tv Government Access Programming SFGTV January 2, 2018 9:00pm-10:01pm PST
>> i would like to say good morning, but it's really not a very good morning. welcome to the san francisco county transportation authority for today. it seems like it's been a long day already, tuesday december the 12th. i just want to start the meeting by offering our condolences to the family of edwin lee, the 43rd mayor of the city and county of san francisco and
share all of our condolences with people of the city and county of san francisco. i want to thank all of my colleagues on the board, many of whom gathered in the wee hours of this morning at zuckerberg general hospital. with that, our clerk is alberto quintanilla and mr. clerk, if you could please call the roll, we're going to have a very brief meeting and then we are going to adjourn to go have a press conference with our acting mayor london breed on the mayor's balcony. >> clerk: item one, commissioner breed, breed absent. commissioner cohen, present. commissioner farrell, present. commissioner fewer, fewer
absent. commissioner kim, kim present. commissioner peskin. present. commissioner ronen, present. commissioner safai present, commissioner sheehy, absent. commissioner tang, present commissioner yee. >> commissioner sheehy should be named present. commissioner fewer, i spoke to a few hours ago, we'll take that without objection. i'm going to forego the chair support, madam secretary director, are there any items you want to share? any comment on the chair's report or executive director's report. public comment is closed on items 2 and 3. could you read the consent
agenda. >> clerk: four to nine consent, items being considered for approval. staff is not planning to present on the items. >> is there any public comment on item four, the minutes of the december 5th meeting? seeing none, public comment is closed. would any member or members like an item severed, if not, a roll call on the consent agenda please. motion to move the consent agenda made by commissioner yee, seconded by commissioner farrell and on that item, a roll call please. >> clerk: commissioner farrell. aye. commissioner cohen, aye. commissioner ronen, aye.
commissioner safai, aye. commissioner sheehy, aye. commissioner tang, aye. commissioner yee, aye. >> could you please read the next item? which seemed very important a week ago. programming of 6.189 and 4.1 for the prop k. >> good morning commissioners, policy and programming director. last week, at the december 5th
board meeting the motion to approve the item did not pass after considerable discussion at the board. the commission generally agrees with the programming of the funds to the street resurfacing but the commissioners couldn't agree on the second part of the recommendation to transfer on the $4 million in prop k funds programmed to street resurfacing to manage lanes environmental phase. the board requested to see more evidence that the managed lanes would improve congestion without negatively impacting freeway corridors or local streets and a more holistic approach to congestion and other areas of concern. in light of the robust discussion, we have advised staff recommendation to only approve the proposed programming of the state funds to street resurfacing projects and this is a request to approve on first
read to meet the state's timeline of december 15th of when we need to submit the applications to the california transportation commission and we would defer action on the fund exchange to provide more time for staff to complete planning studies and address commissioner's concerns. there's a list of street resurfacing projects funded by the state funds and a map that you can't see particularly well -- yes, you can see it. >> if we were to approve this as revised given the december 15th date, this would be the final approval, not the first read, is that correct? >> that's correct. it would be approval on first read. >> is there a motion? made by commissioner farrell, seconded by commissioner tang. colleagues -- are there any members of the public who would
like to testify on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and on the item as revised, same house, same call, the item is finally approved. next item, please. >> clerk: item 11, programming 2.813.264 to the san francisco municipal transportation agency non infrastructure project, this is an action item. >> i want to start by briefly thanking colleague commissioner tang and her staff and my staff who listened to i think very sophisticated discussion we had here a number of months ago. i want to thank tilley chang and the ta staff and miss lafour but
particularly commissioner tang, she did a lot of the heavy lifting. with that, commissioner tang? >> thank you. i echo my thanks to the ta staff and as well amber crab as well. i just encourage our colleagues to look through the packet. there is a revised organization chart where you can see the new structure for the program. so we have decided to move everything to fall under the sfcta because i think it will work more well with the schools and needs brought to our attention and so i think all schools will benefit from this change. we have found a way to address this without reducing any of the funding to the nonprofit partner agencies. i think overall the out come was great and i look forward to continuing the discussion
another day. >> thank you commissioner tang. i neglected to thank the mta and department of public health and san francisco unified school district for really coming to quite a number of meetings and being willing albeit with a little reluctance at first, to restructure this. and thank you commissioner tang. is there a motion to approve item 11 made by commissioner tang. seconded by commissioner yee. any public comment on that item? thank you. thank you to all of the nonprofit participants for your understanding, i know you all got a little nervous at the beginning, but i think you'll see a program that not only allows you and your staff to continue the good work they're doing but will make it a much
more efficient program. with that, seeing no public comment. public comment is closed and on the motion, same house, same call, item 11 is approved. mr. logan, would you upset if we continued item 12? all right. is there any public comment on -- would you read item 12 alberto. >> clerk: update on the transportation network company landscape and regulation in california and across the country. >> is there public comment on item 12? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there a motion to move to the first meeting in january. we'll take it without objection. is there introduction of new items? seeing none, any public item on said item. no. is there any general public
anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to
the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please
report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. >> good morning and welcome to the treasure island mobility management agency meeting of december 12th. mr. clerk, can you call the roll? >> clerk: commissioner breed, breed absent. commissioner cohen. present. commissioner farrell, absent. commissioner fewer absent. commissioner kim. present. commissioner peskin. present.
commission commissioner ronen absent. commissioner safai present. commissioner yee, present we have a co have quorum. >> we have a motion to excuse commissioner fewer and seconded by commissioner yee. >> motion to excuse commissioner breed. >> we'll take this motion first, do we need to take a roll call on the motion? that motion passes without objection. commissioner peskin has made a motion to excuse commissioner breed. we have a second from commissioner yee and we can do that without objection. items two and three. >> clerk: items two and three, information item and executive director's report and
information item. >> i want to recognize my colleagues for your service, i will not read out a full report and moving to director tang for executive director's report. >> deferred. >> thank you. you'll post the executive director's report online. can we take public comment on items two and three. public comment is closed. mr. clerk items four and five. >> clerk: four and five compromise the consent calendar, considered routine. staff is not planning to present but are prepared to present if desired. if a member objects, they can be removed and considered separately. >> thank you mr. clerk. can we please take a motion on these two items?
okay. commissioner tang has made a motion to move this forward with recommendation, do we have a second? commissioner yee. and we can do it without objection. item six mr. clerk. >> clerk: authorize executive director transit district, this is an action item. >> we have rachel hyatt to present briefly on the item. >> if you want me to present i can. >> just a quick summary. >> as we plan to implement service on treasure island in 2020, the committee made a change to strike a reference to the trans bay fare and will work on that before bringing it to
the board for adoption. the transit board did adopt the agreement back in june and clarified some maintenance responsibilities and layover facilities in oakland in the agreement. >> thank you miss hyatt. at this time we'll open for public comment on item six. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. mr. clerk, same house, same call, we can do it without objection. mr. clerk, can you please call items seven and eight. >> introduction of new items. item eight public comment. >> colleagues any commissions would like to make comments on items or introduce or request items for future considerations. seeing none, we'll open up for general public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. mr. clerk, are there any other items before the board? >> no other items. >> meeting is adjourned.
november 15, 2017. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turnoff electronic devices. the first item on the agenda, roll call. commissioner clinch is excused. we have a coquorum. president announcements. >> welcome to the big meeting of november 15, 2017. madam secretary, i have a few announcements. congratulations to building inspection donald duffy, praised for his response of helpful customer service in early november. they failed to obtain a permit for a retaining wall issue and inspector duffy issued one. and housing inspector yee, inspector yee provided the
proper permit and inspected the proper setting for the timer. nice job there. finally, nominate qualified staff for our employee of the quarter appreciation program. we are accepting nominations for quarter three, july, august and september and ask you again to send them to caroline jane and william strong to continue to recognize the work done each quarter. b.i.c. to take comments not part of the agenda. >> i have some material.
thank you. you can begin. >> good morning. my name is jerry dratler. a construction project across my house is root cause of unpermitted construction work. i handed out a detailed explanation. i'll highlight six of the more important root causes. number one unpermitted demolition work carriers low financial penalties because of
the value of the work. the work is labor only and no materials and it is very inexpensive. number two, unpermitted construction carriers a penalty of two or nine times the permit fee. a smart contractor will pull an inexpensive building permit at the start of the construction project which will limit all future violations to a penalty of two times the permit fee because there's an existing permit. unpermitted construction penalties as they exist are not a deterrent. number three, the code enforcement process does not assess penalties or fines.
an absence of reporting building law penalties, there is no effective process for identifying serial violators who should be subject to escalating penalties. number six, there are no penalties for sequel violations. actually the current historical review process encourages unpermitted demolition and construction. if you apply for a permit and the building is over 45 years-old, you are required to get a historical review evaluation that delays the project six to nine months and you have the cost of the hre.
from a risk/reward perspective, you save time, you save money and there's no penalty. why would you do -- why would you pull a permit if you have a building over 45 years? it is my hope the b.i.c. will schedule a formal presentation at a future meeting to discuss the root causes of unpermitted work. thank you. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, item four commissioner questions and matters. inquiries to staff. may make inquiries to staff for policies, practices and procedures that are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner walker.
>> following up on the public comment just issued, i think it's a good assessment of issues we could discuss and maybe we could either schedule it here or at a future joint building and planning commission meeting that we threaten to have and maybe this is something we should follow up. this is one of the things we talk about, the squaring up between planning and building and really looking at the penalties and how we're using them to discourage this kind of demolition that we don't want. so to encourage a process we do. so, i would like to put it on one of our future agendas or to figure out a schedule for the joint meeting. and add it.
>> okay. so there's two asks there. the joint meeting one, which we need to revisit again, which we did i want to say two months ago, i can do that. i didn't get feedback. the second part, sonya, we could see if they would like to discuss this and we could figure out how to articulate it more and there's a lot of information here and a lot of suggestions. but i think i do get the spirit of what's being asked here. if we don't get a kind of resolution, maybe we would calendar it for a hearing for ourselves. i'm more inclined to have it ourselves and then go the other
option. >> yeah, i think we have had conversations internally about demolition. maybe we can get an update about that considering these issues and how to make the system more effective. >> let's have this sooner than later, possibly next month if we can get organized with staff. >> any other inquiries from commissioners? if you have any items at a later date, you can contact me to let me know. item 4 b future meetings of agendas. the commission can discuss and take actions to set up a special meeting or determine the items placed on the agenda of the next meeting and future meetings of the building commission. the next scheduled meeting is december 20th. are all commissioners expected to be here for december 20th. >> two weeks before christmas. yeah.
any public comment? seeing none, moving to item five. item five, we're going to i believe vote to continue one of the seats the general contractor seats but for now addressing the other parts of this item, discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members of property owner, licensed architect, civil engineer street and registered mechanical engineer street. appointments recommended by the nominations are michael robbins and meng-hsiu chen. terms to expire september 15, 2019. >> the nominations committee met and feel very strongly that we have two very strong candidates,
mr. robins and mr. chen to recommend for the two seats at this point in time. once again we would like to thank the talented people who offer their services to serve on the board of examiners and we're he here to address questions colleagues may have about these two nominations. >> if the commissioners don't have questions, we can ask the two candidates to come up. >> thank you commissioner. >> i'm sorry. is there public comment on this item? okay. do we need to approve it?
okay. sorry commissioner warshell, just a moment. i apologize for the delays. we're going to vote to accept the candidates. are all in favor of accepting the candidates. >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. go ahead. >> repeat after me. i'm michael robins, do somely swear and confirm that i will support the constitution of the united states and the state of california. against all enemies, foreign and domestic. that i will bare true faith -- and allegiance to the
constitution to the united states and state of california. i take this obligation freely without any mental evaluation. >> i will well and faithfully discharge the duties i'm about to enter. >> i will vow and faithfully -- >> during such time as i hold the office as a member of board of examiners, property owner licensed architect, civil or structural engineering seat of the city of san francisco.
great. >> yes. you are now sworn in. great. thank you. >> congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> if you want to say a few words you're more than welcome. >> sure. i'm a licensed architect, i have worked in the city about 15 years, mostly for large firms. specialize in healthcare, resort hotels, i now have my own practice and it's more focused on residential, small commercial projects. i'm also a member of the aia, i'm on the board of directors this year and involved with a
>> that i will bare true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california. >> that i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evaluation. that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties that i'm about to enter and during such time that i hold the office for member of the board of examiners, registered mechanical engineer seat in the city and county of san francisco.
congratulations. >> i am honored to be with all you people. i have a master degree from u.c. berkeley in mechanical engineering. i have been working in the city of san francisco since 1977. so i'm a little experienced at least in my field. i'll be honored to serve for the board. thank you. >> we're honored to have you. (applause) >> commissioner walker has a comment. >> yes, i want to formally move to continue the general contractor seat to the next meeting.
>> thank you for that. okay. >> there's a motion. can we have a second for the motion? >> second. >> okay. all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you the item is continued to the next meeting. congratulations again to both of you. we are on to item six discussion of possible action regarding best practices approach for tall building review. >> good morning commissioners. r robb kapla. the d.b.i. was one of the first
building departments in the nation to use the adoption of administrative bulletins in march 2008. requirements and guidelines for the seismic design of new tall buildings using non predescriptive seismic design procedures. these guidelines mandated third party reviews for all new tall buildings. develop with the structural engineers association of northern california. since may of 2017 at director
huey's request, building safety reviews for tall building. still in draft form and expected to be submitted to director hui by 2018, improvements include... broadening the scope of the regulations beyond the current structural design with more comprehensive structural engineering design review with geotechnical and seismic hazard mitigations. tightening technical qualifications that the expert involve in the tall building review must be a licensed california geotechnical engineer or licensed civil california engineer with expertise. beginning another effort to work
separately to improve or work on ab083. we expect that to be coming next year. in june 2017, d.b.i. distributed a request for qualification, rfq to create a pool of academic seismic experts to draw upon as needed for future tall building projects. while a number of submissions didn't make the july deadline, our senior engineer recommended the reposts of the rfq to retain a deeper pool of experts. it was posted october 30th and are expected by january 5th, 2018, as a deadline to have submissions. once all submissions are reviewed, including those from last july, we will issue a
requalified list of experts after february the 9th 2019. >> sorry, is it okay if i interrupt. i have a question. so this -- the rsq, you had a date there of the first original i don't know, can you bring it back on the screen there? june, i believe of 2019, right? 17. excuse me. just so i understand, you had to repost this. can you explain what happened there? >> we received a good number of engineer civil and structural engineer response. we didn't receive as many from the technical field and also from the academic field. so our senior engineer in
concert with our director determined that we needed a deeper pool, so that's why we went out again with the rfq. >> and the rfq is pretty much to the geotechnical -- >> and there was more outreach this time to associations for especially for the geotechnical side. we did have a deep pool for the structural review. >> so we have a highly returned rate on -- is there a certain quantity you need that you're satisfied? >> i don't believe so. it was just a matter of making sure that we had opportunity to draw from a pool that was more representative of the disciplines. it's not a quantifiable -- i
don't know how many we have for each, i think there were four. director hui, do we remember? >> i would like to know how many geotechnical and mechanical applied and you made the decision based on needing more. >> the bidding section, i discuss with my senior engineer and look at the group because outreach more to capture all the expertise. it's not only number, it's expertise to come in and look at different stuff. it's not only now the tall building, also for other peer review. >> okay. >> still have a number. >> 16 structural engineers, we
have seven or eight geotechnical and four from academic field. >> four from the academic field. and i know we're kind of reading the tea leaves, when you say seven or eight technical, how many are you expecting on the next outreach? >> i think if we have a dozen we'll feel comfortable, just as director hui advised, in the design professions, over the course of time you develop a level of expertise you're known for because clientele maybe hear about your work, so you start focusing on certain areas, structural engineering orgio technical and certainly in the academic field, various professors from surrounding
universities especially, stanford or berkley, develop the reputation because they focus on certain aspects and theories that they work in the labs and write papers and such. so we get an idea of what their area of expertise and background are. >> i get it. it's a good answer, thank you. more to the director, kind of let's say we don't get a huge pool again, i think at that stage, what decision will you make? >> first of all, we already have that number there. and then we outreach to other organization. i believe we would be more and then at that time we'll -- >> i guess i'm just -- you know playing devil's advocate, i think it's something that needs to be decided on in the next round. you might get to 12 or 15, i think the pool we have is what
we should go with. this is something we need to get in place as soon as possible. >> that's important. we want to get it out and later on there's a presentation regarding the cause. >> is it okay if i pop in -- any other commissioners have questions? >> just to reinforce what director hui just stated, this time around we were able to reach out to other professional organizations. some members work with us pretty regularly. we asked them if they had heard news through the professional organizations and they did not. we feel this time we're reaching out to professional organizations who will in turn canvas their membership and we believe we'll have an improvement from the last pool. >> let's see where i am.
okay. so on november 9th, 2017, d.b.i. issued information sheet s-18. these are interim guideline and procedures for seismic and structural design engineering for new tall buildings and one of the special features, it will require settlement monitoring data, submissions to d.b.i. annually for 10 years after a tco is issued. and by qualified organizations that have the proper instrumentation i want to add. >> on that, i think it's a great -- going forward, particularly for the city is a necessary next step and particularly because of where we live. it's a really, really -- i want to recommend to staff and
director hui on that. the one question i would have, enforcement of that measurement, how do you feel in regard to how the process will go in regard to the communicating the data we need. >> the department building inspection, yeah, this is -- i did talk to the developer and then outreach more. most of the developer willing to do it because it's for their protection for the property and then 10 years also is good idea. i talked to them, for that time period, any residential building, they have problem, that's why -- right now the people i talk to are willing to do it. i will do extensive outreach to
the public or any other organization or -- to inform them. and i wanted to address the matters in there will be put in, recorded in the office to make sure it's continued. >> so the mechanism to monitor that it triggers it at the time frame they're supposed to send it in will be done by the -- which office? >> something through our office for the inspection. but want to make sure they know new owner that they're aware of that. and if they don't comply, of course we'll give them a correction notice and then start the co-enforcement.
why you don't comply. and then of course you know, that's the process we're going to do. >> commissioner walker. >> so it would be like a notice of special restriction on the successor office? >> yeah. that's what we recommend. most of it will be put in later how to put the specific instruction, especially instruction in the title. >> and so, essentially when these things are billed and approved and we issue the permit, it will include a projection of what the settlement is expected to be, there will be a monitoring system and if it is different, then there's some -- i think it's what he was talking about, there's some enforcement of it.
>> what we do is, settlement, we see settlement and ask them to satisfy and then we'll -- that's all we can do. >> i think commissioner walker's point, we think it's a great policy but we want to make sure it's a very clear director and it's every six months -- or whatever -- >> one year. >> what happens if it's not. >> what happens if it's not. but more to the point is we're not silent on this. we have a mechanism in place, if somebody doesn't give it to us, we can say within two months of the day they're supposed to have it in, something triggers in our department this should have been in and reviewed and i think it should be matched to their geo tech approval, we have learned quite a lot lately on this
process, if a building traditionally settles and usually there's an estimate on how much settlement will happen in the building and it falls within the guideline, the time period, if it was supposed to be four inches over 20 years, it's on track for the four inches. so can we talk on that mechanism. will you have that type of thing, assistant director in place? maybe director, can you answer that question? >> first of all, we put that information sheet lots of detail we need to iron out. but they submit annually, each building you have a file in a computer system to make sure and then we'll ask the developer to
have their own review. we can ask them what happened and put correction -- maybe an nov on it, you need to satisfy it. we see how to -- >> that's perfect. when it's agreed on and clear on the mechanism, maybe you can put that in writing to us, this is the mechanism in place to the commission. so we are clear on the policy and procedure. >> let me add to that. director hui just explained to you the process we think will be in place and the intent of how we will enforce it, but the key for something to last 10 years, some of us won't be around and
won't remember. you don't want to depend on the system, depending on a human factor of oversight, overseeing the process. 10 years is a long time. most of the time it's from a planning department but it's a mechanism in place you record a special restriction. when you have the title of search, they show up. having said that, i'm going to put on my other hat as a project sponsor for accela, not to steal thunder from the speakers coming up, but we'll have the ability to relay the records and be able to put in programming, i'm confident we can, we're looking at how to do it for automatically expiring permits. we can have similar methodology
apply so that when the one year timeline for this specific address or permit application number is coming about, say 60 days prior, then we'll have automatically notification built in to the new ppts for any permits coming up so that everybody becomes aware of it within our department. i'm confident it can be done. >> very good. >> i mean, it's -- that's what computers are good for. you can plug in just like our phones, you can put the alarm in and it will go off at a certain date and repeat itself. i'm confident this will be more practicalble to enforce. >> okay. perfect. thank you director. >> let me try to wrap up, a couple last items about the current actions. last week we asked supervisor peskin to schedule a hearing at
the land use hearing before the end of 2017. and allow cost recovery for third party peer review and other permitted related expenses. currently those are paid by the developer. and this would be a mechanism for us to recover it up front. since september -- >> i'm sorry, on the supervisor peskin hearing, this is our first time asking for this -- this is the first time asking? >> i think formally, yes. but it's been referenced and discussed in previous public hearings. supervisor peskin found it inconsistent that the developer would pay for peer review directly. this is a response in order to address that concern but also to
look at more holistically how to manage the peer review process so we're the sole parties that designate the peer reviewers and cover the cost of the peer reviews. >> right. my point is, could we have had this meeting sooner than now? i'm a little baffled about that. >> bill strong, the ordinance has been on the land use 30-day calendar for about the past 45 days or so. it could have been called any time after the fifth of october. it has not yet been called -- so we took the initiative last week to ask the supervisor if there was a possibility to schedule it before the end of the year, meaning november or december, but it is subject to the committee's agenda and various items they have. i don't know if there's a reason
as to why it hasn't happened yet. we took the additional action step last week in order to say we're trying to move ahead with the rfq. we would like in parallel to have the mechanism for the payment cost recovery at about the same time. >> thank you for that clarification. i want every angle we need to push, we need to push here. thank you. >> we're a team, we try to do our best. i think we're an effective organization. let me wrap up quickly. just a reminder of what we have done in the past. one more item, current efforts, since september 2017 d.b.i. is working closely with the city
administrator's office for new comprehensive tall safety study building. the study is expected to be completed next year, november. actions we have taken, october 2016 all peer review panelists are appointed without input from the developer and since november 2016, one or more licensed geotechnical engineers are required to review new tall buildings in the city's class f soils and most at risk seismic safety zone. and last but not least, since december 2016, we took steps to improve d.b.i. tall building retention and requir