do we automatically tie this because i'm sure commissioner kounalakis will mention something but this is standard if you are on a flood plain you must have insurance and that is a standard real estate term. [inaudible] when we do our outreach there won't be a surprise, it just says we may have added a few more into that because most of it is already mapped hopefully. >> so, the city flood risk map attached to the ordinance don't show most of the piers in a flood area largely because we know the decks are higher than the base flood elevation. there are a few shore line areas that are mapped as flood hazard areas, so what would be considered a hazardous area is expanding under the fema maps. we do have lease insurance requirements and also have the ability with the risk manager to wave those insurance requirements where there is no

commercially reasonable insurance product available. i didn't get into it because we are learning more about the insurance market but the national flood insurance program typically doesn't provide insurance product for structures in high hazard areas. so the federally backed insurance is accept for the pre-1982 structures, not a option for many people so that is why we have to do more research with matt, but we have disclosure language and are addressing this in the leases today and revising. >> i speak from a residence standpoint because [inaudible] all over bank physical you don'ts have flood insurance on lending into homes in flood plains so it is very straight forward and mandatory. i dont think that is news. the question is whether we expect a lot more and guess what you are telling me is a certain

percentage to be more mapped into had flood plain that before and secondly, more importantly we have to figure out sea level rise figures in this. >> yes, we do. >> would that be a good take away >> that would be a good take away. the final take away is we have a disagreement whether many piers buv the base line elevation should be mapped as a flood hazard area. that is a important issue we need to resolve. >> thank you for the presentation. i too learned more than i ever knew about flood insurance. in terms of and i know we are still looking at options and analyzing it, is there increase what the impact would be in some the changes and zones in terms of our cost if any for insurance or are we already carrying insurance that would have covered this and likewise impact on any

tenants or perspective tenants and impact on persective products. >> i may not remember all of those and may need help but in termsf of our own insurance we carry property insurance under the cities [inaudible] but believe insurance has a exclusion for flood damage. what's that? okay. >> can you repeat that? >> in the [inaudible] program there is a supplement that covers some amount of flood damage but not a lot. so, we don't have comprehensive flood insurance program today for the facilities that are in port ownership oppose d to long term ground lease. your next- >> next is just any added impact on our tenants? >> we think there will be a added impact in terms of cost of

insurance because these are now high hazard areas so premiums are higher for tenant who choose to buy flood insurance or required to because they are seeking a loan from the bank. that will be a important part of our outreach to tenants is explaining the options available in the market place. >> and then any projects that would have already been cont plating this added insurance coverage that are proposed, ie, pier 70, mission rock, any of the other development sites or would those have all cont plated? >> i think it will be new for any pier project, i think it is where we will see the impact of this. [inaudible] sit down with the development partners and started some of the outreach to select development partner to help work with their brokers to understand what is available. as to the land

side, we don't see as many impacts. there will be one or two locations that will be impacted by there rules but pier 70 and 337 we are talking about raising the sites so way can remap the sites out of a flood hazard area as they address sea level rise. >> lastly just in terms of timing on determining whether we do any kind of potential appeal, what is the timing on that sph ? >> let me pull that slide back up. so, we think that fema will put a notice in the federal register in march publish in local paper beginning of april that will start a 90 day appeal

period. we'll work with sthem well before those dates come to pass, consulting with them about the studies underway and somef oour preliminary findings about the height of piers. >> but you will bring it back to us when we determine [inaudible] which someone shows up first thing in the morning can it be out of energy? in other words, what is that proportion to how sunny does it have to be in a 24 hour period in order for cars to charge over time? >> i don't know the exact answer. they say you can charge up to 100 electric miles a day. over cast days will reduce that some. there is no indication that usage at night will fully deplete the charger for

the people who arrive in the morning. we can look into that, but it raising another question which is where we deploy these and the initial instinct is it we get one deploy at pier 3. port has 2 electric vehicles un one is nissan lease and use it at pier 50 as proof of concept for electric vehicle on the waterfront but cant use it at pier 3 because we don't have the infrastructure. this is tech nology that doesn't require hooking up to the grid so our instinct if we get 1 we put it at pier 3 and a second we may put in a more public area and may use [inaudible] we would decide as a team. >> thank you, that is a wonderful report and we [inaudible] this is absolutely wonderful. just

wondering are there cost associated with receiving this gift? >> there are. they are not mandatory. the manufacturer requested that we purchase their maintenance contract which is together with a remote monitoring program about 950 dollar per year and talkedwit the director of maintenance taking over the maintenance fee and the manufacturer prefers we continue to use their services and the reason is it is a special technology. we have a pretty amazing crew of maintenance folks so we'll look into that. minimum we would use the remote monitoring management system which is about 360 dollars a year and possibly use the maintenance contract itself. >> how long does it last? what

is the life expectancy? >> typically solar panels have a life span of 20 plus years. the other ones did and new ones as well as long givety. i guess the long jev teis 20 plus years but it is a new technology and don't exactly know. >> thank you. >> commissioner woo ho. >> i think questions have been asked but to follow up on what would the rules be? is it you can only be in the spot for so many hours so someone else can come in? >> on the port it may be one thing but a public parking lot how will

the public know-is it who is there first and there for had whole day? how do we develop rules? >> there were rules during the driving sunshine program and the parking operators were helpful and the rule is 2 hour maximum charging and their were helpful insureing everybody abided by that. this may help expand our electric fleet so we'll look into that as well. electric vehicles are a ideal technology that the port staff do. you don't have to go so many miles you exhaust the range of the vehicle so it may be something we'll do in the future. if we put it in a public place we have a model we can look to. >> when you mention it romote monitoring and maintenance cost is that per vehicle or total for two?

>> the charger. >> it st. per vehicle? per station. >> that is correct. per station. >> that would inkmental if we added more. kwrrks that is correct >> what is the understanding if we are interested in more not just a donation is there discussion how that would work? >> i have been initial contact with the sales manager for envision but haven't discussed that. purchasing others. >> maybe we should have a understanding at least in terms of do they expect there is something following that they wont be happy with 3 things sitting in san francisco. >> i don't know. they were very happy to have them on display and whether they will expect we will purchase one- >> there is no strings attached

which i understand which is fine, but their are a business so they won't saying 3 for the city is their goal ult mltly so we should also say just to for ourselves understand if we did want to add under what terms? >> okay. >> commissioner katz. >> thank you. most of my questions were answered. in terms of just generation so you said it provides for 100 electric miles, so much with each car taking the charge it seems that would drain it pretty significantly if they did a full charge? and then will we have any come up with some kind of restrictions or determination which cars with use the charger and how what type of priority?

>> we should ask all those questions. if we work with the pier 3 model where we know that the parking operator there also has several electric vehicles not relate today the port and may want to share that with port vehicles and want to establish rules for that. there seem to be mow problems with the model from driving on sunshine so imagine we start with the 2 hour limit but if we want to adjust that we could. >> is there any backup exclusively relying on solar generation? >> there is no backup. >> if i may, one of the initiatives of the mayors office is build capacity for electric charging vehicles which is quhie we participated on sunshine. is

a excellent technology to get to zero emissions but the infrastructure isn't there to build [inaudible] the price point is still very high so as we dwem infrastructure and are part of that initiative in putting charging stations and purchasing our electric vehicles we hope to participate in the effort to build market share for this very clean technology and that is mayors office initiative he rolled out to the department. >> [inaudible] this is a area i work in so quite familiar with it and try to expand efforts to put in more charging stations up and down the state with longer and faster charges. that is another question, the speed in which the charges-so they can plug in for 2 hours is there a effort to put in the faster charging stations so the next step, do we know that?

>> you mean the later models? i dont know i can look into that. i read it is building more advertising capacity so you get more revenue on your investment. >> do we know who else provides this technology? >> they claim they are unique. >> that is exciting and glad we are participating so thank you. >> [inaudible] i remember the song walk in the sunshine and we talk about driving in sunshine and like all the partners involved. [inaudible] this is getting out front and totally in sport support of that and think i heard from all the commissioners this is something that [inaudible] it is good to see how it works out and think starting at pier 3 is a good example and you can

always come back if they don't think it is working and we can look at it but think we should give it a try so you have my support. that being said, resolution number 1610 all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> resolution passes >> can we get a report how it is going? >> absolutely. >> maybe 6 months or 9 months. >> of course. thank you. >> item 11 a, informationalpriseentation on contracting activity for first and second quarters of fy 2015/16 july 1, 2015 through december 31, 2015. >> good afternoon

commissioners. boris [inaudible]er ports contract administration with finance and administration division. the matter before you is informational overview of the ports contract activity report for 2015/16 and covers july 1 to december 31, 2015. during the presentation i will review the number of local business enterprise firms that are certified and go over new contracts awarded during the reporting period and discuss payments made on open and active contracts. i'll also talk about the local hire program and upcoming contract opportunities. the local business enterprise or lbe program is designed to level the playing field for small local businesses bidding

on city contracts. gain advantages such as bid discount and subcontracting goals when bidding on city contracts. the contract monitoring division certifies firms as small local business and classify as minority business enterprises, women business enterprises, other business enterprises and non profit business enterprises. there are 1273 local business firms in the sitee. minority are further classified by ethnicity. the [inaudible] in october. about 45 percent asian maench, 25 percent african american, 23 latino [inaudible] during this reporting period we had a decrease in new crarkt awards.

wegenyerally award between 5 and 6 million dollars worth of contracts in a 2 quarter period. this period we had 6 contracts tote aelg half a million dollars, of those 5 were new professional service contracts, one was a new construction contract, all were awarded under the directors delegated authority so none are subcontracting goals. we did successfully award 3 of the 6 contracts as micro lbe set asides. these are small informal contracts set aside for competition only among the smallest lbe firms mpt during the reporting period 76 percent of dollars awarded went to lbe firms. details about individual contracts and awards can be found in attachment one of the report. this is a look at awarded contract. they are

broken iby lbe type. the quarter of the awards went to non lbe firms. women [inaudible] the minority business enterprise is represented by one award to a subcontractor on our construction contract. constitute 32 percent of the awards. obe firms received 14 percent new contract awards. it was a small dollar amount, but we did succeed awarding 76 percent to local firms. looking at the payments we had over 4 million dollars paid on open and active contracts during the reporting period. construction and as needed contracts exceeded average lbe subcontracting goals, professional service contracts fell below the mark. the scope of sources on the financially advisory contract didn't have lbe work during the first half 06 the year but

anticipate that will increase in the second half of the year and contracts will fall in line in terms of the lbe subcontracting amount. overall the average subcontracting goal is 14 percent and we are at 18 percent in payments. it is important to note that each of the contract categories identified in the table are made up of many individual contracts with their own individual subcontracting goals. there are a few exceptioness thrks dredging contract, the financial advasery contract are not meeting the lbe goal but mest of the other contracts are exceeding or meeting their contract monitoring division goals. details on all current contracts in the lbe performance are also included in your report attachment. this is another view of the breakdown by lbe type for payments. the bulk went to non lbe firms. we had a small amount of payments

compared to other years or other reporting periods. 800,000 or 40 percent of the non lbe payment went out on the dredging contract. lbe received 51 percent of payment. awards and payments made in the first half of the fy-year compare today the previous 2 fy years. yoi can see there is two awards and fewer payments, however the lbe percentage did increase. switching to the local hire ordinance, construction projects over a million dollars are subject to the cities local hire ordinance. since the inception of the ordinance there are 14 port projects subject to the program. all 14 met the cities local hire mandates. there were

fourp open projects subject to the ordinance during this reporting period, all 4 have sense closed and each met their local hire requirement. in the case of the blue [inaudible] contract, [inaudible] granted a conditional waver for providing offsite hiring credits on oorkt city project. we didn't have a lot of new contract activity and will be busy in the coming months. the as needed engineering rfq was issued last friday, 6 million dollar contract 20 percent lbe goal due mid-april. rfq is coming in the next two weeks, that is a 3 million dollar contract also with a 20 percent lbe goal on the construction side we have a microlbe set asideoon the street now valued around

$250,000. in the spring we have a report modular rest room contracts and that is a million dollar contract. the lbe goal isn't set yet and that is a example of few contracts and there will be many more coming and all the contracts are rfp's and rfq are advertised on the ports web seat on the bhz tab. in conclusion, during the recording period we had a smaller volume of contract but 76 dollars went to lbe, [inaudible] stayed with local business, all the projects meet the local hire requirements. we have a number of upcoming lbe opportunities that concludes my presentation and available to answer any questions you have. >> is there public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> thank you very much for this

report, it is very clear and appreciate it. i want to understand, is women business owners a subcategory within lbe? >> [inaudible] >> i'm glad to see in terms of 29 percent and last quarter but [inaudible] when we look at the historical amount of payment said it looks like it is a tiny segment, only 2 percent so is there anything we do to sort of try to reach out more to women owned business enterprises to in the future perhaps make this more of a goal for us to aimprove upon? >> the programs are race and gender neutral however when there are opportunities we e-mail, call and notify all lbe certified >> that is why i asked whether women owned business enterprises were a conscious subsegment but you

say we cannot list it >> or give preference. but we can report out. >> okay. i understand that. i appreciate we exceeded the 20 percent goal we set and know commissioner brandon will be happy to talk about this since this is more of her passion for the commission. i just hope we can see more diversification going forward. whatever we can do unconsciously to diversify would be good. >> commissioner katz >> thank you for the report also. there is always see some improvement-significant improvement or should say my understanding is we are doing better than most other city departments and we set higher goals for

ourselves than mandated but do you see areas we can improve and thoughts and suggestions how we can improve some the numbers? >> i think that is a great question. a lot is dependent on who is certified and increasing the number of certified firms increases lbe participation and subcontracting goals set on specific contracts. for our parking rfp that will come before you next month, we went out and did canvased and [inaudible] encouraged firms to become certified. we had 4 new firms certified and increased the pool by 40 percent. i think those are areas where we have time to look at a specific scope and encourage local firms to beam certified. it increases the

overall subcontracting amount and participation so think that is a primary focus. >> i was following up on that and following up on a successful-we had a couple years back to meet with representatives from the various different groups representing different communities, prams it may be time to do something along those lines gaen following up on take agplay from the success we had on the parking contract and see if we can do more outreach but perhaps set something up to make it easier to sign up. i know that is a barrier, often it is not a horrible process but it is not easy as well and it may be helpful if we can figure out a way bringing other folks in from the city and perhaps setting up something here at the port where we bring in the firms and encourage them to sign up and

get certified and go through the process and have staff on hand to help facilitate so beyond doing the outreach and urging the businesses become certified but if there is something we can do to provide affirmative support on that front so a combination of outreach and support services. >> one of the professional service contracts we did award in this period went to a lbe for that specific purpsh on a construction contract. we awarded to the [inaudible] group to do education and outreach related to construction contracts over the next 2 years so they will go out and encouraging firms to become certified, meetings and helping us outreach weilated to construction opportunities. >> i think that the outreach efforts you bring up commissioner katz were very successful for us. not only did we let the chambers and local

business know of our interest, we heard about their problems with the process. they try today bid one time before and gave up. we got good feedback how important it is to sit down and tell them how their application faired in the review so they don't lose interest and continue to bid on projects. we have done more partners work. the contract monitoring division launched a partnering program so small businesses can team up with larger firms and the most important think that i think you are hearing from borisis when we know a opportunity is coming up we take advance time to do outreach and remind firms not now registered to get registered and compete for the work and that is where we will see a difference in the numbers if we have advance time to do that work. >> kudos to those efforts and

if there is anything we can do to further advance-[inaudible] >> i have no questions, just neuro presentation. thank you. >> commissioner brandon. >> i'm very happy with this. [inaudible] following commissioner woo hoand katz comment. i'm happy we are doing more outreach to wem squn minorities and hopefully that will attract more firms to participate in the contracting and pure curement but i think it is absolutely wonderful so we are exceeding all our goal squz doing so well so congratulations and thank you very much. >> i have to say thank you too and appreciate the presentation and i know from the time i have been on

the commission how near and dear this has been to commissioner brandon being on the commission for 18 years and i think that the port is really tried to reach out more to the community and have more diversity and have to keep pushing. i sauls say sometimes some the smaller firms have got to team up with the bigger firms and learn how the process happens and sometimes you don't get it the first time but got to keep trying and need to understand how the game works and keep coming and to me i believe that comp tense is above all. you have to be competent and do the thing and turn it in on time and have to know what you are doing. like i say, a lot the bigger firms have been doing it for years and years and maybe a minority firm you are just learning so i think the programs that we have i enjoyed when the chamber of commerce got together and they were informed. i think you did outreach in the community so appreciate the effort. we

have come along way and will continue so want to absolute you and say thank you. >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] come back in 6 month tooz report on the evars charging stations and success. [inaudible] >> just looking at the calendar and dont remember when this topic was brought up before how we lelft it for the future but wonder at some point not to calendar it, but pier 32 at some point we would like to know where staff stands with what to do with those piers. >> anything we like on the calendar? >> commissioner [inaudible]

>> i have question you can tell me and maybe the other commissioners may know more than me, but i remember when this [inaudible] going down [inaudible] looking at going to pier 32 and it was like no opposition. it was like it was something that could have happened and didn't happen. i understand he was going to chicago and the voters [inaudible] i heard they may be goeing to oakland. i live in the neighborhood, not being partial or nothing but it is just sitting there all most 100 million dollars that is a lot of money, but i mean would george, would they still be [inaudible] i think she reached out. is it still up for

[inaudible] maybe i should ask my fellow commissioners, is this something that wouldn't work. commissioner woo ho said something, maybe reach out to them. that is my thoughts, that's all. >> i think that is something that probably needs to be coordinateed with the mayors office. i'm sure the mayors office is happy to answer if they thought there was any [inaudible] >> just going to mention because it isn't on the agenda it isn't appropriate to have a discussion today but if you like to have a discussion you should [inaudible] >> [inaudible] put the pier on the agenda and will do so. i think the pier-we'll put it on the agenda and talk about it and go from there. >> thank you. >> move to reconvene in closed

session. >> so moved. >> all in favor say aye. >> aye >> opposed? >> back in closed se move to reconvene in open session. >> so moved. >> all in favor say aye. >> opposed? >> move to not disclosez anything discussed in closed session >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> president adams i have one item under new business and that is pier 80. remember we had a presentation in december regarding pier 80 and pier 29 to use as temporary facilities for homeless and that was only in the case of all other beds in the city being used and i keep reading these newspaper articles about trying to make pier 80 a

permanent shelt frr the homeless so if we can get a update on that that would be wonderful >> anymore? with that i entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so movaled. >> all in faiv say aye. >> aye >> opposed? >> adjourned, 5: 58. [ meeting adjourned] >> i would like to call to

order, the finance committee to order. our chair, spurp mar will be here shortly, and i'm lon down breed and we are going to get this started. to my left supervisor norman yee and jane, kim and we should call the record. >> commissioner breed? snechlt here. >> compos? >> absent. >> kim >> present. >> mar? snechlt absent. >> yee. >> here. >> could we approve the minutes, without objection, those are approved. >> we will take the public comment. when public comment has been

completed. >> all right. let's get to item number, 3. and we are now joined by commissioner mar. who is the chair of the committee. >> item three. state and federal leg sislativep date, this is an action item. >> welcome. >> happy to be here today. i thought that i would give this a brief, overview of where we are at the capitol and where we are. >> could you identify yourself? >> i am sorry, yes. >> mark watts, advocate for the transportation, authority in sacramento. the legislature welcomed the new assembly speaker yesterday, when he was sworn in and he was elected in january and so he is now, fully in charge of the transition has been completed. and it was a very, very, happy ceremony. and i think that he has filled out priorities for his term.

and i think that they will suit the state very well. beyond that, where we are in the legislative process for the capitol, is on a sheet of paper here that i can't seem to find. >> darn it. i apologize, here we go. the end of february was the last day to introduce measures and you will see that reflected in the matrix today, where we have gotten about 40 bills, that we reviewed and made recommendations on. and i will come back to that in a moment. but next major deadline for legislation would be april, 22nd. for the bills that were introduced in late february. and they have to clear the first committ committee or they are dead or they are dead for the remainder of this session. there is a spring recess in the midst of this process, on march

17th, and march 28, they will be in recess, so the hearing for these measures will be very, very, heavily attended. and very, heavy agenda. s and as they try to get through all of these by the end of april. in terms of note, on transportation, funding, which is a strong interest around the state right now, senator bell, has a measure in the special session and he intends to amend and we had hoped to see that on monday or tuesday at this point in time, his office says that he is refining some of the amendments, his amendments will add significant amounts of funding and finance for transit projects. even though the main balance of the bill will be focusing on the state and local, road repairs. there is an indication that the administration may elect to move

on with a more stream lined proposal in about $2 billion range, that would not require a super majority vote in the legislature, we are trying to understand if that is something that they are working on. but there are indications that there are, or there is a preference to try to get a small amount of funding for state and local road repairs, rather than make the push for the larger amount, that is represented in senator bell's bill and the assembly member's frasier's bill. and i will be keeping you abreast of the developments as we go through the next couple of weeks. in terms of the matrix of the legislation, there are 13 specific recommendations that we are making to you. one is a changed position, and then the other 12 are new bills for your consideration. and in addition, there is like 32, or 33 other measures that we have recommended watch for one reason or another, and they have

may have applied to a policy area, where there is not much flesh on the bill at this point in time and many cases there are spot bills on topics that may become of interest. and so rather than trying to find them again, when they get amended and we put them on the watch and that allows us to monitor that flux more evenly. and so if you would like, i can cover the 13 measures, starting with the first one, which is ab 1550 on page six. this is a position we had recommend that opposed in the past. and we are recommending watch. and it deals with disadvantaged communities in the cap and trade area. it did not change for the proportions of the projects or the funding that is required to be spent in the disadvantaged communities and as you may realize, or you may recall from the first go around of the money

and the disadvantaged communities in the region did not fare well because of the way that is designed, and this bill, takes another step and leads the current, 25 percent requirement in place, but as the requirement and 25 percent of the funding must be for projects that benefit, low income households. and so, what we have or why we are recommending moving to a wasatch front rather than oppose. we would like to continue working on the definition of disadvantaged community more in the background and working with there is a green gas reduction, and working to see if we can improve the disadvantaged definition. and we are asking for your changed to a watch position. >> i just wanted to thank you so much for being sensitive to the low income communities. and in some ways whether they are in the san francisco bay region or east la, so that we are taking in some ways a regional and even a state wide

approach to equity but policies, but thank you. >> and we have seen a number of these types of measures over the last couple of years, and we are recommending oppose on ab 1768, and on page 10 of the matrix, and essentially, it directs, the, remainder of the high speed, rail bonds to be used to pay off the, outstanding high speed, rail bonds, effectively, turn nighting the stream for the project and so as a consequence, we are recommending oppose. and in the several more and i will cover them briefly, because i don't think that there is going to be concern about the recommendation and we are recommending oppose on 1866 on page, 12. and this would redirect, the remainder of the high speed, rail bonds to the state water project funding and again, that is a major change in the high

speed rail. and we think that the policy of this before you is for the high speed rail program. and the next measure, ab1886, we are recommending a support and i have to tell you that i have to draw a diagram, three or four times before i fully understood this one. and essentially, there is an exemption provided within the e seqa, where 25 percent of the projects are no further than a half mile. this takes it to 50 percent, so no more than 50 percent of the land mass, is an expansion of the sequa expansion for these types of project and we are recommending a support position. ab 1964, on page, 14 is another, and a long series of bills, over the last couple of years, this one is little bit different than

the ones that we have seen before. this simply extends the white sticker, authorization, to access hov lanes, and the white stickers are pure, battery and electrics and the natural gas vehicles as distinguished from the greenstickers, when are the hybrids. and so this, applies only to the white sticker vehicles, but they are growing in sales, and the population throughout the state, is growing. and the concern is, that allowing, the continued and expanding access of the hov lane and so we recommend an opposed position. >> ab2034, on page 15, recommending the support position to you. and more than a decade ago, the federal government, authorized the delegation, to state transportation departments. to over see nefa, of the

reviews, within their state. and that was enacted and it has been continued once and this simply continueses that authorization at the state level to allow cal transin circumstances to administer and over see both nepa and sequa documents but i will not comment on the effectiveness, but it is a continuation of an existing policy. and what will bring the high speed rail program to an end. it says that no more bonds could be sold. >> and it will have to go back to the voters and so there is a double layer of protection against this becoming effective. because i don't see this measure moving forward but that one is found on page 15, if you would like more details or more information. we are also recommending support on ab, 2126, on page, 16. of the matrix. and this applies, to the state's current authority to utilize construction manager, and

general contractor and authority, for administering projects, large scale, complex, projects and it will be coming to another bill, similar to this in a moment that applies to you, about you this applies, only to the state. the state has the authority to do six and they have occupied the six slots in statute, and this will extend it to 12 for cal trans, to administer. >> mr. prazir is the author. and the state, highway and protection program is the main program or the main, financing source at the state level for the projects that are approved or we construct that provide, major maintenance and reconstruction, as well as the operational funding to operate the state highway system. and the funding is generally, only available to the cal trans. and the ctc and the annual report, recommended the

expanding a one small provision within this program to allow the operations, to also have capitol improvements. so previously, up to now, the operations will be you know, widening the guard rail, and you know, expanding tauxiliary lane, and this allows for the capitol projects to qualify for the same projects. this bill, ab2374, was introduced by mr. chui. and we are recommending that the transportation authority not only support but register as sponsors of this measure, because it came from staff conversations with the author's office. and it would uniquely expand, or authorize, some what uniquely authorize, that the ramps, for the -- island, program and the ramps that connect to the bridge

system, would be eligible utilize the cmgc authority just like we, or just like cal transhas now for a certain number of projects. and i would specifically be targeted towards some of the complex engineering and construction that is anticipated for phase two of the ramp project. and i have been doing a lot of due diligence with state engineers and other folks who have had concerns in the passed about the similar authority. senator bell, has introduced sb 1066 which is on page, 35, and we are recommending a support for this measure, it does not appear to do much on the surface. and it is more of a place holder sponsored by the -- and what it does is it provides in the state law, the authorization for the new fast act revenues approved by the federal government and by congress to flow to the regular

programs at the state level that we anticipate them to. and in essence, it does not really change the law, but it is, and it, it would, actually be operative, if it were to pass. the game plan, however, is for the self-help counties to have, a joint, jointly, jointly managed bill that they can work on in case there are wrinkles in the fast act that the people have not anticipated and some of the funding formulas. so this is to preserve their option is to move the legislation. and senator glazier from the east bay has introduced us, and we are recommending the support position and it is on page, 35. the mtc, has commute benefits ordinance, and they have the authority to adopt a commute, benefits ordinance, and that is soon to expire. and this was, simply, extend that authorization,

indefinitely, and consequently we are recommending support. and the final measure for your consideration, is sb, 1259, by senator runner, and on it is page, 36 of the matrix and we are recommending oppose. this picks up the idea that have been attempted several decade or more to allow veterans with special, decals and the ability to access toll facilities and there has been similar, authorizations in other states, where we have, and the reports are that, it can result in fraud. and associated decreases in the toll revenue. so, it is, mainly an issue of equity. with that i bring my oral part of the presentation open for questions if you have. and i will try to answer them.

i am still trying to digest all of the bills. there is more than 1,000 in each house. >> so questions colleagues? >> i wanted to say on the sb1128, by glazer that the bay air quality district, and the community benefits policies and give many options or a couple of options to employers, and i think that is a really important one in insuring that we are reducing greenhouse gas and trips as possible. and the coalition that are really trying hard on automatic speed enforcement. and the speeding cameras. but i know that some communications with some of chui's office were fruitful up until the last minute but we are hopeful that there is legislation that comes forward, but it is a little disappointing but i want to give a shout out for the work behind the teams on those efforts but thank you so much, mr. watts for the great presentation. and commissioner yee? >> thank you, for your

presentation, and i know that you mentioned some bills may not have all of the details, necessary, or whatever, and so you are watching it. and one of them may be, under or possibly may be ab 1677. >> on page, 9. or 17? >> i guess that what i would like to do is to move that to suggest that we urge you to move it from watch to support. and the reason for this, is because this is a bill that, so that the board of supervisors have already passed a resolution to support. and we want to keep it consistent and we want to keep the heat on. and we are actually, my office is working with the senator on this particular bill and we are trying to give them as much

information in terms or suggestions about the bill, as possible. hopefully, we will have some meat on it. >> so, commissioner yee has made a motion to add, ab 1677 from the move from watch to support. is that your motion? >> yeah, this is in regards to the tour buses. in terms of making it possible for local jurisdiction or the local government to have the additional inspectionses as sort of the general idea. >> is there a second on the motion. >> so it is seconded by commissioner, breed. so we are adding 1677, to the action list, presented by mr. watts. any other comments, colleagues? >> let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. and so on the motion to add

ab1677, from a watch to a support, position, could we do that without objection? >> the house has changed. >> so the house has changed. roll call on the motion. >> breed? >> aye. >> campos? >> absent. >> kim. >> aye. >> mar. >> aye. >> yee? >> aye. >> the motion passes. >> and then now on the recommendations on the new bills and the recommended positions can we do that same house, same call? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, so much mr. watts. >> next item? >> item 4, introduction of new items. this is an information item. >> so let's open up this for public comment, anyone from the public that would like to speak? public comment is closed. next item. item 5. ? >> general public comment. >> good morning, commissioners.

(inaudible) trueself or well-being. (inaudible) money, (inaudible) making oneself a well-being. (inaudible)

>> thank you. >> next speaker, anyone else? >> i would like to speak about number, 18, please? if you could go to 18. so i think that we have already handled. >> you might be in the wrong meeting. >> i apologize. >> or actually i am sorry. i apologize. >> i think that the proper time would have been when we were dealing with the legislation. but you could speak on general matters. >> that is fine.

>> okay. so seeing no other public comment, we will close public comment. and mr. stamos next item >> item 6, adjournment. >> thank you for coming today. meeting adjourned. march 9, 2016 >>[gavel] >> welcome to the march 9, 2016 of the san francisco board of appeals. presiding officer is board president darrell honda and joined tonight by vp frank fung as well as

commissioner and the lazarus brick suite swig and bobby wilson get to my left is debbie city attorney tom hollander will provide with the board with any legal advice tonight. at the controls was carried and i'm cindy goldstein the board's executive director. were also joined tonight by the city dept. who have before the board this evening.. he's with the san francisco dept. of pub. works bureau of mapping and were also joined by christoph urban forrester with san francisco purpose urban forrester and the board request to turn off or sounds all phones or other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings could please carry on conversations in the hallway. the boards presentation are as follows. each respondents are given 7 min. and 3 min. for rebuttal.

people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within the 7 or 3 min. period. members of the public not affiliated with the parties of up to 3 min. each to address the board with no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes you're asked but not required to cement a speaker card or business card to boards that when you come up to speed. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. their customer satisfaction surveys on the podium for your convenience. do you have any questions about hearing request, the board schools were hearing schedule, fees speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 615 mission st. suite 304 between devoe st. and south venice attitude this meeting is broadcast live on sfgtv and rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm on channel 26 good dvds of this meaning are available for purchase from

sfgtv. now we will swear in order for all those who intend to testify. please note, any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the right under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at tonight's hearing in which of the board give your testimony evidentiary weight we stand and raise your right hand and say, i do, after you've been sworn in or from. the standout if you plan to testify tonight. raise your right hand. do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you very much. item number one is general public comments. this is an opportunity for people to speak to the board on matters within the board subject matter jurisdiction but that are not on tonight's calendar. is anyone here would like to speak on general public comment? seeing none,, then commissioners, item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. >> i would like to send my sincere condolences to some friends of mine. the nasa and admin. they lost their daughter lost her life yesterday at age

10 to cancer. as well as another friend hamid who lost their doctor yesterday also to cancer. it was a rough day. i just want to say, cancer really really sucks. thank you. >> thank you nda could any public comment on this item ? seeing none,, item 3 commissioners your consideration of the minutes for the separate 2624 2016 meeting. >> do we have any changes, additions or corrections? may i have a motion? >> a motion to adopt the minutes. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, on a motion, vice president fung >> aye lazarus aye, wilson,

spike the commission carries 5-0. appeal number 4 appeal number 16 007. jesse is the appellant here for that item, item number 4? mr. prudhomme, yes, great. this is daniel google vs. the san francisco pub. works bureau street and mapping. the properties at 536 mission st. doing with the denial on 20 to summer 29th 2015 doing with ritchie truck denial of permit application because the proposed location is rounded by restaurants and additional food trucks in that vicinity will create more traffic. this is permit number 15 0023 and will start with the appellant. you have 7 min. to present your case. >> good evening. i am the proud owner of preachy food

truck. the name of my wife who is a peruvian chinese descent. this is a family operation and it's the collective energy of a 20 year dream of 2 parents, my 2 in-laws. also, the collective life savings of all of us. we set out on this journey last september it together, we create delicious food could this is the product of passion and dedication. i am here tonight to ask you to grant us discretion in our favor to give us an equal opportunity to market our product in an area of the city that will give us sustainable business. there are currently permitted, in san francisco, exclusively off the grid, all this food truck broker offers

an opportunity to showcase a new trucks trust a product that is not a sustainable business for new trucks. we realize that soon after opening in last september and we also realized this from all the seasonal trucks that warned against relying on them as a sole means of income. all the successful trucks, these gourmet trucks, if you will, without exception of key permits within the financial district. many of these trucks have a whole week of uninterrupted business. these permits are now grandfathered in and when they expired these owners have the first right of refusal for these permits. essentially, everybody is locked out. any of the off the grid markets are

simply additional revenue, but they are not primary. to that end, we require this permits to remain sustainably in business in the city. this is not discretionary. we have lawfully abided by all the health codes and we consistently received high scores on the inspectors. we operate with integrity. we operate with honesty. we honor all of the dpw codes and we are honoring all those codes with this permits in question tonight. route will will undoubtedly provide the list of findings that ultimately led to the denial of this permits. i want you to point out that these findings were not at issue throughout the permitting process. also, there were no objections from the surrounding businesses during the objection

period. this permit went right to the system. almost 3 months later i get the denial. i also want to point out that the location in question is perfectly permitted by another food truck running the opposite days, but also as one of the widest sidewalks in the city and that was no mistake on my behalf. i really went far and wide to find a spot there wouldn't interrupt traffic flow because i know that is a major issue with these operations. the legislation it should be noted is to provide equal opportunity, and i'm asking again for that opportunity here tonight. the summary of findings are indeed discretionary, as this permit does not violate any of the guidelines set forth in

ordinance 119 13. i would like to go through these and in summary, because i know though, in more detail so i don't think we need to go through them too many times over the course of the night i'm a but in general, the first finding is essentially reminding us of the one we hear all the time. the ordinance is to encourage opportunities to diverse locations that are underserved. i need to point out that this is a liberty that an est. operation can take an exercise. as a new talk, i can afford to do an area where might get 20 customers a day. this is something i can afford to do that multiple trucks, and there are, indeed opportunities for those who are est. to take this measure. for me to be in business i need to be in a part of the city that actually is getting to me the business to pay the bills to keep this thing running. finding-the 2nd

finding is that there are several trucks permitted in this area. i have to point out that some of these are grasping at finding the relevance. one of them is there at 6:20 am in the morning and these at 6:40 am in the morning. my permit i am requesting starts at 11 am in the morning so, there are things i got. there's also another truck that is there for an hour from 11 am-2 new budget it's a little dessert truck. it's in and out of there before the real hit comes the bulk of the business is going to be noon-1 pm. it's interesting there's another truck here, lobster truck. this was on your docket in november. they were here because of a-someone was concerned about the fire hydrant. this truck seemed to not have a problem getting through the system, and another

finding that is following this is all about the restaurant. this truck did not seem to have an issue with the surrounding restaurants nor did it have an issue with all the other proposed or apparent food trucks that are cluttering this area. so, i think there's a discretionary call on the part of the number of trucks and if there is too many. if we counted all the relevant during the overlap it is too.2 period the first finding or i should say the 3rd finding, is again all these restaurants. i'm having a hard time seeing the competition when one of them is a high-end fine dining seafood restaurant and the other one is a little bar that serves really nice food. these are places where people are sitting down. anyway, i'm going to end at that no good i think i made my

my point. if you have questions i can adjust the amounts. i have one now. how many trucks do you have, sir? >> this is the one truck speed are there any plans to increase to another truck? >> not unless we have the markets. we need the markets for the business >> then, in the breeze you apply for multiple locations and one of those locations has been approved, correct? >> it has been approved. that will give us monday wednesday friday. that's in a less populated area. it's hard to say how sustainable that will be but it is at least an area. >> thank you very much. >> mr. shaw. >> good evening commissioners. public works. i'm just going to go into a brief history and then i'm just going to give an overview of the findings and our rebuttal to the appeal that

was filed. so just to briefly start off the applicant filed an application with public works in march of 2015. at 2 location. both locations were general compliance with article 5.0 in terms of location and their quest operation terms in hours. therefore public works decided to move forward with the application and move forward with a notification. within that 30 day notification 1p's issue was received and therefore public hearing was scheduled on october 7, 2015. subsequently, i believe that objection was ultimately-withdrawn but that hearing was still took place. after that hearing the hearing officer mentioned the determination, made the recommendation, to upper management. your manager to the city engineer, deputy director

and the deputy director the recommendation was to prove this based on the findings that did meet the general location requirements set forth in article 5.8. however, after review by the city engineer, it was determined that i quote, the proposal patient on mission street is surrounded by restaurants. in addition to trucks enough is in a will trade or traffic and congestion. therefore the ordinance 119 13 was utilized in this discretionary decision. to provide, under the statement, stating that the intent of the ordinance is to provide and expand the range of convenient and interesting food consumption opportunities for mobile food facilities and underserved and less congested areas of the city at different times of the day and evening. so, though this proposal does attempt to schedule and work around other permit hours that statement of the ordinance needs to be taken into consideration. as this does not

appear to be an underserved area and it does have a large amount of foot traffic and the hiccup or traffic compared to other areas of the city. making this work congested area. if you take a look at exhibit c one which is taken from google maps, you can see a least 20 restaurants with approximately a 2 block radius radius with it in the-this is not a underserved area. there's also currently 5 permitted mobile food facilities on the 500 block of mission street and if you take a look at item 2 of the public works brief elvis all their times of operation. the one permit that the appellant referred to which is in the same location, though does not overlap with the days and times of the proposed location for the truck it would mean this spot is taken by a food truck i got a 7 days of the week and cannot be utilized during those hours for any of

their parking. in addition to this, creating more than 5 food trucks on this block will allow-will not allow parking to be utilized in the manner that was intended. i sfmta. this kind of creates-this block would have very large amount of days being taken in very a lot of spaces taken by mobile food facilities throughout the week. so, this was taken into consideration by the deputy director and the director and bureau manager. section 18.88 of the public works code states that the director has the discretion to make a decision based on the facts that there more than 3 permitted food trucks at the location. one other thing that should be noted is that the light foods

is not taken into consideration when reviewing an application in making a decision. claims by the appellant they do not compete by the other trucks appeared to be taken in the context of similar foods and not in the context of competing businesses, and to the point of restaurants have filed any objections, i want to keep in mind that in order for this to even go through to a hearing, the mobile food truck has to be at least 75 feet away from any restaurants in the notification is required by code is 75 feet radius. regardless of public comment, the basis of this denial was based on the ordinance 119 13, and not any objections that were filed with public works. so, just to kind of reiterates, it was brought

up that this was more of a discretionary permits and all the code requirements were followed. that is true in terms of the proposal location and the hours. however, it should be noted the codes specifically says it can-the decisions are made at the judges discretion. this was a discretionary call while following the ordinance. that's it, public works request to uphold the decision that public works has made. i'm available for any questions >> i have a question. i spent a lot of time in downtown san francisco. areas around pine bush, which are the worst from a topic standpoint, cross streets, battery and sansone, montgomery, the worst. everybody's been caught in traffic. every day between the same hours that there is a food truck on several of these blocks. by comparison, the block in question has liked

traffic, and what bothers me is the inconsistency and the discussion of where indiscretion that is sometimes made with these food trucks whereas, in high-traffic areas i'm using your words- significant the hiccup or traffic, small sidewalks, from 10-2 pm or whenever the time is monday through friday, there seems to be trucks, yet what concerns me on this one is the indiscretion or in discretion not to give this one even though 2 blocks away 5 days a week it happens the same way. so, how are those discretionary calls made? >> that call is not made at our staff level. actually made after the hearing officer's recommendation. if after the hearing of his or has reviewed

all material and also after the city engineer as well as the director of public works and bureau street use and mapping manager has all the material. so the statement came directly from the city engineer. but if i don't speak directly for him, but i would assume that much of this was because the existing permit booted trucks in this area that have to be a limit set at a certain point. >> but if we see, my point is-and one of the things i like about this commission, and how their behavior is, we try to be consistent and consistency is important for all departments. you try because, why is that guy getting it and i'm not in him following the same rules. so, in the same area in a much tighter, much tighter area, in the middle of downtown with much higher traffic levels, i see what is being practiced

there is completely in conflict with what you are offering to this commission tonight, which is, something can be there 5/7 days a week to serve an area. probably a less dense area. so i'm just time to find out how discussion is created? because some reason about monday? off with her head. or where are the metrics? >> to be honest, this was done at a higher level than staff level so this was the statement the deputy director provided us the city engineer >> i don't mean to pick on you. it happens to be some of these livelihood could as well as the public good. >> yes. >> thanks for answering that. >> mr. shaw, the standard of existing restaurants was not applied evenly. these restaurants i'm sure there was these other food trucks were permitted good if that's the criteria, why did it not apply

to them? canady again, it could've been the fact that previous ones that went through cannot go to a hearing and therefore that was not taken into consideration. once they met the general requirement that no objections were filed with the afford within approval. so some of these are the ones most likely to not go to hearing and keep in mind a lot of these food trucks on this block, delete at least 3 of them, were approved prior to the new legislation. prior to the 2013 legislation, which set the limits on the restaurant, which set the limits on the restaurants locations and proximity to existing restaurants. >> okay. >> although, mr. shaw, we've heard for appeals on this block. food trucks, one handcart. admittedly, the first couple was under a different criteria of light foods was the predominant argument. it's

interesting this block is has had that but you have confirmed that there are in an existing 5 permits for this block on that side? >> yes. on both sides of the block >> both sides? >> yes >> parlor with our standard on this? de novo? >> i have a question. what to policy, so, since the standard now for new food trucks is off new legislation, my question goes to was it required that the previous permit be grandfathered in to be able to hold a spot 5 days a week? >> yes. the way the new legislation was they did grandfather the older permits to remain as is

>> to me, before trying to introduce new-again not picking on you but if we are trying to introduce new different and new foods would say not underserved but to these areas, given to the same trucks i mean were creating another where the value of the permit is going to exceed the cost of the business. that, as the potential permit holder explain, it's not going to love new people to be introduced. i see, it must be a very profitable business because i see a lot of the food trucks that was not brick-and-mortar. so what they complained about initially in the beginning several years that i've heard, now they are the other side trying to stop this. maybe we should request the department to give an expiration of how that policy works or how that came about because like you said, consistency and we allowed several the thing could i get on the board since many of these have come before us and

basically to buy but yet as my commissioner swig . this is much underserved than the other locations but yet they are the ones being denied. >> sorry, that was not a question. i apologize. if i could just that it's a little important to understand the way the code is written, it does allow for discretion and it is written in gray area terms. there is a lot of gray area in the code and i believe this is something that requires gray area. because of the amount of trucks that will like and will eventually apply. so, there has to be some sort of discretion allowed on the permit inside in order to determine the feasibility of the amount of trucks and what the public right-of-way is being used for throughout the different days of the week. >> thank you.

>> thank you. is there public comment on this item? if anyone wants to put speak the support. seeing none, we have rebuttal starting with the appellant again. >> you have 3 min. for rebuttal. >> beyond the letters that were submitted from fellow customers among the basic point of, we will miss you if you do not serve in the city, the point of these letters and my customers are trying to make is that this is a benefit. it's a win-win for the city. it's a win-win for the customers. it's a win-win for my in-laws to have an opportunity to share their passion. i believe it's a win-win for the legislation because the single phrase that keeps coming up about this

underserved area, etc. etc. if you look at the very next line that actually says that by limiting a single facilities days to use a particular location during the course of the week will encourage and provide for greater opportunities for diverse food facilities. on a rotating basis. so, how do you get that rotating basis if a truck is allowed to be there monday, wednesday, friday but not on a tuesday and thursday? i'm asking for the tuesday-thursday slot. anyway, again, this is discretion. apparently there 5 permitted trucks. i count 2 that are truly there. you can count 5 depending on how you look at this. the restaurants,

i mean, what am i dennis a? i don't think i'm going to compete with the restaurants to be honest. i think they're doing just fine. if there is a bigger problem, that's mine if i don't get the business. but i do ask for your discretion and the opportunity to have a chance on a fair chance of this. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. shaw, any rebuttal ? >> just to reiterate, this is a discretionary finding and i wonder reiterate the code and the ordinance allows for discussion in these types of cases. >> thank you. because commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i'm inclined to be flip about this and exercise my discretion. i find this discriminatory. i don't find

any really solid basis for denying this permit. >> i agree. >> i may be a little bit of a different opinion in the following way. it's hard to find a nexus between what numbers should be there or should not be there. i think what we're seeing is this, a little bit of a turn in terms of how these permits. in the early days these permits were issued constantly. the nature of them am a sometimes created appeals could of course, there were different criteria there in terms of what was the basis for those appeals. however, the

process of one we are probably seeing is a turn of the cycle a little bit. you know, at this point i don't see how the arguments made for their own business needs as addressed the nexus of how many should or should not be here, which was determined by the department. >> i would take-i'll go back to the consistency view. i have a real-as i expressed i think last week, when we had 2 meetings ago when we had a food truck issue with her was a food truck that was really positioned in a high-volume situation where there is traffic. from 6 a until 6 pm

and they were occupying the very narrow street and this was a real traffic problem. in this case, and in that case also, that truck was paving, or pioneering new territory putting a truck in place. there were no other trucks. in this case, this is from 10 am-2 pm. the street in question is a much wider street. also, there is a a truck which is occupying the same space on the other days, which are-on other days. and, the times of the operation are not during prime traffic times, which i would mature initiall put immature immature

early whatever rush hours. so this inconsistency by virtue of the fact there isn't a truck that's doing business without problem on other days and this is doing anti-gaps. i don't like the discretion. i find this discretion in in this case. a mistake in this case. >> i'm leaning toward board vice president i've been on the board nearly 4 years. i've been consistent in the fact that being from hawaii the food truck capital of the united states, i think there's a definite need for them. i always felt that it should be for underserved areas and should not be in competition with brick-and-mortar, who support people and have employees and pay workman's comp and the whole 9 yards. i think the reason why the legislation-my question to be department was more on the fact

of, why these est. food trucks have been grandfathered in and now they have a gold card, but there's a line here, evidently that's been drawn in the sand in regards to the amount of food trucks in a certain amount of neighborhood and when does the straw break the camel's back. the next time, next person that comes up to us on a smaller street,, but exceed the amount of food trucks, what do we say? i'm very sympathetic with the permit holder, but i can't support an additional food truck. i think that's a reasonable. that's why the legislation was created and though it's a less serve neighborhood and what we tell the next guy that comes through >> commissioner wilson, you are in the hot seat. >> reminded commissioners reviewed and overturned the department you do need a vote..

>>, commotion and then i moved to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal and grant the permit on the basis of that it could have been issued and meets the criteria of the legislation. >> so we have a motion by commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit. on the basis that it meets the criteria of the code. on a motion, ice president fung >> you want me to pass on you? >> unprepared to vote. aye >> thank you. president honda nay, wilson nay, swig aye,

>> that motion fails with a vote of 3-2. without any other motion made then the departmental denial will be upheld by a default. seeing no other motion than that department decision is upheld and the permit is denied. we will move on to item number 5 appeal number 16 008. made sunset neighborhood association vs. san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. this at multiple locations along irving street appealing the issuance of made sunset neighborhood association vs. san francisco public works bureau of urban forestry. this at multiple locations along irving street appealing the issuance of december 31, 2015 of a tree removal permit to move 33 street trees the placement of 7 when oil palm trees as part of the irving streetscape project. we will start with the appellants on that case. >> you have 7 min. to present

your case to the board. >> good evening and thank you for hearing our appeal. my name is-and this is my husband. we where residents, homeowners and tenants in the central sunset at 26 avenue and irving. we are here representing the mid-sunset neighborhood association is priced at 70 households in the central sunset. [inaudible] like to read her personal message. here it is. as an officer of the mid-sunset association and involve neighborhood of the area for the south were years i'm very grateful for the time involvement and allocated funding for this project. i was at the initial irving streetscape meeting those that follow. when the project began the neighbors and merchants were told our neighborhood was vital because the city wanted the project to reflect our unique neighborhood and are concerned. these were our concerns in terms of the choice

of trees for irving street. one was creating a commercial area that was softer, greener trees were provided a canopy and a luscious in contrast to the cement and quasi-. we look forward to the embrace of trees arching over the commercial corridor to this was and is important to us. another issue of concern is being environmentally sensitive. making trees that absorbed urban dioxide. finally, we all want the choices that reflect the character and the-the mid-sunset. this avails none of our hopes. we are specifically reviewing the planting of the windmill palm trees. along the irving streetscape at 3 19th ave. and 27th ave. we are against the window countries as a tree species that will be planted in place of existing trees once they are removed. we would like the current trees to be one or more types of

conventional street trees provide canopy shade, better absorb carbon dioxide and other air pollutants and preserve local identity of our neighborhood. here are our arguments. the mid-sunset neighborhood association feels that during the community mailings the community was never given-was always given very limited choice. the options were limited to bushes and grasses and palm trees. we were-the committee was never given a choice of a shade giving street tree. most of the other similar projects in the city, for example we learn avenue project, have had conventional street trees approved and planted. for example, we learn avenue project is urban of adult baskets several shops and overhead wires and it has 63 new conventional canopy trees planted. our community feels unable it deserves no less. we understand the weather conditions might divert but however, community members consulted with certified arborists and conducted online research using dpw and friends of urban force online resources and we know that there are conventional tree species that

are suitable for the stretch of ripping that would satisfy all the requirements. there is an argument that the windmill palms are acceptable because i'm not score shop signs but there are number of conventional trees with similar height and similar qualities as well as similar characteristics for wind drought has an maintenance requirement. therefore we consider this argument in valid. on trees require more frequent maintenance, every 2-3 years as opposed to 5-7 years for conventional trees and considering that the maintenance has to be paid for by the business owners there is a concern that this will result in a the auto. on tries on trees absorb less carbon dioxide than regular trees get there from the group of trees that's closer to grasses than a regular tree. considering our cities aiming to be the leader in environmental sustainability police we can do is plant trees

and most efficient at carbon absorbing and absorbing greenhouse gases and other pollutants. imagine how much more environmental benefits 6 date canopy trees will bring to our neighborhood and the city as opposed to 60 countries. palms pose a potential safety hazard as well good they may not be able to handle the strong winds along the irving street corridor. we believe also windmill palms were not fit the look and feel of our neighborhood that's loose cloak. located slope closely to the golden gate park. on trees comprise only 3% of the city trees and only 3.84% and the whole outer sunset. that is less than 4%. the majority of the trees in our neighborhood are medium and small broadleaf evergreen trees that are currently no palm trees along this irving corridor subject to this project. therefore, we believe 15 palm trees will significantly change the character of our neighborhood.

our additional argument for planting conventional shade trees instead of palm trees are the following: shade providing street trees prolonged payment life and reduce repair cost of to 60%. she providing street trees make local businesses more attractive and conventional canopy trees contrast, traffic and make neighborhoods safer. in conclusion to everything listed above, we would like to note the planning department of san francisco its most recent urban forest plan that was put together in collaboration with the dpw and friends of the urban forest cites insufficient and shrinking tree canopy and the fact that san francisco has one of we the smallest tree canopies of any major city. it also states its number one recommendation is to maximize the benefits of street trees. we do not believe that windmill palm trees are such trees. there are far better conventional trees that will achieve the goal of maximizing the benefits. vote for neighborhood and visit. we are

asking the board to support us rather than the mid-sunset and put conditions on this order that dpw should once again meet with community organizations members and come up with a different replacing tree species. for the irving streetscape project that would be a conventional tree remix of trees. we are okay with palm trees being in the mix as well. there will also be desirable if friends of the urban forest rate or other independent third-party arbor selected by the community advise on the tree selection in this process. thank you very much >> either any questions we pick >> you had a couple specific trees you would like to see their? >> we do. there's a black [inaudible] that was in dpw's that was presented. but up for a vote. there is a-that's already present in the neighborhood and there's in our grief we included a whole list good i don't know if this is working but we have a and exhibit here with a whole list

of trees that are suitable, have-do not cover the signs and that are suitable for the conditions of our neighborhood. >> that was a matrix that was given to about 11 options? >> correct. not that many of them were canopy trees. >> so that is a problem we have with this process. >> do you feel a mix is preferable to having a single? >> of course, the mixes deftly referable. because it's such a long stretch in 60s 62 duo mix would definitely be much better. a lot of merchants want it to be said they want uniform book. also maybe perhaps there can be a compromise. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder, now. which is

[inaudible] representing the department of public works and then we'll hear from urban forestry after. >> thank you. i do want to thank the appellants for providing a thorough documentation to us regarding their argument. i do want to just put on the overhead >> do you want to identify yourself? >> yes, i will. my name is mike agreed to get on the project manager for the irving streetscape improvement project with the san francisco department of public works. just to give a little bit of background about the project, the irving streetscape implement project is part of the voter approved 2011 street safety bonds. it was allocated $3 million by the bond could the project runs from on irving

street from 19th-27th ave. originally we just spoke to 26 based on community request we extended it to 27. the scope includes new sidewalks on both north and south side, pedestrian buildout at 22nd and 20 fifth avenue, decorative crosswalks, upgraded led streetlights from 19th-22nd ave. the repaving and her improvements and of course street skeet. the committee process was fairly extensive of this but it started in june 2013. we held 5 publicly noticed community meetings to gather public input on the design. at the 5th public meeting we provided the choices for plants or the community to

vote on so they can provide input. we wanted community input but we also utilize our staff netscape architects and arborists to provide selections based on the climatic conditions out on the site as well as existing documents a commercial corridor. that's obviously a big factor in the decision. after the public meetings i personally attended, 5 different meetings with different neighborhood groups, mostly with the outer sunset merchant professional association that will provide updates. since the final public meeting of february 20 14th and our team was working on design documentation construction documents and that's why the one congressional public meanings but i try to console data by meeting with merchants and also a couple of those meetings the mid-sunset neighborhood association was present along with the sunset residents association. did you request from the sunset residents association, i met

separately with them in the mid-sunset neighborhood association, to review some concerns they had including the palms. one of the ways we felt we could meet them halfway is to provide-trees which is a polar canopy tree on side streets off of reading. so, we located 15 of those along the project corridor just to try to meet some of the needs they were discussing. then, one of the things i want to note that the first public meeting we asked for what people wanted to see as improvements on this project, and cleaning was one of the number one requests. currently, the trees on site are in very poor condition. most of them were a lot of them are dead. a lot of them have been t. you can't specifically say why this has occurred. there's some thought that maybe merchants might've cut the top of the tree, so that it did not

plot their awnings but however they're in very poor condition. it is also very difficult environment to grow a big canopy tree due to the high winds, the salt air, and also just been a very busy urban environment. we also look at what the potential for a larger canopy tree would be in terms of elevation, how that would look good we found that the palm tree satisfied the request from a lot of the merchants that this is not blocked but also provide cleaning in the area. also, the overhead power lines, while the palm does have the ability to reach the height of the power lines, as a much smaller canopy so it will create much less conflict with those lines should it reach that could also, with a growing environment it probably would be potentially 10-20 years before it ever reach that

height. so, the windmill palm met a lot of the criteria that i said it it out console required a lot less water after its establishment as i urban survivability, wind and salt tolerant minimal maintenance, really i think the expectancy would be trimming on fronds that die over the years just from the bottom. suitable for many soils. ideal in a constrained space. canopy is less conflict with power lines during a much lesser canopy tree. keeps businesses visible as was a request and about a 6 foot average canopy diameter. so, again this logic shows the trees we offered to the plants on the side streets the 15 additional canopy trees. were able to do that on a side street going north-south and they do not receive that high

winds that irving street does being east west so they are protected. so you can grow a larger canopy tree fairly easily on fairly easily on the n. south st. this shows the matrix of those 11 trees. this order landscape architects developed looking at all the conditions on site. we broke into various categories and found the best species that would have the highest survivability in this corridor. the windmill palm met all of the categories that we had divided it up into. this slide shows the comment card those provided at the 5th community meeting to the meeting attendees for them to vote. about 54% chose the windmill palm as their first choice. the next choice was the purple pussy bush which received about 13% of the vote. the last

thing i like to note, just in terms of maintenance the otto currently includes one year of contractor on term plan to establish and to the contractor who builds the streetscape will maintain those streets for a year after installation survey can establish from there after he goes to the funding property owner and not the merchant. >> mr. reader, you mentioned in a number of community meetings but during the course of your presentation you brought forth that attendees or people you presented to were among the merchants associations and these 2 neighborhood associations. get other residents attend? >> well, to be honest i was not a project manager during the public outreach process.

the project manager the public works subsequently left the apartment and i attended the 5th community meeting taken over the project. so, i was able to gather input on those first 4 meetings via project notes files that were left and also other staff that attended. i would say that the attendance was not what we would have liked completely but that's why i think they have 5 meetings total. usually we do about 3 for streetscape project. we try to cover as much as we could in terms of getting people attendance and getting input. >> at the meeting where you took a vote it was attended by 2? >> it was a mix of residence. there were certain merchants there. there were residents. i think one of the things we asked was, and certainly the

majority lived in this neighborhood. >> my question is somewhat of a follow-up question. i actually just had a committee meeting are to coming to be hearing this evening. do you guys to sign in sheets? >> we do speak roughly how many of the public-evidently you the assignment sheet. how many of the public attended this past meetings? >> i would have to verify the number but for the streetscape it was not hot. >> 1-2?. i would estimate average of 15-20 per meeting. >> that's not that good at those meetings, did you notice evidently were not there but with the same people at the meeting? >> when i reviewed the sun in sheets there were some of the same folks. but obviously given the fact there were 5 depending on who should could show up. >> thank you. >> is there is there a sense of urgency to complete this permit? >> yes, there is. the project

is under construction. construction operations of not begun currently because the contractor is just getting their traffic control plan approved.. if we did change the tree there could be potential cost implications. i believe this conduct includes a contract grow agreements and so if the contractor is oriented she did that contact grow with the nursery, there could be a potential cost to change that. >> i would be counted. it becomes so they move on the contractor's part to get the permits is under appeal but that would be [inaudible] >> once we receive the appeal notification we told the contractor not to commence with the operations related to the tree >> what concerns me here what i'm hearing from the brief from the appellants is something that is not really as

aggressive as we often hear, which is off with your head, yes or no, black or white. this is an outreach for saying, we don't mind the palms, but we don't feel we were heard and we don't feel there's a level of compromise. where i'm going with this is that if there is the opportunity to continue the conversation for a regulated period of time to reach a better compromise. i see mr. buck is in the audience and he is obviously an expert here and i to ask him a question are you going to be up as part of this are you available for questions? >> he'll be speaking next. >> soap i will be asking a question but that's why i asked the sins of urgency questioned it in case there is the opportunity for continuance with a regulated period of time for the purpose of reaching a compromise, which just seems

it's not really mean-spirited but they want a little bit more and a compromise. which i don't see a occurring when it's like all palms. >> the points i'd like to just respond to that are that there are obviously, people participate in the community process that are not here tonight and i think we would take issue with going against what others collectively decided on in the past. i also feel that he did have some good faith efforts in reaching out to the sunset resident association to the mid-sunset neighborhood association to provide additional canopy trees where they would be best suited to grow. we have very limited choices on irving street given the conditions. there was a very large request for cohesiveness and whole corridor. that's why we chose a

single species and with the small rubber trees that would survive out there, that is how we came to our decision, but also including the public in that we felt we did do that. >> what i was with you until you said that you had a predecessor and you have no idea what went on at those meetings, and that's what threw me into a 10 area of gray. if you would've been at all 5 meetings in handle this from point a to point whatever, that would be more comfortable but unfortunately that's the level of doubt that's on my mind. >> so, the maintenance of the trees only for one year by the-and then acted out be the responsibility of whom? >> the property owner. >> that's fine. that's fine neighborhood. i'm there a lot. those trees are really sad. no,

they are really sad. i mean there's a couple trees between 25th and 26 on the north side that if you, on the south side, unlike 22nd, they are just gone. they are just stops. i believe-this of their sponsor ability of the i guess what mr. buck spohn >> i would say the palms we had proposed to be installed would be installed at a 10-12 foot brown trunk height. they would look mature in silly on insulation which i think would limit the amount of abuse they would receive and they're very well make low maintenance. from what i attended up into many of the merchants meetings since the project finished the public outreach and they obviously have a preference to this tree as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. buck.

>> good evening, commissioners. chris up urban for street of public works. i try to keep this under 5 instead of some general observations come a food for thought just to put out there. i would say to start off, the consistent thing here is public works. public works is been at the home the whole time. project made managers may change hands but public works in our outreach and a level of professionalism remains the same. if there's a consensus does establishing and building momentum prior to my brother mike taken on the project that information was critical information within a pass on as a project manager. in terms of the character of the sunset, i would say it's a challenge character when it comes