Fung and members. David winslow, staff architect, Planning Department. I am here to discuss our draft roof deck policy in r. H. Districts. While theres no question that roof decks provied a valuable outdoor amenity to augment open space in a dense urban setting, it must also be ak voltaged they can present an intensity of use that can negatively impact the quality of life of adjacent residents due to the openness and location. In recent years the Planning Commission has seen an increasing number of requests for discretionary review Residential Projects that include roof decks and penthouses or elevator penthouses. Over the past year and a half or so, the commission has made decisions on these cases with some pattern of consistency related to the impacts to neighbors in the form of location and size of the decks, with respect to adjacent conditions, and minimizing the means of accessing the decks. Despite projects that received commission review, roof decks with no additional building volume can receive an overthecounter permit with little or no design review. To remedy this inconsistency, the Planning Commission directed staff to study and develop a roof deck policy in an effort to ensure consistent and predictable approach to the value and appropriateness of roof decks taking into consideration the following issues. The size of roof decks and the cumulative impacts of multiple decks t availability of usable open space at grade, a pattern of roof decks in the surrounding neighborhood, and the quality of life impacts such as privacy, noise, including sight lines from adjacent windows, shadowing of a vertical pertinence to adjacent lightwells and site setbacks, and in general, visual clutter. So whats allowed by code now . The planning code exempts stair penthouses to maximum of 10 feet above the height limit and up to a maximum of 20 of the roof area. An elevator penthouse is exempt im sorry, stair penthouses to 10 feet and elevator are exempted to a high of 16 feet above the height limit. The planning code allows for railings, catwalks and parapet so exceed that. Unenclosed seating and windscreens, lattices and sun shades are also allowed up to a maximum height of 10 feet. The it does not restrict the number of horizontal surface area of roof decks. Residential Design Guidelines, however, offer some guidance under rooftop architectural features. Four, in fact. Sensitively locate screen rooftop features so they do not dominate the appearance of the building. Despine stair and elevator penthouses from the street and compatible with other design proportions and Building Elements as well as windscreens to minimize impacts to the buildings design and light of adjacent buildings. Specific guidance regarding the qualitative effects of privacy, light, visibility from other vantage points than the street may be lacking. So what are our recommendations . The departments recommended roof deck policy attempts to strike a balance for reasonable provision of outdoor space and roofs of low density buildings, which will improve livability in a dense urban setting, while at the same time protecting the quality of life for adjacent neighbors. It also seeks to establish a more predictable and transparent set of standards and procedures to be applied by the Planning Department at all possible review stages. Including overthecounter Building Permits at the planning information counter during review by the Residential Design Advisory Team and in preparation for a discretionary review hearing. While San Franciscos unique topography and climate require a tailored approach to evaluating roof decks, planning Staff Research Design Guidelines and performance standards in other jurisdictions across that area. And helpful insight when developing these policies. And we also reviewed best practices being applied more informally during project reviews and by the residential Advisory Team as well as standards applied by our own commission in recent discretionary review approvals. Currently Building Permit applications proposing roof decks on low density residential buildings with no related expansion can be approved over the counter. At the planning information center. These projects do not require preapplication meeting with neighbors, do not trigger review by the Residential Design Advisory Team, or a 311 neighborhood notification. As such, there is no potential for discretionary review of these projects. Hence, they might end up before you as a permit appeal. Projects proposing roof decks with other expansions to the building including stair and elevator penthouses are assigned to a planner for more detailed review. The projects require preapplication meeting with neighbors and section 311 notification. And they are therefore, subject to potential discretionary review. Often they are reviewed by the Residential Design Advisory Team on the case by days basis where the size and location of the proposed roof decks and elevator stair penthouses are evaluated in a qualitative approach. But devoid of any definitive numerical threshold. The procedural differences between the two processes, the overthecounter versus those that require more thorough review by planning staff including those that receive discretionary review by the commission underscores the potential for inconsistent outcomes sand the primary reason for the departments proposed roof deck policy. Got ahead of myself. So the first area of the recommended thresholds, a maximum the first of the recommended thresholds, the maximum of 1 3 of the area of the roof deck, of the roof be allowed to be a roof deck. This area is in most cases sufficient size to accommodate enjoyment and connection to open space but is considerably less than a full floor. This diagram shows a typical building in San Francisco lot with a total roof area of about 1250 square feet. 1 3 of this area is equal to about 417 square feet. The larger building with the total roof area of 1500 would yield a roof deck of 500 square feet. The basis for this rationale is it allows the other 2 3 of the roof deck to not only be buffered from adjacent uses and buildings, but offer space for other amenities such as solar panels and green roofing or green landscaping as often required for new Residential Construction pursuant to the better roofs ordinance. The department further recommends this threshold be applied cumulatively when roof decks are proposed over different portions of a building such as example in this diagram where you might have a popout at two stories and a roof deck on the upper third floor, for example. Further, the recommendation that the threshold of an addition to the size limitation that the roof deck be ultimatumed to or buffered from adjacent building edges by 5 feet minimum. Setbacks of 5 feet are recommended from shared side lot lines and the edges of lightwells as well. The obvious reason for this is that it creates a buffer from adjacent properties and roof decks, windows, rear yards, and maintaining a reasonable area for the roof deck. This diagram shows the roof area meeting the 5 foot site setback requirement. Further more, the Department Also recommends a hierarchy, creating a hierarchy of preferred means of access to prioritizing less obtrusive features such as roof hatches and internalized stairwells while allowing for stair penthouses in circumstances where they have minimal impacts on access to light and air as well as visual clutter. Planning staff is recommending that in order to be considered compliant with the proposed roof deck policy, roof decks should be accessed by internalized scare cases, roof hatches when are permitted by the Building Code for one to two unit buildings, and roof access within the recommended 5 foot setback should be provided by the roof hatch or internalized staircase. The Building Code allows roof access viaen an open staircase or building with three or more dwelling units. However n instances when more than one means of egress is required by Building Code, planning is recommending that only one of them be the minnally sized stair penthouse to be considered with the proposed roof deck policy. In order for a stair penthouse to be considered minimized, planning staff recommends a sloped roof with internal vertical clearance to be set back 5 feet from shared side lot lines and from the edges of lightwells. In order to summarize, the departments Ongoing Development of a roof deck policy and solicit feedback, planning staff sent email bulletins to subscribers of the registered neighborhood groups and created a website to provide detailed information about the policy and when planning staff would present the results to the commission in an informational presentation. As a result of that, staff has received a significant amount of feedback, much of which was generally positive and underscored an appetite for clearer guidelines and procedures for reviewing projects proposing roof decks. Not surprisingly, the Department Also received quite a bit of negative feedback, although commentary ranged dramatically from the proposed policy way too stringent to not being stringent enough. As always, the department is still keen to hear feedback at todays hearing from both your commission and any members of the public. And would take your information into our folding and into our policy for final review. Thanks. This concludes my presentation, and im available for questions. Thank you. Commissioners . Thank you. Commissioner swig. I have a couple of questions. Commissioner alexander. So luckily we have had real Life Experience in the last two weeks, and we had a case where and the case is not still a few days open for rehearing request, so it was on october 10. All right. So where i wont use this specific. But where we stumble and where i stumble here as well is that there is very its very clear that 1 3 of the roof space is acceptable to have a roof deck, correct . If you have 1500 square feet, 500 square feet is that is currently our policy. There was commentary in the commission that might be too lenient. But were not settled on that by any means, but that is the target. I just want to come to a common vision on that. So for todays discussion, 500 square feet, which would leave the area around it devoid of usable space. So where i stumbled in your and where i stumbled a couple of weeks ago is what you just handed to us, there is one of the recommendation pages, there is the 1 3 of the roof area and then it is surrounded by landscaping, as you said, the green roofs policy, and then panels. Panels, i have no problem with. Its the other stuff. And so how if a roof is fully landscaped beyond, in this case t500 square feet that we just identified, the 1 3, how how is that not usable space if somebody has to be out tending that landscaping, or how does that stop a user of the 500 square feet from expanding their use into the landscaped area . Good question. My experience with living roofs is they tend to be built or structurally built. That being said, they dont tend to be something that you lay on and traipse on. You can probably maintain it. Thats just it. Theyre not usable typically. If somebody were saying i am just going to plant a sod roof and i can go anywhere, is that a roof deck . That is the definition for the probably not a deck. Its a space that can be used why i bring it up is you asked for feedback and i am giving you feedback. It is not for discussion, but throwing it out there as a stumbling block that may occur for this body in the future. If somebody makes an appeal. A that is a good observation. I think that its kind of the idea that a roof, typical understanding of a roof deck is a place where people can sit and use, stand and use, cook and use. When you start getting into a landscaped roof, its intensity tend to be by most common perceptions even less intense if it was a greater area than a typical roof deck. I think there is a concern, one of the issues is privacy and noise, quite frankly, from roof decks. I think the idea with our commissions feedback was how big is big enough . Consider a room in a building. How big is big enough for a dining room . How much do you need for enjoyment of that kind of use . And so a roof deck is a different use than a landscaped roof, i guess would be the distinction if one were to ask that question and try to answer it in a defined way of establishing a policy. So if we see cactus planted, thats probably not usable area. If we see a sod roof, we should scratch our heads. No, i dont think its a distinction. Its either landscaping or hardscaping is the distinction. Hardscaping is usable by more people than softscape. Second question, windscreens. So windscreens and you said windscreens are to prevent light permeating neighborhoods and all that stuff. What should we when were talking about windscreens, are we talking about opaque windscreens . Or are we talking about glass and glass which is opaque, glass which is clear, or are we talking solid walls which are also windscreens . Currently the windscreens are allowed to be 10 feet above the height limit. There is no prescription for where those are located in any of our code or Design Guidelines. Windscreens would still continue to be permitted. I think the problem or the goal to be solved here is whether theyre opaque or whether they are glass, are they providing the requisite amount of privacy on one side or are they allowing, or if theyre opaque and close to a building edge that is close to, say a lightwell, is that an invasion of light and air from the standpoint of the adjacent neighbors, right . By virtue of saying the roof deck is set back 5 feet from any building edge that is relevant, and your windscreen goes up, but whether that is transparent or solid is probably going to be a lot better than the current Design Guidelines that are silent on that issue. And the issue of we had a case a couple of months ago and i dont think i think the proposition was actually to build a glassedin roof deck and which obviously would become another room. And that was the fear. And there was lighting associated with that. And the discussion was that it would become these were not my words, but in Public Comment in appellants comments that it would become a beacon. A fish bowl and a beacon and light would permeate throughout the surrounding area. If that would have been an open fish bowl as opposed to a closed fish bowl, and we were adjudicating on that subject and somebody would say beacon because it is permeating and allowing light to permeate around the surroundings, would it would the cure in our discussion be to suggest that it become that those glass walls become o paying or solid or what . If it is an enclosed space, it is going beyond even if it wasnt in enclosed space, but surrounded by windscreens on four sides with no roof but it was lit, thus creating a beacon potentially. Well, i can tell you what guidance is residential Design Guidelines might have. Its not a roof deck. Its a structure, and as such we would be looking at it with the context of glazing and n proportion to solid materials with respect to the surrounding pattern of building. But with that in mind, in other words, there are a lot of complaints that come before our commission through discretionary review and perhaps yours as an appeal where entire walls in the rear are floor to ceiling glass, wall to wall, and we missed it because were focused we arent always focused, but focused very primarily on the front and the visible and the views from the public realm. And sometimes we miss, hey, its a lot of glass in relation to, you know, the patterns at the rear. Those create problems such as glare, privacy, the lantern effect, and now we have started to be cognizant of that and dial it down. I think in that case we would have applied the same principles. It is not a roof deck. With respect to lighting in our roof deck, we did explore the beacon a lot of the roof decks are outdoor rooms with all the bells and whistles, showers, outdoor cooking, lighting, heat lamps, and we contained our overzealousness in trying to regulate things that we would have a hard time regulating, such as lighting. It would be nice to have a feature where we suggested there was standards of guidance that low level illumination with cutoffs might be desirable, but common sense things like how much illumination do you need for a roof deck . How high does it need to be . How much light is it throwing out adjacent properties, but trying to focus on some basic stuff. Size and setbacks. And thats just for now because trying to get consistency between the two different processes of review and i a prooufl. Why i ask the question is somebody is going to appeal one of these things and say exactly that. Theyre going to say everything is fine according to the way that it was your regulations. However, they have five million lumens and because theyre going to have raucous parties there i mean, i can hear the testimony now. And were going to be asked to do something about the lighting. Again, feedback. That is why were here. If you can take that under advisement and preclude that argument by taking some action. One of the reasons we tempered our own instinct with that is a lot of times roof decks, that issue, right, we may not see, so a lot of entitlement and schematic drawing sets. They might not get routed back to us when they have the electrical and everything else, the details that show the 5,000 megawatt, you know, lighting feature. It wasnt simply because of that, but it was more of we dont really see those things. The Building Department might. So we were confronted with lets just sure. We will probably hear discretionary reviews for those issues as well as you will, but were trying to stick to the basics at least for now on the main issues that have been confronting our commission. Lighting has not yet been one of them. Thanks. I think you answered my question, but basically within this 500 square feet, lets call it, virtually anything will be allowed. The hot tub, the bbq, the heaters. So again, youre foes kued on the design and construction and what happens within that. Again, we did consider we looked at and considered certain things and regulating behavior and use. What is the difference between a hot tub for two that is quiet and a Party Hot Tub is hard to distinguish. I get it. Just wanted to clarify that is where you are going. A couple of points. I didnt go to the website, but there more detail in what they propose versus what you gave us as the presentation . Is there more detail on the website . A there is a draft white paper. Awe us a there is more detail there and a fivepage white paper. A couple of points of view. You have established the 1 3 roof area. Is there a nexus between that and the required open space or up to three units . No. In other words and perhaps the example thatment cos to my mind is probably a case which i wish we had back on the corner of union and what is the cross street, scott . The round taylor or Something Like that. This is a corner building and condos and there was no rear yard for open space. They made the roof deck the entire building. That complexity to it, the site sloped upward from that building to multiple buildings and with the dramatic views of north bay. And on the north deck, multiple cooking stations and a bunch of a fairly high heating element. And tons of furniture and things like that. It probably has ever element you would want to examine in terms of what potential issues are, but the required square footage. Yes. The draft proposal would apply only in r. H. Districts and whatevers on union street would have been a more intense residential district. Lets say r. H. 2 but now you would have a potential for a. D. U. And up to three units, right . I think it is an excellent point that we should discuss internally to whether the 1 3 would be increased in necessary to comply and often times in the districts, the open space will be provided. Or reduced based upon very small lot. And potential, and the useable open space will be provided in the rear yard. And what is provided in the form of the roof deck will be open space and that is in addition to what the code requirement is. It could be an issue where they bifurcate the units and the year regard goes to the lower unit and the roof deck to the upper unit and the 500 square feet will be more than enough. And where were going, though, you notice our appeals and apply in many instances to weird site configurations. Its not the standard where you got 25x100 and a building on it that occupies 40 or 60 percent of it. A lot of these cases we have especially like buildings that occupy 90 to 100 of the sites. What do we do with those . You got others right around there. I think its an excellent consideration. We need to consider open space as a requirement. And how that can meld with the policy. A couple of minor things. Talk about the aggregate of roof decks, that is 1 3. How about open balconies . Can you be more specific . Are they counted towards that . Toward open space. The balcony is counted towards open space if it meets the certain size that tends to be an against the size of the roof deck. I would say it would. It would. Okay. Back to the question of pertinences and things, Building Code will require guardrail. Is there any comment from planning on whether those are to be minimal or solid or. Again, similar to the windscreen comment, once you get the size and location of the roof deck, in other words, its set back sufficiently from building edges, the 42 inch guardrail can be solid or open. What you are saying is planning will not provide a directive there in this policy. No, i dont think thats our direction. Thanks. Sure. Is there anything further from planning . An i have one more question, sorry. But what triggered it was president fungs conversation about the large roof deck with all sorts of cooking opportunities and other amenities. So im anticipating that you are going to say this is the Building Departments problem, but what about things like gas lines and Electrical Service and things like that . That would Service Amenities such as cooking stoves or other things that would drive things that neighbors dont like . Like a certain load for lighting or gas lines that feed bbqs or etc. Is that the Building Department or is that you . It isnt necessarily the building i dont want to just punt it to the Building Department, but when we reviewed, are we going to regulate cooking with everybody sees these rooftop kitchens with the full range. Suppose we said, oh, all of a sudden we dont like that behavior. Well, why dont we like it . Because it provides smoke on a roof and gets into the neighbors windows or some reason like that we hear typically as a complaint. Suppose we included that restriction in our regulation or our policy. Are we going to prohibit people from bringing up their weber barbecues on the roof deck . We said, well, no, because were not the police of barbecues and cooking on roof decks. And i mean, that is the insight into our philosophical discussion in how we arrived at what was appropriate. Were trying to regulate the size and the location. And just the clutter of the ways of getting to that roof deck from the penthouses. So were not were kind of being agnostic about lighting and hot tubs, cooking, showers, what have you. What i am anticipating were going to hear and again, its not this is feedback for you, is the point of this, but what were going to hear because we have heard it before, is we dont want a party deck next to our building. We can see whats happening here. Theyre going to have wild parties. Its going to create noise. Light and disturbance for thats what were going to hear in every appeal of every deck that comes forward. I think getting the sizes kind of right and how much party can you have in so much space is the real, i think, opportunity as regulatory providing clear and reasonable regulation or guidance. So what you put on it we have those comments on 30square football balconies. It is not foolproof. Nothing is, and Going Forward if these are adopted, we can say these were recently researched, adopted, etc. , and were going to rely on them. So if it looks like a roof deck and fits the requirement, it is a roof deck and what happens after that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. The size of the one that you attached to, and i think isnt in our commission that was the one item that was still up for well, all of it is up for deliberation, of course, but that was one item they were having a hard time grappling with, is it too much, too little, especially with respect to its a proportional thing and you have a bigger roof deck on a bigger property and bigger opportunity for bigger parties, but it might go to a fixed number and do you want a flat tax or a progressive tax and we havent figured out that one either. Well get closer on this one. My personal opinion that it should be less than 1 3. Less than 1 3. Got a number and in arriving at that, whatever that number is. 25 is plenty. Franks hard on decks, such a surprise. What the nexus is is, how did you get to that number . Our answer is, it was a shot. One of the ways we got to a 50 o or 400 square foot is how many stairs do you need to get to it . And back into it for what is a reasonable area and peoples enjoyment . And that was kind of how the at least one Planning Commissioner who opined on it is, what is reasonable enough . We wont mention any names on who that might be, but it is okay. You can ruminate on that exact size. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions . Thank you. Thanks very much. I just want to say thank to the department for presenting, myself, and i know that we are the tree and the deck controllers of the stu, and we hear a lot. And theyre responding oen a lot of requests that we have. And creating new process for really difficult permit process in San Francisco is tough. And i appreciate the restraint in creating this legislation. No matter what, this was an overthecounter situation that we are trying to gain some control over. There is going to be some tweaking along the lines, but i definitely appreciate the forward progress and the presentation this evening myself. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Wait, hold on. Mr. Duffy . Okay. Well, thank you very much. Lets go to the last item. We are on to item seven, the board of appeals annual report for fiscal year 18. The charter requires all boards and commissions to issue an annual report and also gives the public an opportunity to see what weve done. So i do have some corrections in the litigation section, so when we get to that, i will point those out. To pie light a few points to highlight a few points, 29 meetings, 105 hours. Moving on to page six and i can just give you a brief summary. I dont know how you prefer. I can give you a brief summary and if you have questions or want to go back. Highlights. Okay. Some highlights, so our appeal volume is slightly above the 10year average of 178 appeals per year. We had 180 new appeals. And moving to page eight, no surprise, our subject matter, 76 of appeals heard were of land use decisions made by the department of building inspection, the Planning Department, and the Zoning Administrator. Other permit appeals came from public works, public health, Arts Commission, as you can see on page 8, very small number there. Moving along, so then if you go to page 10, you will see what the appeals were about. Where the decisions made jointly by d. B. I. And the Planning Department. We have 87 were appealing the issuance of Building Permits, so people unhappy with permits being issued. A much smaller percentage of the denial of Building Permits. Moving along to page 11, looking at the Zoning Administrator decisions, 16 awe peels with administrator decisions. Seven were protesting the granting or denial of variances. Variances from l. O. D. S were the bulk of the appeals from the v. A. Moving on to page 13, San Francisco public works, 17 of the awe peels were of their determination. 47 were the wireless box permits. 17 were tree removal and 18 were mobile food trucks. So tree removal and mobile food trucks with basically the same. Moving along to page 15 and 16, the outcome of the appeals heard is typical that the board denies more appeal than a grant. 57 of the determinations were left in tact and of that number, 45 were denied because you voted that way and 12 denied by default, there were insufficient votes. You granted 43 of the appeals. Only 8 were granted outright with the underlying Department Action returned and 35 were granted with conditions on the permit. And moving along to rehearing and jurisdiction request, most of them are denied. This year three were granted. Two of these were for the same appeal and i think you know what case that is. That is why our numbers are up. That could be the Historic Preservation commission and Arts Commission request for rehearing. The rehearing request, three granted, 12 denied. Seven jurisdiction requests. Five denied, one granted, one continued. So moving along to the geographic distribution, as is, i think, every year from what you have seen, most of the appeals come from the northeast, east quadrant of the city. So moving on to page 18, appeals management system, as you know, the former executive director ms. Goldstein introduced and you approved it. It was introduced at the budget meeting. So we are with the Current System is old and will no longer be supported. An r. F. Q. Was issued and a vendor was selected, and the contract was approved, so were working now with this vendor, eight cloud is the name of the vendor. To get to develop a system and get it implemented and we think it will result in a lot of efficiencies and better tracking, better reporting. On table . Timetable . We are talking to them right now and finally got the contract approved. As you know in the city, i feel like we should have a celebration because we got the contract approved. Were working with them now on phase one just developing the system. They are learning what we have, what we need. You might speak to Building Department of larger issues to look out for. In terms of theirs is probably extremely more complicated, but the fact its gone three times over budget, has now taken seven years. I dont anticipate that happening for us. Julie will be retireded. Going to say there may be some broader issues to learn. Okay. And the person you may want to contact is dan mowry. Yes. You have emailed him before on another matter and can definitely reach out for suggestions and feedback on what to do and whatnot to do. Thank you. So were excited about that. Moving on to our performance measures, measure one is the percentage of cases decided within 75 days of filing, and our target is 60 , and we didnt meet our target, but a lot of that is due to rescheduling requests by the parties or board for additional information. In terms of decisions issued within 15 days of final board action, we exceeded our target and the target is 97 and all decisions were issued within 15 dawes. 100 . And movering on to the budget, so as you know, the board has two sources of revenue. Surcharges and filing fees. Surcharges make up 95 of our revenue. We didnt meet our revenue projections this year. There was a shortfall of 115,756 dollars. We did save on sunday. And we didnt spend as much as we thought, 33,000. The important page is 22. You can see our revenue at the top. 923,014 and in the expenditures. There was a shortfall, but that was covered by and from the deferred credit account. It was all intentional because, as you know, the surcharges imposed on available permits are intended to recover costs, and were recovering more than our cost. So that was one of the goals of reducing the surcharge fees in fiscal year 18 to so dont be alarmed that there was shortfall. This is all in line with the plan. To refresh my, we did this to ourselves last year. Yes. You can see at the table at the bottom of page 22, there is a significant eare duction in the surcharge imposed on the planning and d. B. I. Permits from 25 to 18. 50. And you can see the volume of the permits, especially with k. B. I. And were comfortable as you know, i meet with the controller every year and we meet and assess surcharges and whether they should be raised. We also have the ability to increase the cost of surcharges without a legislative change based on the Consumer Price index. And that could actually be cumulative. So if we didnt do it one year, connect and you are not worried about this as a trend of did we go too far going from 25 to 18 and should we have been at 22 as a result . That is a learning curve. Right. I will always advocate for more, but i think the goal so to rebalance our cost recovery. We dont want to be and we want to have a buffer that is the security. But since i have come into the process with respect to fiscal year 18, were comfortable at this point, but things could change, too. If there is a recession, maybe not as many permits issued. Anecdotal information and the number of permit applications have been going down. Okay. Okay. Well, thats good to know. And we can see that they were and its drive from volume and if you look in the right, the third and fifth column and that is the volume of the third and and the controllers. And i could have seen the preferred credit account which is also our goal. I mean, to be fair to the public t surcharges are supposed to be cost recoveries. Moving on to litigation, i would like to remove the first case, washington street, my apologies. That wasnt related to a board matter. And i would also like to correct on page 24, 1049 market street. That is not a new case. Its pending. So thats been going on for a number of years. The two new cases are sullivan versus ccfs in december 26, 2017 on page 23. And then also on page 24 the mark bruno case that i know you all recall and that was filed on december 14, 2017. Those are the two new cases for this fiscal year. Lastly, on the last page, i wanted to thank Cynthia Goldstein for her service and i thought you would all want to as well. I just put some background about her. She was executive director for almost 10 years so fiscal 2018 was the loss as she retire and worked at the city manager at the Human Rights Commission and oversaw the implementation of the first equal benefits ordinance which prohibits discrimination by city contractors and the provision of benefits to married employees and those with domestic partners. She has so many contributions to the city, and i also want to personally thank her for helping me transition into the position. I mean, the office is great and she taught me a lot in three days, we talked from 8 00 a. M. To 5 00 p. M. For three days straight. And she just handed over it was she made my transition very smooth and lastly, i would just like to, i think, the success of the offers really depends on the staff and i would like to give a special thank you to gary yay, gary. Gary is really wonderful. Hes very smart, great judgment, and hes committed. Hes a professional. Ewithre so lucky to have him and hes just made my transition great. Thank you so much, gary, and i would also like for the record to thank zehamara and alec who are devote and committed staff member who is want to do a good job serving the public. Thank you so much. Great. Comments . I have one question. I have one question. On page 13 where we have the graph that talks about the amount of appeals and the segments from which the appeals came from, do we learn anything from this by comparing it to previous years . Are we looking at a trend . I think i am my sensitivity is in the mobile food facility permits where we seem to have a lot this year and also where there has been commentary with regard to maybe some ambiguity on some of the regulations which are included in that legislation. Thats just an example. So are we looking at mobile food trucks for any of these segments . Not to pick on any one, and looking at how many we had this year versus how many the year before versus how many the year before to see why one segment might be you toing and is there something that we can pass along to the department that comments on this trend so they can learn from it. And they can prevent people from having to make appeals on certain comments. Ill be honest, i didnt see any trends, but i would like to look more closely to get the exact numbers of appeals of the mobile food facility permits. I dont think we had a high volume. We only had three protests, so i think that is really low, but i i degree the session we have discussed and we have the director of the program coming before the board to discuss the changes that you would like, and i believe we were going to draft resolution as well, but im happy to go to review the prior reports to the last 10 years and i can always report back. If we can do something to make it easier for the public to be clear on various elements, if we can make it easier for city departments to function better because it is our observation upon hearing appeals that curable situations proactively and i think that is part of our responsibility. Thats what data allows is the recognition of trends and the question of those trends and maybe make other lives better and with the result of being proactive. I thought this was very well done. I happen to have a dinner partner a few days before we got this who was really quite ignorant about the board of appeals. And when i read this, i said this would be the perfect thing to give to him to get a wonderful overview of what we do, how we function, what comes here. So i very much appreciated it and lovered your label of the next chapter for the reference to the change of staff in here. Big change after 10 years. But it was all very well done. Thank you very much. I, too, would like to offer that same sentiment. Changing of the guard is always difficult. The transition has not been as steep as i thought it would be. And especially after filling someones shoes in and for having that set and she pretty much made the rules that we have. So the fact that you stepped in and theres been little or no transitional errors that i felt, thank you very much, madam director. Thank you. Thank you, julie. Thank you. I also would be remiss and not recognizing brad. Brad is the man. We remember. Well, we are lucky. He doesnt get paid for it. The big bucks. He earns it. How about the loyal mr. Sanchez. Exactly. For the record, yes, recognize mr. Sanchez and mr. Duffy who left, but he can watch this later. Great. Thank you. Thank you for the report. And i do believe we need a motion to adopt it with the revisions. So moved as revised. Is there any Public Comment . I had to forget for at least one item. Aweoff moved by commissioner lazarus. We have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the annual report with my suggested revisions. On that motion, president fung. Aye. Commissioner honda. Aye. Vice president swig. Aye. That motion passes. And this meeting is adjourned. Shop and dine the 49 promotes loophole businesses and changes residents to do thirds shopping and diane within the 49 square miles of San Francisco by supporting local services we help San Francisco remain unique and successful where will you shop and dine shop and dine the 49. My name is neil the general manager for the book shop here on west portal avenue if San Francisco this is a neighborhood bookstore and it is a wonderful neighborhood but it is an interesting community because the residents the neighborhood muni loves the neighborhood it is community and we as a book sincerely we see the same people here the shop all the time and you know to a certain degree this is part of their this is created the neighborhood a place where people come and subcontract it is in recent years we see a drop off of a lot of bookstores both National Chains and neighborhoods by the Neighborhood Stores where coming you dont want to one of the great things of San Francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own thats chair a. Peskin good morning and welcome to the San Francisco county Transportation Authority meeting for today october 16th. Our clerk is mr. Steve stamos