meeting the san francisco board of education school district is now called to order ms. casco roll call please. thank you ms. fewer mr. haney after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow ms. norton mr. walton's ms. wynns dr. murase and ms. chin and mr. to the at an please join me in the pledge of allegiance thank you we're on a approval of the minutes there are nun together as i've announcing in the past few meetings the must be if you

wish to address the board of education please fill out a speakers prior to the item being called and present it to ms. casco and importantly according to the board of education speakers will not be accepted for items before the board item b superintendant report superintendent carranza good evening to everybody listening or joining us in person in evening a few announcements this ooefg evening first of all, i along with the staff and school districts across the statistic is looking for the record or forwards to the smallest balance on how the students mafrtsd the common core standards hoping to see a positive trend the common core

start of our curriculum number two the professional development and training of our staff and 3 the use of data to drive the improvements throughout our schools although the relatives are yes, ma'am bargained and the staff looks at the result i'm very proud of the work our teachers and paraprofessionals, our principals and the assistant programs in the school did and have done when you look at the results we're very proud to be how we're staked up to 89 school districts in the advisory committee sfafks please be on the lubricates for this announcement tomorrow a press conference to talk about those in detailed we're proud it the unified school district is a participant and a member district of the council of the great city schools and another great example of the leadership of our students and student voice two of our outstanding

student leaders will be attend the council of great city schools in october they've participate lending their voice and representing our district on a a panel of students from across the country led by the correspondent they'll talk about the issues of race and gender and entity the to students that have been selected are junior may i sinatra and senior from admission high school i look forward to seeing them in long beach they'll represent sfusd very, very well, a weeks ago democratic nancy pelosi, mayor ed lee along with at city officials had an opportunity to visit monroe elementary school in san francisco to examine the efforts to promote kindergarten to college in our kindergarten

to college with students and families as you may know the k two opens the savings account with a fifty-dollar deposit at citibank the convicted idea is to encourage the students and families to prepare by starting a setting back providing $50 in the lunch program and providing incentives by matching every dollars contributed thank you to principal ben solace within treasurer jose cisneros who shared with our students and families the k to college and what had it takes to go to college this is how our san francisco in school board are working together to support our community i'd like to mention that we are continuing our attendance and focus in support of response to

intervention work supporting the students and families specifically we're focusing on social behavorial and emotional support in our it teams throughout elementary and high school had the privilege that work with i t coach by training our staff we look forward to working and building a tier foundation of support and speaking with the team leaders and a positive community which schools needs this attendance and support? another area of the continued support from the security in helping our students and families i'd like to shout out and thank you to our student family community support for the incredible work to support our families and finally ladies and gentlemen, just a reminder that our next schedule board meeting was scheduled for -

september 22nd, however, in observation of miami cpa can important our schedule meeting is september 29th an obvious of this jewish holiday next regular board meeting is on septembe september 29th, 2015, we'll to worry about our families a happy miami co-important. >> thank you to nancy pelosi who came to monroe elementary school and give a shout out to her staffer lane that showed professionalism in organizing that and acknowledge it commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell and i were at that wonderful celebration kid to college program we're not at item c recognized and accommodations noun together

and democrat d student delegate report i'd like to visit our student delegates to give their report. >> thank you, commissioners and superintendent as our c y report last weeks ago the f ac ma embezzle and i participated in the our children, our families meeting and the goal for that committee or council is to serve as strong collaborators or liaisons for between from the youth side point of view with connections to this mayors small team we're here to provide internal support for the mayor and the people of sfusd and our ceremony is september 10th at city hall as four next week another reminder we'll have our

cabinet elections and anyone it free to attend we're hoping to have a lot of great speeches from oath of our representatives and so it will probably be really great that everyone should be able to attend this cabinet election that will be held at this board room at 5:30 p.m. on monday as for other than the cabinet elections we've introduce the committee that will be sf cc members to name a few the budget and legal the curriculum committee and the social and health committee. >> the sf cc is working to help our peers faced with homeless issues we're developing a committee that allows us to help to raise donation and subscribes students cost that will be able it would be challenging for them

we actually had this mooepg last week and it is in process around this issue of we still have progress throughout the year and for graduating senior class and expenses offered for free halloween customs during the month of november they have the chances oh, and as teresa said your meeting a monday, september 14th is a public council and added incentive dinner will be provided for the sf cc represents and anyone that wants to attend if you want a copy of the unagenda please contact our coordinator and again, our cabinet elections are

next week please join us. >> thank you very much student delegates i'd like to call forward representatives from our very hard working parents advisory committee. >> good evening commissioners i'm tony my data evan is in the 7th grade >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm angela with two kids in

galileo high school and my son is in gsa 0 elementary school in 12 grade i'm a member of pack. >> the role of the pack to represent the parents voices to inform board of education policy discussions we don't convene regularly over the sum but some of the members working on providing feedback from the website and tabling to support community outreach and preparing for the first meeting of the year in july some of our members met with joyce the online communications coordinator from the office of public outreach and communications to provide suggestions how to improve the language pathway section of the district website and make it is important parental friendly a

few highlights from the suggestions having a brief introduction to this section of the website so reader, there are 5 different language pathways described this is an opportunity for us to celebrity the districts ability to offer 5 distinct pathways to meet the definition language niece and desires of our students and families second creating a live link for each the pathways listed in the introduction so that readers can go to the pathway of interest without having to scroll through the others to reach the one they want and third using a chart to compare and contrast the criteria and show the percentage of instruction providing in english versus the targeted language the table makes the xhenlt easier and more visibly appealing and easyer on the eye

to the reader and fourth providing a glossy of cross-reference the definition off words pack members like the idea of tool tips to appear when the cursor is appear over it those are some of the suggestions out of that meeting the pack recognizes this is not a high priority project and therefore our suggestions are being considered it maybe quite a bit time before the changes are reflected in the district website with that said, we thank you for the opportunity to give input into the process the thirds summer the pack had an outreach reach for the back to school celebration on august 15th pack members and from the african-american parents advisory committee volunteered at the information table a great opportunity to increase the packs visibility to

connect with the community and for students and families in the bayvie >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the pack is the first meeting on wednesday august 26th pack members appreciates truth

for coming to the meeting a presentation with the circuits top priorities for the new school year how he works for the pack supporting those aersz of focus and helps to set the teen for our priorities with san francisco unified school district overall goals. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> in addition margaret district staff from the special education department attend they're first pack meeting along with the current chair katie and

former chair of the community advisors cca they presented the local plan for the education and pack learning about the plan having the opportunity to ask questions and especially appreciating members from the advisors presenting on the matur matua mutual interest. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> next week the pack is meeting on wednesday, september 16th to set our priorities inform this year and identifying our project teams to work on different issues we will report the result of this

process next month. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> san francisco unidentified task force held the first meeting on thursday august 26th the pack is helping again this year with the cooperation and the cohen of the task force to create and document agendas and

notes pertaining to the work of this group we'll continue to report on this work the next meager is thursday september 17th from 4 to 5:30 on 5 frankli5 franklin5 franklin s

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> the pack is currently working with district and community partners to support the planning, cooperation and outreach of the san francisco school district and empowerment kweefrn which is co-sponsored by the african-american pack task force special education and selake the conference will take place on saturday october 17th from 9:00 a.m. to 2 public comment we'll be hosted at martin luther king middle school breakfast and lunch it provided in addition to interpretation services and participates are encouraged to insure enrollments for the caregiver childcare and more information is available on the website thank you.

>> thank you very much are there any questions or comments from the colleagues commissioner vice president haney thank you for the feedback on the website this illustrates how important to go to the pack on critical issues and get our direct feedback not only on the reports or specific policy but things we creating with you have the opportunity to try something to provide the feedback this is great to get and move forward with i wanted to ask if you knew of any plans to have the pack consulted on the broader website additional pieces to it and specifically where you are going to be consulted on aspects of it that relates to student assignment that is putting it out there it would be great i

love you were consulted on the language pathway section but whether we might expand it to which the pack is consulted with regards to the website. >> we've not identified any specific opportunities like that at this point but we'll welcome them the experience over the summer with the language pathway was very positive and we were happy to contribute and participate so - >> we will look forward to opportunities like that. >> thank you very much for your report appreciate it. >> thank you. >> the next item on the agenda is the item f public comment on consent items there are none item g is consent calendar i need to motion and second on the consent calendar. >> so moved. >> thank you very much any items withdrawn or corrected

by the superintendent? >> yes. there are two items to aid item 99 in regards to one 59 dash 8 k-6 on page 86 and 87 should be withdrawn from the consent calendar item number 2 in regards to one 59 dash ak 9 on page 92 the ending date should reads may 26, 2016, not may 272015. >> any reading for the frtd by the board seeing none, any items severed by the board for vote seeing none, roll call vote will take place under section o item h superintendent speakers in action none item i say board members for the

action there are none tonight item j request to speak regarding general matters a number of speakers let's see two minutes per person please so i'll call your name, please come up and i'll call a few and call some more (calling names) and we also have additional cards please approach the podium and press the bum you have two minutes. >> hello good evening. i'm speaking in support of william l cob elementary school due to the

lower students population we fear another consolidation this year last year two teachers were consolidated one at the beginning of the year and one at the end as preconsolidation it publics to support the high economically disadvantaged african-american families and youth we the cob communities have figure out consolidation and closer for years while most of elementary schools in the western edition prominently serving african-american families were closed yet dr. william l cob remained the first principal continues to survive and tyler for the tireless also passion for

educators and communicate considers please support our children and multi generational families that count on us to provide safety and hope for bright futures if we close anothers general education class this year we'll have less opportunities to increase i don't remember something we're working on every single day historic at cob after that air force the 10 days we receive any students those students are sometimes viewed as unsuccessful at other sites our school as historically welcomed all child and isn't this would even child deserves please support our cob community by allowing us to grow and diverse our communities we welcome all children of all cultural and economic backgrounds and all malia cohen and learning needs taking

another passionate teacher from the schools will be devastating to our schools and communicates so given you the full letter with signatures thank you very much would you like to identify yourselves. >> i'm reynell a teacher at cob for 18 years. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please okay. >> okay good evening school board members and superintendent carranza my name is hannah i'm here to advocate for my son cooper allen i'm requesting the first grade

optimist tommy's at the avala be released to any son he be allowed to be enrolled this week so i'm not asking for special treatment on this zigzagging asking asking for a fair consideration beginning august 27th he was one week as the only student awaiting for a seat we were told this was only for franchise speakers but flexibility with the principal or possible highery immediately requested a meeting with the agency director to ask approval for this seat on september thirds he was denied the opportunity to enroll the reasons given i put on the documents but their not supported by the flexible mission policy that are outlined in the student assignment portion

the school district has supported me i grew up here in san francisco and asking that my son is equally supported his education matters just as much as a potential state of future student i've also met with the principal at c i s and she supports him phil the seat? the final entry point he'll not have an opportunities to get into the program hover and nature speaker does holding the seat gives an unnecessary advantage to an inidentified nature speaker at this time it's the goal okay sorry i ask that you allow him to fill this seat i've followed the procedures and have been trying

to enroll since january on the late list never waved my son is smart. >> sorry that's your time thank you very much. >> i'd like to have you connect to mr. barry recess and if he can collect our information we'll be sure to pass your information to the staff. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm justin allen and to speak on behalf of my son as a father want one of the best education opportunities he was relies denied an open seat as of august 27th we were the only family waiting for that open seat we received an e-mail notification last thursday which didn't explain who made the decision or my policies supporting that the lack of transparency regarding the outcome and confusion has

brought us here together i've served in the navy for over 16 years and been my experience that communication is the success of any nation are the school district has a mission to provide etch student with an equal opportunity to succeed sfusd's leaves room for implementation one the pentagon examination and equal assess and empowersing the students to proceed when a service member has a decision he takes to the chain the individual supports the documentation and a decision what about made immediately or goes up ranks the going the goal to eliminate uncertainty and promote accountability i don't feel the decision to make it empty when a student is prepared to fill it supports the the goals the

district so here i am presenting to you the decision michael makers i'm asking my son be allowed to fill this open seat there is operating room to let him in we've followed all the premiers please release this seat to cooper and allow him to enroll as this seat will forever impact my child's future thank you. >> thank you very much mr. allen if you could give our contact information to mr. superintendant guerrero. >> good evening my name is letting to president of the united educators in san francisco i want to express my solidarity who are here to express their desire for stability for more of the members i'm here with new mexico's and bad news any good news is something that everyone

on the board and the people in the audience know that sfusd is filled about dedicated educators that look forward to coming into the classroom and teaching the children weaver whatever on the agenda and something they'll spice up them the bad news i've found out visiting school sites crisscrossing town the teachers you recruited are desperately trying to survivor the first week some of the new teachers and some experienced teacher one brand new teacher had to start teach in the boyer that was full of construction materials had to core define after the classrooms and one teacher was handed ready-made materials and said to teach them and no literacy

curriculum other than that an he will an ascertainment a t k class a new teacher to be told reading the curriculum is something that is desperately wrong in the classrooms and anyway those to teachers were both in their second week of school and not knowing how they were going to make it those teachers need the support and another 4 hundred and 99 in the district the union needs to support this and the district no point in recruiting teachers if we can't support them and get our administrators to know what it looks like and feels like it feels like autonomy in the classroom an open door policy and not a mandate i was going to tell you at the other ends of

the spectrum the teachers feel like first year teachers they're not given room to use their professional expertise and this is well, anyway, we've desperately building our kids deserve bettered and teachers and has to be a culture of innovation and supporting expertise where it exists in helping the teachers development their own wisdom and expertise. >> thank you. i'll ask superintendent carranza to follow up on the issues. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes good evening superintendent and board members. >> i'm earl phil's reverend i'm here to advocate that my grandson cooper allen have equal access to an open seat available since august 27th i think we

agree that education is the foundation for future success and deny my grandson sees to an open seat is denying him equal access to programming in this district i've lived in the city of san francisco most of my life except a few years minute taking care overseas my parents and grants gtdz to san francisco in the 40s and able to raise their children in an environment that provides greater equality for our family i received my k through 12 education unfortunately, if sub par schools in the bishop bayview doesn't equip me with the skills to compete for higher education during the civil

rights era fortunately my parents installed in us my siblings and i a strong work ethic i've been able to succeed and provide for my family of 8 children and the college graduates i share that because every generation we want better for our children and as my grand children enter the public schools i'm dismayed the san francisco schools remain ethically and racially excluded i clawed the school board for entering the program that aims to hem students that are providing languages of all languages with equal access to education and my closing thought

i ask today that you would grant cooper allen the rights to fill the first grade seat and chinese school let him start tomorrow his future matters and his opportunities to advance matters i thank you for your time and like to quota statement if in our communities and history we're not included we've been automatically excluded and if not now, when? thank you >> thank you reverend brown reverend we have a few more speakers (calling names). >> please come to the podium you'll have to minutes.

>> hi, i'm josh want for the seiu and sfusd i cook for kids if preschool in san francisco and i'm very excited to be back to school and have on the job kings with the clarifying situation worked out i know you'd like to know more than you want to i have a number of temporary workers represented by seiu those are folks in clerical positions and student nutrition and folks from the warehouse that almost all our radio announcers are temporarily exempt workers with no process they have no job securities they can be let go at any time i was holding and sign i can request quit but not retire and actually not true i maybe pain the only

unit that has a retirement plan even though i'm temporary i get to participate in the retirement system those folks don't they've not been given the opportunity don't have the right to go to progressive discipline and let go for more reason and no notice that's happened a number of times this year we're asking is it e is for simple justice we are now about three-quarters of a through the process to get the ammunition workers i thank you for your help but we're still losing folks for any reason infractions with someone where due process would be given a counselor and oakland we have to hundred school secretaries and clerks who are appointed temporary exempt not bumping rights in the events of

a lay off and cost cast into the wild that's bad for the schools and workers and those people skifr permanent status some have been with us for of years please consider they're up next thank you (clapping.) >> if we could please hold the applause. >> my english not so well, we need most of even one more than 19 years the last labor day we don't get the labor day holiday pay not there so we hopefully, we could have opportunities to become permanent i'm sorry my english not to well, i hope you understand so here's one way or another why i'm standing here thank you. >> thank you very much. >> if i could ask we please

hold applause until everyone has spoken i want to make sure we here from everybody. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm aaron ordinarily a clerk transiting at s a for the 1426 type i thought many of you have 1426 and 46 in your offices those group of people that are gifted into two groups permanent have taken service center examines and myself in the district how are temporary exempt we can basically be let go at any time and we don't have

that robust sense of job security that a permanent 1426 or 46 has i'm asking that you do everything to make sure that the new group that is coming through the ranks to take a civil service examine i understand the 142 of has not been given the opportunity to take the civil service examine i want to take that and looking for the school district they've treated me well, this far and proud to be working for the city i'd like to retire with the city with a robust sense of permanence thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm responding

goldstein the field rep assigned to san francisco unified school district and i came over from oakland school district e unified school district and one number one issue that we're going to do address this year is the fact that the temporary workers i was appalled to find out half of the workers are temporary and that means like josh davidson and others they don't have due process rights this in absentia issue you think oh, my goodness if something happens i have no right. i have nothing to stand on in terms of being able to have someone fighting for me and fighting for any job we're asking you insure as we move forward to support those acts we started with the student nutrition workers and pornography moving through the clarifications in the district is thank you and look forward to working with all of you

(clapping.) >> mr. >> (repeated.) >> the constitution of the united states. son and ms. goldman at the scene i'd like to connect with with our staffer for follow-up that concludes public comment on general matters we're on item k citizens advisory committee appointments to visas any appointments this evening i have an appointment to the bilingual council ever sheridan elements she'll be my appointment to the b cc seeing no other appointments item l special order of 7 business nun together and item m other educational issues none tonight

and item n consent calendar resolution none tonight and item o vote on the section and ms. casco roller and ms. chin mr. tomato at an no. >> ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell ms. norton mr. walton ms. wynns and dr. murase. >> 6 i's. >> item p is consent calendar resolution settled for the board and immediate action none tonight item q superintendents first reading nun tonight and right direction the proposal for first reading nun together we're now on item s board members report and standing up committee to membership organizations and all other reports by board members commissioner norton.

>> yes. the budget and business service committee met on september 2nd we considered one action item which is the pathway san francisco school district and internship program we gave that item no recommendation we had a number of questions about the item is sounds like a buzzing sound. >> didn't hear the ends of your report. >> i stooped because yes - >> so we had a number of questions about that resolution that we lucky commissioner wynns spoke to that and commissioner walton and commissioner vice president haney she was able to address the questions we had and we asked that you work with board leadership to resolve the

issues and bring it back to us the next meeting the budget committee will be the first wednesday in october - why is that happening? >> the first wednesday is 17. >> the 7th of october. >> i'd like to ask my colleagues to announce their next committee meeting dates ms. wynns. >> meeting on the 16 in this room and actually going over a number of changes to the bylaws and the rules and policies coming before the board but also, this is our update on the status of legislation for anybody that is interested and wants to come and here that our revokes will be here i think this is the time to hear about

it. >> commissioner walton. >> curriculum and program comprehensively meetings on accepts 23 at 6 o'clock. >> commissioner fewer so are we announcing the meeting. >> yes. >> any others announcements. >> sure the next salesmen a lot about meeting on october 27th and a select committee meeting this oh, i think september 24th yes at 3:30. >> commissioner vice president haney. >> commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell. >> thank you buildings and grounds will be meeting on monday, september the 28 at 6:00 p.m. thank you. >> any others announcements by my colleagues i just want to congratulate alice for their 20th anniversary

on saturday october thirds from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. congratulations to that communities. >> also lincoln high school the 75th anniversary is that day also. >> any others announcements? >> commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell. >> i actually realized that the budgets committee that i announced for the i have to reschedule it i'm going 80 going to a counselor school meeting and i imagine another commissioners as well so the superintendent and i will have to figure out another day in september. >> commissioner mendoza-mcdonnell i wanted to invite everyone on september 26th from 7 it skouks to the harvey milk academy we're

doing to block party there s m f for fighting cancer this is one of the teachers who's daughter found out has a brain tumor and the mayor's taken care of the year recipe and we wanted to honor her 22 years of san francisco unified school district and raising money for what her child will be going out we'll be out in front of martin luther king high school with lots of fun and cheer to bring to their families saturday september 26th. >> if there are no other announcements item t report of closed session actions nun to report and u outlet informational issues to staff reports information numbers of

clarified and reports on the uniformomplaint from may through july. >> and we are aye been in san francisco 20 years. i'm homeless. i got a good cup of coffee. i got a number. today i'm 359.

>> you try to do the right thing and make a point to do what you have to to be at one place. they have all the services at one building. i can spend 4 hours touching each table ask and getting the information i need to get back on my feet. they are providing the services under one roof. you don't have to go here or there or wait until next week. >> at the time we opened we have folks waiting outside to come in. >> good morning. >> what we are doing is trying to find out what they want and need and getting them to their services as fast as possible. >> i came to the eye glasses program. making a couple of phone calls to my family at home. >> some housing, i'm here for employment. may be see about -- i've never been to one of these.

i have not been homeless before. >> the scareiest are the people who are recently homeless who look like me. look like they could be my friend or family member. a few wrong choices and bad luck got them here. >> i was laid off 2-1/2 weeks ago and came to the project to -- >> i've been married to the same man, my childhood sweetheart he started doing drugs. we went from a nice out in texas to nothing. the next step in the process is they get linked up with a volunteer. this is the heart and soul of the public connect. we greet clients. shake their hands. ask them to follow us and talk to them as we bring them to the hall and lead them to the first

station. you find they are humbling on both sides. humbling for me. it's a great opportunity to give the folks the respect they deserve and don't get enough of. >> these are the people we step over on the way to our jobs. i was thankful to the mayor. our jobs are about helping people. this is another way for us to give back to our community that treats us very well. i like the way they take you around to get you started. that's nice. they let you go and thoser the different things you need. >> are you with a program, now? >> i was a long time -- >> you want a job search? >> career planning [inaudible].

you are interested in getting into the trades? and that is where they will double check your trading skills you got and put you on a crew and you can do construction work or any kind of construction. >> okay. >> good. are you receiving food stamps? >> no. >> not medical or nothing. >> no. >> we got to get you hooked up. >> this the department of human searchss this is the benefit's section much the beauty on coming here today is that we brought all of our requirements to this place, this station. the assessment. the orientation, we have the screening propose, the finger imaging this helps people who are unable to tolerate going to different appointments on several days. >> i want to talk to people

from housing and shelter. there are several jobs i have been given it's a matter of following up. >> i'm going to get my eye glasses, try to. when i got here they said 60 people. not everybody will get a pair. 8 million people in san francisco who are homeless. >> i volunteered for the eye screening. they are appreciative, they tell us that. and they have come back to say, thank you very much. we appreciate this. it's made a difference in my life. there was a guy today that couldn't see so near sighted he couldn't seebeyond 2 or 3 inches. everything is a blur. it's a miracle for him. >> they are not doing anymore screening for the day. i will go

to health care, next. >> this is the medical section where they come and give us their names and we ask them to have a seat with the rn. there are 6 rn's that will find out what they need. it could be just to see a doctor. they will sit here, write an assessment and someone will escourt them to where the doctors are. we have 2 if not more licensed dentests that look at people's mouth. they get a card to a drop-in clinic. the only thing that holds us back is we don't have enough dentists to treat the number of people. we would treat more people. >> this is not an area that people deal with. it can be a significant barrier.

we see 185 to 200 clients. in the dmv area we see 300 to 350. >> it's overwhelming but helpful. there are a lot of people willing to help. >> at cafe connect we have volunteers that work as waiters. everyone who come here experiences a surprise that it's such an easy thing to relate to this group of people. when you are out of the street you ignore them. when you are here you treat them like human beings. people are gratified. >> you give back to people. you give back to our community and it makes the world a little less cruel. >> i heard people in line talking about the donation when they walked out. it was nice to see people come

and get the things they want and leave. it's rewarding for our employees to help out. >> the feedback i have gotten from the employees today has been positive. they are encouraged that the fact the city is doing something like this for the homeless. >> i got involved, my son adam who's a teacher in san francisco participated and invited me. >> i got involved with a friend. i came a couple months ago and wanted to make it a priority to come again and invite my family and more friends. >> it's well organized. i'm impressed how organized it is. it feels wonderful to be a part of it. >> affords dignity to the people who affords the services. >> every service you can need or get you started is here under

one roof. if you leave here you should have [inaudible]. he bottom line is you make

>> good evening welcome to the wednesday, september 2, 2015, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer this evening is our president commissioner president ann lazarus and joined by commissioner honda and commissioner fung and commissioner bobbie wilson commissioner swig will be absent this evening to my left a strident attorney and the clerk alec i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director

we're joined we we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. in the front row is carli short and we'll be joined by joe duffy senior building inspector with the department of building inspection and scott sanchez planning department representing the planning department and the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.

speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. mrblgz if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. please stand and raise your right hand please stand

okay do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> we'll move on to item one commissioners for general public comment the opportunity for someone in the audience who want to speak on a matter between within the board jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar seeing none, we'll move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments and commissioners. >> i want to let my fellow commissioners know i'll not be here for the september 16th meeting. >> thank you. any other comments commissioner any public comment on item 2 that is seeing none, the boards considers of the august 27,

2015. >> commissioners any changes may i have a motion. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then we'll call the roll commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus the vice president made the motion commissioner wilson okay. that carries four to zero the next is the rehearing the subject property on jones street the board received a letter requesting the rehearing and that's mars versus the department of building inspection of the street use and mapping on july 21st at this point the board voted to uphold it is code compliant is it so systems i know the construction after wireless facility permit 16 and we will hear if the

requester or the requesters representative >> i'm doug appearing on behalf of the requesters they have illnesses if you'll recall this was one of 4 cases on july 1st involving the verizon wireless facilities for protected locations pursuant to article 25 of the san francisco public works code you may recall before the hearing article 25 had recently been amended because those were the first hearing subsequent to the amendments this was confusion in evidence among the rent from dpw and the city attorney's office as well as the members of the board in fact the attempted to clear up the confusion midway a 20 minute recess was called to give the

deputy city attorney to formulate a correct standard to be applied to the appeals the problem and the reason for the request is that the deputy city attorney determination on the standard to apply was erroneous and incorrect the determination said a zoning protected location capability standard this be applied rather than a stringent capability standard applicable to this case maybe the written prior written submissions from dpw correctly identified this is a a planning protected location and the determination issued by the deputy city attorney occurred in the case prior to this case the deputy city

attorney incorrect determination informed the decision by this board of the not only prior case but in case as a result an incorrection determination a - incorrect standard was applied to the decision for this case one of the sufficient criteria for rehearing it is the maufrtsd justice manifestly the incorrect incapability standard was applied to this case and as a result, the gentleman and ms. mars had an unjust result because the their case was determined under the wrong incapability standards we respectfully request you rehear this case and the next hearing do so under the incapability

standard. >> we'll hear if the next permit holder. >> good evening for written wireless this board made no error there is no manifest injustice or new evidence the city's brief clearly identified the john's location as an excellent for the planning protected standards the zoning protected standard is applied both standards and i watched the tape and stood before you and recited both standards word for word and tells you that of a was a good standards applied and the you made our decision i think you were amply advised by the city

attorney's office as well as by the department of public works and your decision is sound the standards whether it detracts if the characterized of the zoning or that impairs one the aesthetic electricities by impairing the view of a landmark open space or park no evidence in that regard this facility would do any of those things we think you should stand behind our decision mia my remarks is covered by the city's brief and the city attorney's opinion the remarks with irrelevant we were clear on the standards and should stand by thank you. >> thank you anything from the department ms. short public

works i'm concur we don't feel the rehearing request should be granted we also building that it was clearly identified as the protected and the zoning protected location public works shouldn't have issued the permit in the first place if the planning department had not determined did wireless facility had the compatibility standards we feel you were properly advice by the da and you made a correct determination in this case that it meant the code requirements and therefore, we'll request the rehearing be denied thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the standard -

>> your microphone isn't on is the vice presidents microphone on? >> maybe you don't want me to talk. >> it's on. >> yeah. i think the standard for manifest injustice has not been found my decision was on the briefs during the hearing i will not go towards a rehearing >> any other discussion. >> speaking for myself the standards were quite clear so i also will not support a rehearing is there a motion? >> motion to deny the rehearing on the gowns there was no manifest injustice. >> okay. a motion if the vice president to deny the rehearing request on that motion

commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that carries 4 to zero thank you. >> the next item is appeal for the morris versus the department of building inspection the property on scott street protesting the issuance on june 2015 to scott street, llc for the interior modifications for the addition of subterranean parking garage with the residential use for the horizon addition at the modification and the front elevation and this i understand commissioners the parties have reached an agreement the permit holder is here to present it to the board please step forward and my understanding is that the appellant is not planning to

attend this evening. >> there's something i believe the permit holder has from the appellant to indicate his consent as well. >> before you start perhaps madam director what are some of the others that had sent them letters are they present. >> sure is there anyone here on this matter besides the permit holder great under public comment we've been certain to hear from them gentlemen 7 minutes. >> i'm jim i'm here are recreation and parks department the owner others scott street, llc we submitted an application for a building permit in 2012 there was several components to the project for the ground space

to living space that is parking and storage and add four and a half feet to the front of the building and make interior modifications after the site permit was approved the neighbor that lives downhill from the property objected and filed on appeal he expressed to me the concern he had was two-fold one was structure for his building worried about a basement being built next to his property and have converting the ground space he also had a concern we were with standing a deck on the building people will be on the deck and climb into his building after discusses with the appellants we have agreed to reduce the scope of work to remove the basement to remove the conversion of the ground level to conversion space it was

part of the plan we will have a grail i have material we've gotten feedback from the planning department on one item a skylight we've proposed that is a peak skylight we were asked to make that a flat skylight instead i'd like to ask the board to accept the revised plans that reflect that change and we've made a few others changes consistent with the project as proposed i have a complete set of revised plans and a one page summary and a at the last minute gotten to scott sanchez it if so it possible to submit those revised plans as well as a summary of the changes and finally he have from the neighbor a written

statement from the neighbor saying we've addressed the concerns agreed to the scope i've described and i've provided him a revised plans he's signed a statement his concerns are at rest michael levitt is here he's the architect if you have questions that's the ends of my statement. >> is the revised you've provided in our packet the one you have here. >> no, it is not substantially the same but as i mentioned we got feedback to have the skylight flattened and on the exit diagrams not changing anything substantive the floor plans didn't match our updated plans so we revised that and also, we updated the page numbers we have various page

numbers and updated the date to september one and then some of the one other thing on the existed floor plans that was based on on the old plans we updated that to reflect the new floor plans the only substantive changes are the skylight changes i brought copies i'd like to submit the whole set and the summary of changes and a loss packet if you want to see them. >> we'll need a revised sit down for the records unless everyone needs to see it. >> if you can give one to the clerk. >> i don't know if there is questions we let other folks speak first. >> no other questions from the boards we'll hear if the department mr. sanchez.

>> scott sanchez planning department to the revised plans as prepared this evening have addressed our concerns the revised plans in the packet have a skylight with volume within the rear yard wouldn't have been allowed without a variance to remove it so the skylight is flat with the building with the planning code i'll noticed a slight increase to the penthouse they're adding a mechanical area for as long as their, in fact, using that for mechanical equipment under the planning code in was a duly nose without identification otherwise the

scope is being revised and the special conditions if the board approves this will note correctly the scope of work as it is now the building permit it references the underground garage that will be corrected as far as the process. >> mr. sanchez you took a quick look at this. >> yes. >> and is it okay except the penthouse. >> accident penthouse has expanded here and from the mechanical purposes which will be allowed in the planning code not needed to be revised if you choose to accept that. >> okay inspector duffy has indicated no questions so commissioners public comment if you care to speak under this item please step forward.

>> step to the microphone. >> yeah. a group of tenants were concerned about the noise involved and just a second hammering and the changes something might go wrong this is part of plan we were maybe got a lot of construction in the neighborhood roofs going in for a week if this as big project that goes a year or so we're hoping possible we expressed in the letter we've submitted. >> do you would you care to state your name. >> francis occurring on scott street if you would care to fill out a speaker card 3 would be helpful. >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay and mr. occur are you finished. >> your letter talks about the just a second hammering that is

related to the dpigs don't guess to install a new subterranean that's gone. >> that's gone. >> they're still doing odds and ends including work on the roof this is some noise. >> there is a lot of noise they're changing the floor plan 0 on the building to the south if we're going to the winter months i guess they start at dawn pretty much. >> this may not be the proper place to ask for a little bit of control on that but we thought weed whacking give it a try thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> no other public comment then if you have additional comments you have additional minutes you have to come up to the microphone.

>> not super relevant but for the record the mechanical equipment was on the plans you have before you and so the plans as submitted continue to include that. >> mr. roth. >> yes, sir. >> are the tenants i believe in the adjacent buildings were concerned about the noise any idea of what our work hours and work days. >> i don't know. i've never done a project like this and not a contractor but there are rules that govern the rules. >> the rules are less than i cannot. >> right? i'm not sure what to say we've follow the rules and try to be respectful i live in that neighborhood since i live in the building i definitely know under is a lot of conduct that is annoying and try to

minimize the impact that is reasonable. >> is the recommendation it would, nice to have a weekend off. >> i'm not sure i can commit when you have the money and don't know about the emergencies a certain part of project i've seen other folks sometimes do it on a saturday they will be open to discussions on that point. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. anything further from mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the work hours are permitted in the police 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 7 days a week so that's what we allegation allegation to.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i would hope the permit holder since he lives in the building understand he needs to have some days of rest otherwise i see no other reason to not deny the appeal and i presume that the permit holder wants us to do you want those drawings. >> we need to grant the appeal; right? >> to condition the permit on the revised plans is that the boards - okay. >> further comments then i'm going to move to grant the appeal and to adapt the revised september one submit to this board this evening on the basis that less work is being shown and therefore the contentious

part has been removed. >> okay. and just to confirm with the permit holder is the date september one for the set your submitting now okay. >> thank you so on that motion if commissioner fung to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the condition of permit to accept the revised plans dated september one the scope of work has been reduced commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda. >> commissioner wilson okay commissioner swig is absent that motion carries 4 to zero thank you. >> next item 6 appeal curtis verses the department of public works the area of note open

masonic avenue protesting the issuance on may 20th to the department of public works of a tree removal to remove had 4 street trees with a hundred and 85 street trees this is order number and we'll start with the appellant. >> you have 7 minutes. >> how many of you have a tree that's your tree the favorite tree you are connected somehow. >> what you speak into the mike, we have a good news we're here because we're concerned about the trees number one the tree 3 one ratio apples and oranges no comparison we want to

propose 3 studies to show a mutually way to look at trees number one it is a known fact that studies show old trees continue throughout the whole life two studies of trees accumulation increase shows the maturing trees do not simply act as a carbon reservoir but accurately fix carbon compared to a tree half it's size this myself tree is developing enough for half of it's why is it doing that what's the nature of the tree a mutually tree and third study capability of old trees to respond to environmental change a study 2000 years shows a flat

line here along comes the spiritual revolution a huge spike we're there today but look at what a matureing tree does when it comes into came back with this spike it doesn't go there but it is there how come that tree is doing that because it knows the necessity but has the energy already there it is not side body the same with an immune system are we have that in common with those trees they're alive their there are for us giving us the clean air to be cleaned given that

we're asking the following preserve the 3 trees on masonic public, public space two allow the trees to continue on ma song and keep the medium from geary to farrell, 5 years ago under divisadero under a simple project i walked by you have to see how this 3 for one this project medium looks at many dead trees half the trees half there banner on many leafs so we look at those that's the 3 to one we're prospering another possibility to we're asking a restoration all of you to give us us the

community to work with the city and be able to show there is a matureing tree to help our city thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record. >> i live off masonic and anyone else speaking during this time? go ahead >> my name is dr. affordable housing i don't think it is our job as responsible citizens to expose the truth beyond the flashy power point presentation our hope to convince the board this is in the city's best interest to preserve the medium and bus stops at masonic and gear as they are our voices harold the future and present the problem with the proposed

tree removal is it that leaves out the trees and neighbors the motorists and the pedestrians we believe that a presence of local government is failing the long term residents in favor of technical people that have money and power as well as the developers and speculators that represent them such things are ravaging our city tearing down historic buildings and trees removing the bluster and grace in this case the changes proposed at geary and masonic impede traffic and compromise safety i believe the proposed plans are damaging to our city's quality of life they're actually dangerous. >> i will continue during any 3

minutes thank you. >> okay. >> so that will close the appellants time to speak then and we'll hear from the permit holders. >> there's a power point presentation; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> okay good evening members of the board and my name is john the project manager for the masonic street i'm here with the landscape architect and chris in the department of public works urban forestry i want to say we're in complete agreement to the value of the trees in the urban environment this is why san francisco public works has an effort station and tree planting in the tree planting like the masonic street light

improvement and i've included a plan in our exhibits so the masonic stape is a complete streetscape in front of the geary the mutilate project led by the deputy superintendant and the san francisco planning department in coordination with the stakeholders like the north of page and the sfai and the san francisco bicycle coalition the plan began in 2010 in a response for out crying from the neighbors with grassroots including the masonic the call for the city to address the dangers on the street in the ma song the alarming statistics is why the tame is in agreement they must be reimagined over a 5 year period hundred and 22

collisions on masonic including two fatalities those are the reported ones we know there are more here's a summon avenue public outreach since 2010 and a slide of community workshops one p 1, 2, 3 i'll pass by in the interest of time so this drawing shows that the boulevard option the option we're move forward with we reimagine the street includes the wide sidewalks throughout separated bicycle lanes and two lanes of traffic signal and new latent prints for the medium in the plan illustrated with the boarding islands newly imagined bus stations that allows the bicyclists to pass behind i'm

including this slide so show why the graph is the risk of death from collisions from vehicular speeds it is in our project to include the narrowly of traffic lanes and the street trees medium trees act as calming agents for the road to drivers our project proposed to plan hundred trees in the near future at the intersection of geary and masonic a plaza is proposed and a redesign should have a safety benefit to the streets in addition to the plaza situations that be widened for the target store for the distance for pedestrians across masonic and geary from interesting two crossings in '86 crossing to 72

feet that's the 51 decrease in the crossing distance and here's an aerial view showing the plazas as proposal the transit area with palms and the cafe with the trees and an open area with planter in the south end the centerpiece of the plaza will be a public art piece overseen by the san francisco arts called the points of depasture today hundred and 46 fruit trees 49 are proposed to be replaced by disease and construction conflict one hundred and 85 trees are to be planned with 2 hundred and 80 trees and additional trees this drawing shows the 49 trees that

are proposed to be removed and respect the yellow video been inspected by the urban foresters and for replacement for disease and poor performance this cvs construction conflicts 7 trees are in the medium on masonic 9 trees conflict with the plazas on geary and 9 trees conflict that with the boarding islands and 7 trees conflict with the target stores here is an illustration of 7 trees within the medium continue o farrell and geary streets in order to accommodate the medium it must be removed a new medium constructed to the west those trees will be replaced with new trees we have to relocation the

medium these trees will be replaced here's an illustration of 9 trees within the island of geary and masonic the roots are uplifting the paving causing a tripping hazard but the construction provides a lower construction grades of one foot in order to constrict the plaza including the section of paste that is more than two feet of excavation for the plaza and because the tree rootsz appear in the most top two to three feet of soil not possible to save the existing trees in that location this illustration shows 9 trees conflict with a typical with the transit boarding soildz to accommodate new design for the

protection of the bicycle lanes they must be removed and replaced we can't provide the bicycle improvement and finally there's 7 trees adjacent to the target store and arborists will low relocate of those trees we can't guarantee those trees will survive that's one thing we want to provide an alternative and those slides shows the trees to remain in closing i'll say that we respectfully ask the board the board of appeals to uphold the director of public works to replace the 409 street trees between geary and masonic and alternative recommendations to allow for relocation of the 7 beginning could trees between

masonic and geary and approving the approval of 49 trees for the streetscape project an important project for the city safety wise and important for the city to achieve the vision zero to achieve vision zero traffic deaths by 2024 and the saving of lives is our priority. >> i have multiple questions if someone else wants to start perhaps the first point not necessarily a question but uttering didn't set up lifting those sidewalks as a excess for demolition of a tree if i understand your point about the - perhaps that accommodates

that particular element the questions i have are as follows: the portion of trees you mentioned you're going to attempt to roaming is there a reason why they don't work in the center of sidewalk expanding the sidewalk. >> the department of public works has a possibility corridor that works with the mayor's office on disability and the sidewalk is 10 feet wide and be expanded to 10 feet more the existing trees will ended up in the center of the sidewalk the mayor's office on disability sees that is a disability for people with poor vision. >> i've not heard of that it didn't transform with any code. >> we had a lawsuit.

>> the preferred alternative shows a medium our rendering shows a large tree but the medium is relatively narrow are you going to be able to support tree growth of that size there. >> yes. i'm not sure which drawing you're referring to but the trees proposed are the trees and a beginning could princeton their tail perimeter trees and the medium between o farrell and geary is much wider than the other medium streets i know the divisadero is a narrow medium compared to then it looks disastrous this is neither here more there my last question no where to provide you

talk about the planned pallet but no where to talk about the size of trees. >> the size of the trees are 24 inch block and 36 inch trees on the sidewalk the species are been selected with our partners and the urban forestry and from comments received if the urban tree council in the medium there are beginniginco trees and other trt are in the main block. >> and in the plazas date palms and the flowering trees. >> our city has been taken over

by pages? >> other questions? >> i'll wait. >> yeah. thank you, thank you anything to add ms. short and what hat are you wearing. >> my tree hat basically uttering is here to respond to any questions about the particulars about any of the trees remove for the health or construction concerns most of existing trees on the sidewalks are being preserved and many large trees that you are being preserved those proposed for removal not related to the construction impacts are in poor continents or have major issues they have poor form and another full of decay we've tried to preserve as many mature trees

along the corridors as possible we don't navigate we don't remove a tree because of the sidewalk damage but it has to do with the trees and it wouldn't survive or not have sufficient root structure to remain after the changes. >> ms. short did the mta and planning consult with urban forestry on the pallets. >> yes. we had extensive conversations on the pallet and it was presented to the urban forestry council. >> can do you think i'm sorry what do you think with the species in terms of how they visually sit with respect to the existing trees. >> well, i think so there are already ginco trees along the

corridor that's one the reasons their proposed although they're slow growing they'll become large trees and the principle has an upright importantly that presented the vertical element for traffic calming we presume without having a broadly gallop we have ash trees we've preserved that wish large but hard on center infrastructure and not sufficient root for the medium so the addendum is a nicely climate to that was a lot of discussions discussions about the options and those are the selected choices. >> in terms of those planned in the medium their trees i presume they will obtain significant

vertical height not much foliage; right? >> they'll get vertical height the species can reach 50 feet in height even turn around it is a windy corridor they'll not exceed that substantially but the canopy they develop a substantial canopy. >> how do you relocation the trees i think six or seven i heard. >> most of trees are proposed for relocate have a good chance of survival they're relatively young i think our prospective has been we want to be cafeteria about what we present to the community and so in the interest of supervisor miguel bustos approaching this we'll let people know they're going to be

removed he even though to transplant plant them they will be replaced with a 37 box tree i think they can survive. >> can you explain the 49 trees i want to make sure the board has before it. >> i'm not sure i can clarify that. >> the number has been 49 to 44 it is a typo. >> so 44 is before the board on the permit. >> i think for the directors order does it say 49 or. >> 44 a. >> so there is the confusion about the ginco trees new ginco trees in front of the of the

target store we've relocate they're really small their i think planted by the target store can i address the lifting sidewalk issue. question >> no, it wasn't a question. >> i want to. >> please wait until you have rebuttal so we'll take public comment now can i see a show of hands how many people want to speak under that item okay. so if i would ask the folks to speak line up on the fare side of the room and fill out a speaker card and if you whoever wants to come up first please come to the microphone and each speaker has two minutes because of the number of people for those and other items. >> so - >> go ahead. >> you want them on the other

side we have to keep this side clear for the fire code thank you. >> go ahead, please. >> good evening. i'm tim the president of the board of the neighborhood association i've been a 5 year residents and i wanted to let you know this project is not actually a politician emphasized project but a campaign from the residents concerned prior to 2010 the 2010 workshops i've attend them all i want to thank the city there were well organized and well attend and a lot of input and surveys and the surveys have gone out the north page association sent out a survey to e-mail this and the majority of our respondents

approved the boulevard supported the boulevard project we stand in support that have project today, we understand that it is unfortunate that the trees have to be removed how we're looking forward to the greater number of trees and most of all we're concerned about the safety of the streets there's a of most day with ask you uphold the initial decision thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name arnold i'm pleasured to hear i think they did a good presentation and my appeal is similar to theirs we're coming into a decade-long trespassed that kind of changes you know even century in the making and

millennium in the making extreme changes that require changes if how we think about things about now it is right time for it to start i appreciate the presentation very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody i'm amber i live in the masonic geary area i attended the previous hearing where we were bringing this to light some of the cannabis of the previous hearing have not been met it was stated the project manager show investor the trees can't be removed i don't feel that's been done and clarify for the public the tree removal and why the trees have to be removed there is no outreach to the public when we came in april a lot of

us the first we are heard those trees will be removed i lived in the area for 18 years i feel close to those trees also a bicyclist and mom i agree the masonic needs to be fixed if i could well, one thing that is concerning there was no environmental impact report it was there was an addendum in 2009 attached to the project that said because it was part of the bicycle plan no environmental impact report i thought that was a trouble precedent i agree we need to think about things different you can't say we'll take one out for young trees to grow they need to be protected from the wind and you know have the orderly trees

to remain the water that specific intersection is very wind swept if trees with not there the winds the sunlight like everything is going to add to the safety issues also i really question the use of palm trees they don't offer much for the birds or block the wind thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please hello my name is rubbing pa i'm speaking for the san francisco forest alliance they recognizes the trees sometimes do need to be removed for the transit projects it is important first, that the plans should minimize the tree loss, and,

secondly, that it should be up front how many tre will be cut down and which ones the best time is in the planning stage the tree presentation o preservation should be a priority san francisco has 13.7 percent of the precanopy for the 25 percent urban trees provide huge benefits they reduce pollution by trapping parcels and they are sound and have water run off and they collect carbon and effect climatic change and provided habitat for birds and butterflies those they have a huge benefit for the 10 trees just 10 trees added to a city street has the same benefit

of every households on that street $10,000 annually are making every one 78 years younger so i would like to say that the invitations of this hearing go much beyond many group of trees hundreds of street trees are threatened throughout the city as long as those hearings and this outreach is just a formality trees will not be preserved thank you. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening board my name is narrow i'm the executive director of the san francisco bicycle coalition and we're here tonight to support this very important life saving project the dpepz permit to add a net of

hundred and 36 trees it critical to moving forward on the safety improvement in recent years two deaths on the streepeeding is rampant in 2010 a gentleman was killed there and a year later james hunt was killed that was the same year the mta approved this project it is high time to get it constructed there were years of community engagement has been presented tonight by our colleagues at the dpw and the north neighborhood association and the grassroots called masonic was born out to bring those changes about masonic corrects golden state and presidio and swfls ucsf and shopping and jobs on geary

the masonic improvements improve safety for bikers and riders that are extremely necessary and especially in a city that is condominium to eliminating deaths in traffic in the years i'll say on behalf of the bicycle coalition and our 11 thousand members we strongly urge the board to make this appeal. >> i have a question on the motion a number of bicycle incidents on masonic do you have any numbers on the percentage of accidents that are not recorded. >> that's a good question i don't i wish i did and the personal - there was

something about ada and i measured the business for the sidewalks at ada made the distance they don't need to be cut or removed it seems to generate as the project precedes because when i look at the noticed on the west side of the street there were to trees that conditioned by the time a hearing there were 4 trees were there which were in bad

condition i think another tree was planted otsz on the eastern side of the street for families and between the beginning for - later on. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is terry oxford i'm here speaking for an endangered or darkened species connected to this issue people don't imagine. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> this is police narrators and the beekeepers since 2008 what lay people don't know that bees get from trees the trees in san francisco provide flowers that are criterion and that he had

free this is important because of the news that everyone has been reading about honey bees all policy narrators and birds are in serious trouble was of the loss of habitat and because of the trees grown in the united states now are all injected with poison from as soon as possible leg stage with the pesticides this is the life of the tree long enough anything that takes nectar and pollen is potentially going to today, this is important we all know when is important about the policy narrator system so what i'm asking for i building this plan is for gone conclusion question have enough time to source organic trees and san francisco,

california stand above every city a safe policy narratlinatp >> you have 3 minutes. >> if people believe that those are members of the community they have life and can't be removed without damaging us as a community one of the aims of the better streets to promote public safety and to decrease the likelihood of injuries masonic and geary has 8 lanes running north and south and 6 lanes east and west with turn lanes carefully our street for the

diverse directions there have been some fatality too over 6 year period and some injuries on the entire length of masonic yet that could all change in the trees are removed and the busses rerouted this is a very serious issue close to my heart my own beload of sister was struck by a motorcyclist when her and her boyfriend were trying to catch a bus 21 years old when she was killed masonic is a heavy used street with cars moving smoothly open a day basis to claim the city could effectively reduce one the busiest thoroughfares and diminish the fatalities on this strip of masonic is good while alternatively the bus stops and reroutinely the bus

traffic an increased likelihood it will be jammed and result in injuries or death morph by shift the bus traffic into the medium buses will no longer be able be able to pull over but stop and barricading only one lane available in one direction with 3 unobstructed lanes during rush hour in a city that is a burdening population that threatens structure in fact, the san francisco police reports hit and run accidents on a daily basis bus stops are one of the most dangerous stops and in addition there is a yielding of east of geary that allows cars

to run smoothly, however, if he shift the present bus stop most certainly an "x" potential increase in the number of injuries and fatalities for a bus stop located in the meridian the bus in the center of the street think about back your experience of existing a bus after existing the doorway in such a situation bus riders enter the crosswalks and cross the streets while talking on their cell phones and led to chase a bus and began assess so not miss an opportunity to board and bus to should buses be able to obstruct the middle the street. >> your time is up. >> i know you gave twice the

amount of time. >> exemplary there were questions that were asked. >> can i finish two senses please. impatient drivers will take risks library running red lights and while the pedestrians are crossing i think that is naive to think that the project will prove safety i believe that present bus stop and meridian should be maintained as well and the intersection of geary and - and such is the case dpw and sfmta request should be denied for amending the meridian interests not a survival day. >> i have a question for you excuse me. >> i have a question. >> sorry i don't know the

process. >> take a deep breath no worries did you participate in the community outreach. >> no, i didn't but i'm a neighbor and feel i'm informed i used the streets in the neighborhood i drive down the street i bicycle. >> why didn't you participate. >> i wasn't informed and not living in this area at this time. >> mr. dennis anything further from the permit holders you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> sure i just - not sure how much to respond to the comments i've heard other than to say the project has been carefully analyzed for traffic close and someone earlier had made the complaining claim that didn't receive it's environmental

clearance, of course, it did we can't move forward with any public project without the public contemporary and i want to thank you for your time and remind you this project was approved by unlawful by the board of supervisors acting as is mta board and the 3 supervisors that touched this street all wrote letters of support in favor of the project and also ask you to consider in addition to the verbal comments we've heard tonight in support of the project to consider the 14 letters that were you received including one from supervisor eric mar and point out that using the san francisco uttering plan the economic benefits of 2 hundred and new existing trees will result in an

annual benefit of 2 hundred and 17 thousand gallons of water and 81.79 carbon stored and pollutants from the atmosphere in addition to the benefits of some of what other people are brought up tonight. >> it's been presented (laughter). >> you know what let's start done here. >> i just. >> no problem. >> i want to you to talk about a couple of comments into the public what about the issue of organic trees. >> well, it is interesting i don't know of any tree nursesries that are labeled organic that is usually a term forestable agriculture but any nurseries growing the organic we'll be happy to hear about them. >> so it is not something

that's been considered. >> not something that exists and this issue the tree remove not discussed at the community outreach can you you talk about that. >> i don't think that is true many people asked me involved in the mr. larkin process i was there but many people asked me what impacts, in fact, the trees and the one thing we didn't bring up the trees in the island at geary and masonic we received many complaints during the planning project how dark is it is another night and people don't feel safe under the trees that is one comment we took to heart in our design. >> is that because of the trees or the poor lighting. >> the trees are plant close together apoorly maintained.

>> are the new trees go to be better maintained. >> maintained for 3 years a period of time when they need the most care but through the contract and through the medium trees will be maintained by the department of public works and the sidewalk by the adjacent property owners and the urban forestry plan calls for proposes that the department of public works take back responsibility for all street trees it will require a measure put on a ballot. >> one last question maybe a question for the department but what about the comment of the lack of protection for the trees and he windyness. >> most of san francisco is windy and i've been with the department for 17 years the designing streetscapes and public projects and eave selected our trees for their ability to withstand our

conditions not only wind but salt and air and drought conditions so those trees have been selected to withstand that the more trees we plant the better the coordinator. >> even when their young. >> even when their young yeah. >> thank you. >> batter up. >> i'm familiar with my street that's my daily route the corner store what was pub before and you know from what the public said that is never came up prior but brings a sensitive bell you're taking the trees are the trees your replacing them with able to sustain bee life as we know it. >> yes. of course, with the exception of the palms flowering in a different way maybe carla

can explain their unique but the other trees flower think a regular basis we're doubling the trees on the corridor more habitat for the bees. >> the second question reports of amount of accidents and unfortunately fatalities any studies with the routinely of the traffic or routinely blaefrt what accident reports anything statistically. >> your question about accidents. >> if you reroute this traffic there is traffic for a period of time any reports that have been taken or done to indicate what kind of accidents that will cause. >> we don't anticipate any accidents because of that the traffic routing is analyzed by the traffic engineers and a recommendations on how to

proceed with traffic roument one of the provisions they can only constrict two blocks at the same time so the entire corridor will not be under construction 18 months the reason it takes 18 months they're only allowed to do 2 blocks at a time. >> i recognize this is a tree removal initiative that's been appealed but out of curiosity your plans shows the bicycle path crossing the traffic fold not for see new conflicts between the bicycles and pedestrians at a point. >> go back to that slide. >> so you're talking about the

way the bicycle lane travels behind the boarding island this is something that been done in many cities around the world including san francisco we have one boarding island at deboss and church street been in four or five years it has been a great success not incidents of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists and what it does it eliminates the conflict between buses and bicyclists that is extremely dangerous the busses don't say viability and the bicycles sometimes get trapped. >> i have self more questions related to the tree issues one of the gaps in this particular corridor is adjacent to the ball fields it's a narrow

sidewalk isn't it your showing a lot of trees. >> ucsf. >> ucsf are we widening the sidewalk any are widening to the 22 feet we're widening three or four blocks along the corridor but on that one, the sidewalk is narrowed because they planted trees between the sidewalk and the curb. >> go back. >> their greenery comes down to the sidewalk commissioner. >> there's a retaining wall there's a fence here. >> the plans show what i described the sidewalk is setback if the curb with the trees planted there we will in fill the trees where there are missing trees there are a couple of years ago they planted trees on that stretch.

>> can't even read my own notes i'll go to my last question which is for those replacement trees that are at the sidewalks can they be bigger. >> is 36 inch box is larger than we normally plant there are pros and cons to planting bigger and smaller trees maybe our arborists want to chime in the smaller trees tends to have better health in the long run in our urban conditions the tree needs to be sizeable enough not to be vulnerable to vandalism and breakage age, etc. so the normal is the 24 inch box tree on the corridor we've sized up to a 36 inch box it is possible

to get a larger sized tree over time or a number of years not end up being any bigger of a tree the smaller tree will catch up; right? >> questions? >> thank you. >> ms. short you have 3 minute of rebuttal if anything to add no? >> i keep hearing about the doubling of trees and that we are taken away x amount and getting showing so many more so as a practical matter is the apples and oranges so that's exactly right probably at installation there will be a net loss of the eco system services we're getting if the mature

trees over time because their multiple trees plant for those removed there will be stabilizing and a gain in the eco system services but it is true that initially there be likely be a drop that's the time. >> the species proposed for planting on the sidewalks are relatively face growing trees so i think we would likely see the benefits in you know - i could do the math but i'd have to go back and try to do the math in a number of years 5 to 10 years for example the medium trees they're not super slow the beginning goes o gos are the faster of the gincos it will

take substantially lower than to realize the benefits in the medium there are no medium trees there's a huge increase but a slower growth so a number of years. >> the issue the pollination is there concerns considerations. >> not consideration i'm not aware of tree nurseries it is something i'll research and i'm actual a beekeeper as well it is something i'm concerned about. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> that's a lot of trees. >> considering we normally hear

about 12 tree issues of the neighbors. >> all in the comprehensive plan. >> right? >> on top of i think the target has been land use is working. >> right. >> you know the i'm not going to comment on the concept what they're intending the issue is the removal that was appealed of the 40 state 44 but i think they want 49. >> i'm prepared to support the permit to allow the removal and

allow the then the improvement of this portion of masonic street. >> so grant think conditions. >> the only issue there is that the code requires there to be notice given to the public of each tree removed by indemnifying the underlying question is whether or not the permit says 44 whether or not it was the roach of 49. >> maybe we can ask again, i throughout the difference was the ginco trees relocated. >> we'll have to go back and look at it what was submitted for the tree hearing i know the plans drawings haven't changed so in those drawings were submitted part the tree hearing that is a typo the 44 but the question is what to do when

there was a typo and i don't know if under recent a precedent. >> you'll have to post. >> we could go back and double check the posting i know the gincos were posted it only had 44 trees they were thinking in the gincos got relocated but the beginning 'coz coulds were posted we talked about the fact to error on the side of caution in case they don't survive. >> it should be a bigger number then; right? >> so that i think that might be the difference between the 44 and 49 i'm not sure. >> but i think there were 6. >> it should be 50. >> you'll have to speak into the microphone if you're go to

record. >> the 5 and 6 there is that one small tree that was planned while we were having the hearing process. >> oh, for the target store and starbuck's. >> we can certainly go back and verify look at himself i mean, i have the public notices we used so we could add that up but i know for sure those quentin coulds got posted and protected in terms of the this. >> should this be continued for that to be sorted out. >> the 44 is before us. >> is the reposting necessary and that make sense. >> that's the easiest. >> we'll come back okay. >> so more discussion or motion?

>> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the department didn't error in the issuance of the permit for the demolition of 44 trees. >> my motion i will speak up sir, thank you my motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not error in they're posting and permitting removal for 44 trees. >> i believe we need to make environmental finding. >> only if you - >> if we call the appeal. >> commissioner if you're going to uphold that permit you need to make environmental findings there are some that have been drafted in case i can read into the record and mr. longly if you

could put a copy on the overhead the board has consideration for the agenda and all documents for the review for the 2009 bicycle plan and the masonic streetscape this information is available for the public and board of appeals office on mission street and made a record for that reference the boards bans in light of the whole records there is no project changes or project changes and circumstances and now new information of substantial importance that changes the conclusion of the california environmental quality act including the motion and planning department amounted to the environmental impact report dated june 28, 2012, that were incorporated here so commissioners, if you commissioner fung if you care to

add if to our motion that would address the boards need to make a determination. >> i would add that many my motion. >> annex okay. >> so we have a motion by commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold the permitted on the basis it the department did not error in their issuance of the permit and with the adaptation of the environmental findings read into the record supervisor cortese. >> commissioner vice president honda's. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig is absent that that motion carries 4 to zero thank you. >> so we'll move on which taking the next item item 7 william and beth versus the department of building inspection the project is on crest visiting avenue pertaining

of an alteration permit for temporary shoring for application and on for hearing today and we will start with the appellant is there someone in the room representing the appellants for item no. 7 thank you. >> you have 7 minutes. >> thank you clint for the appellant the good news i thought i'd need 7 minutes but the board is familiar with the problem on crest visiting our client the appellant lives directly up slope of a sleeping slop of a property at 19 sure wood and the exact

problem is that the excavation of the site i think pretty much is well stipulated to at this point was done i am properly not followi improved plans and shoring plans submitted and approved and 6 piers in sight so we no longer have a permit that matches the con turns and typography of the site we've been in communication with the respondent principally santos the engineer for this site we've spent how time in the hallway talking about a solution i think we've come up with one and with permission i'll outline it roderick 0 if you want to

stipulate on your own we would like to do is we recognize the importance of winter riggs the site cola whether or not the preserved danger of el nino we recognize this site needs to be stabilize listed for the pending winter you, however, this might be so there will be a winter riggs plan a water management plan that will be submitted for us four peer rectify u right-of-way by september 16th. >> that's correct. >> we'll have a time that we'll have to review and get back to mr. santos and his team so your structural engineers and geotechnical consultants what weigh in on that plan then in the meantime the responsibility

will continue to work on the permit plan that incorporates the 6 piers that are in place i'll let mr. santos speak to that specifically i think that will certainly get us introduce the winter the plan that is currently approved p is attempted to be implemented not enough time to get it is a stabilized in time for the severe weather did i miss anything. >> are you finished. >> i am finished unless this year questions from the board. >> where did it leave us. >> the brief indicates two koufkz the secondly, you've list all those conditions the permit holders are willing to accept

the conditions. >> correct. >> is that also, if they can do the work over the next 3 months stable that. >> yes. we're willing to agree to you suppose to keep the permit on life support as it were to allow the stabilization of the hillside for the winter realizing another application submitted for the review that covers the new excavation and the alternated top debris for the project and eventually go in there. >> gives daily of the weathertion of the fact. >> i'm the structural engineer for costa mesa as you may know this was approved by the fact team of structural team that

consisted of a geogift an excessive review of the calculations and the details recommending to the shoring given the fact that it will take over 80 days for the shoring we simply do have enough time to retaste the permit we're prepared to make provision for the shoring project and submit it through the process and the neighbors at the same time we'll also prepared to submit a separate set of drawings to zeal with the water issues and for that it will be a temporary drainage system that will be potentially tarp that will occur to make sure we say don't video debris things on that slope an

extra set of drawings presented to the neighbors folks and they have a structural engineer and, if you will, we'll submit it to the city as an actual permit to not only have drawings that describes how we will deal with the water but it be part the inspection process and dbi will be monitoring the inspections we'll implement. >> the potential delay your raising is for the proposed modification required due to the unfortunate changes if the original design. >> that's correct. >> not only do we have a view but we also interacted with the neighbors and technical experts

and engineers they have a tech engineer we want to make sure they are happy with the revised drawings that will be a great deal of technical expertise had been prepared to go through the process and prepared to incorporate the conditions that have been suggested by the appellant. >> i raise those questions because i'd rather have the site fully stabilized through the engineering work to be done rather than keep reviewing and reviewing anyway, i understand your potential. >> thank you. >> mr. barkerly you want to speak on behalf of. >> i'm the co-counsel for the appellant one of the reasons why

the review process for the revision to the current temporary shoring problem right now that didn't have any underpinning not asked for anyone's permission since the slope is about 50 degrees above there is discussion office whether parts of that site underpinning should be a consideration and our client will not object it that if there is a better way to stabilize. >> i understand. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi it might be easier if i eye the overhead i have a couple of of the photos if i could get the overhead. >> so the first photograph is

this is. when they started the excavation enroll that wasn't done properly they ran about it completely the wrong way inexperienced we got contacted pretty soon we were contacted before the permit was issued that was what caused all the problems we issued an emergency shoring permit and i will put up another forga photo this is wha hillside looks like with the shore beams and it is typical of what we see for emergency shoring mr. santos included more work for the winter i totally agree with that, i think that is

other permit is going to be required for the shoring because of the changes and the sack review because the hillside because where the site is located is is required i'm glad we'll gotten to that point the one thing concerned about the property let me ill put up the other photos the stabilization work to make sure it is secured because of the season we're anticipating and they're going to have to obviously get the project back on track the department has nicole's and the monitoring for an address restriction we really are looking for them to move forward with someone that knows what they're doing a proper the way

to do it and contact osha and the dbi do it the right way the second time around i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy it looks like it will need additional shoring further up. >> as part of the new shoring plan that is quite possible but i do, they have to redo the shoring plan if it is under sack review it a process that works i think the key thing the design is okay as long as the person doing the work is competent and know what they're doing and done in proper sequence that's all i have at this point. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, nun further comment

if the appellants? no mr. santos anything further commissioners are you clear as what you're being asked to do >> no, i was going to ask that question laura. >> who would like to ask the board for what you want and the appellant is requesting that if you choose to affirm the current appeal permit you'll do so with the following conditions of approval and the conditions of approval is one that the permit holder submit a plan to winterries the sites for the safety of the adjacent improvements by september 16th and with prior consultation with the appellant and second a new

set of plans which is requested actually right now under the department of public works be submitted that will redefine the shoring system to reflect the change in 20 topping graph and those plans blackberry submitted to dbi and subject to review and when this set of plans is reviewed and approved then that will be the set of plans they'll actually do the actual shoring which by the time unfortunately we'll be well into the spring season so they'll have to do that after the rainy season is implemented and we'll see whether there is any rain is there a date i don't want this thing to drag. >> i'll ask mr. santos.

>> before we hear could you have the ability to uphold or deny it sounds like the private she means to all the time are not conditions you can place on this scope of work before you. >> if we - i believe the board doesn't have the ability to do that what is happening we're appealing a permit because it was due to the actions by the permit holder it become unsafe and therefore they're required to submit additional plans to make sure that the shoring process is safe for all the neighbors and given the fact we may end up having extremely heavy rain as an additional safety requirement that should that happen there has to be a plan in place to

make sure the sites during the rainy season can you be winterized you can't do this kind of shoring and excavation the top - >> that doesn't answer the question the question is do we continue this while the submittals occur in a private agreement. >> we're asking for we're saying the board can quotes impose that as a stipulated or you can adapt what we suggest as your own conditions of approving. >> the board can't enforce a decision that's not feasible for the board the question is this permit before the board need to be brought back to life in doing

the work contemplated and to continue to maintain the jurisdiction of the permit. >> you concur that is the best solution. >> i will urge you commissioners as stated keep the permitted on rife support we need that permit it describes the geometry and the location so we're going to be mortgage forgiving that permit the basic drawing will be ultimately what we're going to use on this site. >> mr. santos we'll be rising this you'll doing the resubmittal of a new design this in and of itself is a new permit. >> if the boards continues this appeal than you can submit the revised plans and when the appellant is satisfied they'll

withdraw the appeal if you continue this appeal that is suspended that's, if they need to use the permit they're contemplating in the short time. >> they're saying not until an accepted plan that can be followed by an accepted plan, etc., etc. >> i have no objection if you want to continue this in which we'll begin to become the dates they have to summit the revised plan through the temporary shoring permit. >> and then once they do that it is up to dbi to decide whether they need a permit which will automatically basically, in fact, go replace the old permit. >> mr. duffy did you wish to say something. >> we'll get the problem. >> 19th avenue dbi it is better

to continue it then i don't want to call the new permit - well, the winterization we don't have to reference the temporary shoring more call the new permit a restriction to the shoring this is two new permits and pull the shoring permit that is under appeal and cancel that permit and can get feedback on it and that takes care of the appeal and both parties will be saying their satisfied. >> so the weathertion has no bearing on whether or not to continue. >> yes. as long as we get permission from the board to issue that permit typically when a permit is in suspension we'll look at this and talk to ms.

goldstein but if you call a permit a restriction to a permit ultimately that permit is not what you're doing it becomes a little bit in years to come hard to explain so just keep it clean. >> exactly. >> okay. >> the other thing is one of the issues here i think it is important that notification was not given o under the civil code that from 91 excavation they obviously didn't do that when the neighbors heard the machine on the hill that going forward will be addressed it is an important issue so. >> maybe on the winterization permit it is better than workers showing up on site i don't think that is in the future but certainly in the past and this is example the communication

doesn't help and we ended up in the same situation. >> not the same folks. >> i'm sorry. >> not the same folks. >> no. i don't think so. >> mr. roderick could says, in fact, he could have the new owners revisions to the existing on appeal to the department of public works in the four weeks. >> by the end of the month. >> we will have to sets of drawings one that deals with the winterizing the site and the second permit the shoring permit which will be subject to review by september 30th. >> we can commit to those dates. >> so the continuance will be sometime in october. >> it wouldn't matter and yeah.

>> commissioners i'm recommending perhaps october 28th give time and calendar. >> is the 14 accounting not good. >> question closed the items on the calendar. >> 28 october. >> october 4th. >> for the continuance absolutely so commissioners i'm going to move to continue this case until october 28th. >> and that fact if the parties can continue to finalize on that >> commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda's. >> commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that motion carries 4 to zero. >> we'll take a.

>> welcome back to the wednesday, september 2, 2015, meeting of san francisco board of appeals we will have on item 8 appeal michael gorman versus the department of building inspection the property on ma begin avenue pertaining the may 15th of an attention permits for the dock active lighting for the rear deck and fence start with the appellants. >> i wish to make a disclosure i have a relationship with reuben, junius & rose and retained the firm as council on a project reuben, junius & rose replace of the appearance will not have any effect on any decision today. >> thank you. please step forward

i have 7 minutes. >> thank you i'm going to need the overhead alex it is there. >> good evening, commissioners i'm north pole representing the neighbor appellants deborah and michael gorman in the appeal of construction of poles and lights in the neighbors backyard deborah is traveling on the east coast otherwise she'll be here and michael will speak many a few minutes pursuant to the planning code obstructions in the open spaces are not lout except in specific distance were their lout their 8 feet in height the recent built back deck this is sort of a bad picture this is a better shot of

that the floor of that deck is about 62 so our at 8 feet of the obstruction but may i interrupt you stop the time police are they not pulling this permit. >> okay. >> canceling this permit. >> we are the parties have waved whatever procedural problems with the permit so we can resolve the substantive issues so we can weigh the b b n notification we've wavered the process of going drove the planning department because the zoning administrator has informed us we'll approve those poles and lights we're good to go. >> sorry for interrupting this is to not hide the ball the zoning administrator will tell you he informed us that we will

approve that as a reservational or household use like a play structure or drying lines is the term. >> so should we restart the clock. >> please turn the pictures facing you the way you'll look at them. >> oh, all right. >> terrific so right about there is where we're at 8 feet so there's already a big 8 foot obstruction in the back of the neighbors yard and now they've added enough 8 to 10 feet on top of that and stinging lights across them the so - as part of that i would

like to ask michael gorman up to talk about how this effects him and his wife deborah thank you. >> good evening. i'm michael gorman i live on accident billiard abutting the street when we bought our home the property was shield from the street by trees maintained on that park over the last year the trees were removed the deck that you see was built is a looms over our backyard so going to the edge of the property when people are on it in the backyard in may the additional the pole you see in the picture or has shown in the picture was built i guess four poles crossbeams and lights and i guess 20 lights were snuffed the structure it is 15 feet at

all my wife and i live in the hill towards the neighborhoods neighbors and just have this feeling of the our privacy and enjoyment of this property have been decongratulated we ask the board act upon on behalf of the privacy to enforce the proprietor limits of planning code that exist thank you. >> just a- i'm sorry. >> no, no. >> you got to go again, i, wait that's the question based on. >> it's okay. >> sue ann approval based on this is a household use or recreational upcoming drawing the lines there they are six or seven feet tall their 15 to 17

feet tall and unless the drawing line was attached to the back of the house this is not the case they put it closer to the neighbors hours then to their own home the addition the poles seems like on unnecessary usage indigenous indication of the backward to increase the structure to 17 feet it is just huge play structures sits on the ground this is they're building on a subordinate a structure that is 8 feet tall in the back this is an invasion into deborah's and michael's privacy the as we said we waved the requirements for b b n

notification and wavered whatever procedural issues went with the granting of this permit but we would ask that the board vote to say those poles and lights violate the spirit and letter of the code and violate the codes hundred 36 they're not permitted under one 36 only objects specifically approved in certain areas can be built that way thank you. >> do you have a question. >> yes. >> have you had any discussion with the neighbors about compromises can you talk about that. >> yes. we had a discussion when the deck was initially built out we realized how big we contacted them and had a conversation and shared our concerns and talked about asked if they can rerecollect the

green barrier there was a lot of back and forth about that over 6 months and the proposal they came back with was we would pay half the cost of green barrier and pay 8 years ever half of the costs of 8 years of waters value so basically skigs to pay the hole costs instead we felt this was unreasonable and invest money to put greens on our side of the lot sufficient to cover the deck and as long as that the poles went up once again that is more daily. >> there were trees for green barriers how many intros. >> there were trees back to the back of the house i never walked

the property this is a satellite photo you could put that down i'll try to indicate the part that was the trees i think that was this yeah. >> i'll let you - >> overhead. >> that's our house. >> right. >> this is 309 obscured. >> are you done one the photo expects showed a chain-linked fence is that the property lines. >> no, that's a different photo you see the chain link. >> that's the that property line. >> yeah. that's the property line. >> thank you.

>> thank you we'll hear if the permit holders now. >> good evening, commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the appellant when we first received the appeal this permit i reached out to mr. sanchez to ask him two questions one are those poles permitted by the planning code and two was the permit did it go to the proper procedure and what is that approved properly we heard back from mr. sanchez we'll hear him speak with that the poles were permitted by the planning code one 36 c 20 but he said the permits should have been routed to the permit counter and b b n notice sent to the neighbors typically what we do ♪ sidewalks because that went

through the improper process we'll school cancel the permit we didn't have time or we'll ask you to disapprove it so we'll go introduce the proper process with the prufrd we were not prepared to speak but the permit holder will wave that we're happy for the board to make a decision on the merits tonight if you like what i'll say is section one 36 c 20 exemption certain structures in the required rear yard setback of the rear lot allows for normal outdoor recreational and play equipment i don't think we need to get into a legal analysis of this i leave it to the board to determine whether or not mr. sanchez has made a correct

decision or not respect to the placement of the polls the appellants stated they're near the rear of the property that's the purchase of that that exemption for the structures for the to be expected and finally with respect to the privacy issue the permit holders do intend to install a green barrier that behoves the privacy between the to properties considering the images you've guys have seen today, this is intended by the permit holder i want to make that clear i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you >> mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon scott sanchez planning department so has been noted in our opinion it was not

properly reviewed and issued it should have been rolled to the planning department for the planning code and the b b n block notice as filed for the submittal date when it comes to planning we would have done the b b n notice we appreciate the appellants desire to have this and their wavering the preliminary matters in regards to the planning code section it allows for a variety of obstruction into the open space it could be rear yards and public right-of-way to correct to say what the appellant said not blanketed limited there are a variety of features bay windows as we know in the next case will be a wave the public right-of-way or other open areas we call the telephone pop

upcoming out fences within the required rear yard and planning code listed the feature and the further restrictions so if i could have the overhead that will overhead please so - >> so as you can see here it listed certain features and talks about no more than that 3 feet above grade so it has specific heights associated with the feature and firefighter down 20 the normal recreational play equipment and dry lines has no height limits and gardens and realistically this element could go under either of those and

further on down other structures that come into the views and greenhouses and sheds and equipment that is limited to 8 feet in height and hundred square feet the appellant referenced an interpretation the interpretation of the planning code limits all the other features to 8 feet in height they didn't list all the interpretations that was relevant to the series this is a specific interpretation related to 320 that talks about the play structures with solid walls or recovers have an effect of having a plan that blocks views or has shade on residents must have the interpretation it is further reich what is in the plan letter of the code it

didn't say anything about limit the play structure but it is more restrictive having something like a garden shed or you know have a play structure that has solids walls that should be limit to 8 feet in height this didn't have solid walls or the effect of solid walls i see no reason to apply the 8 feet limit in the to the our practice had we reviewed this permit had that possess not to say it is no a desirable feature you may find the impacts are negative and therefore the blinded folds should not be allowed but bans the planning code it is a permitted bring to your attention in the section one 36 i'm available to answer any questions. >> that put you out there. >> i'm a little bit confused is

a there a definition of play structures. >> no, but the interpretation was a feature under the c 20 play structure even though the code didn't say it's limited to 8 feet in height but if something that has an quack impact the treshgs is more restrictive the play structure has solid walls or roofs i think the idea that people get creative what necessary consider a play structure to someone having a creative application of a play structure build a large virus in the back the idea they're going to be subject 40 for more restrictive restrictions. >> i'm having trouble that this

interpretation. >> but the code without going to the interpretation the code says those features are allowed without limitation in height. >> for a deck. >> no within the required rear yard i showed you the interpretation it has the weight of the code. >> i couldn't read that can you just tell me and the interrogation for the play structures for solid walls or roofs that has a feature for the block for shade on neighboring yards members have up to 3 minutes limited to 8 feet. >> i get that but i'm having trouble with the play structure it's not defined and no. >> are saying that will will be like a play structure. >> so section 20 doesn't say it only play structures that allowed the subsection normal

household features lake play equipment and dry lines it and limit those and so it says such as. >> the next line says landscaping and garden furniture one could your that the light poles are furniture but the normal household features such as a play equipment and drying lines didn't limit what is in that realm. >> thank you. >> one question one comment it looks like store poles in the back and second does the stinging of the lights change the elements there are electrical there are things you can not have electrical or plumbing to those are not temporary eventually

the permit calls that a temporary lighting it is up to the permit holders to talk about what we want to put on the permitted it caught it was erected my understanding we don't have limited in terms of electrical if someone want to put lights think on a tree in the backyard the concern recommended to electrical it developing a rear shed with plumbing and electrical and garden shed it is is it a habitable structure rather than something inform store garden equipment. >> is it is separate electrical equipment permit. >> this is something to plug into an outdoor outlet. >> thank you. >> you know when in deck was built. >> it was built on a permit a

2014 permit for the deck and this permit for the lighting. >> how duo close it that deck. >> within 5 feet based on the plans. >> it is over 3 feet. >> it is offer 3 feet in the planning code most typically we see decks limited to 3 feet in height that's what you can do on a lot that has a 15 feet grade but if it is a higher deck if i have a slope greater than 15 percent this is not the permit before you but it was one of the concerns whether or not deck that was under a spirit permit we determined based on the plans in the review that compiles with the planning code revision for the deck. >> so some information was provided to you in terms of the

slope you couldn't ii presume you're talking about an average deck. >> yeah. it is a slope and depending on the slope of open area in this case distinct 13 and 70 percent they're allowed to have a deck as they have a maximum height of 7 feet i think that is actually pretty rarely used provision of the code but we may see more. >> inspector duffy. >> joe duffy dbi commissioners actually on the overheads if i could have it may be that might be more helpful if some papers i

grabbed from the office that might give you an indication of slopes and height of the deck if you have any questions for myself or mr. sanchez the permit that is under appeal the description was posted for temporary lighting was approved over the current by building unfortunately, it doesn't get ready if the planning department i should have done that so dbi missed that i know we got a complaint about it as well that was dealt with by the district building inspector in regards to the posts put in i think on the deck permit which was approved in 2014 new deck to replace the footprint that is the description working on that permit the deck is constructed

but not received a final inspectors inspection as of today. >> are i think finished. >> yes. i'm available to answer any questions. >> it shows a retaining walls is that there before. >> just the discussions with one of the senior inspectors the retaining wall was existing you might want to ask the permit holder i think i'm certain it was existing with the wall interest is some discussion that was misrepresented on the drawings dbi is currently looking at that and the inspector is looking at that matter it added to what we're discussing tonight so - >> and then the question i had earlier regarding the temporary lights it that. >> i would say the electrical permits not offer seething you have to meet the electrical

permits i don't have full acknowledge there are certain lights that are not required but a separate permit may have been required i was pointing out mr. sanchez if someone came in and want to put an audit light on the back but it requires an electrical permit so lights are the posts are the more you know the definitely need a building permit that not what happened. >> thank you. >> yep. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal if thfrom the appellant. >> it's hard to tell the retaining wall was existing and

what it held up was obviously dirt but the pack patio is 15, 20 feet deep and runs side by side what that built was this deck which i guess is about 12 feet deep coming to within 5 feet less than 5 feet of the property line so this rarely used provision to extend a largely flats backyard just seems sort of a use of a piece of code the building up - they get a deck permit that creates 8 to 10 feet solid structure very close is to the back property line and then once they get it done at the go and put on big poles so for lights without a permit and go get a permit to correct it i

mean the deck had to get noticed to the neighborhood and so everybody let that go but this just seems like an abuse of affection the example of bay windows that is close to the building you know this is a bay window back there and none is claiming that steendz too far up and the statement that you're planning on building and green screening they were talking about that a year ago nothing has happened our clients didn't give them any money in part it feels like this is already the 8 foot solid structure back there that somehow overwhelms to be exempt but now there is poles

that seems to be you can look at that that r them and take a flag on them their flag poles and dry clothes on the light wires all of this is close to the property line and very big and liam over the neighbors property so we would like for you to say that this is not an approved structure under one 36 thank you. >> okay. mr. kaplan. >> commissioners, thank you i'll add since we were not here on the substance tonight we didn't get anything in writing the two neighbors on either side are not in opposition to this project i'm here with any questions and nothing else to add. >> i have a question why what was the reason for the poles and the lights. >> you know i think it is

basically to provide you know the deck is in their generated away from the house wanted some form of appropriate non-bright lights they've what they decided on what was appropriated inform provide them with some ambient light after dark. >> any consideration given to the impact on the neighbors. >> you know this we can have a back and forth about the trees in the rear but the intent of the permit holders to put trees up there not only the appellants have the deck sorry not only can the permit holders see down to the yard their intent to install trees along the property line adequate to separates the two spaces that was why they thought that would be adequate. >> but then that asks the

question why did they remove that. >> if you saw the picture a significant demolition of trees to build the deck first place now the next step to put in the greening on the 5 feet yeah. >> question someone mentioned the permit is not finalized is there a reason. >> this permit is holding up that permit the deck is basically done i don't know it has been inspected we went through this once this permit is done they'll finalize that. >> mr. sanchez anything further no pursue mr. duffy okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> i have a question for mr. sanchez. >> if that retaining wall at

the edge of the deck was existing then the original grade on this raider has been changed significantly probable for quite a long time how is the department then define what was the slope to be used in circulating is 7 foot maximum it wouldn't be the because of the wall be the measuring point. >> it is a challenge of the because of the wall that would, 16 percent grade because it is the grade of the required rear yard area in this case an rfp b a 25 percent rear yard and you know assuming that the grade we presume that grade is the top

that have patio area at least a 7 foot difference of the plan we're priority up to 27 percent or so and dropping it down to the height of the retaining wall shown as 3 feet if we look at the 4 foot difference a 16 percent so i think in either case it seems like that will be above the threshold of using that provision for the decks under the planning code on a permit that is spirit from this one. >> understood but the question in my mind that was my second question if you then look at the edge of that retaining wall the top of it as being existing grade this deck couldn't be that tail. >> if we took the top of the retaining wall as exist grade i

mean which point of existing grade are you having a concern if you take the top of the retaining wall that is a hierarchical distance if we take the bottom of the response time it is a lesser grade but exceeds more. >> if you take the tape of the retaining wall as finished grade and you strike a line horizontally out at the point it hits the current edge of the deck the rear edge of the deck it exceeds 7 feet. >> it is over 7 - right now over it is 7 feet at the highest point. >> above what we seems like to be the existing grade. >> can i have the overhead

please thank you. >> so right now it is calling out - he measured the height to the deck of the floor deck of the deco renew they're showing a height of 7 feet above what they're calling the existing grade. >> so the sketch assumes the top of response time is the finished grade. >> the height of 7 feet is the critical point at the highest point looking at its highest point on the lot this is what we're taking out it compiles with the planning code this is not an issue you can have a deck that doesn't steady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank teady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thaneady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing

here thank ady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thandy 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thany 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank e 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank x 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank c 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thanc 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank e 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank e 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thand 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank you. >> i'm ready to say something. >> feel free. >> i think that is height and extension in the rear yard of deck is quite obtaining destructive and adding r a.d. those poles makes it more so i'm not ready to port in permit at all i'd like to revoke it, in fact, i think the deck is over do done. >> would you be willing to allow a green screen. >> i mean that helps the most but we have no idea whether or not they'll do it for how long

it starts to grow we've had a lot of tree issues today. >> i mean at this time i believe the deck is going to be there i don't particularly like the store poles can i make a motion. >> further comments new i mean it appears to be code but not neighborly. >> it's not you know especially so close to the rear property line i'm prepared to move that the and would you be granting the appeal commissioner. >> granting the appeal and revoke the permit on the base

that the - that those poles do conform to the planning code definition of rear yard recreational. >> the zoning administrator errored. >> right. >> mr. duffy. >> sorry commissioners if i'm not mistaken i the president to council the permit is that not an option to council the permit. >> when i asked that question at the beginning of the hearing they've chosen to hear the case on its merits. >> from what i hear it will cancel the appeal they're not

going to come back but that's me thinking and my suggestion. >> the effect is the same whether or not we revoke it. >> the board is done already to remove the work? >> is interest a time limit on that. >> for poles. >> i know i agree (laughter). >> have to do that. >> i'll let the building inspection manage them. >> let's give them a month all right. >> i'm sorry commissioner fung is your motion to moving forward with our motion okay. i wonder if you want to add a second basis the boards tort to do in the best interest the community so there's a motion to grants the appeal and deny the appeal

on those two basis they don't comply to the recreation and not in the best interest the community commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> and commissioner wilson okay. that that motion carries with a votes of 4 to zero last motion appeal john nolte versus the zoning administrator and auto duh versus the zoning administrator for protesting the owners on july 30th, 2015, the cost of architecture ink for a construction of 80 feet with 85 dwelling units and 85 thousand square feet and off-street parking spaces i'll start with

the first appellant mr. nolte you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. i'm n u l t y. >> the 2000 plan to preserve expand and improve how's that is for protecting and moderate residents a objective b prevent the loss of affordable units and two objective d is it to increase the neighborhood beautification and the unique architecture then i have which we're discussed in my brief this is picture of 350 golden state

those are the bay windows here and here we have 421 golden gate is bay windows are here o one of 68 hyde and this is one sorry those are the bay windows at this - then one 21 golden gate as you can see the bay windows on both sides of the property and then here are the bay windows at 242 turk at the come

out an aerial picture if the east of the neighborhood and the project sponsor is right here the definition of bay windows a bay windows submitted to the emit light and flush with the wall line the historical district was established in 2009 this is a map of the uptown historical district and the project sponsor right here his property within the boundaries a construction of the uptown district has the bay

windows and facade that is a map of the abutting next historical district to the south which was established in 1994 and the project sponsors site is at that thank you. >> we can hear in the other appellant mr. duffy. >> you also have 7 minutes.

>> yeah. >> commissioners mar i'm auto duh a second appellant live in the tenderloin where the project is located my issue with the variance is simple the listal code was to protect the liveability of the neighborhood and the residents that live in the building granting the variance maybe an error because we cereal deteriorates the liveability what is allowed i guess i'm after the extra 20 units it didn't build this type of marketing in the city with the medium and family income of $25,000 a year many people living under $12,000 a year

smaller units and fewer parking will not create housing that fits in the neighborhood i'm talking about price and in order to get price that have to get smaller units so for some reasons they if the court please put in larger units that i agree with the previous appellant this building doesn't fit with the neighborhood one day but when it came to the size of the units they've dropped the ball i want to thank the help you got from the staff south end that and others have been helpful i think it is within our

discretion to sustain this appeal to deny the permits reverse the finding and send it back to the planning commission or a continuance i want to point out i'm not opposed to the project only certain protection under the law and the protects that the specific code allows me and the neighbors and the people that live in the building i think that if the judge o gentleman in the project supporters if they are going to ask you to do an extraordinary thing and ignore parts of code that clearly involve changes in the mobility it is the burden of proof should you been on them to prove that somehow everybody has decided a window should have 25 feet of exposure and reducing it to 2

and a half feet didn't effect the violent they can't do that because the regulation was put out 25 feet for a reason that is to maintain liveability if there recent anything finish i didn't if they say they want exemption ross are the kind of communication that is the kind of things i've been told this is not a particular egresses of things being granted and if this is the case i apologize i have to remind you liveability activists like myself have regularly asked the board of supervisors and the planning commission to take into account accumulative impacts and the request is did understand the only tool to enforce the listal code that is all we have left we

know that exposure is a big thing it effects air quality i want to point out that the nolte's made we we're limiting they've not a problem they're a warning sign if anything that something is wrong and i'll say that believe didn't fit the neighborhood it creates liveability problems it deterioration and quality of life those are absolute my mind the project has lae ways for them to do they want i don't think they're looking anything that building have buildings and all the properties are constrained in one way or another they have building so they can't build as many units

as we want to it would be difficult to get a demolition permit for most of buildings that are insufficiencies in the neighborhood there are open space public safety and personal transit and wanting and homelessness and air quality it is mediocre in the tenderloin and on top of that you're looking at the amount of airs coming into the rooms that is effecting the quality of life the section thirty 5 c says whether there are variance that are acceptable and clearly that requires those variance not be detrimental they're clearly detrimental the project to, schneider to fit the neighborhood better it was not

i might remind i that i'm only asking for acts that are within the purify of this body if i had any other objections i'll take them to some outlet body i'm asking them to build within the code by that same standard they can't ask you to change the code from the project sponsor wants to change the code i might say i'd like add i'm not sure what the released of the world's would be if someone is willing to pay $3,000 a month to live in the tenderloin for that a wall 18 and a half feet away of them it is not a good project for the sponsor i'd think about getting out of it as quickly as possible. >> we can hear if the permit holder i have 14 minutes because there are two of you

>> if you want to ask questions - >> commissioners i'm not going to take all 4 muffins i'm from the law enforcement duh and base overwhelm here on behalf of the variance holder and one the co-trustees of the marries family trust and is the chief architect that has been involved in the project since the beginning i want to start with the most of the issues concerning this project have been addressed by the board

respect to the questions that were raised by mr. duffy as to potential impacts on air quality, potential impacts on liveability, cumulative impacts all of that has been addressed in the initial sued with a negative declaration that was addresses on august 12th i don't believe that is properly before the board what is before the board are the two veterinarians and that's it two variance with an with respect to the open air area requirement and the other with respect to the pretuition requirement so let me show you so you can visualize on that this is for the pro transition requirement all we're limiting talking about is this corner here is going to here and it

goes here and it just an architectural feature not something that was part of the original design that went through give and take with the planning department many times an under the influence a strong corner element so this is all we're limiting talking about it is not a large change it is to under the influence the corner element that p there is obviously a lot of light in the windows it is scaled is it does not overhang the sidewalk at the lower portions the building so it's the issue with respect to the overhanging mr. duffy was asking considering the variance

issues and everybody that reviewed this the planning department mr. sanchez and the architect buildings it is a superior design not a variance with respect to the protrusion with respect to the issue again, it is a corner unit the corner lot so when you have a corner lot you have variance not always but not unusual this is in the downto area and what the department would like they would to have the both sides of the corner we want the building to extend all the way to the lot they want to fit you know the buildings to go all the way along so not a have a rear yard that is 25 feet and having also have the space of building extend to the limits of lot so, in fact, the first design that

was presented to the planning department did have a code compliant rear yard of approximately 25 feet and the department said why not consider an l shape design with an interior court there's a series of battering over 3 years not something that the project sponsor came up with on their own not something that was done in a vacuum but with the objective in mind of satisfying the departments conditioners for a corner lot and a building on that lot in addition to working with the planning department and every step of the way the project sponsor has been involved in a lot of community outreach again, we presented the skin. >> to the community including the designs they call for the

variances and it was you know i've included those in our papers but three or four meetings with different community groups and, in fact, the community sponsor is continuing to meet with people to this day mr. wong who is here this evening was here on august 12th and, in fact, last week albert the architect met with mr. wong to again talk with him about his concerns nothing is done in a vacuum the project is in design for three or four years with respect to the couple of concerns raised by the appellant nolte and duh they've talked about affordable housing with the tenderloin 2000 plan with respect to affordability and the

simple answer is the project fully comprises with section 415 the planning code it provides that if you're going to provide the affordable housing on site then you need to provide 12 percent of the units need to be affordable housing so having the 28 additional units that are permitted by the open area requirements i have 3 additional affordable housing units and by way of i think that mr. duffy was incorrect in saying those you know this is not the correct kind of project for this area it is certainly is those are not large units all the 85 units the majority are either studios 2 or 4 bedrooms the average size is 5 hundred to 6 hundred square feet those are

not large units so, yes there are the 12 percent that are specifically earmarked to be affordable units but noting none are larger units a few 2 and 3 bedroom units, of course, it is because actually desirable for this neighborhood to have the ability to have families there as well so in summary i would say the planning department been involved at every step of the way with the variance the planning commission was aware the variance when the initial studies was undertaken they took the variance take into account that's the initial study for ceqa purposes and for the initial study is he analyzed all the issues that mr. duffy identified they looked at air

quality, they look at liveability, they looked wind we've talked about that at the last hearing all what is take a look at it and they're required to do the potential cumulative impacts and what results a final negative declaration with the determination, in fact, it could not have an fetish on the investment that is a great project for the site we'll continue to try to work with the various members of the communities but i think that is just a wonderful project for the tenderlo tenderloin. >> counselor the renderings you showed thought building was that the design that was part of the prevail by the planning commission? >> yes. >> were there alternative

designs. >> no there were alternative designs presented during the process. >> it was the basis for planning for the commission approval and the variance both. >> yes. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i think this matter has been thoroughly discussed both at the previous hearing on the planning commissions section thirty 9 review of the project postage that granted certain exemption for rashldz in the letters and briefs that were submitted to you the variance and is section thirty 9 were considered on the first date and the application

of the planning commission we reviewed the same project the project was reviews as part of the environmental impact to determine is compliance with the preservation concerns one of the issues for the historic district one the elements for that district the bay windows can be part of the provision was it was compliment known is a modern interrelation that is consistent with the up down tenderloin district explicit create offense replications but a new interpretation on the bay windows to interrelation one for exposure necessary at that time, by the rear yard exception that was granted one of the ways to face the coat compliant given the project didn't have the compliant rear yard doesn't meet

the exposure the units that face into the courtyard one of the reasons for the rear yard courtyard was to have the design introduce the process the department looked at the design preferences over the general plan and the downtown review and given it is a corner property we look like to have more prominent architecture that resulted in the corner element that leads the variance for the bay windows they're not studying the area under the codes compliance issue their aggravating it and do so doing it in a more architectural expression that was created by our staff that is not an issue that came about because of the

project sponsors desire but the skyline of the vice president and not exceed the code was it allows rather than than having a reflective pattern it might be a creative expression over the bay windows on the enclosure endorse it is a sizeable courtyard and in the planning code the minimum rear yard is 25 percent of depth or in response 15 feet it is less than the minimum rear yard under the planning code that's not the rear yard given the dimensions would be larger but take that dimensions from the golden gate frontage and project that they'll have a rear yard ever 19 or so rear yard feet given the

lots configuration it is on this 767 feet deep from golden gate was also in the previous hearing one the discussion that justified the greater molestations for the reduced courtyard had it been hundred and hundred foot within a larger courtyard they can't have the number of units that we'll desire with taffordable units with those vbtsdz the lots configuration and the design concerns we're justifiable in regards to the variance those are not unusual variance one the appellants raised that in the 3 districts it is fairly regular anytime the commission entrants a rear yard expansion that triggers a rear yard variance it there is no way to say their

sound building code reminded the only way to create them through the mankind changes and again the rigid application of section one 3620 or the bay windows you can have a more creative expression through this process and again not seeking anything greater than what is loud that is otherwise allowed 0 with that, i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a question mr. sanchez. >> with regard to the variance for the protrusion the staff write up a report? >> talking about and analyzing the effects of the veterinarians in terms of creating a superior

design. >> not separate write-ups for it was something that there maybe memos from staff to the sponsor to giving guidance and direction but our final hearing at the planning commission did have a staff report and include a recommendations to approve and i know was supportive of design but the. >> the different like a dr request analysis you have actually other instances where the staff will write up a formal analysis there is if you go that relates to the surveillance or variance the variance document didn't say much about it. >> how they justify it is a superior design. >> i hear what you're saying it is something that decision the departments support for a project is something that is

done by the counter planning division and through the design professionals one of the things that comes before me i'll route ask staff you know is that to be clear a design that the department supports and resulted through and entered a process but in terms of documenting that - >> i'll be curious to read such a document how you justify something as a superior design. >> duly note one of the concerns we have is insuring it self-steady otherwise what is in the code not seek a empower area only changing the dimensions from what is allowed in the code thank you. >> we can take public comment now whoever wants to speak on this item please step forward.

>> two minutes. >> hi my name is a benny the founded for the golden gate hills i came here last hearing but i think i need to come to talk about with the skablt in health, i want to address one main issue my big concern safety issue and i'm sorry i don't have any picture golden gate is on the left side of the golden gate so that saying on the left-hand side when our door is on right side so usually we have a cone to one

lane and my kind get up the ramp and they help but if possible traffic jam caused we by the correction i'm not sure we'll be able to have one lane ♪ situation and also the street is a flat to my safety and second thing due to the traffic jam possible caused by the construction most of kind they have on the ran it will delay to come to the center they may on the ramp you'll create a gastro i want to address the safety issue of my kind thank you >> mr. wong we've talked about that last time in terms of looking it nothing was provided to us.

>> uh-huh. >> does our organization own that building. >> no. >> your representing from them. >> yes. >> the in order to handle the permitting and construction of that project they're going to have to require possible two things one is their right to be able to sit there their ability to constrict at the property line wall and secondly, in terms of where the underground portion of the foundation will require either shoring or someone else the owner ever your property is going to have to enter into the agreements to be able to construct that building. >> uh-huh. >> that's where you are leverage is for a robust logistics plan.

>> okay. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> when i was last here and talked about the boxes and the fact that you know people have to the been informed where it is they're going to be ref their mail it turns out even though i'm not our organization has a box in that facility alliance for a better district 6 even though i personally don't have a mailbox there the other southern for the homelessness people ref general delivery nothing has been said i have no news of where people will be able to get

their mail who come and this is going to be more homeless people and specialist it is very hard it is 6 thousand people who have been who are homeless many of them getting their home at general delivery if tree have to travel several miles on buses or walk to get their mail it is going to be a hardship i want to mention people have been complaining about the visiting planning - policies of san francisco but i think that this is what is preventing bad buildings from happening i'm not sure this is a bad building but many buildings

that have been proposed and flaws found in them because people have been attentive of those issues. >> kindly restate our name for us susan bryan. >> any other. seeing went up have rebuttal starting with mr. nolte you have 3 minutes >> for the assistance decision of july 2015 findings under the general plan 7 the project will effect landmark and historical buildings that's why i was presenting in any presentation

two the respondent of the past sponsor degree the declaration of the costco number 6, 7 and 8 shows sections 13, 136 c two subject corner bay with these of 13 on packaged three and four the variance hollers on page of shows the example of the north of market and recent projects that don't require the barriers for the section one 36 section two communities outreach of 101 outreach exhibit 5 from august 2012 was updated in exhibit 4 to the today's hearing so those people i contacted them

from the project was going forward the project sponsor should be doing a communities benefit agreement i've talked to the project sponsors they does not have on either side no benefit all the times on the surrounding properties and information of giving the communities liaison contacts information and providing xhibts outreach and updates as a project processes and of this therefore i request the brazil to reject the variance for this project the remaining the time michael nolte speaking the project is the enar fluctuation of the health 360 into the tenderloin those are developments that will be happening in the tenderloins the tenderloin is starting to i

didn't want the tenderloin with the neighborhood plan that that not happens because it is catching the residents off graduate those market rate housing how's is coming into the neighborhood the sro's the private sro owned building are disrupt active with the place. >> mr. duffy you have 3 minutes too. >> yeah. i'll just repeat i think the neighborhood has a right to the protections afford by the code clearly a deterioration of language that is allowed in the section thirty 5 k is a short section that is highly favorable to the appellants here to sustain the

appeal and deny the variances i would as i understand correct me if i am wrong as i understand the situation in the veterinarians are not granted there will be 28 fewer units and a greater mix 6 hundred square feet in the tenderloin is huge we're talking about studios and small studios you know the junior one bedrooms the 5 hundred square feet is big for the tenderloin as i understand if you deny the variance we'll losses the density we're after and we'll be able to come back with a better project. >> sir, you have 6 minutes of rebuttal. >> let me just say with all due

respect to mr. duffy most people it is consistent with the san francisco general plan and the downtown plan to have this project and to have the project with the variances that was the planning commission went throw in detail the general plan and went throw in detail the downtown plan, mr. sanchez in his variance decision also went through the 8 points of plan to make sure that was consistent and we're not displacing any current housing to refresh your recognition no health 36085 more units tone will be affordable housing of which three of those you'll not have in terms of the open area so it is very much a benefit for the whole area and the city and the downtown plan

that is - and hopefully mr. duffy will come to agree with that over time but objective can't pleas everyone this is a fantastic plan for to area when you walk in that area and look at it what's there it is just going to help in a lot of ways with respect to mr. wong's contempt to put it in front of the board the initial study search warrants the negative declaration and there are not going to be traffic jams and they also take into account the cumulative impact is so queer aware of mr. wong's concerns and we've met with him last week, we will i'm sure there will be ongoing meeting

are him or mercy heirs and we'll take a look at it and finally under nolte's comments that will effect the lark or historical buildings that is take into account the initial study the ceqa study we actually went through the whole section on historical landmarks how does it fit in with the neighborhood and as mr. sanchez explained that is really a modern take on you know it hastens to what the character of the neighborhood and really a great edition so other than that unless their further questions we don't need to go through the post office issue there is other options for the post office so - >> mr. sanchez.

>> anything? >> scott sanchez planning department just to reiterate the environment with the project has a lens sixth impact on the resources that the design is compliment that will not adversely fact the investment will move forward with 28 fewer units will become larger wouldn't you know denial of this variance will not dictate smaller units then the enclosure will be greater in order to comply so wii'm available to answer any questions. >> the district the density increase if you go less than 5 hundred feet correct.

>> i think they're within their density and could go greater gesture so almost with the density. >> just as an aside mr. sanchez are there any current studies for the tenderloin besides the historical? >> as a historical district resources. >> something beyond historical look atth tenderloin. >> or the land use yeah. >> i'm not aware ever any planned analysis or surveys of you know projects they've recently approved and pending i understand we're not aware of any plans at this time but double check with the staff. >> it's pretty clear that it is there's the detriment niblg at the edges of the tenderloin and

a few districts itself. >> absolutely so. >> this is not the only project in the tenderloin that the commission as reviewed recently and not the last. >> this was quite a bit of redevelopment in the tenderloin correct. >> yeah. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> does anyone else want to start okay thanks you know, i was curious to find or to read how they would justify the design variance to justify that variance since there isn't anything outside that that. >> for new; right? >> the questions really are

related to the two variances and we had the fuel hearing that looked at the planning and made suggestions hopefully, they'll paper bag out on a neighborly basis distinct the parties and for those of us who understand construction and it is likely this is a concrete structure you have concrete trucks parked one after another getting there and double-parked and creating impact on the immediate neighbors and neighborhood but back to the two variances i'm supportive of the one that tratsdz that a little bit of the exposure we're tarnishing you know less than one feet between

what would have been a code compliant for most of the units as a rear yard versus the piece that returns what i meant is is a code compliant building with a stretch along golden gate with a gap distinct the ends of the building and the adjacent building and i don't think that makes for a good street wall and didn't make for good urban design therefore i'm supportive of that portion of the variance and have been through probably god must be like 8 projects have been in front of of us everyone i've recommended to the da that the planning code needs to change that didn't make sense at all

the other one relates to the protrusion and therefore more difficult to engage the incentive coming out of that we all know how every person feels around design but i'll be consistent i've rarely talked about design even though that's my profession i'll proposed prepared to maintain that variance. >> any other comments. >> i concur. >> you want to make a motion. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the va didn't error or abuse it's discretion in issuing that. >> this is a notable matter we don't need to have discretion

but we need to if we're going to uphold the variances to uphold the section thirty 5 criteria and incorporating the zoning administrator rational for that. >> mr. bryan you know i've never liked those 5 crazy. >> 3 of them at least i'll amend my motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the variances met the 5 criteria. >> okay. so that motion then by commissioner fung to deny both appeals on that basis commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> commissioner wilson. >> okay. that that motion carries four to zero and no

further business before the board tonight. >> we're adjourned

>> [gavel] welcome to the regularly scheduled dawg 24 meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. first calling the roll commissioner andrews. >> here. >> commissioner hayon. >> [inaudible] >> commission hur. >> here. >> commissioner keane. >> here. >> and all present and accounted for. moving the secretary item on the agenda public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. do we have any members of the public who want to speak? please come

forward. >> good afternoon chair hur and members of the commission. my name is kathleen courtney and reside on green street in san francisco and owned and reseated at that location for the last 35 years. i have been out of the country for the last month, and therefore i was not -- returned home on thursday and therefore was not able to give my comments to eileen hansen who submitted a complaint about the alliance in connection with jobs with the work they're doing against darren peskin. i am calling something that occurred to me on june 28 that i think reflects the egregious nature of what is going on. i am a professional marketer and as such i listen to surveys. anybody that surveys me i listen because i want to know what is going on and how

they do it, and if you look at the declaration i prepared for you june 28 after returning from the pride march and i took a sawr have a call and lasted 15 to 20 minutes. the questionnaire suggested and the way they asked the questions suggested they were fully informed about who they were calling. they asked fiwas on a land line or cell phone. i said land and asked for my address and i declined to give to them but nay knew the number and i was in district 3 and i listened to a series of questions and you try to determine who was calling you and the questions were what i do think uber? mayor lee and supervisors that have been out of office for years and public

safety and rents and bicycle safety were for and next asked to give my opinion of aaron peskin, julie christensen and wilma tang and i was familiar with wilma tang but i gave a response to that and using a rating for the names of the candidates i was read a brief description of julie christensen and i was taking notes from different surveys and a supervisor in the neighborhood for 20 years advocate who fought for libraries and international library and jody park and they asked me this is what supporters say about her and everything was generally fine. next the interviewer described aaron peiveg kin of a president of a non-profit who halted development on the waterfront,

worked against prop posals and elected supervisor of the board and this is what they say about them and the positive comments. i need two minutes. >> ma'am, i think your time is up. >> okay. i call to your attention points 10 where they stated that aaron peiveg kin was known for threatening phone calls and fowllanguage -- >> your time is up ma'am you. >> need to act on this complaints. >> thank you. good afternoon. >> good evening, good afternoon mr. chairman and members. i am reminded that the last time you had a mayor of any kind here in this room it triggered a boom threat. i am hoping that my comments are not as explosive, but they are important, and i am appearing here to respectfully urge this commission to direct staff as

you heard with the previous testimony and the ones that you will hear that you act with all deliberate speed on the complaint by eileen hansen who are the way here and the third party spending on behalf of incumbent julie christensen and aaron peskin in the campaign has not been reported by law. the complaint states up to that $150,000 has been spent on behalf of supervisor christensen and filed on august 13 and the failure of staff to act on this in a timely manner has the effect of denying mr. pefngin an opportunity to raise funds that will allow him to compete fairly with his opponent. it shouldn't take that long to determine the facts. in addition the complaint states that the san

francisco alliance for jobs, the third party involved in this independent expenditure and this election has failed to file or disclose their spending. a newspaper article in the san francisco kron krel last month reported a poll last month by the alliance for jobs that outlined the strategy of defeating him and electing supervisor christensen. best estimates by that poll done by a national polling firm would have cost at least $25,000 and yet it fails to appear in any of the filings as an independent expenditure. two other issues that are worthy of your attention. a reliable report indicates as citizen hansen indicated the complaint was brought to the immediate attention of the former executive director that dismissed it out of hand and there is no disclosure

required. i am informed that this is contrary to the last as it existed at the time the complaint was filed. always the potential conflict of interest mr. chairman of the current executive director, no personal affront attended, but this includes lawyer james sutton. mr. miin regardy was a member of that firm before he took this job as your acting executive director. he should be recused as he was in the mark farrell case because of the involvement with his prior firm. i asked for your immediate attention to this complaint. >> mr. chair. >> yes. >> i know it's unusual but we have something being brought to us by a former mayor. there is only one aspect of it, if i could, i would like to inquiry

about, and that has to do where it is now? was the complaint dismissed out of hand by mr. st. croix? we had problems in the past in regard to the matter of mr. st. croix overstepping his authorities so this is what has been alleged now publicly by a former mayor of the city and if the case we should have immediate response to that one allegation. >> commissioner, as you're familiar all investigations conducted by the ethics commission are confidential. >> we're not talking about an investigation. we're talking about just something dismissed out of hand. we as a commission over the course of the last few months had discussions relating to matters not getting to us because of former director st. croix's deciding he was going

to make arbitrary decisions relating to it. i think it's important relating to this allegation for us to know was a complaint just dismissed out of hand? and that has nothing to do with the confidentiality of an investigation or anything like that. was it just tossed out? >> again commissioner we treat complaints by the ethics commission by the laws and campaign laws as confidential. in addition to that may i remind you we're currently in public comment. if you want to have discussion about matters under the jurisdiction should be noted and agendized as such. >> commissioners, my name is larry bush. commissioner chair i just want to say first of all that none of the commission's rules anyone that files a complaint is to get ac j want it's received and it's my

understanding ms. hansen has gotten no acknowledgment of the complaint that she filed and it's a simple matter to say whether it's received. it doesn't get into anything more complicate than that. secondly, i am reliably informed by reporters that talked about this issue and talked to mr. st. croix there is no violation here and just send it on its way. as you know when you recreate the campaign -- recreate the law this year you dropped the provision of those that spend $5,000 or more on a third party disclosure no longer have to file with the ethics commission. ind instead the commission was to under take a review of the record and see if that money was spent. but in the event there is no report filed you have nothing to review and you have a catch 22. there is no report so

we didn't review a report. i think that is something that obviously needs to be addressed. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i'm the founder and director of neighbors visiting a viz dareo and i think bringing the biggest ethics concern in the city and we want you to address violations mayor lee of the campaign violations and in debt after the 2011 mayor's race. since he is seeking reelection we want this addressed to the public before voters receive the ballots. the public learned in recorded conversations from a human rights commissioner and staff member told an under cover fbi businessman and to use this

by using straw donors. ed knows you gave $10,000 and you will give another $10,000 and we had to break it up said in a 2012 recording. lee met with the same under cover agent at a human rights commissioner's nasally ho hodger's office and raised $10,000 to assist in retiring campaign debt. he met with the agent and discussed breaking up an additional $10,000 contribution. when the agent asked about going into smaller increments and he said "we have no problem with this but you can't talk to this about anyone." he was brought up with campaign issues violations with the commis hosting a matter and we

see that ed lee basically out spent john avalos who the closest contender four to one and still went over the budget by nearly $300,000 and one of the main responsibilities of a mayor of the city and county of san francisco is to stay within the budget, and so it's alarming to me that he didn't stay within his means because i was raised to stay and live within my means so since he was out spending four to one why go over budget an extra $300,000 and that makes sense why he is scrambling about his underlings afterwards how we're going to pay off the debt in increments? $300,000 to retire after he had already won the election. people contributed millions of dollars in $500 increments and had to figure out a way to retire it so what are you going to do before

the election to put our minds at ease about this matter? please let us know. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i'm here to speak about the district 3 third party spending complaint that is before this commission. my name is ms. berry and i have lived in the district for 15 years and the election this november is by far one of the most heated in a rather dull campaign year -- at least that's what the newspapers tell us. this campaign is of utmost importance and follow up and investigate the complaint before you and knowing what third party spending is are canning it's critical to us and we have a savvy city. we pay attention and read and investigate so we're here before you to ask you in your wisdom to investigate the issue of the san francisco alliance for jobs and sustainable growth pack because the complaint alleges there is

third party spending to influence the race with one supervisor and not the other and that is supervisor christensen there is a statement filed by the alliance that they paid 13,500 to advisers for campaign consulting service. however according to the ethics commission website it's not registered to provide consulting services to san francisco alliance it's not a registered campaign consultant at all. the advisers are providing field organizers and knocks on behalf of one supervisor in the race, supervisor christensen and not the other. this is very troubling. we're asking you to act on this complaint. none of this information has been disclosed as part of the race. that's the issue: municiple transportation agency, disclosure and make sure that the.

>> >> transparency and disclosure and please take action on the complaint before you. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is shannon bolt and owner operator of a dog walking business in the city i am 30 and a long time san francisco resident and i wanted to echo amy's concerns about mayor lee's campaign finance allegations against him and the potential ethics breaches in that case especially with the upcoming mayoral election it's important that they're investigated so they're lead to fall on deaf ears. thank you very much for your consideration. >> i am oliver chalker and lived in san francisco the last couple of years. this is the first time i am voting in a

local election and i want to copy amy's statements on the allegations regarding ed lee as someone who is just stepping into san francisco politics i feel like this has in a lot of ways taintdd and i have a lot of questions and i would like very much for you to respond to all of this. thank you very much. >> david pilpel speak as a individual and i wanted to respond to the comments in the chronicle a few weeks ago with the allegations about ed lee from the matter. i was concerned that those remarks appeared to confirm the receipt of a complaint and/or investigation on that matter and also suggested to me possible -- that commissioner keane had already come to a conclusion that there was probable cause

finding. that's how i read it. i am sure others could read it differently. i wanted to express that concern they think as deputy city attorney shin advised you earlier that complaints are confidential under the charter and although commissioners can speak to reporters and get quoted in the paper and talk about the general practice of how complaints are received and reviewed that one probably shouldn't comment on a specific complaint or specific facts so i'm not filing a complaint or concern beyond this but i wanted to state that so i had those concerns. thank you very much. >> any other -- >> may i respond mr. chair? >> in a minute. if you look at the commission's bylaws there is a paragraph that reads as follows. "the commission shall

urge the public in the strongest possible terms not to make complaints at public meetings since the public disclosure of such complaints undermine any subsequent investigation under taken by the commission." now, as i think all of you know if you have a complaint it is to be filed with the staff, and dealt with in a confidential manner, and i don't know -- there have been some references to complaints that have been filed and have been dismissed. i don't know anything about it, but the proper procedure is not in an open forum to discuss it because of the fact that if in fookt there is an ongoing investigation you could well prejudice by the remarks that are made when the time comes when enforcement actions are taken, but i appreciate the comments and we will certainly

follow up on some of the issues you raised, but i don't think at the moment they were not on the agenda and we're aren't in a position to deal with them as agenda items. all right. commissioner keane. >> thank you mr. chair. in regard to the statement by mr. pilpel relating to the -- my comment to moe green of the "san francisco chronicle" and her having -- put it in the story. who i said was a little -- what i said was a little regurgitation of what executive director john st. croix said in a letter he wrote to the member of the public and the member of the public disseminated widely

to other members of the public in an email. one of the people who it was disseminated to was mr. larry bush, and i then got that email along with other members of the public of what mr. st. croix had said about that particular complaint. mr. st. croix had spoken on behalf of the commission, made a comment relating to it, and i simply regurgitated what those comments were literally. i sent an email to you mr. chair referencing mr. st. croix's letter and also mr. bush's email where he had set out what mr. st. croix has said, so it wasn't a personal comment of mine in any way relating to the complaint. it was simply a statement of what had been said

by our executive director, presumably on behalf of the commission and everyone else, to the public; therefore revealing what was said in these comments, and i simply regurgitated that to ms. green when she asked the question about the particular issue involved. i did not reveal any confidential information. it was not confidential. mr. st. croix had already widely disseminated it to the public and by his doing that in terms of the remarks that we're talking about it was not confidential, and therefore there was no improprietiy on my behalf. >> very many. we will turn to -- very well. we will turn to item 3 on the jernldz and position action on commission activities regarding the

expenditure lobbyist ballot measure. i don't think there is action we will talk about but i wanted to bring my fellow commissioners up-to-date on what has occurred in connection with the expenditure lobbyist ballot measure since the last meeting and i think distributed to the public was the ballot statement which was prepared on behalf of the commission, the opposition that was prepared by a single individual who took issue with what he deemed to be exemptions, but not really the substance of the ballot measure, our response to the argument agency and there have been since that time --

there was also a ballot simplification meeting with the ballot simplification commission which -- committee which did a great job of doing some i think clear laying out what the ballot measure seeks to accomplish. mr. manardy and i have attended a fairly large number of various club meetings, and for those of you who have not been in the political process, san francisco has numerous political clubs that meet and they hold what are called "endorsement sessions" and we received invitations to those sessions, and we appear, and our role is very

constrained because of the advice from the city attorney's office that we cannot advocate. we can talk only objectively, and talk about the facts, and therefore and the invitation always say "we want a speaker on behalf of the -- in favor of the proposal and any speakers against it" , and i always have to tell them when i stand up we're here in a totally different role. we're not here as advocating to vote for or against, but here's what it's all about. generally they're quite accepting of that limited role, and i've got to say that friends of ethics, particularly mr. bush who has been attending

many of the meetings, and i think playing the role of an advocate for the ordinance, and explaining some of the questions and answering some of the questions that they may have about some of the misstatements that are out there in the public. but one of the problems is many of the clubs limit it to one speaker so that if mr. mar nardy agreed to go mr. bush or anybody who is an advocate for it isn't allowed to speak, and i will tell you that we have generally been fairly successful. the great overwhelming majority of the organizations have voted in

favor of supporting what is proposition c, and i believe that one that i appeared at last saturday voted no, and i will -- i don't know what the reasons were. i was the only one that appeared on behalf of it but there was hostility in the club to the ethics commission and questions "why should we trust you? because you don't do anything" so it was a little hard to stay factually objective in response to some of the questions, but in any case we expect the invitations will continue through the month of september, and we will try to appear at as many as we can,

and urge those who are in favor of proposition c or who are opposed to it to appear and express the views as advocates for whatever the point maybe. anybody have any questions or comments that you want to -- >> i wanted to -- mr. chair, i wanted to get some clarity on the back page because i have a feeling that there will be over the coming months a growing amounts of advocacy on both sides and i am looking on this back page and says "can the prop posal be amended or changed at a later date" and does that mean a later date after the ordinance is passed? it has to pass. from this point it moves forward and has to pass and all of the bullet points are in play?

okay. thank you. >> i will say chair thank you for your efforts and attending the meetings. i think it's good for the public to seat commission participating. >> yeah, i would like to second that. >> well, it's typical this saturday there's three of them. two between 1130 and 12 something and another one that has been the time but somewhere around 130 or so. we did turn down a -- one for sunday because neither of us were available but i'm happy to say that club endorsed proposition c without our appearance, but i think maybe mr. bush may have been there and been helpful. all

right. public comment. >> just a few points mr. chair. i know the club that voted no on saturday and jesus couldn't have delivered that club. it was opposed deeply by some members of the committee who had been given i think misleading information . i wonder at this point whether or not you might want to do an update on the frequently asked questions page because a number of issues have been coming up repeated atly at the endorsement meetings. for example the question what constitutes a member of an organization? because there is an exemption for contacting members when you're doing things. the response on that is a little unclear in the law, and it would be good to have view of that. also it's helpful when i talk to clubs to point out that the

groups that have been most concerned about this, the non-profit organizations and the unions, already register, lobby as direct lobbyists and i have been handing out a list of those that do that and point out those exist in other cities. i want to bring to your attention a part of the lobby law that has been overlooked by many people but is relevant to this case and prop e which is the measure about public notices and that say requirement that says when you testify before a body on behalf of a client you're to identify who the client is when testifying. here is a copy of the law and reference to the prop e thing. i think it's good if you commission sends to the boards and commissions and the board of supervisors a reminder that people speaking as public advocates need to identify who

they're speaking for. under prop e it would eliminate this part of the lobby law because it says all of the testimony should be confidential in which no record is kept of the points of view or the people who speak, so there's perhaps an unintended consequence of invalidating some of the important public disclosures that we have in the lobby law. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm robert james [inaudible] swai. i think you need to update the faqs a bit. what is handed out has two pages. there is a three page document that ties off your agenda. i think the second page is missing from the handout. and there was a section in

there that asked "did the city previously regulate expenditure lobbying ?" with bullets under that. i think that should be expanded a little bit to make it clear that non-profits and unions were subject to the prior law up until 2009, and i think where you talk about the process under which it was adopted you should mention it was brought up at more than one meeting. you did discuss it in a couple of meetings. you had an interested persons meeting as well, and just kind of put that in the faq because some people are making allegations about late night secret meeting where this was adopted which doesn't fit with any reality i'm aware of so thank you. >> any further comments?

turning to agenda item number 4. discussion and possible action regarding staff's proposal to issue warning letter instead of pursuing fines for violations of disclaimer requirements for campaign-related communications. mr. manardy do you want to expand on that? >> sure director, commission. this is a very simple request having to do with two sort of areas of rule that's commission is dealing with that are certainly -- currently under a bit of a transition. the first has to do with -- the first sort of set of rules has to do with the disclaimer of laws which just changed. the commission approved it back in january and effective at the end of july, and the disclaimer laws are i believe improved. they have

for additional information like somebody has to refer people to the website, the ethics commission website on the paid for by line so paid for by committee x. go to the ethics commission website for more information. so that has just changed and based on a lot of the calls coming in people are trying their best it appears to comply. they're a little confused. i have been pretty happy with how we're advising them, but what we anticipate we anticipate that there will likely be a few mistakes and disclaimers that are not complete based on this transition period, so what the commission has is the commission adopted back two years ago another set of rules which are policies which provide for fixed fines for certain violations of our campaign laws, and you all

may remember this, but like i would say six to nine months ago we had this rash of disclaimer violation cases where there were disclaimers in 13 point font instead of 14 point font but by virtue of the policies we had to go go ahead and impose the fines so those policies have to be updated because the disclaimer rules and other things changed some of the applicable code sections but pending that update we think it's reasonable for staff in certain instances to sort of exercise discretion to present the commission with where there is a violation with a proposed warning letter as opposed to necessarily a fine, be given the transition and what we understand are a lot of questions on these matters.

now, again all it would be is a prop posal so the commission would of course retain the authority to say no we think that a fine should be imposed, that sort of thing, but we're thinking of instances where for example it's a new campaign. there is no history of any sort of violations. there is no intent and they say forgot to include the reference to the website, but all of the paid for by information was included. the address was included and it was an oversight given that we're sort of having these new rules so in an instance like that we say it might be reasonable to say look no history, no intent. most of the information is there, the important information is there. we're going to suggest that the commission close this with a warning letter. don't do it again. if you do it again we will issue a fine as opposed to going to this automatic

procedure where you automatically have to pay. i mean the past fines are minimum 500 and the policy calls for a thousand dollars for those fines. you know there would be cases where we would say we should still impose those fines automatically and i think staff would propose that. for instance if there is a mass mailer and subject to disclaimer laws forever and there is no disclaimer on it that is not a warning letter because it's a very common thing in the law for a long time, but things like the font size is off. maybe the reference to the website is not there, no history. we think allowing us to propose a warning letter settlement we think is a wise thing, and again this would be subject ultimately to your approval to the extent you thought the facts didn't merit it you could reject it and we

could go back and seek a fine. >> [inaudible] >> you say that you have to update the policies. the policies are not on the website or on other material? >> they are on the website. >> updates policies? >>not the updated policies but there's a couple of notes -- there are a couple of things that need to be updated too. and our regulations and policies and there is a note on it that says "there have been changes to the campaign law. that these policies and regs have to be updated. with any questions please contact staff immediately if you have any questions how these apply". >> and how long do you think it's going to take to update the policies on materials and the website? >> it would take commission action so the staff couldn't do that so we have to prepare the new policies and regulations.

the policies couldn't be a huge overhaul but it would certainly be some work. the regulations will take a bit longer so we certainly need a few months to do that. >> well, given that i really support what you're saying because from what i've seen often it is newcomers to the electoral process and the political process that make the mistakes, don't know what they're doing, and suffer these fines which often i think we have seen don't really have the money to pay for it so i think a warning letter is appropriate in those cases. obviously with the people that you know are fully conversant with all of the regs and all of the policies that's a different situation, but i support your prop posal. >> and by way of clarification one thing although the

regulations haven't been up dated -- staff prepared this and i will mention it as part of the ed report a lot of guidance through the interested persons list including charts that layout exactly where the disclaimers should be. hopefully -- we hope in an easy to use fashion but again they're confusing rules so certainly people make mistakes. >> that seems perfectly reasonable to me. >> yeah, i would agree also. it's good guided discretion because some of the fines, $500 for these rather diminutive font violations and i am comforted by the fact that the last line of the staff recommendations, which of course would follow through that, the commission would retain the authority to reject the proposal warning letter in any matter and direct staff to pursue the appropriate fines so

we're not giving up anything here. we're just widening the area of discretion and seems very reasonable. >> so as you contemplated if we approve this that in a case where you're going to send a warning letter rather than imposing a fine that you will advise the commission that's how you intend to dispose of it before you send out the warning letter? >> that's correct. yeah, definitely. >> commissioner andrews. >> how many warning letters do we send out in a year? what other violations do we allow this kind of warning letter enforcement? >> you know i couldn't comment on the numbers but it can be -- i mean warning letters whether from our organization or others are generally sent out where there is a violation -- usually a technical violation and the

estimation by the staff and if a approved by the commission and the commission as well that the public harm was limited and that there was limited amount culpablity and taking those factors into consideration the idea is people make mistakes. if it's not a big mistake, there's not a lot of public harm we're telling you don't do it again, so it could be on any of the matters within the jurisdiction, so i can't think of one right off hand. >> that's fine. there is another approach obviously. we could comtemplate the reduction of the fine and say for that classification of violation it's $50 and not 500. >> that's true. >> that is -- you know put someone on notice that they're

culpable and responsible and to right the wrong they have to put some skin in the game and complicit with a warning letter. >> i think that's right. i think -- i wasn't here but my understanding is that these policies were designed to sort of speed things along a little bit. i'm not sure they ultimately -- i'm not sure that was necessarily the outcome, but certainly sort of a traffic ticket approach is something that the fbc does and i think would be in this commission's interest to look into, certainly something i was thinking about, but that is another issue, but -- >> do i hear a motion? >> i will move to approve the proposal relating to the warning letters. >> second. >> i call for public comment.

>> good afternoon. robert james [inaudible] sway again but attached to the staff memo rts policies you adopted before and when i read this section dealing with the written disclaimers and i think this is a good idea, i can't really map it into what is in the policy right now. there's sort of a sequence of events where there is initial preliminary review. there is a 14 day deadline where things might come to a commission after that. would they come to the commission with a recommendation for a warning letter? you know i think you need some clarity about how it maps on to the policy, and then it's probably good to go. thank you. >> certainly. well, i think most of the timelines have to do with notifying the committee as to we think you had a violation of your disclaimer rule, and

have 14 days to get back all during the preliminary review phase of it complaint. the thing is that with the disclaimer there's -- you know, it's sort of there so it's very unlikely they're -- unless they show that the disclaimer somehow -- the copy you have doesn't have the right font size which is unusual. usually it is what it is but even under this that says if you don't respond in 14 days we will open a formal complaint process and then it goes through the same process that we would have with our normal complaints so what we would do -- again we would -- to the extent we thought there were mitigating circumstances. it wasn't that big of a deal, whatever it is, that is smen subject to folks to a move at a regularly scheduled meeting. >> david pilpel again speaking

as an individual. i support the proposal and i wanted to clarify two points. when a proposed warning letter is brought to the commission i just wanted to be sure one way or the of the is it for a vote to approve the warning letter or would it go absent a vote to disapprove so i am trying to figure out where the three votes would be? maybe staff can clarify and my other concern is just to make sure this gets in the project calendar or work plan so that at some point along with the long list of other things that's going to happen it's cataloged as a thing to update. thank you. >> any other comments? all right. i will call the question. all in favor say aye? >> aye. >> opposed? motion is carried unanimously and the staff

recommendation adopted. turning to item five discussion and possible action regarding the commission's efforts to hire a new executive director. again i don't think we'r asking for any action here but again i wanted to bring the commissioners up-to-date on the recruiting process to date. the recruiting firm has advised us and sent us resumes for nine applications -- applicants. they tell us there have been 14 as of yesterday. they're sending further letters out to some of their contacts to see whether it engenders additional applicants, but our intention is that will continue

through september 11 at which time the application process will be completed, and commissioner andrews and i will be meeting to review and discuss the applications that have come in, and to see whether or not we think that there are candidates who are appropriate for the position, and present them whether it's two, three, four to the commission for its consideration and decision as to the hire. if we are not satisfied with the quality of the responses we may ask the recruiting firm to open the recruiting for a longer period of time to see whether we can engender stronger candidates. i

would say overall looking at the nine that i have looked at i'm not overwhelmed, and maybe a little disappointed at this stage, but the recruiting firm says it's very common for the major amount of the applicants coming in towards the end of the period so we will see. >> chair hur. >> yes. >> just. >> chair rene. >> yes. just a couple of questions and you commissioner andrews will look at it and whittle it down. there is no magic number and there is a clear delineation after three or seven that's what you will present and any discussion to reopen or continue the application process will be made by the commission. is that right?

>> i think to continue it i think unless you tell me otherwise i think that commissioner andrews and i as the committee assigned for the recruiting process would have the authority to tell the recruiter to send out notices that the recruiting deadline has been extended to another time period. >> and that would be because you didn't think there was even one candidate that would qualify? >> right. i don't know if i would say one but there were not i would hope that two or three we feel would at least qualify. now, i have to tell you that the -- we're in the process of preparing what i will call "core questions" which will be the questions that will be asked of every candidate when we have

personal interviews with them, whether those interviews are face-to-face or whether we do them by skype or some other teleconferencing, but i think in fairness to the candidates we're going to have a group of core questions that every candidate will get asked that we can sort of test them all against a standard, but then we'll question beyond those that might be subjects that open up because of the responses to the core questions. >> when will the questioning of potential candidates occur? >> assuming that we close it on september 11 commissioner andrews and i will have to agree on some time when we can conduct these interviews. i would hope it would be some time in the month of september. >> so the idea being that you would conduct the interviews and

eventually whether that's september or october the commission would have candidates. do we have a chance to meet the candidates in open session? >> not in open session. >> in any session, closed session, i'm sorry. >> closed session but it's only the ones that we whittled down to that we would recommend be considered. in other words, we will go through the nine or 14 or 20 as it maybe. i think some will whittle out without face-to-face meetings, but and i think hoping to have it done by the end of september is probably overly optimistic so the target date should be our meeting in october. >> that would be when the commission has an opportunity to meet the candidates? >> right. or we might schedule a special meeting for that purpose but i would like to get

a final decision made by the end of october. >> okay. i have i think we do need a little clarity though on what the basis is going to be for continuing the process? in other words, you know i -- you know, i think as you guys know i have some concern. i do think we want to be efficient and try to get a person in place as soon as reasonable and if there are no good candidates i can understand the need to keep the process open but i would like more clarity as to what that threshold is? in other words, if you look at all the candidates and don't think there is one that would merit being the executive director then i can understand that but which is the number that all right we need to keep the process open because there aren't enough good candidates? >> well, i don't think there is a magic number -- as i of

through this process quite often on both sides there is no magic number but generally speaking the minimum would be two. the max would be the max. three is always great. but i would say to just bring one candidate forward is not worth it, and that for me be the automatic trigger to extending the process and then looking at the strategies of outreach that we would be doing to be more targeted in our strategies of out reach and even looking at some of the what we're offering in terms of salary and benefits and i know there's not a lot of wiggle room with that but how much of it is a consideration or not in people that riewld themselves out or insofar but at minimum two and three i

personally would feel great if there were three or more, but certainly i don't know how the commission feels about it but not one. >> would there be a down side? if there are two and i agree with you it sounds like the minimum should be two but if there are two is there a down side to bringing two to the commission and if neither is deemed satisfy to reopen rather than deciding i want -- you two deciding i want four. >> i don't think there is a down side because of the process. we have structure in place; right? we have an interim executive director. different situations call for different strategies. in this one we designed it that time is on our side. it may not be optimal for staff and such as we move forward but the fact is we have built this temporary strategy and structure to be in place so that it can support us so that

we have the time, so if it came that two candidates came forward and through the interviewing process we recognizing these aren't the right candidates we would have the opportunity to do that, and the commission as the staff would continue to move forward, so i think the staffing and the structure is all in place for us to have any of those options in front of us, and we could exercise them at any time. >> thank you. >> any public comment? (off mic). >> thank you. larry bush commissioners. just a few quick comments. at what point if at all are you going to be disclosing the names of the candidates or is it all going to be confidential? >> i believe that all of them will be confidential because all of them are holding their jobs

-- other jobs -- >> that's what i would expect but i didn't want to put that on the record. >> fact they applied for another job and run successful -- so i think the only public information will be the successful candidate. >> secondly, the core questions that you're talking about will you circulate those among the other commissioners or is it just going to be you and commissioner andrews? >> i would i would anticipate they would be circulated to the other commissioners, and -- although i hadn't -- i had given some thought to it. they maybe circulated for public comment. >> i don't know. i always appreciate transparency but i was thinking we might just solicit from the public the

questions they think should be asked and whether or not you decide to release the questions being asked is a personnel decision for the commission. i know in terms of the number of people that go forward when i worked at -- in the federal government you always had three candidates who went forward, and i sat in and i was involved in hiring the heads of the offices throughout four states in different cities, and it's important to have a robust group of candidates to look at because they bring different skills and at different times. it's not a cookie cutter thing. at different times there is a different agenda and commissioners have another so it's good to have some variation. the only other point i wanted to make is to bring to your attention a factor in the

new executive director that hasn't been true in the recent, and that is that under the city charter the ethics commission is required to have an executive secretary and that's found in section 4102, section number nine says -- "shall appoint an executive secretary to manage the affairs and operations of the boards and commissions" and that is true for every commission. there is no exception for the ethics commission. i know you have resisted having an executive secretary for the commission, but i think as you look forward to a new position you need to keep in mind that's a factor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i want to thank you for the hard work you have been doing on the campaign trail. i know it's

exhaustive and exhausting. i do want to also -- i know this process that the appointment of the executive director is not something where we really have to reinvent the wheel. there is plenty of technical assistance available to you and i assume your staff i think for the public that's watching this broadcast they would be interested in knowing how your sub-committee works a little bit, whether you have a staff or assistance, or perhaps interface with the civil service commission i would assume or some of the technical people there, so that you can get all the help that you need, and this is not coming off of the brow [inaudible] >> [inaudible] human resources provides whatever support we need whenever we asked for it and they have been very

cooperative. >> great. >> and the recruiting firm is -- >> the firm itself. >> right. >> so you have both the city and outside consultant helping? >> right. >> very good. >> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. just two comments here. i wanted to appreciate the continued discussion in public and transparency about the hiring process. in particular chair your admission there are nine candidates so far if i understood that correctly. i think to the extend you can -- extent you can provide information as the process goes on so the total number of candidates you received, how many were screened by the sub-committee? how many were presented to the commission? and ultimately who was selected? i think that is helpful so we get a sense of what happened. i am not interested in knowing

the names until you actually select director so that all works and just to comment on mr. bush's comment i believe the charter provision about a charter secretary is subject to the other parts of the charter and the budget for the commission doesn't have a position allocated for secretary. in the event you had one then the commission would oversee and hire that person as well but it's my understanding that you don't currently. thank you. >> all right. unless any of the commissioners have a question we will turn to item number 6 discussion and possible action regarding complaints and a list of complaints are contained in that agenda item, and we will first i guess i will --

does anybody have a motion as to whether or not we should go into closed session to discuss those items in the agenda, item 6? do i hear a motion to have us consider those in closed session? >> can someone remind me of the legal basis for going into closed session for something like this? >> sure commission hur. it's spelled out on the second page of the agenda itself under

subb. very top of the page. >> so this is an action where we are determining whether -- regarding possible actions regarding complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission and the basis is the attorney-client privilege? is that right? >> yes. that is correct. as you're familiar this is the citation we use for all closed session discussions enforcement matters and during this time members of my office are present. i am not present since i advise the staff. we maintain due process and the city attorney josh wrightwood would advise the commission but

tonight john gibner is here advising the staff. >> all right. >> do i hear a motion? >> [inaudible] >> maybe i can ask a clarifying question, so the city attorney is the attorney obviously. who is the client? >> i'm sorry? >> who is the client? >> our client is the city and county of san francisco including one of its agencies, the ethics commission. >> so the commission in this instance, the commission is the client. the city attorney is the attorney? >> correct. >> and to the extent we are seeking legal advice -- >> in connection with pending enforcement matters. >> in connection with pending enforcement matters. okay and isn't there a local regulation

that we rely upon for keeping these enforcement matters in closed session? >> yeah, the charter section as well is one thing that we do rely on. the charter section c .369 9- 13. >> right. that's what is cited here, and remind me again that charter section requires -- >> yeah, i can pull up the language pretty quickly. so yeah sub a of that section it provides for the investigation shall be conducted in a confidential manner. records of any investigation shall be confidential information as to permitted by state law. the unauthorized release of confidential information is subject to termination of any employee or commissioner responses for any such release and this is from our charter.

>> i will move that we meet in closed session. >> could i just ask a question before we take up the motion? i'm not going to oppose. in regard to the charter section that you just talked about relating to the need to keep confidential the investigation of any kind of complaints. as i understand it and looking at the materials themselves are to trigger tonight a probable cause hearing. is that fair? i mean if we go forward we would be going forward with what would be in effect a probable cause hearing, like a preliminary hearing in a criminal case before a case is held to trial. isn't that -- >> right. i don't want to go into too much detail --

>> i'm not going into detail. i am talking about procedure. you're always telling me i am saying too much. i'm talking about procedure but not investigation but the procedure you layout in agenda item 6, and i'm not opposing the closed session. i want to ask a question of you as our attorney as to whether or not -- first of all do you agree that if we go forward on agenda item 6 we would be going forward with what would be some form of probable cause hearing? >> as the agenda describes if there are three enforcement matters that the commission is considering for the night some of them involve probable cause and some do not. >> okay. so in regard to -- i'm trying to analogize this probable cause hearings in other situations like in the criminal system. you had the investigation. the investigation is being done here by the staff and the criminal

system is done by the police or whoever and the material is assembled and all of it maybe confidential whether it's a grand jury or here in terms of a investigation it's all confidential. thousand then you get to a point we will have a hearing to determine probable cause, and if we again analogize that to probable cause hearings in the criminal system at that point it's an open hearing; right? if we have a preliminary -- >> i will defer to you on that. you have more experience that i. >> if you do that it's an open hearing and whatever that maybe confidential up to then, grand jury matters and everything they start coming out. why would a probable cause hearing -- i'm not arguing that it isn't, but why is a probable cause hearing

in our proceedings something that must be confidential? >> i think that was a policy decision made by the voters and whoever drafted the charter amendment establishing the processes. >> even though the language talks about an investigation, an investigation. it doesn't talk about any hearings that we conduct. the language you gave us talked about confidential investigations. now, we're in regard to a hearing. why would a hearing have to be confidential? >> right. >> do you. me to jump in? >> [inaudible] >> >> jessie manarde executive director. the direct answer is that the relations provide it to are confidential. >> tell me the language. >> the hearing shall be closed to public by state law unless

the respondent request that. >> that's all i am looking for. thank you very much. >> simply a policy decision made long ago. >> could have taken that with the one sentence language that was just given to us. >> do we have a second. >> i second. >> public comment? >> larry bush. without disclosing any of the specifics is it -- in the commission's view possible to disclose whether any of these cases involve candidates or committees involved in the november 2015 election or is this going to be one of the thing where we look back they acted today but it's on things that happened in 2011 or 2012? it's good to disclose now whether what you're taking up is on committees or candidates on the ballot in november. is there any reason that's not included?

>> i would advise that the commission not disclose that information of. as the council aware there are limited offices and up for competitive election. >> it's not a limited number. your boss is up for election in november as is the sheriff as is the district attorney as is the mayor as is one supervisor as a number of people on school board and community college board. they're probably 15 people on the ballot so i don't think you can make that statement and be accurate. >> any other comments? >> yes. taking mr. shin's opinion about what constitutes a disclosure i would like to know why the city attorney and the commission didn't sanction mr. st. croix for sending out a letter in april describing the status of an investigation?

that letter went out and the case was referred to the city attorney and the district attorney and sent out publicly. under your advise just now mr. shin that should be a violation of the city law. i heard no action by you or by this commission taking mr. st. croix to account for that. >> the city attorney can correct me. my understanding is that we are -- that the staff is obligated to advise complainant what action if any is taken in connection with a complaint filed. >> that is correct. >> you understand that the letter being referred to is a letter in which mr. st. croix told the complainant what had been done with his complaint. >> i understand, but in that case why didn't eileen hansen get a letter when she filed a complaint and it's been two

weeks and no notification that the commission accepted it. >> i can't respond to it because i don't know. >> i'm not putting you in the witness box. there is a question here and pending at staff for two weeks. it doesn't take two weeks to send a letter saying we accepted the complaint or rejected it. nothing. not even an acknowledgment about it. is it lost in the mail? thank you. >> good evening commissioners. i am charlie mars stellar for the record. i thank you for all being here tonight and this is an excellent opportunity and discussion to raise a little bit of prehistoric history. i have been attending meetings of the commission very robustly early on starting in about 97. that

would include probably many hundreds of meetings of all types but i do want to say that in the early days when this commission was born you had hardly any staff, and you were just feeling your way scprkts city attorney was taking conservative views and was understanding given resourcing and things because you were just babes in arms, and they ruled very conservatively on your processes and procedures, particularly the ones pertaining to enforcement and adjudication of enforcementses or complaints to the commission, so there maybe now an excellent opportunity with three attorneys on the panel and perhaps more,

and then some excellent staff who are also attorneys to look at some of these issues you have seen come up, particularly mr. hearsest since he been here long and has gray hair now -- maybe not, maybe a few, but there is a lot of expertise in the room so you might want to revisit some of your processes as you have really interpreted them the most conservative ways, and in some ways throughout your history this is come into conflict with the public's needs and right to know and i think at some point some of your processes on adjudication need to be loosened up a little bit, but you started off very conservatively. that was back when i think deputy city attorney julie ma was here and that was -- you're just feeling your way. >> thank you.

>> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. at first i thought this discussion was sort of superfluous and not at all and it's enlightening about the basis for the closed session. i am remembering that the regulations provide for part of the process to be in closed session and once there's a finding of probable cause for the hearing on the merits to be public, and i think those regulations were drafted by deputy city attorney ma or previous deputy city attorneys and there were policy considerations about that and maybe it's time to revisit that but on balance i am satisfied both under the brown act and sunshine ordinance you're in a

good place and how the charter section affects these and i support the motion. thank you. >> thank you. all right. i will call the question. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? we will go into closed session. >> mr. chair if i could say one thing for the first matter i have been fire falled off so i'm going to leave for the first matter and i will come back for >> all right. we're back in open session and i will turn to section e of item number 6 for discussion and vote pursuant to the brown act and the sunshine ordinance whether to disclose any action taken or discussion taken in closed session regarding the pending litigation.

>> move that we don't disclose. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? >> david pilpel. it's not public comment but i am wondering if there is announcement of action taken in closed session? i'm not asking about action and discussion. >> i'm not sure i understood what you said. >> i support the motion not to disclose but i am wonding if there is any action that you need to report out? okay. that's all. >> call the question. all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? it carries unanimously. we will turn to item number 7, discussion and possible action on the june's29 and 27 draft minutes. any corrections or additions by the

commission? any corrections or additions by the public? >> david pilpel speaking as an individual. since we had a lot of time and while you were in closed session there were a number of typos and things that would read better. i won't go through them and i will give them to staff and give them discretion to improve them. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> motion to approve the minutes as possibly revised with minor corrections? >> i move that we approve the minutes subject to typographical and other drafting errors by staff. >> second? >> [inaudible] >> all right. call the question. all in favor say aye? >> aye.

>> opposed? minutes will be approved as amended. item number 8 is a discussion of the acting executive director's report. >> yes commissioners i would just call your attention to two items. one is on page two which talks about under campaign finance disclosure programmure our new rules went into effect as i mentioned before so we have been doing a lot of outreach. we issued two new forms, two fact sheets summarizing the changes and five charts based on the f dc charts about the disclosure requirements and help people comply with the new rules and the final thing i point out is on the second to last page about the statement -- outreach

and education. we just met the other day with union members in connection with the electronic filing of form 700 issue, so there continue to be concerns that the unions have regarding both the people who are required to file in the first place, and then folks who are -- and then just getting it up posted electronically, so we did meet and discuss per the advice of the city and dhr. we're now at the point right now it is not possible to implement this by the april 1 deadline given a number of things that have to happen, so we are going to have to shoot for the following year, and we have a couple -- we've had discussions with the unions in terms of them culling through the list to make them more

appropriate so that for instance receptionists don't have to file form 700 and in one case they did, but also talking to them during that process about the actual electronic posting itself, and they have some suggestions. i'm not sure how possible they are but we will maintain that avenue open as well. otherwise it's as submitted. >> any questions or discussions? >> mr. chair. >> yes. >> i just wanted to talk about the budget. >> sure. >> since we just approved the -- the city approved a two year budget, and in relation to they wanted to talk about this commission secretary that came up earlier in the meeting which is mandatory but only in relation to budget considerations of the city, so

under budget and staffing we were talking about the reduction of -- some reductions we had. there was a three reduction in fringe benefit costs and services from other departments. i just wanted to hear more about how and why those reductions happened. >> the honest truth with respect to those smaller percentage reductions i don't know the specifics. i can certainly get back to you. the big reduction, the 22% reduction is really a reflection of the fact we got this one time funding last year that's not there. my understanding is that the staff funding increase is a cola increase for ongoing staff but they anticipate next year basically adding another position. that would be an enforcement position, so it's like anything else. i mean obviously it would be great to

have a commission secretary who could prepare all these wonderful materials for you. certainly it's like anything else in terms of priorities and that sort of thing to make that determination. >> what kind of -- i guess for sake of a better word "politicking" is done over the years to try to get the mayor to be more sympathetic to our needs? i mean do you know? was jack meeting with the mayor and his staff over time and trying to convince them that we do have needs if we're going to be an effective body? or is it just something that we hand in what we want, and the mayor does what he wants? >> so my experience is that most of the communications are

done through our budget analyst with the mayor, right, in the year that i have been here, a year and a half and the extra asks are generally in -- the position for the mayor's office has been -- well, i think to answer your question i don't think jack was going to the mayor directly. there was some back and forth with the mayor's office and the budget in terms of pushing -- there's a lot of push back and ultimately there were some appeals made to particular members of the board of supervisors in the year and a half i have been here that's what i have seen, so -- >> i would just have to say they would look for the new executive director to be more of an advocate around some of these open positions for just that reason. we're going to -- this is a very administratively

heavy commission, lots of -- just looking at that timeline and projects that we have on board, and if someone's time is being taken up with pulling reports and minutes together that a secretary in which we would just be more in line with almost every other commission i can't imagine i wouldn't put that as part of my recommendation for 16-17. i would somehow find a way to get that in there. enforcement is obviously important and investigators and auditors are important, but in the last two -- up to two years that i played in this particular arena i see the benefit of having a secretary. >> i agree totally with what

at this time commissioner said and in terms of lobbying for the budget of the commission and mr. st. croix and my grilling of him several times he did little if anything, and i speak as someone who for 20 years was chief assistant of a city department, and was the person who was in charge of getting the budget and dealing with the mayor's office and dealing with the board of supervisors, and for any agency you have to -- it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. you need to go constantly knock on them, and i think the new executive director has to make that a priority, and enlist this commission in helping them. i would be perfectly happy in regard to the budgetary processes as a commissioner if my colleagues would see fit to

work with the executive director to meet with the budget analyst and meet with the mayor's people and i know the dance. i have done it for many years, and i think to do that in regard to getting things like a secretary. we need a secretary. i don't think the next executive director whoever it is should be sitting up here in the middle with us. for one thing that makes that person a target for the public. oh he's running the place. whoever the executive director is he should be down there with the staff and a secretary at the end of this table as we had as i recall when i was on the police commission carries out all sorts of good functions and briefing us as a commission and at the same time isn't subject to the kind of pressures that the executive director is in terms of -- well,

if i say this will they think i'm not doing my job right or should i keep this under the table? those are just the realities of the dynamics between us as a commission and our executive director which we wouldn't have those dynamics if we have a secretary as commissioner andrews said. that's why it would be so valuable. >> [inaudible] secretary's responsibility is to report the information. >> exactly. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. >> [inaudible] always have that role and responsibility from a seat down there but the same person that has the role and responsibility isn't the same person reporting out on proceedings and activities, and i think that would be a great separation of responsibilities. >> i agree. >> and i think it all depends what money we can get and what our priorities are, but to me

enforcement is like you guys are saying enforcement is a big one and we have to figure out how best to spend t but certainly more help would be great. >> that is part of the budget lobbying as well and enforcement first but these other things as well, but you've got to go ahead and lobby for your agency. someone's got to be in there banging on the mayor and the -- it used to be harvey rose and as a year ago is not the budget analyst. boy that's a change of significance of generation -- over a couple of generations. i think it's a big loss to the city and i thought i knew how to push his buttons. >> [inaudible] >> and but in any event it's got to be -- the job's got to be done and i don't think it's been done. >> from the city attorney there is nothing inconsistent

with commissioners personally lobbying whoever is doling out the funds. >> the commission -- when the time comes needs to be careful about interference with the day to day affairs with the commission staff. that line which is often hard to walk, but working with whoever that executive director is, and the commission, and i am sure we can figure out ways that the commissioners can be helpful to achieving the goal, but it's -- it will be a line. >> thanks. >> all right. turning to agenda item 9, items for future meetings. public comment. >> yes. since you had a bit of discussion on the budget. david pilpel again speaking as an individual. i think these questions about priorities and

resources should be addressed with the new executive director, and as part of the budget process for next year. i think there are -- you had some of the discussion now but i think there is really a broader discussion and a good and fair debate about work load and priorities, auditors, enforcement, commission secretary. one thing you might want to consider in relation to the commission secretary that the port commission i think does successfully they don't meet that frequently and their commission secretary serves part time in that function and part time as the secretary to the port director so you wouldn't necessarily need a full time person to serve as commission secretary. that person could perform other tasks in the office and restructuring of staff and responsibilities and all of which you should discuss with the new executive director, and then terms how resources happen in the budget process certainly the commission can be involved with the director and

i wouldn't call it lobbying. they might have to register but to try to seek additional resources. i think as changes to the laws have happened whenever something is proposed you should try to get in there seeking an appropriation for resources to meet the additional need et cetera and i think the expenditure lobbyist measure does that and that is kind of a model and really the additional functions that we might want for the commission be it auditing, enforcement, secretarial or other are really not that expensive in the grand scheme of the city budget. we could probably better resource the commission for 100, 200, $250,000. it's not like millions for street repaving or something else, so there maybe other ways and i agree that the new executive director should be a strong advocate for resources to meet your mandate. thank you

. >> do i hear a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> any public discussion? >> [inaudible] >> pardon me? >> [inaudible] >> is there discussion on future items? public discussion on adjournment? call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? . hearing none we are adjourned.

>> housekeeping items one it is to first if you could turn off your cell phones or put them on vibrate and second a spectator or speaker and wants t