that we had planned to you know make a better place of and raised out first you know - (inaudible) i think we can it is a place of enjoyment to improve the lots in this area that the real planning department you know put into the you know another on the uses rooms probably the better yards and they respect you for parking

areas that we you know went down here and paid for that they say about the bathrooms and the things and that's not that's all i have to say thank you. >> thank you. we can take rebuttal starting with the appellant mr. howard do you have anything else to say i have 3 minutes. >> don't have much to say i really met john a few times we got along fine i don't have a problem with shooun on his district of columbia i'm concerned about maybe he's redeveloping the property will will upper market sell the property i don't know what is going to happen it is 8 feet from my bedroom window that is my opportunity to stop it you

know, i know personally shawn i've never met his wife i'm sure she's quite all right. too but i wanted to make that clear this is not anything personal only a deck a few feet from my bedroom window not a preexisting condition something we we have control over. >> mr. howard at this time if you want to reconsider a screen on that deck. >> i would consider a screen if it serves the function absolutely. >> the screen can only go back to the average of the rear yard property line beyond that that the variance okay. >> so i'm not sure.

>> it is 80 percent of the deck. >> okay. so i would not see that as a solution to to be honest simply simply because someone standing on the side of the screen looking straight in if it was a screen that blocked the view of somebody maybe 6 feet tall looking at our window perfect that's a solution great that works but screening 80 percent someone that wants to look into the bedroom window that's not a solution. >> can you offer up something mr. howard. >> sure. >> as mentioned we have quite a few of the windows 27 in our home we over look at our neighbors bathrooms and they look at us we're in an elevated position we've gone with a

roller shade during the daytime so from the interior to the exterior they can't see in but from me from the inside to the outside you can see out they can't see in i have a 13-year-old daughter that overlooks any neighbors i still want privacy we have an added treatment for a privacy so during the daytime we still get to enjoy our view and light with zero privacy issues at night when we turn our lights on in the interior we have a privacy button and it lowers the shade our master bedroom 7 of the homes can see our master bedroom so it is really nice having to be able to see the view in the daytime and option for privacy at night.

>> that is, i guess that's works for you if you could imagine in our bedroom our master bedroom we have a verify the best house that is why we're all here the best you can see you know so that's our verify at night time it is a spectacular view the only one from inside our house if he block that at night time you know yeah. >> if the lights are off on the inside you still see out at night is works in reverse. >> yeah. similar we looked one way glass solution if the lights are on smiled you can see you know - >> that's the problem. >> for some. >> i understand okay and but

you know from our prospective did anybody build anything looking at inside our house. >> just for conversation we built our extension both our neighbors filed a discretionary review i made the design notifications to suit both my neighbors my neighbors to my immediate north betsy carmichael his house his immediate concerns i'd like look at his home and now his deck looks at being so my whole house i'm quite aware of that. >> it didn't sound like. >> we still talk that's fine. >> it didn't sound like a great solution something that was probably avoidable. >> it is it is what it is like

i said, i said we live in an urban environment and have closed proximity to our neighbors it's all good. >> okay. thank you and any other questions. >> mr. alternating man. >> i want to point out a question about the windowsill height i manufactured that it is 6 feet from the sill to the window deck surface your question about the lattice and 80 percent of the screen the rear incline is at the wall of the back wall the bedroom to the door entire deck is in the rear setback but permitted less than 10 meeting feet in height anything above that requires a evaporates so it required a variance you can verify that

i want to point out wu we have an exist clearance for the property that does a pretty good job of screening the windows there is already privacy resulting in the conditions which are a huge consideration thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> go ahead. >> one other thing i want to say is that when they're talking about the sightlines and 6 foot tall we have 10 feet back into this building so it is not like i'm standing and looking into the windowsill 10 feet back the sidelines are the sidelines other thing? my home not a developer not going to sell this

property or anything like that i want to make that point. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department just to commercialism the subject property is 36 rh2 within the sgruts that has a 45 rear yard requirement that didn't allow the methodology we'll have in the code it is a bit of a strieshth or strickerer yard requirement and commissioners even though matter is submittedstricter >> owe. not per squatted we the appellants argument the view

is directly into his bedroom there is a significant height differentiateal and not persuaded how much views there would be anyways based on the amount of trees and greenery i'm not prepared to support the appellant in his appeal. >> i'm in agreement. >> a little bit different than the last case i'm in agreement. >> i'll no - >> i'm going to move it uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis it is code compliant. >> thank you.

>> there's a motion on the floor to up to date u you would it is code compliant. >> on that motion commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig thank you. the vote is 4 to zero the permit is you would on that basis thank you commissioner president lazarus no further business this evening. >> we're .

>> good morning welcome to the finance county transportation authority i'm commissioner avalos the president of the

committee and supervisor kim and supervisor cowen and joined by supervisor campos and supervisor mar our clerk is steve mr. clerk your announcements. >> no announcements. >> okay. let's go on to to our first item. >> number one roll call arrest commissioner avalos supervisor campos absent supervisor cohen supervisor kim supervisor mar absent we have quorum. >> very good let go on to item 2. >> item 2 approval of the minutes of the june 9th meeting an action item. >> colleagues, any changes at all 0 our minutes no comments open up for public comment members of the public on our minutes. >> yes. yes. yes. >> people's politics not system

politics a system politics it could be really immediately replied by a machine the political science of humanity inside and out meaning and loyalty and matt haney of matters. >> thank you. >> okay seeing public comment is end we'll close public comment and colleagues a motion to approve the minutes. >> second. >> sect by supervisor kim with a roll call vote. >> on item 2. >> commissioner avalos supervisor campos supervisor cohen supervisor kim supervisor mar absent that motion passes. >> very good item number 3 please. item 3 federal and state action item. >> good morning mark sends his regrets a busy time in

sacramento and many things to do so hopefully, i'll cover the bills in the ethics matrix a just want on a special session the governor declared a session for transportation and infrastructure to data number of informational background hearings basically outlines the need for transportation and infrastructure for the solutions for new revenues that could be pursued so, however, most of the funding and discussions have been around the need for highways and roads not so much transit a push from the vehicles local government to bring that into conversation there's been a modest number of bills introduced in the special session i'll go over in a second

first of all we're proposing two new recommendations for the legislation from the first is the ab 744 which would relates to eliminating the minimum parking requirements around the in fill areas around the stations and the planning department is supporting this and the section regular bill is ab 902 basically currently for minors a dwefks program they receive a ticket for a vehicle code things like bikes infractions they county's encourage get education rather than a ticket and the proposal to extend that to everyone for diversion for bikes running stop signs the first is a b x one one

that mandates the loans in prior years of transportation fund to general fund the second is ab x one, two is expansion of the authorization for the building in the regular session and finally constitutional amendment x one one protects for transportation revenues if they have passed in the current session we're recommending a new cigarette time senate package of transportation revenue increases revenue bill 16 and similar x bs one one by senator bell the increase in the new gas tax and a vehicle fee along with other packages this would be a 5 year program again mostly for local highways we are also reading the spot bills in the extraordinary bills session and waiting to get

controls hopefully more details. >> what is the probability revenue for sb 16412 r x one one. >> the estimate is one billion dollars two to $3 billion a year ramping up over the 5 years we're working to support the second amendment for the massive needs for the streets and road but also trends has significant repair needs and hopefully making that permanent not to come back and mark wants to gnaw we'll move forward this summer for the first time. >> thank you. >> we're optimistic and finally recommending two bills sb x one 2 that redirected the cap & trade funds as important to keep it if transit sb puc has the

light rail vehicles we're hoping to seek the funding for the sfmta. >> where is it proposed from. >> excuse me. and who is proposing. >> senator hearing officer. >> from. >> i don't know where thank you. >> north bay. >> we think and finally we're recommending a positions on sb x one we've seen a lot of those bills basically kill the high speed rail by pretending bonds and at the federal level we've been operating under a number of continuing resolution the federal transportation bill we've seen more likely so see them towards the end of the year the senate has introduced a long term 6 year reauthorization bill

called redeveloping the vision for the economy or drive as the means it is focused on highways and roads with some new restrictions on percentage of funding for transit good news it does increase the funding for transportation and increases the flexibility that the local jurisdictions have to address its own concerns there is a recent development they're proposing to eliminate the tiger program that is a competitive funding for san francisco and the region and it will be sad to see that program go away with that i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> good morning tilly chang bart has announced recently the general manager they'll propose to their vote to take a bond to the bay area we're tracking that

the bay council did a poll of the arts alameda and contra-costa alameda to see how voters feel about a bond measure to primarily be for maintenance needs but to address operational and other sort future expansion it is our opportunity to weigh in our staff work with these with the mayor's office and bart itself to better understand what the options are important composing that program now there is a decision to move forward at least a proposal from the general manager in proposing that to her board. >> thank you. >> we'll check in for your guidance on that. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just had a question on that if there's a 3 county bond measure inch not seen 0 one in my time a 2/3rd's plus one vote. >> i'm not sure if we 2/3rd's

yeah, i'm told twittered the first thing and cross the 3 counties. >> the county below and santa fe san francisco was super high the average of the 3 and also how many county wasn't participate in that bond. >> i think by agreement san mateo will not and santa clara has contributed on a different basis so the 3 county for this bond as i understand. >> i understand on a more curious question in general how many counties can participate in a bond measure like that. >> the bart is formed as the 3 sdriblthsd could be as many as the bart district but maybe another regional measure for the bridge tolls all the county in the area. >> and we're trying to get to a press conference downstairs so if we can do a quick response.

>> we need the state legislation like the gas tax they'll put it up on the smaller sunset. >> i'll ask enjoy realize were on a time issue. >> thank you very much we can open up for public comment any member of the public seeing none, public comment is closed. >> this will be same house, same call? colleagues. >> yes. >> that motion passes. >> next item, please. >> item 4 recommended an award of a two year contract to the services in the amount of 4 hundred thousands for the san francisco freeway corridor management study for the executive director to negotiate the contract terms and conditions this is an action item. >> good morning with the

transportation authority they've seeking the cms for manage the increase of the liability on the freeway corridors in san francisco from phase one and two of the cms study are from the caltrain grandparent and appropriated for cal grant this subject is the phase two and the transportation authority board approved the cms phase the report set the foundation for the took analysis in phase two by developing an evaluation frame goals moving more people and increasing the triple liability and increasing the neighborhoods adjacent to the freeway corridors this contract was waterway for a procurement process on may 8th

for a request for the scope is in our packet the preproposal conference was held and 4 proposals by the dew date met the dba goal and the sfmta and caltrain interviewed the banks on june 3rd and unanimously recommended the firm the team has been experience in planning in the region in east bay and south bay and the objectives and the limits of the environment in san francisco and the development and screening of a analysis of like scenarios the a team that is here today will address the additional questions the c h s team and the solutions this is an action stem we're seeking to award this contract i'm available to answer any questions. >> supervisor kim. >> i have a particular interest

this is ann has an interest in the downtown area i'm interested in some of the difference management concepts and curious it in the background and work i'm not sure how many containments have been working i'm not familiar beyond la what other adjudicators have taken on the program and maybe there isn't a lot of persistence. >> a lot in the persistence in the la area and the alameda couldn't and currently seeking a plan for the entire region but the point to be aware of many of the efforts so for in the region either new h o v or a conversion in san francisco it is a bit of a challenge in that the

constraint maybe to alternatives that don't necessarily relate to the capacity. >> supervisor kim we can absolutely have another meeting the state of california has been sort of a forer of the state we've seen a lot more implementation of those things and there is substantial experience in south bay as mentioned and east bay and lomdz has in place a grade of 5 corridors 101 is currently under study in san mateo and wanted to continue to look at san francisco the conversion and potential others management studies for 101 and 280. >> their exercise. >> they have exercise locally and mta form m t c staff around

the other h o v. >> thank you for your presentation and we'll open up for public comment any member of the public want to comment none we'll close public comment and colleagues, same house, same call? it passes next item, please. >> item 5 introduction of new items this is an informational item. >> colleagues, any new items for introduction seeing none, we'll go to public comment on this item public comment is now open no increments we'll close public comment. >> item 6 public comment. >> general public comment is open and seeing none e seeing no member of the public we'll close public comment and before we adjourn i'd like to thank sophisticating staff jim and others mr. clerk.

>> item 78 adjournment. >> colleagues, we're adjourned.

>> good morning, everyone yeah. today, i'm very proud to you know have this meeting because we are very luke in our you know city history we have the best leader you know leading us you know we've even though i feel everybody agree with me our mayor is the best you know working and dictated that's why we learn from him the department of building inspection our mission so to protect life and property for the public that's why today we are proudly to have our honorable mayor mayor ed lee to come over