fine neighbors are ok with the clearance around that fence. some say i live six blocks from it. i walked in that area because we are fortunate of to have a lucky store and trader joe's. even though i live six blocks away, i care. " thank you for listening to us. vice president garcia: your issue would be you would have them removed the fence or do more landscaping or something to make it more attractive, less on attractive? >> i would like the fed's move dover because of it like more space to walk. -- i would like the offense moved over because i would like more space to walk. one issue that has not been brought up, there are huge suv's. i believe there is 4 feet left after an suv parked there.

when i go grocery shopping, i just carry groceries, and i make sure that i carry a like amount. but i used to have a suitcase- like thing. that does not fit in that area very well. not only is there at the fence, the cars, the signs, the posts. have you seen the posts? they are big. they are 8 inches, maybe 12? it is not a comfortable walk, and i think we're trying to encourage people to walk. why don't i walk on the other side? when i am carrying groceries, it's very warm. there are times when that is the shadyside of the street. that is what i would like to ask for a sidewalk on both sides of the street. thank you again. >> thank you. next speaker? >> hello.

my name is chris. when you look at richard's diagram, you see that golden gate has t. i am the first half across from the baseball field. i see this fence and sidewalk all the time, all the time. i brought some photographs, my own photographs, of what is involved with this fence and sidewalk. it in this picture, you see there aretwo trees. is that clear enough? there are trees that would have to be removed if you move that fence back. you will lose a couple trees. i have another picture. iyou can see those trees are alo involved if you move that back. the other thing i wanted to talk about that has been mentioned is the landscaping.

that landscaping is the only thing that prevents me seeinga fence, so if you take down that landscaping that has been growing since 1991 -- and that is a fig. somebody thought it was ivey, but it is a fig. it does not sit too feet into the side walked. it needs a trim and what not, but it does not take up that much space. of course, it could be pruned. in the whole perspective of moving that fence, i will end up looking at another chain link fence for a long time. if it is landscaping that needs to be done, pruning, something else, you will lose that landscaping plus the trees to be able to make decide what wider. i appreciate that people want to have a place to walk.

it is tight. it meets the basic minimum standards. i know that it is narrow because parked cars are allowed to parked diagonally, but i think it needs to be put into context of the entire -- our neighborhood is university terrace, working with usf to deal with the entire golden gate, and those cars parked diagonally is one of 123 or so issues on their radar. at our neighborhood had a meeting on november 15 to discuss the things that were being done. there will be a more comprehensive proposal for what will happen with those cars. that can be taken care of in a completely different way. so i would definitely keep the fence, keep the sidewalk the way it is.

>> thank you. commissioner peterson: have there been discussions about alternative parking or eliminating parking there? >> i am sorry, that's a >> thought? -- i am sorry, you're talking about that spot? commissioner peterson: right. >> our neighborhood has a zone of parking, i don't know what the issue is, but people are allowed to park. the cars do not move very often. i am really talking abouttwo of what are really 100 different issues at golden gate, where the intention is to have golden gate become a better streets because right now it is dangerous. you have students, cars, traffic, and loading at loading

docks. we're looking at a more comprehensive way to deal with all of golden gate as opposed to just that one section along the baseball field. i forgot to mention one thing, i have lived there 21 years. i live there before this 1991 redo of the fence, it and it is fine. that has been fine. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. mr. rabbitt, you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. i want to address the retaining wall and commissioner fung pointed out something now wanted to follow-up on. this is a blown up drawing that mr. o'brien showed you.

the yellow here is the outer chain-link fence. this is the part near the western edge. at the short answer, there is a distance here between this retaining wall and the outer fence. this portion of the fence, you could bring it in without any effect, as far as i can tell, with the retaining wall. again, i have not been allowed inside, so i rely on the drawing that usf submitted. also, the changing grades is something that you hear dpw from and usf, but what they did not mention is this is an area where the field is essentially level with the sidewalk and there is a retaining wall. there has been no explanation from dpw or usf why defense cannot be moved in this area. i like to show you in terms of drawing, this is the same drawing that mr. o'brien

showed, this is the end of the field neared the sonic. i believe the red is the retaining wall. there is no retaining wall here. this entire area, there is no reason, safety or other, that cannot be brought in. lastly, i'd like to address --, again, i have not been inside the field, so i am looking at the information that usf provided. i looked carefully at their drawing, and according to mr. o'brien, he would have quite a difference in grade, at least a good portion of it. at this breakdown is based upon usf's map. sorry. basically, what it shows is there is a portion of the field where the change in grade is 3

inches or less. that is about 89 feet. thirionto edges 1 foot changing grade 47 feet. and up to 2.5 feet change in grade it. you'll only looking at about 20% of the field. in my response to usf's brief, i wanted to point out, one of the alternatives i am asking to consider is those areas of the fence where you could move the fence without affecting the retaining wall or without having the change in grade, at the very least that should be commissioner peterson: did you make any of these suggestions directly to usf? >> the original complaint, i sent to usf. i spoke to the assistant vp by

chance. the was a settlement proposal to usf. it said the neighborhood is 9 feet on average setback. if you move the fence 3 feet, you would still need an encroachment, but you would have a sidewalk that is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. i even went further and said to mr. london there is a retaining wall that could create problems. there could be areas where you move the fence but even less. unfortunately, i did not get a response on that settlement. commissioner hwang: you had proposed conditions, including access to a baseball training camp? >> what i was trying to do was address the question -- one of

the arguments from usf and dpw is this is a longstanding encroachment. i do not believe there is any basis for the fact that encroachments that our existing are permitted. to answer a question -- i lost my train of thought. i apologize. commissioner hwang: if you find a minor encroachment, the conditions imposed -- >> right. given the fact that there is an existing encroachment, there might be reasons that would stop the fence from being removed. i still want the right of public access to be recognized. i think it is more consistent with the code, but was trying to provide a corrective alternative for the public would get access in return for the fact that usf would have exclusive control of

a portion. that was the rationale. commissioner peterson: thank you. >> mr. o'brien? >> harry o'brien. very briefly, commissioner goh asked a question about this photograph. this is on the opposite side. this is a photograph we had provided to demonstrate that there are, in the neighborhood, other areas with a six-foot sidewalk, other areas where neighbors have encroachment in the sidewalk. so this is not a picture of the usf encroachment. it is a picture of the other neighbors encroachment on to the sidewalk and another example of a six-foot sidewalk. in terms of negotiations with mr. rabbitt, i have to make

clear that usf went through a process last year with a conditional use case with the planning commission about a building constructed on the interior of campus. for much of the time, the usf end university terrace association, which unanimously endorsed this encroachment permit, the neighborhood association that represents that area -- we spent months and months negotiating the terms of a supplement for that conditional use case. mr. rabbitt was involved in those negotiations for many months. it was during that time that he involved this complaint. he was unsatisfied with the settlement reached and resigned from being an officer of the neighborhood association. as part of the settlement agreement, usf has agreed to set aside $1.20 million to spend on traffic common and

beautification on golden gate ave. -- traffic calming and beautification on golden gate avenue. it was agreed between them how the money will be spent on street improvements. we are also finding a traffic study to study some of these questions as to what is the right thing to do in terms of parking, a trade ups between parking, traffic. that is a process established with the university terrace association, which mr. rabbitt has opted out of. it is his right to opt out of that process, but that is the process that usf and university terrace association have embarked on to imagine what golden gate avenue ought to be like.

there is an ongoing process with the neighborhood association to think about golden gate avenue. what is the right thing to do their to pull this encroachment out and do with it separately from this process? i said i think it is not right. commissioner fung: counselor, is there a worst-case scenario in terms of the overhang of the cars parked diagonally their where the ada requirement would be not met? >> i think the actual ada requirement is 3 feet. i do not know if 4 feet is a different standard. i believe the ada itself

specifies the requirement of 3 feet. commissioner fung: it is 6 feet for a turnaround. >> here is one copy of that. is it possible with a big suv? my guess is the center line of the sidewalk there is more or less the 3 foot mark. is it possible that an suv would come all the way over to that? i doubt it. i cannot say for sure, commissioner fung, that i have investigated that. but that is an accurate representation of the condition there. commissioner peterson: i have another question going to your settlement discussions regarding the conditional use of the building, something separate from the issue before us. you are saying it was not right to pull out this encroachment permit?

i am a little confused. >> what university terrace association represents is the entire strip. we reached a binding settlement agreement, after which they withdrew its opposition to the conditional use. that was the result of many months of negotiation. as part of that, one of the key elements -- the starting point was duty they felt very strongly there ought to be traffic calming and beautification efforts. commissioner hwang: is that inclusive of the fence? i am trying to get to the fence peace. >> uta's position was that there should be a comprehensive look at golden gate. there were issues raised about the baseball field and everything from the colors of

the polls on the netting, a lot of concern about noise on the baseball field, and aluminum bats over there. there are a long list of issues that were specifically identified. it was agreed we would work on that over time. commissioner hwang: was the fence one of those issues? >> defense specifically was not identified as something that -- uta is still not asking for that offense to be relocated. more generally, the landscape along the width of the sidewalks, the parking orientation -- all of those things were very much raised and are being looked at as part of the university's institutional

master plan process. it is a cooperative process with uta. commissioner hwang: up the alternative potential resolution offered by mr. rabbitt was to push part of the fans back that would not have an impact on the level of the baseball field -- the fence back that would not have an impact on the level of the baseball field. is that a consideration that is part of this other comprehensive look? >> it could be. i do think there are, at either end of that retaining wall -- there are areas where there is a flat space between the interior place where conceivably you could widen the sidewalk. there would still be pinched points in between there. the question is whether you could widen the prospective and what the impact on the

landscaping would be. this is a photograph at the western and of the encroachment. as you can see, the retaining wall zags away. there is a relatively flat area. there is also some material landscaping. would you want to widen the sidewalk at the sufferance of that landscaping? this is the same drawing from a moment ago. this is the outfield fence, the edge of the left field fence. it starts to job out to center field.

this area is relatively level with the sidewalk, relatively flat. there are three pretty mature cypress trees along that area. is reducing the size of the fence something we might look at through that process? i think it is. a small widening of the sidewalk, conceivably it -- i do not think you would want to lose those trees. i think those trees are important to the neighborhood, important to the university as well. commissioner hwang: why is the fence on the other side of those trees? >> we don't know. commissioner hwang: you understand what i am saying? >> i do. historically, how this came to be this way in the first place -- my guess is at some point in

time many years ago somebody built a fence. the sidewalk was where it was. the paved the sidewalk -- at some point, somebody thought that must be the property line. that is speculation on my part. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner fung: i presume the baseball field was there forever? >> the baseball field has been there as long as anybody i have talked to at usf can remember. >> thank you. mr. quan? >> one thing i forgot -- and have to make a declaration. my brother did attend usf and graduated there many years ago. i forgot to report that. that would in no way cloud my

judgment on my presentation. actually, he got an rotc scholarship. please keep in mind this is a minor encroachment permit and is for vocable at the will of the director of public works. -- is leave vocable at the will of the director of public works -- is revokable at the will of the director of public works. they are looking at traffic calming, landscaping, and the better streets plan. should at the future some plan be devised, the department would gladly work with the local community and usf to reconstruct the sidewalk to come more into compliance with the better streets plan. at that point, the director will decide if it is appropriate to revoke the permit, depending on

the situation. nevertheless, there is an existing condition that is nearly 20 years old. the department acted appropriately on the issuance of this permit, given the age of it, given that there have been no complaints, except one recently about this encroachment. vice president garcia: would it be possible or feasible to construct a barrier that would prevent those cars from going over the sidewalk so as to afford more room on the sidewalk? >> typically, angular parking, the majority of the time -- there are a variety of cars parked until early. typically, where the wheel stops at the curb line, the upper part

that protrudes would extend no more than where the parking meter is located. that would usually leave more than sufficient room. as you can see, there were some no parking signs on the pictures. that is 18 inches back. on the picture shown, the bumper extends no more than 18 inches over the sidewalk. there are some vehicles with very long front ends that may extend more. however, it would still provide, in the majority of places, the minimum of 4 feet required under state law. under state guidelines, there can be pinched points where it goes to 3 feet. the department does believe that with the is satisfied in this case. vice president garcia: you are saying it is unnecessary? >> in order to insure that to

happen, the stocks would have to be installed in the roadway, much like you would in parking lots. vice president garcia: exactly. commissioner peterson: do you know when usf has to spend the $1.20 million? >> this is news to our department. we did not know about this. the neighborhood group and usf, along with fellow agencies from planning and parking and traffic, will determine what is the best use. commissioner peterson: is there a written settlement agreement you could provide to the agency? >> i have it here in my hand. commissioner peterson: i don't know if i need to see it, but i

think the department needs to see it. but when did you agree? >> there is a somewhat complicated answer to that question, as you might expect. dpt and the planning department have been involved in discussions about this. the street traffic calming group has been specifically involved. i probably should make sure john was involved in those discussions as well. we will do that. the short answer to your question is we have the commitment to a very -- you may need to help me out. there is a six month process where we are supposed to have this traffic study agreed on. there is not a specific

timeframe when the money has to be spent. there has to be an agreement between uta, usf, and the city, if it involves work in the public right-of-way, as to what work will be done. because we do not know what work would be done and what approvals are required in order to do it, we did not agree to a specific timeframe within which it must be spent. in order to address that in the agreement, usf agreed to set that money aside. it is there and will be spent when agreement is reached on how to do it. we expect that will be in the next year or so. in 18 months to two years, we have agreed to develop a new institutional master plan for the university that would obviously relate to those improvements. commissioner peterson: thank

you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: commissioners, two issues before us is whether the minor encroachment was the appropriate venue for it, and the attendant issues that go along with the issues of such a permit, which relates to the type of sidewalk in that immediate area and the nature of the space that's left and the reason as to why it was required. i think it is probably safe to say that a portion of the retaining wall must