every month. >> so for clarification the consultants made the recommendation for us to opts. >> this was a staff recommendation and mark keeps track of it but that's a staff recommendation excuse me. the finance took the action to switch position. >> so there's a motion it on the table and seconded by supervisor tang excuse me. supervisor campos thank you, madam chair i'm sure you're aware of those of us who serve on the finance committee voted to oppose it was a unanimous votes ones the finance committee the reason we right let me see voted in that way because let's be very clear about this this is about privatizing public space to the stent there is a need for something like that there's an argument that the jurisdictions already have that authority and

what this is is basically, the state legislator yet again responding to the political powders the tech industry for another give away like the one in san francisco and trying to take this show on the road i don't know if even can say that we know that this is going to impact what's happening here in san francisco so there's a clear reason why the finance committee unanimously voted to oppose and i respectfully ask that you vote to affirm what the finance committee had a thorough discussions decided. >> thank you very much supervisor mar. >> i'll agree there was a good and thorough discussion not only

with our lobbyists in san francisco but the members of the finance committee i'll support the recommendation to oppose and my resident from my community district 1 and others have been watching this and ask we take an opposed position as well i stronger urge we innovate amend this and support the finance departments decision i want to say another item on the same page right below in the summary that was given us to ab 40 legislation assemblyman bill kings legislation regarding the golden gate and sidewalk and bike and pedestrian fees i plan to introduce a resolution at the full board urging the support for the position at the next finance committee and taking a strong support position for bill

kings legislation let me talk about this for ab 40 it is legislation that will ban charging a toll for pedestrians use of golden gate i'm sure you're aware of the golden gate is a public treasure owned below the people nont not only in san francisco but san franciscans from the greater bay area and san franciscans enjoy the bridge as a public place a gateway to national parks with a history in architecture wonder the resolution i'll be introducing will be ab 40 comes with conversations with various planners of public space and visits as well will be moving at the next finance committee to take a support position and i look forward to our comments as it moves through the board of

supervisors. >> thank you very much supervisor wiener. >> supervisor christensen. >> i'm sorry supervisor wiener. >> thank you, ma'am chair i want to thank supervisor mar for the statement about the golden gate bill we were san francisco commissioners were these almost completely united including the bike pedestrian fee in terms of ab 61 it is important to keep in mind two things first of all this motion is not to move us from the recommended opposed position to a support position but go back to the staff recommendations to watch this bill and i think this is not completely appropriate and second the bill does not take away local control it clarifies that we have local control that we as a localist enter into an agreement for the shurltsd to be

able to use muni bus stops under appropriate circumstances and in fact that's what we're doing with the program i understand people want the buses to go away there are a lot of neighbors that get to work using the buses inside and outside the city it is appropriate to go back to a watch position. >> thank you very much supervisor christensen. >> get the milk on i want to clarify my understanding which is as supervisor wiener said we're not debating whether or not shuttles should be there but where the discussion should take place it belongs at the local level the clarity is welcome if all making things easier so i welcome the clarification and i'm sure we'll continue to have

the discussion about the impact. >> supervisor campos. >> since we're talking about clarify let's be clear about what we're doing there's a stronger argument it does what the bill is doing what this is and behind the political driving force a tech exultant that want to expand its reach in the state of california that is the reason where they're pushing this forward it is appropriate and in fact i know the necessary responsible thing for san francisco to do in light of what we see with those shuttles and, yes they serve a purpose but the question is not whether they should be here but whether or not the presence is being regulated is appropriate and i can tell you that since this pilot started i have received so many concerns from

people including people that were at first supportive of the pilot that are no longer supportive so let's be clear b.a. about what this is i think we should be firm and send the message to the rest of the state this bill not only is unnecessary but have a detrimental thing especially we're talking about the privatization of public space pr without by the way any requirement that payment be made. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just want to direct some questions to staff and so can you clarify ab 61 is looking at was it mean by curbside and what localities can

do under the existing legislation. >> supervisor kim. >> i judge have a summary of the bill and it's not entirely clear the bill will allow local authorities to permit shuttle services to stop loading and unloading of passengers between the transit system operating buses and common carriers and shuttle providers it doesn't have a whole lot of detail it is a vehicle for discussing the relationship between the local and state authority. >> can you talk about what is currently allowed in the existing law. >> under the existing law someone may not park or stop with loading or unloading of passengers of a common carrier of bus transportation except when existing situation allow

the buses between the transit operator and the common carriers including the private school so it doesn't i mean right now it defaults to the transit operator to provide the authority and this provides the low and behold authorities to prevent the shuttle to allow shuttles to do the same thing i mean its affirming the local authority to do that. >> which we current already have. >> we currently already have it's a little bit confusing. >> okay. we're talking about any curbside not just to curb stops. >> curb spaces i'm not sure one moment please - >> sorry commissioners i'll hand out the builds so you can

look at them one of the reasons we recommended the watch level it is not clear it is an extremely short bill so ab 61 here we go. >> but you're saying if under the existing legislative structure localities can set up agreements like the shuttle did i know the bill doesn't explain i'm asking what the current - what the current situation is what a united states current situation. >> the m t does have the authority. >> it's not clear what this legislation is needed for and i think that could be fair. >> thanks. >> supervisor campos please. thank you just a quick question

for staff my understanding is that what this bill does and this is unique is that in addition to being redundant because the local jurisdictions have that authority as evidenced we did that without legislation in sacramento but what it does do it it makes it clear it sort of creates a certain status for the shuttles and specifically provides to them and accords them the same treatment as school buses which to me goes beyond the local authority local control if what you're saying is you want local control we have that this is why this industry is pushing this so much who want to elevate the status of buses to

school buses you may building that but i believe we should be very clear we're talking about two type of types of services here here. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, ma'am vice chair so i think it is important to be clear about the current state of the law there's the one about whether state law allows for example mta or other transit operators to enter into the agreements with a private employer the mta says it has that authority and as you recall when we handled the ceqa appeal when we heard the ceqa appeal on the pilot program the opts modest the argument that mta was

ironics wrong and we don't have the authority to enter into that with shuttle drivers there were members of the board of supervisors that expressed agreement it was illegal to enter into that i've not spoken to the author of this legislation i can't speak for him in terms of his motivation, in fact, there's a law pevend that is illegal for the mta underline state law to enter into state law with the shuttle drivers this clarifies that and i think that the staffs again, i'm not making a motion to support this this is in the early stamps but we can tell it is moving in the direction to clarify state law those kinds of agreements are permissible

that's why we should move to a watch position. >> any further discussion just to recap a motion made to reverse the decision from the finance commission - committee to the prefer decision by the finance committee to oppose sate bill 61 and that was seconded by supervisor tang mr. clerk but with let could roll call vote. >> let's take public comment on this item please. seeing no public comment public comment is closed. >> roll call vote. >> supervisor avalos no supervisor breed. >> supervisor campos no. >> supervisor christensen

supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim no supervisor mar no arrest supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee absent amendment passes. >> thank you mr. clerk, call the next item. >> i need you to do a vote on that oh, excuse me. we voted on the amendment now the item as amended. >> on item 5 supervisor avalos supervisor avalos. >> mr. reid supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor cohen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang

supervisor wiener supervisor yee absent oar the amended item passes. >> thank you mr. clerk, call the next item. >> item 67 adopt the fiscal year 2015-2016 transportation fund for the clean air transportation this is an action item. >> okay. colleagues if there are no questions or comments we'll open up for public comment any public comment on item 6 seeing none, public comment is closed mr. clerk, please call the roll. >> on item 6 arrest commissioner avalos mr. reid supervisor campos supervisor christensen supervisor malia cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor yee absent this item passes.

>> so item no. 7. >> item 7 appoint angela miller to the advisory committee this is an action item. >> supervisor mar thank you, colleagues. i want to thank the programs and policy committee for forwarding ms. page millers name reporting the responding district she's been a great leader in the district 0 not only formerly working with the department and with the institute of environment she works closely with my office and a number of transmissions and neighborhood advocates from the richmond and strong focused on seniors and bicyclists our office says she will not only represent home share but the neighborhoods as

well as young women supporting transportation she'll bring a valuable point of view on the the line system it is really an example she's well-informed of the whole transportation system in our neighborhoods also ms. miller will be a strong voice for not only the geary rapid project a stronger project but supporting other neighborhoods needs and concerns as well i urge your support. >> thank you supervisor mar seeing no other names on the roster we'll open up for public comment any public comment on item 7 seeing none, public comment is closed mr. clerk, call the roll oh, same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. the item is adapted item 8. >> item 8 program up to

$5 million plus cycle for the two transportation agency projects occur with the lp d in the bay area rapid transit district and slash muni prior shin program an action item. >> colleagues questions or comments on item 8 any public comment on item number 8 seeing none, public comment is closed and can we take that without objection? same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. that will be the order item 9 >> item 9 allocate $5 million in prop k in prop a fund with conditions subject to be cashed this is an action item. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, supervisor wiener colleagues i'd like to thank the

transportation authority and those working with the office and safety advocates a number of allocations here move forward projects will make the drth safety for the north south bicyclist coordinators this will make different coordinators like 15 and 23rd avenue and the boulevard a huge bike coordinator those connectors north-south it connects i am the presidio and important merchant and vibrant coordinators like the bike routines those are critical improvements through our neighborhood transportation

neighborhood will improve the safety for pedestrians and drivers alike and will help with the safety for the walkers and drivers as well i look forward to the planning process as those projects move forward. >> thank the transportation authority staff for they're great work. >> thank you supervisor mar any other questions or comments my public comment on item number 9 seeing none, public comment is closed colleagues, can we take item same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. that will be the order. >> item 10. >> item 10 wee reprogram in the grant fund from the san francisco multiple to the light rail vehicle procurement project with conditions this is an action items.

>> colleagues, any questions or comments seeing none seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues stem 10 same house, same call? we'll take that without objection. that will be the order. >> item 11. >> an information item. >> colleagues, any introductions is there public comment on item number 11 seeing none, public comment is closed. item 1112 public comment. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed item 13. >> adjournment. >> we are adjourned thank you very much ready to

begin. >> good morning today is february 18, 2015, this is the regular meeting of abatement appeals board please silence all electronic devices. the first item roll call and commissioner president clinch commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker we have quorum and the next item is item b the oath

will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you you may be seated next item is item c minutes approval of minutes discussion and possible action to do you want the minutes for december 2014 is there a motion to approve the minutes. >> so moved second there is a motion and a second is there any public comment all commissioners in favor opposed the minutes are approved item d the progress report complaint central avenue staff

will if give an update from jan 21st arrest members of the board good morning ross marie we have fox yesterday morning by e-mail from the mayor's office of housing indicating that their preceding and working with the property owner to get the documents executed to move forward with the granted to make the repairs there are issues that are outstanding and the mayor's office is working with the property owner on that the work is not yet gone but this is the information i have at in particular up to this point in time commissioner walker. >> and at the last meeting we took on action and gave some time is that not correct. >> that's correct. >> how much 7, 8, 9 is

remaining. >> i believe that i were going to the march meeting general meeting of this body at that point in time we'll look at the case today is to be a status report from a what staff knew the mayor's office of housing so that's it wasn't necessarily for action only an informational just want. >> so the issue had been roved. >> what issues. >> what the mayor's office of housing i think their - >> the contract is not yet completely complusz and this mayor's office are working on that issue. >> can we know what the issue is. >> at this point in time the property owner has concerns if you want to talk what her about it i will let her perhaps give

you that information she's concerned about making the information public. >> well - i feel like i just want to sort of go on record here that i don't have a inning to extend again so the issue needs to be roved. >> so she's here she's hearing that message. >> as a courtesy i won't fill in detail publicly except the document is yet to be executed and the mayor's office of housing is continuing to reach out to her and she has real concerns so at that point in time the staff is acting since september i hope this can be

resolved we'll come back in march are additional recommendations depending on the information we have at that time. >> commissioner vice president melgar there's an issue and concern the mayor's office of housing has probably dealt with those kinds of issues and has experiences. >> i will reiterate that to the property owner. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none item f new appeals order of abatement case no. 67991235 b stanford street

there was a request for continuance on this item and i believe the continuance was granted. >> so - if there's my parties that came for the item they can still speak in public comment any public comment on this item? could case 679 six the appellant and owner of record the revocable trust the attorney for the appellant reuben, junius & rose action by appellant reverse the moratorium of the orders under the section

of the san francisco building code. >> good morning john engine for the department the address for 411 marina building is a single-family dwelling and the slooegs solution for a kitchen on the ground floor director is here to meet 2013 which an order of abatement was issued no permits filed to deal with the abatement so the staff asks for the abatement order that concludes my report and is the appellant here? good morning, commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor since we were last here