to: bcdc enforcement committee - san francisco bay ... · authorizing a long term parking structure...

June21,2016

TO: BCDCEnforcementCommittee

FROM: LarryGoldzband,ExecutiveDirector(415/[email protected])MaggieWeber,EnforcementAnalyst(415/[email protected])MarcZeppetello,ChiefCounsel(415/[email protected])

SUBJECT: StaffRecommendedEnforcementDecisionRegardingProposedCommissionCeaseandDesistandCivilPenaltyOrderNo.CCD2016.01;TruxAirlineCargoServicesandCityofSouthSanFrancisco(ForBCDCEnforcementCommitteeconsiderationonJuly1,2016)

SummaryandRecommendation ThismatterarisesoutofanenforcementactioncommencedbyBCDCstaffonNovember16,2001,whichwasneverresolved,andrecommencedonJuly30,2015,againstTruxandtheCityconcerningcomplianceissueswithBCDCPermitNo.1998.011.02(“Permit”)authorizingalongtermparkingstructureintheshorelinebandintheCityofSouthSanFrancisco.

TheOrderrequiresTruxandtheCityto:(i)complywiththePermit;(ii)resolvealloutstandingPermitviolationswithin60daysofissuance;and(iii)andpaya$255,000civilpenaltyintotheBayFillCleanupandAbatementFundwithin31daysofissuance,witha$30,000suspensionfortimelycompliancewiththetermsoftheOrder.TheBCDCstaffhasdeterminedthattheproposedOrderisafairresolutionoftheallegedviolations.

Attachedtothismemorandumarethefollowingdocuments:(1)aRecommended

EnforcementDecisionbytheEnforcementCommittee(AttachmentOne);(2)aproposedOrder(AttachmentTwo);(3)aViolationReport(AttachmentThree);(4)BCDCPermitNo.1998.011.04,issuedonMay10,2016(AttachmentFour);and(5)TruxLegalArgumentinSupportofDefense(Attachment5.1),TruxStatementofDefense(Attachment5.2),andCityStatementofDefense(Attachment5.3).

(AttachmentOne)

June21,2016

TO: BCDCEnforcementCommittee

FROM: LarryGoldzband,ExecutiveDirector(415/[email protected])MaggieWeber,EnforcementAnalyst(415/[email protected])MarcZeppetello,ChiefCounsel(415/[email protected])

SUBJECT: StaffRecommendedEnforcementDecisionRegardingProposedCommissionCeaseandDesistandCivilPenaltyOrderNo.CCD2016.01;TruxAirlineCargoServicesandCityofSouthSanFrancisco(ForBCDCEnforcementCommitteeconsiderationonJuly1,2016)

SummaryandRecommendation

TheBCDCstaffrecommendsthattheEnforcementCommitteeadopttheRecommended

EnforcementDecisionontheproposedCommissionCeaseandDesistandCivilPenaltyOrder

No.CCD2016.01(“Order”)toTruxAirlineCargoServices(“Trux”)andtheCityofSouthSan

Francisco(“City”),forthereasonsstatedbelow.

ThismatterarisesoutofanenforcementactioncommencedbyBCDCstaffonNovember

16,2001,whichwasneverresolved,andrecommencedonJuly30,2015,againstTruxandthe

CityconcerningcomplianceissueswithBCDCPermitNo.1998.011.02(“Permit”)authorizinga

longtermparkingstructureintheshorelinebandintheCityofSouthSanFrancisco.

TheExecutiveDirectorhasnotissuedaCeaseandDesistOrder;theproposedOrderwillbe

thefirstCeaseandDesistOrderissuedpertainingtothisEnforcementInvestigation.

TheOrderrequiresTruxandtheCityto:(i)complywiththePermit;(ii)resolveall

outstandingPermitviolationswithin60daysofissuance;and(iii)andpaya$255,000civil

penaltyintotheBayFillCleanupandAbatementFundwithin31daysofissuance,witha

$30,000suspensionfortimelycompliancewiththetermsoftheOrder.TheBCDCstaffhas

determinedthattheproposedOrderisafairresolutionoftheallegedviolations.

TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page2

StaffReportI. PermitHistory

OnSeptember23,1998,theCommissionissuedBCDCPermitNo.1998.011.00toTruxAirlineCargoServicesandtheCitytoconstruct,use,maintainasix-storyairportparkingstructureknownasParkSFOalongwithpavedsurfaceparkingonthree“fingers”ofland,andprovidepublicaccessamenitiesasfollows:

A. A67,350-square-footpublicaccess“finger”parkthatincludeslandscaping,pathways,accesssidewalksandbikelanesleadingfromNorthAccessRoadandanoverlookarea(SpecialConditionII.B.4.a);

B. Aminimumofeightsigned,publicparkingspaces(SpecialConditionII.B.4.b);

C. SidewalksandClassIIbikelanesalongNorthAccessRoadfromitsintersectionwithSouthAirportBoulevard,easttothesouthernendoftheNorthAccessRoadBridgeoverSanBrunoChannel(SpecialConditionII.B.4.c).ExhibitCofthePermitrequires4’6”widesidewalksand8’widebikepathsonbothsidesofNorthAccessRoad,and4’widesidewalksand4’widebikepathsonbothsidesofNorthAccessRoadBridge1overSanBrunoChannel;

D. AsidewalkandClassIIbikelanesalongthenorthsideofNorthAccessRoad,fromthesouthernendoftheNorthAccessRoadBridgeoverSanBrunoChanneltotheexistingtidegatebridgeoverSanBrunoChannel,andanewsidewalkandClassIIbikelanefromNorthAccessRoadattheexistingtidegatebridge2tothenew“finger”park,includingcrosswalkswherenecessary(SpecialConditionII.B.4.d).ExhibitCofthePermitrequires4’widesidewalksand4’bikepathsonbothsidesofNorthAccessRoadSouthofSanBrunoChannel;

E. NewroadandtrailsignsthatpromotepedestrianuseofNorthAccessRoadsidewalkandthe“finger”park(SpecialConditionII.B.4.e);

F. Sitefurnishings,includingaminimumoffourbenchesandtwogarbagecontainers,andappropriatelighting(SpecialConditionII.B.4.f);and

G. Landscapingofthesouthandeastsideoftheparkingstructure,includingtalltrees,designedtoscreentheparkingstructureandreduceitsvisualimpacts(SpecialConditionII.B.4.g).

1 NorthAccessRoadBridgeisreferredto“SanBrunoChannelBridgeEast”inPermitExhibitC,howeverthistheviolationreportreferstothisroadway,whichcrossesoverSanBrunoChanneljustwestoftheparkingstructure,exclusivelyasNorthAccessRoadBridge(SeeExhibit#2).2 Thetidegatebridgeislocatedontheeastsideoftheparkingstructure,crossingoverSanBrunoChannel(SeeExhibit#2).


TruxandtheCityfailedtocomplywithseveralspecialconditionsrequiredbythePermitandmadelittleefforttobringthePermitintocomplianceuntilJanuary12,2016whenBCDCstaffnotifiedthepermitteesthatresolutionofthePermitviolationswouldbepursuedthroughaformalenforcementproceeding.FormoredetailspleaserefertoFindingsprovidedintheOrder.

II. AllegationsforConsiderationunderCommissionCeaseandDesistOrder(DefensesraidedbyRespondents;StaffRebuttal;UnresolvedIssues)3

A. Failuretopermanentlyguaranteeallpublicaccessareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.2(PublicAccessGuarantee)ofthePermit

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Admitnotallpublicaccessareaswereguaranteedasrequiredbythepermit,butdenythatthisconstitutesaviolation

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thereisnolegalorfactualbasistosupportthisdenial.SpecialConditionII.B.2ofthePermitrequiresallpublicaccessareastobepermanentlydedicatedandTruxadmitsthishasnotoccurred;thereforethisisaviolationofthePermit.

b. Truxdoesnotowntheroadwayforthebikelanesnorthesidewalks,andtheengineeringmatterswerehandledbytheCity.TruxlackedtheauthoritytocompletethePublicAccessGuaranteebecauseitincludedpropertythatTruxdoesnotown.

(1) StaffRebuttal:ThisdefenseisirrelevantbecausestaffhasinformedTruxthatTruxisonlyresponsiblefordedicatingthepublicaccessareaslocatedonTrux’sproperty.IntheSeptember29,2015letterfromstafftoTruxandtheCity,staffinformedyou“thatalthoughthePermitrequiresonedistinctpublicaccessareatoberecordedandguaranteedtothepublic,becauseboth[Trux]andtheCityareco-permitteeswithseparateanddistinctpropertyownershipinterests,twoseparatelegalinstrumentsandexhibitsmustberecordedtosatisfythisrequirement.”Additionally,theSeptember29thletterdirectedTruxthatthepublicaccessareaownedbyTruxwasnotaffectedbytheforthcomingamendmentandoncestaffcounselapprovedadocumentitcouldberecordedpriortoissuanceoftheamendment(SeeViolationReportExhibit#35).

3 ThelettersforeachallegedviolationcorrespondwiththelettersassignedtoeachallegedviolationinSectionIIoftheViolationReport.


c. TruxhasbeenprovidingthedocumentsforthePublicAccessguaranteesince2002

(1) StaffRebuttal:OnNovember19,2001,Truxfirstsubmittedadraftpublicaccesspermanentguaranteetostaff;onNovember29,2001,staffprovidedcommentsfornecessaryrevisions.OnJuly31,2002,Truxsubmittedareviseddraftpublicaccessguaranteetostaff;onAugust29,2002,staffprovidedcommentsforfurthernecessaryrevisions.OnMarch3,2003,TruxprovidedstaffwithathirdreviseddraftofthepublicaccesspermanentguaranteeandrequestedstaffnotreviewthesubmittaluntilstaffreceivedtheCity’spublicaccessguarantee;staffreceivedtheCity’sdraftpublicaccessguaranteeonDecember17,2015.IntheSeptember29,2015lettercitedaboveinSectionII.A.1.b.1ofthisstaffreport,staffagreedthattheco-permitteesmaysubmittwoseparatepermanentguaranteesforthepublicaccessareasbasedontheirdistinctandseparatepropertyinterests.OnNovember10,2015,staffrespondedtothepermanentguaranteesubmittedbyTruxin2003andinformedTruxthatthedocumentrequiredrevisions;staffrequestedelectroniccopiesofthedocumentssostaffcouldelectronicallymakethenecessaryrevisions,whichwouldbeeasierforTruxtoacceptandresubmit.OnDecember21,2015,staffattemptedtoreachMr.SimmsofTruxbytelephonetodiscussthepermanentguaranteeandultimatelysentanemailrequestingherevisethesubmittalsandsetupatimetotalkwithstaff.OnJanuary22,2016,staffemailedMr.SimmsofTruxtoprovidedetailedinstructionsforpreparinganupdatedversionofthedraftpermanentguaranteeinelectronicformat(SeeViolationReportandExhibits).Ultimately,staffhasprovidedcommentsandinstructionsforhowTruxcancomplywiththisconditionofthePermit,howeverTruxtooknofurtheractionpriortoissuanceofeithertheViolationReportbuttooksomeactionsaftertheviolationreportwasissued,discussedbelowinsummaryofunresolvedissues.

AlthoughTruxhasprovidedstaffwiththreedraftsofthepublicaccesspermanentguarantee,noneofthemmeetthestandardforrecordationandthisviolationwillnotbecureduntilallpublicaccessareaspermanentguaranteesarerecordedwithSanMateoCounty.Therefore,thisdefensehasnofactualorlegalbasis.


d. ThefactthatlegaldescriptionsprovidedbySimms’surveyorsmaynothavebeenaccuratewasbeyondthecontrolofSimms

(1) StaffRebuttal:Asthepermitee,Truxisresponsiblefortheactivitiesofallofitsagentsincludingsurveyorsandthisdefensehasnolegalbasis.

e. SimmslackedtheauthoritytomakeaguaranteethatcoveredpropertyownedbytheCityofSouthSanFrancisco

(1) StaffRebuttal:ThisdefenseisirrelevantforthesamereasonsidentifiedinSectionII.A.1.b.1ofthisreport.StaffisrequestingpermanentguaranteesfrombothTruxandtheCity,andneitheroftheserequestshasbeensatisfied.

2. City’sDefense

a. Theallegedviolationisnotthefailuretoconstructthepublicaccessarea,butthefailuretofirstamendthePermittoreflectthe“as-builtpublicaccessarea”beforetheCitycouldpermanentlyguaranteeit.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Permiteeshaveanobligationtocomplywiththeirpermit.WhentheCitydeterminedthatitcouldnotbuildtherequiredpublicaccessareaconsistentwithwhatisrequiredbySpecialConditionII.B.4ofthePermit,theCityshouldhaverequestedtoamendthePermittoauthorizemodificationstohowthepublicaccessareacouldbebuilt.Instead,theCityknewtherewasanissueandchosenottoamendthePermitmakingitimpossibletoresolvethisPermitviolation.

3. SummaryandAnalysisofUnresolvedIssues

a. FollowingissuanceoftheviolationreportonMarch23,2016,onMarch29,2016,Truxresubmittedanidentical,unmodifiedcopyofapriorsubmissionofthepublicaccessguaranteetowhichstaffrespondedtoonApril4,2016.OnApril6,2016,staffadvisedTruxthatitshould“retainasurveyortoreviewthelegaldescriptionsandassociatedplats,makenecessaryrevisions,andconfirmthatallexhibitsarecorrectandcomplywiththeinstructionsonourwebsite.”OnApril15,2016,theCitysubmittedtostaffadraftpublicaccesspermanentguarantee;staffprovidedcommentsforrevisiononMay4,2016.OnApril21,2016,staffexchangedcorrespondenceandhadatelephoneconversationwithTrux’ssurveyor,GaryPosekian,toexplainthenecessaryrevisionsforstafftoapprovetheexhibits.OnApril25,2016,stafffollowedupwithTrux’ssurveyorregardingthecommentsprovidedonApril4th.OnMay10,2016,staffissuedAmendment4tothePermit,whichincludesadescriptionoftheCity’spublicaccessareasconsistentwiththeasbuiltconditions.OnMay18,2016,theCitysubmittedarevisedlegaldescriptionandsurveytostaff;staffrespondedonJune8,2016,


informingtheCitythatthelegaldescriptionisnotconsistentwiththerecentlyissuedAmendment4,andthus,mustberevisedtobeconsistentwiththePermit.Asofthedateofthisstaffreport,neitherTruxnortheCityhassubmittedrevisedpublicaccesspermanentguaranteesconsistentwiththemostrecentcommentsprovidedbystaff,respectively.ThisviolationwillremainunresolveduntiltwopermanentguaranteesarerecordedwithSanMateoCountyforallpublicaccessareasrequiredtobededicated.

B. Failuretopermanentlyguaranteetheopenspaceareaforwildlifehabitat,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.J.1(WildlifeRefugeArea)ofthePermit

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Admitthattheopenspaceareaforwildlifehabitatwasnotguaranteedasrequiredbythepermit,butdenythatthisconstitutesaviolation

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thereisnolegalorfactualbasistosupportthisdenial.SpecialConditionII.H.14ofthePermitrequiresthatatleast180dayspriortotheuseofanyparkingfacilities,thepermitteesshallsubmitadraftinstrumentthatcreatesanopenspacerestrictionadjacenttothe“fingerparking”forthelifeofparkingonthe“fingers”andTruxadmitsthishasnotoccurred;therefore,thisisaviolationofthePermit.

b. Truxlackstheauthorityorabilitytosubmitaguaranteeforthewildlifehabitatthatcoverspropertythatitdoesnotown

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisnotbasedinfact;Truxholdsagrantdeedtoallofthepropertysubjecttotherequiredopenspaceinstrument(SeeViolationReportExhibit#35).

c. Truxhas,tothebestofitsknowledge,providedallinformationinitspossessionorcontrolsothattheexhibitstotheguaranteesproperlydesignateownershipoftherespectiveproperties;openspacedocumentsandexhibitswerepresentedtoEllenSampson,formerstaffcounsel,inAugust2002.

(1) StaffRebuttal:OnNovember19,2001,Truxsubmittedadraftopenspacepermanentguaranteetostaff;staffprovidedcommentsfornecessaryrevisionsonNovember29,2001.OnJuly21,2002,Truxsubmittedareviseddraftoftheopenspacepermanentguaranteetostaff;staffprovidedadditionalcommentsfornecessaryrevisionsonAugust29,2002.OnMarch3,2003Truxprovidedstaffwithathirdreviseddraftoftheopenspace

4 PriortotheissuanceofAmendment4tothePermit,thisSpecialConditionwasII.J.1.5 TheOpenSpaceareaisentirelylocatedinthegreen-shadedparcelownedbyTrux.


permanentguarantee.OnMarch29,2016,Truxresubmittedareviseddraftoftheopenspacepermanentguaranteeinelectronicform.NeitherTruxnoritsagentshavecommunicatedwithstaffsinceApril21,2016.

Ultimately,staffhasprovidedcommentsandinstructionsforhowTruxcancomplywiththisconditionofthePermit,howeverTruxhastakennofurtheractiontofinalizeitsdraftsubmittalpursuanttostaff’sinstructions.

AlthoughTruxhasprovidedstaffwiththreedraftsoftheopenspacepermanentguarantee,noneofthesubmittalsmeetthestandardforrecordationandthisviolationisnotcureduntiltheopenspaceinstrumentisrecordedwithSanMateoCounty.Therefore,thisdefensehasnofactualorlegalbasis.

d. ThefactthatlegaldescriptionsprovidedbySimms’surveyorsmaynothavebeenaccuratewasbeyondthecontrolofSimms

(1) StaffRebuttal:Asthepermitee,Truxisresponsiblefortheactivitiesofallofitsagentsincludingsurveyorsandthisdefensehasnolegalbasis.

2. City’sDefense

a. Co-permiteeshavedemonstratedagoodfaithefforttocomplywiththisspecialcondition;TruxhasreceivedBCDC’scommentstothedraftrecordingdocumentsandisintheprocessoffinalizingthedocumentsforapproval

(1) StaffRebuttal:AlthoughtheopenspaceareatobeguaranteedislocatedentirelyonTrux’sproperty,asaco-permittee,theCityisjointlyandseverallyliabletocomplywithallPermitconditions.ThisviolationwillnotberesolveduntiltheinstrumentisrecordedwithSanMateoCounty.


a. SincetheViolationReportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,staffhasprovidedcommentsforrevisiononApril6,2016,andrecommendedretainingasurveyortoresolvetheissueswiththelegaldescriptionandexhibits.Asofthedateofthisstaffreport,Truxhasnotsubmittedarevisedopenspacepermanentguaranteeconsistentwithstaff’sApril6thcomments.ThisviolationwillremainunresolveduntilthepermanentguaranteeisrecordedwithSanMateoCountyfortheopenspacearea.


C. FailuretopostoneBayTrailSign,one“PublicShore”sign,andthreepublicshoreparkingsignsinconformancewiththestaff-approvedpublicaccesssignageplanentitled“PreliminarySignageProgramforBCDC,”preparedbyMollyDuff,datedNovember24,1998,andapprovedbyBCDCstaffonAugust20,2001,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.A.3(PlanApproval)ofthePermit,whichrequiresconformancewiththefinalapprovedsignageplan

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefensestothisallegedviolationwillberaisedinSectionIII.CofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. SincetheViolationReportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,onApril6,2016,TruxsubmittedphotographstostaffindicatingthatthemissingBayTrail,PublicShore,andPublicShoreParkingsignshadbeeninstalledconsistentwitthestaff-approvedplan.Truxalsosubmittedphotographsshowingthatthehedgeformerlyobstructingthepublicshoreparkingsignonthenorthsideoftheparkingareawastrimmedandthefallenpublicshoreparkingsignonthesouthsideoftheparkingareawasreplaced.Thisviolationwasresolvedbythesubmittaloftheaforementionedphotographs,demonstratingthatthepermitteesareincompliancewiththefinalapprovedsignageplan.

D. Failuretoprovideandmaintainadequatesignageforeightpublicparkingspaces,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.b(ImprovementsWithintheTotalPublicAccessArea)ofthePermit

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefensestothisallegedviolationwillberaisedinSectionIII.DofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. SincetheViolationReportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,onApril6,2016,Truxsubmittedphotographstostaffindicatingthatthehedgeformerlyobstructingthepublicshoreparkingsignonthenorthsideoftheparkingareahadbeentrimmedandthefallenpublicshoreparkingsignonthesouthsideoftheparkingareahadbeenreplaced.Thisviolationwasresolvedbythesubmittaloftheaforementionedphotographs,showingthatthepermitteesareincompliancewithSpecialConditionII.B.4.bofthePermit,whichrequiresthepermitteestoprovideandmaintainadequatesignageforeightpublicparkingspaces.


E. Failuretoprovidesignagethatclearlypromotestherequiredpublicaccessamenities,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.e(ImprovementsWithintheTotalPublicAccessArea)ofthePermit

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefensestothisallegedviolationwillberaisedinSectionIII.EofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. SincetheViolationReportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,onApril6,2016,Truxsubmittedphotographstostaffshowingthatithadinstalledsignagethatclearlypromotestherequiredpublicaccessamenities,therebyresolvingtheviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.eofthePermit.

F. FailuretoscreentheparkingstructurebynotplacinglandscapingonitssouthandeastsidestoreducevisualimpactsofthestructurefromtheBCDC-requiredpublicaccessareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.f6(ImprovementsWithintheTotalPublicAccessArea)ofthePermit

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;TruxandtheCity’sdefensestothisallegedviolationwillberaisedinSectionIII.FofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. SincetheviolationreportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,staffapprovedthePlantingPlanonApril4,2016,whichincludesvegetationtobeplantedadjacenttotheeastandsouthwallsoftheparkingstructuretoresolvethisviolation.OnMay17,2016,Truxinformedstaffthattheconcreteplantersforthevisualscreeninghavebeenorderedandwillbeinstalledinfourweeks.OnJune20,2016,staffconductedasitevisitandobservedthatsixplanterswithirrigation,eachcontainingoneGarryaelliptica‘JamesRoof’andfourErigeronkarvanskianushavebeeninstalledontheeastsideoftheparkingstructureasshownonthePlantingPlan.However,staffobservedthatmostoftheErigeronkarvanskianusaredyingandsomearedead.Therefore,althoughthisviolationisresolved,thedeadanddyingErigeronkarvanskianusmustbereplacedpriortoresolvingthemaintenanceviolation.

6 PriortotheissuanceofAmendment4tothePermit,thisSpecialConditionwasII.B.4.g.


G. FailuretomaintainBCDC-requiredpublicaccessimprovementsandareas,suchaslandscaping,seating,pathsurfacesandsignage,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.57(Maintenance)ofthePermit

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Thepublicaccessareaoftheparkhasbeenconsistentlymaintainedforover14years.Truxpromptlyretainedalandscapeprofessional,andagardenerwhocleanstheparkandtrimsthefoliageregularly

(1) StaffRebuttal:Whilethismaybethecase,onsitevisitsconductedbystaffonJune19,2015,andJanuary19,2016,staffobservedthatthe“finger”parkwasnotmaintainedconsistentwiththestandardsoutlinedinthePermit.SpecialConditionII.B.5requiresthemaintenanceofallpublicaccessareasincludinglandscaping,seating,pathsurfaces,adequatelighting,andsignage.Ontheaforementionedsitevisits,staffobservedunevenpathsurfaces,overgrownanddead/dyingvegetation,burntandweatheredrequiredseating,damagedlighting,andsignificanttrash(SeeViolationReportExhibit#7).

b. Homelessdrugaddictsfrequenttheparkatnightleavingemptyliquorbottlesandsyringes,etc.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Whilethismaybethecase,Trux,asthepermitteeisresponsibleforcomplyingwithallPermitconditions.IfusedemandspreventedTruxfromcomplyingwiththePermit,TruxshouldhaveworkedwithstafftoamendthePermitorplanstoaddresstheissuesandchallengesitfaced.

c. SFO’smaintenancecompanyhasbeeninstructedtocleanthepropertytwiceaweek.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Whilethismaybethecase,onJune19,2015,andJanuary19,2016,staffobservedtrashatthepublicaccessareas.Therefore,twiceweeklytrashcleanupmaybeinsufficientatthislocation.

7 PriortotheissuanceofAmendment4tothePermit,thisSpecialConditionwasII.B.6.


d. Theplantmaintenanceiscomplicatedbytheongoingdrought,eventhoughdroughtresistantvegetationhasbeenplanted.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Whilethismaybethecase,Trux,asthepermitteeisresponsibleforcomplyingwithallPermitconditions.IfconditionspreventedTruxfromcomplyingwiththePermit,TruxshouldhaveworkedwithstafftoamendthePermitorplanstoaddressthisissue.

e. BecauseoftheproximitytotheBaywater,theuseofchemicalsforweedcontrolmustberestrictedtoavoidecologicalharm.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisirrelevantbecauseweedcontrolisnotoneofthemaintenanceissues.8

f. RobertSimms,CEOofTrux,retainsandpaysforlandscapemaintenanceoftheparkandotherlandscapedareassince2000;theparkandlandscapeareawascleanedandtrimmedtwotimesperweeksince2000;Simmsclaimstohavekeptaconstantmaintenanceprogramsinceapproximatelywhenthepermitwasissued,includingtheretentionofmaintenancepersonnelandlandscapers

(1) StaffRebuttal:Whilethismaybethecase,onJune19,2015,andJanuary19,2016,staffobservedmaintenanceissuesattherequiredpublicaccessareas(SeeViolationReportExhibit#7).

2. City’sDefense

a. Theco-permitteescontendthatthepublicaccessareasoftheparkhavebeenconsistentlymaintained.Truxhasretainedalandscapeprofessionalandgardenerwhoregularlycleansandmaintainsthearea.Theco-permitteescontendthatthereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportotherwise.Accordingly,theCityrespectfullyrequestthatBCDCeliminateentirelytheadministrativecivilpenaltyforthisallegedviolation

(1) StaffRebuttal:Whilethismaybethecase,onJune19,2015andJanuary19,2016,staffobservedmaintenanceissuesattherequiredpublicaccessareas(SeeViolationReportExhibit#7).

8 However,duringitssitevisitonJune20th,staffobservedweedsgrowingaroundnewlyplantedshrubsandexistingtrees,whichshouldbeaddressedbyincreasedweedingandtheinstallationofathickerlayerofwoodchips.



a. SincetheviolationreportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,staffapprovedthePlantingPlanonApril4,2016.ThesubmittalandsubsequentapprovalofthePlantingPlanwashowTruxdeterminedtoresolvethelandscapingmaintenanceissuesatthe“finger”park.OnMay17,2016,Mr.SimmsofTruxsubmittedtostaffphotographsoftheimplementedPlantingPlanatthe“fingerpark”.OnMay20,2016,staffrespondedtoTruxandtheCitythatthesignagemaintenancehasbeenresolvedandthe“finger”parklooksimproved,howeverseveralactionsmustbetakenpriortoresolutionofthemaintenanceviolation.Theseactionsinclude:(1)properlystakingthePeppermintWillows;(2)addingCoyoteBrushtothe“lookoutpoint”;(3)refinishingand/orreplacingtheweatheredseatinglocatedatthe“finger”park;and(4)repairingpathsurfaceswithcracksandbumpsgreaterthan¼inch.OnJune16,2016,TruxsubmittedphotographstoBCDCstaffthatshowedtheconcreteplanterseastoftheparkingstructurewereinstalledandplantedwithvegetationconsistentwiththe2016staff-approvedPlantingPlan.OnJune20,2016,BCDCstaffconductedasitevisittofollowuponthephotographssubmittedbyTruxonMay17,2016andJune16,2016,todeterminewhethertheongoingmaintenanceissueshad,infact,beenfullyresolved.StaffobservedthesitetobeinbetterconditionthanthepriorsitevisitconductedonJanuary19,2016.However,staffdeterminedthatthereareoldandnewmaintenanceissuesthatneedtobeaddressed,includingbutnotnecessarilylimitedto:(1)TheapprovedPlantingPlandoesnotmatchtheonsiteconditionsandmustberevisedtoshowallexistingplantsandtoproposeplantinginareasthatwerediscoveredtobebarrenoflandscaping;(2)TruxandtheCityhavenotinstalledallofthelandscapingshownonthePlantingPlanandmustinstallthemissinglandscaping;(3)Therearedeadanddyingplantsthatmustbereplaced;(4)Headerboardinthesouthwestcornerofthe“Finger”Parkisbrokenandmustbereplaced;(5)Thetworequiredtrashcansneednewsquarevs.roundlinersthatfitthesquarecontainersandprovidelidstopreventthewindfromdispersingtheircontents;(6)Trashanddisposeditemsneedtoberemovedfromthepublicaccessareasandtheadjacentslopesandmarshareasoneithersideofthe“Finger”Park;(7)Weedsneedtoberemovedfromthe“Finger”Park;(8)Allofthelightinghasloosewiringandmaynotbeprovidingpropernightlighting;(9)Theconcretewallattheeastendofthe“Finger”Parkisbrokenisneedsrepair;(10)Retainingwall/fenceattheeastendofthe“Finger”Parkisbrokenandneedsrepair;and(11)Fenceatcrosswalkneedstoberepaired.ThisviolationwillberesolveduponcompliancewithSectionII.CoftheOrder.


H. Failuretosubmittwo,past-duemonitoringreportsforthewildlifehabitatsurroundingthe“finger”parkingareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.I9(“Finger”ParkingMonitoringReports)ofthePermit

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedfromconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefenseswillberaisedinSectionIII.HofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. ThisviolationwasresolvedonFebruary9,2016priortothemailingoftheviolationreport(seeFindingVI.LLLoftheViolationReport).

I. FailuretoauthorizebyanamendmenttoSpecialConditionII.B.4.cand.dofthePermit,theas-builtanddesiredre-alignmentofasectionofthepublicaccesspathwayandchangestothewidthandlocationofsidewalksandbikelaneslocatedonthesegmentoftheBayTrail

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefenseswillberaisedinSectionIII.IofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. OnMay10,2016,staffissuedPermitNo.1998.011.04(i.e.Amendment4)toprovideafter-the-factauthorizationfortheas-builtpublicaccesswalkwayandchangestothewidthandlocationofsidewalksandbikelanes.

J. Constructionoftwo5-foot-widebikelanesversestwo8-foot-widebikelanesonbothsidesofNorthAccessRoadasrequiredbyplansentitled,“NorthAccessRoadPublicAccessProject”,datedApril12,2006andNovember21,2006(“PublicAccessPlan”),approvedbyBradMcCrea,BayDesignAnalyst,onApril12,2007

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedand,therefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefenseswillberaisedinSectionIII.JofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. OnMay10,2016,staffissuedPermitNo.1998.011.04(i.e.Amendment4)toprovideafter-the-factauthorizationfortheas-builtpublicaccessbikelanes.

9 PriortotheissuanceofAmendment4tothePermit,thisSpecialConditionwasII.K.


K. Constructionofanunauthorizedgateandfenceintheshorelineband

1. Staffacknowledgesthatthisviolationhasbeenresolvedandtherefore,ithasbeenremovedforconsiderationundertheCeaseandDesistOrder;Trux’sandtheCity’sdefenseswillberaisedinSectionIII.KofthisStaffReport(AdministrativeCivilPenalty).

2. StaffSummary

a. OnMay10,2016,staffissuedPermitNo.1998.011.04(i.e.Amendment4)toprovideafter-the-factauthorizationfortheunauthorizedgateandfenceintheshorelineband

III. ADMINISTRATIVECIVILPENALTY(DEFENSESANDMITIGATINGFACTORSRAISEDBYRESPONDENTS;STAFFSUMMARY,ANALYSIS,RESPONSE,ANDRECOMMENDATION).

1. PermitteesarenotsubjecttoStandardizedFinesbecausestafffailedtofollowitsproceduralrequirementsoutlinedinitsownregulations.

Defenses:

• Deniesthatanadministrativepenaltyclockfor“standardizedfines”commencedwhenMs.BennettofBCDCstaffwroteaNovember15,2001,violationletteroranyothertimepriorto35daysafterserviceoftheViolationReportdatedMarch23,2016(Trux).

• CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,section11386(b)statesthecontentsofnoticethatmustbegiventoonewhohasallegedlycommittedaviolation,including,butnotlimitedto,thenatureoftheallegedviolation,eachandeveryactionthatmustbetakentocorrecttheviolation,andthatiftheviolationiscorrectedwithin35daysofthemailingofthenoticetheCommissionshallnotimposeacivilpenalty.NopriorlettersfromBCDCmettheserequirements.Within35daysofthenoticedatedMarch23,2016,theallegedviolationsbyTrux,suchasafallensignandinsufficientvegetation,hadbeenremediated,exceptforsomerecentlyrevisedplantingrequirements,whichawaitthearrivalofplantsthathavebeenordered(Trux).

• CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Section11386(a)providesthataconsiderationiswhethertheallegedviolationhasnotresultedinsignificantharmtotheresourcesortoexistingorfuturepublicaccess;andwhethertheallegedviolationcanbecorrectedinamannerconsistentwiththeCommission’slawsandpolicies.Herethereisnoshowingofanyharmtoresourcesorpastorfuturepublicaccess.AlloftheallegedviolationsarebeingremediatedinaccordancewithBCDC’srequirements(Trux).


• StaffResponse:TruxhasdemonstratedanincorrectinterpretationofCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Section11386onthreepoints:(a)anadministrativepenaltyclockcommencedonNovember15,2001(forViolationReportViolationsAandB)andonJuly30,2015(forViolationReportViolationsCthroughK);(b)thecorrespondencedatedMarch23,2016,isaviolationreportissuedunderCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Section11321;and(c)theissuanceoftheviolationreportunderSection11321istheExecutiveDirector’smethodofcommencingformalenforcementproceedingsandterminatedtheopportunityforsettlementunderthestandardizedfinesmodelandeffectivelyswitchedgearstoresolutionthroughotheradministrativecivilpenalties,consistentwithCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,Title14,Section11386(h).

(a)Section11386(b)requirestheExecutiveDirectortomailwrittennoticetotheperson(s)believedtoberesponsiblefortheallegedviolationthatincludes:(1)thenatureoftheallegedviolationandeachandeveryactionthatmustbetakentocorrecttheviolation;(2)thefactthatiftheallegedviolationisfullycorrectedwithin35daysofthemailingofthenotice,theCommissionwillnotimposeanycivilpenalty;and(3)thefactthatiftheallegedviolationisnotfullycorrectedwithin35daysofmailingthenotice,thepersonbelievedtoberesponsiblefortheallegedviolationmaybesubjecttothepaymentofacivilpenalty.

ThelettersstaffwrotetoTruxonNovember15,2001(pertainingtoViolationsAandB),andtoTruxandCityonJuly30,2015(pertainingtoViolationsCthroughK),meetthewrittennoticerequirementsprovidedbySection11386(b)and,therefore,standardizedfinescommencedonNovember15,2001forViolationsAandB,andJuly30,2015,forViolationsCthroughK(SeeViolationReportExhibits#13and#32).

(b)Section11321providesthattheExecutiveDirectorshallcommenceformalCommissionenforcementproceedingsbyissuing,atleast45dayspriortoholdinganenforcementhearing,aviolationreportthatcomplieswithAppendixH,acomplaintforcivilpenaltiesthatcomplieswithAppendixH,andastatementofdefenseformthatcomplieswiththeformatinAppendixI.TheMarch23,2016,correspondenceisaviolationreportconsistentwiththerequirementsofSection11321(SeeViolationReport).

(c)Section11386(h)providesthatifthepersonresponsiblefortheallegedviolationdoesnotcompletealloftherequiredcorrectiveactionsandpaytheappropriatestandardizedcivilpenaltywithin125daysofreceivingnoticeunder11386(b),theExecutiveDirectormaycommenceenforcementproceedingsinaccordancewith


Sections11300through11385.TheViolationReportwasissuedmorethan125daysafternoticewasprovidedonJuly30,2015andtherefore,standardizedfinesarenolongeravailable.

TheExecutiveDirectorissuedtheviolationreportonMarch23,2016andwithinthereportprovidednoticethatthestandardizefinesprocesswillnolongerbeavailable(Seepages1,2,and17oftheViolationReport).

2. StaffhasmisappliedGovernmentCodeSection66641.9(a),FactorstoConsiderinDeterminingtheAmountofAdministrativeCivilFines,byAssessingMultiplePenaltiesfortheSameViolationandAssessingtheSamePenaltyforViolationswithDifferentImpacts

Defenses

• Minor,andincidentalallegedviolationsaretreatedthesameasmoresubstantialviolationssuchasalackofguaranteeforthehabitatandthepublicaccess(Trux).

• Governmentcodesection66641.9(a)providesthatindeterminingtheamountforadministrativecivilliabilitytheCommissionshallconsiderthenature,circumstances,extentandgravityoftheviolations,whethertheviolationissusceptibletoremovalorresolutionandthegravityoftheviolations(Trux).

• UnderBCDC’sapparenttheoryofstrictliability,BCDChasslicedallegedviolationssuchastheguaranteesintotwoviolationswhenthatisoneissue;thesignageissuehasbeenslicedintoseveralallegedviolations;matterssuchasthefailuretoscreenandplanthavebeensubjecttotheapprovalofthirdpartiessuchasShellOilandtheAirport(Trux).

• BCDC’sproposedpenaltiesof$30,000perviolationareunconstitutionalbecausewhatisbasicallyoneallegedviolation,noncompliancewiththeprovisionsofthePermit,areslicedintonumerousviolations(Trux).

• Apenalty,whichsimplyseeksthemaximumamountforeachviolationwithoutconsiderationofthegravityisunconstitutionalasatakingofprivatepropertyforpublicuse(Trux).

• BCDC’scommencementofformalenforcementproceedingswasunnecessaryandtheimpositionofthemaximumadministrativecivilpenaltyof$30,000for10ofthe11allegedviolations,and$15,000administrativecivilpenaltyforthe11thallegedviolationnoticedonJanuary19,2016isunreasonablyhigh(City).

• ThelegislaturedirectedBCDCundertheMcAteer-PetrisActtoconsiderthenature,circumstance,extent,gravityoftheviolations,whethertheviolationissusceptibletoremovalorresolution,thecosttothestateinpursuingtheenforcementaction,


thevoluntaryremovalorresolutioneffortsundertaken,priorhistoryofviolations,andothermattersasjusticemayrequire,basedonthisandthefollowingmitigatingfactors(City).

• PriorBCDCenforcementactionsimposemuchsmallercivilpenaltiesforBCDCviolationsthatactuallydamaged,orhadtheveryrealpossibilitytosignificantlydamage,theBay’snaturalresources(City).

• SanPedroCoveHOA(2007),similartothefactsofthiscase,theallegedviolationsextendedbackalmost15yearsandthepotentialadministrativecivilpenaltiestotaledapproximately$180,000;BCDCagreedinthatcasetostaythecivilpenaltiesinexchangefortheHOA’scommitmenttoremedytheallegedviolations;Accordingly,theimpositionofacivilpenaltywasusedonlyto“provideanincentivetoachievecompliance”;Incontrasttothiscase,imposingmaximumadministrativecivilpenaltiesforcuredviolationsispunitiveinnature(City).

• StaffResponse:Section66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatindeterminingtheamountofadministrativecivilliability,theCommissionshalltakeintoconsiderationthenature,circumstance,extent,andgravityoftheviolationorviolations,whethertheviolationissusceptibletoremovalorresolution,thecosttothestateinpursuingtheenforcementaction,andwithrespecttotheviolator,theabilitytopay,theeffectonabilitytocontinueinbusiness,anyvoluntaryremovalorresolutioneffortsundertaken,anypriorhistoryofviolations,thedegreeofculpability,economicsavings,ifany,resultingfromtheviolation,andsuchothermattersasjusticemayrequire.

Indeterminingtheappropriateamountofcivilpenalties,staffconsideredeachviolationseparately,andassigneduniquedailypenaltiesforeachviolationthatitdeterminedbasedonthefactorsprovidedforinSection66641.9(a).EachviolationwasassignedanappropriatedailypenaltybasedontheseriousnessoftheviolationinthecontextoftheSection66641.9(a)factors.Thereasonitmayappearthatallviolationshavebeentreatedthesameregardlessoftheapparentseriousnessisbecausethemajorityofthepenaltiesreachedthestatutorymaximumof$30,000duetothepermittees’delayinresolvingtheviolations;pursuanttoSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct,civilpenaltiesaccrueforeachdayinwhichtheviolationoccursorpersists.

StaffassessedfinesbasedonthefactorsestablishedbySection66641.9(a).Staffhasnotslicedviolationssuchastheguaranteesintotwoviolationsandthesignageissuesintothreeviolations;theguaranteesandsignageviolationswererequiredbydifferentconditionsofthePermit.Section66641.5(e)statesthatcivilpenaltiesmaybeadministrativelyimposedforaviolationofanytermorconditionofaPermit.


Therefore,violationswerecalculatedbasedoneachviolationofeachtermandcondition,ofwhichtherearetwopertainingtothepermanentguaranteesandthreepertainingtosignage.

Thepresentenforcementcaseisdistinctfromthepastenforcementcase,SanPedroCove,becausethatcasewasresolvedthroughanegotiatedresolution.EachcaseisdecidedonitsmeritsandSanPedroCovewasresolved10yearsagothroughsettlementandnoviolationreportwasissued.ThefactsofSanPedroCovedifferfromthispresentcaseandarenotrelevanttothisproceeding.

3. Joint/SeveralLiabilityisInappropriateGiventheDistinctPropertyInterestsandResponsibilitiesofEachParty

Defenses

• OnMarch27,2002,theCityagreedtoberesponsibleforprojectadministration,coordinationwithpermittingagencies,completionofprojectsurvey,constructionmanagementanddebrisremoval;Simmswasdelegatedresponsibilityforallothertasks(Trux).

• TruxisfacingpotentialpenaltiesforallegationsthatitdidnotcommitandforabreakdownincommunicationsbetweenBCDCandtheCityofwhichTruxwasnotapprised(Trux).

• StaffResponse:Co-permitteesarejointlyandseverallyliabletocomplywithallconditionsofthePermit.Itistheresponsibilityofbothco-permitteestocommunicatewithoneanothertoensuretheyareincompliancewiththeirPermit.TruxwasinnowaypreventedfromcheckinginwiththeCityandshouldhaveknownthatthePermitwasnotincompliancebecauseTruxwouldhavehadtosignoffonanyrequeststoamendthePermittoauthorizetheas-builtpublicaccess.

TRUX’SDEFENSESTHATSHALLBEAPPLIEDTOADMINISTRATIVECIVILPENALTY,GENERALLY:

• BCDCappearstoassertthatnon-compliancewithaconditionamountstoaviolation.

o StaffResponse:Yes;Section66641.5oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatcivilliabilitymaybeimposedforanyviolationofanytermorconditionofapermitissuedbytheCommission.

TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page19 CITY’SDEFENSESTHATSHALLBEAPPLIEDTOADMINISTRATIVECIVILPENALTY,GENERALLY:

• Thereisnoevidencethatanyoftheallegedviolationsactuallydamaged–orevenhadthepotentialtodamage-theBaynaturalresources.

o StaffResponse:HarmtotheBayisnotathresholdrequirementforanaction,orfailuretoact,toconstituteaviolation,howeverfailuretocomplywiththePermit,whichisthecasehere,constitutesaviolation.Additionally,staffcannotconcludethatnoharmtotheBayoccurredinpartbecausethepermitteesfailedtotimelysubmitthemonitoringreportstoassesstheaffectoftheparkingstructureonthewildlifehabitatsurroundingthe“finger”parkingareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.IofthePermit(SeeViolationH).Further,staffhasnotmadetheallegationthatthepermitteeshavecausedcertainharmtotheBay.

• FiveoftheElevenallegedviolationswereremediedpriortoreceivingtheMarch23,2016report

o StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotfactuallyaccurate:oneviolation,ViolationH(MonitoringReports)wasresolvedonFebruary9,2016priortothemailingoftheviolationreport(seeFindingVI.LLLoftheViolationReport).StaffwillacknowledgethattherateofprogressinresolvingtheviolationsincreasedsignificantlyafterstaffprovidednoticetothepermitteesonJanuary12,2016,thataviolationreportwouldbeissued.Curingaviolationdoesnotabsolvethepermitteesfromliabilityforcivilpenaltiesforthetimeperiodduringwhichtheviolationremainedunresolved,asSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatcivilliabilitymaybeimposedforeachdayinwhichtheviolationoccursorpersists.

• AsofthedateofthisStatement(ofDefense),eightoftheelevenhavebeenresolvedandtheremainingthreewillberemedieduponapprovalofthefinaldocumentation.

o StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotfactuallyaccurate.Asofthedateofthestatementofdefensesubmittal(andissuanceofthisrecommendedenforcementdecision),seven–ratherthaneight-oftheelevenviolationshavebeenresolved.10Curingaviolationdoesnotabsolvethepermitteesfrom

10 ViolationC(SignagePlan)wasresolvedonApril6,2016;ViolationD(ParkingSignage)wasresolvedonApril6,2016;ViolationE(SignagethatclearlypromotesPublicAccess)wasresolvedonApril6,2016;ViolationH(MonitoringReports)wasresolvedonFebruary9,2016;ViolationI(Failuretoauthorizeas-builtpublicaccessasrequiredbySpecialConditionsII.B.4.canddofthePermit)wasresolvedonMay10,2016;ViolationJ(Failuretoauthorize5-foot-widePublicAccessbikelanesonNorthAccessRoad)wasresolvedonMay10,2016;andViolationK(UnauthorizedGate/Fence)wasresolvedonMay10,2016.


liabilityforcivilpenaltiesasSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatcivilliabilitymaybeimposedforeachdayinwhichtheviolationoccursorpersists.Theeighthviolation,ViolationF(ScreeningParkingStructure),wasresolvedonJune16,2016.Theremainingunresolvedviolationsare:ViolationA(PermanentGuaranteeforPublicAccessArea);ViolationB(PermanentGuaranteeforOpenSpaceArea);andViolationG(Maintenance).

• TherecordreflectstheCity’songoinggoodfaithefforttorespondtoBCDC’sconcernstocomplywiththePermit’sspecialconditions;theCityacknowledgesthattheprocesshasbeendrawnout,butsincere-engagedafterasevenyearlull,theCityhasmadeasubstantialgoodfaithefforttoaddressBCDC’sconcernsandcomplywithallPermitrequirements

o StaffResponse:ViolationstothePermitexistedpriortostaffcontactingthePermitteesabouttheviolations.ThepermitteestooknoinitiativetocomplywiththePermitpriortostaffcommencingthesecondstandardizedfineclockonJuly30,2015.Additionally,noneoftheviolationswereresolveduntilafterJanuary12,2016,whenstaffprovidednoticetothepermitteesthatitwastimetoswitchgearsandpursueresolutionoftheviolationsthroughaformalenforcementproceeding(SeeFindingVI.CCCoftheViolationReport).

DEFENSESTOSPECIFICALLEGATIONS

A. Failuretopermanentlyguaranteeallpublicaccessareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.2(PublicAccessGuarantee)ofthePermit

1. City’sDefense

a. TheCitycontendsthisallegedproceduralerrordoesnotwarrantthemaximum$30,000administrativecivilpenaltygiventhebelowhistoryreflectingtheCityandTrux’sgoodfaithefforttocomply.

(1) StaffResponse:Therecommended$30,000administrativecivilpenaltywasderivedbasedonassigningadailypenaltyof$1200thatwasreachedbyapplyingthefactorsrequiredbySection66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.Therecommendedpenaltyis$30,000becausethedailypenaltymaxedoutonXduetothelongevityoftheviolation.

b. ThereisnoevidenceintherecordestablishingthatthepublicwaseverpreventedfromaccessingpublicaccessareaswithintheCity’sjurisdiction.


(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotrelevanttothepermittees’failuretocomplywithSpecialConditionII.B.2ofthePermit.Additionally,staffneverallegedthisstatement.

c. Theprotractedpermitprocesswasnotentirelytheresponsibilityoftheco-permittees,astherewas7-yeargapincommunicationregardingtheoutstandingPermitrequirementsbetweenthepartiesfrom2008through2015

(1) StaffResponse:PermitteesareresponsibleforcomplyingwiththerequirementsoftheirPermit.Regardless,theadministrativecivilpenaltieswouldbemaxedoutat$30,000eveniftheviolationhadoccurredin2015.Inotherwords,at$500/day,themaximumfineisreachedin60days.

2. StaffRecommendation:Asofthemailingdateofthisreport,thisviolationisongoing,unresolved,andcontinuestocostthestatemanystaffhoursinpursuingitsresolution.Therefore,staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport.

B. Failuretopermanentlyguaranteetheopenspaceareaforwildlifehabitat,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.J.1(WildlifeRefugeArea)ofthePermit

1. City’sDefense

a. Theprotractedpermitprocesswasnotentirelytheresponsibilityoftheco-permittees,astherewas7-yeargapincommunicationregardingtheoutstandingPermitrequirementsbetweenthepartiesfrom2008through2015;

(1) StaffResponse: EventhoughTruxistheonlypermitteewithapropertyinterestsubjecttotheopenspacepermanentguarantee,itistheresponsibilityofco-permitteestocomplywithallrequirementsofthePermit.

2. StaffRecommendation:Asofthemailingdateofthisreport,thisviolationisongoing,unresolved,andcontinuestocostthestatemanystaffhoursinpursuingresolutionoftheviolation.Therefore,staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport.


C. FailuretopostoneBayTrailSign,one“PublicShore”sign,andthreepublicshoreparkingsignsinconformancewiththestaff-approvedpublicaccesssignageplanentitled“PreliminarySignageProgramforBCDC,”preparedbyMollyDuff,datedNovember24,1998,andapprovedbyBCDCstaffonAugust20,2001,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.A.3(PlanApproval)ofthePermit,whichrequiresconformancewiththefinalapprovedsignageplan

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Theallegationsofsignageviolationsshouldbeoneallegedviolation.

(1) StaffResponse:Section66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatcivilliabilitymaybeimposedforanyviolationofanytermorconditionofaPermit.ThesignageviolationsconstituteviolationstothreeseparateconditionstothePermit:SpecialConditionsII.A.3(PlanApproval);II.B.4.b(ImprovementswithinthetotalPublicAccessArea,PublicShoreParking);andII.B.4.e(ImprovementswithinthetotalPublicAccessArea,ClearlyPromotesPublicAccessAmenities).Therefore,stafffindsthisdefensenotbasedinlaw.

b. SignsdesignatedforNorthAccessRoadwereinstalledbytheCity,whichownsNorthAccessRoad.

(1) StaffResponse:OnApril6,2016,staffreceivedphotographicevidencefromMr.SimmsofTruxthatthesignsonNorthAccessRoadhadbeeninstalled.PursuanttoSpecialConditionII.B.4(ImprovementswithinthetotalPublicAccessArea),signagewasrequiredtobeinstalledpriortotheuseofanyoftheparkingfacilities,whichwasin2001.Theresolutionofaviolationdoesnotabsolvecivilliability,asstatedinSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.

c. Thepublicshoreandbaytrailsignsarenewsignsthatwerenotintheoriginalsignplan.

(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotbasedonfact.ThePublicShoreandBayTrailsignsappearinthesignageplanentitled“PreliminarySignageProgramforBCDC”,preparedbyMollyDuff,anddatedNovember24,1998andapprovedAugust20,2001(SeeFindingVI.FoftheViolationReport).Furthermore,whilepermitsoftenspecifytheminimumnumberofpublicshoreandpublicshoreparkingsignsandothersignstobeposted,thePermitrequiressufficientsignagetoclearlyidentifythepublicaccessareasaspublicand,itisthroughtheplans-therecanbemorethanonesetandasmanyrevisionsasnecessarytosatisfybothparties-thatthenumber,type,orientationandlocationofthesignsisdetermined.Siteconditionsandneeds


maychangeovertimeandsignagechangescanberequestedandimplementedbythepermiteespursuanttothesubmittalofupdatedplanstostaffandstaff’ssubsequentapprovalthereof.

1. City’sDefense

a. TheCityrespectfullyrequeststhatBCDCreconsiderimposinganyadministrativecivilpenaltyforthesesignageviolations,letalonethemaximumpossible,whereallpartiesareinagreementthattheviolationshavebeenremedied.BCDChasstayedthepenaltyportioninothersimilarenforcementactionsasanincentiveforpermitteestocureallegedviolations(SanPedroCoveHOA).

(1) StaffResponse:Staffagreesthattheviolationhasbeenresolved,howevertheresolutionofaviolationdoesnotabsolvecivilliability,asstatedinSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.Thecivilpenaltyisbasedontimeperiodtheviolationpersisted,whichwasapproximately15years.Theabsenceofsignageoversuchanextendedperiodoftimehasanadverseaffectonthepublic’sabilitytoknowaboutandmakeuseofapublicbenefit.

b. Theco-permitteesproactivelyremediedtheseallegedviolations.

(1) StaffResponse:Theco-permitteeswerenotproactiveinresolvingtheseviolationsuntilafterJanuary12,2016,whenstaffprovidednoticetothepermitteesthatitwastimetoswitchgearsandpursueresolutionoftheviolationsthroughaformalenforcementproceeding(SeeFindingVI.CCCoftheViolationReport).ItistheresponsibilityofpermitteestocomplywiththeirPermitandtheviolationpersistedforapproximately15years.

c. Anyadministrativecivilpenaltywouldservenobenefitotherthantopunishtheco-permitees.ThisappearsunreasonableandinconsistentgivenpriorBCDCenforcementactions.PunitivepenaltiesafterapermitteeremediesanallegedviolationleadstotheconclusionthatapermitteeshouldnotcureanyallegedviolationwithoutfirstnegotiatingastayofpotentialpenaltiesfromBCDC.Theco-permittees’genuineeffortstoremedytheviolationshouldnotbepunishedmoreharshlythanapermitteewhocompliesonlyafterBCDCstayspenalties.

(1) StaffResponse:TheadministrativecivilpenaltieswereappliedconsistentwithSection66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.


d. Theallegedfailuretopostpropersignageisasinglefailuretoact,andshouldnotresultinthreeseparatepenalties.

(1) StaffResponse:Section66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatcivilliabilitymaybeimposedforanyviolationofanytermorconditionofaPermit.ThesignageviolationsconstituteviolationstothreeseparateconditionstothePermit:SpecialConditionsII.A.3(PlanApproval);II.B.4.b(ImprovementswithinthetotalPublicAccessArea,PublicShoreParking);andII.B.4.e(ImprovementswithinthetotalPublicAccessArea,ClearlyPromotePublicAccessAmenities).Therefore,stafffindsthisdefensenotbasedinlaw.

e. A$90,000fineforfailuretopostpropersignageunfairlyburdenstheCity,andcorrespondinglythetaxpayersforwhichthesignagewasmeanttobenefit.

(1) StaffResponse:Theco-permitteesareresponsiblefordeterminingwhopayswhatportionofthecivilpenalties.Staffhasneverstatedthatthetaxpayersareresponsibleforpayingtheaccruedcivilpenalties.Further,theCityisalessorandisreceivinganeconomicbenefitfromleasingitspropertytoTrux.

f. ThereisnoevidenceintherecordestablishingthatthepublicwaseverpreventedfromaccessingpublicaccessareaswithintheCity’sjurisdiction

(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotrelevanttothepermittees’failuretocomplywiththePermit.Additionally,staffneverallegedthisstatement.

2. StaffRecommendation:ThesignageviolationscitedasC,D,andEintheViolationReportwereallresolvedonApril6,2016.AlthoughstaffmaintainsthataviolationtoeachtermofthePermitconstitutesaviolation,becausetheviolationshavebeenresolved,staffrecommendsthatthecivilpenaltyliabilityforeachsignageviolationshallbe:$011,reducedfrom$30,000forViolationC;$10,000,reducedfrom$30,000forViolationD;and$20,000,reducedfrom$30,000forViolationEforatotalof$30,000.

D. Failuretoprovideandmaintainadequatesignageforeightpublicparkingspaces,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.b(ImprovementsWithintheTotalPublicAccessArea)ofthePermit

1. StaffRecommendation:Pleaserefertothedefenses,staffresponsesandrecommendationinSectionIII.C,above.

11 StaffwithdrawstheallegationspertainingtoViolationCbecausetheviolationhasbeenresolvedandthepermittees’defensehasmerit.


E. Failuretoprovidesignagethatclearlypromotestherequiredpublicaccessamenities,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.e(ImprovementsWithintheTotalPublicAccessArea)ofthePermit

1. StaffRecommendation:Pleaserefertothedefenses,staffresponsesandrecommendationinSectionIII.C,above.

F. FailuretoscreentheparkingstructurebynotplacinglandscapingonitssouthandeastsidestoreducevisualimpactsofthestructurefromtheBCDC-requiredpublicaccessareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.4.g(ImprovementsWithintheTotalPublicAccessArea)ofthePermit

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Admitthatthelandscapingwasnotplacedontheeastsideofthebuildingbecauseitwasadrivewayforvehicles,includingemergencyvehiclesandshuttlebuses

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisisnotadefenseforthepermittees’failuretocomplywiththePermitrequirementtoscreentheeastsideoftheparkingstructure.SpecialConditionII.B.4.fofthePermitrequires,“newlandscapingonthesouthandeastsidesoftheparkingstructuredesignedtoscreentheparkingstructureandreduceitsvisualimpactsfromthepublicaccessareasrequiredherein.”TruxhasanobligationtocomplywiththeconditionsofthePermit;ifthepermitteescannotcomplywiththePermit,itistheresponsibilityofthepermitteestorequestanamendmenttothePermit.Regardlessofthis,landscapingdirectlyadjacenttotheeastsideoftheparkingstructurewouldnotimpactthedriveway.

b. ThelandonthesouthsideoftheparkingstructureisownedbytheSanFranciscoInternationalAirport

(1) StaffRebuttal:ThisisnotalegaldefensebecauseSanFranciscoInternationalAirport(SFIA)issuedUsePermitNo.3950onMay30,2007toTruxandtheCity(SeeViolationReportExhibit#27).Therefore,TruxhasalegalinteresttousethepropertyownedbySFIA.

c. AirportandShellOilhaverestrictedtheplantingofshrubsortreesoverthepipelines

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisirrelevant.InaFebruary8,2002letterfromSFIAtoBCDC,SFIAdeclaredthat,“groundcoverisSFO’spreferredtypeoflandscaping”toscreentheparkingstructure.Additionally,aFebruary7,2001letterfromShellOiltoTruxdeclaresthat,“ifyoumustlandscapethis


property,pleaseplantouseshallowrootplantthatminimizestheabovegroundcoveragearea”(SeeViolationReportExhibit#35).Finally,SpecialConditionII.B.4.frequires“newlandscaping”,anddoesnotspecifythatthisnewlandscapingmustbeshrubsortrees.Therefore,neithertheAirportnorShellOilhaveobstructedTruxfromcomplyingwiththisPermitcondition.

d. Theeastsideoftheparkingstructureiscementandplantershavebeenplacedonthatsurface

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisnotsupportedbythefacts.OnMay17,2016,Mr.SimmsofTruxemailedstaffandstatedthat,“concreteplantershavebeenorderedandwillbeinstalledinfourweeks”.TheviolationwillberesolveduponTruxsubmittingphotographsthatshowthevisualscreeningapprovedin“ParkSFOAirportParkingExpansion:RenovationPlantingPlan,”preparedbyJeanneLau,lastrevised,April4,2016,approvedbystaffonApril4,2016(“PlantingPlan”)hasbeenimplementedconsistentwiththeapprovedPlantingPlan(SeeMay17emailfromSimmstoWeber),whichappearstohaveoccurredonFriday,June17th,asconfirmedbyastaffsitevisitonJune20th,thoughmaintenanceofsomeofthenewlandscapingisalreadyanissue,asdiscussedbelow.

e. Ivyonthesideoftheparkingfacilityisnotfeasiblebecauseitwoulddamagethesurface.ThisinformationisconfirmedbyJohnFugle,landscapearchitect

(1) StaffRebuttal:ThisdefenseisirrelevantbecausestaffneverrequiredivyandbecausehasapprovedthePlantingPlan,whichdoesnotutilizeIvytoachievevisualscreeningoftheparkingstructure.UponimplementationoftheapprovedPlantingPlan,thisviolationwillberesolved.

f. Tallshrubsarebeingplantedonthesouthsideandinplantersontheeastsideofthebuilding.Shrubsonthesouthsidearereplacementsfromplantingsundertheoriginalplan,whichweredamagedbythedroughtandhomelesspeople.Theshrubsandplantersontheeastsidewerenotrequiredintheoriginalplan.

(1) StaffRebuttal:StaffacknowledgesthatonJune20th,staffconfirmedthatTruxhasinstalledshrubsandplantsonthesouthandeastsidesoftheparkingstructuregenerallypursuanttothePlantingPlan.Thisdefenseisirrelevantbecausethe“originalplan”wasneverapprovedanditsscopeencompassedonlythe“finger”park.DuringtheSeptember8,2015meeting,whichwasmemorializedintheSeptember29,2015letter,staff,Trux,andtheCitydiscussedthatstaffneverapprovedthe“originalplan”preparedbyMollyDuff,datedNovember24,1998(SeeViolationReportExhibit#35).


g. SimmslackedpermissionneededfromtheAirportwithrespecttoanyuseofitspropertyortreeplantingthatwouldinterferewithundergroundpipelinesneededtoberesolved.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisirrelevant.InaFebruary8,2002,letterfromSFIAtoBCDC,SFIAdeclaredthat“groundcoverisSFO’spreferredtypeoflandscaping”toscreentheparkingstructure.SpecialConditionII.B.4.fofthePermithasbeenamendedtoexcludetreesfromtherequiredlandscaping.

2. City’sDefense

a. Co-permitteeTruxhadsoleresponsibility.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Asaco-permittee,theCityisjointlyandseverallyliabletocomplywithallPermitconditionseventhoughtheareaofthesiteatissueislocatedonpropertyownedbyTrux,SFIA,andShellOil.

b. Nevertheless,therecordshowsthattherestrictionsbyShellOilandtheAirporttoplantshrubsortreesoverexistingpipelinesinitiallycomplicatedeffortstosatisfythisSpecialCondition.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisirrelevant.InaFebruary8,2002,letterfromSFIAtoBCDC,SFIAdeclaredthat,“groundcoverisSFO’spreferredtypeoflandscaping”toscreentheparkingstructure.Additionally,aFebruary7,2001,letterfromShellOiltoTruxdeclaresthat,“ifyoumustlandscapethisproperty,pleaseplantouseshallowrootplantthatminimizestheabovegroundcoveragearea”(SeeViolationReportExhibit#35).SpecialConditionII.B.4.frequireslandscapingto“screentheparkingstructureandreduceitsvisualimpacts”anddoesnotexclusivelyrequiretheplantingofshrubsortreestosatisfythisPermitrequirement.

c. BCDCacknowledgesinitsApril4,2016,communicationthatthisviolationisresolved.

(1) StaffRebuttal:Thisdefenseisnotsupportedbythefacts.OnApril4,2016,staffemailedTruxandtheCitytoinformthepermitteesthatthePlantingPlanhadbeenapproved.TheemailstatesthattheviolationtoSpecialConditionII.B.4.fwillberesolvedoncetheapprovedplanisimplementedandphotographsaresubmittedorasitevisitoccurs,however,thevisualscreeningcomponentofthePlantingPlanwasonlyevidencedashavingbeen,forthemostpart,implementedonJune17thandconfirmedbystaffonJune20th.OnMay17,2016,Mr.SimmsofTruxemailedstaffandstatedthat,“concreteplantershavebeenorderedandwillbeinstalledinfourweeks”(SeeemailsdatedApril4,2016andMay17,2016).


d. Thereisnoevidenceintherecordtosuggesttheco-permitteeswillfullyviolatedthepermitconditions,noranyevidencethatsignificantharmoccurredasaresult.

(1) StaffRebuttal:AlthoughtheareaofthesiteatissueislocatedentirelyonTrux’sproperty,asaco-permittee,theCityisjointlyandseverallyliabletocomplywithallPermitconditions.Theevidenceoftheviolationisclearfromphotographstakenin2015and2016thatshownovisualscreeningoftheparkingstructureandtheabsenceofanapprovedlandscapingplanuntilApril4,2016.

e. TheCitycontendsthatamaximumciviladministrativepenaltyforfailingtoscreenaparkingstructureisunreasonableandalsoinconsistentwithpriorBCDCenforcementactions.

(1) StaffResponse:Therecommended$30,000administrativecivilpenaltywasderivedbasedonassigningadailypenaltyof$1100for377daysthatwasreachedbyapplyingthefactorsrequiredbySection66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.Therecommendedpenaltyis$30,000becausethedailypenaltymaxedoutonXduetothelongevityoftheviolation.

3. StaffRecommendation:OnJune16,2016,TruxandtheCitysubmittedphotographsshowingthatthevisualscreeningwasinstalled.Staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport.

G. FailuretomaintainBCDC-requiredpublicaccessimprovementsandareas,suchaslandscaping,seating,pathsurfacesandsignage,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.B.6(Maintenance)ofthePermit

1. City’sDefense

a. ThereisnoevidenceintherecordestablishingthatthepublicwaseverpreventedfromaccessingpublicaccessareaswithintheCity’sjurisdiction

(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotrelevanttothepermittees’failuretocomplywithSpecialConditionII.B.6ofthePermit.Additionally,staffneverallegedthisstatement;however,theimportanceofsignageataprivatedevelopmentiscriticaltothemaximumpromotionanduseofallBCDCrequiredpublicaccess.

b. StaffRecommendation:OnApril4,2016,staffapprovedthePlantingPlan,whichincludesvegetationtobeplantedadjacenttotheeastandsouthwallsoftheparkingstructuretoresolvethisviolation.OnMay17,2016Truxsubmittedphotographsoftheimplementedplantingplanatthe“finger”park.OnMay20,2016,staff


respondedtoTruxandCitythatthereisstillworkthatmustbecompletedpriortoresolvingthemaintenanceviolation(SeeSectionII.G.3.aofthisstaffreport).OnJune16,2016,TruxsubmittedphotographstoBCDCstaffthatshowedtheconcreteplanterseastoftheparkingstructurewereinstalledandplantedwithvegetationconsistentwiththe2016staff-approvedPlantingPlan.OnJune20,2016,BCDCstaffconductedasitevisittofollowuponthephotographssubmittedbyTruxonMay17,2016andJune16,2016,todeterminewhethertheongoingmaintenanceissueshad,infact,beenfullyresolved.StaffobservedthesitetobeinbetterconditionthanthepriorsitevisitconductedonJanuary19,2016.However,staffdeterminedthatthereareoldandnewmaintenanceissuesthatneedtobeaddressed,includingbutnotnecessarilylimitedto:(1)TheapprovedPlantingPlandoesnotmatchtheonsiteconditionsandmustberevisedtoshowallexistingplantsandtoproposeplantinginareasthatwerediscoveredtobebarrenoflandscaping;(2)TruxandtheCityhavenotinstalledallofthelandscapingshownonthePlantingPlanandmustinstallthemissinglandscaping;(3)Therearedeadanddyingplantsthatmustbereplaced;(4)Headerboardinthesouthwestcornerofthe“Finger”Parkisbrokenandmustbereplaced;(5)Thetworequiredtrashcansneednewsquarevs.roundlinersthatfitthesquarecontainersandprovidelidstopreventthewindfromdispersingtheircontents;(6)Trashanddisposeditemsneedtoberemovedfromthepublicaccessareasandtheadjacentslopesandmarshareasoneithersideofthe“Finger”Park;(7)Weedsneedtoberemovedfromthe“Finger”Park;(8)Allofthelightinghasloosewiringandmaynotbeprovidingpropernightlighting;(9)Theconcretewallattheeastendofthe“Finger”Parkisbrokenisneedsrepair;(10)Retainingwall/fenceattheeastendofthe“Finger”Parkisbrokenandneedsrepair;and(11)Fenceatcrosswalkneedstoberepaired.Asofthemailingdateofthisreport,thisviolationisongoing,unresolved,andcontinuestocostthestatestaffhoursinpursuingresolutionoftheviolation.Therefore,staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport.

H. Failuretosubmittwo,past-duemonitoringreportsforthewildlifehabitatsurroundingthe“finger”parkingareas,inviolationofSpecialConditionII.I(“Finger”ParkingMonitoringReports)ofthePermit

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Admitthatwildlifehabitatreportswerelate,butdenythatthisconstitutesaviolation.

(1) StaffResponse:Thereisnolegalorfactualbasistosupportthisdenial.SpecialConditionII.IofthePermitrequiresthepermitteestomonitorthewildlifehabitatsurroundingtheprojectsitefortenyearsaftertheuseofthe


parkingfacilitybeginsandthesubmittaloftworeports,oneatfiveyears(September1,2006)andoneattenyears(September1,2011).Truxadmitsthisdidnotoccur,therefore,staffisaffirmedinitsassertionthatthereisaviolationofthePermit.

b. Thesubstanceofthisallegationhasbeenresolvedbysubstantialcompliance;seeletterfromMaggieWeber,datedSeptember29,2015,showingthattheviolationwouldberesolveduponsubmittalandapprovaloftworeportsconformingtothePermit’srequirements.

(1) StaffResponse:ItistruethattheviolationhasbeenresolvedbythesubmittalofthesinglereportdatedFebruary9,2016,howeverthisisirrelevantbecauseunderSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct,curingtheviolationdoesnotabsolvethecivilpenaltiesthataccruedpriortoresolution.

2. City’sDefense

a. Thisviolationhasbeenfullyresolved.InaSeptember29,2015,letterfromMaggieWeber,sheindicatesthatthisviolationwouldberesolveduponsubmittalandapprovaloftworeportsconformingtothePermit’srequirements.SimmssubmittedthefirstreporttoMaggieWeberonFebruary9,2016;onFebruary10,Weberapprovedthereport.

(1) StaffResponse:ItistruethattheviolationhasbeenresolvedbythesubmittaloftheReportdatedFebruary9,2016,however,thisisirrelevantbecauseunderSection66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct,curingtheviolationdoesnotabsolvethecivilpenaltiesthataccruedpriortoresolution.

b. Accordingly,theCitycontendsthatthisallegedviolationhasbeenresolved.Amaximumcivilpenaltyof$30,000is,therefore,unreasonablegiventhenatureoftheallegedviolationandthefactthatithasbeenremediedtoBCDCsatisfaction.

(1) StaffResponse:Therecommended$30,000administrativecivilpenaltywasderivedbasedonassigningadailypenaltyof$1400thatwasreachedbyapplyingthefactorsrequiredbySection66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.Therecommendedpenaltyis$30,000becausethedailypenaltymaxedoutafter22daysduetothelongevityoftheviolation.

3. StaffRecommendation:ThepermitteesresolvedthisviolationonFebruary9,2016,bysubmittingamonitoringreport,priortotheissuanceoftheViolationReport.However,thepermitteesareresponsibleforcomplyingwiththePermitandwerealmost10yearslatewiththeirsubmittal.Thepermitteesfailuretomonitorthewildlifehabitatsurroundingtheprojectsiteforthefirsttenyearsofoperatingthe


parkingstructureleavesstaffwithoutvitalinformationtodeterminewhetherthisprojecthasharmedtotheBay;thisdatawouldhavebeenusefulinanalyzingthepermittees’proposedexpansionofthecurrentparkingstructureand,asaresultofthisviolation,thisdataisimpossibletoobtain.Therefore,staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenalty($1400/dayfor3447days12)proposedintheViolationReport.

I. FailuretoauthorizebyanamendmenttoSpecialConditionII.B.4.cand.dofthePermit,theas-builtanddesiredre-alignmentofasectionofthepublicaccesswalkwayandchangestothewidthandlocationofsidewalksandbikelaneslocatedonthesegmentoftheBayTrail

1. Trux’sDefense

a. ThesidewalksandbikelanesareownedbytheCity;Truxlackstheauthoritytoobtainanamendmentconcerningpropertythatitdoesnotown.

(1) StaffResponse:EventhoughthisportionofpublicaccessislocatedonpropertyownedbytheCity,itistheresponsibilityofco-permitteestocomplywithallrequirementsofthePermitandasinglepermitteecannotapplyaloneforapermitamendment.

b. CityassumedresponsibilityforthisAmendment.SimmsdidnotknowthatBCDCandCityceasedtheireffortstoresolvethepublicaccessissueandotherissues,whichhadbeenassumedbytheCity;BCDC’sfailuretonotifySimmsthatnegotiationshadbrokenoffcombinedwithaseverelyexcessivedelayinenforcementamountstoabarunderthedoctrineofequitableestoppel.

(1) StaffResponse:EventhoughtheCityassumedresponsibilityforthisamendment,itistheresponsibilityofco-permitteestocomplywithallrequirementsofthePermit.TruxshouldhaveknownthattheAmendmenthadnotbeenissuedbecauseTruxwouldhavehadtosignarequestfortheamendmentpriortoitsissuanceandacopyoftheamendedpermitafteritsissuance,neitherofwhichtheCityorBCDCeversubmittedtoTruxbetween2007and2015/6.

2. City’sDefense

a. TheCityhassubstantiallycompliedwiththerequirementunderthePermittobuildpublicaccesswalkways,sidewalks,andbikelanes.Duetooperationalconcerns,thelocationofthepublicaccesswalkways,sidewalksandthewidthofthebikelanesdifferfromthepreviouslysubmittedplans.TheCityhasbeen

12 Eventhoughthe$1400dailypenaltymaxesoutafter22days.


activelyengagedinagoodfaitheffortwithBCDCtoamendthePermittocomportwiththeas-builtenvironment.Consequently,theCitysubstantiallycompliedwiththePermitandfurtheredtheintentofthePermitbyconstructingpublicamenitiesandensuringthatthepublichadaccesstotheBay.TheCitycontendsthatamaximumadministrativepenaltyof$30,000forwhatamountstoanadministrativeconditionthathassincebeenremediedisunreasonableandrequeststhatitbewaived,orattheveryleast,significantlyreduced.

(1) StaffResponse:PermitteesareresponsibleforcomplyingwiththePermitandshouldhavetakentheinitiativetoamendthePermitwhen“operationalconcerns”werediscovered.ThePermitrequiresbothconstructingtheimprovementsandrecordingtheguarantee.Simplyconstructingtheimprovementsisnotequaltosubstantialcompliance.TheCityonlyengagedin“agoodfaitheffort”withBCDCtoamendthePermitonlyafterstaffprovidednoticeofstandardizedfinesonJuly30,2015.EventhoughtheviolationwasremediedwhenAmendment4tothePermitwasissuedonMay10,2016,Section66641.5(e)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActstatesthatcuringtheviolationdoesnotabsolvethecivilpenaltiesthataccruedpriortoresolution.Therecommended$30,000administrativecivilpenaltywasderivedbasedonassigningadailypenaltyof$1400thatwasreachedbyapplyingthefactorsrequiredbySection66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisAct.Therecommendedpenaltyis$30,000becausethedailypenaltymaxedoutafter22daysduetothelongevityoftheviolation.

b. ThereisnoevidenceintherecordestablishingthatthepublicwaseverpreventedfromaccessingpublicaccessareaswithintheCity’sjurisdiction

(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotrelevanttothepermittees’failuretocomplywithSpecialConditionII.B.6ofthePermit.Additionally,staffneverallegedthisstatement.

c. Theprotractedpermitprocesswasnotentirelytheresponsibilityoftheco-permittees,astherewas7-yeargapincommunicationregardingtheoutstandingPermitrequirementsbetweenthepartiesfrom2008through2015

(1) StaffResponse:ThepermitteesareresponsibleforcomplyingwiththePermit.

3. StaffRecommendation:OnMay10,2016staffissuedAmendment4tothePermit,whichauthorizedtheas-builtpublicaccess.Resolvingthisviolationtookmanyyearsatasignificantcosttothestate.Additionally,theviolationpreventedthepermitteesfromrecordingthepublicaccesspermanentguarantee(ViolationA)becausetheas-


builtpublicaccessconditionswerenotconsistentwiththePermit.Therefore,staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport.

J. Constructionoftwo5-foot-widebikelanesversestwo8-foot-widebikelanesonbothsidesofNorthAccessRoadasrequiredbyplansentitled,“NorthAccessRoadPublicAccessProject”,datedApril12,2006andNovember21,2006(“PublicAccessPlan”),approvedbyBradMcCrea,BayDesignAnalyst,onApril12,2007

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Admitsthatthebikelaneswerenotconstructedaccordingtothepermit,however,denythatthisconstitutesaviolation.

(1) StaffResponse:Thereisnolegalorfactualbasistosupportthisdenial.StaffapprovaloftheNorthAccessRoadPublicAccessProjectPlanauthorizedtwo8-foot-widebikelanesandnottheas-built5-foot-widebikelanes.TruxadmitsthatthebikelaneswerenotconstructedconsistentwiththeapprovedPlan;therefore,staff’sallegationthatthereisaviolationofthePermitiscorrect.

b. ThesidewalksandbikelanesareownedbytheCity;Truxlackstheauthoritytoobtainanamendmentconcerningpropertythatitdoesnotown

(1) StaffResponse:EventhoughthisportionofpublicaccessisownedbytheCity,itistheresponsibilityofco-permitteestocomplywithallrequirementsofthePermit.

2. City’sDefense

a. DefenseoutlinedinSectionIII.I.2.a,above,alsoappliestothisviolation.

(1) StaffResponse:SeeSectionIII.I.2.a.1.

b. ThereisnoevidenceintherecordestablishingthatthepublicwaseverpreventedfromaccessingpublicaccessareaswithintheCity’sjurisdiction

(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisnotrelevanttothepermittees’failuretocomplywithapprovedPublicAccessPlan.Additionally,staffneverallegedthisstatement.

3. StaffRecommendation:OnMay10,2016staffissuedAmendment4tothePermit,whichauthorizedtheas-builtbikelanes.Resolvingthisviolationtookmanyyearsatasignificantcosttothestateandtheviolationpreventedthepermitteesfromrecordingthepublicaccesspermanentguarantee(ViolationA)becausetheas-built


bikelaneswerenotconsistentwiththePermit.Therefore,staffrecommendsthe$30,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport($1450/dayfor3055days13).

K. Constructionofanunauthorizedgateandfenceintheshorelineband

1. Trux’sDefense

a. Admitstoconstructionofthefencewithoutpriorauthorizationandstatesitwasrequiredformaintenancetopreventhomelesspeoplefromtrespassinguponthedrivewayanddeniesthisisaviolation.Thegateandfencewasplacedthereaspartoftheongoingmaintenanceafterthebridgewasinstalledtopreventtrespassersfromenteringthedriveway,andtoeliminatesafetyandsecurityhazards

(1) StaffResponse:Thisisnotadefense;asapermittee,TruxknewthatanyplacementoffillintheshorelinebandrequiresauthorizationintheformofaPermitamendment.Truxadmitsthefencewasconstructedwithoutauthorization;therefore,thisconstitutesaviolation.Newconstructiondoesnotconstitutemaintenance.

b. OnJanuary19,2016,MaggieWeberstatedthattheunauthorizedgateandfencecouldbeauthorizedbyanamendmentrequestletter;sucharequestletterwassubmitted.

(1) StaffResponse:Correctiveactionwasonlytakenafterstaffinformedthepermitteesoftheviolation.

2. City’sDefense

a. CitywasnotproperlynoticedunderBCDC’sownregulations(broughttotheCity’sattentionbyemail).

(1) StaffResponse:StaffdiscoveredtheviolationduringtheJanuary19,2016,sitevisit,whereboththeCityandTruxwerepresent,andprovidednoticebyemailtoTruxandtheCitylaterthatday.Afterreceivingnotice,TruxandtheCitytookstepstoresolvethisviolationbyapplyingforafter-the-factauthorizationintheirrequestforAmendment4tothePermit,whichwasissuedonMay10,2016.

13 Eventhoughthepenaltymaxesoutafter21days.


b. TherecorddemonstratesthattheCitybeganworkingtoremedythisallegedviolationwithinthreedaysofbeingnotifiedbyemail;theCityrespectfullyrequeststhatBCDCconsidertheCity’seffortsandreduceoreliminateentirelytheadministrativecivilpenaltyforthisallegedviolation.

(1) StaffResponse:Thisdefenseisirrelevanttothefactthatthepermitteesmadenoefforttoauthorizethegate/fenceuntilstaffnotifiedthemoftheviolation.Aspermittees,TruxandtheCityshouldhaveknownthatthisitemoffillneededauthorization.

c. BCDCindicatedintheJanuary19,2016,noticeemailthattheunauthorizedgate/fencecanbeauthorizedinthecurrentamendmentproposalbeforeBCDC,therebyimplyingthisallegedviolationwassimplyaproceduralerror.

(1) StaffResponse:Byreferringtothefailuretoobtainauthorizationtoinstallalongsectionoffenceattheboundarybetweenthepublicandprivateuseareasas“aproceduralerror”thepermitteesseemtobesuggestingthatitconstitutesaminorinfraction.However,itisthroughtheapplicationprocess,thatstaff(ortheCommission)analyzesaproject’spotentialimpactsonexistingorfuturepossiblepublicaccess.Thisprocedureofobtainingapprovalisintendedtooccurinadvanceofconstruction.Aspermittees,TruxandtheCityshouldhaveknownthatthisitemoffillrequiresauthorization.

3. StaffRecommendation:Truxhasacknowledgedthatthegate/fencewasinstalledseveralyearsagowhentheAirportcompletedtheirBayTrailconnectiontothe“finger”park.StaffprovidednoticetothepermitteesonJanuary19,2016,oftheviolation,whichwasresolveduponissuanceofAmendment4tothePermitonMay10,2016.IntheViolationReport,staffproposed$15,000inadministrativepenaltiesforthisviolation;thisamountwasdeterminedbyassigningadailypenaltyof$133basedonthefactorsprovidedforinSection66641.9(a)oftheMcAteer-PetrisActfor113days.Basedonthecircumstancesanddegreeofculpability,thatthepermitteesshouldhaveknownthisplacementoffillintheshorelinebandneededauthorization,staffrecommendsthe$15,000administrativecivilpenaltyproposedintheViolationReport.

TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page36 IV. RECOMMENDEDCOMMISSIONACTION

A. Afterconsiderationofthedefensesdescribedaboveandthestaff’sresponsesthereto,staffisrecommendingtheEnforcementCommitteerecommendtotheCommissionthatitissueaCeaseandDesistandCivilPenaltyOrdertoTruxandtheCitythatwill:

1. RequirecompliancewithSpecialConditionII.B.2(PublicAccessPermanentGuarantee)ofthePermit,whichwillresolveViolationA;

2. RequirecompliancewithSpecialConditionII.H.1(OpenSpacePermanentGuarantee)ofthePermit,whichwillresolveViolationB;

3. RequirecompliancewithSpecialConditionII.B.6(PublicAccessMaintenance)ofthePermit,whichwillresolveViolationG;and

4. RequireTruxandtheCitytopayacivilpenaltyof$255,000toresolvetheircivilliabilityforviolatingthelawandthePermit,$30,000ofwhichwillbesuspendedifTruxandtheCityfullycomplywiththeOrder.

to: bcdc enforcement committee - san francisco bay ... · authorizing a long term parking structure...

Documents