your own environment and house and recovery and your neighbors are doing the same the city as a whole will be a more resilient city. >> we are all proud of living in san francisco and being prepared helps us stay here. >> so, thank you so much for joining us today, alicia, i appreciate it. >> absolutely, it is my pleasure. >> and thank you for joining us on another edition of building >> vice president was great good evening and welcome to the wednesday, october 28, 2015, meeting of sfrldz the public defender e presiding officer is commissioner president ann lazarus joined by commissioner honda and commissioner fung and

commissioner rick swig commissioner bobbie wilson that will absent this evening is robert ryan and at the controls the boards legal assistant cable car and i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're departments that have cases before this board. senior inspector, next item. >> joe duffy is sitting at the table in the front and representing the department of building inspection and scott sanchez planning department who is zoning administrator and representing the planning commission and carli short with the department of public works with mapping and now the superintendent of urban forestry congratulation 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. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. 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 if you could stand now thank you 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. >> okay. thank you very much commissioners we have one housekeeping item 8 which is appeal number. >> 1 dash 070 at cresting

visiting the parties ask this be continued until november 4th, 2015, trying to workout a settle of their own we need a vote. >> so moved. >> thank you commissioner fung by public comment on item 8 seeing none, on that motion from commissioner fung to move this to november 4th commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and with commissioner wilson absent that motion carries moving to item one general public comment anyone that wants to address the board on items not on tonight agenda is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak under general public comment seeing none, move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners i'm sorry.

>> (inaudible) yes general public comment if you have something to say now is your chance. >> (inaudible). >> i see this is actually not item one we'll get to that in a few minutes thank you item 2 commissioners that is questions or comments anything okay. so seeing none, move to item 3 the consideration of the october 14, 2015, board minutes. >> commissioners any additions, deletions, or changes if not may i have a motion. >> so moved. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on the minutes seeing none, on the minutes we have a motion to do you want them by the vice president on that motion

commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig that that motion carries so, now move to item number 4 is a jurisdiction request the subject property on santa fe after the board received a whatever requester asking the board take jurisdictions over the permit application which was issued onion may 2015 did appeal ended on may 15th and it was filed on august in 2015 the permit holder and to remove two living spaces on the first floor commercial step forward and rove the store the 1 floor street unit to be returned to commercial pace space for

conditional use application the board voted with commissioner swig to continue this to allow the times for the permit for the permit holder to provide intention with respect to the permit on october 14th this matter was continued to tonight because of a loss of quorum and before we begin commissioner swig i believe you've received union street the file and video and ready to participated thank you so much so commissioner president lazarus i was going to do suggest to hear from the permit holder first and since you've asked him to come back to speak to the board and hear from the departments and requester so if you'd like to come forward thank you and 3 minutes. >> yes. >> okay. you'll have 3 minutes.

>> kevin tread well. >> could you speak into the other microphone. >> i'm kevin i pulled the permit at the request of the owner he is the new owner the building and part of progress of taking ownership was to be sure that the property was code compliant so it shows that - and please overhead. >> there we go. >> you can use the other microphone swing that over. >> figure it out so this building was built in the 19 hundred and has been a commercial at street level both 663 and 665 for a number of

years since the 1980s when was was allowed a commercial non-compliant commercial use the owner purchased it earlier this year and the fitting parts on 663 was still active commercial space somewhere along the line in the last few years the downstairs of 5665 was converted to living space without permits those two rooms. >> i'm sorry you need to speak into the meek as you're working with that. >> those rooms are illegal bedrooms one the reasons besides not permitted there is no way to create an egress window in this space there was other issues

that we were perfectly happy to capri with to make the building code compliant so getting the permit i've talked with the building permits and verbiage was added to make sure it was clear to return to commercial used by the city i was told that wouldn't be an issue we then received the letter from the residents so as you can see from the way the building is built this being the front the street side of the property there really isn't any way to put in a legal bedroom in this property without a major renovation to the ground floor. >> so the intent to remove the illegal rooms and eventually

turn it back to commercial space. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> let me ask a question first, the reason this case was continued the first time was there was a document in the brief that indicated the permit holder was withdrawing this permit; is that correct or not correct. >> there was an initial thought to do that i stated but pulled that we realized it was not necessary to remove the permit there was a discussion i actually filed it and went back the next morning in discussion it was better to move forward as it was originally submitted. >> okay

sorry thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department one of the reasons this item was continued to get more clarity to confirm the permits were issued correctly and building the planning department reviewed that and no notice was required for the smubt permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> so just a question that from the property has not been commercial for how many years would it require a conditional use. >> it has been abandon for the conditional use authorization would be needed to restore it this permit application didn't require that it seems of the two spaces one of them the side with the printing seems to be active

within the last 3 years and the odds 3 years since a commercial use and need to establish the location. >> we haven't determined it. >> based on the information and the print shop i believe earlier this year and for the other space it was stated in an e-mail three years ago. >> so that is based to rare conditional use to restore to commercial use. >> it is legal non-conforming. >> not typical permitted in the commercial use anulnar limited use can continue with restrictions. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners

joe duffy dbi short the permit seems to be reviewed properly by dbi i checked on complaints no active complaints so it is voluntary work and as i said, i didn't see anything wrong with the permit. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you mr. white horn. >> good evening madam president and commissioners i'm here to contest the permit granted to joseph he never got a notice and when of the application was submitted a requirement of sf 311 and state law requires the landlord notice

the tenants before applying for the permit the gentleman never contacted me and let me know he was seeking for a demolition which had i known would have done a block block notice he's returning this to a commercial space co-authored to the assessors those office a rh2 family 4 unit building two distinct address my address and the address next door to me the address right next door to me basing has been a typically space for the landlord son for a number of years he moved out as the property was purchased by mr. bravo. >> it's a apartment where we live when you first walk in is a

living room a long hallway my roommates room a kitchen my room a bathroom and a backdoor to a garden upon receiving the permit the landlord is supposed to accelerate the neighbors the permits was granted no such permit was granted thank you very much. >> no such sign has been posted so on. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> mr. sanchez if you don't mind addressing the issue of the required notices please. over the course scott sanchez planning department so as discussed in other case pursuant to the planning code is

not required for the removal of the twenl eastbound only required for a legal dwelling unit that has authorization the 3-r report listed this as a single-family detrimental and pending legislation that could expand the planning code 317 requirement for loss of dwelling units to also unit not authorized as today, the law currently on applies to legal units and we have to evidence the lower floors of this building a legally dwelling units. >> where is that legislation. >> it has been introduced by commissioner avalos following up open interim controls h he has introduced and i believe the planning commission will be hearing it in december.

>> oh, i don't think there is a basis for a jurisdiction request. >> under the current provision. >> well, i mean there is no basis in terms of whether the city erred the question of whether affordable housing disappears is less of a legal issue. >> unfortunately, we seem since i've been on the commission it seems like every two weeks a similar situation a citizen is evicted from their illegal highway but until the board of supervisors takes our advise in april.

>> around that time. >> unfortunately, our the situation to situation whereas, madam president said this doesn't merit the request. >> this is a little bit different than cases before us that a lot of cases before us are single-family dwellings that have not one or worn the legal units down look at the picture of the property this was commercial space and although it is unfortunate i don't believe there is a basis for to grant the jurisdiction request. >> anyone. >> i'm in agreement. >> i'll move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis there was no action by even though city it caused the requester inform internal revenue late thank you on that motion

commissioner fung commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig that motion carries 4 to zero. >> before i call the next item we want to find out if lilly lynn is here or an interpreter for the next item. >> okay t the for the next item yes. okay we had hired on interpreter to come to help with that translate this item but she's - are you lilly lynn. >> yeah. >> okay. just in time ross those are the people that many say lynn is here to translate for you. >> okay. >> so i'm calling item 5

appeal lynn wong versus the a penalty for construction work without a permit and we will start with the appellant mr. wong who has 7 minutes to aid the board you need to come up to the microphone together. >> to present your case to the board. >> and actually because we have an interpreter we'll double the time it will be a total of 14 minutes because of fact we're speaking through an interpreter so into the microphone please go

forward. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i speak chinese so i talk to you in chinese i any bedroom has 4 windows. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah total 4 windows 3 of them is leaking water i change it. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i don't know should i get appointment from the window to fix. >> would you speak into the microphone i can't hear you thank you. >> i total have 4 windows 3 of them is leaking water do i need a permit now a leaking problem. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> right now.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> okay right now i still have my upstairs has a 6 to 8 windows their leaking water do i need to get a permit. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> previously downstairs was living room for students he or she has a lot of opinion regarding to a lot of problem like leaking gas but i don't have leaking gas problem. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i don't have a leaking gas and then he is unreasonable.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> and then my downstairs has lots of things i called my attorney he asked me to pay $10 he's asking for 10 to 15 thousand dollars. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this person wants to say something if not no fact his purpose to get money back.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah. the person even though wart has mold on the wart and -- excuse-me. i need to repeat last sentence. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and then talked to accountant after and investigated and the accountant said i need to look at it, it is

fine. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and then the government say i need to bring the wart and i left her not on the wart and open the door but refused to open the door i county get in to >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because the time it limit to the government requested me before the may 29 i need to fix it before that day and after that i need to fix it to it is okay. right now.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> that person he has no furniture only one bed i give him like a bell or something for him to use he refused to return it to me. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> excuse me. the interpreter for client. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that person say he say we want to kill my family member. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and i don't building what that person like thirty-year-old

he is very, very bis very, very >> (speaking foreign language.) >> thank you our temporary can tell you about that information. >> i have a few questions how long has the tenant been in the property. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> he is saying to stay about a few a couple of months and totally about 8 months and since march he didn't pay any rent. >> let me back up on that

this is the appeal of a penalty for unpermitted work or is this tenant landlord issue. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i won't yeah. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i just want to tell you i already make an appointment to fix the window and then previous

landlord he said his house only costs thirty thousand and for the property tax only one hundred and 50. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and downstairs already have open and bedroom i didn't do that. >> honk has the owner of this property. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i bought it in 1996. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> the house is very, very old and the property is very old so it has a lot of holes and the

mouse comes through. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you inspector duffy. >> you can sit now and we'll hear in the inspector and there's more time. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi the appeal the penalty is the result of the complaint received by dbi around the ninth of march. >> inspector duffy hold on i want to make sure your translating this they need to understand this. >> it was the description of the complainant saying illegal unit and the rental services around march and it was phone calls barbara hale a no entry and around the 25th of march an inspection of the premises and

some permit researchers by housing inspection services the 29 of april 2015 a initiation or over a parking garage and a failed inspection of the upper lower and kitchen counters and sing and enclosing it with the kitchen and full bath a tube and sink have been added the permit research failed to produce any permits were issued throughout the building to its present condition and the following codes violations there is various code vacationed proper ventilation and heat source and installed without a

wiring permit and back up instruction materials and improper exist egress obstruction the rules of violation was issued by the housing inspection at a time the instruction was to submit a copy and two sets of plans with wants building application to legalize the floor occupancy or reinvestor back to the use there was a 9 minds penalty of 5 thousand dollars the value of work to be 5 thousand dollars and that was noigs noigs the value of $1,000 but had a discussion they

lowered that to 4 thousand 9 times to $15,000 of work and lastly thousand dollars the subsequent building permit during the process it was filed on the cigarette of august and issued and the permit was to comply with the notice of violation with one half bath and replace the walls in the garage with two doors with the fire rated door and remove the kitchen the value of work on that permit was $26,000 during the process of approval on that permit the penalty was put on for 9 times on a value of 5 thousand dollars on the totals penalties assessed by dbi was for one thousand

$4.01 that is where we're at here and i would be saying the penalty that dbi wants the 9 times penalty to stay i did not get if the gentleman that owns the property did the work i'm not clear but i certainly seems fair enough the penalties was fair and if, in fact, they got a reductions of 15 thousand to 5 thousand take that 66 percent of penalty over $3,000 from the penalty stuck so i'm available to answer any questions i think if i have to expand. >> the penalty mentioned nothing about windows. >> that's a separate issue.

>> they're not clear if they need a permit to pay so some appeal the penalty for the work that i mean windows with regards to the windows needs a permit and obviously the building of the unit matters i'm not sure if this gentleman was responsible for po that but owned it since 1996. >> his statement says he didn't do the work. >> he didn't. >> that's what his statement says. >> our permit if it is done by a previous owner we'll reduce the penalty in dbi there's a code section it addresses that i don't know it didn't include the penalty by housing inspection services this which is standard procedure sometimes, people appeal those through the deputy could directors or the chief

housing inspection not sure they use it is to be honest when i'm doing these things people came in and got the permit first and did the work i'm not sure. >> a side question does an anonymous complaint trigger a certification. >> we're going by city charter we respond to every complaint and it gets assigned to an inspector do we get in no nonetheless we see a duplicate we know that is something we've looked at recently. >> okay. thank you i'm sorry other question any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none then mr. wong

you have 3 minutes of rebuttal if you want to speak again to the board. >> public? >> is there any rebuttal? please step forward. >> i will set the clock for 6 minutes again to double the time. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> before march 29 i already

knew the work no good i definitely asked that person to pin the wart he didn't want me to get in. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i bought everything to painting i still fixing any house i tried to go inside to bring the wall. >> i'm sorry can i interrupt one second so this hearing is for the penalty phase it is not in regards to the tenant landlord dispute so what it is about duty the penalty imposed on him.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> basically is there a reason we shouldn't charge him one thousand dollars. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i don't understand why you guys give penalty for me that's why i do not understand >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because i'm online downstairs? >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i living downstairs about two years. >> (speaking foreign language.) and then when i left town nothing happen 33 and even my wife emigrated here from china she lived with us downstairs and then nothing happened. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i know.

>> can i. >> - >> can i maybe he is confused. >> the reason why he is here and the penalties is caused because there was work performed on his property without the correct permitting. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> he also, they don't speak inclines. >> i'm sorry >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because i don't speak everyone i don't know english we're low income family so

that's why we bought this every we're low income family so that's why we bought thineveryo we're low income family so that's why we bought this gleve english we're low income family so that's why we bought this ie english we're low income family so that's why we bought thishev english we're low income family so that's why we bought this ve english we're low income family so that's why we bought thieryo english we're low income family so that's why we bought thiryon english we're low income family so that's why we bought thiyoneh we're low income family so that's why we bought thione i d we're low income family so that's why we bought thine i do we're low income family so that's why we bought this e i d we're low income family so that's why we bought this i do we're low income family so that's why we bought this >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because we don't speak worker we know to ask forgive permit since we bought a house that is having a bathroom. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> but. >> we have total 4 people we fixed that problem and lived together. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah. then we pay like one hundred dollars to fix the

problem. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, we fix - yeah, we fix our wall we changed it up the wood and then we can live inside. >> okay. when you purposed the property did the realtor speak chinese? >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yes. >> so it is california state law that everything be disclosed on the properties condition when they purchased the property in the 6 it was explained to them at a time the area and stove and windows and bashl were illegal that is buyer be aware.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> we don't know because we don't know english so that's why when we bought the house i don't know exactly. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> 33 and then we fix the problem and right now your giving me a penalty right now it is unreasonable. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because of that like the little mouse coming through we tried to fix problem. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, that's example we try to fix it and - and then people tells us you fix it and looks like it is beautiful then people

say maybe you try tee rent it out. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so this is the fact. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, because we tried to fix the problem and effectually we fixed the problem you guys want to give me the penalty. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, because we have inside we tried to fix it we just want to live in our home. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we don't know we need to get a permit who can fix it we don't know english that's why we bought. >> house. >> sorry do they have any children. >> children. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yes. >> we have 3. >> do they speak english.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> they were - >> (speaking foreign language.) >> they were born here but they a lot of times they were very, very young they go to school. >> all right. is your time up. >> one is in sacramento. >> their college age at this point. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> some say all right graduated and some is in school. >> thank you. >> we need to pay the tuition fee. >> can i ask the name of the other speaker please in the other speaker. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> if you could fill out a card for her that would be helpful a speaker card the little card

thank you. >> sir, is there still time or is it finished? >> are you done are they done speaking to the board. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that's all yeah. >> we still need to pay for the tuition for our children and then you want to give me the penalties you can that is unreasonable; right? >> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah in san francisco a lot of people living like this asian and a lot of people are low income families. >> yeah. i feel it is unreasonable yeah.

>> (speaking foreign language.) >> yeah, because in person right now they shouldn't he was a chiropractor he come to our place twice to ask for living. >> thank you your time is up. >> inspector duffy a rebuttal? >> sorry commissioners not too much to add it appears someone acted to get the permit the description if there were a sets of plans that would have been better for the agent to pull the permit and explain that better to them i'm not sure the total fees 2 thousand plus the penalty is only one thousand they're making one hundred dollars they're appropriately assessed so it is difficult with the

understanding the vision and is penalty i'm not sure that everybody they understand it but it says someone acted on their on behalf of to comply to the notice of violation so i don't think it is those folks maybe if that person had of been here. >> that was the $10,000. >> sorry. >> possibly. yes. your probability right. >> may we ask them the owner who i agree - >> may we ask them who is professional who that was that might have been easier. >> i didn't say it was the

second part as i said the discussion somewhere along the line 9 times reduced to someone had that discussion with dbi we don't do that nonetheless you come in and sit down and have that conversation. >> so it's been reduced already. >> i saw on the housing nose on complaints there was a reduction from 9 time to 15 to 9 times and 5 i don't think that was those people but who was getting the permit. >> i believe the patents son that came to file the appeal but not able to attend oh, sorry. >> he's here. >> (laughter). kind of too late >> are they're questions for him. >> can you step to the podium

please. i wish you would have dove in there earlier, you heard the explanation they're basically here because a certifying so we listened to for the last 20 minutes is a tenant landlord dispute. >> i saw the drawings i put everything i did that because my parents couldn't afford an architect. >> a couple of questions so when they bought the property the in-law unit was present correct. >> based on the case i don't remember what they told me is what i know. >> what it rent during that time. >> no, it was not. >> vacant the whole time. >> my mom's mom came from china. >> this was the first time that was rented with that tenant

and yes. >> and your tennis to remove the illegal unit. >> yeah. they can't afford they spoke to 3 contractors i spoke to them and they gave us bids from 60 to $100,000. >> do you know because of the new legislation that was enacted of october of 2014 i can add a non-common but once you roach you it you can't readd. >> my parents can't say take out a loan we attempted to fill out the legalization form but due to the cost and that we have to hire an architect i cannot do the drawings and have to hire another contractor for electrical and one more plumbing

and one inform some other things it is too expensive. >> the other thing looking at the paper paperwork that was submitted the department of building inspection has reduces is penalties i understand your parents are limited english when they purchased the property in the 6 their realtor spoke inclines at this point it it was dlordz that was an illegal unit and if it was not disclosed you should bring up that paperwork with that realtor. >> i tried to do before i tried to get the drawings we have this report i attempted to pull when i tried to pull the report you can't read it, it is for the legible at all what i looked at the drawings that was a 27 unit apartment.

>> anyone else have any questions. >> please state your name for the record. >> kenny wang. >> commissioners unless other questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i guess i'll start unfortunate situation we are now going to lose oath affordable unit in the city but i think that the department of building inspection looking at the paperwork has bebeen very fair in their estimation of the fees that were charged unless other comments the amount is a fair. >> i'll probably disagree with that a little bit the history of our decisions in these types of cases normal from

the property owner did not install it then we give them some latitude and break on this the question in this case is that i accept what they said in terms of not renting it for that many years they started to rent is that created other issues for them so there was income generation but since they didn't do it i'll recommend perhaps we reduce it to 5 times instead of 9 times. >> i agree with commissioner fung question. >> move to grant the appeal and to reduce the penalties to 5 times.

>> that's 5 times the permit fee on the commission motion to grant the appeal and reduce the penalties to 5 times the permit fee on the basis it was done by a prior owner. >> yes. it is based on the reduced valuation permit fee. >> the reason for reducing it is what i'm asking. >> yes. mr. duffy you want to correct any math? >> sorry commissioners just normally the penalty is 9 times the penalties of the work performed we'll reduce to 5 times not the permit fee the proper you know there's fees that are correctly assessed. >> that's correct. >> so it is 9 - 5 times the penalty. >> yeah. on the penalty yeah. >> so commissioner fung i'm asking for the basis of that

reduction the reason. >> on the basis they did not create the unpermitted work. >> i notice one more thing to the presidio's that i heard some financial stuff being spoken they can't afford it this work needs to get done to contrary the notice of violation or more costs there are will be a hearing and assessment costs i hope maybe i can pertain that to them but it is important they follow through and get a final inspection so it didn't get more expensive. >> can we, huh? - can you give us a calculation from the penalty is currently sitting at. >> one thousand. >> one thousand. >> so this will approximately go 6 hundred.

>> yes. >> be clear on that i agree with our advise and given there is their son is in the room and he seems to be an intelligent young man and does things i don't know how to do i highly recommend he provides council to his parents with our good advice and speak to the son. >> okay. >> who will understand. >> thank you, commissioners. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to reduce the penalty to 5 times of the value performed commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda and commissioner swig okay that motion carries move on to item 6 appeal elizabeth sale and matthew versus the department of public works on ninth avenue protesting the network of inc. for a

wireless box for a construction of the wireless facility that was heard on october 7, 2015, and continued by the board to allow the time for the notification materials and commissioner president lazarus i was going to ask if you want to hear from the department first and hear from the presidio's and the appellant. >> yes. and so starting with ms. short. >> are the appellants here. >> i don't know. >> are the appellants heeler ms. sale and mr. gaffe new. >> good evening carli short public works i don't have anything to add i'm available to answer any questions well, i duo have one thing to add we have proposed a revised order that would require notification on

both those in the future we felt the proper notification was done in this case i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> was it the materials. >> they provided. >> i'm sorry. >> it is - >> yeah. okay. >> thank you. >> okay and congratulations again. >> mr. fineman. >> 3 minutes. >> hi - good evening madam president and honorable members of the board of the appeals i'm martin fineman on behalf of the castle west known in the paperwork and a as the network of california and that entities it the permit holder the permit was properly grandstanded pursuant to article

25 of the code and the regulations under that implementing that part of public works codes as you may know the protest was filed and heard and denied and final approval was given of this permit and an appeal was taken up a few weeks ago as ms. goldstein mentions and the matter put over for today to allow the department of public works to submit prove that proper notice was given the department of public works did provide that documentation to the board on october 13th 2015 as to the merits of that case, i would note i guess it's been noted the appellants are not presents that is consistent with the fact that although they filed an appeal not a brief in support of the appeal prior to

the last hearing nor in other papers in between the only ground that was mentions in that one-package document the original notice of appeal was concerns about radio frequency emissions the board is aware and bryan indicated to the board singles the prior hearing at the time of the prior hearing federal law and specifically refer to section 332 of the title 47 of the u.s. code part of the telecommunications act forbids the city and/or county or state to deny the permit for the wireless facilities based on any concerns regarding radio frequency emissions moving of moving beyond that castle conformed with the city's

requirement regarding the emissions as you may know from the record a submit to the report from a qualified professional engineer the facility compiles with the standards it does see and in fact, the maps allows the emissions on one percent of accountable frequency because of notice issue that was on the boards minded was addressed i object to speak to any questions that the board might have. >> okay. >> anyone here on behalf of the appellants? >> seeing none, any public comment on many item commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> question for ms. short. >> i assume that was one of the accurate permits. >> that's right.

>> thank you. >> well, i'll start ought to be consistent i think that the permit was issued if error and equipment on both poles and radius should ethics commission have gone out to one 50 radius of both locations the department reflects the first one. >>was issued in error. >> is there a motion? >> what would it be? >> remember back to the definition of what required notice in the type equipment

they said that the what was it the - charge or something didn't have to be noticed. >> it was ambiguous regarding the equipment that on one pole they felt it was only specific - >> units. >> a battery. >> battery pack yeah. >> yeah. >> so the primary equipment those was on one pole. >> so far as i am concerned, it is one pole. >> can you help me director. >> you're asking to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis the notice was defective; is that correct. >> thank you. >> then we have that motion by the vice president commissioner fung no. >> commissioner president

lazarus. >> no commissioner swig there's a vote of 2 to 2 on that motion so that fails bargaining any other motions the permit will be absolved by default. >> do you want to carry it over for additional - >> commissioners will not make a difference only 4 votes to the motion. >> sorry. >> okay. >> so move on to the next item appeal rosemary versus the department of building inspection with the planning department powerful protesting the issuance to gregory and ann of an entertainment commission permit to construct changes to front stairs and reconfigure the

stairs to stairs of landing the hearing was held on july 2015 and on for further consideration today, the matter was continued to allow the permit holder to prepare the consolidated plans and commissioners those plans are in our packet and my understanding is the party have reached on agreement noted 100 percent sure but representative from each side to step forward and address the board on the agreement they would like you to help them do yoadopt. >> hi my name is matthew representing gregory and ann can as of this week we came into a agreement with rose on a couple

different items regarding this permit we've consolidated the plans reviewed them with a couple members of planning including scott sanchez and come to an agreement of the restrictions with rose and as far as we understand we're in agreement on those aspects the primary thing is just making sure that dpw reviews the stair. >> good evening. i'm rose the property owner on fifth after the adjacent property we did review the plans and have a plan i believe that meets the city planning requirement as well as my moaning own a concern about the as built stairwell it encroaches on public sidewalks so the reason for the asking dpw

with whoever the appropriated agency within the city planning or inspectors to look at before the plans are updated to make sure no improvement on the public sidewalks as in the stairwell and as noted the plans upon the plans, however, i do want to call out in may of 2014 we did also agree upon a set of plans the concerns were brought up in the last appeal hearing was that the execution of those plans did not conform to what was in the plans in terms of what was built was vast different than in the plan and covered in great detail at the last hearing the important point wife agreed on a plan and time to make sure we execute those plans and the only

caveat to the plan to commence the work to make sure that stairwell was positioned now is not on public space. >> thank you. >> and thank you for working things out. >> this agreement is based on the plans submitted to us? >> yeah. >> i want to ask the first speaker provide us with a speaker card so we have your name shall we hear in the department mr. sanchez anything on this. >> scott sanchez planning department the department has no problem with the revised plans revised plans are code compliant and not being built according to the plan we expect what was matched

with the plan and be informing with the code and plans and in particular the issues related to the permit of the doorway it should be built and if that is the cased we'll be okay. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi i did have a discussion with respond that he dbi current member someone representing the permit holder and the encroachment on the sidewalk came up that was something that the dpw will deal with it is into the public sidewalks the permits got reviewed by at finally by clinton a ground checker and have inspectors if it is encroached dpw will have an

issue. >> is there a notation for them to be aware. >> the plans were inside the property line not anything on there but dpw signed off required prior to dbi so dpw will need to sign off prior to the dbi board of directors on the main permit in 2013 an issued permit not signed off yet i'm not sure but the appellant could let dpw know that there would be potentially an issue okay. >> so what i'm hearing is that the current as built stairway was not to the built but has been built is currently encroaching on the public right-of-way. >> that's what their claiming.

>> so what do we do formally or who does it formally to make a request to dpw to do a survey to share assure that the current as built stairway is not encroaching on the public right-of-way. >> it could come from dbi or the appellant. >> what is your suggestion because your objection before and what kind of rank my bell a little bit was note earlier and that is the it was kind of ran glad building the plans were one thing and the structure turned out to be something sixth different so we had the option i

believe to ask the owner of the building to tear the whole thing down so i think it would be appropriate for us to assure on behalf of the appellant and the neighbor that one it gets built according to plan but two we request proper action to make sure that dpw does a survey to protect public interests. >> that's fine i believe that the plans are i believe showing all the work within the property line but we can certainly i mean dpw needs to go out and inspector that before dbi those are most permits with garages and part of progress and probably i could take it upon

myself to contact the gentleman and make sure that it was - as strong inside the property line and not on the public way there may be a way to allow that i mean a matter of encroachment i don't know that is not example they got approved. >> i would feel for comfortable the board is protecting the public interest by insuring that when something is built at and according to plans and according to what we approve and did not invade the public space and i totally agree yeah. >> i would add the following commissioners that the weather action this board takes if it is acceptable to this board then

those documents would not have to be that any type of motion to continue with the permit and to its finalization the permit documents that are included shows within the property line yeah. >> i'm only addressing the one issue not the issue of whether it was serial permitting or something else that was going to be determined by dpw they still have to sign off the other issue of whether conforms to the document now, some scrutiny brought to that i have no comment on whether the issue of renegade buildings is an issue. >> okay. thank you. >> the most.

>> first any. >> sorry. >> that's okay. no public comment and you have a last comment or a question. >> yeah. >> we did actually ask the permit holder to include the as built drawings they denied that saying that was not required for the permit to be approved by city planning so i don't know from the prrlz has the jurisdiction in terms of how this plan is executed we have reached terms and with all due respect we've tried to engage him in the process that led up to the structure of this today so i guess the real concern i have as the neighbor and the public just whatever we need to do to insure that the plans and

permits are executed in terms of guidance or oversight from this board and we do have additional photos we didn't include another piece was not to be submitted but i think the other picture in the packet clearly show a clear possibility what is already there not in conformity with the submitted plans. >> again i'll ask from the board to know how they'll provide oversight or make sure that is executed correctly. >> island i'll add the department of dbi will have the responsibility to make sure that is conforming to what is submitted in not conformed then they'll have to file a permit additional be repealed and

jurisdiction maintained by this board okay. >> question. >> so if you wish to adopt this request from the parties you'll have to grant the appeal and issue the permit with the revised plan and state a reason because the parties have reached an agreement. >> sounds good to me. >> is that your motion. >> that's my motion and to be specific this is the revised plans october 21st, 2015, on that motion by the president commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> commissioner swig thank you very much commissioners that motion carries then item 8 has been continued to november 4th so we're on to item 9

versus this zoning administrator the property on 650 protesting the issuance on september 23rd of a letter of determination the current legal use is a two residential building not established at the property we'll start with the appellants 7 minutes to present our case weather is going to speak step forward. >> good evening. >> i have 650 i've been having a meeting since 1989 been there forever as far as i, 3 rb one flat and one commercial i want to make sure this is i want to continue with the same thing we check on the paperwork was something diflt different i

want to make sure we stay commercial and community facility and continue with our meeting place. >> that's what i'm since we've been using it since 1989. >> do you have a business permit indicates that you've been urges that capability. >> i have the leases for the tenants they didn't have the business permit i didn't follow but my own permit. >> who is in control of the space under discussion are you the owner and do you control it in that - >> i'm the owner. >> you're the owner. >> yes. >> does anybody lease it for a business purchase. >> yes. >> so ask there any permit that it is leased for the and

there is a permit as a business. >> i have the lease what they rents it for . >> is anyone representing our tenants here this evening. >> i have the letter they were renting for all this time. >> okay. thank you. >> if you want to see the leases but i have. >> okay. thank you. >> you provided copies of that are you finished with our presentation ma'am. >> do you have anything else. >> mines the room in the back and the upstairs and the commercial in the front i'm confused on the what i have it in the city i want to fix it to continue to use it commercial the fronts community facility either with the backroom or without the backroom the commercial and the upstairs

house the flat. >> thank you. >> you've owned this. >> yes. >> for a long time and yes. >> did you recollect ref the two notices talking about non-conforming commercial sent to you by two different zoning administrator's. >> we never saw anything no paper nothing this came to our way to know. >> but you've eendz this property. >> we've owned this property for a long time yeah. >> 7 or 8. >> thank you thank you. we kept using it as commercial we didn't know. >> thank you and you can take those papers with you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i think the facts in this case are clear we outlined them clearly in your letter of

determination the subject property was originally a single-family dwelling above ground level commercial the space was a non-conforming use with the provisions the blood the planning code in 19 that 8 the planning department and mr. steel sent a notice to the property owner of the termination date and the status non-conforming status was termed in february of 1993 the then zoning administrator issued a letter which has the materials regarding the building permit and the letter states the non-residential space of the ground floor can't be retained it was expired and the letter states the property is for residential dwelling units in an rh2 zoning district that didn't

permit the commercial use the ground floor area can't be used for a commercial laundry and dry sclaern or other industrial uses and that was approved and issued to legalize ground floor a second dwelling unit on the property in addition to the building permit that was substantially renewed and completed a notice of special refresh my recollection was recorded on the deed avenue property by the property owner stating that the legal use of property was either a two family twenl this was recorded in the assessors officer by the property owner on the deed of their property preempting restricting and noticing the use is only a two family typically with no commercial use again recorded by the property owner

on the property so under the planning code under the building permit the notice of special restrictions a illegal a two single dwelling they're seeking to remove that whether or not it was used as a dwelling unit over the years but they're seeking to remove a dwelling unit through their actions and restore a commercial use where one is not allowed to exist so it is clear we have the documents that were submitted and i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> they're asking to remove a dwelling unit or add a experimental to two dwelling units. >> based on the arguments this is only a single-family dwelling no this of. >> no, no my question is she

brought up alternatives she could go to one with between and one commercial unit i wasn't sure whether this meeting room occupied the entire ground floor or partially. >> the property owner a can explain that but there is no local use of community room that was noted in the zoning administrator's decision in 19933 that building permit in the review we don't have evidence of that legally on the ground floor. >> mr. sanchez how do the that come about a complaint. >> the gentleman requested a letter of depreciation that was unifying provoked by your department. >> what did you ask for . >> we respond to the letter of depreciation and issued the letters with the facts and

attachment dozens of pages of them and that was appealed to this board. >> a followup question enforcement so f currently non-warranted non-used what happens if they continue to do so. >> we'll pursue enforcement double check our file not an actual complaint at a time yeah, we'll then pursue enrollment. >> what would be the enforcement. >> their had been two enforcement cases on the property relate to unpermitted fences so nothing related to subject use and the enrollment process will state the legal use it a two go family typically they need to restore that and we'll pursue the enforcement that results to penalties up to

$250 a day. >> thank you any public comment? >> you have rebuttal please step forward. >> i have one flat and the commercial downstairs and everybody in the secession inspector know me and my plays and it has been there a long time 27 years and never stopped me we want to continue to use the community facility thank you and i appreciate your understanding it has not been residential only commercial i want to continue commercial you like to have more residents i could add another one i want to keep this one as a commercial i hope your understanding i'm helping the community too. >> i have a question the zoning administrator received the special restrictions you

filed on the property do you recall those. >> notice of special restrictions maybe. >> when. >> 1993. >> which kind of a special restrictions. >> concerning the use of property. >> no, i don't know anything about that. >> well, you filed. >> what we understood the backroom and bath could be used as a unit and the commercial commercial so we have 3 that was said and he fixed it and we continue to use is that way all those years. >> a residence on the first floor. >> room and a back and that will be - >> so it is a room and bath no kingdom kitchen. >> we're going to use it as a coffee area like an office. >> ms. goldstein will share this notice you don't recall.

>> i have a question perhaps of the council our one lawyer is not here and a lease will not be described a lease you said you lease with someone. >> not necessarily a contractual document. >> so notice to a party's all right. thank you. >> the business license would help but that's not disputed that would be helpful. >> it is independent of the site. >> no, i think they only indicate a use that was in place not necessarily that it is illegal. >> right. >> the paperwork for the record

or the what he explained to us in the room in the back we could use it as as upstairs unit we kept on using it and everybody knows about it. >> thank you. >> okay is there more times left sir, you can speak. >> good evening thank you for this opportunity state your name for the record. >> we didn't they especially\change the style of the building that front so the empowering is the same way since 20 or thirty years ago at the time they pulled the permit a problem in the plumbing and probably pulled the permit to fix the plumbing in the backroom they had to fix something that was why and someone explicit inform them or not clear the signing the paper

maybe shift the way this property works if you look at the property it looks like commercial front ends we're not interested when they bought the property at the time thes they knew that was commercial that's the purpose of buying it they don't intend to open a grocery or restaurant to each year e keep it something to do with kids they're not interested in making a brick and mortar business at this point thank you, ma'am. >> mr. sanchez. >> any rebuttal. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so 1992 permit shows the entire ground floor as residential no commercial use at all the notice it it special

restrictions is very explicit to that of the ground floor the entire ground floor being residential the property owner has innovates indicated otherwise the 3-r report are generated at the time of sale that's a code enforcement they've owned the property quite a long time they've said they have a 3-r report i've not seen that there has been more half a dozen permits since the 1992 and all say 2 single-family dwelling the facts are clear in this case that is legally a two family building and based on this is no commercial use the legal commercial use was termed and subsequent to that the permit was sought to establish the between on the second floor as

allowed by the zone and they accident see and filed a notice of special restrictions the property owner name in the document and yeah that's all i can say. >> mr. sanchez ii should have disclosed i went online to do a 365 and across the street is a building that looks like this and it looks like a commercial grocery store why is that why was that grocery store do you think allowed to continue as the whole neighborhood and my understanding and my reading was rezoned to for bid that same thing. >> the planning code does allow for certain limited commercial use to be remained those are less intense retail

used ligrocery stores so it is e limited provisions of the planning code that's been operated consistently and never sought a permit to convert it to the between in this case. >> the key phrase in our response to me serve the community which seems to me a thought which is being offered by the owner of the building and what their intent to serve the community it also when i'm hearing also is that there was work done and the proper permit was initialed a contractor who is doing the work advised someone that was misinformed to sign this document here and give up all

and clear you know that you're giving up the rights and then low and behold a decade or so later the property owner and i'd like to know why spontaneously wanted to clear the or make educators on the use they files a piece of paper they're being pushed. >> what about the prior notifications and that's the hard part. >> a question for the da. >> in terms of neighborhood serving uses that a legally a between that is a neighborhood dwelling use on a daily basis basis losing dwelling units so i

think that serves a reasonable function also in terms of the property owner sought a permit in 1992 that permit had on it establishing the legal use of ground floor as a residential use the notice of special restrictions is not something counter signed and they have to go personally to the assessors office to record on the deed of property those conditions and pay a fee to do that typically so i think there is a process involved certainly the property owner can say whatever they're saying to you at the board but the fact are very clear about what has happened this is a legal unit as part of housing stock they're seeking to remove that and what their thrilling their goal to have this great neighborhoods serving function

there's no permit before you to do that they were seeking to have that dwelling unit be removed be expunged from the record and at this point what any commercial use allowed will it be considered a limited use cafe maybe a usable the building has historically had uses the appearance in that case this is not thinking common in san francisco in some cases people that take the uses and converted them to residential unit and a terrible persistence or preepsz to say someone went through the process decided they said or don't want to go through the proper process section 317 they can go ahead but not back to a commercial use this is a zoning district that doesn't have a lot

of commercial uses i appreciate your clarity and your instruction and education of for me understand totally and clearly so - if they wanted to file if they wanted to sustain that as a non-brick and mortar that is their terms retails use that is a cafe or anything but in - in fact, they wanted to establish it through the filing of that 317 a non-permanently non-retail

use a. >> but with conditional use authorization they could seek the conditional use authorization to have a legal use as part of that seat to have the dwelling unit removed. >> if we deny their appeal and they want to pursue that direction that would be the direction they will take not a closed book they still have the tubtsz to go back and be clear and specific non-retail use under the umbrella of a church

or temple of a community-based situation. >> absolutely to declare a better determination responds to a specific question asked they especially\ask how they could establish an institutional use of property they i think the letter that was submitted had been in the absorption they were a limit commercial use and could restore as a commercial use we clarified that in our letter. >> i punishment are appreciate our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boardunishment are ap our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boanishment are appre our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boaishment are apprec our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boashment are apprecir education of me and your advice

and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boahment are apprecia education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boaent are appreciate education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boant are appreciate education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boat are appreciate o education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boa are appreciate ou education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boaare appreciate our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boare appreciate our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boae appreciate our education of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boa appreciate our edn of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boaappreciate our edu of me and your advice and actually mr. sanchez. >> this boards advertised a lever of determination overturned not allowed for use right. >> yes. >> in other words, it didn't the denial excuse me. the over turning of this finding didn't grant them necessarily the commercial use but has to go through the process. >> this is not an action, an is before this time but hospitals dwelling units depending on the boards decision if it finds this is legally not two dwelling units they will need to come in for a building permit to show it is two dwelling units and you know we'll have to go through the process we will want to consultant with the city attorney's office the best way to proceed and whether do a dr because the city's records shows it as two dwelling units.

>> i understand all that i'm saying they're still additional process. >> yes. but i mean certainly i don't know what the basis of boards decision or direction. >> that's neither hooerl. >> to approve a permit that show see that is legally a use we don't have on city records? >> i don't know what the expectation of the board to make a decision to overturn the recommendation and what it would be. >> i don't have any i don't intend to go that way. >> (laughter). >> he knows if i go that way i'll have an answer for him.

>> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> and just as a reminder under the standard. >> i'm prepared to make a motion. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator neither errored or used incorrect discretion. >> that motion commissioner fong commissioner vice president honda commissioner swig thank you that motion carries 34 to zero and commissioner president lazarus there's no further business. >> in that case we're adjourned. >>

(clapping.) the airport it where i know to mind visions of traffic romance and excitement and gourmet can you limousine we're at san francisco inspirational airport to discover the award-winning concession that conspiracies us around the world. sfo serves are more 40 million travelers a year and a lot of the them are hungry there's many restaurant and nearly all are restaurant and cafe that's right even the airport is a diane designation. so tell me a little bit the food program at sfo and what makes this so special >> well, we have a we have food

and beverage program at sfo we trivia important the sustainable organic produce and our objective to be a nonterminal and bring in the best food of san francisco for our passengers. >> i like this it's is (inaudible) i thank my parents for bringing me here. >> this the definitely better than the la airport one thousand times better than. >> i have a double knees burger with bacon. >> i realize i'm on a diet but i'm hoping this will be good. >> it total is san francisco experience because there's so many people and nationalities in this town to come to the airport

especially everyone what have what they wanted. >> are repioneering or is this a model. >> we're definitely pioneers and in airport commemoration at least nationally if not intvrl we have many folks asking our our process and how we select our great operators. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the food option in san francisco airport are phenomenal that's if it a lot of the airports >> yeah. >> you don't have the choice. >> some airports are all about

food this is not many and this particular airport are amazing especially at the tirnl indicating and corey is my favorite i come one or two hours before my flight this is the life. >> we definitely try to use as many local grirnts as we can we use the goat cheese and we also use local vendors we use greenly produce they summarize the local soured products and the last one had 97 percent open that. >> wow. >> have you taken up anything unique or odd here. >> i've picked up a few things

in napa valley i love checking chocolates there's a lot of types of chocolate and caramel corn. >> now this is a given right there. >> i'm curious about the customer externals and how people are richmond to this collection of cities you've put together not only of san francisco food in san francisco but food across the bay area. >> this type of market with the local savors the high-end products is great. >> i know people can't believe they're in an airport i really joy people picking up things for their friends and family and wait i don't have to be shopping now we want people take the opportunity at our location.

>> how long has this been operating in san francisco and the late 18 hours it is one of the best places to get it coffee. >> we have intrrnl consumers that know of this original outlet here and come here for the coffee. >> so let's talk sandwiches. >> uh-huh. >> can you tell me how you came about naming our sandwiches from the katrero hills or 27 years i thought okay neighborhood and how do you keep it fresh you can

answer that mia anyway you want. >> our broadened is we're going not irving preserves or packaged goods we take the time to incubate our jogger art if scratch people appreciate our work here. >> so you feel like out of captured the airport atmosphere. >> this is its own the city the airline crews and the bag handlers and the frequent travels travelers and we've established relationships it feels good. >> when i get lunch or come to eat the food i feel like i'm not city.

i was kind of under the assumption you want to be done with our gifts you are down one time not true >> we have a lot of regulars we didn't think we'd find that here at the airport. >> people come in at least one a week for that the food and service and the atmosphere. >> the food is great in san francisco it's a coffee and i took an e calorie home every couple of weeks. >> i'm impressed i might come here on my own without a trip, you know, we have kids we could get a babysitter and have diner at the airport. >> this is a little bit of things for everybody there's plenty of restaurant to grab

something and go otherwise in you want to sit you can enjoy the experience of local food. >> tell me about the future food. >> we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what our passengers want. >> i look forward to see what your cooking up (laughter) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> today we've shown you the only restaurant in san francisco from the comfortableing old stand but you don't have to be hungry sfo has changed what it is like to eat another an

airport check out our oblige at tumbler dating.com all right. 2, 1 you innovation on or was on over 200 years they went through extensive innovations to the existing green new metal gates were installed our the perimeter 9 project is funded inform there are no 9 community opportunity and our capital improvement plan to the 2008 clean and safe neighborhood it allows the residents and park advocates

like san franciscans to make the matching of the few minutes through the philanthropic dungeons and finished and finally able to pull on play on the number one green a celebration on october 7, 1901, a skoovlt for the st. anthony's formed a club and john then the superintendent the golden gate park laid out the bowling green are here sharing meditates a permanent green now and then was opened in 1902 during the course the 1906 san francisco earthquake that citywide much the city the greens were left that with an ellen surface and not readers necessarily 1911 it had the blowing e bowling that was formed in 1912 the parks

commission paid laying down down green number 2 the san francisco lawn club was the first opened in the united states and the oldest on the west their registered as san francisco lark one 101 and ti it is not all fierce competition food and good ole friend of mine drive it members les lecturely challenge the stories some may be true some not memories of past winners is reversed presbyterian on the wall of champions. >> make sure you see the one in to the corner that's me and. >> no? not bingo or scrabble but the pare of today's competition two doreen and christen and

beginninger against robert and others easing our opponents for the stair down is a pregame strategy even in lawn bowling. >> play ball. >> yes. >> almost. >> (clapping). >> the size of tennis ball the object of the game our control to so when the players on both sides are bold at any rate the complete ends you do do scoring it is you'll get within point

lead for this bonus first of all, a jack can be moved and a or picked up to some other point or move the jack with i have a goal behind the just a second a lot of elements to the game. >> we're about a yard long. >> aim a were not player i'll play any weighed see on the inside in the goal is a minimum the latter side will make that arc in i'm right-hand side i play my for hand and to my left if i wanted to acre my respect i extend so it is arced to the right have to be able to pray both hands. >> (clapping.) who one. >> nice try and hi, i'm been

play lawn bowling affair 10 years after he retired i needed something to do so i picked up this paper and in this paper i see in there play lawn bowling in san francisco golden gate park ever since then i've been trying to bowl i enjoy bowling a very good support and good experience most of you have of of all love the people's and have a lot of have a lot of few minutes in mr. mayor the san francisco play lawn bowling is in golden gate park we're sharing meadow for more information about the club including free lessons log

>> good afternoon and welcome to the monday, october 26, 2015, regularly he meeting of the ethics commission commissioner vice president andrews commissioner hayon commissioner hur commissioner keane and all 5 commissioners are here and accounted for thank you for the opportunity to item number 2 public comment on matters powering or not poirlg on the agendas any public comments at this time? >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm dr. derrick occurring a whistle blower does it not strike you as odd in the 20-year activity history of the ethics commission not a single whistle blower not one the civil grand

jury ones thinks this issue should be examined the acting director's report has a staff plan that lists 10 topics for our consideration not one of them addresses our retaliation investigations and their failure to sustain any claims four months over the civil grand jury report without u appointed the problems that can be addressed there are no visible plans to address it. >> your draft annual report does not specify how many retaliation constraints were substantiated have to a to read between the lines and find that none were sustained. >> the annual report should

periodic how many retaliation a category for that and the prominence displace of zeros year after year might lead someone to the ethics commission to realize that something is not rights thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> turning to item 3 discussion and possible action regarding exclaims received or initiated by the ethics commission concerning san francisco campaign and governmental section i think compatible activities with a possible closed session. >> ask for any public comment pertaining to agenda item 3?

>> good afternoon, commissioners my name is la net i need to shouldn't address you? >> can i address you on this item. >> i don't believe this item represents to you ms. sweet relates to our matter to a further item. >> i'm sorry my item said item 3. >> i think item 9. >> forgive me, i'm looking at something wrong. >> but we will get to yours

square feet any other public comment. >> david pilpal want to inquiry why this was separately calendar from item 9 were there other matters in closed session. >> requested it it be put non-on the calendar for personal readings otherwise would have been. >> thank you very much. >> any do i hear any motion or discussion to hear this item 3 in closed session? >> i move we hear this matter in closed session. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> cards unanimously we will cbo into closed session. 3. >> (laughter).

we county disclosure all right. back in public session >> ready? >> we're back if public session and commission is voted that it will not disclose the details that were discussed with in connection with item 3 but the commission has no probable cause. >> turn to item 4

discussion and possible action regarding commission activities relate to. >> excuse me. you need to take a motion not to disclose. >> all right. we took the motion in. >> he's right you can do that in open session. >> want to make the motion. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> pack public discussion before we vote on that hearing none the motion is carried unanimously moving to item 4 delusion and polk action regarding the commission activities towards side expenditure lobbyist measure prop c essentially there is the number of appearances required of either the deputy director or

myself as pretty well well dwindled to store with the election only a little over a week away and so i really have nothing to report other than to say a number of sessions in the earlier part of october. >> any public discussion on that turning to item 5 discussion and possible action on an annual report for fiscal year 2014-2015 and the interim decoration has a draft report any members of the commission have any discussions or comments concerning the draft report?

>> yes. >> commissioner vice president andrews thank you, thank you very much for the work i appreciate it i have a couple of comments maybe a decision or a stylistic something well, one piece is stylistic under the budget on page 11 we list out fiscal year from 1994 to 2014-2015 and that's our budget and i'm wondering if it serves us better to have what we approved compared to what we spent generally in an annual report you'll put out the expenditures sometimes, you'll match it against budget tussles against budget is this what we spent or approved for . >> this was the actual budget

so the actuals are a little bit different but pretty much in line the numbers are a little bit off about 10 thousand bucks so we could put at least for this year do the comparison budget. >> yeah. it is great to have a budget and see well, you did and the other thing a choice generally so to speak the governing documents particularly an annual report is a reflection in the past years and then you usually have another foundational organizational document that is forwarded to a stwraej plan have we always put in the forward thinking thing to be careful i understand we may be mandated or mandated ourselves to taking care of some

of those things but generally mixing the past with the future and usually save those for other document that possible provides for context why you're doing what you're doing. >> in the past the future initiate has been included i tried to be careful given the sort of where we are as a commission so i said instead of will focus that happened in the past we put may focus and identifies some of the things on the work plan you guys opted in the spring but the ongoing things that are continuing to make sure but i would think that you know within the next few months sort of the ed position is settled a similar work plan type things to establish that what happens for the next year's. >> i'm fine i generally it a

is decision an organizational decision. >> any thing. >> a suggestion mr. chair in regards to page 5 we have the reference in the second paragraph to you're putting prop c on the ballot i think that you're putting something on ballot is important to put in a couple of more things i'll suggest a couple of more things this is where that says at the june 2015 meeting the commission voted to place 24 from the 2015 ballot i'd like it so is that at the june 29, 2015, meeting after a hearing and after public

interesting persons the dimension unanimously voted to place it on the ballot is seems like an afterthought to put something on the ballot i'd like to show the fair amount of consideration as interest was it was a lot of discussion interested persons hearing and then the vote was unanimous. >> sure. >> i have second commissioner keanes comment about the last part of it but troubled by the way the freaking in the first part sounds like it was ad hoc idea of commissioner keane coming out of the blue and i think we ought to put a little bit history in it we were

specifically asked by the commission to look at i think we start with the requirement of former prop j which has been gutted and your when you came back with your report it was decided that well, we'll focus just on the expenditure lobbyist provisions putting off the other ones for future date so that i think it should show the number of mergers this subject matter that was prop c came in play i think you know that the principle objection that that raised against prop c by it's opponent was this was something done in the middle of the night no public input and

that it was nobody was given a chance to discuss it which is just contrary to the facts you don't want to put into anything into the report that has credence to that concept so i strongly suggest we that paragraph be expanded and redrafted along the lines we've discussed i have a question related to that where there is a discussion about the meeting at which mr. steiner and mr. cook testified i don't think that was limited to specific item that received to

there i know this prop c what became prop c was part of discussion at this time and that's what we referred to as the hearings was the fact that because i think it was at the time commissioner keane made his report that set up the public meeting with professor cook and mr. stern. >> that's correct mr. chair we discussed the matter itself going forward with the expenditure lobby requirement over the course of two hearings two of these hearings and in between a number of interested persons hearings and quite a bit of baej on

behalf of members of the public of the organizations like finances of ethics and the civil grand jury i'll will concur with the chair it is where the way it is proposed it is almost put down like a throw away line finally an ad hoc committee and commissioner stephenson development the proposal and all of a sudden a light bulb went off over high head we don't get another two sentences about why c is on the ballot let's put in some full history, sir. >> fine with me i would say. >> when does this have to be filed. >> annually we can bring it back next week month are designate to the chair and

approve the final language. >> i think that is a good suggestion. >> any other comments on the ethics report the other comment i have is on the future initiatives as you recall one of the future initiatives that was discussed and the whistle blower possible changes to the language and, in fact, i know commissioner hur at sometime in the future will divide this report concerning that. >> that's right mr. mini or the and i are working on it. >> that so be in there and

there should be the language or the charge that was given to commissioner keane concerning looking at prop j and the related issues that put off and just deal with the expenditure lobbyists. >> that's ongoing that will surface next year mr. chair. >> i will suggest to include those in there. >> do i hear a motion to approve the draft other than the sentences made subject to my approval, however, you want to word it. >> i'll move about that we adopt the changes subject to the final approval by the chair. >> second.

>> public discussion? >> good evening, commissioners charley here representing f o e we have several comments and some of it my require background i'll quickly go through them get our pencil and paper handy you'll do start sounding like a teacher when our doing you're this type of a document it's an opportunity for you to pitch your ideas and what it is you're doing to the public so the public gets a sense of who you are and what you're doing and what you know they're getting for their money to be candid it is a research document it is also good for auditing in the past there was a guy that went from department to department and he was originally

what the city attorney's office and went into business writing annual reports those are standard item palates with a basically good public relations tenure an approach i think he was, in fact, more of a pr consultant at this point i'm not suggesting you put that hat on your supported supposed to be objective no mention in our understand you mentioned thirty thousand intact and the signs you actually didn't include the hundred and 91 k decision that is are increasing that number whether it is realized that ball is not out of your hands and city hall for collection also there were, in fact, 10

hearings or hearing like processes regarding prop c so you did a very robust outreach on prop c you held numerous interested persons meeting you held public sessions during our mooefrgz on monday night nights and so you were quite aggressive in outreaching to the public and it is important for the public to understand that thing is not going to the ballot explicit occur out of the blue but methodology behind it i support both the chairman and the schains comments on that also in general you've done a lot of robust looking at outreach and you should note to the public those efforts and those improvements because that is what you're here for to outreach

to the public ultimately and to talk to your bosss the citizens of the city you also basically taken up the question of prop j and you planned to study is that should be noted in the report. >> timer is on. >> i'll try to pass this on they don't know it as well i do but mr. pilpal has some comments in the meantime, i'll brief someone there is 4 more points thanks. >> thanks. >> i guess i'm next david pilpal speaking as an avoid a number of comments the logo is off centered it is driving me nuts and page one puts jesz i didn't see name under chair renee that is appropriate rather

than in the beginning rather than the end and put the date on the cover and be sure not to send to the mayor and board but two copies to the library on a couple of points i agree with our discussion about prop c i would actually audio additional this will there is a reference to the at the end of the report to prop c it didn't tie is it back there was discussion later on in the report about the whistle blower report from the civil grand jury but nothing i saw about last year's civil grand jury report and the additional follow-up that was sent to i think tying this back to the other civil grand jury wants and the commission and staff made as a result is good would be good

let's see - i was interested in this other section on the whistle blower ordinance a disclosure there was a whistle blower investigation conducted i didn't know that beforehand and not sure what the results were so how much more you can say about that but where there's an opportunity to make a disclosure after the fact of the result of the investigation without companionship the sources would be good to do so. >> the chart about the budget fiscal year 08, 09 didn't have 09. >> and the discussion about the staff didn't completely track to the organization chart so where are the titles whatever the title of the individual that

should be properly rescued in both cases instead of discretions there with regards to each program that is some quantity active discussion of the number of accounted and the amount of fees and understand but not consistent on page 5 under the permit consultant section out of 90 ports 22 after the deadline explicit indicate how much was assessed in late fees or collected for each the programs i would include how many people recorded and how much was received and how much etc., ect there was a cumulative executive report in terms of quantity and has an equal active analysis but want the consequent active on the investigations and

enforcement i would add a chart similar to the chart in the monthly a.d. report for june 30th, 2014, what was then pending what were all the transactions during the reporting period of 2014-2015 how many complaints were received or initiated in each category and how many resolved and remaining as of june 2015 a cumulative total and all the activity didn't disclosure the specifics but the information about the investigations and enforcement i think there was one other typo i'll look for it awhile you're hearing from the next speaker thank you. >> thanks. >> eileen form commission thank you i have a number of comments i

appreciate that this is a first draft and i guess my first suggestion would be that this come back to the commission at the next meeting so that similar work could be done on the report and take public comment before you finalize that and in the interest of time i'll start at the back with future initiatives and as some of the previous comments have been stated i'm looking for more robust a more robust report and more specifics both in what we've done because and i think there is more that you have done not shouldn't say we but more that could be recorded on i keep looking for specifics and don't see the specifics your conversation about prop c is

indicative of that but in terms of future initiatives i look at this list at the commission has a commitment to being more robust and a commitment to taco taking on more items yet i don't see those here for example, you stayed hire a permanent deputy director that's true what is also true the signal potentially of a large cultural shift in the organization more than hiring but looking at the commission as a whole it is making sure that staff morale is paying attention and what pro-active initiatives to take under the able to take under a new director i wonder specific for example, about the process of digging what gowns to future initiatives for example, at the last commission meeting complaints

and whether or not it would be important to the commission to look at the process of hearing complaint for example, complaints are filed have a bearing on the upcoming election is there a way to take those complaint maybe out of order because if there are not decides on until after the campaign season is over almost who is the point so various commissioners concurred with my suggestion that that process be looked at so that ought to be kept track of somewhere and put on this list of potential future initiative there are a number of on the public has said that outreach in general from the commission is insufficient what to we want to do to create a more robust outreach program and robust in

looking at policy initiatives and as opposed to to waiting for legislation to come to the commission i have others but i'll stop there. >> thank you. >> good evening with the friends of ethics coming this late in the process i'll repeat a couple of things but say them quickly one is what you've said about the discussion of measure c how measure c go the to the ballot i phrase it as four listens but 8 lines talking about the interns we what the interns have done i think that as you look at it, it is not just making sure that it includes everything you've talked about that was a robust public discussion you all were involved and you passed it unanimously but also how it is

seen in relation to the other activities that was one of the biggest steps in the past year and seeing this was outstanding i was going to talk about the fines seem low in terms of $38,000 and the one i will talk about and mr. pilpal talked about it i tend to be a data person so i want to see the data and right now it is all in narrative you, you might think about the charts steady and the annual report you'll see it the 3 to 5 year tread line if you look at all the programs not just some but all the requirement how their implemented and what fines or enforcement actions if you watch a trendline for three or four years it will tell you a whole

looting lot of how the commission is, acting and the programs successful or enforceable and where you have problems there should be looked at we know that one of the things for example, to use an example 10 years the budget when you look at the budget the budget is fairly flat i say what time i've heard so much over the past years i've dealt with the ethics commission that they always can't get things done because not enough staff why are we asking not for enough money for staff those kind of things out of the trend analysis the thing you'll add in terms of future activities is i did think there was some action on our part or interest on your part in hiring a commission secretary and so maybe you want

to think about 3 putting that out as as action and i'll finish at one point we have multi lingual forms and pamphlets you talked about and it is in english we need multiple language issues thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners just a couple of other points to add to what has already been said one of the things that is recognizable to friends of ethic a robust effort to do a little bit more outreach but certainly could be more to units and develop trust with unions one of

the things that has not been mentioned in the annual report the conversion to the electronics in the way of 7 form seven hundred important inform show the things that are accomplished in a short period of time that is especially important to building the trust not only with the units but the community of san francisco and to help change the image of the ethics commission is very important so thank you. >> is there any additional public comment there's a motion i'll call the >> i. >> opposed? that motion carries unanimously. >> turning to item number 6

session of acting executive director report. >> sir. >> just as submitted nothing we're in the middle of campaign time so a lot going on i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> commission have any questions or comments? >> mr. mini or the on point number ten sounds like discussion at the citywide about moving a lot of city departments on two years can you talk about in the way of background some of the meetings you've sat in ultimately. >> i can summarize what

benefits but. >> i haven't sat in many mergers the day before this report we got a call from the mayor's office that telling us told you we're one of 37 departments they've chosen to or the next step in getting all the city departments on the two year plan we had a brief discussion that was the first time but well, i know about the general motion but the first time one of the designated departments so the mayor's office we have a pending meeting to talk with the budget analyst but especially the most interesting the way the second year budget might be sort of changed a little bit as ongoing needs change but essentially putting in last year a proposal for two years and

their saying it is an essential fix. >> in many ways i understand that can hamstring you particularly when our advocating for more resources we've heard from the public it is an ongoing issue talking about resources that is a priority for me, the commission secretary i'm pay attention to and specifically as we move forward with the permanent executive director i'll want to prioritize how we identify how we advocate for the true needs of the commission and obviously there would be a window of opportunities somewhere in the period we can do advocacy but certainly having to put if a two year budget certainly it diminishes our opportunities to year by year

but it will have to be quiet strategy moving forward. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> turning to item 7 items for future meetings. >> commissioners oh, public comment on the director's report i'm sorry. >> dipdz actually both my comments are recommend to budget on item 10 i'll hope once you select a new director reis public discussions about direction initiatives where we're going with that and in particular to the december to february not just a budget proposal for the january meeting with adoption without discussion this is the year we need two commission mergers to talk about

the ideas and in terms of the budget requests i hope you'll plan so all of us can be involved that was item 10 on item 9 i'm hoping as part of budget work for next year the staff has an opportunity to reorganize the sub object codes i think that commissioner keane remembers the object in the budget system because those really the break out for refers go to older programs not with the public consultant and the other newer items it is helpful for you perhaps for the public to see for each program what the fees and fines are and then you know if there's a small amount for other but a large section for other ethics fines and allocated so for each program

again even have or create budget revenue sub objects that would be helpful for reporting issues no issue two small thank you very much>> i. less than hanson on page go i guess it is number 3 campaign disclosure program i'm wondering if it is possible under status to have any more information we have a non, one of the filers is at small claims court no information on the others this is the but other previously have raised the one

hundred $99,000 forfeiture of supervisor farrell that will be helpful for o for the public to understand where it is along with the other ones and if there is someway to report on where they are in process i think that would be useful to the public on the next page 9 the report we say that we have received 56 percent of anticipated revenues and yet we're in october so i'm wondering if there is a plan to receive the remaining revenues because of how the budget works they'll comment at the end of the year with the revenue or do we interrupt that interpret that we're in trouble with the 56 percent of anticipated revenues and it will be useful to compare

that to expenditures so we understand an issue with being short on revenues next page number 11 under outreach and education i spoke earlier to the need for more robust outreach this second paragraph says that an e-mail invitation was sent to 50 union representatives to sign up for be in 0 the commissions i p list i understood that was a significant effort to reach out to nonprofit as well as unions as you may know that's the issue around practicing they're not outreached to and i disagree with some of my colleagues in terms of having robust outreach around prop c many, many nonprofits did not know this process was with going on and substantial they're running a fairly robust program against

prop c i'm curious if we did the outreach to nonprofit or unions i think this is a great idea i know we're hold on putting dates until write a have an executive director once we moved on that that will filed in and every month a report on how we're reporting on the process on that calendar thank you. >> i think just to respond to the outreach my understanding is that acting director did send you p notices or innovations to a number of organizations not only to the unions; is that correct. >> we're saying that it outs on a month basis we started with political groups which was we

sent out notices to about 60 that includes a few nonprofits the next source of information we have is the unions and so, now we should have, in fact, the list is probably on my desk but a list of nonprofits that will happen we had to take it in chunks 50 to 60 groups that we're sending it out to at one time. >> okay. thank you. >> let's your honor, i don't think there is any public comment. >> oh, is there more. >> charley again let's see i'm sure in the delinquent accounts that person maybe has to writ up a report maybe quarterly or something to his supervisors to keep the

supervisors abreast and staff you might tap into that those documents may not be public but something you might be able to have personally i'm sure they'll trust you on outreach similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. planning department maintenance a appliance a very large database on community organization because their outreach under ceqa particularly has to be extremely robust so you might be able to tap into their preexist list or their database and do a solicitation for people people that want to be kept abreast in the letter to indicate to those people you have power to pout initiatives on the palate this is the opportunity for those orchestras to come and keep themselves

advise of what you're doing since you have those unusual powers that most people don't think of. >> any other any public comment? >> turning next to item 7 items for future meetings commissioners suggestions or comments. >> i do want to make sure we have a continued discussion i don't know if? the right time but at least to think about a commission secretary and a job description or start doing drafts of some of the work that will fall under that position and i just would rather be prepared if there, there was a funding opportunity we'll submit it and be well prepared in understanding what the roles of

responsibility are and even doing a little bit of this may happen over time found out the responsibilities of other commission secretaries i'm sure the police commission secretary is busy but just to get an understanding of the position would do and the roll tail play. >> i'd like to second i know that is not a motion but i agree the idea of us having secretary is important we should have secretary having the reference of the police commission jet i was on the police commission we relied very much on the commission secretary and would recycle to in the things that the police commission secretary did they will particularly the activities we do in terms of investigations

of individuals what the status of those investigations are where they are now what complaints have been come in and how the staff has been responding to those complaints we should have secretary it is a big vacuum i think there should be someone who assists us not part of the staff itself and not certainly like for years relying upon the past executive director to fill that role and others roles was a big mistake and wound up losing a lot of the conference of the public and this commission we could get a lot of that back if we had secretary. >> a couple one thing i'll add

thinking about when we should have a couple of mergers to talk about the budgets it was raised in the public i know altercation we did it in one meeting but that modesty make sense to have two do on analysis and have it come back to us. >> did you want to talk about the meeting schedule you mentioned that i'm not sure. >> well, you mean the november? >> well, i was going to discuss the meeting but that relates to item number ten. >> yeah. actually, if i could it maybe helpful to talk about the november regular meeting and when you want to meet at this time. >> the question for the commission is a regular meeting

is scheduled for november 23rd i believe it is which is the week monday of the week of thanksgiving and i'd ask the city attorney chin to pull the board to see whether or not you'd be available if you wanted to reschedule that meeting for november 20th. >> which a friday. >> right specifically the afternoon a friday the 20th we'll have a potential meeting between one and 5 on that day. >> right. >> a couple of commissioners have respond and a couple haven't so just precede with the regular meeting. >> it wasn't clear i'm available on the 20th if it is a regular meeting he prefer the evening but available either

date. >> i prefer the regular meeting as calendar. >> pardon me. >> i prefer the regular meeting. >> on the 21st. >> either date the 20 or the 23 i thought the 20th was the a choice for the other meeting. >> that was a date. >> i guess i didn't understand you were asking to make that an alternative egg meeting but the 20th or the 23 is fine. >> if i heard the commissions we have that meager on the 23 despite of the fact it is a thanksgiving week. >> yes. for me. >> all right. thank you for the clarification >> we'll go now keep that possible november 20th date if it is necessary after our november 13th meeting. >> hang onto that date as well

okay. thank you. >> so i wanted to say i chair i have a red eye on the 23 so i object to be part of meeting but interested in making that red eye as well. >> when you say red and how red is that eye. >> 11. >> you'll make that. >> i'm a 10:30 to 9 will i make that. >> (laughter) item 7 i mean 8. >>. >> future items i'm sorry. >> david pilpal as individual two things i appreciate the discussions about the november meeting you might want to have a similar meeting about the december to hold that at the regiment of december and that impacts the two dissuasions possible about the budget if you don't have a regular meeting

you'll figure it out in general on the items for future meetings the minute capture the discussion but i've not found a place those items get put whether in the work plan or the reporting or just on a list of things that have been requested that are calendar or may happen in the next 6 months over and over in the future if you can figure out a way to capture those things last month you captured the enforcement and now the secretary and other things a place to capture those for the staff and public that will be nice thank you. >> ill lien hanson i'll suggest for future 3450egz one as we've talked about the discussion of outreach, two discussion about the complaint process and for me

what is involved in the complaint process i think there is review a number of things but the information that is reported out once the report is resolved and recorded to the public and two whether the commission is proactively taking a stance to be pro-active about complaints so instead of waiting for complaints to arrive they commission is there something that appears in public that the commission or the member or two of the commission feels is important to review that is something that the commission prioritize so i'm not sure i made myself clear but rather than being enlightenment driven the commission is looking at what is happening politically in the city and there's something that the commission feels is

important to investigate you don't wait for a complaint you take that on yourselves which we know the commission can do but doesn't generally happen 3 the unanimous report again, i'd like to ask that will calendared next meeting for more public comment before it is finalize and four typically in past years i don't know the last time it happened an annual retreat at the beginning of the year to determine the priorities of the commission that is appoint and necessary with a new executive director the time for the commission to meet with the executive director to determine the provided and get to know each other and a public meeting a half day or full day to get some of the leaguer discussions at least a beginning of what you

could take on in our calendar in the year how many large policy items can you handle how many smaller items to map out the year together thank you. >> back to e liens point she made a good one it is rather amazing to see major things come up in the press and then he called the executive director and say the commission investigating that they said no complaint because the public finds is confusing we the major nonprofit investigative report in the oppress and not see their local government taking some kind of an action or

particularly interested now in the past we were under resources i'm not sure we have a lot of resourcing now to do robust pro-active investigation but this is something for the budget and that's some something for the new ed and this question is a good one for the ed as well as here to for you don't respond i've been told many times we don't initiate you have to summit and complaint i can't tell you how many i have over 20 years. >> eileen i apologize. i left out one of the items that are important to me the complaint review eir the investigations on enforcement that is the process and the procedures and the timing so back to the issue of if there are complaints filed

may have a bearing on the rums of an election will or there is some procedure and policy to take those ahead of others complaints that are filed first thank you. >> turning to the minutes of the september 28, 2015, meeting. >> commissioners have any additions or corrects corrections i have one i may have said that i don't recall and you turn under item 6 discussion and possible action regarding the commissions search. a new executive director in the

third paragraph has me stating mr. president, will be provided with 13 questions for the if i said that that is a miss statement they were provided with 4 questions and 13 questions that were given to commissioner vice president andrews and myself to use as our basis for questioning the candidates so this should reflect that is what i should have said if i didn't other than that i'm happy with the minutes >> toddo i hear a motion. >> second. >> and public comment? >> david pilpal several items on item 2 towards

the bottom i believe d event has two ns only page 3 the discussion about the ed search that is the committee the commission a committee of the commission i don't think that is a subcommittee but a committee i suggest those references are the research committee on page four my public comment on item 8 i think it needs an a there dipped stated she was a great employee she'll be missed other than it makes me sound eastern europe pan on page 5 in the closed session and this is a comment i made relative to the previous minutes the reference that ed left the hearing room at 748 didn't make clear what items

he didn't participate in for items 1, 2, 3 not 4 and 5 by in the previous paragraph all commissioners, etc. remained in the hearing he building that should say commissioners commissioner renne commissioner hur and commissioner hayon since the other two commissioners were a little bit from the meeting it needs to reflect two were present in closed session for each item. >> i suggest we make as changes to the minutes. >> so moved. >> second. >> call the question on the amended minutes as amended. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> of approval. > opposed? their unanimously approved turn to item 9 which is

discussion and possible action regarding the complaints initiated by the ethics commission refers to have complaints and the questions first is whether or not we should discuss those in closed session. >> excuse me. schooerp in terms of the public comment before closed session i'll make one suggestion to take public comment on items 9 and 10 together so if people want to make public comment on item 10 they can noted have to stick around. >> i'll deal with 9 and then 10. >> i apologize. >> i thought i'd take one one at the time but tale with both 9 and 10 assuming the commission

votes to take both in closed session. >> thank you very much. >> dough hear a motion. >> and move we go into closed session one at that time for item 9 a second. >> any discussion are public comment? >> david pilpal something i'm confused we saw ms. square feet and commissioner renne you made a comment about item will 9 i belive at the last commission meeting there was to be a hearing on the merits regarding ms. sweet at the was continued by the request of the respondent mom and dad's that hearing on the merits was still before the commission am i confused has b

there been subsequent events you can't zero. >> you may be right because your refreshing my recollection that it is not on the agenda. >> thank you. >> that's correct commissioner renne experienced the investigation so this is not one of the items 9 on the merits we'll hear at the next meeting or at some point in the future and i was mistaken it was. >> it's okay. so a question is ms. sweet clear of that about this she was here earlier. >> yeah. i don't think i'm at liberty to talk about why she tenant but she's clear about the

action. >> okay. i don't think i have anything else and not know what those are about you'll take up item 10 before closed session. >> correct. >> thank you. >> i'll turn to item well, i'll call this. >> sorry a quick comment on 9 two questions he guess one is if you could do our best to let us know we'll be waiting to come back how long to wait that will be helpful and two i believe there is a public interest in knowing the decision you make so i'll just ask you to report out as much as you feel comfortable at the last commission meeting those of us who were here were told you county report on some items but that there would be a report on the website the next

day or shortly it was confuse to me why you county report to the mbes members of the public that are here but report publicly on the website so if you can clarify that i'll appreciate it. >> so i building what we intend to do subject to how did commissioners feel to the extent that we for example, didn't disclosure the discussions in item 3 i think it was 3, yes, but he did give the ultimate conclusion of the discussions that was the disposition to the extent with those four items we will do so. >> i appreciate that i guess

under those anything you intend to disclosure pub it is at some future point let me clarify let's say for this on the website i made a decision tonight but you're not saying there's mount difference if there is something to disclose you'll disclosure is tonight. >> this question when we anticipate to come back i suppose my guess would be what 815 what time is our fight and it's 10:30 so 815 sounds great it won't be before 815 by close to that. >> okay. thank you. >> no further comment i'm call

the question. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> we go into closed session. >> you mean approved we'll go into closed session item 10 a discussion and possible action regarding the commissions appointment of a new executive director do i hear a motion whether that should go into closed session. >> so moved. >> second. >> public discussion. >> dipped it if you explain to the public what your attention with item 10 my understanding i had a first round of interviews at the committee with 5 applicants i don't know if

you're discussing those or having further interviews or you talked about having a subsequent meeting on september 20th i'm trying to understand so i can inform others at this time. >> is intention to simply provide the commissioners with the resumes and background of the individuals who we are invite to meet with the full commission on november 13th. >> 13 okay. >> and that we are keeping open november 20th if for some reason the commissioners feel they want some further meetings concerning the hiring of on executive director part of the question is that of

we arrive at the decision on the 13 there has to be some communication it will be the candidates and h.r. to work out the details before we can announce we've hired a new executive director but the we contemplate arriving at a decision hopefully on the 13th. >> okay. >> that may not be a public disclosure prior to november 20th or 23. >> if i suggest if you've made a choice that you've made a choice not who the individual is until the final acts and announce that on the website or whatever so the fact of a selection would be good news and welcome to the all of us you

okay. >> so i hope you'll share the information with the other commissioners and city in the next three weeks with a new director that would be excellent. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment i'll call the question emphasize of going into closed session with the item 10 which is includeed in my estimate of 815 or 8:30 going back into closed >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? yeah. >> so shall i pound. >> not yet no. >> all right. the ethics

commission is reneiman no open session and commissioner hur was exposed we have four and do i hear turning to item number 9 do i hear a motion? >> as to whether or not to disclose the discussion and the i don't understand disclosing the results of the four matters discussed under item number 9 a i move we not disclose 0 those matters mr. chair. >> all right. any public decision no public here i will call for vote all in favor, say i. > opposed?

unanimously carried and for the record we will disclose that under item one the commission voted to dismiss under item 2 commission voted to dismiss, at under item 3 which is make sure i end up - that at regular meeting of the october 26, 2015, ethics commission approved the

settlement agreement regarding the ethics complaint and the settlement agreement is a public document and will be posted to the commissions website at the regular meeting on october 26, 2015, the ethics commission go approved the ethics case and this settlement agreement is a public document will be posted to the commissions website. >> turning to item 10 do i hear a motion as to whether or not we should disclose what was discussed in connection with item 10. >> move to nondisclosure. >> any public discussion nun

being present i'll >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? motion is approved unanimously i will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> the meeting is adjourned >> good morning, i will call to order this monthly meeting of the san francisco county transportation authority.

i'm scott weiner the chair of the authority. clerk please call the roll. >> avalos, commissioner breed, commissioner campos, commissioner christensen, commissioner cohen, commissioner farrell. commissioner kim, kim absent, commissioner mar, mar absent, tang present, weiner present, commissioner yee. we have a quorum. >> thank you very much. i want to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting today's hearing. now move to item two. >> item two, chairs report. >> i will share a few updates related to the city transit planning work and funding prospects. earlier in month, san francisco hosted annual meetings of the

american public transit association, also called apta. which is indeed true here in san francisco. our director, joined us, mta directors and general managers from around the region to highlight the importance of local leadership. the conference topics reininged from how to build transit around the communities and invest in infrastructure, to managing and technology and ways to increase safety. the conference celebrated the 25th anniversary of the americans with disability act and look ahead to providing broad access to transit. i was pleased to hear of the remarks of our secretary of state -- secretary of transportation anthony foxx who lent his support in san francisco to take sentence every planning -- extensive planning.

i want to thank -- speaking of subway master plan, i wanted to thank my colleagues on the land use transportation committee. for yesterday moving forward subway master plan legislation to the full board of supervisors. i want to thank staff for participating in yesterday's hearing and for their current and future work in moving this planning process forward. it's good to see that we've already under taken tran set planning efforts. a few have been completed. that we'll able to build upon those efforts to really move forward with a strong subway master planning process. we are at our highest population ever in san francisco. our transit systems robusterring. we neeare bursting. of course, funding is required

for all of this. as much as we want the state and the federal government to get it together and increase their investment in transit, we also have to make sure that we're supporting our transportation efforts locally and the voters of san francisco made clear over and over again, they understand the need for taxation and bonds for transportation infrastructure projects and over and over again, voted in favor of these funding measures. the voters of san francisco really get it when it comes to transit funding. i'm pleased we'll be hearing during this meeting from staff about the results of a poll that i requested of san francisco voters to gauge the support of voters for funding street and transit via a new one-half cent sales tax. as well as the restoration locally of the vehicle license fee. back to historic levels 2%

instead of the current 6.5% that came into effect when the former governor arnold schwarzenegger slashed the vehicle fee two third. deprived the state of california billions of dollars. the sales tax both recommended by mayor, transportation authority task force. we want to go out with a poll and engage support. you will hear during the presentation, the results of the poll are promising. san francisco voters very much want improvements to muny bar and caltrans. they want more paratransits and improve safety. at the end of the day, it appears the voters are willing to pay for those improvements through a sales tax. provided that we can assure them that the funds will be used for

these transportation improvements and we will, of course, provide that assurance. i'm encouraged by the results i look forward to the presentation today. that concludes my report. colleagues, if there are no competentes, we'll move to public comment on item two. is there any public public comment on item two. seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an information item. we will move to item three. >> item three, executive director's report. information item. >> ms. chang. >> i'm pleased to provide an update to follow up on funding to echo the need for more investment to rally and develop more resources locally. again, the picture from the federal government is still quite stark. it remains to be done to bring the house and the senate sides together and administration.

the house did pass transportation infrastructure committee did approve the surface reauthorization program but funded it for only three years. unfortunately, we still have work to do to get to a six year bill but at least the house bill mirrors the senate bill. which was passed last month or couple of months ago. we continue to monitor that but really the inability of congress to move a bill forward to finance any significant capital improvements, no one can rely on funding beyond the immediate period. at the state level, we were pleased to see the governor and the special session propose the $3.5 billion funding package over 10 years to improve annual road maintenance and stabilize our state funding. the proposal is anchored by a $65 per vehicle road user charge as well as some increases to the diesel and gas tax. the funds will fund highway and

local rehabilitation and repair and there will be some funds available for transit expansion projects through the cap and trade funds. there's a 40 40% category. we will be monitoring the special session committees as they meet again in the new year. hope that will result in new revenue package in 2016. on the transit center cost review, quick update, phase one and two work is under way to review the costs of these projects and that mtc has presented initial findings to the policy advisory committee educating that there would be most likely, few hundred million dollars up to $200 million increase in the project in order to capture the recommendations

for contingencies by ther consultants. giving us more confidence. they will be bring it back on november 4th with a final recommendation. ly original recommendation was more of of a range. we also are looking to participate in the phase two cost review. that draft report is expected in november. we'll bring both of those back to the programming allocation committee. once the work has been completed. it will be presented to the transbay joint powers authority. local issues, the treasure island management program requested information to support our technology work related to the towing system and parking systems on the islands. bidders can look for that information on our website.

on related note for freeway management work, we have finalized negotiations with consultants. we're kicking off the work next week. we've been working with the corridor partners and sister agencies are ahead of us on the 101 studies and three counties are collaborating to ensure it's efficient as possible and as coordinated as possible when we look at the 101 corridor between san francisco and stan hose. we also have been tapped to present on technology and congestion pricing and parking management and automated connected vehicles at various technical conferences. one of these will link the technologies to pedestrian safety. really theying how automated and

connected vehicles can be. chaired by chair kim. on the late night transportation study front, this was initiated by commissioner weiner. we kicked off that work with a task force broad sector of night time entertainment and workforce and venue stakeholders. we'll be refreshing those recommendations. many of them have been to implemented as are result of the earlier work. we're excited to continue to build on the recommendations and bring concrete fundable actions to the board in the coming few months. our neighborhood planning work is also continuing at pace. our strategic analysis report on westside transit on better out eyes the cubs for commissioner tang. we hope to bring that report to you in the next month or two.

we'll be briefing the commerces this month -- commissioners this month. that's gaining lot of momentum to a new survey work to inform us on what residents are most interested in seeing. we know that the travel times are very slow, paralle -- in particularly to the bart station. we're looking the all different modes and trying to improve those options for westside travelers. i do believe these recommendations will be very relevant to other neighborhoods across the city. on the neighborhood transportation improvement program, we have worked in multiple directs, district two and the lumbar street corridor, district 10, there were some great community events in district 5 with the western addition neighborhood transportation improvement project. used with the help of the community based organization and

portal as well. the pna for the district five safety study. we thank our community partners and mta for doing a great job and moving those forward. we connecting off some work with commerce -- commissioner yee on the balboa plan study. and potential planning project on san jose avenue near balboa park station. we hope to bring the district six proposal forward in the coming period. that's getting closer. our deputy for policy and programming joined with staff across the city agencies to have a workshop on vision zero to assess projects over the last couple of years. it's been a productive first two years as well as to look ahead to see what might be on deck in

terms of the next generation of vision zero capital improvements and noninfrastructure, so called outreach in education initiatives as well as enforce. we will be bringing results of that workshop to the december 10th committee meeting as well. on project delivery, i wanted to highlight here in my report, a few projects that are being funded by our transportation for clean air dollars that the authority programmed. one is the goldengate national recreation area. we've provided $120,000 of tsca funds there. it doesn't anticipate opening a trail for use by thanksgiving. we're excited to see that. we can celebrate that with commissioner farrell and others. the funds that the authority programmed for the vision zero heat injury corridors is being put to good use.

this is looking at decreasing vehicle speeds and reducing the speeds through the timing of signals on 16th street and turk streets. the lower vehicle streets combined with better management have improved safety for pedestrian. sfmta is monitoring these results. these were made possible by the grant funds which is $4 vehicle register fund for a project to smooth out traffic. finally the market street is under construction. many of us are looking forward to that work. this has been funded by proposition k sales tax fund $750,000 grant to sfmta. raised cycle track with green

lanes on market street between castro and debose. some statistics here, finance and administration reporting on the performance. this is a disadvantage business and local and small business enterprise performance. as of 2015, end of fiscal 2015, our performance was able to achieve 20% of contract payments to disadvantage business enterprisesu enterprises. i presented some of these results to the small business network last night. they were pleased. they wanted to see more and continue progress. i think they were very pleased and appreciatorriv appreciative of the efforts to bring small business into our work. finally, they we just wanted to highlight that there is a request for proposals out for consultant services related to the work that the chairman mentioned yesterday at land use committee. we discussed a long range transportation planning of which

the subway master plan will be a part. i do encourage potential bidders to look for that request for proposals for consultant services on our website, sfgov tv.org. >> thank you very much. colleagues know comments or questions relating to the executive director's report? is there any public comment on item three? seeing none. we'll close public comment. this is an information item. item number four. >> item four, approve the minutes of the september 22, 2015 meeting. this is an action item. >> any comments or changes to the september minutes? is there any public comments on item four? public comment is closed. mr. clerk, please call the roll on item four. >> commissioner avalos, absent, commissioner breed, campos,

christensen, commissioner cohen, commissioner farrell, commissioner kim, commissioner mar, absent, commissioner tang, weiner, commissioner yee, the minutes are approved. >> we will now move to item number five. >> authorize executive director to execute cooperative agreement number 04-2502 for the i-280 modify -- modifications of balboa park.

>> smith, watts and hartmann in the amount $135,000. negotiate contract payment terms. this is an action item >> seeing no names on the roster. can we go comment? is there any comment on item six? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we take item six. same house same call. that will be the order. item seven. >> increase the amount of the professional services contract with aecom executive services by $1 million to a total amount not to exceed $16,001,935,000 to complete the services. authorize executive director to modify contract payment terms and nonmaterial contract terms. >> colleague, any questions or

comments? we'll move to public comment. any public comment? public comment is closed. can we take item seven same house same call. without objection, that will be the order. >> item eight, increase the amount of professional services contract to brinckerhoff to a total amount not to exceed $70,650,000. modify contract payment terms. >> colleagues, any questions or comments about item eight? seeing none. is there any public comment on item eight. public comment is closed. >> item nine, appoint paul chan to the advisory committee. this is an action item.

>> seeing no comment. any public comment on item nine? public comment is closed. colleagues take item nine same house same dual. that will be the order. >> item ten. appropriate $54,325,000 in prop k funds. this is an action item. >> commissioner christensen. >> i just wanted to thank the ta and the mta for working out part of this allocation with regards to the chinatown financial district area. we were able to work together to achieve a project that adjusts -- addresses some of my concerns in chinatown. i'm glad to see that the mta will be building off existing study to figure out to quickly implement some of the needed

changes. particularly the pedestrian scramble. i've been concerned about whether clay and washington are ready for the opening of the central subway. this important connection between chinatown and the financial districts. i'm glad we were able to address that issue. since i've become supervisor, i'm been trying to bring these projects together. i'm very grateful to the progress that we've made admitting these east coast corridors together that is meaningful to the district. i'm grateful and happy to see this move forward. >> okay, any additional comments or questions? seeing none. is there any public comment on item ten? seeing none. public comment is closed. colleagues, can we take item ten same house. that will be the order. item 11. >> adopt san francisco's project priorities for the 2016 regional

transportation improvement program. >> commissioner christensen. >> [inaudible]. movement of the central subway consideration up to the top of this list. i'm grateful for that. look forward to greater progressen tha -- progress on that topic. >> commissioner cohen. >> i want to express gratitude. three of the six projects are going to be in the community. thank you. >> thank you. any additional comments? i will move to public comment on item 11. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, take 11 same house same call. that will be the order. item number 12. >> item 12, san francisco objectives and project list for plan bay area 2040. action item. >> commissioner campos.

>> thank you very much mr. chairman. some folks claim that i caused some displacement. i do something about the displacement today. we had been working with my office and staff at the ta on language that we would like to propose to add to our strategy around plan bay area. i believe that staff actually has drafts of what we're proposing. it would be attachment one on page three. the section that deals with policy. that language basically, -- just actually small change to what staff has. i would on the bullet that says, housing displacement, i would add anti displacement so there

is no confusion that we're talking about doing something against displacement. essentially, this language would note that we would work with the mayor's office of housing, the planning department as well as different community groups in terms of recommendations to support the production of affordable housing to prevent displacement and also work with the mtc in terms of developing strategies and tools to enhance the production of affordable housing. i also want to thank staff for the great work on this. i think one thing that is clear when you look at what's happening in terms of displacement at the regional

level, is that san francisco is playing a very important leadership role in making sure that the region is addressing the issue of decembe -- displace. this language will ensure that we continue to do that. thank you. >> okay, thank you commissioner. commissioner christensen? >> so my comments related to item 29, late night transportation improvements which very meaningful to fisherman's worth merchants and workers. thank you commissioner weiner for your work on that. note item 50, which includes the long term planning and conceptual design for the extension of fixerman's work. i proposed amendment. i wondered if staff has any comments on these changes? >> commissioner christensen, we

appreciate commissioner campos on this. the work in this area is compl complex. there's opportunity to continue shaping and leading. we like to work more closely. sfmta planning department and mayor hou office of housing in particular. how the region can develop policies in the area of performance measurement in the areas of community-based planning. particularly related to the regional planning funds that are available during the next round of obag. this level of guidance have very helpful to us. we will be convened a working group comprised of ourselves and the mayor office of housing and also sister agencies in transportation to advance some of these proposals. >> thank you. >> okay, colleagues, any additional comments or questions? seeing none, we will open item

12 up for public comment. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. there is a motion on the table to amend by commissioner campos. seconded by commissioner yee. seeing no names for additional comment, we will take that motion. we don't need a roll call. is there any objection to the motion to amend? seeing none, out objection, the motion is adopted. colleagues, can we take item 12 as amended, same house same call. without objection, that will be the order. item number 13. >> adopt a transportation management partnership project final report. this is an action item. >> colleagues, any comments or questions? is there any public comment on

item 13? public comment is closed. colleges, can we take item 13 same house same call? without objection, that will be the order. item number 14. >> potential 2016 transportation revenue measures poll results. this is an information item. >> staff will be presenting on the polling results. mr. chang. >> thank you, i'm pleased to introduce polling from sf3. very experienced. he was able to get our poll out on to the field in early october and is here to present results. thank you dave. >> thank you very much. thank you chair members of the competition. my name is david mets. i will walk through the highlights of our recent completed survey on potential transportation ballot measures for the november 2016 election. the results i'm shear -- sharing with you are based on 801

likely voters. we conducted the interviews between 2nd and 10th of this month. in english, spanish and chinese in order to maximize the opportunity for voters to participate. the overhaul margin of error is 3.5%. there's numbers where i'll talk about the subgroup and margin of errors. one of the subgroups we paid attention is different geographic areas of the city. given different aways that residents in the city tend to get around, depending on where they live, we subdivided the city into five regions downtown north, sun set, richmond, southeast, central and southwest. there's a couple of points were highlights differences between the wave of residents of those regions used some of the key questions. in most respect, there are

american -- there were more geographic similarities. set some context for the next november's ballot here in san francisco. we asked them to tell us how often they use variety of different means of transportation here in the city. two forms of transportation really stood out. 69% of local voters tell us they ride transit at least two or three times per week. muny being the method most often used, bart not far behind. a sleetly smaller portion, tell us they drive alone. as we look at numbers and it's important to remember that we're talking to the population of likely voters here. this differs from the broader side of san francisco residents in a number of aways. the population is older, it includes more homeowners, longer term residents of the city, therefore probably under represent transit riders, relative to the use of tra

transit. we also asked the respondents to rate the priority that the city might make if additional funding were available for transportation. you'll see here, the way they looked at eight different potential areas of investment. we asked them to rate each of these, extremely, very, somewhat or not important priority. there's a couple of things that stand out from the list. first it fit all of these to varying degrees are important to local residents. we had clear majorities that rate each of these items as very important. there are some pretty clear tiers in their preferences and in particular, the top four items you see on the list all were rated as very important by at least 70% of those polled. that's important to keep in mind, it's a threshold when you think about certain finance mechanisms that would rear the support of at least two-thirdses of local voters. all projects are important to a

large proportion of the local electorate. it includes both transit and repaving and repairing streets. in addition to measures that san francisco may consider putting on the ballot, there's a high likelihood there will be a bond measure for bart. which will be on throughout the service territory for bart which includes san francisco, alameda and contra costa counties. we asked people how they will vote on a $4 billion bond measure to support bart services. given this question, we saw that 72% of san francisco voters say they will be likely to support the measure. that includes 41% who say they will definitely vote for a bart bond and just 9% saying they will definitely vote against it. it's clearly a popular investment of residents of san

francisco. we see higher level of support here in san francisco than in alameda or contra costa county. because we asked this question at the beginning of the survey, spoke responses were answered in the awareness that there might be a bart on the bond as well. looking then at a san francisco specific measure, there were two primary ballot measure concepts that we tested in the poll. the first was a one-half cent sales tax, which will require two thirds super majority voter. it's a special dedicated tax that will go only to transportation. we looked a the concept of establishing an assessment locally that would be a companion to the vehicle license fee. as the chair mentioned, return it to that historic level of 2% that was charged a the state

level. by law that will be a general tax. it would not be dedicated solely to transportation but will require the approval of a simple majority of voters. we tested as a companion to that general tax measure a policy advisory measure, which would proceeded on the ballot. indicating that advisory measures would not raise taxes, it would indicate the intent to dedicate the fund solely to transportation services. we took these two concepts we wantedded to test, -- wanted to test, we split the samples into two halfs. which was a representative sample of local voters, we rotated the order in which they were presented. once you've been offered one tax concept, your views of the second one are likely to emerge in the context of the first one you've heard. we put most emphasis on how voters react that measure they heard first.

first for the sales tax, this is the bam language that we test -- ballot language that we tested. it details the diverse array of services that will be funded including streets and roads, bart and muny and pedestrian improvements. given this language, we saw that 65% of voters indicated that they would vote yes. it's within the margin of error of this two third supermajority required for approval. this is fairly close to what we saw in the initial polling on the streets bond here in san francisco and we see other measures polled at this level will be successful provided the public is educated about what the measure would do. there were a few demographics distinctions within the san francisco electorate. i've highlighted some of the striking ones here. partnership as with any kind of tax measures where we see the biggest differences.

very strong support from dam campaign -- democrats and independents. they own a car. about three a five say they would vote yes. among those who do not own a car, support was significantly higher. the strongest support by age came from voters under the wage of 30 and obviously in next november's election, turnout is likely to be much higher than it is in any other election date for the next four years. majorities of older voters were supportive but somewhat smaller margins. geographically, the deferences were generally minor with somewhat higher support in the southeastern part of the city and lower on the north side. we also tested how voters reacted after they got more information about what the measure would do. that elevates support from 65% to 68%. the modest increase but it's a critical one given that lifts

support over the two thirds majority required for approval. so the second finance concept we looked at was the vehicle license fee. as i mentioned, this was presented to voters as a two measure sequence. the first measure we offered was the advisory measure. you can see the text of that measure on the left hand side of the slide. then the second measure was the measure that would actually establish the local assessment, parallelling the vehicle license fee as a general tax. respondents read the advisory measure. it won wide support. 73% would vote in favor of level of support, not different from the bart bond or for the sales tax. the unbelievable suppor initial support for the vehicle license itself was lower. with only 41% of voters telling us they would vote yes. 51% voting no. this is not a typical when you're looking at a general tax

where the language of the question doesn't specifically dedicated to a specific set of services. obviously as a funding mechanisms that is less familiar to voters than the sales tax. anticipating that we might see this result, we had a follow up question to try to understand how different subsets of votes mites-- might react to different information. those voter who are themselves car owners. you can see here that among the population of likely voters, roughly three quarters tell us that they own a car. 76%, 84% say they have regular access to a car, even if they don't own one. you can see those numbers not surprising are concentrated among older voters and affluent voters. when we gave voters additional background and told them specifically that the funds from this vlf assessment will be

dedicated to specific priority that the sales tax revenue will go to, increase went up dramatically. that's a 13 point gain. simply telling voters where the money would go is a fairly striking one. critically, it moves it up over the threshold that would be required for approval beyond that 50% simple majority. obviously, this would require publicatio public -- education effort. providing an explanation and arguments in favor of the measure elevates that support even a few points more. lifting it up from 54% to 56%. on summary, we think the results are dredging. -- encouraging. they show that making investment and improving transportation infrastructure is highly

supported. to improve both streets and public transit. also wasn't they have assurances about where the money would go, they're supportive of establishing a vehicle license fee to accomplish those same goals. this is not to say that these measures would not require fairly strong communications efforts behind them given that both of them are right at the threshold they would require for approval. as i noted, there's ample presence here in san francisco to suggest that these numbers can translate to success on election day. with that, i'd be happy to answer questions. >> thank you mr. mets. very clear and really hardened by the poll results. they indicate what we -- i knew for a long time, san francisco voters understand the critical importance of expanding and shoring up our transportation

system as we continue to grow by 10,000 people a year. that san francisco voters are willing to pay for those improvements. we saw that last year with the overwhelming passage of the bond and these results are definitely encouraging. so thank you. college o -- colleagues any questions or comments for mr. metz or for staff? seeing none, thank you mr. metz. >> thank you. >> any additional comments? >> i would just note, thank again dave and his partners for getting this out. just as an effort informational update, there are other counties considering revenue measures in the region. of course the bart district is also discussing potential bond testing the $4 billion level was important for us to provide another data point to the barrier rapid transit district.

santa clara as well as contra costa, exploring ballot measures and working on expenditure plans. we're aware other counties are considering 2016 revenue measure. this would be an opportunity for us to partner as we do at a regional level to help develop coordinate funding plan, expenditure investments across county lines. thank you. >> thank you, thank you for mentioning the bart bonds. we are actually involved in a conversation with bart and other regional partners to make sure that bart goes out with sufficiently sized bond to meet the agency's pretty massive capital needs. i think a lot of us are concerned, were concerned when we started hearing bart instead of going out what it needed was considering going out with something third or even two third less than what they needed.

which would result in a massive capital deficit of bart, would result in bart completing against mta, caltrans and other agencies over the next decade for other sources of funding. we know from the polling we've done and all the polling we've seen, voters around the region support bart and will vote for a bond. we are encouraging bond -- we need to be encouraging bart to go out with a bond that meets its capital needs. is there any public comment on item 14? public comment is closed. this is an information item. we will move to item 15. >> information item. >> colleagues are there any introductions today? seeing none. is there any public comment on item 15? public comment is closed. this is an information item. item 16. >> public comment.