeks to force the public to appeal all 10 permits versus a singled issued permit by the time to appeal their order in half a b u f tree resolve has thirty days and dpw has 15 days for 10 permits and 997 trees in 10 parcels a lot of information and this is the ownership issues the individual and location issues vary per parcel additionally the inconsistent sisters before the permits and the arborist and representation what theyre taking down has issues as well so i tried to you put together a presentation on that as well but if youre i mean it is black and white and small print and couldnt afford but i have it and do have it on electronic copy as well if i get to it i get to it but ill stick with the changes and maybe touch here and there on other things approving offenders or conditionally approving or taking trees out and not doing recommendations for planning on this some and not others is not a great way to document what the city is approving and it certainly leaves the public with questions and it provides an unfair advantage to the project sponsor it is a disservice to san franciscans and the employees that have to reconcile and put this together and make a determination it really is burdensome versus coming up with a plan a timeline, replacement a timeline what is going first is this i mean this is a 20 to thirty year project why it is done that way is beyond me so projects o project sponsors has violated the regulations has a long history of it i know it went on prior to my moving into park merced in june 2011 but right after the Development Agreement was signed two trees from my apartment came down i said what is going on the guy said theyre dead they were not dead thats how i got amy start in trying to figure out what the heck is going on and how theyre allowed to get away with that and what are the processes so dpws order says urban forestry under urban forestry testimony it says the current project at park merced was initiated by the prior 2011 paroling process it was grant prior to the consideration of San Francisco public works tree removal process so basically because they were involved beforehand they get a free pass they dont have to abide by what about when they sell is it peace mill it off will the new owners theyre part of Development Agreement will they have to abide by the current i mean to me that is a silly statement and many any case the clarification of what rules apply and clarification somebody who can mitigate and identity what parked is the current owners are held to so far as rules and regulations and the that would be helpful to not waste of time and come to you that is how could you possibly know. If dp f or dpw theyve been held account for the new b f regulations for 2011 im aware of and this includes not just b u f but the temporary occupancy theyre not getting those either i have 19 minutes left id like to give you guys a case study to demonstrate my concerns because they have an established pattern for violating eir and the Development Agreement so overwhelm to clarification of authorized agents oversight ownership and liability i mean, i think we can agree those are important stuff however, there is no clear path to found out who is responsible for what who is organizing what weve learned here you have to is that a center that is significant or private property which leads me to the overhead again. Where this is from the eir that was signed in 2011 and down here i dont know if you can see this green thing here that was included in our packet trees to remain so you have the rephrasing phase one that has changed substantially i them as anyone that frequency park merced or whatever there is this whole givenlg away hillside to remain in 2011 they agreed that was the eir theyre in violation they definitely need the hillside and to the best of my knowledge no soil erosion or any reconciliation of the impact of that because the eir is fine you know it is done didnt nothing on the wildlife except i guess the coyotes moved from there to Presidio Trust but Environmental Review and hitting surrounding cities this is our lastditch effort to have the sponsor do the right thing or this board to mandate a rehearing but well get to that in january 2016 a lot of the landscaping at park merced i dont know how they get away with not getting permits for work on pickup property back to the overhead there was a map enclosed in our packets that had from the eir in 2011 that shows the public space Public Open Space i hope i brought it hold on. Was under exhibit c and here it is where the color it is the Public Open Space that is all of it the courtyards and everything now park merced owners, llc were limited Liability Company version of what exactly they own the development rights, whos land belonged to what is the air belong to but it is a publicprivate debacle that has created havoc within the city and within the residents and the owners even they dont know the employees with doing oh, it is private property i get did as i understand to pit people against each other and in the meantime that areas is decimated and killed back to the case study can we get the computer please thank you so, anyway there is questions about permits being post for the work a Community Garden and all those lovely things and taking down one and 50 trees with zero permits and zero notice to residents but anyway, case study so the labors local 261 is doing it the park merced doing the work the Management Company the city, future management e. R. Random attendance that rented equipment whos doing the work excuse me between february 6th and 16 the day any appeal was any appeal was due i started noticing. Huge, huge tree trunks screens up at the top of font and then a frames for what you went to the park no parking and homemade permits and heres some one person in the frame that says no parking which means no permit number or Company Number one nothing but you cant say park there existing it is coastal paving the names of all the a frames that are around there is no it says your car can be towed but in the the company no Contact Information no if you go that went on in february pg es a frames and city of oakland and ranger people lines on a crane aframe but this guy as permits posted it had his name a coincides with the Tree Removal Company was doing their business and the parking as you can see on the towers on font were blocked off for days 60 spots taken away by this tree company no notice and struggling with parking to disable the parking no notice whos doing it wait there was a word 0 documents on the bad backside of one of the a frames i was like wow. You know but cant get interest that is roped occupying 0 off with tape but post the professional Tree Care Company thechedule is a following previous residents notification where theyre allowing this will be interesting to know who is noticed on that the general contractor says the professional tree company and this corespond for the emergency or contacts for this operation it lets the professional tree and 395 thats it no number so, yeah this is what park merced residents have been dealing with for years and more so at times you you know when certain approvals are in place or ready to be as i understand their rode to rock so what does a citizen do call the 311 operator and the complaint will be looked at within 7 Business Days but what City Department is in favor of the documenting and enforcing temporary occupancy permits and this municipal codes now that operator is citizens you back to whatever you need to go and call them and they call you who is liable if scratch when something goes wrong for this real life case study is the circle so in late february through early march arbor well removed 3 trees with no permits this is private property no temporary occupancy or permits are required; right . A citizen calls bs m the callers are referred to 311 to report the activities the caller calls 311 the employee referred the caller to the City Department if they understand which department is responsibly and the person asked to speak with a supervisor that informs the caller their sending an inspection inspector mommy arbor range is doing their business this is where their parked the middle of the circle or bicyclists or dogs people are strongly or playing they put caution tape around it their doing better and took down 7 trees those are more photos no cones but had a flag but really limited theyre parking to the grass and the circle which you know so they wouldnt have to get the temporary occupancy permit i guess but some more photos chopping away using the would do chirp the caution tape prevents the chirp from impacting people that are using the circle so march 5, 2016 a large storm hits San Francisco and with less and less supports from the surrounding trees their disappointing the common places of the remaining trees their housing is in risk of failing and relevant zero evidence of proactive maintenance to park merced have been priority despite requests without those records im sure the project manager have diligently have the agents put together and backside accordingly if requested for them theyll provide them and without seeing arbor well, coming to the property to prune those trees despite the complaints of parking ticket for cars that couldnt see the parking signs because of the over growth of those trees and it leads a prudent person those trees were not maintained ever since 2005 when the ownership changed possibly earlier so a prettiest powerful storm hits and branches fall the fault of the trees they couldnt withstand the high winds and the winds increased did removal of several trees you know natural blocking and rediverting the winds are gone so it is whipping around up that but heres photos of a poor tree that one branch met their demise and the tree is dead inform reason to look at why their failing fairly taking care of those trees when in reality this tree was soaked by the rains and because it cant be repopulating the pine cones adam extra weight to the branch a Strong Branch i might add and most likely would have survived from the winds had not been what they were it failed so then it was curious after the storm i took a drive around and olivia trees uprooted three or four trees uprooted with no companion base it was curious and then there was on another street a couple of trees that fell so dead trees at the top of the hides gave out and people were appealing the removal of trees thats their fault not my fault thats the reason we took down the trees that provided the stability for the groves were not under the purview and failed to apply for permits you know were not here to say you cant take down the trees were here to say maintain them do our Due Diligence and make them do what a individual homeowners do from the b u f didnt like if this was a heck of a and arbor well is back on march and dont see a temporary occupancy permit march 10 heavy rains again so back and i see the cone and this plywood whats going on there is an aframe down whos it operationally is it is park merced but no permit in a public right away and half the street and arbor well, was the only vehicle that ive seen there except maybe the motorist home that park merced is now putting out there on tuesdays and saturdays i urge you, you to look at this picture this has been this way since three weeks or 4 weeks this is the sidewalk at wall circle and it is a hazard by the plywood remains the cone remains so it is Critical Thinking time who is responsible for the American People disadvantages is arrest bob borrow wells that the the work and most likely caused the work their, llc are they responsible they contracted the work nobody saw the original contract or the taxpayers of San Francisco overall it is a public problem shunt the city fix it and the further questions to the gentleman is here im not trying to pick on him is he the attorney for the authorized agent or the owner is it a conflict of interest to be an attorney on i dont know im not an attorney but those are questions i need you to think about what authority in San Francisco is responsible for oversight to those activities ive been trying that for 3 years youre the on this people that listen im sorry. Im running out of time as people get hurt as a result of this damage who is responsible its not clear up its time to clarify the liabilities and ownership and it is public land i believe without any evidence to the otherwise they have not submitted any ownership information other than what is the Development Architecture and list but i believe they only have leasing rights to this property that is buildings and facilities whether they have a deal with the city theyll take care of the lands i know the one lease did based on the residents testimony im not making this up but it is theyre requesting one hundred trees without verifying who is liable and the owner and what is the replanting going to happen happen what will be planned the community does have input on that thats what i have thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holder now. Good evening commissioner honda and board of appeals ill jim council to park merced, llc who is the project sponsor the park merced mixed use project development addressed owner of the property as discussed this evening i think to clarify one of the questions that came up repeatedly this is private property and owned by park merced, llc the property was approved in pursuant to a Development Agreement a thirty Year Contract with the city the city is entered into the other planned Development Projects like Treasure Island and candle stick point and the Development Agreement contemplates the prong in phases the trees that are subject to this permit are the trees removed for the first half of the phase one of the project every tree has been approved for removal that is part of the infrastructure under the sewer lines and the sidewalks and streets or they conflict with the part of Development Agreement it is district with the location of every building and sidewalk and the location of future infrastructure so this is all contemplated the approvals for the project in 2011 weve glutton and applied for the tree permits under the codes they were processed by beautiful from the ordinance a notice placed on all trees proposed for that a thirty display period and public hearing held we presented to the dwp hearing officer very, very detailed presentation 75 slide presentation showing the reasons for the removal of each tree the appellant has provided no documents this is in error we have a very lengthy presentation the same thing for the hearing officer but in the interest of time well save that thank you very much. I have a question counselor. Youre saying that is private land at this point. Yes. And so the liability will be the park merced, llc if interest were disadvantage or things and; is that correct the urban forest didnt allow the Property Owner is the one liable and dispubetween the pro owner by generally dpw they look at the Property Owner so assess and fine or any problems with the trees. So because the appellant showed a picture that the public right away has damaged concrete and San Francisco it is the citys property inform specific qualifications of insurance regarding work that is done the private in the public right away. Correct. So thats specific photo the situation im sure the location of that or whether or not that damage is a result the tree removals or other activities im sure well followup and be certain ill prepare what is happening to that sidewalk is it so unclear if so related to the tree removal bans the location it who wouldnt seem like that was there it was on this common wear and tear on the sidewalk. I have another questions i will let the Department Speak first. Thank you, mr. Buck. Chris buck with the ousting i have a recap and perhaps answer questions we have a total of 10 permit applications because the trees proposed for removal are located on 10 parcels of proposed so whatever we issue a permit well issue it foyer a parcel of property most trees as stated earlier are in conflict with the proposed the approved New Buildings approved radio roadway, approved infrastructure sxhud the sewer lines and changes and also some trees were important addition the totals removal count is 73 trees to be removed and replied 14 trees identified as young enough to be transported some were permitted for removal to you and our department and were the replacement trees their young well protect those and have them removed we denied the removal of 16 interests one with a conflict with the curve ramp were trying to figure out how to work around this last year Beautiful Tree and come up with an option with the ada folks 15 trees along the terrace boulevard the retaining wall theyre not directly within the footprint of one of the buildings were seeking to remain 15 trees it will require one portion of the jazz boulevard to have one configuration that planning want in front of the new building were saying keep an existing configuration we can retain 15 trees along jazz boulevard we worked with the developer to identify any they see e trees we think can be retained as part of development generally the trees are healthy we didnt request to remove the trees the trees are an important addition based on our review of the tenants applications we found that really there is two sites we want to deny the requests to rove the trees they didnt combat the Development Agreement at the hearing we had in december with over on our posting notice we wanted to air on the side of posting more trees anybody replaced and error on the side as honest a picture as possible we stated approximately, one and 20 interests will be proposed for removal as you can see the count of 73 and the 14 transported four attendees one of the 4 had a specific issue about a tree within the 10 permits and now the cypress trees along lake merced boulevards those trees with proposed for removal due to sewer lines and roadway re alignments along the western edge of the property and the other 3 that spoke had a lot of general comments again, the proposals in general but not a specific tree we can pout point to and a way to work around this tree one thing that is important to emphasize this project has a Development Agreement with a number of areas limits the discretion that the city what calibers for the subsequent approvals after the Development Architecture was approved the agreements need to be consistent what what was approved under the circumstances weve worked with the developer to protect as many trees that warrant attention for building new roads and extra im going saying we dont have much power to deny the removal of trees with a project that is approved i have a few things to mention in testimony mentioned the tree disclosure statement in 2008, thats a good thing we use the tree all the time for an applicant as tent about their project they are aware what trees need to be protected and the general clarification of whos on first, the appellant diane has a Straight Line and overwhelmed questions to us we tried to answerable we are that i feel liquor the bureau of urban forestry is the most responsible department shes interacted and as a result we receive issues beyond our purview but try to connect her for example, a parking issue with the permit you know we have jerry of the urban forestry mapping other than the emails in a few hours we try to connect all people involved and the departments in 2011 a mention of a change in process i want to clarify in 2011 prior 2011 the Planning Department will approve a project like a driveway installation like a tree in front of a garage theyll approve that and the applicant comes to us for a permits around a garage install after 2011 we changed the code so that planning when someone comes to them from 2011 the tree issue conflict now people will refer us to get and now get the tree removed first those trees are protected only now since 2011 we have the conversation up front it didnt mean that trees were given a short tripped prior to 2011 and doesnt mean the process was violated there was a were a number of trees failures and park merced and arbor wells in private property theyre not rid or required to get an occupancy permit and the cones needs to be directed to another depended and in general ill reiterate we take concerns of illegal tree removal severely and work with the members of the public diane and have received protests for the removal of dead trees and in all fairness i think that is a legitimate contractor trying to do his jobs they need a permit to work somewhere to sort of blocks people from removing a dead tree by appealing a tree occupancy and asked us for a lot of information were open to that we want to be advocates for the trees but you know people need to maintain the trees and it is a judging act with that, ill again summarize we have a Development Agreement that really limits a lot of what ill say our typical process of approval and denial with that said, those trees most of them are the footprint but roadway changes that occur we dont have a lot of trees to work with in terms of denying and making them thats all i have prepared for this evening so far. Thank you mr. Buck the developments agreement does that specify that changes for the master plan requires a review. I and for example, they did count master plain saw way back that was laid as a concept theyll do their approval to get a detailed study it didnt necessarily follow the same pact when you had a detailed study or engineering report. Ill not comment i think that the permit holders probably would be appropriate to comment on any sort of issue related i dont wont have information. Mr. Buck so what youre seeing e surveying there is a Development Agreement that is a specifically what we can and cannot do what was specifically said in regards to the trees because prior to you being the city representative arbor wells and others have been here doing many things to be honest were not nice. I have been directly involved with park merced since 2007 when it came to in light to move the trees prior to 2007 we dont know what happened prior to park merced none came to ply for a permit but when they illegally removed them in 2007 im the righthand man and the senior inspector. Followed up on all the inquires some acceptance by arbor well and park merced to determine where the rightofway whether the trees were sixth and in the rightofway but if you can repeat our question. You mentioned earlier a tree count were limited to we as a board can make them comply the question would be was there a specific do they have to keep an x amount of trees and why is the permit necessary. There is limitations on what the department can do. The developments we can also have the permit holder talk about the Development Agreement it is essentially creates a pathway for a developer for a pertaining to know that the next thirty years the overall master plan agreed to theyll be able to reasonably pursue that without a discretionary roadblock and assume the Capital Improvement and have a certain expectations about what is allowed so specifically it is not my sense that specific trees are mentioned in the Development Agreement what is mentioned what theyre planning on doing and the eir ceqa that will talk about specifically hey those trees will be impacted so the Development Agreement these are the buildings well build and the roadways this is what we want to do as part of Development Agreement. The followup will be we cant say there is a pattern that effects the foundation that is fine but the existing trees what responsibility to maintain the existing trees i remember a tree came down and squashed someone. The fatality was over 10 years ago it was the sandy hillside a challenging sites for tree maintenance they c they can pretty much trees on private property are i dont understand 10 feet from the public rightofway have no protection the city has jurisdictions over private rightofway e. R. Trees within 10 foot find rightofway so and trees on private property it is up to park merced management to determine what theyre going to do with those trees. But when it it Public Safety or the city get involved i drive past that street and see half cut trees lying on the side of the hill. They have jurisdiction over the trees we see a tree that is leon or dead we get involved but not in private property has to be an egregious well director their attention and the city sent a letter to the Property Owner and said as a reminder trees on private property are our maintenance for your responsibility. There were 4 attendees for the presentation and regarding to notification what was the reminded for notification. Well, we in this case we had 10 permits we post for thirty days leeds much to a hearing thats what we did we posted the trees and polled we post a number of light poles on the individual blocks a thirty day hearing notice we combine the four sorry the 10 applications so we can get we also i should say had a single dedicated hearing for the 10 cases we didnt have it as part of 8 to 10 case agenda we had a special hearing where all the cases were heard no idea how many people attend one and 50 but prepared for as many people to come that was the process we definitely feel the most importantly it is to me public works wants to pick sides we want to make sure the permit process was was uphold were striving to do and been doing with park merced and thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, im sorry can we have a 2 minute break. Okay. Were reassuming the board of appeals and going to take Public Comment on items 6 a there j can i see a show of hands come up and speak thank you. Good evening commissioners my name is john im a managing partner of park merced Shopping Center has nothing to do with with the parked owners of the property i want to comment on the tree removal ive been watching them do the removal and i have to say theyve done it in a professional way like carefully making sure that everybody is safe you know and protecting everybodys safety you know, i had my wife you know we owned a building i mean a business in the Shopping Center before we were part owners on green brotherhood way a tree fell down my wife 5 mens after that tree feel she was ahead and going to the bank and you know it was dangerous tell her some trees on park merced i dont know how many that are dangerous too heavy the beetles have eaten them and the removal of them were warned for the safety of the public and as you saw the march rainstorm in San Francisco all over the city trees are falling that are heavy and didnt seem dangerous at some point but all of a sudden did one incident in 1995 when we were in the occupying as a tenants in park merced Shopping Center i parked my car the parking lot and one of the trees the eucalyptus tree fell and indexed it was a a pretty big heavy tree people get upset cabin tree removal but safety is an important part of remove trees theyre doing a wonderful job i think you should allow them to continue and lets get it done thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi my name is a larry juicy edmond im a medical marijuana person so trees literally saved my life i was in d. C. 16 years in bush and their presents i think that you have 75 trees removed and only 3 are dead i think if you know the history of trees no trees in Golden Gate Park but grace grew i happen to know that mom brought lips from australia on scott street im looking at all the trees that are taken i go out to city college where i went to school and the trees are very popper and katrina they wouldnt have suffered if they had trees near the equator it gives us our medication and i think that taking the trees that the streets will be significant trees actually, i think you should be growing medical marijuana trees out there and the downtown area because it is so important that trees would not have been appeals on mason thats why you have walgreens and rite aids all our medication comes from trees we himself need to not take trees seriously and we will have Global Warming and the importance of trees in San Francisco is significant whether redwoods, pines, or i dont know how many trees youre taking out a distilling i dont think and eucalyptus and other trees he cant pronounce but lexington and palms the john birch thats a lot of 3 years ago we planned a monterey pine tree on earth day you can go to see the trees and i think that is market but planet of set african you need medical marijuana that overtakes other things like heroin and so we need to respect trees i hope you dont take away 75 trees when there is only 3 dead trees so we have a green world. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, everybody told me im educated republican ive been in park merced over 21 years and i understand that weve come to change in park merced and the project is forwarded through many, many legal appeals i accept that i understand i happen to be right at ground zero but it is literally i sleep on that corner and so watching the trees comedy thinks they do given the project is given the green light certain trees will be removed to continue to build in the way they want to build im here at that microphone i drove down from park merced this evening i care about those trees and really, really, really get a lot of subsequence and annuities when i moved to park merced i could look at my asked it is more emotional than legal nothing you can change i wanted to make my statement he felt good and came and spoke i ask the people of park merced theyve been responsive and noise to meet and going to their meetings and asking about the trees not near may residents and they were nice enough to get an email i respect and appreciate i would ask that since this project has been detailed for so many years and continues to has delays not cut the trees down until construction im seeing the wood chirps and we dont know when the trees will be cut down but leave them up until they mo mo must come down. Any other. Seeing none, youre up all right. All right. Where do i go where do i go thanks so essentially the gentleman said it is private property and it was probably based on a register situation 99 years thats why it is a 20 or thirty years i get that and get that the time is coming up before they have to so they can continue subdivide and whatnot but build the rattlers before anything comes down that is the Technical Agreement they threw the word technical any building no demolition until the relocation units were here for the trees and that last are Public Commenter said do they have to cut them all down at once so brutally i understand what is involved but again youre dealing with 9 thousand san franciscans that rents who are paying our mortgage that maybe not at price tasered were move on to issues with the permits consisten consistences between the applications i respect and said that chris has work hard with park merced and holding a hearing but we really the hearing did nothing because what came out of that was that the original application has nothing to do with with the order that came out of that trees went on and trees came off there was it was mind boggling i appreciate the effort but lets see so permit one of the tree removal application owner park merced and contract arbor wells for the number of trees to be removed one okay so the conceives report listed 20 tag trees on the public rightofway and the dpw order seeks to remain two significant trees to basically the order didnt line up and sciences report didnt line up with what is actually there i think project sponsor may have given them to instructions to report on trees part of development with the new blocks and lots so not complete and b u f and b w trees to be removed and the rows for replacement no number of trees or types only a row no timeline only a row of trees and who is responsible for maintenance of them afterwards two that would be great for clarification if anything comes out of this hearing so those are pictures of parcel one and taken photos of trees the rightofway and few left there is 5 actually actively 4 one tree that is so this is 3 of them heres the fourth thats a duplicate picture of one of the 3 and a fourth where the horticulturelists sign shows 3 trees were there too of them illegally removed it must have been the San Francisco Entertainment Commission storm pulled them out of the ground and the head rows are considered a street tree the birds make nests throughout park merced that are surrounding the buildings and whatnot then you, see trees their clear cutting trees the planter box gone it is part of rogue Tree Removal Company the care whatever it is all the hedges around this parcel everything green with the expectation of the grass and yeah. This is the last private tree on that parcel and the others are street trees that requires a permit so basically two japanese blak pine are on the chopping block the permit holder has one right arm on the application if you look at all the applications every single has a simple tree 24 inch dont block the box as a replacement tree that is what can i get a copy of the application that is what i have so this is what people assume are approved to my left is at the dpw a matter of city record it is theres go go back accounting working out the permit holder should be reasonably on the fact of the matter with what theyre doing they put in an application for one i say approve the one have them relocation the tree with the other 4 and no reason for removal of these and, in fact, the eir there are several trees that are slated for relocation but seems like the small trees or the few replacement trees that have died because of the lack of maintenance and care to the trees is at issue the peers the park merced will that, llc hired a guerilla tree person to take out the trees and the hedges home to small birds the application indicates that 24 inch box a replacement tree that is inadequate clearly inadequate this is permit two already so the permit two yeah. When they say it goes against the Development Agreement i think any prudent person agrees not doing the right thing making you do the right thing is not a violation of the Development Agreement the Development Agreement was as i understand and the planned change from a time and when they change kind of like the 25 percent with the is Planning Department this arrest interest number it should going to the planning director for an annual report before the board of supervisors and at that point who you know to approve or work with somebody it should go to a meter or mitigate our or something that handle this and the certainly this is an easement that scripted phrase is private property is abused for too long lets get the documents bring them up thats all im asking for for every time were here just tell me you know and the city didnt have anybody who is responsible for mitigating this entire project so im going all over the case okay permit 2 they submitted the application to remove the medium at lake merced boulevard it ap m is not nonexistence is again, a city owned medium whos the owner and if so is arbor well, an authorized agent of the city in this capacity why 33 are they submitting that with parked or park merced with the liability it goes back to the lady got hit by a tree the trees are dangerous who is responsible who picked up the tab did that family get resolve or what was it whos responsible for maintaining and why didnt they maintain it was it private property mates u. N. Acceptable Public Safety is at risk not because of trees but the people that are supposed to maintain the trees have not been managing them sorry off any soap box it is misleading those applications being submitting are misleading have the city and private citizens do their work for them i can seek out information anytime i want with the City Department i tried to i have a lot of friends and families that not family that live in parked by friends theyre Close Friends like family i dont want them to get hurt and get the section 8 eviction notice or their rent is up one thousand dollars in thirty days oh, yeah, the process we this the wheels of justice are slow but all im asking for to take a breath and not approve any of these permits dont need to come down right now dont need permits approved for building okay permit number 3 mr. Hesters they seek to rove 8 trees the conceives reports listed 13 significant trees the feshgs eir listed 8 trees and dpw orders per the order project sponsor will remove 8 significant trees and the b u f has 9 trees for them so dpw recommend the approval of the remove o removal ever one tree not on the application in exchanges for the retaining the 8 trees until the next phase or until an undisclosed time inform refurbishment trees, no you know so they get a free pass not for maintenance for that the trees not paying for permits or paying for the liability the staff time it takes to bring this to you here you do the work and well chop down the trees and pay the cronies basically those are rid he would with similar issues and inconsistent too i would really like to get to a different thing i have two minutes left here it is for you to look at one and 50 trees were taken down in two weeks not part of 10 applications b u f did their site visit before that happened and made you know recommendations based on trees actually being around then after the hearing and after the final orders of february one that company came in and chopped down one and 50 trees on their private property even though the sidewalks behind the public uses them this place is open to the public with the thought building excuse me so here they are using the a framed with the homemade permits and people are Walking Around while these guys tenants with or trying to drive up to the garage there was no notice 72 hours notice of that activity and you know then another tenant pulled up behind them they cant base theyre taking down the trees the one tenant tries to back up the other tenant is honking at them they want to park too nobody knows whats going on it is not good that sidewalk incidents Critical Thinking we need a chart we need something in writing who is responsible for what and if not a bond to cover this activity the quality of air since they removed over one trees with it is in the eir that is a Health Concern this project it was with the entire brotherhood way hillside remaining just because it was as i understand didnt mean we can say oh, embed it was signed theyve changed it and theyve changed it horrifically. Thank you. Okay rebuttal from the permit holder. Good evening jim counsel to the permit holder park merced, llc i wanted to send the rebuttal answering a few questions from the board in particular commissioner fung the question about the Development Agreement and the the document of the Development Agreement nonmaterial amendments can be done by the agreement of the project sponsor and the planning director so in this case, the amendments with respect nonmaterial they could be approved by the director of dpw there be material and require a aboarder approve by the city administrative or the others involved the project i also want to clarify those removals were not done for aesthetic purposes are it would be nice those are trees that conflict with utilities probed in the advertisements agreement and building and 19 trees weve owned and had removed from the basis from the discussions of what we worked out ways of incorporating those trees into the plan that didnt conflict with the development and mr. Buck mentioned 16 trees were disapproved didnt conflict and misgivings and considered this board decided to work with the phases and incorporate them before this has not been a rubber stamp of every tree to be removed and a good amount of deliberations what conflicts and what does not i want to clarify the tree that killed a person the year 2000 on bro brotherhood way under the pressure ownership and starting in 2007 there has been annual tree inspections by the annual part of the reason that trees have been removed American People infestation the beetles cause it to fall over and rather than having them fall over on this is an own the project sponsor removes that is that an important thing to mention those are all the comments i have ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. I have a question about the timing. Yes. How soon do those trees need to come down are they coming forward a long time before the work. It is a difficult question we have a wide variety of permits that are going to the city for example 5 sites and 4 building projects two final subdivision maps and two screening permits that go to the city all the time were progressing them as fast as we can the reason it succeeded other projects that is between april 1st and october 1st there is things that needs to take place to protect the birds nesting were trying to rug the impacts were going to consensus the construction or instruction as soon as we can in the fall and permits that have been filed with dpw and shows the location and the nature of those processed with the city the short answer we removed the trees that have been removed to avoid the birds nesting season that that is approval the project and xhengsz the construction of the building and the construction as soon as we can. Youll not make the april one city council and no, no, no. Did that mean none of the trees come down from the fall. Thats could be the case well wait subject to the permit thats my understanding this permits beulahs for 6 months if we consensus after august 31st well have a valid permit we cant wait too long after that. That will consensus with the work otherwise the trees will still be there. Yes. Can perhaps i can followup that goes in a slightly different direction in the fall are there any master plan changes or design changes which lead to remove of some of the trees you. No one there is been no amendments to the planned documents whatsoever except with regards to signage 94 nothing was amended for the parking structure nothing of that nature we stuck to it to make sure we came together on all this. Any more questions. Youve been the most clearest person if park merced i appreciate that. Mr. Buck any rebuttal. Please step forward. Good evening chris buck urban forestry of San Francisco public works just to addressing some of the information was provided applications are a good starting point we evaluate each tree application and make sure to verify what is in the rightofway and the significant tree and beyond significance trees zones thats why the numbers will change a resulting decision is 9 pages long we try to explain the basis for the removal of each the trees within the 10 applications so there is a lot of details in the 9 page recap and really just wanted to address no permits application fees were waved or not charged we assessed all the tree removal fees required and you know really just to do a close evaluation of the application if you have any questions ill be happy to answer any questions you may have. Question and comments first of all, i was impressed with the detail the aboard eerie felt it is tree by tree it this one of the largest tree removal applications that youve dealt with i mean this many trees at one time. It is definitely up there headed our way will be valencia there are Hunters Point and candle stick point a number of trees there and it is a challenging challenge when the project is approved you want to get in there and fight and protect the trees a lot of the fight happens during the planning process the public says wait a minute you have to protect those trees. Do you feel wooul youve gotten a good response from the project sponsor this one can stay and this one and i neglected to state the 20 trees they applied for didnt need to be removed and pursuance brunt. Some before brown and during the review they said you know what there was a give and take. Ill say that is a deft you know those are different contacts than the contacts on the park merced going on Martin Luther king and be riders to plant all the replacement trees before well sign off on this job that prevents people from entering there is a 5 to one rePlanning Department and advocate for replacement trees if theyre getting away with something that is wrong we dont penalize someone with an approved project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. I was really impressed by the echo commissioner lazaruss thorough tree by tree diligent and according to everything that i exempted if a diligent activity so and i thought there was a Good Partnership between the developer and the bureau of urban forest so i would be in support of sustaining those permits. I would concur. Agreed. Want to make a motion commissioner swig. Something else my quota is one day. Ill move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit and on the basis they were properly issued and to incorporate the finding that our director pointed out us with in regards to the eir. Okay. Maybe if you can pop those on the overhead for a second then we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeals and uphold the permits on the basis they were properly issued with the adoption of those on the overhead commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries 5 to zero and commissioners theres no further business before the board tonight. Yeah. I want to welcome everyone here today and today, we are signing this very important piece of legislation and let me begin by thanking supervisor wiener so far his instead of leadership the sponsoring the legislation that will raise the minimum angle for anyone purchasing Tobacco Products and e cigarettes to the average 24 and that will take effect on july 1st of this year i know that supervisor wiener along with his cosponsors supervisor mar and supervisor cowen and supervisor farrell and ultimately the entire board had a adoptesd thind this i know that the supervisors with working closely with our duty 0 who has been documenting why it is showing so important to continue our efforts as a city if not as a state to continue be rooiktd the access to cigarettes particularly at journeying or younger ages that is advocated by the groups like the Tobacco Free Coalition i want to thank them theyre not just here in San Francisco but the entire region and all over the country working with the Health Department making sure that supervisor wiener and not only Pay Attention it the science and data it is going on but that we do our best to end the suffering that is brought by by longterm smoking that obviously is the cause of cancer and asthma and Heart Disease we do our best to educate the public in doing so if not the industry that sells overseeing products and ultimate our kids are your family when in their 18 and 19 is shown that the coalition has shown over and over youre putting that some 95 percent of long term smokers had begun smoking at the age of 18 perhaps younger and as certain under the age of 21 those habit are so hard to end voluntarily so thats why we have to go to many other front to try to do this and thats why i think that the supervisor wiener has found a person cause and Public Health health cause if the violation kriebs the department of health to make sure that we do what we can to end our these diseases as much as we can to make sure that we also reflect as the mayor of the city if we can save a lot of money if we are able the medical systems we have to have in place it treat cancer and asthma with smoking is an incredible experience to the Public Safety the cleaner air with the Coalition Work on families that Secondhand Smoke impacts this has another critical reason why we want to do as much as we can and i think were on the overview we know that supervisor wiener is already in contact with the Governors Office as we are and with his the 1184 particularly senator leno and senator henrys to insure that the state which maybe hopefully in our minds the second to join hawaii to end the sales of Tobacco Products and less people under 9 age of 21 it doesnt make it right because your 21 you buy Tobacco Products wild to end it. Everyone hopefully with the adult level of age 21 that people make Better Health decision tore themselves and their family so i take this opportunity to thank the coalition i know that in looking at the data as they have done in working with us this year was a strong sense interest the data it the smoking rates are higher amongst people of closer and amongst the let the record reflect community and other xhucht we rank it with a hard impact sales work that is done by Tobacco Industry the may or may not Lgbt Community thats where we really have good data to show that the more we do to educate your communities be about this the better off well be so with all that background i want to say to supervisor wiener you have again showing the good leadership im going to give the pen avenue we sign this your accumulate more pens than anyone but thank you for your leadership and also working with such important groups like the Tobacco Free Coalition supervisor wiener id like to invite you up here to say a few words thank you, mayor ed lee ill give that pen to the advocates and the district for theyre really horroric work tutor sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us; 24 legislation in a way that highlights this critically important issue San Francisco for many years has been on the cuttingedge of Public Safety whether around hiv or led pant and sugar sweetened beverage whatever the case weave been from the forefront and once again we are in the fire hydrant of what i hope will be a tile waive of proving Health Legislation that eliminates tobacco use in this country this is a huge problem weve been involved in a 50year struggle but with the tobacco city that produces a product with no benefit whatsoever that kills a half a Million People every year 34 is a serious issue and serious punting kiss im proud we live in a city where we can be on the cuttingedge where the politics of this city allows us at city hall to make good progressive policy i also want to say we know were up against a very well financed component the tobacco destroy for decades has fought ever effort to try to control tobacco use and enemy linkage between their pursuit and the health we know that hillsborough tried to do that they have spent their legislation after an expensive lawsuit by the Tobacco Industry we in San Francisco are willing to fight that fight that is amount about our city thank you to the department of Public Health we sometimes dont roles e releases how lucky with the best putting department that supports our efforts to make good laws that vascular critical exercise an Amazing Agency and our advocates for give us the political spouse space to to be able to do this and as the mayor adu u. You allowed we passed that legislation a week and a half good and the law jam the state assembly broke we that republicans willing to raise the tobacco age to 21 to pass senator lenos forwardlooking bill to make sure that cigarettes are tobacco are still a way to get addicted to nicotine and will you the tobacco tax it is a huge step forward i hope goes to the governors desk thank you, everyone clapping. so are we ready to safe so far lives ill add one mount reason not in my notes or the legislation but it is about my history about 10 years ago a mayor asked me to pick up cigarette butts as a public works decorator i say to all the public works staff that work hard if there was less settings thats another reason to sign on the legislation; right . Yes all right. clapping. laughter . Todays date is 16. Thats it all right. Good morning and welcome to San Francisco county Transportation Authority. Im scott wiener the chair and well call the roll. Item 1, roll call, commissioner avalos, present. Commissioner breed, present. Commissioner campos, present. Commissioner cohen, present. Commissioner farrell, absent. Commissioner kim, absent. Commissioner mar, absent. Commissioner peskin, present. Commissioner tang, absent. Commissioner wiener, present. Commissioner yee, present. We have quorum okay, i want to thank sfgtv for broadcasting todays meeting, leo [inaudible] and also colleagues supervisor farrell has asked to be excused in adivision supervisor kim is ill and unable to attend so can i have a motion to excuse commissioner farrell and commissioner kim . Motion by commissioner cohen, seconded by commissioner compose and do wree need roll call on that or take that without objection. Take without objection. Item number 2 chairs report. This is a information item. Colleagues we have two pieces of good news to share. First i like to congratulate cal trans and Transportation Authority with public and private sector partners for winning the california transportation award. We had the opening of the new presidio parkway replacing the doil drive with a safe, modern and beautiful facility. I like to applaud the organization for their work and thank for the recognition as we finalize dlinchy of the innovative project. Speaking of invasion, i would like to thank u. S. Transportation anthony foxx for making San Francisco eligible to compete in the smart city challenge program. This is a way to show how Vehicle Technology can [inaudible] through partner shipwise the federal government. Tim [inaudible] of sfmta is here and will give a overview the proposal. Im hearing about San Franciscos ideas and how the Transportation Authority and the office can support the effort. We are still at early stages there is Great Potential to incorporate new mobility to make the streets safeer and promote cycling [inaudible] with the bay area population expect to add 2 Million People by 2040 we are working on transit expansion plans but we must make it easier for people to live without a car or drive the car less. We cant have another million cars in the bay air roads. Technology can help get us to our goal more quickly. On a less positive note, unfortunately with barts troubles over the past weeks we have seen the consequences of what happens when we wait too long to address the basic transportation infrastructure needs. Bart is 45 years old and truly showing its age. At the same time it faces record demand and continued excollation in ridership. The recent electrical problems that are completely decimating barts fleet are just the most extreme example of a system that is becoming less reliable and frankly coming apart at the seams. We absolutely must fix the system, modernize and expand the capacity. In november we will see a capital infrasfruckture model on the bal it will be a dejaster if the bonds fails. We need to make sure we as a city are doing our part along with alameda and con trucosta counties for barbts vehicle replacement and acquisition program. What is happening with bart is also a cautionary note for us in San Francisco as we make policy decisions that determine whether we are going to invest in muni or not and we need to make sure we are continually getting ahead of the curve when it comes to infrastructure needs of our system. So, colleagues thank you for that and well proceed to Public Comment. Any Public Comment on item number 2 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed and this is a information item. Well move to item number 3. Item 3, executive director reports. This is a information item. Thank you chair wiener. Good morning commissioners. [inaudible] happy to reportthank you for highlighting the good news chair wiener. In keep wg the theme of research and invasion i was pleased on the 14th of this munt to join with staff with los angeles and con trucosta Transportation Authority at a state hearing. Chair fraser held a importance of state funded research in transportation technology. The research we benefited from has been in the area of Traffic Safety for vision zero, office of Traffic Safety and numerous other technologies to help optimize our system so we appreciated chair frasers leadership and to participate in the meeting. Here in the region our work with mtca and bay area government we have draft project performance results which well bing to plans and Programs Committee next month. With the release of the data we will be able to sehow our projects compete against other projects then region. We have every reason to believe it will do well for progress but in coordination with a bad and mtc well take a look at the land use function as the region has important choices. Just untime our bart Incentive Program is getting ready to launch. You may have seen on the news bart perks we are working together with bart to [inaudible] corroded portionoffs the system, the transbay [inaudible] embarcadero and mun gumry stations and the idea is sign up for the program and earn points through the clipper card for shifting travel outside of the peak period to ease the congestion problems on bart and extend [inaudible] this doesnt take place medium and long term Capital Planning but a important way we can partner with the community and public to extend the life and the capacity of our system. You can find more nrgz at sf [inaudible] bart travel incenseive. In terms of the local work the Treasure Island Management Team put together 3 grant applications so hopefully we will be successful working with ticd the [inaudible] Community Development and [inaudible] we submitted a state cap and trade grant for Affordable Housing and. We submitted a federal tiger grant for a hybrid vessel we hope toacquire for the Ferry Service and applied for federal inclusive planning impact grant. I highlight these because it is terrific to see there are no programs forwarded at the federal and state level that understand and underscore our strategy of nob nab in order to demonstrate new ways of conducting and achieving sustainability development. At the neighborhood level throughout the neighborhood transportation improvement program, we work closely with your offices and staff and a number of districts, district 11 we are working with commissioner avalos team on the park Station Community work at san jose and [inaudible] on district 8 on elk street and district 6 to look at [inaudible] in district 9 we have been able to kick off the alameda interchange Improvement Project with commissioner campos and his staff this is in effort to improve the safety, pedestrian bike safety near Farmers Market [inaudible] more nrgz on those outreach meetings about the concepts beginning to emerge, visit sfcta. Org alameda change. The crooked street is shared with Community Members in the area of the crooked street. Options are a full range of visitor access and circulation and physical treatments to deminsh the high level of vehicle and pedestrian visitors and avoiding the spill over effects to ajaistant streets. One of the findings we made is there as many visitors here as in the key locations in the city but the lack of management cupsty, so unlike the Golden Gate Bridge and other places with a organization we think that is something that will be helpful to sustain the benefits of the short term programs that are tried. Well come to the plans and programs exhibit no. 3 was committee and folks can join outreach meetings later march. [inaudible] there is also a final meeting to announce the rail yard alternative and boulevard studthy Planning Department has been hosting and hold the Second Community meeting wednesday march 30 at 6 p. M. At the same location at the first which is potrero neighborhood [inaudible] at 955 [inaudible] come find out more about plans underway to address the alignments options for the downtown extension of cal train in conjunction with land use and free way vision planning. Project delivery yerba buena appears to be on time. We have been able toreplace the bridge work and [inaudible] place seismic joints and concrete barriers. We anticipate being able to share that with you all and have a Ribbon Cutting in the summer time so my thanks go to eric [inaudible] for managing the project for us. And we are also at the same time coordinating with the bay bridge authorities as well as cal trans on touch down and integration of the bike and pedestrian path, the west path on to the islands later this summer. As far as bicycleing improvements we are happy to report the prop k funding embarcadero and [inaudible] signage up are so thank you for sfmta for putting in signage to help [inaudible] away from king street and on to less stressful streets and paths. The page streets improvement and congratulate mta on thampt the muni procurement is continuing pace. There are 444 motor coaches and 60 trolleys on order. Mta received 101 motor coaches and 38 trolley coaches and many are oon revenue. The prop k funds are put to very good use and bond fund are not eligible for vehicles so that under scores the measure chair wiener described in his remarks for helping bart, muni and cal train meet the vehicle needs. New Traffic Signals are also being installed through prop k funding at that webster and o farrell street location to support vision zero and many other places acrauz the city including intersection of [inaudible] thank you sfmta for get thg improvements out with our prop k fund. With that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much mrs. Chang. Any question or comments . Seeing none, is there any Public Comment on item number 3 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. This is a information item. Item number 4. Item 4, approve the minutes of february 23, 2016 meeting. Any questions or comments or chairchgs with respect to the february minutes . Seeing none, is there any Public Comment on item 4 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Can we take a roll call vote onite 784 avalos, aye. Breed, aye. Campos, absent. Commissioner cohen, aye. Commissioner mar, absent. Commissioner peskin, aye. Commissioner tang, aye. Commissioner weener, aye. Commissioner yee, aye. The minutes are approve item number 5 item fiver, approve theadopt position on state legislation, this is a action item any questions or comments on item 5 . Seeing none, any Public Comment on item 5 . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. The house is changed so can you call the roll on item 5. Commissioner avalos, aye. Commissioner breed, aye. Compose, aye. Commissioner cohen, aye. Commissioner mar, absent. Commissioner peskin, aye. Commissioner tang, aye. Commissioner wiener, aye. Commissioner yee, aye. The item is approved. Item 6. Item 6, approve the improving west side transit access stuteejic analysis report. Any question or comments on item 6. . Seeing none, any Public Comment . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Colleagues can we take item 6 same house same call . Without objection that will be the order. Item 7. Item 7, appoint john larsson is to system advisory committee. Any question or comments . Seeing none. Public comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Same house same call . Without objection that will be the order. Item 8. Approve the twnt 16 prop aa call for projects programming recommendations. Toteology 2,192,934 for four projects and stuteejic plan. Commissioner peskin. Thank you chair wiener, colleagues. As you all probably heard the friday before last there was a fatality at broad way and 4th street the 4th fatality in as many years and condolances to mr. Laws widow and children. Unfortunately these streetscape improvements are aftermr. Laws passing but pleased we have found the last Million Dollars for a 8 Million Dollar project to do Pedestrian Safety and streetscape improve. Along broad way between columbus avenue around gene Parker Elementary School which is a place a lot of kids go but a dangerous intersection. I request we approve this portion of item number 8 specifically on attachment 1, the third item, subject the too the condition before dpw puts this project out to bid that a little bit further consalitation with the community relative to the streetscape design be addressed. I discussed that with staff so would like to add that condition and then approve the item. That is a motion . Yes, sir. Is there a second . Second by commissioner breed. Okay, any other comments or questions, colleagues . Yes. Through the chair, commissioner peskin where believe the contract has been advertised so if quee can condition it on prior to award of a contract. I will accept that change to my motion so prior to award. Okay, commissioner breed that is a second . Revised motion is made and seconded. Seeing no other comment, any Public Comment on item 8 . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Commissioner peskin made a motion to amend, can we take that motion without objection . Without objection the amendment is adopted. Take item 8 same house same call . Without objection that is the order. Item 9 allocate 10,975,410 in prop k funds and 794,980 in prom aa funds with conditions with 6 requests to subject to attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedules any questions or comments . Seeing none, any Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed and can we take item 9 same house same call . Without objection that will be theordser. Item 10 item 10, update on u. S. Department of transportation smart city challenge grants. This is information item. Okay, i believe the mta will present on this mrs. Chang . Yes. [inaudible] Tim Papandreou should be here shortly. This is the last item on the agenda so i dont think i can give the entire presentation but ill give it a try. This is a excited development and want to take a minute to brief you and the public about the good news. The u. S. Department of transportation named San Francisco one of 7 fine finalist cities to compete for a 50 Million Dollar prize the purpose of the program is highlight the Innovative Ways Technology can help urban areas meet the transportation challenges for mobility, safety standpoint prom emissions and Community Based planning. So, it is very wonderful we are finalist and dont have the prize yet but expect to continue in th direction even if we dont receive the big prize. It is something we have been working on in many respects and underscoors efforts under way such as vision zero and [inaudible] and bike and car sharing and other services coordinating. In the city. The project is only eligible for medium size cities under 850,000 people and we just snuck in. The idea would be to demonstrate strategies, demonstrate committed leadership sw capacity to sustain the strategy beyond the grant period over the next 3 year jz integrate our project with existing data requirements and making sure those will beope toon the public beyond the grant period. The smart city challenge is expected to improve safety, enhanceability and Climate Change and there is a 10 Million Dollar portion the prize offered by volcon which a non profit in the seattle area focused on emissions reduction. The smart city vision element you will see are many, about a dozen and they begin with technology elementsism underscooring the [inaudible] and automated vehicles, connected vehicles, intelligence transportation, the idea your vehicle can talk to road side infruc structure such as signals and they can guide you to avoid a incident ahead or to be able to more quickly get to your destination. In the second band innovative approach to transportation include the analytic and logistics part which is behind the scenes but a way to optimize conditions on streets for road users. Finally we have Communication Technology and land use components as well as Community Engagement and equity components of the program. There is a couple steps process that we have already proceeded to the 7 finalist city stage and in the proposal where well receive 100 thousand to development the local proposal. The date for that is in may and expect to hear Award Winners announced in june. Here is tim and ill let him take a breath and take over and well work with the u. S. Department of transportation and private sector partners many Public Sector partners at state, local and regional level jz the city will receive the prize and if wree not suck saysful receive thg grand prize we expect to continue our efforts forward. Here you go, tim. Good morning everyone. Tim with the mta. Thank you for setting that up. So, we applied for the city grant under some specific criteria to try to get through the initant of how it can move out to have the most sustainable and equitable Transportation System. [inaudible] resulted in what we call a binary policy system that is incompetable with cities gruth not just in San Francisco but many cities around the country. That system has resulted in people who are choosing to are required to use a [inaudible] in the city are [inaudible] 80 percent empty, there are 4 empty seats that utilized and most of the times the car is stationary so need a place to park and most the cars are privately owned so it is creating a economic burden on people to get around the city with private transportation. Because of the design the city and Transportation System we have enormous peaks in the morning and evening which creates a large demand on the transit supply but for the rest of the day it isnt very utilized. It is efficiency issue as well. In the mean time we had a plethora of new services that have popped up, referred to as shared mobility or some call it [inaudible] economy system. They started early on with car sharing bike sharing came on board but had a lot of companies that are based in silicone valley provide their own transportation for employees. We have what some refer to as a [inaudible] and then recently we had the electric scooters and new quad vehicles. None created more controversy for the city than what we refer to as Transportation Network companies, uber and lifts and the shuttle which is a service to move around the city. What we learned is these options are growing rapidly because they are [inaudible] we are trying to figure oit the best way to manage the services while if they are not going away we want to figure a way to work with them and incorporate into our Transportation System the best we can. Now, that is what is happening in the city up to now, as we look to the near future we are working very closely th some the Car Companies that are starting to test [inaudible] vehicles. Recently we had a few Companies Testing in San Francisco and one of the Car Companies had a collision earlier that got acquired by general motors. There is a lot of change happening in this space but barely scached the surface and want to guide the process rather than chase it or be led by it. One of the things we pushed for in the grants and hope to work with the usdot and california government is we dont want to see the path from conventionally owned private cars to [inaudible] we want to see private cars to shared a automated cars because we think that is the best use of our street space and the best opportunity we have to meet those multiple city objectives. Our goal was in the statement is we will work with the companies to guide them into trying to meet local city goals through a shared connected platform. With smart city proposal is simply a focus on working with companies and services and not on their own, working through the community. We felt it was important to state to the dot that we dont believe we can arbitrarily choose a neighborhood but want to work with the community to figure oit what they are interested in and how they would like us to move forward in this approach. We will focus on the data driven elements of this and expand and integrate the shared Mobility Services with Public Transit and incorporate shared and connected vehicles when they are ready to be brought to market. [inaudible] work Better Together and provide more access to mobility without the car ownership and also save customers time and money. A big focus of the grant is customer focus and figure out the opportunity we can improve the Customer Experience in the Transportation System. From all the research we have done we know Vehicle Technology can meet multiple city goals if guided effectively. They can reduce traffic fatality, reach the [inaudible] and reduce [cough]. We think we combine the suvss together and should be able to see something that is trans formational and [inaudible] shift more priority for things we care about which is walking transit and cycling but also if we can save up the demand for needed to use the parking garages we can potentially transform them and create Affordable Housing is that is a huge opportunity to reclaim some of our public Space Dedicated for private car use over to something that is more aminable to social equity which is Affordable Housing. The grant focused on 3 areas, one is create a city policy framework [inaudible] a lot of the companies are brand new and they are literally all over the place in terms of their ability to meet our city goals and objectives. Work on developing the [inaudible] and then guide the development of the automated technology. We have 6 keep principles we would like to push forward on as a screening criteria before we qualify the companies from now on and that is looking at the safety both in the vehicle and Traffic Safety approach to the operation making sure they focus on affordability, accessibility, available across the city and make sure they work with each other so they are [inaudible] and leading to the [inaudible] these customer focus objectives will help improve the things people have been telling us that are important. For example, being able to see all the different transport services in one app. [inaudible] and pay in one app. Those things will create a simplified approach in knowing the services are available and also utilize around the city. We are going to work with the companies to create a governance structure how we manage our data and tie that to the open data portal we have with sf open data and create city dashbords and metrics how we can see the efficacy of the work. Lastly, which is important, is how do we test all this new technology on our streets . We will develop a Community Design framework to prioritize the different [inaudible] on the streets and then integrate the technology into the municipal fleets and land use policy because the potential for connected and automated [inaudible] will have a big impact on parking and that will allow us to reassess some of our parking policies we have in land use. Now, before we do any of this we need to develop metrix and a process to make the changes so again, data driven is critical. Lets walk through some of the concepts we have come forward on. We have the idea of [inaudible] platform where we filter providers through the 6 goal areas. One area we focus more on is understanding our customer needs, so learning more about what the residents, workers, visitors and commercial Delivery Services need to move around the city. Work with providers to qualify them so they can be considered part the Transportation System and work with our Technology Partner tooz integrate all the technology makeing getting from a to b [inaudible] what pilots we can do to apply the technologies on to our streets whether [inaudible] station squz so on. If we can move forward with this approach we can see that based on the research this is a hi ypothesis of the analsis, we should see collision, congestion, emissions and street demand go down over time and also affordability and liability going up over time. There is a phase to the roithd right that we should repurpose streets and parking for more aminities we consider important in the city. We have diagrams [inaudible] currently in phase 1 where we are today, a lot of cars on the streets [inaudible] taxi and transit, but mostly a congested experience for everybody. Recently we had the increase in the different tnc services which are creating more capacity for on demand trips but still not a real change in the Transportation System. We believe that if we expand the sharing economy in the Transportation System to have more car and bike sharing and the different carpooling services that is when we will see travel demands in the city and should be able to repurpsh spots for [inaudible] and things we care about in the city as well. When we get to shared and connected system where the vehicles are connected and communicating they can move much closer to each other and aware of the traffic conditions and safety issues that is when well see positive reductions in meeting the vision zero goals and reducing emissions and so forth. [inaudible] we can start repurposing the street space to open space and things we care about as a city. Ultimately the vision is that in the automated version there will be less space needed to move people around and more Space Dedicated for things we care about and that is basically our vision that we are moving forward on with this grant. The second piece of this is to create a Community Challenge to ask the neighborhoods how we can start piloting in the area. One neighborhood is selected, we may select more neighborhoods but it will start one first and figure ways to we can provide Technical Services to the applicants and improve the [inaudible] services and new ideas into that neighborhood. The city team that is moving forward with the grant is a Core Policy Team between my team and the mayors office, uc berkeley and the consultant we are starting with and the Technical Support team consists of many different groups inside the mta and City Partners with department of technology, the sfcta, metropolitan transportation commission, [inaudible] and California Strategic Growth Council and have a externt support team with Different Technology providers and well work with Community Engagement organization to help with the Community Challenge. Our key steps in closing is that we are initiating the project team to get this final phase of the grant delivered. We develop the Community Challenge with Community Partner tooz create the engagement, website portal, [inaudible] and review panel and developing the qualified Technology Partners because we are ininidated and want to be able to screen them to help they add value [inaudible] as part of a requirement we have to do a 3 minute video slaining the vision and concept. I want to mention the smart city grant should we receive it will accelerate the program where most of the stuff is already under way so this will give a big boost. That is my conclusion, happy to answer any questions. Thank you papandreou. Colleagues any question or comments . Seeing none well move to Public Comment then. Thank you. Any Public Comment on item number 10 . This time should start when i arrive at the podium so could you reset the button please to 2 minutes . Thank you. So, one supervisor asked a question of the grantsthere is no guarantee theyll get a grant, but then we ask a couple of questions. Number 1, the southeast sector, 30,000 units are [inaudible] right now if you evaluate the Transportation System in the southeast sector it gets a f minus. Now, if you travel from the southeast sector to the north, every day you supervisors should go and check the freeways. The congestion is so umbearable people are fighting on the freeways and soon well have shooting on the freeways. It is very nice to hear plans as if we are living on another planet. As far as i know we are living on the planet earth and we need to be realistic. The first thing is san franciscans need to be respected so the public Transportation System should cater to san franciscans. We recently had a report on the newer buses that maybe the performance isnt so good even though some talk that they would be good so we need to reevaluate the new buses and find out if you spend millions and millions of dollars if you are doing san franciscans right by spending taxpayers money. I appreciate it very much just giving us 2 minutes on the very very convoluted topic. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Okay, this is a information item. Item number 11. Item 11, introduction of new items, colleagues any introductions . Any Public Comment on item 11 . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. This is also a information item. Item 12, any general Public Comment . Good morning commissioners. When the truth of one is in charge [inaudible] and destiny of origin [inaudible] travel a thousand miles in [inaudible] knowing of true destiny then [inaudible] human way of life in circumstances should make up proportions to have a way of [inaudible] holy destiny [inaudible] loyalty, parental love, dignity [inaudible] having the wisdom and courage [inaudible] ones existence of true self [inaudible] is ones true heart [inaudible] thank you so much. Next speaker. Supervisors, so i like to address quality of life issues. And i know the supervisorssome of the supervisors who work in our districts trying to do the right thing. We need to address transportation in a different way. Often we put the emphasis on consultants and as i look to the right here, i see a lot of change of faces. A lot of change of faces. I do not see a diversity. We need a diversity and we dont see it here. We are going to visit you all at your office and not a couple people but maybe 2, 300 people just like we did the other day. When we went to two supervisors they were missing in action and than were [inaudible] relevant pertinent questions they couldnt answer, so you know, im here to put the San Francisco county Transportation Authority on notice and i can do that because i represent the first people of the area to mark malone and you all havent been paying to that. A lot of your eir ceqa and so forth you came here 2 or 300 years ago and took things over you can do as you please. We really dont need to be building so much. We dont need congestion. Thank you very much. Any additional general Public Comment . Seeing none Public Comment is closed. Item number 13. Item 13, adjournment. Colleagues we are adjourned. [meeting adjourned]. Working for the city and county of San Francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change weve been on the edge after all were at the meeting of land and sea worldclass style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the citys Information Technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at San Francisco General Hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house Senate Regional wearout system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of San Francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the citys future but for considering a career with the city and county of San Francisco