over you and also a bunch of windows that look down it's like you're under a microscope. your tunneled in. all you've got you can see out was your neighbors can see directly into your single bedroom window. this is the case for this project and the primary reason that i believe the planning step i found that on july 6 project has a next-door narrate or unusual impact to the midblock open space and directly to the property at 571 4747. the other neighbors here in the same situation jenny lives of the property she grew up in the pocket she lived here for 40-50 years. this happens she can actually get locked in so she goes from seeing a bunch of greenery again to a single little tunnel. lisa, right there just moved in recently same position as she's got a neighbor who is elderly or we know the houses probably going on the market soon. if that is all the investment she just made is-a privacy is severely

compromise. we quite honestly sleep with our bedroom windows opened a mention we are very open and friendly community but were not that open and not that friendly. i don't somebody's window right above my bedroom window. again, the planning staff found that the rear addition, they should retain the 5 foot setback from the existing neighbor window. >> thank you. >> by ms. jason-my wife and i honor my 527 47th ave. we lived there with her two children we enjoy sharing the backyard open block space the project sponsor and with our wonderful neighbors who are here today. i'm here to speak to the issues of vertical editions and

decking. invasiveness of the proposed is get in particular, please assure the vertical third-floor addition setback matches the common rear wall of the adjoining neighbor and please remove the excessive privacy intruding forth that get this many euros meetings with the parties and proposed iterations after all this on july 6 the planning staff, project causes quote an extraordinary unusual impact to the midblock open space and directly to the property at 571 47th ave. then they stated as follows: quote reduce the massing of the third story vertical addition above the reader about the sunroom, not to extend more than 5 feet beyond the common rear wall. now among us vertical editions have been limited to the common room rear wall of the adjacent high school we point out for such examples in the block. the author at five 9448 the trudeau house at five 3048 the bar david family be [inaudible]

indeed, even in the one instance of the john house, at five 4947, when it was no common rear wall, adjoining neighbor the city requires the third floor addition to have a full 10 foot setback from the rear of the second floor. importantly, what this means is that no house on this block is ever been allowed to build a setback over the sunroom about to any degree this is what we would all prefer. the planning staff for pozo would allow the third-floor addition to the next 5 feet the on the common your wall. this important regard the proposal is overly permissive. further, the common your wall said that would allow the adjoining sunrooms to continue to have shared lighting is originally designed the neighbors to the rear would not have a large upper massing about their backyards. now let me address the issue of decking. this house has four huge proposed decks. the huge

one in the front, three in the rear. approximately 42 of the 54 house on the block have no decks. 10 have one deck. only two has two decks. none has a deck in the front. none has a rear deck. one has three decks in the reader get certainly none has four deck could such a result would be an insult our neighborhood privacy verbal president the community does not want. the staff concluded removed about any of the rear of the third level to respect neighborhood privacy and with this we firmly agree. thank you. >> thank you. >> mining his archives my wife and i own 545 47th ave. to live there with her two children. our home is in the [inaudible] discusses evening. i strongly support the city planning staff part in the 65

neighbors and ask you to take er in the july 6 planning staff decision. this near neighborhood unanimous in the planning staff decision is a standard for our special block. project sponsor stated the design objective of the development is to accommodate a couple into children. people move into this neighborhood because they are attracted to the charming and historic [inaudible] and lands end. we understand the need for this family to upgrade their home and increase the square footage but when they propose an out of scope project is imposing on the entire neighborhood disrupts the conduct continuity of our homes. it is my testimony that there are many of us with similar sized families who remodeled on the spot without upsetting the neighborhood pattern and surrounding. after 20 years we are currently doing a permitted remodel of our own home to

accommodate our growing family significantly increasing the living space without expanding at all the footprint of our house. our children are funding each other own bedroom and the result is maximum and pragmatic utilization of the total living space with many value added aesthetic qualities. the be plenty of room for very active family of four. modifications are consistent with the intimate style of the houses on this blog. if unanimous neighborhood support for our project and the way negatively impacted our neighborhood. we have also seen over the years several other projects with reasonable renovations jetted space in the remaining context of the neighborhood characteristics. it's obviously the opposite case with this proposed project. this neighborhood is not this presidio heights. it is not pacific heights. or seacliff. the houses in the signature block our modern modest in size, and fit nicely into a co-lease of architecture. this

almost planned community type atmosphere derives from the history of the block that about 95% of the houses are the same scope and size resonates with the vision of the original developer who lived here. people call this plot the most beautiful block in the richmond district. i think all of us here tonight within agree with that statement. that's why so many of us stay here for decades and want to preserve it. please, join the neighborhood are in the plan is often adopting the july 6 decision. thank you. >> i believe that includes speakers in support of the dr request. project sponsor, please. >> good evening commissioners tom tony ruben junius and rose on behalf of the project sponsors. our time is brave so i'll touch on a couple of points and then our architect

louis butler will also speak. the impacts on the direct adjacent neighbor to the south mr. answer, is at the heart of the dr request are minimal. project would cause a minor shading on his residence in midsummer weight evenings and early morning and there are no privacy impacts to speak of. the midblock open space concerns are bit puzzling. we propose a rear deck on the second floor the small balcony above on the third that are well within the root hard rear yard and there is no enclosed building area that extends beyond the existing rear popout wall. the proposed widening of the rear residence does not encroach on the midblock open space. it does not clock in the neighbors read neighboring residences and generally consistent with the prevailing block pattern. with that alternate over to louis butler and available for any questions you may have. >> good evening commission. my

name is louis butler. on the architect for this project. i would like to make a brief presentation of the project really focus nothing on the area that got the most attention. i'd like to start by saying no mr. answer for six you get a lot of specter john in. yesterday recommended me for this project i'm sorry the results were not what we would like but i do always think of my business and i think works 9%, we can work things out can all get to that later. this project does involve a vertical addition was on full addition of a new façade. it's a big project. i admit that. we have tried to do what we can to be consistent with the neighborhood could show a new perspective of the façade as i spirit alike to move to the midblock open space next. one

of the great characteristics of this block and agree with the people that are spoken before me is there's a tremendous amount of midblock open space and you can see in this aerial photograph and a point out where the subject property is, it's right here, that there is kind of this ideal in my mind essential part of fact where all the houses surround this wonderful green space. the most does feel like a part other than a backyard. one of the things you'll notice though is there our casual interruptions in the open space and they work very nicely with the pattern. now our house is right here. it is part of about six houses quite similar. we do not go out beyond that point that you see the roof right now. we do not actually go any further into the open space with enclosed space itself. i think the vertical addition also is this

right in the middle of the house and towards the back and all get to that later and i think that actually suits quite nicely in the block also. i like to focus on what i think is really at the core of this matter next. we have at least three rdt opinions of this project. this is the rdt that was in place at the time of the 311 notification. i like to kind of graft with my hand the way this works. from your right, my left. you're right is kind of where it begins. sorry to your left his word and spirit we have a project review meeting and we received the planning department. we filed a permit and rdt modifies the project. right before we were about to go out for 311 i was on the phone with david lives in the project was further modified that's exactly what you see right now. at that point on rdt was very happy when

our proposal and that's what got sent out. then the graphic swings wildly over to the side which is what happens when opposition makes their opinion known. john answer is an excellent opposition and i commend him at that but i don't understand the span between rdt opinions between here and there i think that something we should have a discussion about. i think that this addition of the rearguard respect all the aspects is your book. it does not create shade on the property does not create a precedent in the medlock and i sincerely hope that you see it the same way. thank you very much. i like to with the romanian seconds introduce [inaudible] we are sitting behind me. they are new to this city the new to this country and afraid they do not understand the process and we are hoping to make it as all three letters of support like to present to the planning commission. >> thank you. any speakers in support of the project sponsors

be one? >> my name is val-i sell real estate in the city for over 35 years. one of the biggest challenges is affordable housing in how we approach it. areas we have the oldest housing stock in california in san francisco. to meet the demands of the modern family today is challenging. in any kind of affordability contacts. these people,, i've worked with them twice now. when they first came to this country i sold him a condominium. that their second child and i sold on this house. i feel terrible for them. they

thought they were following the rules and going by the guidelines. they have not created this huge house. for stories going out into this garden area. these lots are 120 feet deep. i would wish you to consider everything mr. butler has presented before you and to consider their project. i know it's a great challenge where you have neighbors who are opposing it but we have to have some normal guidelines to go by . to help families remain in the city. it is a real challenge and i have seen this over the past three decades. thank you for your time. >> be thanks. any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? dr requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> i'm just going take a second. i appreciate the fact that real estate agent wants to

sell property. but i don't think it is pertinent to what we are talking about today. mr. butler was correct. as i mentioned, actually, rdt did consider this more than once. but i was talking about was their final decision when they took a good look at the situation that is what we are asking for. john? >> i just want to point out that there are a total 54 houses in a midblock open space and starting here there's 39 of them identical that were built by herman christiansen in 1939. there are 15 houses in this midblock open space that have made about sunroofs. they are here, here, here, here. one third of the houses have made bob sunrooms and this plan has an extremely bad impact on these made about sunrooms. i'd also like to point out it's my

issue was directly impacted but as the rdt found, the entire midblock open space is impacted and that's the reason we've had 65 people in this block that signed a petition that we have 20 neighbors here tonight who have waited here for four hours to show up all of my neighbors who signed this. we've 21 letters. the neighborhood goes we strongly this neighborhood be maintained. >> thank you. project sponsor, two-minute rebuttal. he was >>good evening lewis butler again. i have a graphic showing we also have five letters of support that you will see two letters of support actually not letters i take that back it we have five people support. you'll see to park in blue

areas of support that are quite close to the house including the property to the north. these people, given the amount of flak for better word [inaudible] did not feel comfortable putting their views in writing but they verified with my clients this evening they do support the prospect i also like to comment a little bit on the process starting with the neighborhood outreach meeting i had quite a few conversations john answer i would term very productive. they did center mainly on the rear of the house. they did center mainly of part of the house next to him. in june of this year, and this was our mistake, my clients felt uncomfortable with the discussions and they broke off those discussions and we apologize for that. three weeks ago, i very actively as john to reconsider the negotiation and finally was granted a meeting on tuesday of this week which one was very optimistic about. i was told this morning by mr. mansour there was no reason to continue a dialogue in that

dialogue was cut off. i understand that we cannot fulfill perhaps our obligation in communicating and again i apologize for that i had whole high hopes though in fact we would be with to resolve this. i'll be available for any questions and do appreciate your attention to this matter. >> thank you get back in good public hearing. commissioner richards >> i know we've been here nine hours. i'm little tired and cranky almost been in tokyo [inaudible] airline seat. but planning association of the richmond did not file this dr staff would've initiated one. i absolutely that would be the case. i welcome you to the city i welcome you to this country. i don't know how long you been this apartment process and i'll take it for what it's worth he might be quite understand. i do believe mr. ballard did try to

make this process go better. i hope that this picture at the beginning of the hearing nine hours ago and i said about the application of design guidelines this is what were going to end up with. this is code compliant and this is existing zip 52 foot wall that this project made for their neighbor which is not neighborly. so that's why we have the design balance and that's why don't live in savannah to be honest with you. i think after what we went through on the last dr request where stuff was actually okay with it and we actually gave the dr request or more, here we are in a situation where stuff doesn't even agree with the project sponsor that this has nothing extraordinary or exceptional and we're getting it back to the starting line. i think coming and i know there were efforts made so i don't want to [inaudible] negotiate with those neighbors but this type of attitude this type of change this type of product

taking the city in the wrong direction as fast recognition i really truly believe keeps san francisco special place it is and gives people wanting to live here. i think the recommendations don't impact the we in the call, your ability to program your husband at it keeps it in context of the neighborhood gives it neighborly and keeps it livable for everyone. so i complete agree with staff could i do think there were extraordinary exceptional circumstances and i would move to take approval with staff modifications >> second >> commissioner moore >> i think commissioner richards summarize very well what the situation is. we often find more reasons to impose additional restrictions which now may not bring forward in this particular case. i've hardly ever seen any pr with the applicant had a minimum wasn't following what staff was towing them. i've never actually seen up. to be quite honest so i'm in full support.

they are in a lot of precedent with other pumphouse and other part of the city exactly the situation on cap street several years ago. what do something very similar. there's a special rules regarding the sunrooms and bump outs and i believe staff's recommendation is the nail on the head. some in the full support of it and i think would be a better project. >> if there's nothing further commissioners there's a motion is seconded to take er and approve the project with staff modifications. on a motion hillis aye johnson aye kopp aye elder aye moore aye richard aye fung aye so moved the motion passes unanimously 7-0. the place on general public, and for which i've no speak regards. he was any general public comment this evening >> not seen seeing any the meeting is adjourned.

>>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>hello. >> all right. good morning, everyone thanks for your patience today is tuesday, october 18, 2016, budget and finance committee i'm supervisor katie tang will be chairing for supervisor farrell and clerk

victor young and from sfgovtv thank you jennifer lowe and nona melkonian mr. clerk, any announcements? >> completed speaker cards and documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the october 25th board of supervisors agenda board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> >> thank you before we begin can we get a motion to excuse supervisor farrell without objection item one. >> item one retroactively arthur's the district attorney's office to accept and expend a grant in the governor's office of department of emergency management for the elder abuse program. >> thank you. i believe we have someone from our city attorney's office district attorney's office i'm chief of the adoption services i want to thank for hearing this item and

give you a little bit of background information on it we currently are a team in the unit that works with elderly independent adults and disabled victims of crime in san francisco we serve 7 thousand victims of crime a year with that unit and other unit we took the opportunity for this grant in order to booster our services in the area we choose to focus own two issues under resources for elderly the first is pedestrian fatalities we are working closely with vision zero to target and outreach and gave me our elderly disability adults victims of accidents and fatalities for public waernsz of information campaign, outreach and also provide services four those who have been victimized the other areas are financial scams we have a great

relationship the stewards for victims in but the compensation in cover the victims of fraud we have targets for financial fraud with those funds we'll do a lot of preservation work and engagement in the community to make elderly in a variety of services and facilities and housing developments to be aware of kind of scams that are happening and targeting them and give them information and resources to help to protect their confidentiality they're not continued to be victimized by financial fraud and help to undo some of the challenges with their finances, with their credits and with the list they get put on once they're targeted we'll take care of that issue.

>> thank you for your presentation i work with several of our staff it is effective can you talk a little bit about a matching fund of 5 thousand dollars how that will be provided for . >> we're building on the existing unit that serves the elder and adults with disabilities we'll be using staff time for the match and volunteer hours we have a robust volunteer program and victims in the division those volunteers have 2 weeks of full training before they work with our office and assigned to one of the unit and working closely with the advocates probation officer support them and dribble with our victims so they'll be part of our match. >> thank you all of that was the non-volunteer part included in the budget. >> great. all right thank you very much any other questions or comments okay. seeing none and there was no budget analyst

report so open up item one, if anyone is here please come on up seeing none, public comment is closed. a motion on that item. >> motion to move this out with a positive recommendation. >> without objection. >> item 2. >> item number one is recommended without objection was with supervisor farrell being absent i wanted to note his asbestos. >> item 2. >> the water revenue bonding not to exceed 200 and $95 million to be issued by the public utilities commission of the city and county of san francisco pursuant to prior ordinances and the charter of the city and county of san francisco thank you so we received a request from the puc to continue this item to october 26th so at this time we'll hold off on the budget analyst report and

open up for public comment on item 2 seeing none, public comment is closed. get a motion to continue. >> continue. >> all right. without objection with supervisor farrell absent. >> all right. mr. clerk, call item 3 through 7. >> item 3 a intention to establish the city and county of san francisco infrastructure and revitalizetion and project areas to finance the construction or acquisition of facilities on yerba buena island and directing the director of public finance to prepare an infrastructure consent of the city and county of san francisco in district one and item 5 intention to issue the bonds for the city and county of san francisco infrastructure and revitalization finance district one and other matters in connection there with and next the intention to establish the

city and county of san francisco district number 2016 improvement area and a future aggregation and determine those matters in connection and item 7 resolution of intention to incur bobtd indebtedness not to exceed $5 million for the city and county of san francisco for the district number 2016 dash one and determining other matters. >> thank you very much. we have director beck from the transportation authority. >> for more than the past year tida has been working with the public office of finance with the outside consultant and the treasure island to develop treasure island to talk about the districts participated as part of treasure island and

bringing those of intent tic did has been a apron and the project was entitled in 2011 beginning in 2014 the developer ramped up they're predevelopment design work submitting 89 first phase and sub phase application to the city to review and approval in anticipation of the first land transport happened in may of 2013 with the sub phase application we transferred the first parcels to the developers in february of this year and they have commenced on demolition on yerba buena island and treasure island and issued the first subcontractors - the documents approved in 2011 included a number of related

plans and documents the critical to the financing of the program are the disposition and agreements and the attached financing plan that called for the formation of those districts the development program of the island as a whole includes the development of 8 thousand new homes actually more than 25 percent of which will be affordable up to 5 hundred new hotel rooms and half a million square feet of office space and significant range of public benefits three hundred acres of open space entirely new roadway systems and transportation facilities including a new ferry terminal on, on the island and improving treasure island and preps for current aid future sea level rise the financing and d da called for them to provide all

the public and private improvements on the island and for the city to provide for the formation of an infrastructure and revitalization financing for districts and the community facilities district for public financing for improvements to reimburse - with the beginning of the activities on the island it is time for us to go through the process of forming those district and we're issuing that process with you today in terms of backward on the collections that finance that flow to the ifd and efd starting with the operational within tpr the district that's the one

percent property taxes and the go bond gas stations out of the property taxes 35.3 percent of that goes to the state and other regional agencies and roughly 65 percent is for the city of san francisco under our financing plan 56.7 percent of that tax is dedicated to the infrastructure financing district and an additional 8 percent of that flows to the general fund but subordinated to the financing of district helps to provide a ratio for the debt issued the bonds issued against the district the cf z is the special tax assessed on properties within the cf d in addition to the traditional

property taxes so the recommendations is that we have before you are 3 resolutions to fibrillator the formation of index rfp and two resolutions for the frorms of cf u those will be followed by a number of resolutions which we're introduced at the full board yesterday as well as two ordinances one of these recesses approving the infrastructure financing plan will come back to this committee in november and the additional resolutions in ordinance will be held - heard before the full board at a public hearing anticipated on december 6th this lays out the timeline for some of the actions as i mentioned the introductions happened yesterday for the follow-up resolutions and those

will be heard here in committee or the one resolution will be heard in committee on november 2nd and then the hearing before the full board on december 6th including the public hearing and the election for the formation of the districts. >> a little bit of update on the status of program this map is the portion of the island that have been transferred boy tida to the navy and the bottom of the map have been transferred and there is a significant additional areas that will be transferred over the next 18 months with the final happening at the end of 2020 and 2021 we as i mentioned have the gun demolition on the island all the obsolete structures an yerba buena have been demolished and the demolition will start on the waterfront and treasure island

is on the way the developers is also advertised or awarded several contracts with the reservoir contract have been bid the yerba buena island utility and right-of-way infrastructure is expected to mobilize next month the dbi technical package is out for bid right now and the utility and right-of-way infrastructure in the sub phase on treasure island is expected to steady the bid before the end of the year. >> so more detail on the i f r d works with the city's share the property taxes 56.9 percent of the pledged to the district and 8 percent is subordinated

the i r f d is reimbursed quality and our source for public if his honor please, our the affordable housing development this map shows the project will be formed a total 55 project areas one of the advantages the ability to establish different project areas that will have different periods of time over which the tax increment will be approved for the financing as we move forward an additional sites is prepared for development we'll continue to annexation those this is a special tax for the rates put

forward progression and similar to the i f r d with the public improvements and there is also our long term source for the maintenance of the parks and open space on the island and intended to develop a capital reserve for the implementations of sea level rise adaptation as we move forward so as i mentioned first 42 years of bond issues are going to be committed to the reimbursement of public infrastructure as part of the development as well as continuing to fund ongoing park maintenance costs but then after that the initial period we'll develop a capital retail use or reserve up u up to a quarter of a million dollars for the sea level rise adaptations and after 99 years if not triggered

earlier we'll convert to the c to continue in perpetuity for the parks and open spaces this map shows the initial improvement areas for the suggestion of the parcels on yerba buena island as we move forward we'll annexation additional properties on treasure island into the cf d. >> so we stand before you today sapgsz we have been working on the project for for over a year to bring the measures to the board and if we're able to move forward we intend to hold the public hearing on december 6th and move forward to validate the formation next year and initiate the cf d i'll be happy to take questions and nadia from the

office of financing. >> thank you director beck supervisor yee first. >> thank you for your presentation i want to understand the rate for the cf d is one percent? >> or is it variable. >> the cf d there are per square footage assessments from based on the type of development so not set as a percentage of property taxes in most cases that will equal between one .5 and one .6 percent i'm sorry .5 a .6 of the assessed value on

top of the assessed one percent. >> is that in the taxation. >> i did not include that that the presentation part of the resolution of intention to form the cf d and exhibit that to the r m a the rate of proportion. >> once the proposed rate a set initially it is pretty much the rate at move forward or would that change. >> it would be the rate that will moved on the properties within the initial improvement areas agreement or each time an annexation of properties the rates will be reexamined and increased if appropriate based on escalation of the property values. >> so the estimate is

10.5 million annually that will go into the general fund to support infrastructure that the amount that will be for this particular parcel of land? >> the 10.5 is i believe the amount of review in $2,016 that will flow to the general fund in excess of all project obligations and in excess of all newly new general fund expenses generated as a result of the project as much as the new police and fiction on the island that $10.5 million a requester is the current assess of all

project and project driven general fund that expenses versus in any general fund reviews. >> i get that part but the calculation is it based on the first annexation of parcels or based on that we'll annexation a lot more. >> that's based on the entire program and in terms of the cf d it nor create a general fund obligation as a supplemental taxation in addition to the standard at the property taxes. >> the i r f d that effects the general fund also. >> thank you so i know that in your presentation and talked about building up to 89 thousand

homes that will three percent of them are affordable my understanding there is a target of maybe 27 percent in terms of affordability and just in general for the affordable housing portion my understanding is that the i f d would not necessarily cover essentially there will be a gap in funding affordable housing on treasure island can you talk a little bit about issue and how we'll address that in the future. >> and so two points in terms of number of affordable housing units the development plan the d da and the housing plan called for minimum of 25 percent affordable but it provides the city the option to increase from 2000 to 2000 one and 73 housing units that will be the 27

percent you registered we can exercise that option in terms of the number of units that will be built singles the financing plan was adopted in 2011, we seen an excavation - so that's contributing to a gap and a few other factors that factor into our debt certain funding sources available in 2011 at the federal level not currently available we have a base gap we've been working with the office of public financing and the mayor's office and the mayors budget staff to analyze alternatives to fill the gap that includes local resources some will be generated

by the state with the motorist license vehicle fees and seek support at the state level for the reconstitution of a redevelopment level of support where the state will attribute some of the rap share generate as a result of the project and grant opportunity like the sustainable community which is a carbon tax that certainly million dollars to the project area. >> debris know that today, the items are to set up the the r f d so keeping the board posted by celebrations or considerations of how we're going to address

that funding gap that would be great. >> we're looking forward to abrogating on the first affordable project in 2018 and looking forward to put our fencing plan in place. >> supervisor yee. >> yeah. this is not a budget question but in regards to the affordable housing piece of it what are we looking at in terms of the ami. >> so the range of affordability it is intended for treasure island is from zero to one and 20 percent of ami with the main medium to be 50 percent of ami. >> thank you. >> at this time let's going to the budget analyst report yes on

package 15 of the report bans the assessed value of initial project areas over 43 years if 2018, 2019 to 2000 61, 62 it estimates one billion dollar and one and $52 million plus of conditional increment will be generated for is revitalization financing district that is over the 43 year term that otherwise have would have been allocated to the general fund using those estimate the maximum amount that is allocated to the general fund is billion dollars plus we also note that the proposed community facilities district will not have fiscal impact it

levies an assessment paid by the property owners this is in addition to the pharynx and on page 16 of the report we noted it is shown in figure 7 that the overall project is amended to generate surplus to the general fund of approximately $338 million and plus a surplus of 6 hundred thousand per year and amended to generate surpluses of 200 and one million dollars plus an annual surplus on build out of three hundred thousand to the mta and the resolution fund and in conclusion on page - because of the proposed infrastructure and revitalization financing district in the community facilities district are consist with the extremity agreement between the city and the

transportation authority and the disposition between the yerba buena island and yerba buena island, llc as previously approved by the board of supervisors we do recommend approval of those resolutions. >> thank you, very much. mr. rose at this time opening up for public comment i have one comment card from chair wiener williams but if there is anyone else please come on up. >> i'm with the treasure island initiative we're here to urge your support the formation of those district is very important in terms of generating the funds that will allow our affordable housing project to go forward we have our first project is funded and as supervisor tang noted there is still a gap there we're hopeful through all the mechanisms we'll be able to fill those gaps it is

critical important we have those mechanisms available to obtain the yes, i did. >> funds we urge your support and in terms of the community facilities district a lot of the maintenance work we are currently done on treasure island done to the workforce training opportunity programs we support that as well thank you >> anyone wish to comment on item number 3 through 7 please come on up seeing none, public comment is closed. if we can get a motion items 3 through 7. >> i'll make that motion to pass item 3 to 7 with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> all right. without objection and with supervisor farrell absent. >> thank you very much for being here. >> mr. clerk item 8. >> resolution authorizing the

transportation authority to execute a communication with the bart to negotiate licensed agreement with carriers to extend the ground commercial fiber and infrastructure to the sfmta underground system. >> thank you very much and i see we have coner johnston from supervisor president london breed's office. >> thank you vice chair coner johnston chief of staff with london breed about 3 and a half years ago i was complain on the n judah i can't text or read the news and couldn't answer her calls but there are 200 thousand people everyday that ride not - who ride the muni who are deprived of cell coverage and before supervisor president london breed asked me to work on that project to see what we can

do i began working with muni and are we there yet? and the project started to gain steam with director nick of the bart board and then the mta chief financial officer came on board and the 3 of us pushed this and what the item before you i think i'm quoting harvey rose correct me if i am wrong mr. rose the most phenomenal deal i've seen in any 60 years of budget analyst because what bart will do is negotiate with those carriers they'll pay for the approximate $6 million in capital costs to provide the service in the tunnel and also pay annual fees to the mta so we'll be able to provide cell services so for the 200 million muni riders to text their family and work if their train is detailed and not only that

service but we'll make money this is truly a win-win been great to work on. thank you to nick and others and on london breed ask for your support. >> thank you very much and mr. johnson i remember my legislative aide bringing this up and someone is running late they can't tell their boss with all due respect we've seen no movement but glad to see an agreement before us with that, i don't know if none from sfmta is so provide a presentation. >> gail i'm joined by travis from bart we just want to say we're excited to be moving forward with that project and mr. rose office has a complete report. >> i know that mr. johnson talked about that but can you in

terms of the i guess the license fee contribution that will result from this contract how does that work. >> bart will be leading the discussion so i'll let the gentleman address that. >> thank you travis manager of information systems with the bay area rapidly bart has been doing a study the revenue is dependent upon on the number of hosts to the idea we the evidence will then show existing radio equipment and add cellular and build to large enough for the carriers to join the next i don't know that is reasonable to say whether the participation may save one to $3 million that will be divide between the agencies. >> in mr. rose's report it said mta for example, would receive 20 percent of license fees for areas controlled and or used by bart

and 50 percent the license fees controlled by sfmta; is that correct. >> the decision it bans ownership of the property. >> the construction period. >> estimated between 12 and 18 months anticipate after the city and county of san francisco approves it will go to the bart board and begin negotiations and hopefully construction on the cellular early in the summer of next year. >> okay. on the mta side i think i read in the resolution that it will not only benefit customers but sfmta in terms of our own equipment can you talk a little bit about that and how that will be helpful to improve mta reception. >> i'll talk about that the idea was a neutral host system it is shared infrastructure before the transit and the commercial carriers the antenna

have shared by the groups there is a lie helpful the tuning to have accurate cell phone calls and hundreds of thousand of people on the network it greater than the needs of radio purposes there is maintenance of the equipment there will be teams of r f radio frequency engineers to help to solve the problems and cellular connectivity you're talking about extending cellular phone also core benefits. >> did mta have anything else to add maybe you can translate this to improvement of customer service. >> you've phone will work in the underground areas you'll be

able to look at schedules and send and receive e-mails to get on the web and another thing that ground will provide finally location service center that is key a rider want to know where they are and where to go to find their designation. >> i meant your equipment or procedures will improve on given the new reception will the new riders see improvements. >> it is really to address the cellular system i'm not the it expert i can't give you an answer but we expect to see cellular improvements and also not just to help you with work but also emergencies if people needs to call home or a larger

emergency that is more assess to phones if you want a more technical response we'll get it to you. >> thank you very much supervisor yee. >> yeah. so in regards to the services for the cell phone is the great if it is along the bart line i'm curious because connor was talking about the n judah going through the tunnel and the twin peaks will that cover that area. >> it covers all underground mta property the ones currently ground and the ones built to extend the network to all the regions the above ground network is covered with the antennas it is difficult to penetrates 3 stories underground that's what we're focused on. >> so it includes the twin peaks tunnel and n judah that tunnel. >> right. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you

last question might be more rhetor rhetorical can don't care to long. >> that's a good question for the city and county of san francisco and mta bart has been - it's been a shame we don't have the cellular service on the muni level what the downtown bart stations and montgomery and embarcadero the agencies have wanted to do a deal and e-mails and communications back and forth but it took i think the right amount of juice to get it over the goal line. >> thanks connor i guess (laughter) no, thank you i shouldn't take credit but director and others were phenomenal in making this happen and bart deserves a lot of credit they were enthusiastic about making it happen. >> thank you bart now let's go to our budget analyst report on the best deal mr. rose has ever

seen. >> madam chair and supervisor yee owe didn't use the precise words that connor stated this is an outstanding deal for the city i agree with them and noted that mr. connor used in one reference uses the word steam he hope he was not steamed over this. >> (laughter). >> on page 21 we report that sfmta 123e789s the construction for extending the bart network will take between 12 and 18 months once an agreement is reached the total estimation cost 2 had the $9 million and paid by the cellular carriers no anticipated costs to bart or the sfmta and as i've stated sfmta didn't have an estimate at this time as to the fee revenues to be

received by the sfmta we do recommend that i approve that resolution. >> thank you very much and so at this time i don't see any other questions or comments opening up for public comment anyone wish to comment on improved cell all right. public comment is closed. mr. clerk i'd like to add any name if we can get a motion. >> i can make a motion a motion to send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> and without objection with supervisor farrell absent item 9 please. item 9 resolution to authorize the department of emergency management and the department of technology to enter into a citywide meg hurts with the mortuary role not to exceed

$76 million. >> i see someone in the department of emergency management. >> i'm michelle with the department of emergency management that the project sponsor for the radio replacement an jackson and want to come and talk about the program and give you a little bit of background with the system currently the city owns and maintains the public radio system that is used a daily by over 20 city departments and outside agencies that system is use daily one hundred thousand talks on a daily basis from integer with police communicating with police in the field and talking to capture and the services did not like the puc that use the system as they operate around the city the systems that are currently in operation 15-year-old in 2000

and are now becoming out of vendor support and the emergency radios that are carved by the police officers and firefighters are breaking at a considerable rate and now more and more unreliable so to address that problem fiscal year 2014-2015 approved an it project to replace the system at this point we had estimate the project was roughly $28 million and convened an steering committee and convened a project team with the department of emergency management and department of technology second the company to

replace the system we've been in negotiation with them and as part of negotiations process we've been able to combine both the public safety and the public service radios and combine with the airport radio systems to create and bold one network that will be supported by all city departments and we feel this is the most efficient way to build 9 network and several benefits as part of the new system more importantly the radios that are used by the police and firefighters are going to be able to be inoperable not only in san francisco but if they are called out on a strike team outside of city limits throughout but fwaur they'll be able to take their radios the radios have battery life not only in buildings but building two new radio sites in the bayview and the san bruno jail

the systems hinduism redundant and also be able to implement a gps to track officers in times of emergencies there are a lot of benefits with that system and so we're here today with a request to approve a contract with the motorola but the majority of radios that operate over 9 thousand radios we're anticipating as also part of the progress it is a large contract large dollars value and several others competing projects that are happening throughout the city so what coit recommended a financing arrangement we're able to finance the deficit the

counteracting and ask an approval to enter into a contract for $35 million to - we've been able to obscure a 10 year financing arrangement very low interest rate so this is a good feel for the city and we would like to enter into a long term maintenance argument with motorola that will not - 24/7 technical support, onsite on downtime but upgrade the network every two years it is critical so we continue to use and operate on a current supported vendor platform by entering into the maintenance agreement we had 20 percent savings by this multi

year contract and have the opportunity to get back finances for the outdoor agency that use this system. >> as far as the budget and schedule the budget analyst office did an excellent job in going through the cost estimate which you see in the report but originally coit approved a $78 million project we're under that that includes the finances into the contract as of now on budget with the program and then in order to build the system a project that will take several years we're anticipating 4 years for the transition but if we approve that contract in the next several weeks here we're on track to ship 26 hundred affordable radios for the police

and fire department so they'll be able to start using those radios as early as next year. >> that's all i had for the presentation i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> okay. thank you very much and i know you mentioned the systems would be integrated across the departments it is really a great thing i. >> is a that was mentioned the sfmta has a system with a different company it appears the systems will be compatible so. >> and also important that the same technology so the public safety radios what about programmed to prerequisite on the muni network and our anticipation is that we use it as a back up for the public safety and public service radio system we're planning to trj of many feasibility. >> thank you. great supervisor yee. >> yeah, this will be really exciting we'll fund and upgrade

our system i have one question in regards to the length of the contract for maintenance of 18 years couldn't think of a logical reason 18 years why a reason 18 years. >> that's a great question the first 3 years of the maintenance agreement so maintain our current system as we start to build the new system the first 18 are lower costs and to maintain the current network and then we have roughly a year of warranty and 15 years arrangement to maintain the new system and 15 years based on looking at our current system right now our current system is over 16-year-old we we use that

a benchmark to guide obvious on the length of the maintains a very xeevens combraefr so we're not having to renovate, upgrade and replace all our network. >> would it make sense to make that a 10 year contract and the option to extend 5 more years so 10 years from now you could - right now, we're thinking we're senateer in the future and we'll protect the future with the rated in which technology is approving seems like 18 or 10 years from now the base will be different i can't imagine. >> that's an excellent point we did look at different models

of how we would do the maintenance arrangement and looked at it upgrades in 6 years and again in 12 years but arrangement that motorola said a 15 years there was a savings by the bundles and have the option to modify that and standard provisions for termination of non-appropriation as part of program if we have a change or major technology shift there is flexibility that the city has i will say if you look at public safety radio communications in general the market didn't move and quickly as you see in the consumer electronics a little bit different type of technology. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. i think that supervisor yee was getting to some of the points i was going to raise i'm glad to see the

built in upgrades and have currently we're not doing that at all out of curious so we're purchasing the equipment or the any models for leasing equipment so again, we're not in a situation maybe 18 years down the line we need a significant amount of money to purchase new equipment and invest in upgrades that is for over a shorter are period of time. >> we did ask for that type of arrangement and different arrangements as part of rf process models in some instances motorola has a model they own the network and city and counties use the network they have different models with the standard traditionally model. >> i'm guessing because with

the proper maintenance we're hoping that will still be beneficial in a pretty - i mean new term for a long term. >> yes. absolutely and the system will be upgraded the bay stations will be upgraded we'll still have to tie in a 10 year period look at a refresher program for the affordable radios and working with the mayor's office roadway on how we can look at long term replacement strategy for the actual portable radios on the network. >> i think this is obviously very, very important for our city and you know, i think we're all pretty sure behind that given that is a large dollar amount it it takes time and resources to refresh our system and trying to make sure whatever agreement make sense for us in

the long term. >> all right so at this time oh, supervisor yee something else mr. rose. >> yes. madam chair and supervisor yee on page 31 the first 4 years of maintenance agreement the maintenance costs will be the same three hundred and 20 thousands annually as motorola maintains the system but in 2021 to 200022 plus over one million dollars unanimously and on page 32 of our report a table 8 shows the estimated cost for the radio replacement is one and $5 million plus and we do are recommend you approve that resolution. >> thank you, mr. rose. >> so at this time opening up for public comment if anyone is

here to speak on item 9 seeing none, public comment is closed. (laughter) oh, i'm sorry was there someone oh, okay sorry we'll reopen public comment for item 9 my apologies >> good morning tom president of the firefighters i'll wear my sneakers next time i'll here to speak on behalf of the firefighters we totally support this radio system it is transmittal for the firefighters going forward that allows the fire department to replace our radios upgrade the infrastructure to a modern public safety standard i'll include radio coverage by especially in the below market rate and more importantly for firefighters tolerated our ability for communication and

lastly that provides improved technology for lost firefighters in an emergency situation as the san francisco fire department we approve that. >> anyone wish to comment on item number 9 i'm scanning the room all right. now public comment is closed. all right. supervisor yee. >> i'll make a motion to pass that out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> without objection. >> mr. clerk, is there any additional business to come before this body? >> that completes the items for today. >> thank you. we're adjourne

>> good morning, today is wednesday, october, 19, 2016, this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board, i would like to remind everyone to turn off of the electronic devices. vice president clinch? >> here. commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> here. >> commissioner walker? here. >> commissioner constal is nexted and gilman is excused. with he have a quorum, the next item is b, the oath. will all party giving testimony today stay and raise your

right-hand? >> item d is approval of minutes, discussion and possible action to adop the minutes for a meeting held on march 16, 2016. >> move to approve. >> there is a motion and a second. >> all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any public comment? >> thanks, nan opposed? >> the minutes are approved. >> the next item, is item e, new appeals, and the order of

abasement, case number, 8723, 1024, clayton street. and the action requested to rescind the order of abatement. >> the department has seven minutes and the appellant has seven minutes and each side has three minutes for rebuttal and there is public comment which is three minutes after each item. thank you. >> one is complaint number, 2003, 45, 254.

that goes back to 2004. the complaint was received by dbi at that time, the building does not match the plans and permits approved. and see the attached letter, and contact the complainant for the additional information. and that case got opened in 2003, around, november. and a notice of violation was also issued at that time by the inspector, who has long retired. and investigation, made in response to a letter of complaint, received on eleven, 303, and a review of the records, for the tr report and conditions, for the following, the structure and stairways that exist at this time of the rear, the yard do not match the configuration as described on the plans approved on the permit application. there is no record of a permit to alter and or construct for the conditions of observed at this time.

horizontal addition of the permit and removal of the exterior stairway. the department of the city ask clearance is required on all structure and shown on the plans including the exempt structures. and that case went through our code enforcement process right up to 2005. and mr. ryan was dealing with senior inspector mcfaden at that time. and this was an appeal filed actually, but we, and i believe that the appeal was never heard. and so, that, that, the department's position would be that that actual issue was still left standing. and that new building permits have been issued to comply with the notice of violation. this came to light because of the 2014 case and i will now move forward to the 2014,

complaint. that number, 201408 --. >> excuse me, may i interrupt you. >> 14 minutes to talk about both cases at once. >> yes, yes. >> if you need it. >> thank you, commissioners, i don't think that i need 14, but i appreciate the offer. in 2014, we received a complaint then which was a new complaint and that was owner of 2026 clayton street has built without permits and cannot see the sec from the street and the vacant lot. that, department opened a case, and 2014, that result on the 18th, on the 21st of november, we ended up issuing a notice of violation for that and that notice of violation reads,

excuse my got the second notice here, i will need to get the first one, sorry. sorry about that, i only had the second one. and so, the notice of violation 20 -- sorry. 21st of november, 2014, a complaint has been filed with this department for unpermitted roof, dec, a roof deck has been installed on top of the garage,

also no permits for decking and stairs at the rear of the building. obtain a building permit with plans and the planning approval or obtain the plans to approve unpermitted work described above. that complaint was and went through our and process. and it was from a building inspection division up to code enforcement. we did have an order of abatement issued. we, the orders were appealed. and that is what brings us here today. and one thing a couple of things that i will add is that there -- i actually met with mr. ryan several times, and other stuff. but at dbi have as well, including the chief inspector patrick orearden and plan check staff, and the city planning as well. there was variances issued here. and mr. ryan was good enough to get an architect but through the variance process and with the variance the building permit is then required.

>> we do not see the building permit to comply, and so they got to a point and didn't move forward for whatever reason. and so in those letters of decision on variances there is also language that you now obtain a building permit and then the planning department stamped those plans and they are sent over to dbi for approval, we never got that and that is why the cases are still outstanding, we do have several, ee mails going back and forthwith mr. ryan with dbi staff and planning staff, explaining this. and mr. ryan then, did file the building permit and has it filed to comply with the 2014 notice of it, and i feel that the staff has been accommodating and understanding of trying to work this out. and i just say, that we have spent several hours meeting with mr. ryan. and one thing that i will say is that, dbi has been caught up

here in a situation that the developer did a pro-j ekt at 1055 ash bury, and mr. ryan appealed the permits and fought them through the building appeals and filed complaints with dbi and so there is animosity with another neighbor. and we got the complaints based on that and that is ongoing and there may be a lawsuit ongoing as well. we are caught on this neighbor v. neighbor and i think that a lot of that is driven through that as well. mr. ryan still needs to obtain the building permits. >> mr. walker? >> there has been a building permit taken out to deal with the 2014 case. but not the 2003 issues? >> that is my understanding. yes. >> yes. that is my understanding. >> so we just need and we would need a building permit to come and to be applied for and issued to resolve the 2003 issues as well? >> yes, now, i just let me clarify, when i said building,

permit has been filed, and it is going through the process of approval. and there has been meetings with staff at dbi. and in regard to some of the exceptions that may be granted in because of the age of the case, you know, and i think that they are fairly positive. but it still remains with planning to approve some of this. like there is a building permit filed in 2015, and add access to the garage roof and deck on top of the roof to comply with violation. that has actually been approved by planning and now it is back with planning again. and they are kind of working with dbi. and to hopefully get a permit issued so that mr. ryan can rec identi

ty fie /* /- rectify. >> now he is going to come up here and tell you that he did obtain permits. nechl those permits were not the permits that he needed to get, there was a reroofing, and the parts of repairing stuff but those permits were not like what was required. now dbi did sign-off on some of those permits. but they were not the permits to comply with the notices of violation. that is my understanding. and i was one, when i met with, when the 2014, notice of violation was given, mr. ryan enne ended up coming down to the department and i happened to be on duty that morning and i do remember, clearly going through this and thinking you do have permits in 07, and let me look at this. and then we looked at the variance decision and those permits that he got were not the proper permits. and we have an e-mail from scott sanchez from the planning department saying that you got those in 07, however, but, i don't even think like they were right in the planning department which would not make sense, because if you have a variance, you always need to go back to planning to get that building

permit. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> i think that you may have answered my question there. i just noticed so basically what it is visibility issue from certain parts of the street, is that in the summary? yeah, because we are seeing the roof deck was permitted. and no, >> no, no. >> we are not going to, because i am just reading from the -- that is in 20 forgive me now, one second here. could we just talk about the 2007 permit of second back mr. duffy? >> yeah. >> maybe that is where i am kind of. that permit that was issued in 2007, can you walk me through exactly what that permit was allowed? >> i need to get that from the fouleder. >> yeah, please.

expand the scope of work, and that was taken out, and only went through the building, and the central bureau did not go to the department of planning that was not reflective of what was issued also? >> no. they were not the permits that are required. and i think that mr. ryan, he honestly knows that and i am not sure why the permits were taken out, and the department caught a flag down at the time, and that is sometimes that we would put an address, block on a property, where we see these permits coming through and say, hold on a minute.

it does not legalize the work or the construction that was done. and so, you know, with that, and those permits are all very well, but they are not addressing the notices of violation that we have nlv from 2003, or 2014, they seem to be the same for me. >> even i am an fused on that one, even i am an fused on that one, i bloo everybody that there are sec and stairs and a roof deck.

we did reference a decand stairs, which which --. >> i think that it refers back to the 2003, notice of violation. >> does it deal with every violation on the 2003, notice of violation. >> i am not sure that i can answer that for you. >> i have not seen the plans. >> mr. walker seemed to ask, that permit was for 2014, or should have a coverage and also cover, 2015. >> i agree that it should and i have not seen the drawings for that and we would want that done on both.

this is good and that is a great sign because the variances expire and to have to reapply for a variance, you have the expense of that and the time. but the planning or standing over the variance even at this late stage and allowing that, so it is a good opportunity for him to legalize all of this work. >> i think that we should hear from this. >> so you haven't seen this on

the latest permit application. >> i personally haven't, no. >> when was the application made? it is made in 2015. >> just last year. >> yes, and it is going through and it has been with building and gone back to planning again, and it is on hold with the planning department with the woods. and that is the last action that i have on it, and it is in hold with our building plan check as well. >> it is only five. >> it is awaiting the variance, just yesterday evening, that planning sent the e-mails and indicating that they would accept the variance. but he still has to apply for the variance. and it is everything that is held up for the variance. >> okay.

>> and i do believe that he will get it. and i do believe that he will get a building permit. okay. >> thanks. >> yeah, the permit is only a permit and i thought that i made that clear. >> it is not an issued permit and still going through the process of getting approved and issued. >> however, it may not take care of the 2003 violation, and that is the issue that i have with it as well. and from reading everything, i am not sure that that does. so --. >> perhaps we could hear from the appellant. >> he would be the best answer to answer. >> thank you. >> yes, thank you. >> before we start, i would just like to know, would you like me to follow up immediately, and try and clarify the points that mr. duffy has. or do you want to just go

through and we have the presentation and the standard appelant, presentation and whichever you prefer for us to do. you have is 4 minutes and you might be able to do both. >> the complaint for 203. >> i am sorry is there a way to move this? >> is there a way to move this to zoom this?

and then we got the revocation by the order of the department of the building inspection and the order of abatement, and 9323, dated april, 30, 2004, revoked for reasons said that the violations have been inspected. and then the notice of violations closed. and we have this letter that was closed. and so we assumed that it was all taken care of. >> is that clear? >> i am sorry, is that clear in >> can you pass those around so that we can look at them? >> certainly. >> if you could talk into the mic too that would be helpful chl >> sorry, sure. >> this again, is just saying that it is the violations have

been corrected. if you again, i will pass this around, but if you look at the actual history here, it actually says it should be revoked. and what is key here, is since it is revoked, and we, and this complaint the nov should have been closed from 2003. and it should be revoked but that record is not reflected in the history, so i think that this is just a departmental possibly an oversight. and i will pass this >> and this is another notice that we got, just blowing up with the small writing here, closed, abaited, december, 21, 2007.

so this reinforces the revocation and this is from dcp, the department of central planning so we have a revocation from dbi and we have an abatement from dcp to partner of the central planning, both of them on the shamame 2003, issue all three are debated by december, and that will include everything that is done to that point, including the garage dekr, and roof. >> this is from the contractor, verifying to the best of his knowledge, during my inspection, all wood and decks and landings and systems etc., they are all in working order.

so for the 2003, we would like to up hold the appeals. yes, we are just asking to up hold our appeal, that the notice should be closed. and it will be noted by dcp and dpi as being abaited. and the history does not so that revocation in there and i think that it is a simple oversight. and we also request to wave the assessment of cost in this matter. do you want us to stop at this point and answer any questions on that before we move on to the other case? or just keep going in >> keep going. >> keep going.

okay. so then, sorry. okay, this is the other case, so our garage which is right here, this is the building that the developers are putting up next door. the one who put in the complaint, the one who told us that i am going to get you and your deck, and the one that filed the lawsuit. and so this is, this is an earlier picture. and again, you can't see the deck from the street. it is not a public nuisance. and this is empty lot before the construction started.

just an arial view on the roof and the deck which we need to maintenance and recreation since there is not much light in our backyard. this is a picture of the stairs that go up to the roof deck. just another view of the stairs that go up to the roof deck, here is a picture of the roof deck. so we had two permits, and one was for the garage repair of the garage roof and this work was done in 2007. and so the other permit, we

always understood it was to be for the deck and stairs. so, our contractor went and got the permit, and our architect also worked with the city. so we assumed that this was correct. we replaced dry rot decking and siding. expand the scope of work. we assumed that that was the permit that we needed for the deck, replaced dry rot, decking and siding that is what our contractor did. so in good faith, we thought that we had the permits that we needed to get. >> could i see those, please? >> yeah. >> i am actually, and if i could just jump in for just a second, and this goes back to the point

of the many discussions and just a quick aside, mr. joe duffy has been extraordinarily helpful and understanding and he has met with me, many, many times and i have been trying to close this many, many times, and he has been extraordinary patient. but i want him to just talk on the comments that he made, and how the department should have flagged the lack of a planning review at the time that this permit was signed off, and so these permits were signed off and dbi and came out and saw this property and walked on it and inspected it and signed it off. and according to joe duffy and other people in the department, they may have made a mistake at that time. by, not checking that a planning review should have been done at the time. and should not have signed it off and he advised me that further training was planned for inspectors to check that there was an extra special requirements which would be way beyond our basis of knowledge, we have no clue what is going

on. we are just playing, people, and city fees and, we are paying contractors and we are paying, everybody and we trust everyone, and we try to trust everyone, and i want to make a point on his flagging going back to his point that they should have flagged it at this point. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> did you as the owner pull the permits or the contractor? >> the contractor pulled the permits. >> and i am just clarification on the name of the contractor here i can't see it. >> standard roofing. >> standard roofing. >> yes. >> it is a roofing company. >> company. >> yeah. >> to do siding as well. >> yes. >> so they do siding. >> they did the, and yeah, they did the garage roof, they did the siding and they did the deck. and the stairs. standard roofing. >> with the stairs to get up to the roof. those are the picture that we

just passed. >> i have possibly pictures. >> okay. >> so this is just one of the letters to us from our architect. advising us in 2007, and we have submitted the documents for the permit and we have all been working on for the planning department and contacting the building and planning department and clearing up what has actually been permitted. we will let you know what the planning and building testament say. to the best of our knowledge or architect and contractor were working to get whatever was that we needed to have done. you can pass this around, too. >> let me just spell out this a little bit. so our architect, i mean at the

time, i had no clue what was going on. but our architect, identified that these were not squeaky clean, that it expand the scope of work, it did not say, and so our architect went in and talked to planning, and talked to dbi. and they told them and they had a discussion with them. and they were assured at that time, by dbi, that inspections would take place, and everything would be fine. but no one ever flagged that the planning step had been skipped. so i just want to make that clear. i already have these. >> i think that they requested to have a look at that. >> i don't know if they are all in that package. >> this is the presentation. >> okay, no problem. just wanted to clarify. >> the e-mails themselves are

included in the package. the presentation has a slightly different format to make it more readable and increased the font size to show it on the overhead, but all of these e-mails are included in the packages. >> this is just another letter from the architect and i did speak with joe duffy, he did confirm the nature of the two permits and they were over the counter and suspects do not require drawings but will require ne inany inspection. >> i am sorry just one more point on that question. as to whether the information is contained in this blue folder. it is item number four, all of those e-mails communications. they all have it.

>> this is the job card that we received, in 2007, assuming that everything was good and complete and that is why it was really a surprise, when the developer served us with a lawsuit and he said that i am going to get you and your deck. because we have done everything, correctly, and how it should be done. so this is another form that we got from the city. did the ucp, and the steroids are all abaited. and december, 21, 2007. so that was after the deck and stairs were completed in the summer of 2007. and so we did get this notice and bold writing. right here.

it is saying that it is closed, abaited. so, again, we saw it, and everything was fine, and we are not trying to get away with anything not being proper. you know, it does not have anything back to do. >> to further show that the deck is all in good shape, i guess, the work, we had the dean of engineering come out and give a report, checking the load and it is all good. >> and then, the -- from the heritage builders, the compliance to the safety affidavit. that would be the engineering the full report is in the blue binder and it is subsequent to the original appeal is item number one, my wife mentions the

builders and the compliance affidavit, that is item number 3. and then there is the standard roofing, 2016, serviceable affidavit. >> and that is also in part of item number three in here. so we are simply demonstrating that the deck is in good shape. that we have had angering tests on it. and we have had the safety inspections on it. with he have had compliance with the city affidavits. >> our architect wrote a letter showing that the 2006, 2007 building code was met. >> 30 seconds. >> oh, so from mark wallace this issue is dt planning will allow the reference variance, which is required to be reinstated, which is looks like they are. >> okay. >> it looks like, this goes back over to what duffy said, it

appears that planning -- >> could we see the papers that you just had up. certainly. >> through the secretary. >> thank you. >> is that the 14 minutes, if you want to allow additional time, you can. >> you know, let's give them one more minute and i want to hear from the department. and we have another chance after this for 6 minutes. >> if you have a question. we have the tubt to ask you questions in the rebuttal. >> okay. >> thank you. >> do you want anything else from these collections here? >> we have got it all, thank you. >> thank you. >> rebuttal? >> mr. duffy?

commissioners joe duffy dbi, i too saw the letters yesterday in the folder that was that we sent out on that, all the violations have been corrected. and i don't work in code enforcement down in dbi, but i did bring it up with the senior inspector. back in 2004, when someone filed an appeal with the abatement appeals board, which mr. ryan did do, he got this letter. that was not mean that the violations were cleared, it should have said, we have actually rectified the language on these letters and i would like to put it on the overhead. so, today, if you file an appeal with the abatement appeals board, it would say by order of the director of dbi, the order

abatement is revoked for the reason that the case has been appealed. >> now i am not going to sit up here and make excuse foz code enforcement in 2004 or 5, but, the language when someone files an appeal is obviously very wrong. because it gives you the impression that you have taken care of your issues. >> we are looking at the same thing. >> it says violations have been corrected. >> that should never have happened. and that, that i am not sure, you know, again different time. but, senior inspector has assured me that that was not close a case. and even though it is violations have been cleared. it is the, it is because an appeal was filed. now whether staff missed that and sent that letter out. but there is no building permit to comply with the notices of

violation. and the 2007 permits are interesting. and i have no doubt that mr. ryan trusted someone to go into dbi and get the permit. however, if in october 11th, i would like the overhead again. october eleventh, 2006, this was sent to an architect mr. ryan's architect, and this is a variance decision explaining the whole outline of the case of the stairs and the deck and that. and the last page of that the authorization and rights by the virtue of this decision shall be deemed void and cancelled if a building permit has not been issued within three years from the effective date of the decision. so they did come in and get permits but i think that those

2007 permits did not go to planning for a start. and so your variance decision for having all of this work is still not okay. because you pulled a reroofing permit or a contractor pulled the deck for the permit again. it should not, and that should not have happened and we should not have been able to sign it off. but if you are going into dbi and you pull orearden tan a permit, sometimes there is a flag on there that says hold on, this is not what you get. sometimes you can get through it. and you pull a permit, and a plan checker is not going to question that. like, we have all got rotted siding and we don't want to hold that up, and now coming in later, with that permit, is i think, that mr. ryan, knows and the fact that he has got the 2015, permit, to comply with certainly the 2014, notice of violation, is a good thing. and i do think that that permit

will get issued with the planning and building and hopefully then, that will take care of it, whether it takes care of the stairway, as it appears that there is an issue to the stairway going to the roof i am not sure, if there are pla plans. >> this case is very confusing and you no he i just want to say that i feel the pain of the ryans. in that it seemed like we told them everything was okay when it wasn't. so, whether that is the case or not, there are violations that exist with the current case. there is a building permit that has been taken out to resolve all of the outstanding issues, but for the stairway, i think, correct? >> some what like that. and so, i mean it would be great to be able to simplify things

and just work out like you are doing with the ryans that the outstanding issues whether or not there was miscommunication on the first set of violations need to be fixed. because they are, you know, a building code violation is a violation whether we said something in 2004 or not. it is still an outstanding issue, and the stairway which is a potential egress issue we should roll that in somehow. is that possible to do? >> yes, yes. >> i would love to see that happen, yes. i mean i, and i think that mr. ryan said it as well, we know each other, and we have seen him many times at dbi and meetings with them and we want this resolved. if there is any way to get it resolved, whatever way we can do that. that has always been our position with it. and here has been involved in it and scott and a lot of people at high levels in dbi and planning

that want this taken care of. we are driven by our code enforcement and our hearings on the order of abatements and obviously, with he have to go that, and we probably were being, and when someone is out there on the other side and i am pushing it as well. saying that dbi, you are not, and my permit was appealed and this guy got his way, and the other side is pushing us as well and so we are always in that position, and you have this and you are not planned to it, and that did happen in this case, probably. >> so you had a point? >> yeah, i would like to say that the biggest problem in plan check at the moment, was that the code has changed from what is a compliant stairway. and so, in 2000, to 2003, which this was built, you could get away with a 7 and a half inch tread. and now, you must be seven, and with planning and agreeing to ab