of one of our valuable members capt. tony rivera. tony, please stand up. and his lovely wife, lisa. and his daughter in fifth-grade, nina is with us. and his in-laws. so thank you for being here. great job on the poem. pretty good for third grade i think you're not an easy poem to read the very fitting one. >> thank you so much, nico. that was great. okay. now on with the ceremony. two members of station 35, will assemble for the chief to give the order to command the ship. >> thank you members of engine 35 fire boat and now we will do the official unveiling of the name. which was recommended by nico rivera and selected by our fire boat naming committee. the name of fire boat three is the

>> st. francis. >> >>speech during>>[applause] >> >> >> >>[gavel] >> the meeting of the san francisco retirement system i will call to order. shall we stand for the roll call please i mean the pledge of allegiance. >> >>[pleage of allegiance] >> thank you. please take roll

call >> commissioner cohen is out of town bridges, present. driscoll, present. makras, present. meiberger, present. paskin-jordan, present. a quorum is present >> appreciate it. at this time will public comment a close session items only. again we will have public comment on days closed session items only. any comment on closed session items only?he was at this time we will return to open session. we will vote whether to disclose discussions held in closed session. vote to disclose or not to disclose?

>>[inaudible] [off mic] >> we make the motion now? okay. >> did you make a motion to disclose commissioner meiberger >> [inaudible] >> will by commissioner meiberger second bite commissioner driscoll [inaudible] all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] the ayes have it. call the next item >> general public comment at this time. >> general public comment at this time. >> my name is [inaudible] and i'm a member of the pension fund and i like to talk about my theory topic. [inaudible]

anyhow it's not a rhyme. it should be once upon a time if you ask the hedge fund manager why you should invest in hedge funds he would say we are the best and brightest and we can outperform any other investment in any type of market. now if you ask a hedge fund manager or your consultants or mr. gotto or any member of this board the exception of prof. meiberger what reason you should invest in hedge funds you would all say in the event of a downmarket protection. well 2008 was a big down year. between 2008 and 2009 more than 2000 hedge funds after losing most of the money of their clients went completely out of business. in the last 10 years the vast majority of hedge funds have not even outperform the s&p 500. also in the past 10 years if you invested in

according to the survey here, 500 [inaudible] most of the strategy head hedge funds with a 1% return on your investment. compared with 97% return on the s&p 500 in the same period. you may ask, why do pension funds still invest in hedge funds. [inaudible] asked that question yet you know what his answer was? hedge fund managers are much better salesman than investments ones. so go anyhow i hope you read this article from the wall street journal. dated november 2016. [inaudible] hedge funds should begin this contingent my question is, if there's a big exodus out of the hedge funds and endowments, why are we going again when everybody else is getting out? and if anybody could answer the question i would love an answer >> thank you.

>> herbert weiner could i just want to voice some concerns about hedge funds. that is, that i feel they could present an endangerment to the whole portfolio. even if they're only 5% because there's correlation there's conflagration and it could spread to other securities in the portfolio,. correct me if i am wrong. now one of the arguments is, yes, some hedge funds are terrible but some are good. that's almost like finding the ideal [inaudible] it's an internal search. i think it's going to be a long one. >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> anyway i did not hear that [inaudible] and i'm grateful. >>[laughing] that's my concern. now while people are coming into the theater while others are exiting the only answers they don't know it's a bad movie. those are my concerns.

>> thank you mr. weiner. any others for public comment? public comment is now closed. approval of minutes of the october 12 retirement board minutes. he was moved and seconded. >> moved and seconded we adopt the minutes of the october 12 board meeting all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? the ayes have it. the meetings minutes will be a doctor. >> do want to take public comment on the item? >> public comment on the meeting minutes? no public comment. thank you. mdm. clerk >> items six action item consent calendar. >> it's been moved in second.

moved by commissioner makras the second bite commissioner meiberger. we approve the consent calendar all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? the ayes have it. >> item number seven a possible action item chief investment officer report. >> thank you mdm. chairman and good afternoon again board membership management of the narrative real quick. you will see that for the month our portfolio is down almost 1%. that was primarily because of the equity markets that were down almost 2% and also fixed income was down a little bit as well. the absolute return portfolio we do not have returns. we had soft returns when this was written on november 3 but we got a hard number now. david thinks we

about broke even for the month give or take a couple of basis points. outperform sourly outperform the equity if you want further color on that we can invite david come speak or you can see him separately. better news, beyond for the fiscal year is that we are up 2.73% in all four portfolios up for the year. the calendar year basis +5.4%. again all portfolios are in the green. economic update is pretty much the same as it's been for quite some period of time. job growth is positive. that's the good news. the concern is there's nothing remarkable about gdp growth or job growth. on a positive note, under item number three the american investment counsel is a body of

private equity investors such as blackstone and kkr and others they provide information on the private equity industry in terms of its value added to the us and global economy. they conduct a ranking every year in terms of public pension plans and their private equity portfolios. as first consistently ranked in the top five and in this past year we ranked number 2/155 plans in the country. so i want to give special thanks to art and to tonya and to justin and to glenn and cynthia and also to the board. for this really lofty recognition. in terms of some closings and things were previously approved in closed

session, is the energy and minerals fund which was closed in august. we did get our full 100 million. the harper asset this is the our rj coinvestment that we asked for $50 million knowing we would not get that and indeed we did get 25 million. a layup which the board approved last month. we asked for 35 million and we also knew that was oversubscribed and we got 25 million. we took two additional postings that, since the publication of the board package and so i want to turn your attention to the handout that was furnished to you. first come on per song the board approved this in september and you will see we got a little bit less than we had asked for. then also castle wake if you turn the page,. castle wake the board approved that last month for 50 million and we did indeed get the 50

million. in terms of personnel updates 01 to give a warm welcome to joe bates and to jeremy are what's and joe and journey please acknowledge yourselves to the boards. joe brings 19 years of investment experience could you going to be a very strong support to alan in terms of asset allocation risk management and innovation. he brings a great skill set to us. jeremy has six years of experience and is currently supporting at and chris on the natural resources strategy and we're really delighted. earlier, you might recall, i said we pretty much well we had completed the build out of the management team and from that the next objective was to build out the analyst support and we are one step away from having that completely done. the ic meeting is for next week. there are two subject matters. one is healthcare. we have guests

coming from [inaudible] which is a late stage venture capital healthcare specialist [inaudible] which is a global healthcare specialist both public and private. equity and debt and long only an long shorts. they are truly a very deep team doing healthcare global basis. and sands capital which is a growth equity manager we have in our public equity portfolio and does public equity offer us international emerging markets as well as venture capital. in addition to the healthcare presentations, we are going to have an update on securities lending from boat count. regarding commissioner paskin-jordan's comments about our schedule we you will see we made some pretty significant commitments from the past number of years in terms of private equity. you'll see it totaled out about $2.6 billion over the last 28 months and i

also want to give special thanks to the team for crafting 21 new relationships and 28 months. you will see in the real assets portfolio it's been almost equal between real estate and real assets between the two. because real assets is new for us most of those relationships are indeed new. again there than 21 new relationships across the entire real assets portfolio over the last 20 months totaling $2 billion. because of the size, the total dollar amounts we've submitted over the last 20 months you might recall that previously we were significantly underweight are targets. we are moving toward those. capital has been slow to call. probably because of the valuations market. but we've done our part in making some pretty aggressive commitments and next up is going to be to monitor this in terms of forecasting in terms of future

pacing. the absolute return portfolio was invested on october 1 in 12 partnerships in seven of the eight major strategies are represented commodities being the only one that is not. we do expect backstrom will call capital on january 1 for most were just almost all of the remaining capital get there might be some strategies that they want to invest in that might be several months away from calling capital. it's going to essentially be complete blackstone's part will be completely done at january 1 and is expected to consist of 17 strategy. david has also been all over the world in the past couple of months in just recently got back from a couple of weeks in asia. followed by a week in new york and before that he was in new york the week before that. so we been on the road a lot. beginning with some ideas together for the

class the share class b which is the internally managed part of the portfolio. first investment possibly generate probably most likely sometime in the first quarter. then the custodian and risk initiatives, you see these are really two of the same vendor and we are on schedule tab everything up and operational by april, we think. i will turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. >> commissioner driscoll? >> a couple questions. this piece of paper was submitted [inaudible] width yes, commissioner. we received this after these closings took place after publication of the board >> please is added to the minutes so members realize it's [inaudible] width yes. >> yes >> commissioner meiberger

>> thank you for your report. i did one ask you to expand the absolute return strategy which is also known as hedge funds did they change the name on you, john. these are the hedge fund. you mentioned you invested in seven of the eight sided. can you share with us which managers you hired? >> david is shaking his head, no. really glad to have you have a conversation conversation with you in private about that >> you cannot disclose the hedge fund managers? >> i'm looking at my colleague and he's shaking his head, no. >> any other board numbers? >> do you think the funding will be [inaudible] that first-quarter? >> blackstone will complete their investments generate one. share class b and its internally. investments will be made first investment somewhere between january 1 and march 1.

>> i will follow-up with david [inaudible] >> please, do. >> i'm already scheduled. any others? thank you. this is a discussion item only. thank you very much and discover congratulations on your new hires. at this point are you fully staffed? >> we have one open position. in the private market team to assist real estate and real assets. that recruitment is been more slow going. but it's not super imminent that were going to fill that but that's the last have to fill. the board previously approved staffing of 22 and we are now at 21. >> that's great. thanks. >> it's a great team. >> i would agree. thank you so much for your commitment. it's not easy recruiting in this market >> really, thank you to the

board for supporting us in diversifying our plan assets, extending our research covered and really becoming a global research enterprise. >> great. thanks. clerk >> item 8, deferred compensation committee report. >> commissioner driscoll >> at the last deferred comp meeting the key thing we did was a presentation from [inaudible] ashley presented to us. they have almost completed a thorough review of their current lineup of mutual funds. all the core accounts are mutual funds. the stable value is another fund though it's not take technically a mutual fund. we listed them as several items that talent will continue to look at which means reviewing

the ride-the consulting relationship with russell about that glidepath that affects the target date funds. that's important because one, that are qualified default investment alternatives or options and as well as it's almost a one third of the holdings now. so it is normal to be coming in that area as well as we did discuss how the new cooperman of labor rule or law regarding fiduciary rules which goes into effect april 10 of next year, how it will affect us dreck the year as well as the representatives credentialing jocular members and registered investment advisors when we allow them to start working. so the very important legal issue for the board to be aware that you don't were somewhat exempted from it. we want to make sure all the different avenues within the deferred comp are covered. and the managers she

can report on the loan program but still was very new with been going on there. so more to follow. our next meeting is scheduled about other changes and improvement we plan on making as well as pursuing not just the issue of these but townsend did make a positive report about these could typically work compared to our peers we are one of the lowest in the united states by far. one of the lowest. that concludes my report. >> in terms of the [inaudible] any questions on deferred comp report before we go on? >> the fees is that in the report? >> yes. >> [inaudible] >> i did not bring it with me but it is there. was broken down by every account. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >>[inaudible] [off mic] are you finished? >>[inaudible] [off mic] public comment on deferred comp committee report? no public

comment. okay. >> item number nine discussion item as of dcb manager report. >> thank you did good afternoon commissioners. before you is the monthly activity report that you're used to seeing. at this time i would like to open it to any questions they may have. >> any questions? commissioner meiberger >> thank you for the reported can you share with us with the current credit interest rate is now? >> yes. is 1.59. >> that's good for the rest of the quarter because he was that is correct. this is the ninth consecutive increase per quarter. >> it brief update on the loan program if i may. so as you can see we have included the outstanding loan balance is on

page 7 of the report. the good news is that we are continuing to receive the repayments periodically on a timely basis and we are starting to see that people are keeping their contributions the same. so in theory they are ascertained back more than they were intruding earlier. that some good news good i also am pleased to announce we have recently extended an offer that is been accepted for the loans manager position within the sf dcp. we are very excited to welcome him aboard. he is going to be starting in december and he >>[laughing] is going to be starting in december it is very qualified. he is a lot of experience on the third party record keepers side and actually serving as an account executive and is moving over to the plan sponsor side. he's very qualified, has deep experience within the 457 six

swig working with government plans as we feel that his experience make him an excellent fit for this role within the sf dcp. we are very excited to have him on board. any questions? >> any questions? be public on the sf dcp managers report? thank you. none. thank you so much. >> thank you >> item number 10 action item review and approval of the economic assumption reviewed the adoption of economic assumptions for july 1, 2016 valuation. >> good afternoon commissioners. we are here for annual review or economic

[inaudible] occluding our seven birth 5% investment return and chiron is here today to her presentation on that. we are not proposing any changes this year and all of them get to it. >> thank you. so we reviewed the economic assumptions every year. we do the demographic assumptions every five years. we did that last year so that was a big thick report but we won't have to do that again until 2020. but the assumptions we docked here will be used in the 2016 valuation which determines contribution rates for fiscal year ending 2018. so we just want to go through the assumptions and make sure they're still reasonable. were just focused on three assumptions the discount rate price inflation and wage inflation. i am going to take

us through the discount rate and let and take us through the price and wage inflation sections. over the last 8-9 years we have been reducing these assumptions. we have a discount rate of eight wage inflation of 4.5 and price inflation of 3.5 back in 2007. there's been gradually coming down to our current assumptions. the discount rate is the most powerful assumption. it's really used as a budgeting mechanism between investment earnings expected investment earnings, and what we need in contributions to pay for future benefits. over time, the actual returns are going to determine how much you have to contribute, not the assumption did the assumption is the

budgeting mechanism that we adjust it every year based on your actual returns and either collect more or less. as we've gone through in the past, we look at historical experience. we look at all what other systems are doing but our primary focus is on what the expectations for the future are and then adjustments from that based on the boards preferences in terms of risk. the primary driver of that trend of lower assumptions and lower assumptions that we continue to see today is the drop in interest rates in the market. so this chart shows over the last 30 years picking a 10 year periods. you can look at the yield on the 10 year treasury has dropped from 10.2%

down to this year, 1.5. these are june 30 numbers and so you may recall that was right after brexit so the yield on the 10 year treasury was pretty low there. stop back some but the ways below where was in 2015. the assumed investment return has gone down just from a 28.52 7.5. what that is been not just for this plan and most pension plans and particularly public pension plans they've had to implication take on more investment risk. it was much simpler to get an 8% return when treasuries yielded 10.2

than it is to get 7.5 when they're only yielding 1.5 today. so that has pushed plans into other investment categories and force you to take on more risk in order to achieve those level of returns. this is the public fund survey which looks at about 130 large public pension plans across the country. we have the history going back from 2001 up to there some 2015 data in here. not complete 2015 data but you can see the trend. back in 2001, 8% was right in the middle of what all the funds were doing. now the median is right around 7.5% which is what

your return is. we have also conducted a survey of california systems and there's been a similar trend the last few years. the majority of systems are using 7.5% as of their 2015 valuation dates. it was one using 7 3/4. that was the highest. that system has reduced their rates so they will no longer be it 7 3/4. there are two that about 7.5 and one of them is on a schedule to reduce it. the other one, i think they may have already made a decision to reduce it. so when we come back in a year 7.5 will be, i would expect to be used by a lot of systems but there won't be any systems using a higher rate. >> san jose is that the seven.

are they have and eight have a been there for a wild? >> they been there for a couple years and are in the process of considering changes and i can't say whether going. >> thank you. >> i think the survey as well santa barbara and fresno county have dropped to 7%. >> oh, really. >> that's very recently for the 2016 valuation. >> okay. >> we are definitely seen that trend to the lower numbers and we expect that to continue here. >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] their return on the annual basis dropped. >> the returns are bounced around. the last two years they been low. >> for me it would be helpful if you have it, which funds and what their returns got oh so we

can see the relationship. if we are making 10 that the seven-month mean much to me. i'm being driven by how we run our system and the return we bring here. and the recommendations that come that are endorsed and implemented. >> so let me go back and remind that we are tied to provide the survey information to give you a sense of the environment out there. the primary recommendations are driven off of your acid allocations in your capital market expectations. so that's the piece that's customized for you or but system.we did track what your historical returns have been and it varies depending on the period obviously but over the last 20 years you have had an average return of about 7.6%.

over the last 10 years it has been lower at 5.8. any pc provider there capital market assumptions and applied it to your portfolio. they get us both their 5-7 your assumptions and their 30 year assumptions. so we are showing here the distribution of returns. we calculated using the 5-7 your assumptions over a five-year period and then the 30 year period. there is a significant difference between the short-term and the long-term. this is not unique to any pc. this is something throughout the market but with interest rates really low the

expectations on the short-term are significantly lower. we typically for the retirement plan look at longer-term assumptions but we do have to keep in mind that we have to look through the short-term and survive that period. >> [inaudible] >> the probabilities are chiron's work based off of a lognormal distribution and an epc's assumptions. >> any proof works. analysis of how good an epc on that assumption? >> >>[laughing] >> b mike >> since were using some analysis of data on just curious. more than curious. >> we don't do in-depth

analysis of their assumptions and how accurate they have been but we do look at them in survey data compared to other investment consultants. so there is a survey put out by horizon emma for example, that compares i think about 20 different investment consultants and shows their capital market assumptions and where they stack up and compare as an average. allen probably knows where they stand better than i do off the top of my head, but i think they are a little higher than the average but they are not the most optimistic. is that a fair assessment? >> okay, thank you. >> i want to ask a follow up question i want to ask is it

based on a lognormal distribution because a lognormal distribution is based on [inaudible] which means there's no chance for a boss. did i hear that right? is based on a lot normal distribution? >> is based on a lognormal distribution. there is a chance for a loss. he was you can see over a fifth percent over the same league -1.7 return >> can you define what a lot normal distribution because i think many people know what that means watching us? >> if the standard distribution that's used when you are looking at these capital market assumptions. i think you probably-to use the lognormal and lognormal? yes. yes. it's are similar to the normal distribution but has a little bit of a sku to it. so you get a little skewed distribution here of the

returns. >> thank you. >> we can follow up and send you the math. i don't know that would be- >> i've a different understanding. anyway i just never heard bob normal associate with this before. >> commissioner. >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] do you crunch all our investments and look at what we are voting on and where we are putting our money and with the expected return is when we make a decision in total all that up and crunch the numbers that come up to come up with this? >> we don't. we take an epc's capital markers assumptions, which are-which they have applied to your investment allocation at least in broad asset classes. i do know how we find it gets to the asset class

>> [inaudible] >> and apply those to determine what the geometric mean is and the standard deviation for your entire portfolio. >> but if we invested in equity $1 billion in the last 12 months we know each one of those investments and what- >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> i'm not asking to take it into account unmasking of you came up with a number? that's different than a broad average because investments are not averages. they can be averaged within your going to the raw data and the average when not be real to us. or are you using other people's data in giving us an average? >> i don't know if we should bring an epc into the conversation, but my understanding is in that case, they would have an assumption for private equity and they know how much of your portfolio is in private equity and so they would apply that

percentage to the private equity assumption. >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> so they are taking each of them >> each asset class. >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] versus the investment going forward because the inspected return going forward [inaudible] i just want to make sure based on what where we are investing our money. >> thank you >> commissioner makras we do take your target portfolio so the percentage of approved in private equity, real real estate

we take each of those asset classes as targets and multiply them by the associated asset class forecast. it's a forward-looking is nothing to do with what you actually earned and one of the challenges as you heard, you've done better than your policy did that's not reflected. we are not projecting outperformance but we are taking your targets because this is a long to get it wasn't exactly what was on june 30. you your target which are moving four times the asset class return from 5-7 years and for 30 years >> it also does not reflect that we may say we want to be 70% pe but we only have 12% committed maybe only 10% actually called. so we use the higher expected number. which helps with the results as it keeps with the assumed rate of return higher. so that's what's going on. i can be looking at

the numbers on the page above that. we have several asset losses we must factor into contributions but does not cause us to change our economic assumption. though without we always ask about our extents we said we were going to do this. how did we do it. so is our expected returns realistic were not? i think they are realistic. achievable. whatever you want to say. >> reasonable. >> okay? >> we also just want to note that we are seeing more public pension plans not just using their expected return but use some margin below their expected return as a measure of conservative in a setting their assumption. the things that have driven that we think are the uncertainty in the capital market assumptions. you are boiling down pretty complex things to a single number and there's a lot of uncertainty

around that. there is also in some cases a preference to have a better 50-50 shot of hitting their targets return and particularly, for much more mature systems where the impact of investment loss is very significant in terms of contribution rates. those are the things driving it. we are also starting to see some discussion given the diversions in assumptions between short-term and long-term. there's always been somebody it seems to have grown to really take the short term more into account. that is just kind of in emerging trends. it's very gradual. we know here that in the last valuation the 60% of the present value of benefits

is expected to be paid out in the next 15 years. some of those benefits will be extended out 70-80 years but if you're looking at the present value of our basis for our e valuation there's a significant portion of it that goes out in the next 15 years could. we think the 7.5% is a reasonable assumption. using an epc's long-term assumptions you got a 50 basis point margin that their meeting was eight. in the short term, there meeting was seven so we are looking at something that's a lot higher and challenging to meet but we still think 7.5% is reasonable now. we understand this and asset allocation study coming and so we are not proposing any

changes this year but we do want you to be aware that interest rates remain low it would not be surprising to see us back next year suggesting a lower assumption. with that i will turn it then and to cover price and wage inflation >> i'm going to cover wage and price inflation and currently [inaudible] assumption for price inflation is 3 1/4% and for your wage inflation we are currently using 3.75% just as a context for the discussion. the price inflation is one of the core building blocks of when the economic assumptions eared it impacts the wage inflation intersected return on assets. however the price inflation assumption is used directly only to project the future: in

your plan when i say: i mean your basic for your members whose colas are based on the san francisco cpi. in four got about those basic colas are capped at the 2% rate. inflation would have to be at least 2% to get the full 2% cola. currently, with the assumption where it is at we are assuming that all your members will get that 2% cola each and every year and the only impact that inflation assumption would have on the valuation is that if that assumption were to go below the 2%. looking historically at inflation, over the last 50 years it's been around for-4.5%. over the last 20 years it's been a bit lower around 2.2%. but as we been

saying, these economic assumptions should be forward looking not just historical. were just looking historically for the context what the assumption range is. work could be. the breakeven inflation is what the current market price inflation is good and that's the difference between your 20 year u.s. treasury rate and the tips and right now that rate is currently about 1.4%, which is a lot lower than the historic rates. we also look at a survey published by the federal reserve of economic forecasters and their estimates of what inflation will be in the next 10 years. in this chart here, we are comparing that survey results to the public california pension plan assumptions. it's

on the left-hand side. you can see the larger range of inflation assumptions by these economic forecasters where the 50th percentile is right around 2% and when you look at the california assumptions the range is much narrower and for the most part you see higher assumed inflation. that is due to first of all the time period were looking at. again, our resumption is going to be more long-term in nature so it's more like a 30 year outlook whereas the economic forecasters are looking only 10 years out. also the markets tend to adjust faster than the assumptions in the public sector pension plans but the trend has been to have these assumptions being lowered in the public sector. last year the median was about 3.25. this year it's 3% and then at the

height and it was about 3.5 and now it's 3.25%. so [inaudible] is on the high percent of the inflation but we still feel it's reasonable based on an epc's long-term inflation assumption. turning to the wage inflation assumption, this can be thought of as an annual across-the-board increase in wages or another way to look at it is a total payroll growth rates. the components of wage inflation are price inflation, plus a real wage growth piece. paid for individual members of salary increases includes the wage growth plus merit increases but were only talking our right now is the wage inflation not the individual merit increases. that's done in our demographic experience study. the two places in the valuation we are we using wage inflation to value liabilities

and compute costs are in the individual minimum salary increases and also the payroll wrote rate, which is used in the calculation of the ual sparrow payment. in the current wage inflation is 3.75%. so the real wage growth that we are assuming is .50%. this chart right here charts the aspers wage growth compared to the cpi for san francisco. he wage growth are the red lines and the cpi are the blue lines. generally over the long term what you see is wage inflation is exceeds cpi, which reflects increasing purchasing power. so you can see in the last five years that hasn't been the case where the wage growth, the red

line, from 2011-2015 is below the inflation line but over the course of the 16 year period you see that wage inflation exceeds inflation by about .30%. the other public california system, the most common wage growth assumption out there is the 0.5% and it's also the median. more than half was half the systems use this wage growth. so like the others options the price inflation, discount rate, with the wage inflation we are not recommending you change it at this time. >> i'm confused. you said wage inflation is [inaudible] and here you're using .5? >> wage inflation is price inflation, plus the real wage growth >> okay. >> so -.5? >> yes. >> okay >> you say this is the .5?

>> yes. about half of the systems in california use the .5% rate now. some use lower but there's more counties like merced and different areas of the state where you >> they difference though. >> yes. huge. >> yes. >> what is real wage inflation ? i mean i would expect that is true but what is it like the last five years? >> if you are looking-it was negative. if you're looking at this chart right here, that's the real wage, that's the wage growth from 2011-2016, that is less than the inflation so your real wage growth is negative. >> how about for the last 10 years?

>> yes. it goes-we would have to go back and do that. >> okay, that's fine. i think i get the point. >> over the 16 year period, it's the difference between the blue dotted line and the red dotted line. otherwise you're looking at it moving up and down and it doesn't track individually years. >> okay. this is specific >> this is specific to the plan the wage growth. not san francisco in general. it's just the members in the san francisco pension plan. >> okay >> what we are seeing nationally, two, over the last 25 years, that the mean wage growth or real wage growth has been about .77 and the median has been about .42 and we feel

like the public sector pension plan kind of go somewhere between the median and the meaning of that. so we feel like that is a very reasonable assumption to be at .5%. >> i think what you see in the chart is that following the great recession, wages were held down as budgetary matter and that's not unique to san francisco. that is what has happened all over the place. wage growth has been held down very strictly as a budgetary matter regardless of inflation. but we don't think that's a reasonable pattern to expect to continue into the future. so that's part of the difficulty here is there's a big chunk of our data that is based on that period of 5-6 years. we are

just getting back to what we would see is a more normal pattern. >> so that's it. a long way of saying were not recommending any changes. >>[laughing] but there is a downward trend. so we may be back next time with potentially, if things stay on the current path we may come back next year with proposed changes. >> any additional questions? public comment? >> investment consultants sure make investing look very complicated. one book makes

investing makes look very very simple. when it comes due next year i've a pretty good feeling that the stock market is going to drop between 15 and 20%. that's when your hedge funds like the zoom are going to shine. nobody ever tells us what your definition of of a down market protection is. my definition is, not losing any money. i can tell you, how do not lose any money in the billion dollars want to invest in hedge funds. you can put billion dollars on mr. [inaudible] positively retain one dog. the public retains wonder. your hedge funds when you take into consideration is very high management and performance fees, you're going to lose money. so right my prediction doug if the stock market drops 15-20% next year

[inaudible] pay which of the pay in performance and management fees you will lose a lot of money in my investment say the money is under mr. [inaudible] one dollar positive return. see who is right. right that production don >> thank you. any other public comment? commissioner makras >> i will move the item. >> i will second >> it's been moved by commissioner makras and seconded by commissioner meiberger we approve chiron's proposed economic assumptions for july 1, 2016 actual funding valuation. all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? it has been approved, adopted. thank you so much. appreciate it. >>[inaudible]

[off mic] >> item 11 action item presentation of the june 30, 2016 gas be 68 report >> these are the numbers that [inaudible] prepare for accounting purposes and eight are [inaudible] consular sockets. chiron is here to answer any questions you may have on this report. >> any questions by the commissioners on this report? we have the report in front of us that that's been presented. any questions bequest commissioner meiberger >> yes, if i could just want people are not familiar with guys be 67-68 it's a government accounting standard board that make these kinds of changes the way we look at our assets and value the assets. if you could just give an introduction in terms of what why we are doing this, in terms of changing the

value of esb just a general kind of thing because this will be obviously coming back and it does affect the funding status. >> so the gas be set through garments for your financial reporting and guys be 67-6 david lee separated that from how you fund the plan. none of these numbers affect your contributions or what you put into the plan. they do affect what system has to disclose and in what each of the employers have to disclose. so it affects what goes on the employer balance sheets and what goes on there effectively their income statement, statement of activity. the main differences are we always use market value of assets in the gatsby report. there's no smooth value we use

on the funding side. the recognition periods are much much shorter. so you end up on the expense their annual expense that goes into their income statement is there a volatile. whereas we try and keep the funding contribution much more stable so that you can manage it width i see someone in the audience is up member of the health services board. so is this relevant to the health services obligations on the health benefits either? are they introducing some account of things that guys be 68? >> they don't use gas be 67-60. we are in fact in process of doing their gatsby 43 and 45 valuation. and those are similar to the old rules for the pension plans. they be converting to rules that are similar to gatsby 67-68 in two

years. >> so these affect the way the plan sponsors that is the city and county of san francisco shows their balance sheets >> correct. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> any additional comments on gatsby report? public comment >> i would just add the school districts use these numbers for their finance. it's not just the city as one fan sponsor. if the school districts also. >> other plan sponsors as well. >> yes, there are four. >> republic on the guys be report? no public comment. moved to accept it because >> i will move or second it to be adopted >> it's been moved by commissioner meiberger and

seconded by-i need a second-commissioner paskin-jordan deweese of the gas be 67-68 report. the weber >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? the ayes have it. thank you very much. >> item 12 discussion item travel expense report for the quarter ended september 20, 2016 mr. huish >> [inaudible] >> discussion item only any public comment on the travel report? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item 13 discussion item executive directors report >> [inaudible] >>[laughing] >> pardon me on having

difficulty adjusting to a dental [inaudible] what i provided to you are the details related to the rankings of our private equity portfolio. i am also provided you the court order from the case management conference that was held in the lawsuit were the city is suing. retirement board. you can see that our attorneys have negotiated an expedited briefing and the hearing on the city's motion is set for the first week in december. so that will position us to be able to appeal that decision overly by the end of the year. we received a referral from the board of supervisors, supervisor kim had introduced the resolution was going to urge the retirement system to revue executive compensation. it specifically related to the exit package for the wells

fargo ceo. karen and i were prepared. we submitted a report. we went to the committee, special committee meeting on october 26. then it was tabled by the chairman supervisor peskin. to the call of the chairs we've not heard any more about that. >> can you just-is it something that they do a full-blown reviews because i'm trying to understand >> with a wanted-the requested information what our policy is on executive compensation. they wanted us to define best practice and executive compensation and provide a report out of this board with our full findings and we are prepared to say that >> in the spirit of corporate governance >> if the board of supervisors approved and we would present it-we would provide the required report. like i said, we did a lot of research that

we provided to supervisor kim's office. >> [inaudible] >> the only thing i have to report, it's not on the agenda, is related to the retiree healthcare trust fund board. i've reported to you in the past that they've approached us related to, they used to invest their money with a treasure. we over a year ago introduce them to a relationship with northern trust as well as lack roth so that they could do passive investment piggybacking off of our agreements. obviously, we're moving away from northern trust by action of this board. but on monday, the trust administrator, which is been rosenfield from the comptroller, presented to that board a proposal that they explore transferring the administration as well as

investment of that trust, the retired but their trust a the is roughly $100 million. all of us could be contributing soon so it will be growing pretty quickly over to the executive director of their time and system. that we would through a work order, with the comptroller's office provide administrative staff as well as investment staff for the investment of this money. so i believe they approved that we would-and that the comptroller would come forward at the february board meeting their tired of your trust fund to present a timeline and implementation plan. >> when they revisit you that means their office no longer will have any control? >> the retired healthcare trust fund would still be the plan administrator. they just

don't have the department head. they don't have a department. they don't have support staff and they don't have really anyone to point to and say get this done. that's been a struggle for the existence of this board. so they've asked us to sort of help out. we certainly know how to conduct a meeting. we certainly have investment staff that we believe we have capacity through the budget process that bill mentioned will be taking into account additional responsibilities, both with the investment staff as well as administrative staff of supporting this board. >> that's going to be my next life. what does [inaudible] have to increase the staff to? >> absolutely. they made commitments they made it can be backed up our due diligence selecting northern trust. so they're going to i mean part of it would be whether we recommend that they, again, rely on this board's due diligence in deciding to go with

melon azygos and whether they met formally make a motion to gesture their money bmi melon in our advising them there's a possibility this would happen or occur. were trying to get relationship pricing so that there would be an economy of scale and that we believe that this is going to be a trust that will grow and so the board, the retirement trust their health care board would be the fiduciaries to the plan as well as any staff that would be work ordered. it's not a full-time job for one individual good at this point. so what we are attempting to do tomorrow to what we do at the deferred comp, [inaudible] but we do need to make sure we plan for the capacity needs going forward. >> yes. i would see this as a

planning for the full fte but we can talk about that >> we will definitely budget for one. we can hire a professional for limited hours. it's would've to grow the capacity and we know what they expect the growth of that to be an right now it's following the passive index. but they want to-it actually outperformed us >> yes. inducting them [inaudible] >> it was because of the timing of when they came in. they came in after the fiscal year began. so they got they were very happy with the turn they got ashley bob-work most closely with them to get them introduced invested. >> commissioner driscoll >> to question. as allocation mix they achieved because they had no investment in some

>> they did not >> yesterday secondly, if it wishes to innocence manage the money for them on the work order basis, then we decide which ones it goes into whether not be able to tell us which of our funds are going to shadow? or is it there are the two major funds >> they currently make decisions that direct comptroller staff i mean i think they're automatically rebalancing. so all actions would be going back directly as recommendations to that board for us to, for staff here to execute. >> i understand that but which of our funds with a tremendous line up of public equity managers in this one at. with a do all or just the index funds? >> they were not suspected use any funds that were invested in. in fact we found that when we try to get them piggybacked

into our funds that northern trust and all the banks have issued their about their irs section 115 trust, and so the product we are invested and does not allow that kind of trust money to be invested there. so they initiated separate relationships with northern trust and the introduction was to lack roth lack roth was a good survey go a different direction. these are only piggybacking off this board for the custodian but not the investment options >> that's fine. it's their money and they have the fiduciary responsible these for the members of there as well. just as work order issue becomes our staff is spending a lot of time doing the work could just make sure the work order is balanced >> they understand the level of staff that we would propose and that they are fully funded now to pay for its. this could

happen first quarter, second quarter of next year, before we get a budget finalized we certainly are planning for this as a contingency should this occur that we would have full fte staffing to support both administration and investment of their money. >> thank you. >> commissioner meiberger >> thank you mdm. chairman. i was under the impression that the would be investing pro rata into the same public securities that we have. so that's not correct? >> there are limited. i mean they want us to unit size and we basically said because they have liquidity issues, they can ashley start pulling money out of the trust, the city can. i think starting in 2020. so we basically said that closes them off from our private side. so what we said was we will be

happy to help you introduce you to any public side equities and they decided they wanted to go the index because at the time i think it were 30-$40 million so now that they've grown and they expect to grow, they want-they hired the kita as her investment consultant and mikita is suggesting that they are able to enter different types of investments other than just the indexes and they just know they don't have staff to execute any of that. so they are basically not wanting to duplicate staff and that's the approach that their king obviously, i will report directly to the board. details of the mou, the comfort level, the actions that they did. but i wanted to give you a heads up that they did address this and i believe that they're proceeding from a retiree healthcare trust that that

occurred earlier this week >> just to clarify the board themselves go through trust fund board will select which money managers in which [inaudible] to invest? >> absolutely >> so they're leaning on us on custody? >> and staff to execute >> because you mention it they can use relationship they can take the benefit of our fee structure >> that's how it started. they understood they needed if they're going to investigate needed a custodial bank could so they basically said, can we get back-because they need to go publicly through a process of deciding which custody bank to go to. so we approach northern trust, northern trust basically said they would be do relationship trusting for this trusted that or had to formally adopt day due diligence process that this board had used for northern. so they are aware we have moved and are deciding to

move to be and why no. they need to decide-they can certainly stay with northern and it's their decision or they can move with us to be and why now. again that would be [inaudible] >> great. i relationship pricing for example sf drs has 20 billion so if they had 30-40,000,000, they would piggybacked on our 20 billion negative seems the bequest >> while were negotiating contracts we could negotiate very attractive fees for i mean we've also been approached by other departments, city departments for this board to manage trust monies. so we would be managing that separately. so as we go into the new relationship, we would make sure that while we are negotiating were going to negotiate a break and fees, relationship these, or any of their types of pop pots of money that would either ask of

this board to manage or that we would have someone else rely on our due diligence. >> very good. thank you. >> it's painful to listen. >> you are doing good >> okay. is the rest-the rest of your port isn't something we can >> know this is discussion item only >> i would remind everyone you have an investment committee second the deferred comp committee is the 30th. >> that's correct at the 30th of at 2 pm >> at 2 pm >> that's what i have on the calendar. >> okay, thank you. >> the complete your report? b was that complete my report >> i know it's painful we will not take the public-public comment on the executive directors report? >> speaking for myself just a

number of member of the system since i was there much involved in the discussions when i was more active employee with regard to the retiree retiree healthcare trust fund board and fund establishment i'm actually very pleased we are your report because it was the intent, when we put all that together, that there would be a relationship with the retirement system to be able to get the discounts and to be able to actually utilize the expertise of this board and of this staff to be able to go forward to maximize the returns on the trust fund because was starting out so slow in beats and pieces. ultimately everyone will pay them but originally it was just a select group and so i think that some of exciting news. also because we do have a retiree was actually elected member on the board and i remember actually negotiating

and fighting hard to get at least one elected representative on another benefits trust fund board. so thank you very much and you are right about jazz the 43 and 45 for health service staff. we are down a road that was my other but thank you that was an excellent report that's really good news ashley for the actors and those going to prospectively for it. thank you. >> we resisted as long as we could but >>[laughing] >> and you like your dental plan? >>[laughing] >> >>[inaudible] [off mic] >> anymore public comment? public comment is closed. >> item 14 discussion item retirement board members good of the order. >> any discussion for the good of the order board numbers? no. just for clarity commissioner meiberger on

november 30 is the first deferred comp at 2 pm investment meeting is at 1 pm. okay. public comment? no. all right >> item 15 discussion item retirement board members reports and comments. >> none? >> none >> has submitted >> as amended we have known. commissioner meiberger >> i will be brief but it's where i go on a business trip on china and committed the money to money to invest him want to share 1-2 min. show my spirits of china first i just need to the managers, both of the managers we hired that we gave money to two different manners of minutes the unlisted but officer get it a very constructive meeting had a chance to talk to them and you might visit with them. also the issue about investing in the

unlisted a shared. we discussed sparrow we are the ownership of the shares qualified foreign institutional investors that has evolved over the years that was the way we could invest in these unlisted their office chairs. one of the issues i raise before which is why voted, no come on the first on the beneficial ownership is with the manager not with us. after my discussion met with several people very much involved with q.v. actually one of the gentleman that started the sfgov tv allocation is name is tony leo could i met him and tony vega had a chance to talk with. also visited the sheds in stock at change what we did see and listen to presentations by some of the companies that would list and one of the names was build your dreams. this is the charlie munger calls him the promise of a edison of china

in terms of inventing the batteries as well as inventing the cars. so that's the examples of one of the stocks that is purchasable in the unlisted a should get the denominated in the local currency so that for the issues relevant with. it's amazing the evolution as we hurdle for these on listed a shares be in the morgan stanley universe for the emerging market number one and number two, when we had to sheds and word officials from the sheds and stock a change there's a new program called gems and direct were you when i is individuals be able to buy these unlisted shares. so there is progress being made so that pretty much everyone can invest in these unlisted shares. why is this important? because china is the biggest very fast-growing economy. 1.3 billion people live there's one major force in the phuket as

mentioned in sass presentation these are the unlisted shares of smaller companies inefficient market in these are not the as the we that state owned enterprises, these are the companies are really actually make money. these are the very interesting presentation and i put some of my comments there but i just want to say, it's very very poor and meeting. we met a lot of the interesting players have a chance to meet some of our managers there are great constructive. it's very important i think you go visit china to learn about the culture, the players and everything else. anyway it was very very informative business trip and i think all the board members for letting me go. >> thank you again the >> thank you commissioner meiberger. any other reports >> commissioner paskin-jordan >> i went to a sparrow hedge fund conference blackstone. when the best conferences i've ever been to so i encourage, if you want to learn about the

hedge fund program go back to new york and hear about it from blackstone. >> any public, don committee reports? >> i would just like to say about investments in china. i don't think you should make any investments in china. number one, china let's not forget is a communist country. they can manipulate their currency whenever they want to. you could be the best chief executive officer in china one day and if you offended the government something you did not like it could be working in the rice patties the next day. you're going to invest in china any high risk investment is high-risk resubmit prof. meiberger you should does with the return might be. if you do invest in china. >> thank you so much. any other public comment? public comment is closed.. >> motion to adjourn would be

in order >> i moved to adjourn. >> all right. the meeting is adjourned at four-- >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >> -

>> good morning welcome and thank you for being here bright and early on a post

halloween morning and i hope everybody had their fill of candy happy to be joined by my chef deputy and city attorney bother working diligently on the case we'll discuss this morning and filed documents this morning as you may know a natural civil rights equal justice under the law filed a federal claishgs illuminate again san francisco amending the state money balances was unconstitutional it unfairly allows the wealthy to go free and the poor remain in jail it was filed two the city and city and sheriff hennessey oversees the city and county of san francisco jails was added and, of course, dismisses the claims against the state and city my office represents the

sheriff's as legal counsel up until now in my office harnt taken a position since this was filed we worked diligently to look at the argument and what they're seeking in the value it of the bail law and hard work to protect the taxpayers from enforcing the law we successfully done those things and now the heart of issue the state failed system is unzuckerberg san francisco general constitutional people andrew's on suspension of a crime are held in jail unless at the pay money as collateral those amounts are a bail schedule and state law requires the supreme court judges in each certificate of occupancy and the sheriff enforce if you can pay you, get out of jail if you

cannot you don't get out of jail that is a reflex to the community whether you can pay for your freedom a two tier stop one with money and one without not right and in keeping with the constitution it is time for it to stop to echo u.s. attorney general loretta relinquish no price tag on justice i believe the states bail system specifically the bail system before arrangement is unconstitutional that's why my office filed papers in supreme court we'll not defend that law we are innovate taking issue with the law but about the existing bail process prior to the point of arrangement at arrangement a judge has the opportunity to review the

circumstances and make an individual bail determination based on all the facts a bail schedule that lists the price of freedom without consideration of the individual circumstances is not serving the interest of the government or the public and unfairly discriminates against the poor government entities in other states tackle the problem in lawsuits like alabama, kansas, missouri and mississippi and louisiana have reformed their action but my action is the first time that a government entity has refused to - dangerous people need to remain incarcerated how much money someone has is not picture measure of the 245e9 right now we have a system that someone can be locked up for days because they can't pay for your

freedom and someone dangerous what about free someone for marijuana for sale can be locked up and not by a bail but someone paying one and 50 thousand can be out for rape that needs to change that's why we're taking this step this is decades in robert f kennedy were attorney general only one factor determines whether a defendant stays in jail not guilt or innocence but the nature of the crime not the character of the defensive that is money in testifying in congress the attorney general told a store 54 days in jail one person couldn't afford a bail for the maximum penalty was 5 days in jail two years later congress passed its the bail reform act in 1968 that

polishes - the federal system uses a model that cantonese those people that are a flight reflex or danger to others maybe condition a dna sample or curfew and bail cannot urban design set in an amount a person couldn't afford in 1987 our society liberty that the norman and detention prior to trial or without trial is the exemption states, however, have not necessarily followed suit as an example report this issue by the nonprofit non-partisan prison found 6 hundred and 36 thousand people locked up and in more than 3 thousand jails in the united states 70 percent are held pretrial meaning not

convicted of a crime or legally presumed innocent in february 2015 did u.s. department of justice arguing a bail that carding people before trial solely because of they're not able to pay for this is violating the fourth amendment the u.s. department of justice said they must not cause people to be incarcerated solely because they can't pay keeping people locked up for no reason they can't post bail has other consequences people loss jobs and family fall apart and taxpayers don't need this in terms of the current bail some h system is not only

unconstitutional but bad public policy the district of columbia has been very pro-active in the area and don't use prearrangement bail it workouts well, in the district of columbia and in fiscal year 2017 the district of columbia were realized 98 percent avoided arrest for violent crimes and 88 percent made all air scheduled court pioneers that is an issue that has gardened national attention and the chief court justice convened a working group to come up with recommendation by december of 2017 to deal with that situation which everybody knows needs to be reformed we're hopeful with our action we'll give impetus u tuesday and make sure we have a

reformation of a bail system no doubt here in california unconstitutional you may note a need for reform for the bail system and the laws governing it we plan on working with the senator to make sure that the today's action has impetus to have reform at the state level to have a bail system here in california it is constitutional and fair and workable and protects the public that is it is intended to protect thank you all for coming i look forward to any questions question. >> bob. >> (inaudible). >> there will be two options number one the states attorney general can step in and defend

the snuflt of the state law or number two already been a motion intervened by and bail bondsman that motion was denied i would anticipate that they'll renew that motion either the attorney general or the interskweern and rogers will make that determination and i think that is likely they'll be someone to step up to defend the uncomfortably. >> (inaudible). >> no i don't think that is likely their won't be changes

tomorrow are today bob alluded it to say likely that something else will make an effort to defend the law we'll have to wait and see how that litigation plays out this is a pretty good big statement the first time the city has stepped up it sends a message allowed there is changes in the future i think that at the lefrs the potentially or the evolve outlet there is a change in the system we have i don't anticipate we won't see anything in the self disease. >> not necessarily a call to action a concrete step it is a further impetus to a movement growing across the country there

are other advocacy groups that have a call to action my job to defend the laws and what i think one is unconstitutional i'll not step out and defend this is what we're doing today. >> (inaudible). >> do you know what the plan say you guys are right. >> well the reformation has to starred in the state allergic i don't have the power assemblyman boca will be the leaders on the reform we'll wait and see there is a state mandate that each court system in each county as 5 bail schedule this is something that has to happen at the state level. >> it is been in - what -

>> decades this is the current system been around for decades and it is the combrefrnd as i alluded to nationally robert kennedy was talking about this in 1964 this is the norman in the united states and it certainly the norm in california that is a certain a very, very good step. >> what happened everything you don't have (inaudible) i guess i'm curious as to the people that have the money they'll basically be required to pay. >> if you look at it - what needs to happen everyone needs to be treated fairly and equally under the law with the current prearrangement bail system a person who has the means just pays the money and walks out the as a matter of fact everybody

should be treated equal in post arrangement bail everyone has their case yielding reviewed by the judge that makes a determination if they're a flight reflex what's the risk to sorority of that yield being out on the streets here in prearrangement bails we don't have that we need fair enforcement of justice to make sure that all cases with yielding reviewed by a judge who makes sure that that person does not pose a flight reflex or minimize the risk to the community and a variety of other ways in which you can assure that yield is make their court appearance and show up for trial i can have all sorts of supervision from check in these with the court to e-mails, to supervised visits to make sure

that yield is supervised and make sure they're returning not based on money and everybody has to have their case adjudicated in a fair even way under the provision of a court officer. >> (inaudible). >> well, they're - >> the same standard or still have to pay. >> we'll have to see every case is jashthd should be adjudicated by a judge certain a bail might not a component but not only the with only way to pay and get out. >> (inaudible). >> the money bail is a bad thing - (inaudible).

>> well, i'll say i'm not going to get into policy but certainly a prearrangement before a case it look at by a judge money in and of itself in our view as the only means unconstitutional what roles the money plays down the road as a component after a judge reviews a case we'll have to see but right now what we are doing to prearranging bail and having money and wealth the only dictator yeah. >> relative to the - a judge adjudicates a case well in a system you know each person stands out in - (inaudible).

>> i don't think so no, no washington, d.c. public school don't does that the federal system does that and you know what i've got to say convenience shouldn't be the dictator of what is just and what sorts of justice people charged with a crime get we're all sdiermentd to equal protection under the law only if it is convenient it does not say or how much money we have that's right. >> you're referring (inaudible) we filed affirming today, we'll nobody be defending the case i'm saying that is unconstitutional.

>> (inaudible). >> correct. >> okay tha >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by our vice president commissioner fung and commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig we do expect commissioner bobby wilson to be here to my left is thomas owen and gary the local assistant

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

the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking

so if you could your right hand swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner president honda and supervisors we have one housekeeping item has to do with with item 5 appeal 16 danish zero regardi0 regarding 16th avenue a permit has been cancelled at the appeal is no longer under the board's jurisdiction and will not be heard tonight we'll move on to item one general public comment this is the opportunity time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction any public general public comment seeing none, item 2 commissioner questions or comments commissioners okay. then item 3 is the boards

consideration of minutes of october 26, 2016. >> unless additions or changes can i have a motion? >> to accept those. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes seeing none, a motion if commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig. >> okay. that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you very much item 4 was continued last time for commissioner wilson participation with the presidents agreement we will hold off on that item and move to the next item on the calendar item 5 is dismissed item 6 appeal wang versus the zoning administrator on merry lemon

drive of a notice of violation and penalty alleging the code with the use of the the subject property on the limitations for the accessary dwellings and the appellant is the appellant in the room? please step forward >> thank you you have 7 minutes to address the board okay. please bring the microphone down to speak into that. >> good evening and welcome. >> and thank you for being patient. >> should i say first? okay. this is for any friends he set up the inspector he didn't really have the violation because i have two friends and

the friends and family going to the address but the inspector say he is operating a business is violates the code so we just want to resolve this probl problem. >> is that it. >> yes. this problem too many friends. >> a questions are you aware of the conversation between you and the department because it is dated in our brief - let me talk first although. >> how much time do you call the department and what were the responses. >> according to the paper and e-mail he probably called during the hours i know the inspector only will accept before 8

possibly why they never get a bill from the station with the inspector matthew's the inspector. >> so how many times - >> a lot of times i look at them probably 20 times. >> and never, never once did the department person call you back. >> i think the from time to time they did but maybe i didn't pick up the phone in the meantime they not connect with each other. >> okay. >> the only time i think they really connect to each other through the e-mail. >> so the person that lives at the address is he present. >> yes. >> maybe i can help answer speak some of the questions come to the podium. >> state your name for the record. >> i'm van.

>> so the question is how much time do you call the department and what. >> more than ten times and during that time. >> during the time we kept the letter we e-mailed more than ten times i can't remember how much time my office workers call having to send an e-mail too you know no notice and until we got the fine letter you know then he answered the one time that's all. >> okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> that's it thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the subject property mira loma

within an radically there are limited uses allowed as accessory to a accessary dwelling in a residential zoning district not maintenance of stoke and trade and not employees earlier this year the complaint to may we received complaints from the public that there was an ongoing business at the the subject property employees were coming and going our understanding being used just to the dwelling for storage and equipment for electrical contractor in the morning employees we are picking up equipment and going out for jobs during the day they were doing this early there were contemplates not insistent of a residential district in question started our process with a site visit that is correspondence with mr. one-way and our staff

as well as phone calls record up to and including the day the appeal was filed that e-mail what staff worked out over the time it was ongoing discussion with the planning department i can't say what - who is not calling them back from the lowers from the staff we were trying to resolve the staff to depreciated it to a manner we believe that reduced the impacts on the neighbors and that happened the day before the appeal was filed and was agreed they'll be more mindful and not have their employees coming out to the property for limited as recommended by mr. wang an emergency if they had an employee that needed something from a job and the night before pickup in the morning that happened on the curve we're

trying to work with them we know those are not uncommon types of used for the residential district but want to address the concerns of the neighbors so that's right the point we were at in august and again have regular communications they've admitted two complaints on the property one planning went to building and inspector duffy can address the complaint 329 department of building inspection but it sounds like that was verified it was used for storage electrical equipment which is not the thing that is allowed under the planning code but we are trying to work with them to come up with a way of addressing that will allow them to have a business but reduce the impacts on neighbors and make that more residential in character after the appeal was filed i had my staff reach out to the appellate and try to get a

better understanding of what was going on based on those communications they were appealing the staff time we charge for cover time and materials we spent on enforcement this is not appealable it says in the letter itself explicit the time and materials is not appealable that is just time and material and wear allotted to collect that we've not been assessing penalties under this property they've been working with us coming into compliance no outstanding penalty but they have an outstanding material charges approximately $1,200 outlined in the letter that's where we are at today i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a couple of mr. sanchez how do you track when in coming calls are taken and e-mails are returned i mean going off the briefs and you

know this seems to be not enough fair exchange of information according to the brief we received. >> i think one of the points two enforcement cases i don't know if they specified who was not returning their calls. >> certainly in our notice of violation penalty is documented conversations that we've had with them additionally i mean, i have an e-mail he can pass up to the board you know june 8th e-mailed to mr. wang describing the notice of enforcement and the code compliant and an analogy on the ninth and june 9th mr. wang during the phone calls describing the planning code permission this is no early august and august 22nd i mean interest is evidence of

the e-mails i don't know when they're saying staff if call them back evidence was communicated to resolve the complainant we thought was resolved the day before. >> is there a set policy when the public calls. >> yes. the goal is twenty-four hours we do our best and at staff has more than one thousand cases we have an enforcement staff but we try to respond to everyone in a timing fashion i believe mike what i'll hearing from the appellant no communication is not what the fact support as this case i'm reading from the. >> the problem, no brief. >> no information here. >> all we have is one page of the appellant that didn't say anything to provide new details to what their allegations are and have

no information or from the department other than the letter. >> that's correct. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> let me just i mean there is a gentleman's name mentions in the public document that person's name is a non-richmond party but ii agree with commissioner fung what we have the appellant saying i've called them a bunch of time but no documentation on that and you're reading from your information which clearly is documents but we don't have it in our brief and so it is we're stuck we said she said may i ask you what this is all about so i can ask the appellant something latter

please. what? all about someone doing business out of a residence this is not right; correct? >> you can will have a home based bus but it neatest to needs to be done in a residential manner. >> they were operating a nuisance in the eyes of the neighbors was created as to materials being i'm imagining the materials from the homes a garage being up used as a warehouse possibly stuff like that. >> and coming and going. >> one of the main things people are woolken up - >> the nov was filed based on the complaint of the neighbors and even if no e-mails

communication and something that was satisfactory to your department. >> the have addressed it we did inform them only august 22nd we'll keep the can i go e case open in the case there are further complaint to readily monitor it we outlined how they can comply and there was agreement at that time. >> with that said the issue the $1,270 of staff time and expenses related to this case and appropriate under the planning code. >> as not in our notice of violation not appealable i'll note the cost to file the appeal is $600 that is half of the materials. >> okay. >> so what we are talking about here as far as i'm concerned, the appeal is on the

notice of violation but about the dwelling units. >> that's what i understood from the subsequent communications. >> i'll ask that from the appellant. >> mr. sanchez one 09 point of your letter indicates photos. >> do you have those i don't have those with me but maybe i'll get them online. >> commissioners did you want to hear from inspector duffy. >> not before you. >> any public comment? seeing none, there is rebuttal for the appellant and the president as questions so if you could come back please.

>> you have any rebuttal that you want to add. >> i'm sorry, i understand the situation is because he doesn't know what the violation code is but he received a letter on january 15th and clean up the place already told the people not to come to the house it is very quiet so as matthew the inspector say he still seeing people in and out of the house so it is excess to that that you have operating and still in violated the law and served him - i mean the payment was one thousand 2 hundred something i understand he try to call and someone said not to appeal it

won't do you, you any good that's why we are here. >> so just a couple of things first of all, as the zoning administrator judge said in the planning code there are stated fees that are associated with and a - with a notice of violation this thing violation came as a result of a neighbor complaint that is unanimous but when you file on appeal it costs $650 and then in the planning code if the planning department has to come out and investigate unfortunately where the person they're investigating has to pay for the time of the investigation and the materials so the $1,270 is the $650 appeal

cost and that time and . >> i did - >> huh? >> separate. >> that is on top of the departments t and m costs. >> this is the law non-negotiable and it comes with you have a notice of violation what is concerning to me i'd like to ask i guess your friend or client or appellant. >> there seems to be a record of conversation as of the zoning administrator just was reading from june 8th, june 9th and august 20th and 21st felt a conversation ongoing between yourself and the planning department and so you understand there was

conversation regardless of telephone calls in the night and the zoning administrator stated he worked you, you to resolve the issue and you agreed to do that that was to be quiet in the morning and keep everything suitable for your neighbors so - in your eyes was there that conversation. >> where is the e-mail. >> i - where is the e-mails. >> they'll get answered. >> the question is the commissioner swig is asking did the receive e-mails from the department. >> off of that. >> so what is making me

scratching my head the zoning administrator said in june and again in august he has recordings and e-mails that there was a negotiation a notice that you can fix this we'll help you and there was a resolution sometime around august 22nd from the zoning administrator who was the zoning administrator talking to if he wasn't talking to you beyond this. >> i think that he wanted to talk with inspector matthew i understand that the inspector is not normally at the office that's why he never really get a chance to talk with him and he just had to tell his friend that someone got e-mail from the party.

>> so he - >> there - here's the thing the zoning administrator somebody in planning was communicating with the that mr. wang i'm sorry mr. wang or something in your office there was a dialogue blavrt and it was a good dialogue and resulted in the planning department considered a resolution it is done everything is fine but now you say no communication which something is - and the main thing i wanted to talk with mr. matthew not a chance to talk with him that's why he considered no communication. >> we understand that but were e-mails received it all by

anybody? >> so the point he didn't get a good communication i saw the e-mail i know there was some communication but he's open thinking. >> regardless of ohio when a notice of violation occurs automatically according to the law fees are charged they have time and they are expenses related to enforcing that notice of violation so and that's a non-negotiable situation non-appealable situation at the least you'll have to pay the $1,200. >> that's the problem i'm not bio rated. >> can you speak into the microphone please. i think the timeline and maybe we'll get clarification from maybe the zoning administrator i think they felt they were

wander correct me if i am wrong that you were wander and had communication and thought you fixed it and the notice of violation came after is that what you're saying. >> i received the first violation and fixed it the inspector came in and fixed the problem in march so in june the is okay. this is the violation it's not fixed that's why he didn't understand that according to the record it was abated. >> i think we'll get clarification from the department thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> that he fixed it. >> okay scott sanchez planning department. put on - >> to clear this up. >> e-mails

let's see so - >> next time may a case like this you'll want to help us send along the e-mails and everything in the brief please. yes. >> over the overhead an e-mail from our staff to mr. wang and . >> can the expand a little bit so i can read the letters. >> one question before you start going the day you said you had conversations in march and in june that's when the notice of violation came i think the clarification in the timeline of that so you mentioned conversations in july and august maybe you can help to clear that up mr. sanchez. >> so there was as i mentioned a separate case from building

department it was opened no january and that was about storage of materials that appears to be resolved in march and the case was closed in march then the planning complaints was first really appears to be received in early may so there's. >> basically two cases they're talking about the resolution of the first case this is the second case. >> right may 9 a notice of complaint and then on june 6th we submitted our notice of enforcement then june 8th staff had contacts on june 8th and 9 with mr. wang following that additional evidence in july the complaint was ongoing and on july 27th staff observed the vehicles arriving at the property going to the garage and

picking up materials then on june - july 27th we sent an e-mail to mr. wang with the - the notice of violation was not issued until july 17th the general timeline let me go back to some of the - >> that's fine. >> when did the resolution you mentioned. >> august 22nd. >> what you thought was resolved. >> august 22nd so i'll put on the overhead here can i have the overhead? this is an e-mail from mr. wang saying the employees will not come up ever again to get things if they need anything i'll bring it down to them they're not coming into the property a public street you confirmed this when i spoke to you on the phone and he asked what is next is the

complaint closed staff responded your; correct an employee cannot come to the property but you can bring those to the public right-of-way they're not allowed on the property the case is open for monitoring i'll let you know as quickly as possible if i receive any complaints and you'll not be fined daily but administrative fee prior to the closure of the case part of notice of violation and it was 1271 and stated not appealable and happy to talk with mr. one-way and reduce some way the fees make sure the time was properly accounted for i mean, we're obligated to collect. >> who did the appeal. >> i think they thought they have an opportunity to get some money back but it was explained

to them prior that it was not and if you guys you know pardon me. >> that's not correct what their appealing based on the fact in their, their stating not a fact but stating is that the department did not act correctly in terms of communicating with them therefore it should be thrown out. >> the nov. >> i believe that's what they're asking. >> if we throw out the nov there's the issue of time and materials we've spent. >> no nov they can't charge their appealing the nov. >> can the permit holders come to the podium please. >> two minutes. >> yeah. >> so after i mean it makes it

harder when we don't have full briefs according to the department what happened was you had a storage of equipment violation that was abated and that was done as you said in march but in may you were there was another notice of violation from planning in regards to the employees still on the property the letters and e-mails that were corresponding with the department indicate that you have fixed it august 22nd but that's after the had already been given a notice of violation those fees are not refundably through this board; is that correct. >> no no. >> your misunderstanding two separate notice of violations. >> a letter we fix it already.

>> but the department already indicated they saw poem r0e678 equipment after. >> that's not true because pie house was leaking water and to fix leaking not moving the equipment not true. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> okay. >> ask your question. >> yeah. >> i think you know and that's where the conundrum is because the planning department is saying they did a site visit after the building department issue was abated and therefore saw those issues and the appellant is saying that didn't happen. >> mr. sanchez can i see some documentati documentation.

>> thank you so i'm not able to assess the photographs but there is a timeline in the notice of violation and penalty which details the finding from staff and i mean, we did find there was a violation they have corrected it and so that's why we are seeking the time and materials we had that time and materials. >> can we - show us that e-mail again. >> sure. >> on the overhead. >> the e-mail from a general e-mail address didn't have the appellants name on it does it. >> no, i mean he signed off with thank you but staff addressed to to mr. wang electrical construction and he states the employees will not come up ever again to get things that's what we were trying to work with them to get the

violation abated. >> so somebody from the organization responded therefore had been in communication with your staff. >> yes. and our staff was responding to someone at the electrical current construction site and see they generally don't sign off on their name and the staff race responding to mr. wang if they saw mr. wangs writing they would have written back. >> can you go to the beginning of e-mail to see that date. >> this is the e-mail that came in the day before the appeal was filed and i saw that one but an earlier, one. >> one from june did you say june 8th or 9 a earlier in the day where the writer has consumption

with our department they asked the staff they say he know who is making the complaint the people across the street - before that staff has communications with them on august 1st because they've informed them on july 29th additional information about the work and activity happening at the property i mean, that's - then back to june 9th an initial when the second notice went out so - >> on june 9th i think this is what i'm trying to if i could

commissioner on june 9th there had been a complaint filed by the public and that complaint related to - by the time there had been a complaint may it 2 filed by the public there was a business activity that was believe it or not them at the site so i'm bending over backward and on july 27th the inspector said this was continued activity at the site and bending over backward that was a coincidence the day a water leak at his house but regardless of that a notice of violation was created well before july 22nd and seemed to continued that practice continued in some fashion or a

conversation wouldn't have happened in august. >> right. >> so okay a coincidence that the inspector was there, there was real construction at the house that was still that went out of there they were still activity there that was causing the neighborhood angst and i mean, the public complaints to dbi in january that seems to be abated in march but that is restricted to our department in may. >> the second notice of violation valid aside from july 27th may or may not construction legitimate there were continued violations as admissions to that. >> their argument there was not and received just within the

department said there is prove but the department didn't have the pictures and i apologize for not having the photos we have it in our materials and the foitsdz were submitted by members of the public staff did investigate did two site visits and eyewitnesses and it was admitted in the e-mail they'll stop having their employees come to the site i thought that was sufficient evidence of a violation. >> were the complaint all unanimo unanimous. >> you can't say. >> do you have records. >> our system is not compliant with the ipad that appears. >> maybe that will be once the

department. >> we'll all wait thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> you know a new system. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> for me the documentation is in the notice of violation and i have not heard anything to refute it. >> the problem the appellant has not provided i can understand perhaps i'm guessing there was some level of frustration on their part because it's not always easy to deal with planning department staff. >> especially the enforcement people and i think their there's issues there which i'm not going to get into but probably some

frustration therefore led to perhaps certain actions, however, the proof they needed to provide in terms of documentation was what was disputing. >> you have something else for us mr. sanchez. >> my apologies this was a photo by the complainant stated this is from friday september 9th and saturday september 11th i mean. >> those two were. >> the vehicles. >> in the driveway. >> yes. >> this was submitted in september and part of complaint there was from their e-mail at the continued to have work

trucks for loading and unloading this was september 9th and 10. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> i think the appellant want to put this behind them they'll have to pay the fee and conform to the requirements of code. >> care to make a motion commissioner. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the zoning administrator neither erred more abused his discretion. >> to uphold the notice of violation commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner campagnoli is absent commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero schold it didn't appear that commissioner wilson. >> exactly what is the alternative at this point.

>> i know item 4 was continued for no participation i understand. >> is there a resolution. >> i don't know but further discuss of a resolution i don't know from the board want to let them discuss with the board we can put it over for commissioner swig participation. >> this is a light evening. >> perhaps madam director try to reach commissioner wilson to see if she's in route autsdz unfortunately any cell phone died if she's trying to reach me her phone number is in my system. >> is that an e-mail. >> i left any phone in the office. >> all i can do you want to try that that would be great. >> do you want me to wait to call the item. >> no.

>> this is item 4 versus the zoning administrator the property on broderick protesting the issuance on the rear yard variance for a two-story at the rear the two-story building this was heard on july 13, 2016, and september 21st, 2016, and it is on for further consideration today we can give with the president's agreement 3 minutes to give me the board an update starting with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you i'm steve i didn't straiie stra

>> we met again with ray and came to an agreement we thought in principle that he was not going to expand above the ground level but expand the ground level all the way down to the existing deck i have a photo from my oh, thank you and you know he would expand more on the ground floor versus et al. on the first floor that was virtual from our deck and instead of moving the stairs where you see in this photo - let me move up which overhanger backyard he was planning to move them tucked into the house but we agreed okay keep the stairs as is and expand all the

way on the ground level to the existing decks and no examination at that level or top level and we were happy to be done with that but ray had to go back and get approval i think when he did that it turned out we needed to build a firewall to keep the existing stairs where they are and i'm not sure like the original surveillance was not approving the stairs but would you agree to having a firewall to having the stairs rebuilt with the firewall going along our property we asked that that looks like and not sure and got a picture a solid way all the way down our backyard on the sides we get the most sun coming in, of course, we wanted to resolve this we went back and said you know what if this was

only a suggestion but with a transparent material on the part above the deck seems like this is not a possibility but possible to put the stairs on the other side which you know we can't see very well but already a taller wall on the south side so having to put a firewall is less obstruct active and or go to the variance where that is tucked into the expansion where the upper stairs are he basic said no way that's where we are these days so we would have been happy to sign off on what we agreed to in principle could we have left the stairs as they are

but not a possibility. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, sir. >> yes. good evening for the most part ms. supervishriveshri >> after costly meeting with any architect and agreed in principle to leave that has stairs in the current condition i'm not a building expert back and forth a financial cost with changes for his time to contact scotts office they agreed i gave up the entire second floor expansion which was difficult for me to do and all i'm asking is this particular stair that is

currently there not moving moving it either makes my deck smaller or i would - it would help them now i have to do the same process to the setting their moving the problems to a different neighbor and costly for me again they're very unflexible during the process we contacted scotts office multiple times and got guidance how the firewall should be built i have pictures what i submit to the schiffer's braefrt this is a current sketch and obviously with the new firewall in particular section here all i'm asking they tried to drag this on no other options

after i so inflexiblely gave up the second floor expansion to agree on the small piece based on i'm asking the board to approve the variance based on the due diligence scotts office has done. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> did you say one option was to not replace the stair. >> no one of the options was to keep the steps in their current status the evaporates that was granted move forward the steps to the other side and it keeps the steps from - >> are those stairs need to be replaced because they're not in good shape. >> yes. the deck and the steps are at least minimum thirty years old when we do the construction that will make sense to tear it down and build

that with newer material i'm open with a transparent material that helps they're light. >> that didn't work. >> correct. >> and which is what i tried to explain to them. >> you've answered any question. >> thank you very much. >> can i ask a question. >> what we moved from is you wanting to build out the floor above the ground floor and the third floor. >> no the second floor. >> and given away on the second floor that allows you know this picture that someone created shows you will be completely blocked if you did the second floor over this issue has been abated and that light continues and so - >> you have compromised

significantly on that point. >> significantly compromised and for the appellant some loss of light because of firewall that is required by the city and you know but i have to compliment you - yes, he have the photo in the case you anyone wants to see that. >> i have their photo from their point of view. >> an expansion. >> and - >> a big issue because that blocked their loyalty from their house but now there maybe a little bit of president your cake and eat it, too. >> yes. they want me to move the steps completely out of their way completely inflexible. >> mr. sanchez okay. >> commissioners, the matter

is submitted. >> - sorry public comment. no public comment. commissioners that is up to you if you want to make a motion to do something with the variance or you want to continue it for commissioner wilson. >> so can i have some advise please i have trouble - >> if we were to accept a suggestion which is to - build on, on the lower level but maintain the stairs with the firewall is that a uphold the appeal with the direction that. >> grant the appeal. >> what. >> grant the appeal with the change that would remove the second floor expansion from the

project and move the project to the lower floor of the sustaining the existing stair and the firewall is required by planning. >> it sound like there were plans drawn up. >> the easiest thing to condition the variance on the project reflecting what those plans look like again you're looking at the 5 finding required for a variance you need to decide if those vtsd have not been met and if they're met by virtue of conditioning the project. >> i believe my concerns at the previous hearings and -- excuse-me. from memory that issue that the view - the second floor was really the issue for me and my feelings whether i verbalize them or not whether

there was some project sponsor was not showing as much flexibility as i thought he might but in fact, with the removal of that big chunk of construction on the second floor which a blocks that clear view a big conversation here you know the best compromise we're both go away feeling they didn't get what we wanted but something i think this is the districts i'd like to take. >> fellow commissioners. >> i will agree with that. >> it may very well come to that as you recall i indicated at the last meeting my first indication would be to remove a portion of the ground floor and you wanted

45; right? >> set by the 45 line and they had done that then the new stair could have been added adjacent without a firewall that then had the further mid block open space obstruction of the second floor this stair would be going from the down to grade would go down to the rear yard so the height above would be less than the height of a full floor at this point. >> the stair would stay in the

same place. >> we're talking about moving that over. >> you want a picture on the overhead to help with this. >> sure. >> this is a picture that the architect drew up of what the firewall will look like. >> the fenced between our two homes is roughly at what height. >> lower. >> here's the - (inaudible) how will the firewall roughly to the it up of that rail; right? >> right that is basically okay. my only concern this is our

backyard a little backyard will block the sun in our little backyard i'll be fine with keeping the stairs as they are if there's a way to build them without the firewall or - >> some other possibility. >> we understand your point already yes, thank you. >> i think. >> we understand your point and like to indulge our point but unfortunately laws preventing that that's the way it is. >> thank you the other option deny the appeal. >> uh-huh. >> that is the option but that didn't. >> then there's going to a structure think all levels. >> but they're concerned about the things being blocked even if

with this this blocked less than the other. >> okay and significantly. >> all right. >> and in terms of 5 conditions this will alleviate the issue of causing causing a burden or i always forgot the condition but causing a hardship this removes the hardship. >> the hardship is looking at the hardship on the property owner you'll be talking about the impact to the. >> impact to the neighborhood. >> to the neighbors. >> for me. >> unless anyone else has a motion we tried to make one. >> go ahead and make the motion but i'll repeat what i said last time the permit holder has a variance as far as i'm concerned, not as of right.

>> say it again, please. >> the variance not as of right as far as a property. >> no, i did not is is that as a property line i'll take this as a compromise. >> so fine for the uphold the appeal or fine for the appellant with the condition that the property owner be able to do the expansion of the first floor. >> as per the plans. >> as per the plans which have been submitted. >> so those plans have not been submitted we need something that would be helpful if we could have that document submitted and i'd like to have the zoning administrator see if

that rfbts what needs to be understood later which - >> so you're looking for plans for the ground floor. >> looking for the drawings to show you. >> that reflects the alternative design. >> can you provide that to the zoning administrator please.

yes. >> yes. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so i'll put on the overhead the proposal for the ground story stated by the permit holder they'll not expand to the floor above but the ground floor on the overhead close. >> so the doted line is the offer hang of the existing deck the variance holder indicated the wall will come out cross to

the rear property line to the end of the deck and then extend over to the south side property line and then the stairs will remain along the north side property line. >> because the plans that at this point have only been drawn up an escalation elevation and didn't show. >> do we have a date on that by chance. >> 11, 62016. >> is that elevation correct. >> you could move the wall further out. >> it is the north elevation so the wall will come out in line with the extent of the deck it is not something you'll see from this perspective because it will be hidden by the firewall that is for the stairs. >> but the plan you've showed

us earlier indicates - >> this plan is the existing plan he's indicated the rear wall didn't come out as far as the edge of the deck and they seek to bring this out further to the rear property line for a large space and bring it out over the facade they'll no longer do the stairs ♪ location but remained on the north side property line with the north elevation you'll not be able to see that increased area because it is good evening to be hidden behind this firewall here so that will be in a section in the middle of the building see it extend out further >> is that a variance. >> yes. it is modified but again this is a nov hearing. >> i understand but does that change our opinion. >> one of the concerns i have

was that the you know kind of addressing the concerns rays by the neighbor to the west kind of going towards the rear property line was a bit of an issue that's why we cut back at the upper levels but again, this is fully up to the board if you feel this is an appropriate solution. >> but not upper level. >> that addresses that concern. >> it seems the upper level will cause more interference in the sightlines between 9 neighbors. >> the bottom below grade level. >> it is a down sleep from broderick so, i mean this wall will be fully impose that's one of the concerns of the appellant to the west they've been mainly about bird levels and the

sidelines to their rear yard. >> so this will bring the rear wall closer to their property and further exacerbate their concerns. >> but under the existing deck. >> yes. and it will be reduced at the floor above not doing that expansion so trade offs there. >> okay. >> i think i'm satisfied thank you. >> i'll allow is this time please come to the podium please. you my understanding a firewall on the south side of the property when they expanded the building co-author to the original variance i'm wondering if they have to have a firewall if they build out the lower level in this case why not put the stairs next to that firewall

in their building and just minimize the intrusion on the north side of the property. >> okay. thank you. >> i think - part of what is driving this alternative is the presidio's is the picking up additional space on the empowering. >> - >> what he is losing on the second floor. >> how much space are we talking mr. sanchez i'm sorry. >> how much 6 inches? >> well be the square footage of that stair. >> so. >> the square footage the stairs with pivoting. >> no a new stair that is shown in the plans. >> but a replacement stair.

>> no, it is being relocated not a replacement stair. >> sorry no talking. >> according to the appellant would like to step up and clarify the permit holder would like to step forward and it will be a mirror. >> not a replacement stair once you take them out. >> in terms of what they're proposing an, an alternative it is essentially a reminded stair but original variance drawings shows a completely different stair in a new location. >> that's my understanding going back to the drawing the rear wall will move out towards the rear property line the dimension up here is probably 8 to 10 feet closer to the south side property line as is appellant noted on the current proposal a firewall their

relocating the design so the stairs will no longer be there to the south side property line and 3 feet out further to the rear end of the line of the existing deck and the stairs will be rebuilt with a required firewall bringing the existing conditions up to code. >> if we moved it to the south side since from the second floor you'll create the second situation to the neighbor on the south side coming from the level down; right? >> you're against a building on the south side. >> the building on the south side has a bit of a side setback and didn't have a deeper lot my understanding from the variance holder they have discussed this and the adjacent property was okay with that firewall in that proposed stairs in that location. >> please no talking.

>> no appeals were filed i'll say that thank you. >> so the point of that conversation is would you accept that drawing under the conditions of this motion. >> yes. i mean there is a trade off there i mean, my concern will be we asked them to setback the wall that's a concern of the appellant to the west but mr. lee removing that addition on the second floor and having the addition been indicated a more censorsy space densely used it acceptable but hopefully up to the boards. >> i have one question for the permit holder after we're done. >> oh - >> hold on i'll ask the permit

holder a question. >> the stairs that are existing on the north side will be her south side which will be where the light comes in on that does the property that is on your south side longer than and a setback back do those people are a problem with the firewall and the stairs. >> currently they don't no firewall there and the plans that were submitted this stairs don't come out into the yard their go back and forgot and takes away deck space. >> my thinking and this is a thought if you're on your south side it would will be on their north side not effecting their light and air or if you go on our north side their south side; right? >> but okay. that was my question. >> okay. thank you.

>> so are we back to commissioner swig's motion then. >> yeah. we should resolve that if we can't we'll accept another motion. >> i'm still concerned about how best to reflect the revision to the project if a way to go forward and looking to the zoning administrator for help with that. >> scott sanchez planning department. perhaps correction for the existing stair along the north side property line would allow for expansion of the ground floor under the area of the existing deck and but lieu for reconstruction of the deck above that level and i mean a necessary firewall

i believe they're keeping the access the stairs on the south side? to connect to the two. >> levels because there's an existing stair there now from the third floor down to the second floor. >> okay. >> and to remove - >> to remove the stair expansion of the second floor and third floor. >> what he said. >> so the motion then will be from commissioner swig to grant the appeal and uphold the surveillance on the condition that the zoning administrator just said all the elements remove the expansions of the rear floor and the expansion will be reconstructed to the existing north side i'm getting this right expansion the ground floor under the deck - under

the existing deck reconstruction the existing deck above the ground floor and any existing firewall. >> one minor thing that was about the expansion of the ground floor space up to the edge of the existing deck; right? >> i mean, if i board wants to have the variance holder to accept those conditions maybe ask those plans be drafted i don't know what the timeline is for the architect but that would be great to have them within the 10 days from the understanding of the proposal i don't know if so that doable for the architect timeframe but. >> the variance holders needing in agreemenodding in ag

>> the boards decision is not effective until that period of time a good phase request by the board. >> and this is to the variance will meet the 5 finding required under the planning code in particular i think the findings you're concerned about commissioner swig is number 4 which is at the variance will not be material detrimental to the public or the injury us to the property. >> on that commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> thank you and we'll move on to item no. 7 which is appeal thomas and

eleanor versus the planning department with planning department approval on 33 avenue protesting the issues of a site permit on august 2016 to vladimir with the external and adding two bedrooms and two bathrooms and new bathroom at second floor and new bathroom on third floor with family room and new roof deck. >> can we take one minute. >> thank you for the break welcome. >> welcome back to the wednesday, november 9, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 7 and we'll start with the appellant. >> good evening board members we are here tonight on regarding the granting of the permit for

our new neighbors homes next door to us they're planning additions to each levels of their home as well as an additional avenue fourth level not - existing right now we are amending our appeal to only deal with the addition of the fourth level we feel that the addition of that new level will cut off the sun. >> light to our kitchen and breakfast room and diagram that window faces to the south where the sun does come in since we've got in our home for 5 seven years that is a major change in addition to eating in the kitchen i use the breakfast room for reading watching television you go or, using the telephone and crafting mostly because of

arthritis in my back i feel that it would be really difficult for us if they were to go ahead and build this fourth level i'm asking the board to take into consideration thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> welcome. >> good evening my name is andrea one of the owners second owner any father but unfortunately has a hearing problem so i understand the main architectural problem is the access to scioto our dwelling i

mean the stair between our houses i understand i'm not an architect but the lightwell area where the stairs are located big enough and the planning department and has reviewed the project with the pleading and approved our addition we actually went back to with the architect and talked about this - so to be honest i don't know understand the think the problem was resolved and enough sunlight as k34u9 by the planning department now if we refer to the original

brief of the appellant i'm not sure we can do that because they pushed all the arguments in there as far as i see the only architectural argument is the sunlight and but otherwise they also mentioned the activity in the brief that is true in at least part of apartment on the second floor of the building has been rent and we have registered with the planning department, paying our taxes she should be added to the brief our certificate and business recommendation the apartment 656 on the second floor and i understand it is only being opted out by my family and never

rented to airbnb services and it is we're not - >> there are 3 adults and a dog there but in perverseable future hope it will be bigger only for our use we don't plan to rent it. >> this is temporary our house unfortunately is very difficult conditions i brought some photos that might be relevant to show - overhead please. overhead please. yep to show that the implicating we had to repair on the ground floor so the house is in a bad

situation and wouldn't renting just difficult we had to replace half of the mr. flanagan on ground floor and also the electrical system as well here this is temporary to roommate the house it just very hard to live there right now especially on the second floor which is has not been renovated in 34 years i believe i know if i should address yeah also so much dust and noise we were open to negotiations i'm sure if our permit gets approved - our construction country is ready to negotiate with our neighbors all of the neighbors with the hours and we are open

to that and with regards to the parking this argument we believe can be completely - to the case because mostly parking is airbnb that use preferablely public transportation but including by the neighbors i believe those are all the argument and open to questions. >> i have a question i live on that block during my college years how long have your folks lived on the property. >> in september 2nd years. >> and how many units are on the property circling. >> two 651 and 6. >> you don't have people on

the property. >> what do you mean. >> are there rooms behind the garage. >> no, i believe they're included in the phase two preempts. >> the other thing in plans in the briefs and so who's the contractor and the builders your father a contractor. >> no negotiating with the incarcerating. >> because the preliminary are owner builder. >> i'm sorry come again. >> it says you're the owner billiard. >> we hadn't signed with anyone yet. >> okay. that answers any question thank you. >> did you send out a 311 notice. >> i believe yes, in february. >> okay you have a copy of that. >> no, unfortunately no. >> we have no drawings nothing

here. >> i'll rather looking at it in hardcopy but go ahead. >> and on the 311 notification that was sent out did you hold neighborhood meetings. >> well, we were open to but haven't heard any complaints besides. >> normally when you send out 311 you're having a meeting if someone shows up that's good. >> i apologize this process has been very long we had one meeting back in i believe november or december 2014 and one neighbor attended. >> did they have questions at that time, and i believe their main concern was - >> did our plans vary from that evening. >> yes. as i said we without arithmetic we went back to

changed them already. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> the subject property on 33 avenue located an five and six zoning district that allows the two with the vertical expansion that is on the plans the overhead please. so the new story a 17 foot setback is prominently a block phase to allow the fourth story as long as it is setback they've done here it the have a residential design guidelines review and to notchback here at the rear to respect the adjacent property to the south that didn't extend as far as the the subject property the the subject property for that their vertical

addition providing a full matching let that matches the appellants property it is fully code compliant and notification done between january and february no discretionary review authorization a project requires the outreach meeting the staff says it occurred prior to moving forward with the application the application was submitted no prevail of 2015 so this is fully code compliant project the vertical addition adds the office study and two bedrooms the kitchen facility are maintained on the third floor and as part of developing rooms on the ground floor for the unit on the second floor the current plans says no habitable space on the ground level only storage they'll be

developing that level as well were with exterior access sorry to interrupt. >> yeah. the spiral staircase that does provide - some interior access but a full bath. >> i'm sorry you have a rear view. >> the rear view elevation. >> yes. >> thank you. >> on the overhead the proposed rear elevation. >> show me with the appellants property. >> here to the north. >> the plan the north arrow is drawn incredible but the appellants property is here and here's the proposed front elevation in this case the property is here to the north.

>> so here's the one story vertical addition in those cases you know - it is a very large lightwell their matching and i do think this r t requires that it is appreciated when you have a lightwell of almost 20 feet we wouldn't always require that be fully matched. >> it requires some light. >> exactly but that is such a substantial size that provides quite a bit of light and air open its own. >> but you know we would see this completely meets all the residential design guidelines. >> okay vice president do you mind if i ask to see the plans. >> not at all i have a couple of questions. >> i've got to hear the

building permit and the residential design guidelines comments and our 311 itself. >> i have questions. >> are you done. >> yes. i'm done thank you. >> the it also has a based the rh2 a pop up; right? >> yes. >> and the elevation looks like theirselves i thought the pop up that was loud for second floor. >> the vertical addition is an existing. >> the pop up is existing it shows a hatch. >> maybe new siding. >> you know that is like a new structure. >> okay. >> let's go back a ways.

>> the richmond district had had a lot of issues with four stories. >> uh-huh. >> in fact, our department was not approving four stories for quite a long time why the change. >> the adoption of the residential design guidelines which you know specifically contemplate where you have paramount 3 third floor pattern on the block phase the compromise was that essentially the setback was going to minimize that addition and have it blend more seemingly into the background and on the overhead aerial photos. >> perhaps you can discuss that with the context so i don't have to read the report.

>> certainly that is prominently third floor and one to the north is a 4 story building the building to the south is a tall third floor. >> i live in that building by the way. >> the other side prominently to more to the third floor and four story to the north and making up 2, 3 and 4 a little bit more punk what did on on the west side of the street on the the subject property of the street but have approximately a long tradition of approving an additional story when we have a

setback in this case here. >> was there a richmond special. >> the year of construction. >> no. i don't think so. >> the year of construction. >> it looks like it. >> like 193 have to look like 25. >> 1926 yeah. >> but looks like it had been remodeled at some point. >> no spark. >> on the overhead. >> are you done commissioner. >> the existing pop up that is just a mirror. >> i'm sorry where is the the subject property. >> it is the the subject property adjacent property here is the cones property identical condition to add a new fourth story setback 10 feet from the building wall.

>> not the back that causes it will block out the sun coming in the morning from the pop up right there. >> not buy out over the pop up but no further than the main - >> the fourth story won't have the pop up. >> it will be 9 deck on top of the pop up. >> okay. >> are you done commissioner fung. >> let me been that i don't understand the airbnb for short time but thought it rent-controlled can't be and/or before. >> the participate can be the requirement a preliminary rodent you don't represent out an entire unit it didn't allow you to do if you're the preliminary

owner but limits that to 20 days for the entire unit while you're there in the unit you can rent it out. >> you have to live in the unit while you, you are we talking about it out. >> that's part of requirement to show the evidence you're the preliminary resident of the unit. >> thank you. >> no, i'm fine. >> i'm comfortable. >> okay thank you. >> inspector duffy anything on this. >> as long as you came in. >> yeah. >> you're doing well inspector duffy. >> how are you. >> i joe duffy dbi i think that

should be okay. it's a typical addition there was structural a notification sent out by dbi when the permit was issued the comment the works hours we get a lot of complaints on those types of projects from the construction on a nicely kw50e9 block i appreciate the permit holder recognizing that and hopefully the project gets approved they'll get their project done without too much disturbance to the neighborhood i did read in the brief about a flashing water approving i encourage the permit holder to work with others flashing between the property not part of building code but as a good neighbor policy we encourage them to get that issue sorted

out prior to construction starting so they can no surprise it is a pretty standard detail that happens in the lot lines a story added to a building suddenly you'll have to flash up the new addition and we ask the property owners to sort that out themselves it is district attorney good thing to do other than i don't have anything else. >> that is the issue that the appellants brief that leaking rain. >> yeah. it roles up the side and the water goes on the roof. >> thank you this is a site permit. >> it is only a site permit but only a 150i9 permit maybe not set up the schedule but looks like it is only site. >> you notice it is an owner

permit rights. >> yes. a lot of people do that they're not sure what they'll do when the new contractor is on board they'll submit the license and workman's compensation to that prior to starting the work to get the incarcerating on the permit later. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you yes. >> a format i'll call for public comment. seeing none, search warrant a rebutt rebuttal. >> are you an appellant you have 3 minutes to as the appellant. >> welcome. >> my name is thomas wong i live next door you mentioned about the rain between the buildings if we put an additional floor on their does the rain will hit

their wall and come over to our roof more than now because right now the roof is level both sides and when they put the fourth floor we saw it didn't cover only on the living room side but the light is blocking on the lightwell area the kitchen and the breakfast area we get light but the sunshine is gone thank you. >> so i have a question sir, are you finished autopsy no, i finished yeah. >> so did you receive a notification from regarding a 311 notification to indicating our neighbors were going to have construction. >> yeah. he went to the first meeting and yep. >> yep. >> on the first meeting sorry i remember asking that from the

first meeting did they make alterations all no, they doesn't. >> you addressed our concerns regarding the light and air purpose not going to get. >> yes. yes. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal. >> i apologize i'm not entirely i don't know the whole process but i know we've changed our plans it happened almost too years ago we decided to make the fourth addition much, much shorter if you come from the backside we definitely did alteration and it was going to rain in the 21st century i i'm

sure we have limits it didn't shooem seem like a big issue. >> are you done so where your rear sunroom our planning on adding a deck what material are you thinking of using for railing. >> i believe that is wood but it is not - >> would you be open to putting potentially something more so through like glass or something. >> absolutely. >> okay. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> let's go back to what changes have occurred in that project. >> when you said the front setback that was required by the planning code. >> yep. >> right. >> your initials project drawings the fourth floor extend from where the front wall and i

believe that went all the way. >> to the rear wall of the pop up. >> yes. >> all right. >> so, now you cut it back from the front based on what planning wanted the 15 feet from the street side. >> uh-huh. >> now it goes to the main wall of the back in the the pop up wall that was done for what reason. >> yeah. i i'm not sure what - >> was that done because planning brought that up also. >> or the neighbors. >> scott sanchez planning department. so sounds like well in terms of the process when staff saw that i don't know when they first saw it but to the residential design

the comments from the rehabilitation rehabilitation /* residential design the 15 feet would have been taken off in response to staffs comments. >> either way and - they'll need a variance to do that i don't know if they came in with that staff said they need a variance or went i don't know if they ever covered that. >> from the get go. >> right that is code compliant. >> so the slot that was asked for by your staff on the south side. >> that was made yes definitely this can i have the

overhead, please? can i have the overhead, please? >> this was definitely added after the r e t with the setback on the front i don't know if that was made at what point but before the rdt. >> your residential design guidelines kaultdz railways for that. >> exactly. >> how about for the rear where's the rear yard setback line. >> there are in this case given the nature of the case they're able to avail the 45 percent. >> that's why your stopped short. >> exactly, exactly the building to the rear line in terms of the materials of the deck that they have at the rear on the plans they are they've highlighted that called the metal guardrail so certainly

from the board wanted to specific small business owner something with a greater level of transparency i understand that. >> can i after you're done can i see those plans again sorry. >> sure thing sharing is caring. >> what - where's that plan that he had - >> so this is the sun where that comes starts here and going this way with a large matching lightwell but by giving something here about increase more light and not that much

loss here i don't know. >> you're the architect so if it didn't make a difference it doesn't make sense. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez did you have any rebuttal. >> thank you so anything else mr. duffy commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think the the preliminin market i know in the richmond's there are fourth floors. >> but i also remember.

>> don't date yourself. >> no, no i remember discussions that occurred and people saying that the one project was probably the last fourth floor you know arched to brought in the richmond and i guess with the residential design guidelines probably changed a little bit but there was - in fact, one of the former supervisors lobbied heavily against fourth floors. >> you know. >> jake. >> yes. >> so i think the - for me looking at where whether i agree with the residential design team in their determination this is

appropriately scaled for that neighborhood the other issues if the permit holder is adding a floor up, of course, they have to come back with the appropriate flashing that deals with picture adjacent neighbors that is commonly done we'll ink expects that i agree with them they you know it is difficult to do construction without noise but perhaps they can arrive at suitable timeframes for the day not as with the building code allows that is almost the whole day and everyday of the week i mean the neighbors deserve some respite from noise you know and i don't know if we want to get into thinking about conditions in that respect. >> i think that so you're thinking about approving or denying the appeal is that what

you're leon towards. >> this point in time. >> probably. >> and i don't mind conditioning the construction hours it is set in stone with no ordinances and that way no problems. >> that protects the appellant. >> can i have the appellants come to the podium please. so folks i'm sure you're not going to want to hear but we're leon towards approving that project you asked for limited construction times no >> so you don't mind them working from morning to nights.

>> we do. >> what hours when you limit construction hours you have to remember instead of them doing it quickly it takes more time the shorter the more it takes them to complete the process what do you think that fair that is a question at this point. >> 8 to 5. >> 8 to 6, 8 to 5. >> 5 days a week. >> 8 to 5 no saturday or sunday or holidays. >> okay. okay. >> that was a question okay. thank you. >> what about the sunshine definitely block the sunshine especially in the summer. >> that the code compliant they're not asking for anything special this is what is allowed by the city and county of san francisco unfortunately, the laws have changed over time.

>> can you require the flashing. >> oh, yeah, the flashing is definitely definitely definitely done okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> can i have the permit holder step forward please. they're requesting we'll probably put limitations what do you feel in regards to the 9 to 5 no saturday or sunday. >> i believe so we don't have construction people here to ask you it. >> once we set it in stone. >> anyone have any questions. >> okay. thank you. >> so we'll have to accept the appeal and condition it. >> i'll let you do that. >> okay. yeah. >> grant the appeal and grant the restricted work hours 9 to

5, 5 days a week monday through friday. >> thank you. >> the permit holder to handle the flashing of the structures. >> that last part about the flashing i'm sorry. >> the permit holder to handle the flashing in an appropriate fashion. >> for the permit holder. >> i guess as an enforcement mechanism appropriate fashion is not something that. >> i think. >> do you want to leave it to the department of building inspection. >> not a code requirement and i see. >> so i guess normally we'll - >> how about this do to others as you would to, huh? the flashing to restrict additional water rain wart flow into the

appellants property. >> my problem is if would be - >> yeah. >> that will not work. >> intruchl. >> perhaps inspector duffy can help with the language. >> we whatever this is not a building code so we count the building code to connect the guess so together but flashing detail is something that a roofing contractor provides for the satisfaction of the property owners and they can come to an agreement on that in a civil manner in a civil - >> how will we. >> my problem we have to articulate a decision that is enforceable so unless there are drawings or specifications or something else i don't know how we can hither. >> with the additional flashing to the satisfaction of the appellant. >> houses that. >> it's my motion

okay. >> i don't want to go b there. >> maybe better to leave off the flashing if it becomes an issue contact dbi we have nice ways of encouraging the permit holder and contractor to take care of that. >> i'm sorry a little bit of flashing is not a big deal. >> i agree and so the motion if commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal on the conditions that the hours of operation from 9 to 5 monday through friday on the basis that the permit is code compliant. >> on that motion commissioner fung and commissioner president honda commissioner swig percentage okay. thank you very much so that motion passed its and commissioners one other item. >> this evening item 8 which

is the discussion and discussion and possible action regarding the use of yellow commercial parking don or zone you may recall a memo was given to you a few weeks back with information about the law around the use of yellow zones by mobile food facilities and additional information with conversations with the public works and there was interest amongst the commissioners to have discussion that's why this is on our calendar this evening. >> since i made the request i think it is important that the law according to the mp a is upheld which is yellow zones are for short time parking and the

loading and unloading of things from trucks or cars or whatever their unloading once you muddy the waters and have those that are above the law or below the law in our point of view it is arbitrary and dangerous. >> are you sorry to interrupt are you talking about going forward or rooeflt to the permit issued already. >> i think absolutely going forward that there should be a clear message which is offered to those seeking food truck permit including a yellow zone trying to do it retroactively i don't think is fair and a burden and a hardship to those who have already been offered permits. >> i think the departments impasse after the

recommendations have generally i mean worked with us and so they'll not be issuing permits for yellow zone facility and not even bring that forward. >> exactly. >> so what's the proposed action. >> so the proposed action to suggest - who issues the - >> public works. >> so the proposed action to request public works to uphold the mta's yellow zone laws and by not issuing permits to - by informing the applicants that permits in yellow zones are not available. >> or the way not issuing the permits where. >> i'm trying to prevent we're

misleading the public by getting them to. >> thinking they might get a permit before a permit is issued they should to the public for food trucks will not be issued ever. >> i believe although the directors research into it indicates that that is not definitely in their code didn't that is a a request they consider they made a distinctive element. >> mta replied but by the exempt from that food trucks are exempt but sfmta never made that policy. >> correct. >> as far as a recommendation. >> as far as a recommendation. >> i mean to me that feels like it is between mta and dpw

and i'm not sure i want to insert myself. >> why not make a recommendation going forward someone is not appealing the denial of a permit. >> i understand the recommendations but didn't this have to be worked between the two departments. >> the alternative is we encourage we send a memo to both mta and dpw and indicating that there are continued issues regarding the issuance of permits for food trucks in yellow zones the law seems to indicate that yellow zones with without exemption or for the use of loading and unloading for a short time but yet mta sorry dwp has made a request of mta for a

waiver on this or an exception for food trucks we'd like absolute clarification on the subject going forward how about that. >> or vote our conscious and deny any food trucks into the parking zone. >> or uphold the law that means we will not accept - that's fine i think - the food trucks not permitting them in yellow zones. >> by us having the conversation they'll understand the situation. >> i don't know if i want to go there what if someone wants to serve a midnight crowd entertainment venue and the food truck wants to be there the yellow zone it is for the operateable i mean, i don't know. >> we can qualify it. >> but at this point the yellow zone the laws and the