what we intend to do is just a continuation of what we do for service. which is salads, burger, bowls, pastas, you know, we have been open for the last month or so, and the neighbourhood well received us. everyone kind of appreciates the space finally being activated. you know, i am not 100% sure what the deal was before. i know that plenty of neighbours have come in and really, you know, thanked us for activating the space and, you know, the neighbourhood the commercial association, they think it is a

step forward and to potentially getting the space diagonal from us rented out. it is vacant for the last five years or so as well. we will be open to 10 p.m. the latest on friday and saturdays. it is all counter service. you order at the counter. we bring you the food. and you know, we think it could compliment the food program. and the space nicely. >> thank you. we may have questions for you. public comment on this item? we will close public comment. commissioner? >> we have a cafe on 18th street. it is a great addition to the

neighbourhood. it does serve food. there have not been complaints with it. i go to this building twice a week because my gym is in the third space down. this is in the end space. i think this would be -- i know the place. i have gone and got coffee. i looked at the letters of opposition from folks. a big development down near market. it is not like someone is on top of the restaurant saying it will create issues. i don't see a reason why we soon approve this. we need to approve. >> commissioner? >> i wanted to make some similar comments, walking distance from my office. i pass by the location. i think it will do nothing but add to the lower park neighbo neighbourhood. i support it.

>> you know, we made arguments. we sometimes get vilified for rejected formula retail and things will remain vacant. i think this is a great use of the building. i am supportive. >> there is nothing further. the motion to approve the matter with conditions. (vote taken) the motion passes unanimously 6-0. item 18 a & b for case numbers. 14 lion street. we will consider the request for variance. please note, commissioners on

october 19th, 2017, after hearing the closing comment the commission continued the matter to 2017 by 4-0. the commissioners johnson and millguard were absent. you were not seated at the time. on december 31st without hearing you continued the matter to february 8th, 2018. and february 8th, 2018, you again without hearing continued the matter to march 8th, 2018. the commissioners are free to participate. you have reviewed the previous hearings and materials? >> yes. >> yes. >> this is the second hearing of the matter. very good. >> good evening. the vote before you is a request for a conditional use authorization to legalize the merger of four dwelling units

into two dwelling units within an rh3 zoning district. the authorized use of the building is for families, the report of residential building record. at the department of building inspection show the authorized configuration of the building on the second and fourth floor and front and rear apartments on the third floor. the four units have been merged into one approximately 3100 square foot dwelling unit. spanning the three upper floors and one new 341 square foot studio apartment located behind the garage. the project was continued from the october hearing. the staff recommended disapproval of the merger at that time.

the commission indicated support for the revised project consisting of three units. and the project was continued. to date, a revised project is not committed to the department. instead of continuing the item, another time, we are here with the informational update. the project sponsor has sought input from a representative at the department of building inspection regarding upgrades needed to restore a third dwelling unit. a summary of the information and along with a rough plan depicting a third unit spanning the second and third floors was provided by the applicant and is included in the packet. there is legalization of the two unit configuration. a letter outline the estimated

safety upgrade costs. whether the project is legalized as is or if additional dwelling units are restored, some modifications will be required to meet safety standards. if safety upgrades require modification, historic staff will work with the applicant to ensure that the least intensive -- intrusive modifications are made. the department is still recommending disapproval of the dwelling unit merger. it would legalize the merger of two dwelling units and the 3100 square foot unit on three floors. and a less desirable 341 square foot unit located behind the garage.

this concludes my presentation. i will be available to answer questions. >> thank you. >> three minutes? >> yes, three minutes. >> i am confused. we have information -- the original packet has a motion to disapprove the legalization. there is no other motions associated with this. >> the only thing we can do is disapprove or give direction on... >> that is correct. >> thank you. that was our understanding, this was mainly informational. i will try to be brief here. you have seen the material. i would like to spend a little

time going over the background for those who have not been involved. we appreciate the commission's consideration and careful at evaluating this. a couple of you have been to the property and it is appreciated. this is a difficult case. here is a photo of the facade. this is the r2 district. it is a category a resource. it was constructed in 1891. the home was a single family residence for many, many years. then after world war i, it was divided into four units and after that returned to a single family home which has been the case for 20 years. now behind the garage.

two tenants. when we were here last fall you directed us to vet the possibility of three units. we have investigated three units. we had conversations. two formal meetings with planning staff. and mark walls. we have a preapplication letter signed by mr. walls. the road block that we ran into is do more than two units as a property requires the building to be approved to meet r2 occupancy code life safety requirements. as we listed in the memo to staff and in your packet, the improvements are key because they are significant. they include an upgrade to the construction for the entire

building. this is essentially a gut of the building. a reconstruction of the home interior. it is conservatively estimated to cost $300 per square foot. and 3,000 square foot total that is almost $1 million in costs. the reconstruction of the interior would remove the entirety of the building significant historic character. other up grades are -- the building. and second exit in the back with a fire wall that would require a variance. upgrading the existing open stairs and the interior to two hour rate of construction. the up grades run in the order of $400,000. even to do this work, we would have to evict the existing tenants in the building. we talked to banks as well.

and it is unlikely to get the financing to do the work. we are available for questions. >> we know that reluctance to allow dwelling unit mergers, the city needs housing. we recognize that. we think this is a different case. my clients have spent an enormous amount of time and money seeking to come to some fair resolution. they have done it in good faith. full transparency and meeting with gbi and planning. it really for us is apparent that two units of the property with the second unit remaining on the ground floor behind the garage is really only the logical, reasonable equitable result here. and we would like the opportunity to talk pour about this. thank you. -- talk more about this. thank you. >> is there public comment on this item?

seeing none. to the commissioners. >> i have a lot of questions about this. and maybe -- can you tell me at what point the owners found out that this was not a single family home? >> yes. okay. thank you. this is an important part of this. margaret and lucia purchased the property a little over three years ago. when they were looking at the property originally, they knew there was a question about the legal number of units. i talked with the seller. at the time there was also an open enforcement matter of the property. and enforcement matter concerns the number of units.

before submitting an offer, they wanted the issue resolved. the planning staff came... >> who initiated the enforcement letter? >> not the seller or -- anonymous complaint, i believe. >> the first issuance is on a comment on a permit which was from 2015. >> i'm sorry go ahead. >> i want to be clear.

>> we have a notice of complaint dated may 1st, before they purchased the property saying that the planning department had received a complaint alleging that one or more violations existed on the property. >> general violations or about the unit? >> well, once that enforcement came through, the complain was issued. >> all right. we will come back. the complaint was opened. i think it was discovered then about the issue. there is a second notice of enforcement that was issued may 5th. that is still prior to the purchase of the property. >> i'm sorry, my question is all

about the sequence -- that was disclosed? >> they were aware of it. yes, it was disclosed in the sale and my clients were aware of the enforcement action. >> what did the 3r report. >> four units. the report said four units. we had the enforcement case pending. the property was inspected. and then the enforcement case was closed. determined to be no violation of the property. >> planning enforcement or dvi? >> planning enforcement case. so they did not make the offer until after the enforcement case was closed. >> i'm sorry, was there a lender involved? the lender approved the transaction based on having that

closed? >> i don't know if that was a condition to closing the loan. >> a single family... >> that's right. that is part of our financing challenge. >> so the enforcement case, it was two units. a single family home... >> it was closed. so we were told -- we had to correct the 3r report separately. our understanding was that -- my client's understanding was that it meant that legal number of units was legal. >> why not go correct the report. the people have gone to

appeals... >> so then they submitted a permit for physical work at the property. and that triggered a new enforcement case. so once that was opened, we sought to -- we could have done it that way. we sought to get conditional use authorization allowing the merger of the units which has the same practical effect. >> okay. commissioner. >> so i am just looking here, the notice of violation started in may of 2015. >> not the original. >> the original. as a result of going to the open house.

i want to make a complaint. then they contacted the department and i see here that the no violation was issued 511. then i see here, in the assessors, the data base that there was issuance 6-12. they bought the building after they thought it was clean. then they pulled out a permit for a closet. and that was on -- let me pull up the permit. i have the permit in here somewhere. one second, sorry.

i am having a hard time for some reason finding it. i noticed it. $600. that started the 2015. it started the second round of issues. to be clear, also, i wasn't involved with the case at that time, and i believe lucia and margaret thought they were okay that is why they submitted the permit and thought the issue was resolved. they were not thinking we need to correct this report. why do you think the notice of violation was lifted?

what happened? >> we wondered ourselves. >> the best you can do is -- five units and one you know stays. you have three units. >> doing the three units is the difficulty for us. anything over two units pushes us into r2 occupancy. and that is what triggers the life safety requirements. >> i mean, the interesting thing for me is the historic preservation. it is in near perfect condition. there have been additions and nothing that can't be reversed. part of me says bite the bullet, there are two units here, one was a small unit, and you have a big house. okay, let's give them -- let's keep the interior intact.

all the great craftsmanship. it is bordering on art on this. and still a part of me says, because i have been -- i heard the submital and i did hear a voice mail. it will cost a lot to add units. the other part of me says i don't want to see the interior gutted. there were four units. $1,500 a square foot. having gone through this myself on the three unit building. i am a little bit torn here. what i hate to do is have this commission go, okay, we want to preserve the interior because it is a work of art. let's bygones be bygones.

let's have somebody buy it and gut the interior anyways. why don't we gut the interior now and give us the two units. that is where i am at. on the line. >> the owners, the intent is not to increase the units in the city. they bought it because they recognized. it reads as a single family home. i can't figure out how it was four units. we have the drawings. it wasn't standard units. it was kitchens and bathrooms. it was awkward. i don't think the folks are here to kind of speculate on this. they want to make it their home. they bought it as a single family home. i don't know what to do with the project. this hasn't been a four unit

building. if it ever was for decades. and i think if we did -- it was my request and others to make it three units, you could probably do that. the ground floor is a unit. the main and the top floors a unit. you would be gutting this quite intact historical -- that has not been used as a four unit building. i don't know if ever. based on what you look at in the home. given all that, i think what tips it to me is, the city gave bad information. it says four units on the 3r report. there was a notice of violation on the issue. it was determined it was not a violation. these folks blocked the property with the understanding that this was a single family -- two unit building. i think after all this and

seeing the uncomfortable approving of the merger, i don't think we are losing anything. this is what it has been for decades. we would be forcing them to convert this to something it is not. i am disapproving the motion -- i disapprove. gives me a right to approve... >> i support what the commissioner hill said and it may be stretching things a bit with some notice of special restriction that the interior will not be altered. there is a prohibition on that. it is the issue. if it becomes a stucco box, i ask for four units. i am hedging it on the fact that they were operating in good faith. it is a single family home. they can create two units and keep that interior intact if we

can. i guess the city attorney, how can we do that? >> the recommendation is the issue on gutting it, it is a work of art. there are few interiors marked in the city. the whole issue for me is the cost, the ruining of art in front of the house and the craftsmanship and telling somebody -- it will be gutted anyway. if it is gutted, let's get the four issues. can we put an nsr on the property for keeping the h historic features and not gutting the house? >> this is a suggestion that any permit interior -- be reviewed

by planning and routed to the historic preservation staff. with the intent that the interior be preserved. >> a very interesting question. this is an informational item and the commission cannot take an action on it today. (please stand by)

>> you don't generally preserve interior portions. >> i didn't say that we would. i would that we would, you know, ask that staff look into it, which is what she asked, she asked for guidance. >> i think you at the staff level can take whatever actions necessary, whether it's a block book notation on any permit issued to ensure the interior of that building is reviewed, with the -- that was the intent when the commission approved this

item was there was consideration about the interior of the space. >> commissioner richards. >> so, this has been going on a while. i think waiting a week to perfect that language. >> two weeks. >> to see what we are voting on rather than something mushy gushy, six buildings had been pretty much demolished even though the rules are in place. i would love to give it a week and let the city attorney come up with language that reflects our thoughts on this, i think we are in alignment. i make a motion to continue it for one week. >> have to be two weeks, commissioner richards. >> i didn't hear a second. >> comments from whoever is acting as director -- >> on that specific issue, i will let you finish that. >> motion and second. >> it's seconded.

my motion to continue if it's seconded would overrule it. we are asking for two weeks, the project sponsor is nodding they are ok with something like that, the city attorney said she would work on the language. >> second. >> i quickly want to make one point about the n.o.v. and the board to clarify, i don't know personally the details as to why there was never an n.o.v. issued, there was a notice of enforcement because someone complained and the case was closed without n.o.v. issued, but ultimately the department of building inspection determines how many legal units there are, and they make that determination, that is the legal standard. recording the rear yard variance, if you could speak about the rear deck structure that exists now and its history, compared to what was there prior. >> right. >> so, good afternoon,

commissioners, thank you for considering this. so, the best that we can tell is originally this was a single-family house. during the war they chopped up these buildings and did not care how goofy they were. i did an 11-unit house, so they chopped it up and as part of chopping it up required a fire escape on the front, and a stair tower up to the fourth floor in the back for exiting. not sprinklers, but these two means of egress, and so the issue now is you touch it, you put it back full code. and we tried to find a place that we could put it in without a firewall and there is no position to put this in, which is not going to block habitable room bedrooms and it's so close, and not 5 or 3 feet, it's ten feet from a property line. only configuration i could figure out that would work without blocking all the windows, because the sides is four stories tall, perpendicular

to the building, out a good 15, 17 feet with a firewall four stories tall on the back. which in the configuration now, the downhill neighbor will have 45 foot wall. so anything past noon he's not going to see sun. or afternoon he does not see the sun because of the building but he will lose the sun from about ten to noon and probably won't see the sun because the building's on -- not haight, what's the next up? the next block up. so, this wall is going to block the downhill neighbor's sun, little of what he does have, so a pretty substantial structure. and the stair tower in the front is even bigger. >> do you know what the current rear stair structure was added? >> hard to date when they did this, somebody tore off the fire escape and did a fantastic job

putting back historic character but also had the tem plates of the other two buildings. the back looks like someone tore down the stair tower and came up with a rigged exit system, a lot of life safety jury rigs in the building. when the one unit is legalized downstairs, it's going to be sprinkler. there will be things to make the building life safety safe but it will be financially doable. >> and you mentioned that originally that kind of stair structure in the rear was required for a second means of egress because there was four units in there. that's the purpose of it. but if it's to remain a single-family home -- >> two units. >> and then the stair issue, you don't cross the rubicon of going from 1 or 2, only the jurisdiction of the building permit, you go to three, it's fire department jurisdiction, and that is the line, that third unit. so, we even tried to craft, call it a housekeeping, because that

was the other way to put it. >> i'm not really asking you that. >> you don't need the rear exit. the upper portions of the stair and deck area technically would not be required now. >> i think -- yeah, what you would have to do at the back is pretty minimal if it's a single-family house with accessory dwelling at the bottom. yeah, a.d.u. >> thank you. >> all right. so a motion to continue with the second. for two weeks. >> shall i call the question? >> on the motion to continue to march 22. [vote taken] so moved, commissioners, the motion passes unanimously, 7-0. under the discretionary review calendar, item 19 is continued. for case number --

>> oh, apologize. >> public hearing for the day and continue it for two weeks. thank you. >> thank you, zoning administrator. item 20, broadway, discretionary review. >> good afternoon, commissioners, david lindsay department staff. horizon sal expansion at the rear of the second story of the three story house. roof deck proposed above the addition. subject is on north side of broadway between broadway and broderick and divisadero street. 137.5 deep and 35 feet wide and slopes steeply downhill from the street. the front portion of this circa 1908 house facing broadway is three stories in heighth.

two-story component down the hill beginning at the rear of the first story. the property is within the upper elevation sub area of the neighborhood and the design guidelines characterize this sub area as consistent of large lots developed with large detached single-family houses. this is the steepest part of cal hallow, and three stories at the street, increasing to six stories at the rear downhill side. both of the subject properties immediate neighbors, including the d.r. requesters reflect this characterization, three story massing at the street and four story massing at the rear due to the deep down slope. d.r. requester is riva, llc, represented by david nelson, 2712 broadway on behalf of the property owners. constructed house east of the

subject property. concerns with the project are as follows. that the rear portion of the subject house's first story already encroaches into the required rear yard. that the addition would create an east facing wall that is monolithic in scale, and the addition and the roof deck above will negatively affect light, air and privacy for the d.r. requesters property. residential design advisory team concluded that the proposed addition would create massing that is comparable in-depth and height to the massing of the adjacent houses and that no exceptional or extraordinary conditions are created by the project. the planning department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project as proposed. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you, d.r. requester.

>> christine way, and i represent the d.r. requester. we have reached a compromise, and we would like to present that to the commission and have that be sort of the result of the d.r. >> great. >> tell us what it is. >> the project proponent has asked i actually say this at the hearing, is that all right with everybody? ok. >> you can cut to the chase and give us the agreement. >> i've been asked to do it this way, if you could give me that, a little bit of your patience. essentially the compromise involves three elements, overall height of the addition by one foot, minimize the depth of the addition into the distance from the rear of the existing structure to the end of it by three feet, and to have a glass

railing after solid wall, so from the rear of the existing structure to the end of the solid wall, 11 feet thereafter glass. with no top railing and no obstructions to that glass. and with this plan, with those conditions, we are all happy. >> all right. you are commendable with that? >> my client is interested in the maximum amount of closure available because they are out of town, they don't want it to be a continuance or anything like that. >> removing one foot from the height, three foot from the rear addition, and the last -- >> chris, do that again? >> no glass railing on the east elevation, so now on the eastern elevations, which faces my client's property, from the rear of the existing structure, there will be an 11-foot long parapet

wall. >> proposed before. 11, that was proposed. so it's the remaining 15'6" inches that is parapet. one off the top, three off the back, and railing wall glass. >> correct. >> all right. >> commissioner richards. >> motion to take d.r. and approve as hotlined by commissioner hillis. >> second. >> any public comment? i forgot to take public comment. assuming there's not. all right. >> no one is coming forward. thank you. >> we have a motion and a second. >> on that motion, that has been seconded to take d.r. and recognize the agreement between the two parties, commissioner fong. [vote taken] >> so moved commissioners,

passes unanimously, 7-0. >> all right, thank you. the meeting is adjourned.

>> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd on overhead neighborhood

planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on the website by signing up using

you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

>> all right. well, first of all, good afternoon everybody, and in case everybody is wondering, today is not only valentine's day, but ash wednesday, hence the marks on my for head. [ inaudible ] in sro here in san francisco are available for every single resident. i am incredibly pround to be standing can supervisor ronen and supervisor sheehy. it is incredibly important for so many of our constituencies here in san francisco, both in terms of gender, our transgender community, it affects so many people here in

san francisco. i think as we continue to see push back from our federal administration in washington d.c., just this week, our department of education announced they're no longer going to be investigating transgender student bathroom complaints, which is a step absolutely in the wrong direction, but in san francisco, we are different. we are not going to allow hatred todom namt, we will continue to standup for our communities here in san francisco. we will be a beacon of hope. i do want to thanks tha severa individuals for being here today, as i mechanicsed, these issues take a lot of leadership outside of city hall, and this

one was led by two incredibly courageous supervisors, and so i want to introduce the first one, supervisor hillary ronen. >> thank you so much for being here. i'm very, very honored and excited to be here. i also want to extend a special thank you to jordan davis who brought this legislation to our office and said, when you were supervisor campos's chief of staff, you forgot sro hotels to include that specifically in this lemggislation, so it was pleasure to correct that mistake, which we would have put in the original legislation but accidently left it out. so thank you, jordan. i just want to say what we've learned about this legislation about making bathrooms all gender bathroom is when the traps gender stands up and fights for itself, for recognition, for dignity and

safety, it ends up benefiting everybody. i don't know about you, but every time i'm out in public, and there's an all gender bathroom, that benefits me as a woman, it helps disabled individuals who might have an opposite gender caretaker. it just makes our society better, safer, and more welcoming to all of us. so i just think we should look to the transgender community fore guidance on all policies that we work on in san francisco, because it always ends up benefiting not just the community but all of us. so my deep, deep thanks to everyone that's here today, to claire, to the mayor who made an unprecedented move of joining us onto the legislation before he even signed it because that's how much he supports this community. and to the only out member of the queer community on the

board of supervisors, jeff sheehy, who always is the first to standup for and advocate for his community. thank you. [applause] >> so first, i just really want to thank jordan davis. i've been in your chair. that's how i started. i hope i'm still considered an activist, but when someone can come to city hall this change, that's brilliant. thank you for your leadership. i also want to thank mayor farrell for his supporting this and signing this and leadership along the way. i think this is really very important that sro's are brought into the mix. you know, this is where many people live without a lot of resources, who are marginalized, and making sure that the dignity of our trans

and gender nonconforming community is recognized, respected dignity of this community is recognized on all level in our society is absolutely critical. i'm very proud to sponsor this, and i just want to make one other point, since mayor farrell brought up what's going on in washington. we need to, every time we come together, with one of the communities that have been particularly targeted by this administration, they have sought to target the most vulnerable communities in our mix: immigrants, muslims, and the trans community because they think they can get away with it. so even though every time we come together, even though we're making headway and we're leading in san francisco, we have to remember that around the country, people's rights are being taken away, and in this city, immigrants' rights are being threatened every day.

we have to align ourselves with other communities in solidarity, that are particularly targeted in these times. so again, thank you to jordan, supervisor ronen, to mayor farrell. this is great work today. [applause]. >> sorry. claire. i was just supposed to introduce claire who's so great, really doing a tremendous job in filling the shoes and taking on off tereaf teresa sparks, so i'd like to introduce claire farley, who's senior assistant to the mayor. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm so happy to be here with all of you today in this historic moment, and this would not be possible without you, mayor farrell, for your

continued support of making sure that our city is committed to lgbt folks. also, thank you to supervisor ronen for your incredible leadership on this, as well as your office, and specifically, also to supervisor sheehy, and all the cosponsors on this important legislation. i also want to take a moment to thank joerd on and the -- jordan and all the members on the sro task force. this victory really does belong to all of you, so thank you. [applause]. >> as trans and gender nonconforming people, we are all to familiar with the stress, the violence that comes with trying to use the bathroom that match our gender identity and expression. as our rights continue to be attack in the country and under the federal administration, it

is important now more than ever that san francisco continues to be a leader in the movement towards fair and quality rights for all. no one should have to worry about facing the stress of going to the bathroom in the place that they call home, so all gender sro ordinaryians will extend our existing protections and will ensure that our rights are extended to the full community. furthermore, it will increase access for people with disabilities, residents who have caretakers. this resolution is important to make san francisco better. of course we know there's more time to be done, and together we will continue to advance the initiatives, the policies and programs that support a thriving trans and gnc community here in san francisco. we will work to implement policies like this, future policies and programs that help

sustain the livelihoods of our communities. let's make sure that san francisco continues to be the beacon of hope and change that the rest of the country desperately needs right now. depend, thank y again, thank you so much for being here today and for this amazing step forward. i hope you will join us in the work ahead. thank you. [applause]. >> all right. we're going to get to the signing here.

all right. here we go. [applause]. >> hello. welcome to the sfmta budget online town hall. we are streaming this via our website.

sfpuc.com budget and on our twitter and we are also live on sf goff tv channel 26. i have the directtor of transport ed reiskin. our goal today is to give background information on the budget and the process that helps us create us. hopefully this will shed some light on our priorities as an agency and let you know where our goals are. we will also be answering questions from the community so please chime in on sfmta social media by e-mails. sfmta budget at atay.com. we are three to as as many questions as we can the second half of our broadcast.

sfmta.com. i would like to share a little bit about myself. i am a native of san francisco. i have a background in marketing communications and customer service. i was guided do sfmta by my father and my uncle who have over 60 combined years with the company. i began as a operator driving the 130, 45 then i went on to train and i have driven the lkm and n. i am currently a supervisor and i have supervised our construction sites, street operations, i am currently a supervisor at our metro green division. i oversee the morning operations of the klm lines. i am a mother of two and traveler and 49ers fine and i

will go with the golden state warriors. now we are moving to ed. can you tell us about your day? >> sure. the position i hold is establishing the charter as director of transportation for the city and county of san francisco which gives me the great privilege of leading the sfmta which is an agency with a broad responsibility for planning, engineering, transportation and managing traffic and regulating the taxis and, of course, managing and operating muni. i spend a loft of day -- lot of my day meeting with a lot of people, meeting with my staff to provide direction in terms of moving the agency forward. i spent a lot of time meeting with folks from other departments.

very little work we do at the mta that doesn't interact with re rely on the public works or planning or publi public utilits communication. a lot of inter agency coordination. i spend time at city hall meeting with elected and appointed officials to be sure we are response i have to the people who elected them and they represent. i try to spend as much time as possible in the field seeing the work happening talking to the employees in the field as well as talking to other stakeholders in the business community, neighborhood groups and stakeholder to get a good sense of the job. i also my family and i live in the city. when i am not working, i am still on the bus on the train riding my bike, walking, driving in the city. i feel like i am somewhat emersed in the job