Transcripts For SFGTV Treasure Island Development Authority 71316 20160725

The appellant. When i was up here before i kind of veerdz off any script and didnt make all the points i want to thank crown castle lawyer for making a couple of points one was about the hearing he just to be clear what happened at the hearing relevant to Public Comment. Essentially yes, there were 10 permits being reviewed that day but the hearing officer had said explicitly mr. Dont come up and speak unless itself your permit up for appeal that it seems to me to be a pretty gross way to characterize a procedure that is set up for public review if theyre coming back with a charter the discretion of hearing officer to keep represent tuesday comments at bay appeal after appeal ill ask what is going on a whole group of people giving rec park tissue and that hearing was messy and unorganized i dont ascribe a envelope reduce whats the relationship between the pen company and that stuff i dont know those are interesting requests how im populated to understand something on a fifth page a staple color of shermans paint and looking at outside my house for the next thirty years if i luckily live in the house it is beyond me to enjoying what that specific color staple looks like this is ridiculous so also i would be remiss if i didnt incorporate the Arts Commission argument into any own protest i didnt specifically say that i do and building the has the purview to review the dpw decisions for either on public or private property and whether the poles are on public or private property by not impede on the public property is part of description and add that to my laundry list i imivy provided you with arguments this permit was flawed and can be applied to the group i hope youll take that and stand with me. Well well hear from the permit holders now. Rebuttal. I Martin Fineman for the applicant ill be brief. Talk about a quick moment about the staple affair i had a chance i didnt have it when i was questioned about the staple issue i have to say the exhibit being referenced doesnt look like the staple goes through the plastic it looks like documents that are stand together and places in the plastic i want to make that comment and the second comment by the great staple beat it would be a mistake to get caught up with this one pole the board knows we posted quite a few a number of policies and in fact, a number of poles 6 or 77 no reason to think theyre all stapled to the pole with that, ill state i responded to the other arguments obviously the Arts Commission is not in consideration we have talked about at length of the Arts Commission so i would just respectfully ask the board to deny the appeal and uphold the permit thank you. Ms. Hpc anything further. Amanda in public works in terms of posting i dont have it with me the pictures of crown castle posting we had it and they were like sewsuran wrapped we have the permit. So crown castle posted those termination notices on several poles im counting about 8 here and so that one in looking at these other pictures i dont find the staple in there so im thinking it would be polk that the staples might be an ambiguity but have to look at that in more detail. Ms. Higgins can i ask you a question do you live in the city of San Francisco. Actually in the peninsula. Thank you. Okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. I will repeat ill say ditto to the previous case, i believe that there is a flaw in the process in regards to the Arts Commission ill let somebody make a motion. I will be repetitive since everyone else has been repetitive ill say the same thing the last two of these large things this is a legislative not a quasi issue ill leave it at that. Ive been quiet all night now ill talk im very sympathetic to the appellant. And i have heard less of these than commissioner honda has but ive heard enough lets make it clear it is a legislative issue and unfortunately through is an article 25 that the state passed and so if you have an issue with the assemblyman and the senators who gave way to the lobbyists or is advocates that crafted article 25 so skillfully and tightly so we cant talk about sounds like stuff because thats covered in article 25 and cant talk about rfp emissions that is covered in article 25 and some obsolete i agree fashion that was done in 1996 before we all had cell phones in our pockets that is a legislative issue we cant talk about views unless the Golden Gate Bridge is involved a box in front of a view corridor to block the Golden Gate Bridge thats make that clear this legislation was created by companies who were in a rays to capture marketrate and probation officer provide for service and capture for money from san franciscans it is about collecting money i agree but still a legislative issue and ms. Higgins i went through wifi i think you do a great job you play and i resent the game you play youre not protecting the interests of citizens of San Francisco but 0 doing a great job doing our job for the dpw which congratulations on doing your job i dont find in this case that dpw is 100 percent finding for the interests of citizens of San Francisco but you do a great job i wish you a great career so we end up having to play those games that is lets find a staple lets find an opportunity to find misleading notes on a notice so because this probably will have to go to the court and probably had to be relegislative so you know ill be very glad to make a motion to find for the appellant based on as one member of the dpw said yeah. A miss posting ill find that ill move for the appellant that was improperly post and the way that the graphics were made were misleading and therefore mislead the public and that therefore i find the notice was flawed on behalf of the dpw thats my motion. I dont get the comments before. Huh . Well, you made a motion. Okay. Can you you want to hold our motion. First of all, id like 0 it to be made clear article three is San Franciscos public works code so no the in the legislative we have ourselves to blame and like to say that i personally appreciate the fact we have young talented people willing to work with the city and county of San Francisco regardless of where they live and give tare time and efforts to trying to carry out public code but turned down those permits on a technicality i dont find there are technicalities ill not support that motion. Would you like to put forth our motion. Move that we find for the appellant based on the fact that dpw was process the notice was flawed by dpw both in the way the notice was made available to the public and also potentially misleading graphics within the notice. Okay than another motion to deny the permit that the notice was flawed how made available to the public and also misleading graphics okay. On that motion commissioner fung no sdmdz no commissioner honda. Okay. And commissioner wilson is absent that motion fails with a vote of 2 to 2 with one absent and barry any on the motion this permit will be upheld i operation of law. Well take a short break and back to the original schedule ultimate it for an individual with health ischedul okay welcome back to the wednesday, july 13, 2016, merging of the San Francisco board of appeals were going back to the beginning of calendar and call item 4 martha and chris versus the Zoning Administrator and i said to make sure that the appellants are here okay. Thank you this is at the 2941 broadway to harvey of a rear yard surveillance for a second story with a deck above that he rear of 4 story two unit building i should check to make sure that the variance holder is here as well okay. Great. Thank you. So you may begin 7 minutes. Wait a second. I have to clean up my mess. Glad you ate our salad. Are you ready commissioner welcome. Go ahead. Hi, im with my husband chris and your twoyearold son next door to the gentleman we live on broderick and moved to our home december before christmas and you can after looking for many years we choose this home this neighborhood because of the open space the light and trees which we really wanted to have for our family without leah the city we when bought our house this ongoing dispute about the next door and other neighbors give you a few months we were notified after meeting the neighbors megan and neil one of the appellants that is variance have been approved for this rear addition we were surprised given the building is in violation of planning code and cal hallow Neighborhoods Association guidelines and the proposed renovation would make that personal in vision and has a negative impact on our property in light and open space and air from the whole back of our home the kitchen, the dining room the terrace in the back and our backyard which if you as you can see on the overhead i have a couple of photos of course, we just maintained we didnt want to get into a dispute with our neighbor and we didnt want to do this this is important for us and the neighborhood so we tried to reach out to the gentleman to reach a compromise we set up a meeting he came over with the architects and pointed out our be concerns and went to messaging house and went out to lunch and talked about what is trying to accomplish and made a suggestion without a lessor impact to the property and left they would good work get back with a proposal and fouled with an email again reiterating our suggestion we hoped to reach a compromise and got no response and after a month about almost a month we submit our brief because that was due about a week later we got after submitting an updated proposal that modified the original proposal and southern on improvement but does not minimally and our concerns and doesnt address any of the other neighbors concerns and we offered to mediate and see if we could find a solution that worked for anyone and refused to continue the discussion here we are today unfortunate were not representing just ourselves our own property but every person opposed this and blocks the neighbors to the south david across the street and weve written letters opposing this as jeff wood the cochair of the cal hallow Zoning Committee written opposing this variance so you know we wouldnt be here if the gentleman was trying to litigate misses the structure that is adding on to that and blocking your light and air it protrudes beyond our home that is the same block depth but get light and air through the decks where the decks are but the proposal would you know block if what is currently open space so you know it violates planning code and violates the cal Association Guidelines and sets a bedding bad precedence for that a deck space no argument that is a violation so the question whether or not this merits an exception this didnt meet nothing streerd this is larger the lots that goes further back than any properties plenty of space in the building and in fact, two units 3 families live in the smaller units i believe we live in a smaller weekly with our family it is not an unusual lot size nothing streerd and no unnecessa unnecessary created were asking not make the violation worse if not necessary to enjoy Property Rights the building is larger and goes further back than the other properties and materially injures to us and others neighbors that object and to the character off neighborhood which objects to that and granting this will therefore not in about harmony with the general goals of Building Code to ultimately this is a question of with whether the gentleman should be entitled to a special privilege of the surrounding Property Owners and putting in a bathroom where we wants to put it should trump the neighbors right over and over desire for open space light and air and whether the neighborhoods desire to maintain the character with mid block open space that is so important to the neighborhood thank you and i think someone else would like to speak if this is time. Okay. Okay. Well hear in the variance holder now. Just a point of order is it two appellants or one. No, they filed together the 7 minutes what is to be shared. Okay. Thank you. Good evening board im sorry im the owner of property i bought that property a little bit over 4 years ago with my mother a widow and trying to move to the San Francisco area to be color to myself. Sorry can you lift up the mike. Bought the property with her both of our names are on the title for her to be closer to us she lives on the east coast this property when purchased is old and dekrepd i have no knowledge how to fix it up i questioned harvey assistance as an architect to develop this tax all the neighbors and we came up with a number of plans that we made a number of concessions to the neighbors and weve made multiple changes to get it approved ive met with them numerous times and went to lunch i invited them to they were responsive with the neighbors and cordially with them knowing well be living next door to each other and wanted to resolve this in a cordial neighboring fashion im harvey hacker the architect on the project there are two issues i want to address one is my personal history with old issue of what happens when someone buys a property and is unaware of deficiency and the actual things weve done to attempt took to reach an accommodation with the neighbors on the first one has been my happy experience when someone buys a property and is misinformed by the sell are about what is there the Planning Department is extremely recessive to an Property Owner doing their best to clean up the record this actually is the case on the house i bought the year of the 1989 earthquake where someone was built in the back by the original family without a permits in the 1920s was near collapse i was able to deal transparently with the Planning Department and have it legitimized in a nonconforming condition thats what i advise ray and the wife to do and strongly adviceed him any changes that expands the colored volume of building stays within the limits of existing structure ill hope to legitimize when we had the variance hearing the Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez Planning Department. That that he office inclined to approve but urged us to get together with the neighbors to try to reach a mutually acceptable accommodation and we presented a scheme to the neighbors which pulled back any proposed addition on the deck let me put that diagram here can you focus on this one please. So no thats fine so the yellow marked area the property in question and one of the neighbors the shivering family house the other appellants the bronx ton family in that house and present a scheme to them the neighbors we met with were adamant at this point that the new owners should derive no benefit from the structures which i estimate to be thirty years old i dont know for sure about that a previous owner built and do their best to tie in a legitimate way to remodel to stay within the limits of planning code we recognizing that the gentleman bought the place with certain expectations tried to work out a way that that would be acceptable to everyone we submitted a plan that pulled back the construction under the existing decks 3 feet from the edge and then following the meeting that mrs. Shriver described we look at the view under her unit we proposed another plan that clipped a corner off the proposed addition see here so we taken away this space and then this space which would produce a through view you see and every time we proposed a solution that we hoped would indicate a ready willingness to compromise it was flatly refused i think weve made a honest and go substantial effort to make this work for everyone and i think the position of opposing the granting of variance is way more extreme than im consider appropriate i ask you to uphold the variance that was granted are you finished and im finished. Mr. Hacker the nonconforming decks correlate to some type of entitlement with respect to the envelope of the building. If i building that entitlement was the situation then it wouldnt be necessary to seek a variance i mean i understand that is a special permission but i think that the effect on the neighbors of filing in some of the spaces within the decks didnt create a situation that is materially less good for them than what existed before for example, i did this diagram that shows the worst condition of the house blocking the sunshine on the neighbors yard and as you can see in glancing at the diagram even if the decks were completely removed with or without the proposed in file the house will cast exactly. I know i saw youre diagram thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. The subject property on back to the drawing board rick within an rh2 the lot dimensions is 78 feet deep with those dimensions it is short by 25 by one hundred but wider while it is wider it has a 5 foot setback on the north side and the entry and a bay window in those locates but otherwise 3 other obstructions that addition to a setback of almost 8 feet contributes to a reduced available building envelope for the subject property thats with only of First Properties when looking a variance and it is a 2 unit building their smaller lots 25 feet wide the same depth are singlefamily dwellings and the property to the north the appellants property is actually did receive a variance in 2001 a rear yard variance to reconstruct the deck within the riders rear yard and added a bay window that was appropriately down done with permits it was submitted in early 2015 it is subject to neighborhood notification and the neighborhoods notification for section psi between august of last year and no questions the variance hearing was heard at the end of august at that hearing there was neighborhood opposition to the project also issues were raised about the unpermit nature of the decks that were there the primary concerns from the appellant to the west about United States privacy from the decks and from the structure and light and air impacts i did indicate i could see given the constraint of the lots a justification for a variance but continue to work to resolve the matters unfortunately, there was not a resolution that was satisfactory to all the parties but one of the things we looked at how it could be reduced whether the project to legalizing the decks that have been there quite a while and reconfigured to remove the structure from the north and the south but it has been in place were not whatever of complaints on the property i asked the Properties Properties at the hearing has anyone made a complaint about the impacts and no complaint were made not couldnt have been impacts but clearly the appellant have shared their concerns about it but probation officer me that was an listing factor it existed without adverse impact for someone making a complaint about the structure so as part of review process we had them reduce the encroachment they were seeking to buy out to the line of deck at both the first story and at the second floor it wouldnt be are for the full width of second story it was smaller but it was coming out to the edge of connect so extended 3 feet from the deck currently and brought up a second and ground levels inform change at the thirds level than legalizing the deck at that level those are the factors that run into making the decision the projectile as a guest bedroom and lower level it is for families for the owner of the lower unit that also expands and to modernize the lower units on the second story and makes 20 two bedrooms makes those larger and one bathroom with a master bath a moderation and configuration so with all the factors we are determined the grants were justified and issued the decision whether i know there is now a new neighbor Property Owner i asked our staff if theyve been contacted by the appellant theyve not heard from the appellant that is maybe why there was in the appellants brief they had not gotten notice of decision letter we mailed to people that requested to get the decision letter and so the decision letter went to those in attendance at the hearing because the neighborhood were not in attendance and not at home but this is where we are im available to answer any questions. I have a question not to sort of put you on the spot i do that Carbon Monoxide did you have any ideas to what a compromise might have looked like . I mean, i urged them to talk about thank you something you thought might work. Along the lines of setting back i see the justification for the open space it is two units question do encourage to have the open space assessable from the units thats what the decks have been that there provided the extent of the building that was expanded on first story and second story i thought the backend was appropriated could there be more play in that i think that could be possible but i think that who was proposed was a reasonable change to the plan. Thank you. Did you see the compromise theyve opposed after you made your decision and i believe we saw that has part of this appeal. What did you think about that. Is certainly reduces the impacts to theeighbor to 9 north angleed walls but could be an appropriate way of recreation and Parks Department and additionally the project property. According to the sanborn maps how old. It didnt appear on the sanborn map if it appeared on that sanborn map maps it would be illegal i dont have an estimate given bans the testimony at the hearing i believe some ordinances have been there singles 1990 and been assessable probably close to the age that mr. Hacker described thirty years. Thanks. Any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none well start our rebuttal with the appellants first 3 minutes. Good evening. Im margaret and my husband and i own a hose to the west of subject property one of the main reasons we bought the house because of mid block open space with the park like views from the backyard our families enjoy the outdoor space the subject property is already out of scale structure in violation of the planning code i dont think that expansion of the envelope should be allowed you can see from this photograph exhibit way look at the backyard an imposing structure the Property Owner wants to add more bulk to this building by filing in space that is open already the 5 finding necessary for gravsht the variance have not been established finding one no exceptional or extraordinary exist and one of the arguments that the Property Owner made was that the original design constituent a front setback but doesnt allow an subsequent expansion in the back the owner is talking about expanding the building about so the front and onehalf not opposed this and finding two little enforcement will not have unnecessary hardship the were not asking the owner to patiently demolish the building the owner could have asked for a permit and now he seeks to expand the building already in violation of the planning code the decks were not permitted is no excuse for expanding into the deck area and finding 3 not for enjoyment of the Property Rights that was possessed by other properties in the same district and other Neighboring Properties have below ground level it appears the owner may want to expand it to have an illegal agreement for no entrance or exist to the corridors i want to note that property is up the hill from my property it bigger than it is i want to note the cal hallow Association Guidelines definitely state that out of size or out of Scale Properties shouldnt be allowed to fringe on open space in mid block areas. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. Sure. How long have you accident on the block. Ive lived there i think almost 10 years. And how did you become aware the property was not conforming or legal. I didnt become aware until the neighbor proposed this expansion i looked at that. Thats when it came up thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well take rebuttal from the variance holder anything further to add. We have nothing further to add but ill answer questions. I have several the property was purchased 4 years ago thats correct. 4 years. Was that disclosed at the time of purchase since the full disclose with illegal work to the property. No, it wasnt and any currents be action with the previous owner. The previous owner owned that foreclose to 70 years. A bait or a regular action. Not any records of. Thank you thats it. Anything furthers mr. Sanchez commissioners, the matter is submitted. A couple of questions come to mind im not sure theres an answer if you look at the photos of existing yard of permit holders house is weeds i would hope hell landscape that at some point in time currently to the question of what are the neighbors looking at and what is creating the angst i understand the immediate neighbor shes in a well, theyre in a key lot and therefore theyre looking at quite a bit of wall that is r6b9 by the other appellants how so her view is only at the wall and her own gardens and a sliver through the permit holders site i havent found that the da erred given the fact a combination of unusual conditions that dont reflective what is conforming to todays current planning code however, i think that it would help if they did as the earth clipped the corner of that addition of second story. Sorry commissioners do you mind if i ask the permit holder a question could you step to the podium please i forgot to read my notes currently the property is rented or not rentcontrolled unit. Correct i purchased it with the current renters. I believe i saw in the notes that it was listed on airbnb. No. Its never been. Im sorry reading the wrong notes sorry thats it thank you. So commissioner fung a couple of meetings ago cases ago we asked a couple of parties to go back to the back to the drawing board and there was some success with that im wondering if it might be worth doing that again under those circumstances. You know youll hope so im not sure it pates rejected twice i know. That might have been the case about but somehow, i think that mr. Sanchez was involved well with that was that 20th street or where what is it in all that i mean, you does mediation shall we say and happy to do so if the boards so ways thats an idea. You should such excitement that so, so what you, you thinking fellow commissioners. The court well, based on commissioner lazarus is saying if we send them back theyll come up with something which is what we happen to side here a lot oh, notice no, it is unfortunate a onramp structure been that a long time at the same time i dont see huge, huge reason for a variance everything soirnd the property seen that been there didnt necessarily mean it is okay. Are you thinking of a continuance and how long. Commissioner lazarus. Yes. A continuance with a request that mr. Sanchez has something to say and Scott Sanchez Planning Department. I would request a continuance we get specific guidance and what type of xhoomthsz if it is looking at the setting back the decks how far the defections go and reducing the deck spaces or trying to look at the light and air to the adjacent property to the north there is i think two different issues the appellant to the west the privacy and the light and air the property to the north seems more about the light and air. I personally was troubled by the light and air so the decks or just the space given. The all filed in but thats my im fine with the decks myself it is to the south. So mr. Sanchez im more im in sync with my fellow commissioners but have a written wrinkle does that fulfill the variance i dont see a hardship are i dont see a problem with the building this has to be done to preserve the building in any way, shape, or form, etc. , etc. According to the laundry list which is part of requirements for a variance that the one 89 appellants listed so id like to see the two of them come together and in this compromise which means both of them walk away unhappy but at the same time one can argue that it met all the conditions that would require or that will allow a variance im not ready to take up that argument tonight we want to commend follow the leads of my fellow commissioner but it might be a message to the permit holder that that would be an option to go along with that and therefore nothing will happen. Even if they didnt no work to legalize the deck. Other than the deck. Ill respond to say fair should there be any future effort we proceed for guidance i have not heard anything that s disdisputes some acceptance of the nonconforming nature of those decks im the one that is usually against i was going to say variance. laughter i im sympathetic to a couple of things those are relatively short notices and this particular property is setback from the front and theyre right you can put portions of buildings elsewhere to get the types of program and i think im more authentic sympathetic sympathetic to the neighborhood to the north given theyre more i hope they dont nice landscaping it softens the view from the neighbors off greenwich so i would if were going to think about a session for them to do ill lean towards somehow chopping off the corner of addition so there is some expansion of that sliver that looks towards the south west. All right. Ill move to continue the item to director do you have suggestions. One possibility the tenth of august thats a good meeting for the board. Maybe ask the two parties first if. Your not here supposedly. On the tenth can the permit holders come up first so during the deliberation looks like we have an idea to move forward and hopefully, you guys can have further discussion keep in mind youll be neighborhood for neighbors for a long time are we looking at i dont know one suggestion before youll not be here and want to participate well packing pick a different date. Im fine. Does august 10th work for you. Is that a wednesday. Yes. Always open 0 wednesday. Are a sunday. Yeah. Any earlier dates. How about the 17. Earlier. Oh, earlier no although the 27 that is pretty fast. The concern. The 27 of august works for me. That the appellants. Appellants does that work for you that party it didnt work can the appellants come to the podium please. Ill be happy to do the landscaping and consider a landscaping to modernize the property to satisfy the neighbors. The main thing most of the drawings weve show that them theyll all you guys have time to ufshth or work this out so will the 17 of august work for you you the tenth of august, i have to be out of town. Pick your time. 17 might be better. That week. Were hoping and praying and crossing ours fingers some merging the gap when you come to us we have an approved agreement between the parties and that would make life easier for everybody does our schedule. I had to turn on my phone. No worries take your times i appreciated we put four longer cases before. Okay yeah, he cant had had 17th im sorry. Ill be in negotiation. Cant say had had tenth how about the week following. Doesnt matter. Okay bingo bingo the 24th okay. Thank you. Its your night it is will be a long night for the board if you do that. We went to one 40 last week what the heck. Im move to continue the night to the meeting of august 24th with the requirements the parties meet with the Zoning Administrator or his designated representative to address the issues related to the filing in of the decks and at the creation of and try to create additional light and air. Briefing youll allow your continue to allow them to explore the compromise that theyll find satisfactory. Okay. So no additional briefing it is just procedural question. I had a question will we get guidance obviously before that time from. Yes. The Zoning Administrator thats part of what they did motion was theyll try to work with you guys and hopefully sure step to the mike please. If the outcome of the any meetings between us is that we reach a satisfactory resolution then, of course, the appeal could be withdrawn and we dont appear at all; right . And thats definitely an option. Or may want if you folks arrive at a compromise may want us to condition the permit then. A variance. That way the board maintains the possession of the case. Thank you. So okay. A motion from commissioner lazarus to continue to ugly 24 to allow the time to work with to the discuss the focus on expanding the view to the southwest to accommodate the folks at the northwest. On that motion. Commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero and well move on to the next item item 5 versus the department of building inspection with Planning Department approval with property on 16th street avenue with the to alter alteration for the second story roof deck by 90 degrees planning code shows deck and permitted stair orientation to comply with the notice of violation and we will start with the appellant thank you for your patience this evening. So my name is mary parks. Im admin liley and ed anyone goes by the name of ted thats who im talking about so for 16 avenue and ed mans family had the property since 1961 and grew up in that home and were here to appeal the staircase that was built without permit but the permit was after the fact were appealing the permit after the fact we are disturbed that out of correct process was was not followed and never had a chance to talk about the staircase and privacy and other things and aesthetic problems enjoyment were having so this is the picture of stake as today from our yard so what happened was in well this is a photo from 2011 it shows what used to be there at the plans submitted for this permit describes as existing so as you can see the staircase is going down the middle of the backyard in a Straight Line the deck and an extension to the north and light as you can see those are in the exhibits by the way, and in 2, 3, 4 exhibit 2012 from 2011 and 2012 the demolition that took place as the deck and the rear of the house and stairs again i dont believe there was a permit for that either. So they built a new staircase noerjs or no longer in the places in 2012 on the north side of property seconds there is a tree here this is a been there all along and had noticed ill point out in the previous picture in the picture you can see the same tree next to the establish in a Straight Line so here in the house as today on 16 avenue they run to the Property Line and no stair in the middle and the tree on the Property Line right there we learned from the Structural Engineer when we found that the staircase was Betsy Carmichael in a state of shock we didnt understand how people can build something over time a complaint process and our Structural Engineer tells us to file a complaint we did so and submitted in our brief the letter that our Civil Engineer included in the complaint but a number of things hell describe autopsy the permits granted in 2012 shows the staircase in its original position to you can look at erics letter so he decide to file the complaint we did so in february 2015 only in march of 2016 we received a letter in response to our complaint theyve received a permit to comply with the notice of violation and didnt submit this in the brief but the notice of violation is here so our basic problem the plans under Construction Show see a staircase existing but, in fact, torn down and the proposed staircase is actually there and built without permit and because of this we are not able to have a way to review or talk about that or have anything to say about it and further having it there does fringe on our privacy and sense of belonging security and our enjoyment of our property so when we got this letter we didnt said what it is about we contacted dbi and met with a planner he explained to us and showed him the pictures amongst the firthings a safety we m the built the fences not permitted and concerned about the safety of the fences and brought up the issue of the safety of a sense on top of the staircase and not being permit and knowing how safe he secure that was either and also, we have questions concerns about privacy so im sorry about security it turns out the staircase go next to the property is next to a bathroom window when it is open like this as you can see someone can come from the landing or the deck or from one of the lower steps over this and into our window and thats the concern of security for us this is a another also concerns of privacy so also from the bathroom window cant open it because people can see into the bathroom window when in their ascending stairs and as you can see that theres also problems from the sunroom and as you can see from this picture we have a sunroom in the extension when we are in the sunroom a high fence people are climbing the fence taller they can see over the fence and look into this area it is disturbing in terms of privacy we are concerned about being in the backyard is that our time. You have thirty seconds were concerned about the backyard and the appearance of fence it is unfinished and some kind of yellow stuff it concrete people coming up the steps lshaped theyre looking at both our backyard and basically feel weve lost our privacy into our backyard thank you. Is your backyard flat. Yes. And is that pretty much the same level as the vanity neighbor and maybe slightly lower only lower. I have a question you guys have been that a long time when the work was performed the same ownership. Yes. So we were not living in the house when the work was done we were living in a studio nearby we were planning to do changes to our home and didnt want to be there. This question is related to the permit holder so when they were doing you showed pictures of work at that time, did you not check the validity of work performed. No. If i can answer we had our hands full at the time the owners undermines our house so we were much more concerned with that than the fact they built this massive staircase. No worries well vet this out with the department thank you. Thank you. Well hear from the permit holders now. Good evening pat for the permit holder in attendance 2012 there was a permit to remodel this structure is a permit granted to build or rebuild the stair in approximately then Current Location because of the way they were doing other construction and because of this tree and the stairs would be coming out of the lower level directly underneath the stairs above their shifted without a permit i grant that the building is carbon fills at the signed off but the permit should have been required to show the new locations the neighbors complained and got a permit we met with planning and went through the requirements for a stair in that location and granted a permit to build the stairs theyre built location a minimum sized stairs we butted against theyre building and as you can see from that point of view so it is a permitted set of stairs we are Going Forward to legalize the grade is different probably over two foot difference in grade some of their concerns first of all, this is not a massive deck or stair im standing next to the deck most of deck is less than 6 feet tall the firewall i believe is a concern ranks from 5 feet to 5 foot 8 you can have a fence 10 feet tall not massive the screen is the same fence were using on the property unfinished wood and put for their privacy not ours on the current permit not shown to remain the discussion with the building inspector and this was no a notice of violation only a compliment complaint of a possibility of a violation removed and they instructed us to get a permit and well tell you what to do the idea was at that time, we might have a conversation with the Building Department and neighbor to remove that or leave it for their benefit not obvious we walk up the stairs you dont see their windows im 6 feet tall not the tallest person cant look into theory windows in any angle all the way you will by the time i get to the top your angle is so flat our not seeing anything if we took this down and put the fence right here well look both this place in a sense this is providing the privacy their complaining about a loss to me but the bathroom, window theyre complaining about a slider i dont know who can climb into that but easily climb into a fence theyre saying we cant have a fence and this defies logic this bathroom, and this addition is unpermitted so their complaining about us on an nonpermitting addition everywhere weve not filed a complaint trying to keep those neighbors apart but claiming a view without a permitted addition views are not protected thats the intent it is their privacy and if you look at their photos in the attachment it is the same quality of firewall on both sides with the same fence on our side with unfinished would do woods and those windows are sliders i dont know anyone in their right mind will climb into that theres two owners next door there is no can i see no big family walking up a wood fence i dont see the noise concerns you can max make as much noise in the backyard im missing that and again, this screen is for them happy to remove if if theyre concerned but we were thinking a good fence makes Good Neighbors and thats the stuff like that to maintain if there is concern about the structure safety the fence the Building Department will be inspecting that and theyll be able to determine if theres any safety concerns im not concerned about it thats their job and the concerns this is unpermitted that was a permit in 2012 contraband they relocated it more than 6 inches that required another permit this permit resolves that and the issue of you know the owner has a right to build a fence and the appellants requested to demolish the survey and rebuild it i dont think that is any justification in the brief and the net result to be the only will be less desirable for them because you would basically have a backyard and people will be looking into those windows granted not permitted so we requested the board to uphold the permit i am talking about to have a conversation about the privacy screen which im happy to do do you have any questions ill be happy to answer them thank you okay well hear from the department now. Mr. Duffy. Good evening 19th avenue to take a 90 dress roof deck into the permit application states to colonel apply with notice of violation time Building Permit was issued and reviewed by the Planning Department and Building Department and the property as you may know is a singlefamily dwelling the structural notification was done by dbi the appellants showed us the letter thats good and so the work us the stairs on the Property Line and therefore a firewall is required at that area with the foundation their they cause trouble with neighbors their such theyre very intrusive but required by code because of prompt of the construction through the Property Line if there is a fire the firewall will act as burst and slow down the spread of the fire built with twobyfours and sheetrock on each does the trellis is not there it should be addressed this permit is not signed off hope to inspect the work results in a correctly notice and possibly a notice of violation the was no notice of violation even though the permit said to complies that was incorrect a complaint weve not issued a notice on this so this shouldnt have been on there i point out that to mr. Boskovich. There was permits over the last few years and issues out there most of them i think were resolved you heard about the foundations worked on that on 16 avenue that caused underpinning to be done on 478, 16 after the permits were signed off for that and it is unfortunate that like when that happens but certainly happens not imagine apart from if anyone has any questions for me. Just a clarify apple issue with the construction as it has been done. Yes. Okay thats right ive seen the photograph and little plans dont to over and over show that the thrills it needs to be designed properly but we need to look at that i think youve heard the dbi engineer had concerns but that that would require a second permit or else take down the trellis that has not been decided. Essentially dbi as oversight. We need to side an inspection thats right. I have a question inspector duffy because it in regards to the staircase only. I believe that was i looked up the description on the complaint and it only said work with the permit and worked on the scope of the permit an explanation from an engineer i dont have that with me. A singlefamily home or two unit building. A singlefamily home and something i cant tell is there a secondary unit at a the property. I read the notice and saw the airbnb photos to remove the sink and ground floor bathroom under the mr. Larkin under the 2012 permit cap. They had the Plumbing Supply and sounds like maybe some sort of a living arrangement for on apartment. Isnt there new legislation under an inlaw unit to register is so if the permit was issued to remove the units after the legislation has been made you cant remove the units; right . It would not say thats angle illegal units a maybe remove the sink. Maybe go through a legalization but one there securely you cant remove it but have to legalize it; correct. There he is legislation. Led by planning with dbi we never actually cited it for an illegal unit. Thats why i asked about the complaint. It has to do with with the stairs im not sure. Ill ask the person with the complaints will know. Mr. Duffy a statement made by the permit holders on illegal bathroom in the home of the appellant i dont know are there admit reason to look at that. Weve heard this if they want to file a complaint. Not under our purview. Not at the moment mr. Boskovich has not filed that complaint with dbi that happens a lot in both cases. It is convenient. Im missing something i know new stairs were built i seen the photos but those stairs were built the original stairs were destroyed without a permit and then new stairs were built at the arresting try will of the Property Owner and yes. Okay. So lets do it a before a for forgiveness later. Thats right. I was thinking of a case we had somebody the the same thing we found that that wasnt right. Thats right. I believe we made them kind of tear things down and put it all back together. It depends on in cases those guys i would say they did something theyll get a permit for easily made to change in attire design and obviously the neighbors are not happy but from a, point of view something that would is have been approvable we prefer people to come down and get a set of plans and some people move ahead another speed an exterior deck like this it is not as hard to inspect as you can seem like it some work i have concerns and take that up with the engineer and the foundation who inspected that i thought about the wall framing we remain undercover to do testing to make sure that work was in accordance with the plans were looking at because i agree with you i dont think we didnt see that they went ahead and did that. So in fairness looking at the other way if they would have done is procedurally correctly and asked to destroy those stairs and build new stairs in all likelihood their mistake was were going to do it anyway and see if we get caught or another filing for the permit. It is common the Building Department signed off and suddenly, the stairs have off the side thats not good that should have been caught im not sure that is right but anyway that complaint filed we didnt get out there and writ that up they applied for the permit they show have done they didnt had had work per that permit. Thank you mr. Sanchez. Scott sanchez Planning Department. Subject property within a rh3 that does allow for a firewall up to ten feet in upgrade of the subject property the plans is on file that is 9 foot 8 inches off grades on the subject property and allows for stairs that exceed a height of 3 feet above grade for the building level to the rear yard and projects up to 6 feet into the required rear yard and based on the plans they filed overseeing planning requirement in regards to an illegal unit units or shortly or shortterm rental a couple of complaints regarded the shortterm rental and staff abated theyll definitely has been listed the listing has been removed and no longer active from what our staff determines yards to the potential illegal unit one 0 improvement for the ground floor including a full bath on plans from a few years ago from the 2012 plans they exceeded the scope and had an additional sink at the ground level that was part of airbnb sweep, however, it was used there was a permit filed and issued earlier this year to remove that sink come into dmriens that in and of itself would not be enough to determine it was an illegal unit that needs to be legalized and also that permit was received before the code change went into effect by a few days. A few days. A few days maybe a week but true commissioner honda is correct currently if you have an unauthorized unit your recourse to legalize the units and if i choose not to legalize it youll have to go through a conditional use to remove that unauthorized units and if so distinct and not possible to be used independently not subject to this requirement and not used as a separate distinct unit not subject to requirements as well and so i dont think that is an issue mere based on my review of the plans from the 2012 permit and didnt see that has an issue it had an illegal unit but based my review and i dont have anything else if you have more questions. A little bit more clarification nothing wrong with renting rooms in our home. Thats correct. With the renting for residential use shortterm rental is less than thirty days must register to properly legally do that. The distinction do they have to Share Services if someone rents the room they center to have the access to the kitchen upstairs you, you it cant be a separate dwelling unit. So access to both units. Not required to have access it would be an accessory living space maybe a stair going in between the units theyre connected but dont have to open the door and let them in and out you need to be the primary resident to rent any of the rooms in our dwelling unit as a shortterm rental in registration request for this properties. Thank you but the planning review four rooms down. Those were removed from the envelope permit and the permit that was really this year removed unpermitted work that had as is sink essentially thank you any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then well have rebuttal from the appellants you have 3 minutes. Hi, im mary parks again. So i think the issue of tree they say they have to move the tree and is staircase is fine around trees i dont understand next to the Property Line i want to show this picture showing ed minute doing yard work taken in 2009 the fence that used to be there and how the view was the light and things to of that nature and compare that to what we have today, i know theyre claiming this fence or screen on top of trellis i heard someone call is that people cant see, however, i dont take pictures of people without permission i try not to i dont have pictures but many times not many times but dont go out there anymore but people have said hello over the fence and things like that they have two children and noisy when people are up and down the stairs and heading north they can see completely into our backyard and also well let me give my time to edmond. Yeah. I think that was the spotlight there was some questions by mr. Boskovich whether our extension is indeed legal so we did some research and this is a sanborn map from dated 1913, 1915 and it shows i dont know what mr. Boskovichs. You know the legitimate of our bathroom is not before us. Right so use your times according. All right. Ill ask mr. Boskovich why did they turn down our fence to erect their staircase theres been disposition taken to that i would add that i agree the fences make Good Neighbors and want the stairs to the original position give us our privacy and security and make the value of our property go up gnaws of construction that was there we want it to be returned to its original condition and have a fence like it used to be thats why were asking the stairs be removed and put back to their current position. I have a couple of comments or questions so the department recommended earlier those stairs that are currently there not code compliant meaning their legal stair see their probably not going to be removed what the representative from the permit holder mentioned as you said that additional fencing along the Property Line near the stairs for additional privacy do you want to see that disappear. Personally he didnt like to have it disappear thats not even mentioned i dont know where that comes from that suggestion. Thats what we committed. Can i ask a quick question. Sure. I dont understand how the stairs if at the followed the permitting process nothing done at that time. Unfortunately nationals an overthecounter permit so the permit is issued only if they build past the envelope a notification required no notification when they were building it when you have the opportunity to call and long a complaint or lodge questions okay. Thank you. Im sorry do you thinks that when we got the notice this year this march i thought that we got notice because they were clearing guess envelope in the building. You can address the department separately but did permit theyve actually worked on is an overthecounter and 15 days to appeal that process but you have to be aware so usually when theyre doing the work you have that opportunity. Because it was not permit were forced to live with something. Well theyll notice ill have the department explain after okay. Thank you. Well take rebuttal from the permit holder then. A couple of things for clarification in 2012 there was a permit to rebuild organizing stair they were rebuilt in the wrong location thats wrong but this is not a case where someone came out with no construction decided to tear downstairs and build them over there they have a large permit and during the construction because of this concern of the stairs coming out of the lower level they shifted the the stairs they shifted it pause of the tree thats why that was there this is a permit how it got as i understand off i dont know but it did were trying to legalize it what was discuss but is Building Department when i filed this permit was i wont mention his name the discussion i dont want to come out until theres what permit get a permit for what is there and what you want to keep and then ill do an inspection once the permit is orientated and then well have a conversation about that screen to that screen is currently not shown it is for the neighbor if we want to keep it well do a special conditional use but to privacy the genie is less than a health of the legal fence we can put a fence 10 feet it is providing the privacy are the concern about the quality the firewall is the same side of stairs and the screen is the same material were using for the rest of our fence so i dont view it as light ill be happy to work with them if they want to keep the screen this is a in their by itself interests im confused and if the board has any questions ill be happy to answer them this as permitable firewall less than the height of a fence you can get overthecounter thank you very much. Mr. Duffy. Commissioner joe duffy dbi not much to add did notification was a structural notification to the neighbors when the Building Permit is issued letting them know you work on the Property Line we had a couple last week, we should have done that but this is a foundation on that firewall on Property Line therefore we have to do it not impact the foundation but because of the Property Lines thats why the permit is issued wanted to say that. One question inspector duffy so the appellants are complaining about permission to knock down a common wall fence. Not requiring a Building Permit and i believe this is some law about it who shares the fence and stuff like that but we really encourage people to get along and not agriculture over a 6 foot fence youll not knock someones fence down and go tell them what theyll do and people share the cost of a Property Lines fence. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott Sanchez Planning Department. Just briefly when i reviewed the 2012 plan the major work at the rear the building my recollection the deck that has the stairs going bout outing to the tree if extended further furthers to match the depth of the appellants property and so the deck they have now is shorter than what was approves in the envelope permits. Thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. Well the issue is not the screen the issue is the stair and district and in probably you know that is richmond probably also appropriate in sunset their flat so it is reasonable to expect that one has on this a common fence between ones property and the rear yard im not accepting the legalization of an unpermit stair that has an impact on Something Else so what would be your thoughts furthers. They should revert to the original stair. The stairs are the theyre not what was on the plans their permitable; right . There are . So your objecting to the location i am. Okay thats my line of questioning that was confuse. If i wanted to follow that train of thought into a motion id like say that it is the following that this is unpermitted this legalization after the fact and if permitted i dont know if so a notice of identification by the appellants to be able to appeal it so if were hypothetical in terms of some of the things that have been brought up so for if it is appealed well move it. I guess id like to clarify that piece so im not sure who to address the question but mr. Duffy they come in with the plans as now built would that have been the same permitting process that occurred not noticed to nothing would have been accomplished and perhaps i mean that is all hypothetical. Mr. Duffy would you like to expand. Yeah. There would have been no notice with the permit was issued by the notification i think theyre talking about is from the Planning Department the trailing notification and given by planning codes here no more than 10 feet above grade for the Planning Department notification that is 9 for the lower deck and the firewall 42 inches about the standing surface on the deck the height of the deck bylaw plus 42 inches less than 10 feet didnt trigger the planning notification. It is built already. About mr. Duffy if the original plans shows the stairs in the middle and one looked at those plans a reasonable expectation they be in the middle. Uhhuh. Therefore it didnt trigger any amongst or desire to appeal but at the same time the fence was demoed and would have been built. Sounds like theyre built for in a position for awhile before the complaint was not like they appeared this is then side permit was a triggered and then appealed there was a lapse of 3 months they were like that okay. Okay. But i think im not supportive of this permit. Anyone against that otherwise ill suggest he make pa a motion. Make a motion commissioner. You want to allow them to compromise . I dont think how the stairs will move halfway will make a compromise but furthers that thought. Could move 3 feet in which case not a firewall. It is up to you. Not govern by the d u f so not currently anyhow. Is there any desire from the permit holders to find a resolve to this situation with their neighbor. Please speak into the microphone. My apologies im the permit holders id like to responds first and foremost a house we purchased in 2011 long time residents and bought the house with a renovation with a permit to lay outs what happened on the stairs not trying to cheat the neighbors of privacy or right. Weve heard this from our agent you. I want to talk about there was an in file a didnt occur it was requiring an infrastructure permits that was brought to our attention and went through overthecounter notification on the entire permits. Okay. My only question sir, do you want to have one last opportunities for a resolution with the neighbors or should we make a decision tonights. I guess that depends on what the decision. Youve heard whereas it goes. He wants them to tear down the stairs and they may want to wedge the screen. I believe that good fences make Good Neighbors the assertion to do work outside of law. Nobody said that. However, part of your concern that was done in some way to be pulling someone onramp a neighbor that wouldnt u couldnt be further from the truth im saying the stairs we have within permitted and under a construction project of this scale any contractor if bring to your attention that was necessary to move it he mind well make sure it meets the codes for fire protection. Sir youre bringing up everything weve heard please otherwise ill make ta a motion im giving you an opportunity you want one last opportunities to try to resolve this amicablely or make a motion mr. Boskovich say take our chance. What would you recommend. Im not going to do that im asking you a simple question. Of course id like to resolve the matter. Then im going to move to continue that with no briefing and on this a decision of either reduces or nonresolution. Okay madam director when. It depends on how much time the parties want to talk to each other. So. We have the tenth; right . August technicality. Im not sure ill recommend that given we have to continue if it we miss a commissioners votes thats my only question. September 14th. Okay yes. Does that work. Im going to move this case to september 14th to that continues. Thats a lot of times for the parties to meet. Yes. Weve got a motion to continue to september 14, 2016, to allow times for the parties to discuss the resolution sxhz commissioner honda and commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion passes with a vote of 5 to zero and ill gone and call the last item on the calendar jason verse San Francisco public works. What can we have a two minute break to let thesure. Is wednesday, july 13, 2016, merging of the San Francisco board of appeals were on item 9 jason versus is department of public works on 40th avenue are the protect of a construction of a mall wireless facility that is application number 150594 and is appellant in the room there anyone representing the appellant par p okay none representing the appellant commissioners well hear in the permit holders and the departments and move forward from there. I think see they had the opportunities lets do that mr. Fine. Thank you as the City Attorney reminded me, you dont have to speak its your choice. Thats a big hints ill be vertebrae very brief again ill Martin Fineman on behalf of the, llc the meats all the criteria and properly grand with the protest a determination was made as ive emphasized in previous appeals this evening according to section 11c right of article 25 the boards determination is whether the dpw the boards review is limited to whether dwp consideration was correct under the revisions of article 25 thats the standard and auditoriums outside of whether or not article 25 a was come applied that very quickly appellant first stays the site is somewhat near a private school however, that is not one of the crow cea for granting and not denying the permit and secondly, the appellant claimed the pole is leaning to one side as with the permits on the agenda this evening, in fact, that pole will be replaced with a brand new pole and as discussed before there is other factors last week the cvd general order and sf standards that address the full safety and third, the appellant discussed the neighborhoods aesthetics those factors were explicitly and comprehensively considered and addressed they addressed the small size of equipment involved, that it is in the rightofway together with other capable Utility Equipment conditions of design and color and so forth this permit was continues in planting a tree their explicit fvenlgdz will not detract from the character Historical Building and streetscapes and or buildings and will comply that the tier one ab compatibility standards and figure that out appeal may or may not explain why the pales are not here the the appellants was discussing the potential impact on someone elses house she lives several blocks away but someone put in an antenna that sdrushher and decided to f that appeal relating to different blocks and sort of cut and copied from an appeal that is sort of a strange one the photos she presents confuses pg e equipment from counsel castle equipment there are prompt values or continues weve discussed earlier federal law prohibits the city from considering that and city laws thats not a criterion and just the appellant halls turned the Legal Standards upside down in terms of this business about needing to show the significant gap thats not a Legal Standard for the permit that was denied and finally, the appellant argues the city has a role in protecting the city we believe the city has done by enacting the ordinance that limits the size and design and occasion compliance with rfp standards limiting sounds like emissions and so and so, i respectfully submit that criteria has been met. Thank you and respectfully ask you deny the point out and uphold the permit. Okay. From the department. Amanda higgins from public works ill say that all of the riders nofksz under article 25 has been performed for this permit and all the requirements in article 25 and the order have been fulfilled we urge the board of appeals to uphold the permit and deny the appeal im here for questions thank you. Any Public Comment on this item. Okay. Seeing none is there any rebuttal. Anyone else that either of the people parties would like to add i should say no. laughter . Ive got a allotted rubber bands commissioners, the matter is submitted. I had an oratory in the last case id like to go again and really again for the benefit of for the record and also future case we are governed by that legislative item were governed by legislation addresses the rfp u retalked about before and so and no problem in that particular case in noticing issues or nothing like that my motion to deny the appeal and like to add something i misspoke and harsh with regards to dpw i again, i complimented ms. Higgins on her vera rat about presenting the case she did a good job and my compliments were hard because this is an emotional issue maybe none committing because they all got tired and felt they might not be being heard it is important that we really listen to the public and been sensitive in money to criticize in in any way, shape, or form i salute you for the work on behalf of the citizens again given that motion i would present a motion to deny the appeal as there was no fault in allowing this permit. With no xhufrts commissioner comments to deny the permit and that was properly issued birthday issued and commissioner president fong commissioner honda commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson okay. That that motion carries are a vote of 5 to zero and commissioner honda theres no further business before the board. Good afternoon and welcome to the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency Committee Meeting of wednesday july 20. My name is commissioner jane kim and joined by commissioner david campus. Mr. Clerk can we call roll. Item 1, commissioner avalos. Absent. Commissioner campos. Present. Commissioner kim. Here. Can we call we should excuse commissioner avalos without opposition. Thank you commissioner campos. Mr. Clerk can i move to next items. Items 233 are on the consent calendar and if you object and can be considered separately. Any comments on the consent calendar . Seeing none lets open it up for Public Comment on consent. If you would like to speak on items two and three and seeing none Public Comment is now close the. Can we take a motion on the consent calendar. So moved. We can do that without opposition. Commissioner campos. Aye. Commissioner kim. Aye. Consent calendar is approved. Mr. Clerk can we call the next item. Item 4 is recommended adoption of the proposed fiscal year 20162017 annual budget and work program. This is an action item. Good afternoon commissioners. Cynthia fong director for finance and administration. What i have before you is the fiscal year 20162017 budget for the timma against. This year we continue our work program to advance Treasure Island Implementation Plan and advancing the operations agreement and the system and engineering programs. For expenditures in this budget were looking at a total of approximately 1. 1 million. This is an increase of approximately 13 from last years budget. We were anticipated to spend 28 on personnel and s sfmta staff and wearing timma hat scption we are spending on professional services and consultants in the areas of Planning Engineering design and communications and environmental services. We are spending 3. 8 , the are maintaining of the budget on non personnel costs and operational costs in relation to rent, the commissioner fees, printing, audit and legal sfees as necessary to run the timma agency. In terms of revenues we will expect to receive approximately 1 million from the tida agency and the remaining difference of 81,000 will be funded with prop k funds through an appropriation previously approved and passed in the previous fiscal year. This item has already gone before the sf mtc a budget and a proorded with the budget on the 28th. Staff and i am here to answer any questions that you have on this budget. Seeing no questions from Committee Members ms. Fong thank you so much and well open up for Public Comment on item number 4. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel]. Can we take a motion on this item. Move approval. We have a motion to approve. Roll call please. You can do the same house, same call if you like. Okay. Great. Same house same call. This motion passes. Next item please. Item 5 is recommendation approval of the Treasure Island mobility Management Study toll policy recommendations. Good afternoon arch. I have the recommendations for you today. As you know the Transportation Planning and support of the redeveloped island goes back to 2006 when the first plan was adopted and the goals and strategies set in that 2006 plan are the ones that under lie the recommendations today. They were readopted in 2011 along with the Development Agreement and the ceqa document, and then again have been the support that our agency has provided to tida since then. Since 2011 we have been working in support of tida to take will goals and strategies to implementation and designated with the formal role as the agency at that time and the goals and under lie the work include how to minimize and manage taf congestion and traffic impacts with the development. To manage the traffic and mitigate traffic impacts we node to provide an order of magnitude, new options for travel to and off the island and alternatives to driving and the third challenge is how do we pay for the ongoing operating cost and maintenance costs of the significant new Transit Services, and i would add another goal that really has been the focus of become a lot more prominent based on the outreach and feedback over the year and that is affordability and how do we support housing and affordability for the current and low income and moderate income households on the island . The level of transit is Service Planned and the recommendations will achieve is really a robust level of Transit Service and its the level of service that will make Treasure Island one of the citys most accessible neighborhoods. At the point of build out theres a muni bus from the island every three and a half minutes and Shuttle Service and Ferry Service between downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal and Treasure Island every 20 to 30 minutes. Its a great level of Transit Service that these recommendations will achieve that. Theres also a number of additional amenities that our recommendations will achieve. Its an on island circulator shuttle serving the neighborhoods are Treasure Island that are free of charge, transit pass which is mandatory for the market rate households to purchase and serve as a travel demand measure but also available to below market rate households and amenities that Treasure Island doesnt have today. Theres no car share available on Treasure Island today. Theres no bike share available on Treasure Island today and those are things that we will be providing through this new Transportation System. These are the goals that underlie the plan and walking and biking, high quality transit and a place you could live without a car. Thats is difficult to do today. I mentioned some of the strategies already that will support that and present since the 2006 plan. I want to point out we do have a specific transportation performance measure that we need to meet and 50 at least 50 of the trips on and off the island need to be by transit so our recommendations we believe are part of what it takes to meet that performance measure. Theres also the strategies for managing traffic. Theres the Transit Services side and theres also the minimizing driving side of things, and to support that there are parking rules so theres a the Development Agreement included a cap on the number of new Parking Spaces built. There is all the parking would be priced and managed according to price and there is the congestion toll that is called for to manage driving and discourage people to drive during off peak times on and off the island and then something that is unique to Treasure Island that goes along with this is connecting those services and those discouragements to be a comprehensive package so Treasure Island would be the recipient of all of the funds connected collected from parking from the transit pass purchases and from the tolls. Those are through ab 981 dedicated to Treasure Island and to funding the ongoing operating services. Thats something unique to Treasure Island and the governance structure i would say is unique, this body, the timma, is responsible for over seeing this program as its built out and delivered and for ensuring the performance goals are met that all of the services are provided and that the traffic is managed. We are very grateful to a bunch of people for supporting us in outreach and linking up with Community Organizations and businesses so that we can reach people. Tidie especially and folks at tida and bob beck and liz are here from tida. Were grateful to those folks here and Sherry Williams from tie die and we did direct mailings to everyone on Treasure Island and right now the residents and businesses is small enough we could reach everybody. The theme that we heard far and away the most is affordability and concerns for current residents of affordability so we have three proposals that are designed to address the concerns. The first one is just our basic need to achieve the level of Transit Service that is called for; that robust level of Transit System disproportionality and low and moderate income households and we need to achieve that and living without a car to actually be a voice, a viable option for the people on the island. Number two an approach to supporting affordability for the low and moderate income households. Currently on Treasure Island and those that will move there in the future. 25 at least of those units will be below market rate and this is a program any household eligible for the units can take average of it. It would be a cavtearia plan and a household of benefits and wanted to benefit them regardless of the primary mode of transportation is and why we have array of options there. The first feature in the program is a toll Credit Program for frequent transit users and this is modeled after a program that exists today in l. A. And atlanta on their toll lanes where they have this exact type of program and frequent transit users get toll credit for that. In the case of l. A. Its ten trips is a toll and that helps support folks who are able to take transit for the commute but theres a drive trip you need to make over the weekend and whatever it is and not transit accessible and this covers the funding for that. There are other benefits we heard interest in be a car or bike share member. There are membership fees associated with that. And thats something that this program could help subsidize. We heard interest in providing the equivalent of a life line fare on those operators that dont offer that today. Muni has a life line option but transit and ferry does not and we could provide that through the program and the financial projections were presenting today incorporating the cost of doing all of the things in the hypothetical, the Sample Program we costed out. The third is in response to concerns we heard from long time residents and by that i mean folks living on the island before the Development Agreement. The concern is for these folks they moved in contrast to future folks so most of the 20,000 or 25,000 people on the island will be there in the future and be receiving information and be aware of what the Transportation System and options and requirements are on the island but folks who have been on the island before the Development Agreement did not make that same choice so what we want to do in recognition of that is provide a limited term round toll equivalent for those households. This is for a household benefit and in recognition that these folks moved there prior to the Development Agreement being adopted so the recommendations that we have for you today they are what we think it will take to achieve the transportation performance goals of the transit mode share and congestion management and the financial goals to cover the costs of all of the transit and the other benefits that i have mentioned. These first two areas which drivers would pay the toll and in which direction. The first area of which drivers would pay the toll we are recommending a change from the past planning work and it suggested that just residents would be the drivers paying and we actually find that the program will work better and not be able to meet its goals unless any driver during the peak period, during the poll periods is paying the toll meaning visitors as well as residents. On and off the island the directions of the toll we dont recommend a change from the planning work. Discounts and exemptions. I mentioned a couple of the discounts already that we recommend. We recommend the discount of the daily round trips for the long time residents and long time households of any income level and also the discount for the frequent transit users as part of the below market rate benefit, the transit affordability program. Another one i should mention is a provision that would credit drivers who are coming from the east bay on to the island for what they have just paid at the bay bridge toll plaza so no paying twice. Exemptions include transit but also slutels, van pools, 7a plus passenger vehicles, some of the housing and Service Providers are the island today operate van Pool Services for clientses to get to programming on and off island. Theyre are exempt. We just as a side note partnered with tie die and tcdi to fut funding for these programs. In any case theyre exempt and when the bicycle pedestrian path touch down is completed bicyclists and pedestrians are exempt also. Can i ask a question . What about carpools . Yeah, carpools, were not recommending a discount or exemption for two, three passenger cal pools. We project there is a very disproportionate share of vehicle trips on and off the island made by two, three person carpools and for the congestion management purpose as well as well, mainly for the congestion management purpose and the 50 mode share. Its something we should monitor as the island develops and as we observe travel patterns and see what the rates are carpool formation are. Okay thank you. What i am showing now are two aspects of the policy were not recommending or action or adoption of policy today and the reason that we dont is because based on your feedback and feedback of this body, tida board and outreach we need to do more work and this is on the question how much is the toll level and when is it in operation . And the feedback we heard is that we should look for additional sources of operating funding that can supplement the toll and help make sure that that toll level and hours of operation are minimum as possible to achieve the outcomes that we need. Theres the congestion management goal that we need to meet but as long as were meeting that you know the more we can find other Revenue Sources to supplement the fees from the parking and the transit pass purchases and transit box recovery and the toll the better so were going to keep doing that work and we will need to come back. We project right now that the whole system we services to start in 2019 so we need to come back to this body about a year before the start of services with policies in this regard, and we will need to work with you during that interim period on this additional work on the operating funding. This is a snapshot of the financial profile of the program looking at build out year which was at that time of this projected 2030. It might be a couple of years out from that but in any case a snapshot of the projected cost and revenues of the Program Based on what we know is committed right now and the three main Revenue Sources from parking, transit pass purchases and fare box and the toll and you could see that the way based on what is committed now a lot of revenue is coming from that toll and hence the feedback to look at can we diversify this either further . And there are you know, sources we can in partnership with well, with our partners look towards to supplement that. This is a high level overview of the implementation time frame. Again we want services to be begin when the first new homes are available for occupancy on Treasure Island, right now mid mid2019 so leading up to there is System Engineering work and civil design work to do. A lot of work is developing the programs and benefits so developing the transit pass. How much will the value of that be . What benefits will it include . We are envisioning something more than a muni fast pass because theres ac transit and we have a ferry also operating and we want the pass to shall this ordinance be. The transit for toll credit for frequent transit use developing that and getting those two systems to talk to each other, and our Agency Partnerships developing finalizing Service Plans with ac transit and weta leading up to 2019. Thank you very much for all your feedback in past and i am happy to answer your questions. [inaudible] off mic . Just a quick question. How much youths live on the island and in terms of school age . Do you know how many commute in and out of the island and how do they get to school . Right. I know there is about 600 households on the island now and the share of people who are youth i dont know. I dont know whether liz knows that. [inaudible] off mic . I mean can you get that from the School District . We can. They should know how many student residents of the island there are, what schools they go to. Yes. I assume they get to school by Public Transit or who knows. So theres a mix of things and i invite liz if you have Additional Information on this please come up and add on to what i say but we heard this during outreach that kids need to take muni to their schools and to do that they are taking the 25 to the transbay terminal and transfer to the other route that will get them to wherever the school is, and there are some i hear some things about other like sort of Shuttle Bus Services sfuc provides the Yellow School bus for a selection of public Elementary Schools like Betsy Carmichael i believe and john wai in redding but i dont have the full list but they provide limited Elementary School service but once youre in middle school and high school you need to take the 25 and transfer. I would like to know if you can tell me how many are due the muni program . Okay. I will find out, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you commissioner campos. I know that you have made my ive made my comments earlier in meetings and from the board and i appreciate the work done thus far and i am excited about us being able to pilot a mobility Management System at all, and i just want to say i strongly believe in having one for the entire city as we continue to grow in density we need to think about mobility management for the entire city here in San Francisco. I have expressed some of the concerns about just isolating one neighborhood that is a part of our city on Treasure Island. Although i do appreciate what has been said about new residents who have an understanding of the cost of transit before they decide to move on the island so i appreciate that were considerations made to existing residents and particular low income households on the island and you know finally i did ask for the agency to at least consider hours where there arent tolling for the residents. I certainly believe it makes sense in peak hours and by 2019 it maybe most of the day so i am glad were exploring it and i feel while i have some concerns what is put forward i feel like theres been a lot of thoughtfulness and a commitment to listen to any of these issues that i have and residents have brought up so i feel a lot of comfort moving forward and i think we will be able to incorporate a lot of feedback into the final outcome of 2019 and i really appreciate the thought that went into the work. Its exciting to reimagine this neighborhood with ferry e expanded bus services and bike and bus share and other scpfers theyre necessary and we can really build with a future of a neighborhood on Treasure Island so thank you for all of the work. Director chang. Thank you chair kim, commissioners. I wanted to echo the thanks to the agencies and rachel and you are and guidance and support and to be responsive and to the community and carry through on the promises to look for diversification for operations and non tolled windows and finding solutions there. Its really exciting to work on a project like this. I look forward to not only continued local support but hopefully Regional Support. This project has performed very well, a tom performer for two rounds of the bay area work and as we move into the final stages of bay area 2040 update and hope it receives the Regional Support at mtc and the air district and programs that we might apply to and mtc and the air district or cap and trade and this is for all areas and social and environmental and were hoping to enjoy that support from the region Going Forward and at the state level as well. Thank you director. So at this time seeing no further comments from the Committee Members we will open it up for Public Comment on this item. If you would like to speak on item 5 please do come up. Seeing no public it is now closed. [gavel] thank you again for the presentation. Mr. Clerk can we call the next item. Do we have to vote on that . Im sorry. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. Yes. We do have to make approval recommend approval of item number 5. I make a motion to move this item forward with a positive recommendation. And we can do that same house, same call. Thank you commissioner. Mr. Clerk next item. Item 6 is update on the Yerba Buena Island east side ramps project and its an information item. Mr. Dennis. Good afternoon chair kim and commissioner campos. My name is dale dennis and the authoritys project manager for the ybi ramps project. This afternoon i hope to provide you a status update on the ramps project itself along with a couple of additional transportation elements on that portion of the island. The ybi theres a lot of work going on the island and not only the ramps but obviously with all the Development Going on. The current ramps project is approximately 90 constructed, and this is a current view of the status of the construction. We are moving forward on schedule and on budget. The contract was awarded in december 2013. Again about 90 complete, and president capital phase of the project is 68 million and the goal is 12. 5 for dbe and were meeting that goal and with the progress we experienced to date the new ramps are scheduled to open in september of this year. Some of the upcoming milestones to complete the ramps this month theyre completing the bridge barrier rails. Next month in august were moving forward with the north gate mc clawla reconstruction with completing the seismic bridge deck joints and moving forward in september we will start and complete the traffic electrical signing and striping and that will allows us to open the ramps and at that point and we will have other work but its scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The next slide shows some interesting facts and figures. Just showing the magnitude and complexity of the project, but theres been 12500 cubic yards of structure concrete and over 1400 truck loads and five millions of pounds of steel and 7miles of piles and more than 185tons of structural steel so its a very complicated project and its interesting to see what it takes to build these projects of this nature. This slide gives you a nice aerial view of the ramps from the tunnel above 80 so you can really good a good perspective as to the configuration and the geometrics of the ramp. As i mentioned theres a couple other transportation elements that we are moving forward with working with all of our partners, working with caltrans, the bay area toll authority, tida, their developer, the local city agencies mta and dpw along with the coast guard and one of the elements is vista point. Caltrans is in the process of wrapping up the construction of the pedestrian bicycle path on the bay bridge and one of the things with all the construction that is going on the island over the next couple of years we are working with our partners to create a vista point so bicyclists and pedestrians arriving at the island will have some place to go until shft other some of the pedestrian paths are constructed in the future. If you look at the exhibit all of the orange up to the orange on the exhibit is what cal trans is constructing and on the left side of the exhibit and then to the right with all the green, yellow and the blue, those are facilities that are being constructed as part of vista point. Those will include hydration station, restrooms, bike racks, bunches and additional parking area and in order to construct this were using quarters nine from the coast guard so the coast guard have been cooperative in assisting with the improvements. The funding has been identified a combination of funds from bata and the authority with c co with the current ramps project so estimated at 2 million currently and were shooting to open vista point this fall as well and hopefully tie it with the hoping official opening of the bike pedestrian facility. This is a view of what the bicyclists or people arriving at the site would actually see looking back at the bay bridge so its a pretty striking view. The other element that were working with our partners on is the alignment of the south gate road. Its a local roadway system connecting the east side, eastbound ramps and the westbound ramps making it a full interchange. As we have been working with our partners and engineers over the last months its recognized that the current line for south gate in the configuration on this exhibit has a number of deficiencies operationally and just in conflict with the bike vista point we were just talking about, but with this configuration were looking at there could be potential q spill backs on to 80 from the off ramp. The bike ped will have a conflict there between the vehicular traffic and vehicle and peds. There is no Public Parking currently planned and again the south gate hillcrest intersection would be a l so f at this point and beyond that as the geometrics laid out there are truck deficiencies that wouldnt allow full access for trucks so we have been working with our partners and the next exhibit shows the realigned south gate road which addresses all of these deficiencies. You will see the alignment of south gate instead of being on the north side of the hillcrest you will see it sweeps down to the south side of quarters eight under the eastbound off ramp and sweeps under the bridge to go ahead and tie into mc clawla where the ramps project is. With this configuration and you can see on the top side on the orange you will see the connections for the bike peds where they can have access to the vista point as well as to the left theres a 16foot bike ped path that then sweeps down under the bridge to tie into mc clowla as well. The benefits of this proposed realignment of south gate again it reduces the cuing on to 80 and safety improvement, eliminates the bike ped conflict, establish the parking area around quarters eight. It results in significant intersection lo s improvement operationally and again it accommodates the truck turning movements which is critical because this is the primary ramps used when we start working on the west side bridges. Were currently working forward with an Implementation Plan with our partners. Caltrans has already issued a deductive change order to not construct south gate in the previously planned area, and so we are now working with caltrans and bata and the other group to come up with a plan for the south gate realignment and hoping to accomplish in the next two, three months. With that i will see if you have any questions. Thank you mr. Dennis and i dont see any questions. Thank you so much for the presentation and it is really exciting to see this come in completion and on time and budget and excited about the bike pathway and rest stop. I think thats a great addition for the item and those cycling on the bay bridge. Thank you. I will simply know i know the executive director will keep me posted as i sit on the mtc bata in terms of funding and whatever we can do to supportive of the project please let us know. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. At this time we will open it up for Public Comment on item number 6. If any members of the public would like to see. Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel]. This item is an informational item and so mr. Clerk can you please call the next item. Item 7 introduction of new items. And i dont believe we have any introduction of new items. Do we take Public Comment on this item . Its not necessary. Okay thank you. Moving on to item 8. Item 8 general Public Comment. Good afternoon. Andrew chinatown [inaudible] officer. [inaudible] cycles and actualization of learning of the hallway the cultivation of the holy way of establishing of the holy way [inaudible] another way is to show loyalty, parental love in their spirit and also uplift from the holy cycles and heaven and [inaudible] holy path way may not be able to escape from this [inaudible] cycles of downfall. Political leaders engage fully [inaudible] compensation of [inaudible] and may not be able to [inaudible] fully for learning, cultivation and establishment and take on the holy way. Only way of loyalty parental love humanity and justice one may be able to [inaudible] of soil of holiness. This is the absolute principle of this. That everyone should put to good consideration. One must work on [inaudible] having a heart [inaudible] in practice of contemplation and mercy. Take a save [inaudible] career to perfect ones family and society in terms of thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any other members of the public that would like to speak in general Public Comment . Seeing none. Public comment is now closed. [gavel] mr. Clerk are any other items today . Item 9 adjournment. Meeting adjourned. Thank you very much for attending. [gavel]hour. Good morning, everyone and welcome to the peoples palace and im here this morning to announce yet another milestone in our citys commitment to raise the minimum wage to 15 an hour by and people will work this fourth of july weekend we are celebrating our countries birthday but recognizing in the celebration throughout the weekend people like the people had that are standing with me are working whether the restaurants or hotels or Health Care Workers and others and and we all feel for working people that is hard in our expensive city to survive unless you have a december sent wage thats why a couple of years ago i destined or joibd the board of supervisors full board of supervisors to place before the voters an 15 an hour minimum wage and people that work in all those industries we did it together and were celebrating because today it goes from 12. 25 an hour to 13 and up to 15 and after that cpi takes over i want to remind everybody this city was brought together with our labor unions and your working families made up of all