TO: BCDC Enforcement Committee - San Francisco Bay ... · authorizing a long term parking structure...
Transcript of 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).
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page3
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page4
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page5
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,
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page6
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page7
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.
3. SummaryandAnalysisofUnresolvedIssues
a. SincetheViolationReportwasissuedonMarch23,2016,staffhasprovidedcommentsforrevisiononApril6,2016,andrecommendedretainingasurveyortoresolvetheissueswiththelegaldescriptionandexhibits.Asofthedateofthisstaffreport,Truxhasnotsubmittedarevisedopenspacepermanentguaranteeconsistentwithstaff’sApril6thcomments.ThisviolationwillremainunresolveduntilthepermanentguaranteeisrecordedwithSanMateoCountyfortheopenspacearea.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page8
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page9
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page10
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page11
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page12
3. SummaryandAnalysisofUnresolvedIssues
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page13
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page14
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).
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page15
• 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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page16
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,
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page17
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page18
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page20
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page21
(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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page22
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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page23
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page24
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page25
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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page26
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).
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page27
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).
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page28
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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page29
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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page30
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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page31
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page32
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-
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page33
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
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page34
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.
TruxAirlineCargoServicesCityofSouthSanFrancisco June21,2016Page35
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.