president ann will be the lead tonight. also present is rusty that will provide the board with any legal advice this evening. al and legal assistant katy sullivan. i'm just had i did it executive director. we will be joined by the representatives scott sanchez with the administrative department and the san francisco department of inspection. the board meeting guidelines are suppose to follow and turn off for silence on my cell phones and they shouldn't disturb the proceedings they are each given seven minutes

for rebuttal. they are affiliated and seven to three minutes. members of the public have up to three minutes each to address the board. for jurisdiction there is no rebuttal. given that the board has a vacancy three votes are required to grant an appeal or jurisdiction request. if you have a question send us an e-mail. public access and participation is paramount to the board and makes the hearing process. to enable participation it's it broadcasting and streaming live. to watch the hearing on tv go to sf. gov.

it will be rebroadcast on channel 26. a link to the live stream is found on our webpage. public comment can be provided in two ways. join the zoom meeting by computer. head to our website sf. gov.org or call-in by telephone. call 16698900. again, sf. gov is broadcasting the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen dial

star nine which is similar to raising your hands. you will have three minutes and our legal clerk will provide you with a warning. there is a delay between the live proceedings to what is broadcast. it's very import tan that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume of their computers otherwise there is an interference. if you need a disability accommodation or technical assistance make a request in the chat or send an e-mail to the board of appeals. chat cannot be used for public comment. we will swear in all those that would like to testify. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidencey weight raise your right hand.

do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? okay, thank you. if you are a participant and not speaking put your zoom speaker on mute. commissioners, we have a few housekeeping items for item 5a and 5b. 20 dash 6 and 20-7 at 2647 chestnut street. they would like this to be continued until january 13th 2021. we would need a motion and vote to continue. >> i'll make that motion. >> okay, is there any public comment on the motion? let me look over here. no one is raising their hand. we have a motion from commissioner honda to continue. roll roll

[roll call]. >> that motion carries 4-0. those items are continued. our second housekeeping item is item number seven appeal number 20-070. the parties would also like the matter continued to january 13, 2021. >> i'll also make that motion. >> okay. >> any public comment on that motion raise your hand? okay, i don't see anybody raising their hand on that motion commissioner. >> i. >> president lazarus. >> that matter is also continued. we are moving onto public comment. that's not on tonights calendar. is there any member that wish to speak on tonight's agenda.

if so raise your hand. if you called in you can press star nine. okay, i don't see hands raised. we will move over. commissioners. >> okay, we'll move onto item number three. commissioners adoption of the minutes for november 4, toss 20 4, 2020 board meeting. >> is there any public comment please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment. president lazarus and vice president honda. >> aye. >> so, that motion carries 4-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are moving onto item numb

bier four jurisdiction request 20-8. 2891. the appeal period ended on october 15th. lindsey and john it's a revision to 2016-1026. this is for the first level. they service the basement on the first floor. so, we'll here from the requester first. welcome. >> thank you. >> you have three minutes mr.

paul. >> thank you director rosinburg. good evening commissioner this is a new experience for me and nice to see you all. i look forward to being back in the same room. this is a really amazing situation that's happened here. the property in question we had a proposal and this is the dr that went to the planning commission. they limited the scope of the project. they have proceeded. work began and then the project sponsor exceeded the scope of the -- permit. not just by a little bit but a lot. they ellegally exask a

serrated the backyard undermining the foundations of both properties. the apartment building to the east, who i'm speaking on behalf of us undermined the dr requester. they felt they had -- they are entitled to note it legalized the illegal exask a invasion. they had a right to know. comments were made about the notation and the extend of the planning department to not inform. i understand his reasoning and feels the obligation is

limited only to the original permit. at some point, they think the bbm requester and dr requester is no longer interested and doesn't need to know. that doesn't make a lot of sense but i'd like to share the screen now and show a few pictures. let's see if we have it. do we have it? >> yes. >> sorry, we see, yes. >> 30 seconds. >> my time is up. okay section 3307 stop screen sharing. section 33.7 of the building code requires a notification to be provided by the project sponsor. without that, this is not a validly issued permit. they are used in a case back

in may and familiar with them. this excavation was done. >> time. >> okay, thank you, mr. paul. we will hear from representatives from to permit holder mr. gladstone. welcome. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you >> once work began there was more usable space existing under the building than previously thought. we filed a separate permit to create additional space downstairs that doesn't involve any building expansion and cannot be seen by any neighbor. it involves a new lower level where additional space will be created. bbm noticed the second review

of the permit. a dbn provides notice when the permit is initially reviewed. they approved this before the bbn was filed on december 2, 2019. it should be been sent after the bbfn filing. they reviewed the permit once it was filed. they usually ask for a re-review so the plans are consistent with what decision was made by planning earlier. that was decided much earlier in the process when they determined if it meets the planning code.

put mr. sanchez's east side e-mail on the screen. around the time the bby request was filed they aformed the aappealent they would need to track this on dbi's website. this is when it occurs. you forgive the mistake and not track the permit as advised to do so. the implications would menu set the precedent of allowing future precedents to track issuance of permits through the dbi website to make a later filing. if you were to set this your board with the request of jurisdiction. a final word. 30 seconds.

>> they give independent notifications. you can see in my brief it says, quote, only when dbi issued alterations, unquote. does a notification get sent to the owners of the adjacent properties and of course the permit before you involves no structural additions. thank you very much. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good evening, scott sanchez planning department. the matter before you is the property at 2622 greenwich street. the subject property was the subject of a previous request where the planning committee took view. the permit is a revision to the permit. it doesen require section 311

notice. after the original permit was issued it exceeded the scope of the work by the requester and may have been issues related to the buildings and their foundation. i'll refer it to disaccuse those matters. the permit before you was filed on september 27, 2019. it has additional on october 19 around or after that time. the jurisdiction contacted and made a complaint regarding additional excavation. we had conversations with the planner. they could file a bbr or requirement for future permits

a and track the status online when it was issued and available. there are other agencies that require prevision. there are a final set of plans because they have been updated there is a policy and not a code requirement. it doesn't live-in the planning code. we could establish a fee. this predates our current requirements and loss of notice of permits by the

planning department. >> 30 seconds. >> it's not subject in the bbm. we performed this on our first review and not subsequent reviews. it will require a separate notice. we don't notice every time a permit ingredients brought back to us. i'm available for any questions the board might have. the bbn was properly followed. >> time. >> thank you. >> thank you; >> we do have a question from commissioner swig. >> scott, this really bothered me. i looked at it if i was the neighbor next door how would i feel. my reaction, i can't use the word but i'd feel pretty bad.

the other thing mr. gladstone used the word significant change. i don't know, but this wasn't moving, you know, a light socket. this wasn't moving a wall two or three feet or something internally that wouldn't have had a significant impact on the neighbor. this was the removal of a lot of dirt. this was the removal of -- this also exposed, it seemed two neighbors foundations. i would term this as significant and should have involved some level of notice to a neighbor for their review and appropriate feedback.

why am i feeling this was overlooked a significant impact and notice for the first time so a neighbor could have provided that feedback in the appeal. >> under section 311 it doesn't require notice for this scope of work. excavations in basements don't requirement it under section 311. it's for the expansion and changes of use. the scope of work here doesn't require notice under the planning code. these permitments are permit are reviewed routinely. as far as our understanding of this. staff told them about the scope of work. there was communication after planning approved the permit. they were aware of the permit. it's my understanding they had

knowledge of the permit. if they have concerns and would like to appeal it to the board. the on mechanism for that is the bbn won't get you notice of permit issuance. it's just when they first review it. the question of where was the notice when the permit was issued. they don't address that. the building code has certain is there triggers. they informed the jurisdiction requesters. we can track it and when issued they could file an appeal to the board of appeals. that's the process we have for these types of permits. there is no city or code requirements for notice of the scope of work. >> so, my point is if they were informed to lookout for the permit.

they weren't dell diligent about the permit. is there tough luck and weren't diligent. is that your understanding. >> we don't have, i think what happened here is covid-19 happened between. staff approved this last october. it wasn't until september when the permit was issued. there is no other process they could be notified. they have to track on the tracking system to see if it is issued. there is no other legal method for this i'm thinking of a case and it might be apples and bananas. we all think it's endless. it was a case in which the

permit holder continued to dig and dig and exposed a foundation on at least one side of the project and we heard from that that appellant that was upset with the scope that seemed to change in a neverending fashion. more explanation was done. what was the difference between that case and this case. >> in terms of, i think whatever it was decades of construction. this is work over the last few years and in this case, you know, none of the work required notice. in terms of the case in sacramento i can't speak to the building code be the scope of work doesn't require notice.

>> ultimately, in this case there might be harm caused to a neighbor who he is foundation was exposed there was harm caused to the neighbor in the sacramento. how do you deal with that harm. >> that's within the department of building. the chief inspector has been working. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now here -- i'm sorry. i saw your hand before. did you have a question? let me just confirm that the president is with us. >> i lowered my hand. i'll wait for inspector jesse. >> inspector jesse, welcome. >> dbi and it's on our radar

for a year. i got involved for a month ago. for a brief introduction to it i have been to a meeting and encouraged people to work together. i'll give you a brief overview and noticed we contacted on october 19th. we issued notices. we also issued the violation. they undermined and exposed it. it's not the engineer and come up with a solution. at that time and this is something i learned a month ago. the engineer from the project due to the excavation that was

done. both neighbors hired a sip separate engineer and worked with a way to come up with a building permit that would provide a common wall to address the foundation. you will hear me talking about the under pinning the proper process. they didn't do an permit. they did do the retaining wall permit. they build it in front of the neighbors wall that's not acting for the foundation of this permit. it addressed the immediate yacht concerns. maybe the engineers need to speak to this. was there under pinning required on the neighbor side as well. the neighbors seem to indicate that. the owner of to property didn't seem to be imposed to

that. they got the insurance company involved. these people need to get together and cooperate. this is a separate request. they issued the permit that got reviewed. i checked them out with the bureau. it doesn't fall under the notification process for dbi. >> 30 seconds. >> it didn't fall under that. there is notification required. this is before they do the excavation. that was pretty impossible because they didn't without a permit. it wasn't lack of notification. there are a lot of moving parts here but my takeaway -- >> time. >> sorry guys.

>> we have a question from president lazarus. >> inspector, jesse, i'd like to clarify is the permit in question the one to respond to the nov regarding the excavation? >> that's a good question. no. >> they did takeout a permit on their own property. it's a common area to address this. that was issue on the 28th of october. they report these retaining walls. that was the permit to address the nov this is a revision that's a bigger permit. what this is for is when we did this they would go on

another level. they would have to apply for that. they serviced the basement on the lower level. so, because of the excavation that was done without a permit. does that make sense. >> i think so, they took advantage of the situation and now they are taking farther advantage because they created this extra space and plan to use it and that's the permit we are talking about. there is no farther excavation in the permit in question. >> no, no, no. basically, with the fixed permit to address our novs that's the foundation for this new lowered area. it didn't put any concrete or foundation under the neighbors side. we have two different opinions on that and i know i believe

the engineer knows apparently some discussion with the time there was no need for under pinning. now he's saying i believe there is. that's in the background there are so many. the question i have with the neighbors if we open up to an appeal and where will we get to that at that point. there is that end of it as well. that's just me thinking like that. we'll be six weeks talking about this and if we are, that's fine. i'm not sure what they expect. >> to clarify, the parties have some coordination that happened between engineers but not enough. >> it seemed like there was a lot of cooperation a year ago.

with the permit issued for the provision we were contacted again. what can we do about it. not much was happening for a year i'm not clear how that all broke down. the neighbor, i left them there and we had a discussion among themselves. we will figure out what they will do and these buildings on either side. under pinning installed. >> okay, just to end my questions. in your view no department has contributed to a delay in appealing the permit. >> not from dbi. we do notification and that's not one of them. it's not a notification.

it's not as part of the department bureau. i knew it was an issue tonight. this is not one of them. it's not part of it. >> okay, thank you very much. thank you. commissioner swig has a county then vice president honda. >> sure, mr. duffie, you left me hanging there as you were forced to end your time. would you like to finish your thought please on that so i could get a full range of understanding of this or did you just handle it properly with commissioner lazarus. >> well, if you would like to let me word it. i know i was appreciated for time. it's a typical situation where

you have someone who did something they shouldn't have done. the remedy, we are not 100 % sure everybody is happy with the remedy we are wondering if work was done with our department but they got a permit for that. it seems like they took care of it quickly but what needs to be done with them. it's usually to do it but the importance for the under pinning work would have to be done from inside the neighboring property. it could be done but there might be a different opinion from the engineers. i think, the engineer said the under pinning is required. i think that shows

everything. maybe the people don't like this. let's go in and there are some issues. >> all right, i don't know where to ask this of yourself of ask this of mr. russie. is the issue here really that -- is the issue here that the permit is a bad permit and should have been subject to an appeal or is the issue here that the permit was issued appropriately but the, simply the time ran out on the

jurisdiction request even though the situation is flawed it just tough luck because that's the way the cookie crumbles. from a legal standpoint or making sense. i can, mr. russie you want to speak to your part? >> can i jump in for a second, greg. >> sure. >> i think as it madam president remind us we are gone off into no mans land. what is before us is the jurisdiction request if the city caused the apellet to not have a case or file. >> that's what i'm asking. >> so, where this is a bad permit or good permit that's before us. >> exactly. >> before is the jurisdiction

request and where we could appeal on the project or not and if the city caused them not to be able to file in a timely manner. >> right. >> would you still like mr. russie to respond. >> i think i need mr. russies opinion to if there was a flawed nature with the city's ability in issuing the permit. just like darrell was trying to get me back on track. >> all right, good evening, commissioners. i haven't heard anything from planning or dbi that would indicate they made error to the neighbor of issuance of the permit. there was no notice to be given. i'm not aware of anything in city codes that would have

required notice. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> we have auto have a question volume vice president honda. >> vice president, honda, did you have a question or no. >> i'm muted. >> sorry, i'm talking to myself. i'll reiterate what is before is a jurisdictional request. if we feel it's permitted for the work that was done, the illegal work that was done is good or bad. that's not before us. >> we are moving onto public comment. if you could race your hand to speak. mr. wagner, we'll let you

into the meeting. can you say something. >> yes, thank you. can you hear me? >> yes, welcome. >> thank you very much. this is all -- we just lost the sound. >> mr. wagner. >> yes, did you lose the sound. >> we can hear you now. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. this is my first time. i'm chris wagner and i live at the adjacent property at 2636 greenwich. i believe i have the right to be part of the massive excavation. someone said it wasn't trivial. there was a lot of dirt being moved out. i feel like we are the victim here. we weren't informed of the

project. inspector said we should have received information and alteration from the department of building inspect. neither of these things happened and the exinvasion that was done over a year ago under found our foundation. i expect the billing department and don't understand the code discussed here. to protect the property there is illegal excavation of 300 courgette and undermined of of my property i would hope the city government and code wouldn't enforce this type of thing. the permit was given inner

error. i should have been notified of the permit and have a right to be heard. we are a few weeks beyond the deadline but we should be able to be heard. i ask the board to give us an opportunity. we are are the victim of the gross negligence by our neighbor. we would like the opportunity to be heard. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have a question from vice president honda. >> sir, so looking at the brief what interaction did you have when you saw the work being performed. >> the first notification was in october 20, 2019. we received a notice of violation that our foundation was exposed and undermined.

>> who happened when that happened? >> a meeting with the engineers, structure allen get your nears. it was in the beginning of rainy season so, we felt an immediate yacht threat to our foundation and their building that wasn't very secure as far as structure ally sound through all of the excavation. there wasn't a time crunch. it wasn't intended to be a permanent solution. it was what is a quick fix for our building and their building. >> sorry to interrupt you and sorry you had to go through that. that easterble to have your foundation exposed during the

winter months. when this was happening did you contact the planning or building department. what was the interaction with those agencies? >> that was a year ago. they were on-site during one of the conversations with the structure al engineer. >> what is before us is i know this is your first interaction. i'll explain it easier. when a permit is filed you have 15 days to file an appeal on that permit. once the 15 days has expired your right to appeal is lost. you can file for what is called jurisdiction where the body will take control of the permit. what i'm trying to determine here is if you had interaction with the city as in the brief indicationed the other party

is notified they needed to look at the city website. unfortunately. it's not the city's responsibility. i know that sounds bad it wasn't the city's responsibility to notify you. where you aware? >> no, not at all. >> when you found out they did illegal work you thought your only remedy was to lit let the city inspectors come to the property. >> work stopped for a good year and we had no knowledge of a new permit being issued or what the status of it was. many times in the neighborhood you see permit signs on buildings giving some kind of notification work started up

this week and this week they went below our foundation and under it. >> so when your foundation was exposed did you contact a structure al engineer yourself. >> yes. >> were they in contact with the permit holder in the building. there should be some communication. if there wasn't one there should be a problem. did you let them know they were doing work? >> our structure allen begin near worked with shares >> you said they were working. they had no communication with your structure allen begin near? >> no. >> thank you. >> i actually have a question for the permit holder or representative. >> we are still in public

comment. do you want to finish that out. >> is there anyone else here for public comment. we have to phone number epidemicking 7807. go ahead. >> can you hear me, we can't here here hear you. >> this is lorie brook. i'm the next door neighbor. we have a two unit building. the wagners are the subject property. there are a few things i'd like to mention. one is when the excavation was done last year and pile of dirt formed in the backyard. neighbors i'm not a construction person by trade. i didn't look, hum, that looks like a lot of dirt to be

removing maybe this should trigger a report. as i as i now know it was over 50 cubic feet of dirt and that from what i understand that would have required a review. i was also told from mr. sanchez the code has changed. we were calling in the window between greater for a review. the point being that should have triggered some kind of eir for the reason we are here today. when someone moves that much dirt you not only risk the slippage but undermining the adjacent properties. my second one i wanted to reiterate that chris mentioned

they are digging again under our property. we have a picture of, the dirt has been torn up to slush with our building and now underneath it. after all we talked about it still hasn't stopped the work being done i believe they asked us what would good done. we'd like our building back to where it started. the retaining wall won't solve this long-term. should someday someone move in and take them away our buildings are exposed. i agree, we need someone to give us the final word. right now, we are stick with they can keep covering up the damage until we get

resolutions. we would like something stopped right now. we need proper decisions made here. >> thank you, we have a question from commissioner swig. >> as a courtesy to the caller and also to satisfy my curiosity. mr. sanchez, could you address that issue with regard to a change of stature of the review when certain amount of dirt is removed from a location. >> i'm not the chief inspector duffy that's involved with the project. the scope of the work doesn't trigger the environmental review. it could be categoric done.

separately, a conversation about the thresholds for under which the environmental review into that's the question for our environmental review folks. i had a question with their staff and there is a variety of thresholds. 5,000 cubic yards is one of them but there are others such as the height of a cot or slope of a lot that would trigger it. it's not just the 5,000 cubic yards but there are other thresholds and this didn't trigger additional review.

>> did you have a question for the caller. >> did you want to ask a question. no, i'll wait. we are still on public comment and phone number ending in 6187. welcome. >> i'm christian. i'm the party we are representing. >> ma'am, this is public comment. your time has been allotted to build gladstone. >> mr. paul. >> right, i'm sorry. mr. paul. i'm sorry. is there anyone for public comment, please raise your hand? okay.

i don't see anyone else. we have commissioners from the commissioners. president las angeles arduous has a question. >> yes, thank you. i'm not sure whom to address this. does the jurisdiction request automatically extend the permit. there is exinvasions exinvasion ask excavations going on. vice president honda. >> my question is to the permit council. why is there continued work going on at this point? what communications does your engineers have with the neighboring engineers? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> well, first of all i requested jurisdiction doesn't us suspend work. that's why work is going on. we are interested in having

our engineers work with their interagain engineer. mr. duffy -- >> i'm asking the questions right now mr. gladstone. if you are so interested working with the neighbors, why are they concern work is being done and they are not aware of it. if you are working with them shouldn't they have told them? >> yes, our engineers have been in continual contact with their engineers. the reason our engineers haven't been in contact is because it's technical. >> mr. gladstone, the person not the appellate. the person that owns the building that just spoke under public comment there is continued work being done and they were not notified or aware. if your people are talking to their people. i can't image their people are not talking to them.

that's what i'm asking here. >> if i could repeat the question? >> why is the work being done on the property and the people living at the next door property unaware of it? >> i'll have the architect answer the this question. it's beyond me. gary, the architect respond. >> yes. >> this is gary. the architect. >> hi. >> the neighbors engineer did meet about two weeks ago with mr. duffy and everybody on-site. our engineer has been in communication with their engineer and forwarded all of the communication from about a year ago for the foundation permit -- >> stop. the question is there is work being done as of last week.

>> correct. >> what council representing the permit holder indicated that your representatives have been in direct contact with their representatives. >> that's correct. >> how come the people that live next door don't know this? i'm not asking about a year ago. i'm asking what happened a week ago. why is there work being done they are not aware of. >> that's impossible. they were at the meeting. >> when was that meeting? >> two weeks ago, i think it was. duffy was there as well? >> at which point they said you will do continual work from that point on? >> yeah, they saw the work happening. everybody was there. both neighbors, representative, sales engineer. joe duffy was there. >> since you are the architect, are there gio

markers on the property before and after. >> there was a survey taken and zero movement has been shown. >> there was markers prior to the excavation. >> yes, prior to any work being done and surveys were forwarded to the neighbors about to two weeks ago. >> thank you, i'd like to announce i see a few hands raised from the people who provided public comment but the public comment portion is over unless the commissioners have a question. commissioner this matter is submitted. >> this is a very narrow issue. we feel that has been work

that's been harmful in a different forum. >> again, if i was a neighbor i'd be extremely upset. according to the parameter we are offered which is if they were properly processed and if the city is at fault, that's our parameters, i think as upset as i would be as a neighbor the permits went through the proper processing according to city statues and there for seems that our hands

are tied on this one no matter how much fault we feel has been offered to the neighbors. >> verisimilar thought and different prospective if we had the ability. i don't think, i believe it would harm the process by taking the appeal at this point >> i trust in the building and planning this is on everybodies radar right now and that the proper inspects will be done. i'm very sympathetic to the neighboring properties and project holders. shame on you. where it's worth 50,000 or 50 million. this is someones home i sure

hope it gets resolved for everyone going forward. so, you know, without anything else i'll make a motion to deny the jurisdiction request that the city didn't invertly cause the filer to not be able to file. >> okay. >> can i ask commissioner to weigh-in with his thoughts, please. >> the attorney. i'd like to ask our other attorney what his feelings are on this. sorry commissioner for calling you out. you are very good at what you do. >> thank you, commissioner. i don't have any different feelings. >> can you raise your volume a little bit. >> is this better.

>> yes. >> i'm sorry. i had the wrong microphone selected. my feelings are no different from those of vice president honda. i believe it's an unfortunately situation but the law is clear. i hope that the department would all do what it needs to do in the case regardless of what we do. my motion stands. >> okay. so, we have a motion from. . . vice president honda to deny the request.

as a required rear yard of 21 feet and 10 and a half inches and the minimum of 25% required. the existing deck extends 18 feet and 10 inches into the require rear yard and three and and rear yard experiences are required. and we will hear from the appeal appellant. can you hear me? you have seven minutes. we'll wait until you get on. thank you. >> can you hear me? >> please reverse the decision in order to enforce and it's 2016 notice of the enforcement and dnf adjacent neighbors and

south and private see should be projected and mr. walker is building two planning and it's fully built and and and exhibit a, and and without and to door and let the letter and and and and in the 2004 notice violation and letters and new decks and confirming that in the first floor. this is exhibit c. the enf and 174, 176 and and we

require to remove for legalize and subject to planning code 311 and it's a cp2 and they were built within rear yard setback requirement in violation of the code 134 and dbi complaints that is regarding 2004 clients and they workers representative and he has to file for a new deck. case no permits to legalize debt and et cetera unquote that's the exhibit d. mr. walker now claims the 2018 permit is a 2004 and injob description is the four other icons that you enter and excluding that and come from the stairs and that's exhibit e and it did not obey the enf and at

all and nor the debtor confirming stairs in nov and i filed sunshine request for public records and they did not produce any records and showing that an inspector waved the building code that required each step of stairs to be 350 in width and allowed the confirm to stay without correction and planning help mr. walker the defending 311 and 1134. planning did not provide the requirement in the enf when permit to legalize and it has been filed and notify and this variances for at lower deck and 26666 high street only.

planning is we have the rit to know based on which code the planning it give the be joke exception and this decision did not meet any of the five requirement and they decided mrl construction become exceptional and extraordinary. every owner is required to obey the violations and to obey them are not exceptional and nor extraordinary. they also decided that to obey the violation first of all the violation is not for obey the violation mr. walker besides the violation and the other report and indicated that without permission he can to office that he is in the wise and he admits he could (inaudible) no more that be 10 feet of the adjacent

sidewalks and no variance and he chose not to do that and they decided that it was necessary processed by other property in the same district and we are the only adjacent neighbors his lower large deck, 20 feet high and railing are less than 350 from our property and windows and and they are on the debt looking at our privacy and the new solid taller blocking much more light. they extending on the deck.

they're not standing on the railing. so it does not resolve the privacy issues. our window was security and other windows are much lower than this railing. he should not be allowed to build new (inaudible). less than three feet from property line. totally disregarding our concerns for more light being blocked. planning enf, pending violation must be responsible and prior to any priest of the operation and it will not be held and exhibit f. you should all the planning team forces its own requirements and the decision is not meet any of the five mandates of requirements and please revers the decision. thank you.

>> o. than >> we will hear from the determination older, mr. walker. >> i saw you earlier. >> he needs to unmute himself. >> he is working on it. >> can you hear me now. >> yes, we can. welcome. >> thank you. thank you for your service on this board. 1966, bruce moody and i bought this building and in 1970 we applied for a building permit to repair the existing deck, which had been there since the 1930s. in the course of getting this permit the inspector asked us to get permission to have our

architect actual office in the building that was zoned residential at the time. in which we did. with a ruling from you people, in 1970. we haven't been back since than time. recently there was a notice of violation and it will be filed by a neighbor. one of the violations required that the para pit on this deck be 30 inches high rather than 2. because this para pit was in the rear yard, this required a variance because for safety, it should now be 42 inches high and we applied for variant for 42-inch high para pit which we did, we did apply for this and that is why we're here today is we applied for that variance. my associate dean will fill you in with the rest of the story.

hello board members, can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> good evening. thank you. if you can bring up that first image number one a the opening image. this variance is necessary to comply with the specific life safety directive from the building department better roads of permit number 201806181445. that permit was for compliance with a plan department enforcement action and we believe those' rose from complaints made by the appellant. first, this is a unique building and lot. the height street front age that have a cable car in front of them and please note there's a steep set of steps leading up to the front entry door in that previous photo. this is the unique rear yard condition at the corner lot you

can go ahead and the next image and it's particularly relevant to this variance and the rear yard continue is consistent with the over 100-year-old and the properties to the south and similar year yard number 6a sanborn these were all developed around 1904 and eye department l and and this corner lot is unique among the four it's the lowest of the four at the bottom of the hill and a steep grade drops and 14 feet vertically in 22 and a half feet south the north and a longstanding near if deck 5a aerial is at the rear yard and this is shown on this 1938 aerial survey of the city you can scroll to the next image

in that document and one can see it indicated by the shadow patterns and shown here and and in that there's one more in tha. one can see it is indicated in those shadow patterns. this is andy sign solution to provide useable open space as directed by the san francisco planning code and you can go to the next one number four rear elevation. the primary occupied floor of 2666 hide is 20 feet above the north point street sidewalk at the rear northeast corner of the lot which is the term of the secondary means of egress at the building at the rear deck. the deck is the same level of the main occupy able floor of the building and this current configuration allows for this space to be sensible from that there were of the building to be out of shadow much of the day and allows for the existing refer actively straight forward

exit path out of the building which is in place for decades. the work of the variance itself involves a rebuilding and infilling of the existing wood para pit at one side of the deck and you can go to 2a. the next image. it's solid for 24 inches in height with an open wood balance as to 42 inches in height and that detail mimics the one at the historic front facade of the building and it was to make it a proposal to make it a solid 42-inch high fire rated para pit. it seems to be two main points to the appellant's claims. we've addressed those in detail and i'll comment in brief here and one is that there's not been a pro view variance and mer might and the san francisco building and planning departments is reyo reviewed ths case for four years. i wouldn't get into the details of it but in short an extraordinary amount of hours have been devoted by the city of san francisco and walker and moody to this permit and

variance. the second point argues the work of the variance and light that enters the windows and constitution privacy and create a hardship for her and her tenants. our response brief clearly demonstrates that these contentions are unfounded and go to the next image 3a windows for one, there are no windows adjacent to the length of this proposed para pit. the windows the appellant mentions and you go to the next image, down 3b, are not that near to the para pit and are in fact south of the southern end of the parapit. these windows are operable and appear to not are and and you can scroll to 3c. it's other existing and sites that have a greater and the if anything, the new solid para pit who increase privacy.

it's been modified without permits to add fences and windows that not non confirming. the code should be followed and we should all be neighborly. walker and moody has worked in food faith from the start, we both planning and building to get the permits to resolve this nov and enf. we're very eager to complete the work necessary to resolve these cases. we respectfully and whole fatheredly request the board to deny this appeal. thank you. >> we have a question from vice president honda. >> so, in your brief, besides the property line windows and they appear to open up in someone else's property but you mentioned there's a set of

stairs that is either straddling the property line or not on the property line and i connect seeing that in the brief? >> yes, i can jump in here. the stairs are on the 2666 hyde street side of the rear property line and essentially you have throw foot easement that goes along the rear of all the the properties and on hyde street and provides and and there's a set of stairs that and is i believe that is the briefly indicated and i'm having a hard time to understand that correctly. >> behind our property, there's a fence that is built above our steps and the walker moody side of the property and and

reiterate this and we did not build on working that fence. >> we have something to contribute to that because i didn't understand that portion. >> and it was built on our property we think and without a permit, and my do -- it's hard to believe that ellen was not the person that built it. >> and that is what you are describing between the appellant's property and yours? >> yes. >> that's it, thank you. >> ok. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. what is before you now is an appeal of a variance decision letter that was issued for the property at 2666 hyde street located within rh3 zoning

district. it's a very discrete variance, a rear yard variance and it was articulated by the variance holder to fill in a small portion of of an existing rail to make it up to 42 inches tall. and while a complaint has been made about other work without permits, there has been a permit that has been received to address those other outstanding issues that were identified by the department of building inspections and i think an initial planning department materials, they're responding to an allegation about the deck not being legal but through sub san shall research that involved the historic area photos but also the historic records of both the of the board of appeals and building the inspection on these permits it's found, the maps show that the deck there at the rear is in fact legal and that

is not in question and it doesn't legalize and that is not required and what is the subject now of this variances through the course of the complaint and the department been inspection and their code check says it made to be made up to current code as a result of this complaint, and the subsequent review by the department of billing inspection that led to this need to have this variance and to have this infill, and have that not been the case no variance would have been required to do any of this and it's not legalizing any of the existing elements of that deck and the deck is legal and it's just to fill in that portion of the railing. while the appellant has argued with others confusion about this and with the addresses of the property and it does have two addresses to 2664 and 26666 hyde

steed the concerns of those confusion may step from the conversion of the building from residential building to an architect office and the late '60s and noted by the variance holder and the planning department denied a permit at that time and that permit, the scope was working on this deck and so we have records here and it goes back a long time just to the aerial photos and it is permit and they denied it saying we believe it wasn't an appropriate or a change of use in the residential district and at that time, this was before the current rh3 zoning district and the planning code at the time it allowed for what was known as transitional uses and underred code, the board of appeals found the building could be con visited to office and so

the board of peels your predecessors 50 years ago, allowed this to be an office building, effectively and on that permit, the scope of that permit in addition to identifying the use office and it does dealt with the deck in question and it's not legal and we have found the records to be legal and because through the course and it's been many years in the making and they are required to convert this to a solid railing and it's within about throw feet of the property line so with that i'm available for any questions and request the board hold the decision. who let the dog out? [laughter] >> thank you. >> we have a question from president lazarus.

>> who let the dog out? >> thank you. >> >> can you hear me now? >> putting aside ultimately whether we think the variance meets the requirement, if it was denied would the practical consequence of that be that the deck would have had to be removed? >> that would be really question from the building inspection because this is upgrading it to the current requirements and so, as far as -- >> i will with hold my question. >> department of building inspection has stated the deck is hell. they haven't required legalization of the deck.

>> you look like you are under the weather, scott. >> our heater doesn't work anymore. while just trying to be warm. thank you. >> thank you. >> we don't have further questions so we're moving on to the department of building inspection. >> inspectors. >> hello, commissioners. joe duffy dbi. i am available for any questions. i really it's a variance case and typically dbi don't present on these but i'm available for questions. >> president lazarus has a question. >> i'll ask you the question that i just asked mr. sanchez and he punted. did you hear my question? >> go ahead, again -- >> if the variance had been denied, would the deck have been beebeenallowed to stay because e

wouldn't be a parapet. >> it would have to be demolished, yes, it would have to be removed. our language typically i'm not sure what happens in this case because i'm not familiar with this case so it's normally legalized and they'll remove it so if you can't legalize you would remove it. that would be my advice in this case. >> we are now moving on to public comments and is there anyone here to provide public comment raise your hand and. >> please, go ahead. you have three minutes. >> 20 years ago, and up through a lot more recently, when it was the board of permit appeals, i got to know this a pel apartmen.

the appellant at one time excavated rock in their rear yard and did a large excavation and installed a metal shed she had people living in. and the neighbors let the city know and the city properly enforced the codes and that had to be removed. since that time, this appellant made a cottage industry and has thousands of hours of board of appeals' time complaining about everything that the neighbors have ever done. and most of them are very frivolous. i'm amazed to see she has the energy to do this and that entire block of hyde street are extraordinarily beautiful and well maintained properties and i feel sorry for them all for having to deal with that

neighbor. thank you. >> thank you. is there any further public comment on this item? >> please raise your hand. ok. so we're going to move on to rebuttal. ms. sang, you have three minutes. i'll make sure you join the meeting. can you say something? >> >> she's still muted. >> can you please try -- >> i believe tristar 6 possibly. if you can hear me? try star 6. >> should i try to call her. >> maybe we can try to call her. >> give me a second. time is paused, i'll give her a call. >> we'll have to restart the

time.

>> we heard you very briefly? >> we're talking about two different decks. the deck on the third floor is the 2654 hyde street. the upper deck. we at our property watching them to build that and why all of a sudden it's legal is in the we are watching them to build those decks up and i ask for proper

records and they have not given them to me when they say this and i cannot see because they never give to me and that i myself and other people are building have been watching them build a second on the up top deck and if they sense the railing is a fire and the wall and the deck everything is and it should be fire rate too for the safety reasons but it wasn't a requirement and also, i wanted to say that the deck we're talking about and it's a violation that the city dbi inspectors and the issue the violation and we personally are watching them on the upper deck, not talking about the lower deck and it's built without permit and also they changed the window of those in exhibit you can see it and exhibit a2. and we have to have people

living there and that is absolutely and he has been done that for many his project and he to 650 high street and with permits and duty shakeing and then now she says it has been explaining about our window and about fence and the fence we have. they already explained many times and the inspector has come to you and. >> i thought you finished. >> oh, no. >> i mean by asking for it and

sunshine requests but no one produce it. before you i hope that when they talk to you, before you, they still have some kinds of documents to prove and then also they find -- >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. walker. you have three minutes. >> i'll wait until he gets on.

>> i don't have that much to say. it was just heard and we want to be good neighbors and we want to live with everybody and we've been there a long time and it's a wonderful neighborhood and we're all for it and we've done work for two of our fares neigh, one up the street and we want to be there for another 50 years and maybe every 50 years we have to come to your board of per nant field and so i don't know what else to say. thank you for your time. >> as long as we're not here come you come the next time. >> that would be a good thing if you were still here.

so, we will now hear from the planning department, mr. sanch mr. sanchez. >> >> the planning department, i think nothing further to add and in terms of the upper deck, we don't have any evidence that that is illegal and if the appellant has if they said they witnesses a deck being constructed and if they have additional materials to send they can always do that but i'm not aware of any information that would lead us permitted to 2002 having a higher resolution and they show that there is what is just above the board is the variance to do this minor work work on the railing to make it from partly open to solid and

that is all. >> do you have anything further. >> no, this matter is submitted. >> i don't see any merit from the appeal whatsoever and move to deny the a deal on the variance and the permits were all properly issued. >> vice president honda. >> madam president and i were the only ones on the board for the last time it has been before us and look forward to seeing you guys in 50 years. >> i'll second that. >> a variance would be properly

issued if it meets the five findings required unplanning code section 305c? >> yes, it does. >> thank you. >> so, we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the variance that it needs the 305c on that motion commissioners -- [roll call vote] the appeal is denied. and that concludes the hearing. >> happy thanksgiving. >> happy thanksgiving. >> at this. you as well, everyone, be safe. >> all right. >> stay socially distanced. >> happy thanksgiving. >> thank you. >> bye. >> bye. >>

public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. for members of the public who wish to make public comment the phone number to use is (415)655-0001. the access code is 146 099 1107.

then press pound and pound again. when your item of interest is called, dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. you may address the board once per agenda item for up to two minutes. item number 1, call to order. director tsen. director tsen, you're muted. >> here. >> clerk: director dunlop. >> here. >> clerk: director richardson. >> here. >> clerk: director kwon. >> here. >> clerk: director shifrin. >> here. >> clerk: supervisor haney. we do have a quorum. >> good. thank you. thank you, directors, for joining us. i know sometimes it's technical difficulties with this technology. but i hope that we'll be able to get through the agenda quickly

and efficiently. thank you all for being here. the last board meeting was in october. and what a difference a month makes. now that we're in november. we have a new president-elect. so it is, i hope -- okay. so let's go forward with the first item. >> clerk: item number 2, general public comment. this item is to allow members of the public to address the treasure island development authority board on matters that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the authority board and that do not appear on today's agenda. in addition, to general public comment, public comment will be held during each item on the agenda. members of the public may address the board once per agenda item for up to two minutes. members of the public who wish to address the board on matters that do not appear on today's agenda, please dial star 3 to be added to the queue to speak.

>> are there any members of the public? >> clerk: there are no members of the public in the queue. >> let's go on to the next item, please. >> clerk: item number 3, report by treasure island director. >> director tsen: good, bob. >> sorry. unmuteing myself. likdirector tsen, members of the board, i'd like to offer sherry williams with one treasure island, the opportunity to say a few words about their food pantry and other operations. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. i wanted to say that, you know, since covid cases are surging, we're not planning any special holiday events.

we're doing some small things around the weekly food pantry. we had a small, very safe halloween event that residents really appreciated. we had over 60 kids come out with costumes and their families. and that was very nice. with things surging, we are not going to be moving in that direction. yesterday at the weekly food pantry, a very hefty food distribution with lots of extra food that was handed out at the pantry. and our housing partnership on the island and catholic charities will be handing out additional food boxes to their residents for the thanksgiving holiday, as is the ymca going to be handing out some food boxes for their 36 families that in their learning hub. and we also understand that there might be additional needs on the island. we're looking to set up a system to help meet those needs without

duplicating any services. we are planning to do a few small cheerful activities at next week's thanksgiving pantry, next tuesday. we'll be doing a pie raffle and handing out candy cornucopias and doing the thankful cards that residents can take to their home and write what they're thankful for, put on the doorknobs and create a sense of -- a sense of community connectiveness digger the thanksgiving holiday. and then for the winter holidays, we are going to continue, of course, the weekly food pantry and are going to be handing out a ham or a turkey for those who signed up pe pantry. and we'll be doing some small festive activities at the pantry, kind of like next weekend for the thanksgiving food pantry. so that's where we're going to help us get through this time.

it's challenging. just trying to keep things, you know, make sure that, you know, needs are being addressed. and also keeping, you know, spirits up as we move through the pandemic. thank you very much. >> director tsen: thank you. thank you, sherry, and all that one treasure island does in building community on treasure island. thank you. >> thank you. >> in addition to the regular food pantry on tuesday afternoons, the department of public health has been doing free flu shots at -- during the food pantry hours, beginning in late october and they'll be continuing that -- or wrapping that up next tuesday at the november 24th food pantry. also next tuesday, in addition to the flu shots, d.p.h. will be

offering it free covid-19 testing during the same hours of the food pantry from 2:00 until 4:00 p.m. testing, the flu shots and the food pantry operations will all take place in ship shape parking lot with appropriate separation between activities. and sherry didn't mention it, but just -- sherry had one more thing to say. i think i'll let her speak again. >> yeah. thank you. i just wanted to also mention that we had a really great day on the day of voting day. the ship shape is the site for polling. and so we were trying to manage to make sure that people could safely vote, safely get their food pantry and, you know, bags and distribution. and we had just wonderful

outpouring of volunteers for the food pantry and great poll workers devoting place. so everything -- all of the space was used around the ship shape and the outside area to make it safe and to make it a good experience for people both to vote and to get their -- their weekly food pantry offerings. so i just wanted to put that out there, that it was a very positive voting there on treasure island. >> and, sherry, i think you also you wanted to say something about the group -- the graduation that occurred this past month as well. it seems like a long time ago. >> yes. that happened this month, too? oh, okay. sorry. you know, as you know we pivoted and doing the construction training program online. and we had 14 more people graduate and so since covid

started, we've had two cohorts. and i just heard yesterday that of the two cohorts, 28 people that graduated from the program, 80% of them are either working now or have been offered employment. so we feel pretty excited that we're able to even during these times, keep people getting jobs and keep employment moving forward. so thank you for raising that, bob. we're already organizing for our next one in february. thank you. and recruiting for it for folks out there looking for that kind of opportunity, especially for treasure island residents. >> thank you, sherry. this past monday the board of supervisors rules committee voted to recommend the reappointment of mark dunlop to the tida board and julia to the tida board. the committee also recommended the appointment of residents

hope williams and barkley sanders, as well as sailing advocate jim hancock to the tida citizens' advisory board. all of these appointments should be taken up by the full board of supervisors at their next meeting on december 2nd. i also wanted to recognize me sun boyce with mer sigh restaurants. she connected with a network of volunteers to assemble desks for treasure island residents having to home school during covid. and an event was held last sunday with san francisco fire department to distribute the desks. i believe director tsen were in attendance. there were 12 desks distributed on sunday and others were provided to the ymca to provide to kids in the learning hub.

also at the ymca, the word to remodel or set up a kitchen area has been completed. and i will share some images on my screen. so this is a floor plan of the ymca, the large space is the basketball court. the area that was remodeled is towards the rear of the facility. >> bob, excuse me. bob, oh, there it is. okay. we didn't see it before. >> okay. it was up -- this is the main gymnasium that funds 9th street. this is the area that was remodeled towards the rear of the gymnasium. this is the wall with the mural that faces the ship shape.

on the left this is the way the space was continued. there was some restrooms and showers in this area that were not utilized. those those walls and pictures were taken out, along with the small office here and a new entry to the space was established. and this shows the planned operational layout with refrigerators and prep tables to prepare. this space is intended to be used to distribute the san francisco unified milk programs. it could also be used to support other food programs on the island. and this is the finished space. it's got a lot of great light. this is the area where the sinks are to be installed and the refrigerator is on the opposite

side. and just a little bit of the work that was done, the current fiscal year budget by the way ymca. i'll stop sharing. also during past months with the reopening citywide, the treasure island playgrounds and dog parks were also reopened with new signage, posting of additional restrictions and requirements for those facilities during the current -- the city's current covid-19 health order.

tida staff, the department of environment staff and landscaping are also working with the literacy for environmental justice to set up several yerba buena gardens. there is one outside of the life learning academy, one along the sidewalk adjacent to merced and adjacent to the ymca. on construction, the hillcrest i-80 interchange project, managed by the transportation authority, is fully mobilized, with the impacts of construction, there's no bike access from the bay bridge to treasure island, except on weekends. during the weekend the access #

bicycle access is via mccollum road. on treasure island -- the focus continues to be on the installation of new utilities in northern california. the kickoff meeting was held on monday of this week for the contractor, who will be doing the utility isolation work in the stage 2 area, which extends east from building one. there's remediation program. there's field work under contract. their next contract, to continue the excavation and the solid waste disposal area west side, will mobilize in early 2021. the navy had requested the villages to vacate two buildings to facilitate this next phase of work. and eight of the ten households in those buildings have been relocated to new units and two are scheduled to move before the

end of the year. in the complaint that was filed against the navy, tida one treasure island, the developer and others, the environmental program, there was a hearing originally scheduled for november 5th, which was postponed initially to tomorrow, november 19th. but yesterday the judge issued a notice stating that the hearing would not be necessary for him to rule on the motion. but it's not immediately clear when that ruling will be forthcoming. we're waiting on the court on that matter. and that concludes my report. >> director tsen: thank you. did any of the directors have any questions or comments that they would like to make on the

director's report? >> yes. i would like to make two comments. do i have the floor? >> director tsen: yes, please. >> yes. thank you so much, director beck for that capture. i want to comment on two things that you stated in your presentation. one, congratulating sherry williams for one treasure island again. we're supplying the critical workforce, construction in san francisco. and i-80 is so impressive, out of the -- 80% of the candidates already have, you know, been enlisted, you know, to start work. and i would just encourage that we know that there are shortages of construction workers and that 20%, the rest of them, you know, partnering with city agencies to kind of help to fill them.

and that say to me again, we need to -- in 2021, mr. beck, i understand this very well. thank you. if you conduct more of the trainings, i think this is going to be one of the defining legacies of the commissioner's on treasure island. because this is part of equity. it's training people. and so i would like for these again when we issue our report to the city, that all of these kinds of great things that we are doing are prominently identified, so that we can -- so that tida can get the credit for that, more importantly to let people know that as we develop, we are also taking care of people. the second one also, commissioner fei tsen and supervisor mr. haney were on the island on sunday. and again congratulations to fei tsen, who is -- [indiscernible]

she is doing a fantastic job. i wish that commissioners could see those desks and to be giving to those kids. again we're going beyond the call of duty here. and people that work with us, with the resident of treasure island, so i just wanted to put out a statement. thank you. >> director tsen: thank you, linda. and, yes, that event on saturday was organized by sue boyce. i also like to give a shout-out to the two men who started this project on their own time, you know, with their own resources. and it's mike and paul, who built those desks for kids and to the fire department for bringing their fire engines so that they could deliver to the kids as well. we certainly appreciate people who really -- it embodies the

spirit of community. and we appreciate the efforts. thank you. any other comments? okay. hearing none, next item, please. i'm sorry. dom we have -- do we have any public comment on the director's report? >> clerk: members of the public, dial star 3 if you would like to make a comment. we have one caller. >> caller: good afternoon, everyone. hope williams. it's great to be before all of you. i want to thank you for the report. i do have a concern that i wanted to raise to the board. i don't know how much influence the board would have. but as you know, we're beginning to roll back with covid-19. and in march, we didn't have a

plan or action plan on how we would be able to support the neighborhood. so i just recently sent an email to bob beck, to the ymca, to one treasure island-- requesting sud financing to see how we can prepare the island, if there is another rollback. as, you know, the majority of the people on the island are essential workers. and i would hate for us to have another repeat of where we're struggling to feed the neighborhood. we're struggling to get the resources. so i've asked the ymca to contribute $5,000 toward gift cards to be able to feed families on the island with $25 gift cards. if you don't know, we still have our sfusd meal program. and i recently secured donations

for groceries that feed residents and families. the donations are received only covering about 50% -- 50 families weekly. and there's 300 students on the island and some families have eight people in the household. so i'm just considering this -- the tida board would put on their agenda item an action plan that we can sit down and plan out what our next steps are, because if there's a rollback, that could be devastating for treasure island residents. i don't know if we could survive another shutdown without a solid plan. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. [bell dings] >> director tsen: yes. yes. >> caller: hello, this is barkley sanders. i have a quick comment,

question. and i don't know if you can answer it in these public comments. but i'd like to update in rega regards to just the director's report. i was wondering if we're still on track on treasure island to have the switch gear installed in january? that's just my basic question and comment. >> director tsen: thank you. thank you for those call-in comments. i don't know, mr. beck, whether you'd like to quickly -- >> commissioner sanders' comment, we'll be have an update on the electrical system later on in the agenda. there's been some delays in the schedule right now. we're prompting it will be installed by the end of march. >> director tsen: thank you. we'll hear that later in the agenda then. >> yep. >> director tsen: okay. so then let's -- seeing no other

callers? >> clerk: no more callers. >> director tsen: then we'll go to the next item, please. >> clerk: item number 4, communication from and received by tida. >> director tsen: okay. are there any director's questions or comments on communications received? okay. hearing none, we can go forward to the next item. >> clerk: item number 5, ongoing business by board of directors. >> director tsen: directors, are there any ongoing business that you would like to bring up? okay. hearing none, let's go to the next item. >> clerk: item number 6, consent agenda. all matters listed hereunder constitute concept agenda, are considered to be routine by the authority board and will be acted upon by a single vote of of the authority board. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless

a member of the authority board so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consents agenda and considered as separate item. proving the minutes of the october 14th, 2020 meeting. b, resolution authorizing the treasure island directer to enter into a memorandum of agreement between the treasure island development authority and the san francisco county transportation authority for project management and oversight engineering, and environmental services to implement an infill infrastructure grant for the widening of hillcrest road on yerba buena island. 6c resolution approving fiscal year 2021-2022 minimum monthly rate rental rate. >> so moved. >> the motion is to approve. >> director tsen: okay. is there a second? >> i'll second it. >> okay. it's been moved and seconded. we'll have the vote by roll call. [roll call]

>> director tsen: okay. so the ayes have it. let's have the next item, please. there was no public comment in the queue. >> director tsen: thank you. >> clerk: item number 7, resolution approving the election of the officers of the treasure island development authority and the appointment of the officers to the infrastructure and transportation committee and the sustainability committee, as nominated by the ad hoc nomination committee to serve a 12-month term of office, commencing january 1st, 2021 and ending december 31st, 2021. >> director tsen: okay. so there was a separate meeting, an ad hoc meeting that happened earlier today.

do you have a list of -- >> yes, i do. i'm very glad to report for the purpose of listeners and watchers, that are just tuning in, we -- as the chair of the ad hoc committee, my committee we held our meeting about 30 minutes ago. and out of that committee, we elected the officers for the treasure island development authority. president is again going to be commissioner fei tsen and we appreciate her leadership and ongoing leadership spearheading the treasure island and the yerba buena island development. vice president is commissioner ike kwon. treasurer is ruby shifrin. and secretary will be commissioner mark dunlop. for the treasure island

infrastructure and transportation committee, chair will be commissioner linda fadeke richardson and for the sustainability committee, the chair will be commissioner ike kwon. and so i present to you our officers for the next year of treasure island development authority. thank you. congratulations to everyone. >> director tsen: thank you. this is an action item. so we will need to have a motion to approve the recommendation of the ad hoc nominations committee. do i have a motion to approve? >> moved. >> director tsen: do i have a second? >> i'll second it. >> director tsen: okay. ike has seconded it. so we will have a vote by roll call. >> clerk: all right.

director tsen. >> director tsen: aye. >> clerk: director dunlop. >> aye. >> clerk: director richardson. >> aye. >> clerk: director kwon. >> aye. >> clerk: director shifrin. >> yes. >> clerk: there are four ayes. >> director tsen: okay. so then the ayes have it. thank you very much. next item, please. >> clerk: item number 8, treasure island mobility management agency update on congestion management. recommendations. >> director tsen: this is an information item. it's not an action item. >> yeah. ray hyatt from treasure island mobility management agency will present. >> good afternoon, directors. rachel hyatt. the treasure island mobility management agency. good to see some of you again. and meet some of you for the first time.

i have information to share that was meant to be presented and actually was shared with the timma committee in -- for our meeting yesterday. however, that meeting ended up being canceled. and so the committee has been briefed on this material, but it hasn't actually been presented to them yet. that will happen now probably at a december meeting. so you should -- i believe i'm sharing my slides now. so just to set up this presentation about the mobility management program, because at least for me this is the first time i've had the opportunity to speak with some of the board members about the mobility

management program. our approach here is to really try to achieve these great opportunities that are before us, to have treasure island be a real transit-first community, as envisioned in the development agreement. a model of environmental sustainability, as envisioned in the development agreement. and also equitable and we don't think that those are contradictions. there are, of course, challenges and risks. and so we are -- [indiscernible] you know, ways that that wouldn't be exacerbating bridge construction, if the development worsens in grey. considering-- congestion. people can't get by without a car or the program is not being

financially viable for the long-term. there's really significant expectations for the program. in the development agreement about the program being financially self-sustainable. so to really try to achieve the opportunities, the development plan includes very significant amount of transit by buildout, that will be phased out as development phases in. but ultimately in addition to more muni service, provided by the city, it's timma's responsibility, through the program, to provide new regional transit service, which is something that other development areas near san francisco, don't have as part of their development program. new water transit service that timma is committed to deliver, new east bay transit service. and there's also a very unique, you know, call for an equitable

transportation system to support all of the below-market rate housing that will be on the island. and to keep those through means that -- that support all modes of travel, including transit passes and discounts for shared services like car and bike share. but also for driving. and that brings us to the topic today, is how we can support affordable travel by driving. on the list, though, just to close out there, in doing all of this, we want to make sure that we don't compromise, you know, the objectives of sustainability and a transit-first neighborhood

in san francisco. so we want to will be able to achieve that call for treasure island to be a place where there's multiple modes of transit that are good choices for people, as well as affordable choices. and that those things are affordable to all of the treasure island residents. well, for this board then on to today's specific topic with the overview in mind, this board, as well as the timma board has called for us to develop and affordability program, togy go along with the congestion management component. so congestion management, call for the development agreement to place congestion charge on driving during daytime periods, congested periods. and to then use that revenue to fund the new regional transit.

and it is a means to achieve both the congestion management objectives of the development and like responsibilities of the development, as well as the transit options and significant new transit services objectives. so we have been working on that on a number of fronts, though, to make sure that, you know, respond to the need for this charge on driving to be equitable. the first policy that this board and the timma board have adopted is an exemption for current residents, who did not opt into the program. and that policy was approved in 2019. and we've since been -- about a year ago now. we've since been working on options for how that is implemented. and how people receive that

benefit. we have also been working on support for nonresidential users that are currently on the island. and have an update to share about that today. something in the third piece that will need to be brought before both boards, but doesn't have recommendation yet is policies to support affordability for future households on the island, who aren't there yet, but will in the future. and are low-income. so in the below-market rate housing or otherwise low income. the purpose of the work that, you know, we've been doing on the current residential exemption and the non-resident support is to get to a picture of how these programs would operate.

you know, how would people be able to access the benefits, you know, making sure that the people who -- the benefit is intended to serve, are able to get it with, you know, minimal barriers. and that the administrative sort of procedural burden is minimized, both for the beneficiaries as well as for on the agency side. we are able to manage the process and the costs and have a predictable program that can be well managed. i'll start with the current resident exemption to the toll. i was going to present two options for, you know, ways that people might be able to receive this benefit. but for both the options, the eligible beneficiaries would be

the same group. so they are people who are -- have a lease that it dated on or before the policy was adopted. so that was november 2019. and we do know that there is folks who are being moved into their new units. so this benefit would carry with those lessees to the new unit. so we -- we will need tida's help. there would be a partnership with tida here to verify the eligible leases. but just want to make it clear that we intend for the benefit to continue on with the household, even as they move into their new unit. the policy that the timma board adopted in 2019 calls for this

to be evaluated and revisited in -- at the 4,000-unit milestone of development. so the first option for the benefit would be a tag-based option. in other words, a fast track-based option. with that approach, if someone already has a fast track transponder, timma can associate that toll tag i.d. and account with a treasure island benefit. and make that fast track toll tag into one that has exempt or limited trips, you know, for with no toll on and off treasure island. if a household does not have a fast track, then we would provide one. and that that would allow for unlimited travel on and off, you know, treasure island without incurring a toll.

some things to know about how this would work or how this would work, we would need a partnership with tida to verify the eligible households or lease holders. and when i say lease holder, it just means we need a point of contact. it doesn't mean only one lease holder can make use of the toll tag. any residents in the household could make use of it. but we just need a person associated with the lease to be our point of contact that we correspond with. and if we're using a toll tag that the household already has, that we are able to obtain that account information. or if we're providing the household with a toll tag, that we have a point of contact there. and we will need to associate

the fast track i.d. and account, you know, with the -- with that lease. so there would be a licensed and use agreement involved with that. and we would expect that, you know, the folks, the people in the household would share it among their households, drivers as a they need. the second place is license plate based. and so the toll system will also have license plate capture capability. that's really for enforcement as well as add another option to be able to have an account, by associating your license plate, having having a fast track transponder. that could be an option here, too. and so for, you know, each car

in the household, timma would provide that account -- excuse me, a license plate information to fast track and the fast track system could then exempt those transponders. one selling here. i have -- one second here. i have got my low battery. okay. so, yes. let's see. where did i leave off? one thing that this option means is that it would be households that have cars, that would be receiving the benefit. and we want to, you know, i think the intent of the policy is for current residents, even those who don't own a consider

to be able to access the benefit. so for those households or leases that don't have a car on the island, we could provide a toll tag. so people could use that if they're getting rides, for instance. so this would have another step in it as far as verifying eligibility. we need to have a verification that the vehicle is -- it belongs to the household on treasure island. they're registered. and so folks would need to be able to provide that -- there would be another step that we could do for that.

we could use the distribution process for folks who don't have a vehicle. we would -- you know, if looking at some criteria like you know, does the benefit prioritize the need where the need is and lower administrative costs. toll tag approach we think would be -- definitely less administrative stuff. we want to hear feedback from residents on these options. so we've been, of course, one treasure island, chair williams is always very helpful in giving us recommendations about how we could best reach people to get

their input and we're working with her and her staff on that. we'll be doing some surveys or mailings over the coming winter months to get input. the incremental cost of this program is really marginal on the up-front capital side. we need to put in, you know, the systems in place to do the verification and the enrollment. but -- and we would actually recommend offering, you know, that we provide the fast tracks, the toll tags rather. communicating with folks. it's really the -- the cost management and making sure the benefit goes to who is intended to receive it is really about

managing the inventory on an ongoing basis of the tags. if it's tags. and this is the option number one, you know, the cost is understanding when -- like if a household moves off the island, we would look to timma to help, you know, understand when current -- if current resident households move off the island, fingertips. the second option has another administrative step. so there would be, you know, another burden of eligibility there. and there may be more vehicles associated with this. we're not sure. but we can learn that through outreach that we do to better understand specifically, you know, these days how many vehicles do island households have and, you know, make sure that we're accounting for that in understanding the cost to do action number two.

the other place we have an update today is some options for providing support to nonresidential current uses. and so again we have a couple different options here. and the eligibility is the same for back and forth. it's proposed as the same for both. focused on affordable housing nothousingnots, although i thine mean specifically is the one treasure island agreement, and it includes a daycare, so which is not housing nonprofit. so the shorthand would be the one treasure island member organizations. we also know that we have some more learning to do about all of the travel associated with the nonprofits. there are trainees, for

instance, that may not be employees -- or aren't employees and others who may not be direct employees that do have travel. so there's some outreach lear learning that we know we need to do to clarify questions, you know, about the eligibility. the other eligible set of uses would be commercial uses that are food distribution and food service establishments. that have a public opinion facing -- public-facing function in food service. the effectiveness of the program and the need for any changes to the program sooner for the commercial -- excuse me, the

nonresidential program. evaluating it and modifying it, asking the questions, should this be modified sooner than sort of mid-point of development, just because it may change -- there may be changes in the nonresidential landscape sooner than the 4,000-unit milestone. so the two options, the first one would be a cash-based subsidy, a cash subsidy. and so this would be a payment from timma, you know, to these eligible nonresidential uses on say a quarterly basis. the amount of the payment would be scaled based on employees' accounts. soole amount of payment would be

based on the number of employees that the institution has, because our understanding is that the aid from the primary costs, that the businesses are confronting. and the priority, you know, need. so, for instance, the $600 per quarter is based on taking an assumed peak period toll to trips, five days a week, over a quarter. and, you know, summing that up over the period of the quarter. the thinking is to allow flexibility for the business to use it as they need.

so if there is a worker or workers that live on-island and don't have a commute cost, they already receive the current resident exemption, then there would be -- those funds would be directed towards other means for deliveries or, you know, other nonemployee travel. this would need to be a partnership with the businesses to make this happen. we would distribute this cash, you know, to the business itself. the point of contact at the business rather than timma working with the employees. it's the business or the nonprofit or the business who would distribute to the employees. we would, you know, need to have

a representation of the number of employees that there are. and so that we scale the payment and based off of tha option. the second is not a cash-based option, it's a toll tag-based option. and the intent here was to really prioritize, especially the low-income employees, by providing them with toll tags for commute trips, similar -- mirroring the the toll tag option for delivering the current residents toll exemption. so in this case, the amount of exempt travel on treasure island would be a round-trip, you know, five times a week, peak periods, five times a week. and in this situation, there would be more administration, you know, involved in that.

so the business would, you know, need to indicate to us -- to timma how many employees they have or if this is low-income workers, which we would recommend focusing this on low-income workers. the number of low-income workers that they have and then the business would need to, you know, manage the inventory of these, you know, to -- when they have employee turnover to, you know, recover the tag and then give it to the new employees that come on, redistribute and we'd have a partnership with the businesses in this case as well. but i think the level of effort for them would be -- there would be more involvement. we need to learn a bit more to really have a better idea of the

incremental cost of this second option, this toll tag option, relative to, you know, the first option. i mean, the cash options -- we have a sense of how many employees are associated through tida. a sense of the number of employees associated with these uses. we need to do outreach again with folks and understand their employee count, to refine the estimate of the amount of cash. and for option until two, also understand the share of employees who are low income. we would, you know, -- just from an administrative perspective, we would recommend the cash option. it's just the administrative burden is less there. and but like for the resident options, we know we need to do our outreach. and talk to folks and get some

feedback for us on the preferences about these options and feedback on, you know, how that partnership would work best. so our next steps really would focus on outreach at this point. this is an informational item. we started reach willing out to the nonresidential uses and we are internally working on coming up with a method, a mailing method or other maybe combination of surveying methods to reach current residents. and so we're getting feedback on the resident option. and so i'll pause there and look forward to your feedback as well. thank you.

>> director tsen: thank you, rachel. i have some overall comments, but i'd like to give the other directors a chance, first, to have any questions or comments that they would like to make. since i cannot see everybody on my panel, i don't know who is raising their hands. so, kate, you're going to have to call on them. if there are any. >> clerk: so linda. >> director tsen: go ahead, linda. >> thank you so much, rachel. i think the plans that you have outlined are well thought out and kudos to all of the work that you and your committee have been doing. so the first comment for me is looking at the -- option one seems to be viable and this is the one that has the toll.

the challenge for that option is normally for people that do not drive, fit into that -- [indiscernible] again it's a great option. the majority of the residents i can see will fit into that. you need to now come up with the grey area of the people that may not have their cars and may not even have occasion of people driving them back and forth. however, within a month, they have, you know, subsequent trips or whatever, we need to figure out that one, you know, out. the other one is the one treasure island. yes, you know, one of the projects that, you know, tida board -- you know for us that's very prominent, has to do with the construction training. we are getting at-risk individuals. we are training them. they are getting jobs. in fact, one that is really

doing more in the city and county of san francisco. so this is a program that is going to be ongoing. and we support and we fund. and everybody, you know, supports. and the city. we need to sit down there and how we can accommodate them. and that also opens the full discussion then about low income in general. that are going to be coming from outside, you know, mainland of san francisco into treasure island. we need to look at that and again i know that supervisor haney -- [indiscernible] so that again we can accommodate and how are we able to look at them. this is more for the supervisors. all of these plans, whether they are tailored to our residents or businesses, we need to have a

built-in, forward-looking scenario. what are the benchmarks? because all this programs here, they have a duration. and i think from the onset, people that are on the island, whether they're a resident or businesses, ought to be able to have a timeline when this program that we are doing now at some point. what are the years we are talking about? it's not open-ended. let's give everyone the opportunity to know off hand what the duration of this -- i think it would be great. just know that. you don't have to give that answer today. but it's something that i would like for you to really look at. forward-looking scenarios are very, very important. they guide everybody. do we reach a certain milestone in our development, then what happens. and then so what. and again thank you again for all of your work. and this is great. we are moving forward from here.

>> director tsen: thanks. thank you, linda. ruby, i see that your hand is up. did you want to make a comment? >> yes. thanks. i have a couple of questions. i'll try to keep it brief. one is outreach plan that you were talking about, rachel. what outreach has been done currently? and what is the plan going forward to solicit more feedback and direct involvement? >> thank you. so pre-covid -- this was actually leading up to the board's adoption of the policy in 2019. we did, you know, focused on residents as well as businesses and it was out of that outreach that the current resident toll exemption emerged. so the board adopted the

exemption for current residents last november. and since then we've been looking at options on how to deliver that benefit. so our next step is the outreach. and so since we're in a socially distanced time right now, we need to reach people, you know, in a socially distanced way, although i know we do have the option to go to the food pantry, for instance. but some of the suggestions for the plan right now are to do a mailing to the current residents who would be eligible. and solicit sort of survey-style feedback, either through a mail bag itself or, you know, by going to, you know, some place to fill out a survey.

we can also publicize this through food pantry distribution and work with the one treasure island housing providers to sort of follow up with folks and make sure that they've received, you know, the mailing or the other survey to fill that out and send it back. we also, you know, know that -- i'm talking with one treasure island that there do continue to be the community meetings. and we could, you know, have this as an agenda item, the offer would be to include this on the agenda at the community meeting. and get the word out that way. >> just a quick question on that. what's the timeline for this? how long -- [indiscernible] before it goes to -- for actual, you know, action? >> that's not calendared yet.

yeah. it would be, you know, sometime next year, after we've been able to do the outreach and i think -- you know, synthesize what we've heard. >> yeah. and you're thinking the businesses? >> so for businesses, you know, we also -- we could also do a mailing, you know, with businesses honestly as well. we have contact information for businesses who have participated in our previous outreach. so we had a -- some outreach events again last year in the lead up to the current resident exemptions adoption. and so we -- we'll return to those folks who participated and have more one-on-one. honestly we were thinking more one-on-one type of discussions or small group discussions with the businesses, you know, versus

a survey. but we could also do that, actually now that i come to think of it. but what we have been thinking of was just really direct conversations with the businesses. yeah. >> yeah. it would be great to have this as a future agenda item, because sounds like the engagement plan is still not really solid. i think getting clear on that is essential, right. like mailing i don't think will be sufficient. people won't mail that back, right. i think generally that tends to have a lower touch point, just in my experience of engagement. and community meetings, surveys, small focus groups, one-on-one, those are more tried and true models. one, it's good data for you to collect, you know, making sure that we're being inclusive, also listening to folks. also designing a program, saying that you did a six-month engagement process.

everyone is like i haven't heard of this. >> yeah. >> so it would be great to have a future item -- a real plan on how you're going to do engagement. how many numbers, what percent do you want to engage with. having some targets would be really great. and then, you know, the other question i had was the -- so you talked about the milestones around -- [indiscernible] 2500, which is great. [indiscernible] we have a moment to look at this again. so i don't know if you know those off the top of your head? assume not.

>> the information we have from the developer is -- it amounts to basically a 500 units every year on average. yeah. >> yeah. that's great. because i think that will really help inform kind of a little bit -- around whatever policy decisions are made. [indiscernible] and just the last comment is the ferry and bus service updates. we all know, you know, to have -- [indiscernible] [audio is fading in and out for speaker] i didn't see anything about the ferry or bus services or the alternatives. understanding what are the existing alternatives.

>> director tsen: yes. thank you, ruby. are there any other directors who wanted to make comments? okay. hearing none, let me just ask you, rachel. it's going to cost about $12 million, plus or minus, for this part of making the tolling policy equitable. where is that funding coming from? is it coming from revenues from the toll that we actually collect? so this is a good topic to probably include in the next update that we come back to you with, the update on the program costs and funding strategy.

we have for implementation costs a combination of grant funding, you know, federal grant funding, state grant funding that is committed. and we have local funding, contributions from tida and -- from tida for the up-front infrastructure. we do have a funding gap still for program launch. the funding strategy is something that we've actually -- we were thinking about including that update in the agenda. it's through a combination of

sources, including grant funding, some of the developer subsidy that -- from the development agreement identifies for the program. so that's the up-front capital. we have four committed revenue resources. we have the toll revenues themselves. we have parking revenues, when the parking management program goes into effect. and we have transit fares and transit pass purchases. and then, lastly, there's the developer's operating subsidy commitment that's included in the development agreement. during the years of the program, to provide all of the transit service that's called for, would exceed the amount of revenues from those committed sources

that we project. so we also are talking with our, you know, especially regional partners, the water emergency, transportation agencies to identify supplemental sources of funding to fill that gap. >> director tsen: yeah. so, rachel, i think this is a very important question, which in the next presentation really does need to be included. and i hope that we can -- i don't think we can make promises if there's a gap we cannot fill. and i really think that, you know, the tolling is because it's an important way to -- by revenues for different alternatives of transit.

and but it's also very important for us when we do the tolling to have an equitable system, to help those who can't afford tolls. it is a balancing act. we have to know where the funds are coming from, otherwise we're proposing a system, which we may not be able to fund. i think that in your next presentation these are issues that we need to look at. you know, the tolling is because we're trying to find ways to reduce the number of passenger cars that lead to congestion, that lead to basically we're trying to effect the environment and use less fossil fuels, which does affect our climate in some ways. at the same time, we really have to help those who can't afford it and not have an additional

burden. so it is a balancing act. and the ferry service or the autonomous vehicles or muni, a.c.t. buses, do those subsidies come from the same source? and by basically putting money into one, we're not able to provide the alternative transit, which, in fact, will lead to people not using more of the passenger cars. is it from the same part of funds, that's what i'm asking. >> right. so there are a variety of different funding sources that, you know, today fund the regional transit. you know, ferry service and east bay bus service and muni service today are all funded by different sources. >> director tsen: yes. >> yeah. they're all funded by different

sources. and we need to look at a variety of different sources and bring in a variety of different sources to be able to meet the need, because different sources have different eligibility. but there's funding available to support water transit specifically, for instance, that is not -- that isn't, for instance, eligible to be used on on program operations that aren't transit. you know, so we are considering the eligibility, you know, restrictions and the evaluation criteria of these various sources when we're matching up the need and the potential source. >> director tsen: okay. well, if in your next presentation you can also look

at what -- if it's a tradeoff between say having less ferry service and, therefore, then we give more in, you know, reductions. those types of choices have to be clear to us, so that we can make a decision. i know this is very complicated. you want to have a tolling system that is sustainable in terms of both the revenues that were supported, as well as sustainable in being efficient and being able to administratively manage. so i know that there's a lot of -- a lot of thinking going into how we might do this. i also know that other cities are looking at what we do at treasure island, not only san francisco, but other cities are looking at what we do on

treasure island. how do we instill a tolling policy, which will reduce the use of vehicles. but yet be equitable. and it is really a very difficult equation to make, but foremost, of course, we want to make sure the equitable systems, but also make sure that there's alternative transit, that we don't in the end run out of money so that we don't have the alternative transit, so that people can use other means other than their cars. so it's quite a balancing act. i understand that. but are there -- yes. i see linda, very quickly, please. >> yes. i just wanted to interject very quickly. earlier when i was asking about the --ed forward-looking scenarios, that implies funding,

a mechanism and the fact that this is going to be extremely very expensive. and the reason that we have the -- again to offset the congestion at the bay bridge, it only takes ten minutes from ferry in san francisco to get to treasure island. that would be something that -- should be a priority for, you know, considering in and out of treasure island. one thing that i want to the state here, rachel, the san francisco county transportation authority is actually one of the best agencies in the city, with your outreach. covid-19 was not, you know, an issue and i know that you will be taking out of these messages. so the plan that they're asking for here is because of the covid-19 implications. that's what we're talking about here.

and i know on wearing another hat, the other parts of the city that are dealing with toll and congestion, the transportation in the bayview and the soma. you're constantly there and from everything i get, your agency is out there, which is really great. you know how to do outreach. why don't you then -- on treasure island, maybe work with them to expand their database. the residents also have to be available as well. sometimes we send information to them. some show up and some don't. and some at the end have a series of meetings, we already have those kind of experiences. so working with treasure island and the cab, maybe have an extensive outreach with mr. beck, to get emails from all of those people, so when they can and they're having their meetings and everything and zoom meetings, maybe some of those residents can join there. i'm just putting it out there.

hopefully six months or whatever, the covid-19 will be gone and going to where we can on site and you can go back to the plan that you have before. again i'm just reiterating here how we can get this residents here. it's extremely very essential. but due to the limitations we have right now, also working with supervisor haney's office, you know, when he's out there in the, you know, in the island or doing any program, we know the residents come out. so those are just kind of my suggestions. >> thank you. >> director tsen: thank you, linda. anybody else on the board who wants to comment or ask questions? okay. then is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. there's one caller in the queue. i'll open the line. >> caller: thank you.

hope williams again. i want to just kind of add on to it. first, to extend my support and helping to facilitate these conversations with the residents. so that we can make sure that the information is relevant. and i'm also asking that we also consider the impact that covid will have in 2019, when this was presented, we were in a different financial situation. but now knowing that recovery may take time, our neighborhood and also our patterns. taking in account the neighborhood that exists right now, it's not enough just for people to get into san francisco, but also how do we connect. there are households that have children who are in three different neighborhoods. so you're asking parents that if they drive, what financial affect would that have on us. are there residents that live on treasure island, that actually work in other cities, other than san francisco. so there is bit of a complex

situation that i would love to be a part of the conversation. bob beck has my information. one treasure island also has my information to extend, so that i can help in facilitating these conversations. so that we can make sure that we're making the best choice for residents and really hearing their voice in this matter. because personally as a person that lives there, i'm looking at what's affordable. how are we accounting for affordability. what impact does that make on us. so i'm personally against it, but i'm not a person that i wouldn't be willing to work with you to try to have those conversations. >> director tsen: okay. thank you. good. is there any other callers?

[bell dings] are we waiting for another caller? >> clerk: yes. one moment. i'm attempting to unmute this caller. >> caller: hello, this is barkley sanders again. i wanted to join hope williams in supporting any outreach that needs to be done on the island, as someone that lives here. so feel free to reach out to me. you guys have my information. and i will be more than happy to help with any outreach conversations, putting fliers up, really anything that needs to help get more feedback from the community and input, in regards to the toll situation.

>> director tsen: okay. thank you, barkley. thank you, hope. and i understand that both of you will be joining the board. and i thank rachel. we'll certainly be working with the board as well. any other callers? >> clerk: there is no more public comment. >> director tsen: no more public comment, we'll go on to the next item, please. >> clerk: item number 9, treasure island electrical system update. >> director tsen: is that you, bob? will you be making the presentation? >> sorry. yes, i will. i'll share the power point here. just a moment.

can you see my screen now? >> director tsen: not yet. >> is it up now? >> yes. >> thank you, members of the board. i want tofan provide an update n the progress on the electrical system in the island. recap of theh outages we have hd this year. the status of the improvements funded in fiscal year that we

managed to fund through the fiscal year 020 budget. -- 2020 budget. the new switchyard location, some resident inquiries. this year we have had a total of 11 unplanned outages. the last occurred the day of our october 4th meeting, later that afternoon. of those outages one lasted three to four hours. the causes roughly half were caused by damaged equipment. others were caused by bird strikes and tree limbs and one issue was unable to determine the cause. in terms of interim

improvements. installation of the fault indicators that they have been doing. it allows the system to maintain service through most by bird strikes and tree limbs. it should limit the area impacted by more serious faults. the fault indicators identifying the location of the fault and restoration of power. the closures were installed last summer. they did require some calibration to function properly without still causing the main switch here to trip resulting in an island outage. the fault indicator installations in oakland and on island were substantially completed this month. there is one location they still want to install that but they

are having some difficulty. we show on the left the fault indicators and on the right that is the closure. on the image up right now you can see the electrical over headline that is being installed as well as here is the location of the new switchyard improvements underway. again, the new switchyards is going to be adjacent to the planned wastewater treatment plan site and there is an aerial photograph of the switchyard location. you can see the pads that have been installed there for the

equipment. again, this area has been through the geotechnical surcharge process. in the upper left you can see the grade of the new switchyard is four feet above the surrounding. thathat is indicative of the amt of fill brought in throughout this area of the island in the future. in the images on the right you see closer up images of pads installed and locations where the pads have yet to be poured but you can see the conduits running up through those pads to feed the future switch gear. this is an image from behind the ship shape of the new electrical overhead going in. there are five separate boom trucks operating in this photo simultaneously to the overhead

lines. in terms of the schedule, december 9th is when tic will complete their work on the pads and sub structures to allow sfpc to begin work within the switchyard. january 9th. the overhead line installation should be complete. i mentioned the current schedule is to complete the installation of switch gear by the end of march. that is delay from the original schedule. it is a goal we should be able to meet. the data, final cut will be determined but we will provide residents a minimum of 72-hours' notice before any planned outages necessary to complete the cut over to the new switch gear.

moving to issues brought up by residents that asked us to explore. over the past several months we looked at several different topics brought up. the idea of island wide battery storage wit with solar. individual battery store rage augmented by solar. then most recently portable battery storage with solar as alternative to generators, portable generators. last spring we had a proposal afforded to us prepared by custom power solar and callaway technology in a package to the board. this was discussed in the past.

the proposal was to provide centralized battery storage, 6-megawatt hours, and a solar generation capacity of 1.44 mega votes. the proposal as presented was presumed these costs could be offset by rebate programs, however, treasure island facilities aren't eligible for the rebate programs because of their former navy status. they are not a pg and e or southern california edison service area to help fund those programs. at this time funding is not available to self-finance improvements of this scale, although tida will continue to study the potential for city-owned and controlled on

island solar generation and battery storage as a liability measure in the future. on residential battery storage augmented by solar, we had a letter addressed to the tida board requesting the battery back up technology in treasure island housing, tessa power walls were mentioned. we have contacted an install leof tesla power wall in similar situations for the estimates of the costs. we have been provided our $50,000 per residential building, which would be three power wall units and if we wanted to augment that with 12 kilowatts of portable capacity that would increase the cost of the building to 1

$11,000. we currently are 11 3:00 you ops 113 buildings. that would be 6.7 and $12.5 million. for all buildings we could expect volume discount but still would require a significant investment that we don't have funding for. last nolast month we were provid information for a project that specializes in design and distribution of clean emergency power solutions. portable battery storage units augmented with solar panels. tida and sfpuc staff recently had a call with foot presen --

footprint to learn more. these are not to power buildings but could serve as the set up last november of 2019, could serve to centralize the facility where residents could charge phones, medical devices, etc. they were going to continue with footprint to do an on island demonstration of one of their trailers, something they were interested in bringing up. sfpuc is interested as part of their city-wide responsibilities both to power pop up sleeping shelters and other emergency response to an area we definitely plan to continue to

explore. just a few words on future additions. following the new switchyard which the new switchyard in moving to the distribution of power on the island through new switch gear is going to be substantial improvement in our system reliability. there are additional things that tida are planning after that work to continue to improve the system performance. the p.u.c. will relocate fuses and closures within the existing distribution for optical performance with new distribution from the new switchyard on the ninth street overhead line. the p.u.c. will be inspecting fuses and transformers to

identify potentially vulnerable item that we could replace. our priority in replacing suspect equipment will be to address those in the residential area first, not only for the benefit of residents but because that is some of the area to be last to be developed. that equipment will be in service the longest. that is the conclusion of my updates. i would be happy to take any questions you may have. >> i will open it up to the board first if there are questions or comments. yes, linda. >> thank you, bob forgiving all of these scenarios. right now we are getting into winter. things are going to be now.

we look at another four to six months ahead of it. what are the incidents that i know that p.u.c. has been going back and forth and making, you know, improvements. what are the incidents that you foresee from november basedded on the history that we have so far? that is number one. i am glad you are going to have the footprint demonstration. it will be a great help. again, with everything now sol solar. [indiscernable]

what are the charging mechanisms. three, sola so far we know you e outages three to four hours. those are tremendous adverse effects on the residents, especially medical. everybody is encouraged to stock their freezer because of the covid-19. then you have all of these reliabilities from p.u.c.'s standpoint, is there anything? we are not going to have 60,000 for building. that is very expensive. what can be done? help someone if the milk is spoiled? those are just general

questions. lastly, when do we think 2021 that all of this infrastructure and electrical system improvement you demonstrated we can say in june 202 we should be -- 2021 we should go back to 95% electrical availability or whatever? those are my general questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> the cause of outages we had 10 outages this past year where we were able to identify the cause of the outage. two of those were tree limbs, both of which occurred on the island and outage was limited to yerba buena island. we haven't had a lot of problems

between tree limbs and the trees on treasure island, outages on treasure island. on treasure island, we did have three bird strikes, all of those happened in the late spring, which was between april and june. that is when the geese are coming through. they migrate in both directions. that is when we had the out ages last year or this year due to bird strikes of the five outages that we had due to equipment failures, three of hose were relatedded to failed cross arms on poles.

the sfpuc has done visual inspections of the poles on the island to attempt to identify cross arms that might be, you know, aged and in danger of becoming loose or getting a failure. most recent outage in october was a short in an underground line that fed one of the pump stations. the strong water pump stations in the residential neighborhood. that is underground line was abandoned. that pump station is now fed with an overhead line to remove the potential from the underground line to have moisture intrusion and have a fault. that is kind of the nature of

what has -- the outages we had this year and measures that can potentially be mitigated. we certainly can share information. i know there was information that was produced state-wide with the rolling blackouts on how to respond to blackouts and help preserve your food and so forth. we can make sure to update that information and distribute to residents as well as we continue to move forward. again, as i mentioned in the presentation. you asked about schedule for the new switch gear to be online is then of march.

we will continue to be doing work, working to improve the system. i don't have a specific date when the other items that i mentioned as priorities in my report will be complete. when that new switch gear is online, we anticipate that it will result in significant improvements. i think the p.u.c. has been continuing to do work with reclosures, which will also give benefits. the october outage we had was limited to a residential neighborhood, which i know is not the consolation for residents, but the reclosures were able to prevent that outage in causing an island-wide

outage. if you compare to the bird strikes that we had earlier in the late spring occurred south of the job cor corps campus. we are calibrating the reclosures. if we were to have that type of bird strike at the south end of the island in the future we expect that would not create an island wide out age and the residential neighborhood would not be affected with the reclosures functioning properly. as we move forward we expect fewer outages, we expect the outages to be limited to a portion of the island, and with the support of fault indicators, we expect restoration, service

restoration to be quicker as well. >> thank you. ruby, did you have a question? >> thank you for the update. i appreciate all of the details around the follow-up that came from residents. i think you can reiterate. [indiscernable] this item for a while. i just want to acknowledge this is not probably. [indiscernable] ourselves included. it is unfortunate that we thought it would be january, then march. to make sure that we stick to

march, if there is anything we could do to help you, please let us know. we want to focus on the long-term solutions. the impact of the outage is the core issue. the question i was going to ask the lawsuit -- not lawsuit, the outage that happened last year that was potentially caused by a contractor. [indiscernable] there was funding that could be

for the region someday. is there an update on that potentially? [indiscernable] maybe you could provide something for residents. >> thank you. unfortunately, in consultation with the attorney's office we will not be able to recover damages related to the novembe november 2019 outage. we won't be able to make any recovery there. we will continue to try to improve the system.

>> thank you. >> is there anybody else that would like to speak? bob, you know, on the switchyard come on line, would that solve these blackout problems or is there still the potential there will be blackout issues with the new switchyard. >> there will always be potential for power outages. the primary challenge we have had has been the reliability and fault tolerance of the existing switch gear. something like a bird strike or a fallen tree limb should not typically result in a power outage. certainly not island-wide power

outage. the bird strikes the powerlines then falls away from the powerlines. there is not a particularsed ia particularsed short circuit there. if we eliminate those types of outages that would reduce by half the number of outages we had last year, but the new equipment both in the switchyard and on the distribution system should reduce the number of equipment related outages as well. when they do it should limit the area impacted. it shouldn't result in island-wide. most of these should not result in island wide outages but more localized outages on a smaller portion of the island. >> i guess the rest of the city

is the same thing there is no certainty if pg&e would have issues. saying that, looking at temporary power sources, i think, is something that would be helpful. your suggestion of the footprint project with charging trailers, i think we should look into that as a temporary stopgap to allow residents to have some access to power if they actually need it. >> their equipment shows a lot of promise. we are looking forward to the on-island demonstration of the equipment. >> have we designated certain community spots where there is also generators and power going

through the community center? >> the one treasure island has a generator, portable generator they were able to hook extension cords to provide some power. they actually needed that during the 2019 november election. then we with the villages we bought an additional generator and power strips to set up a temporary power charging location either at the ymca or within the residential neighborhood. we have contingency plans to do both. >> it hasn't been set up yet at

the ymca? >> it is not -- we also have looked at what it would take to install a permanent generator to power the building. that is a different thing. what we have are equipment we can set up during an emergency or during an outage, but it is not permanently installed or set up. we have also looked at since the ymca is one of the buildings that is expected to be reused. we have been studying what it would take to install the generator at that facility. >> if you would still continue to look at solutions for temporary power just as a stopgap during those times when it is truly needed. >> yes. >> are there any other questions on this item?

if not, is there public comment? >> yes there are two callers in the queue. >> go ahead. >> hi, again. thank you, directors, for bringing up these points. i am not sure if you know, but distant learning will most likely continue into 2021. really looking at temporary solutions for power because our children during the last power outage they weren't able to get access online, and it had a negative impact as we were trying to rollout devices to get children online. some devices were actually damaged and we weren't able to reimburse the families for the damage. definitely looking at temporary solution is a sense of urgency. it does affect when people go shopping or when they need to

just get online and work for those who are doing it but definitely for our children. we have 300 children that are participating currently in distant learning. my other question is this. is there possibly a neighborhood hub backup system in that case that our kids or people who need backup have it in their neighborhood hub station there? this really looking at maybe they might consider donating to treasure island and working with the community to try to invite us to the table. we have not been actively involved in these conversations to bring these solutions on a regular basis. we would love to try to brainstorm how to bring solutions to the island so that we can make sure that while we are still going through covid

that we can be able to do it effectively. thank you. >> thank you, hope. next caller, please. >> this is martin again. appreciate the children i the -n tone. i appreciate you are exploring these solutions. i wanted to point out i do have another solution the power initiative to allow tida and other people. [indiscernable] they could reinvest some of that into this community because the whole reason the grid is not upgraded is because every development. with the people power initiative also basically portable batteries to move between units

can be purchased from this collaborative that shares batteries in addition to pg and e power shut off. treasure island can become a resource where batteries are purchased. it is the simplest solution and likely the cheapest solution, even cheaper than possibly the collaboration with footprint. i will share that information with the board members. i have been waiting for the opportunity because of all of the updates you have been provided. i do really appreciate the change and the other solutions being looked at and not just switch grade upgrade and such. >> okay. thank you. any other callers? >> there are no other callers. >> hearing none. the next item, please.

>> item 10. discussion of future agenda items by directors. >> any future items, directors to bring up at this point in time? >> just one quick thing. going back to the funds available around some of the families. [indiscernable] you know, i am getting updates on funds available.

is it from you on what existing funding is out there and how to access it? could you help get some of that funding? >> i think we could -- i believe we included in the prior board package. one treasure island prepared some fact sheets earlier during the pandemic about resources available and distributed those to residents. we have also been distributing information from oewd and small business commission to our commercial tenants. we can take a look back at those resources to make sure we are maintaining them, you know, as additional opportunities become

available. >> that would be great. >> there is probably money out there. one thing i could do is speak to private sources of funding that can be used. [indiscernable] a one stop shop. >> okay. thank you, ruby. i see no other hands up. that ends the discussion. i guess we can ad we can add ju. >> i hope you have a happy thanksgiving and connect with your friends and family and keep safe.