street. others would consider closing of some of the streets. there is a lot of discussion yet to be tagged. there is a wide range of alternatives which has been presented to the full neighborhood at a public meeting. a lot more conversation with the neighbors and the city about what is the appropriate thing to do. >> a sense of timing when things would be implemented or funding. >> the funding is set aside and in place. we are estimating 18 months to work through the neighborhood and the city the right approach to the project.

>> how does that issue play into this case before us? >> i believe that it would be inappropriate to look at four alternatives for capturing that 600 square feet. that process is designed to look at traffic coming and beautification. this permit is what is in front of the board today. this is able to be revoked. we understand that we will have 30 days' notice. -- a permit is upheld, we're

happy to work with them. >> thank you, sir. >> we can take public comment. can you please step forward?

>> good evening. i am the past president of the university association. i think that this should be denied and the property right of way should be restored. this is the property line. all i want to show you are the exhibits. this is the property line. 6 feet over is the fence. usf has always known that this

was on the right of way. they confessed to this. you see the yellow pole, that is where the old retaining wall was. this is 3 feed which is where they removed the soil and there were trees. they cover all this area of so that i covered the fence. in 2004, the university did not

have a permit but they cut the trees down so that they can move this retaining wall over to hear. they had all of the soil and the roots and then move it 3 feet. they could have taken this retaining wall and put it back where it was. they could have replanted trees. they could move this over here, fill it in, and plant it.

thank you. >> do you live in this area? >> yes. i live down the street from mr. -- that he asked me what the history was. rb started the association and i am sort of the neighborhood historian. i went away overseas and i came back and it looked different. then, one day we were driving down golden gate and the trees for gone. -- trees were gone. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, everyone. i liked the university.

they give me a good education. within the last couple of years, they have donated several -- but i want to ask for a more open space and that is why i feel very fenced in. here is a picture of the east and and this is covered with -- but i could see it was level. on the west end, there is a chain-link fence that obscures' trees. i just want some open space. here is the famous line cover. there is in little bit of invasive i.t. coming up. you will notice that this only

covers 10 or 12 feet but there are remnants of the other trees that would hide this better. there are seven polls and they are 70 feet tall. they partially obscured the sky. and those are not enough because there are 12 more. these you can see from golden gate ave. here is a better shot. there are about 17-19 70 feet tall poles. not only did they change the skyline and impose on our view

of the sky, there is -- how can we achieve this? it is obvious that there is a zigzag in the retaining wall. there was 10 or 11 additional trees that the neighborhood mrs.. i am here to ask you to give me back the open space. i am not even talking about the space that we have to walk on. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening.

and the sitting president of the university terrace association. you have our letter of support for the department proposal -- >> before you finish, i need to disclose that we have served together on the board of the chinese international school for many years. it was through her efforts at the school survived and succeeded. >> thank you. >> we no longer serve on the board together. >> he is probably more surprised to see me here than in other places because we have had no contact on this matter. the association submitted a letter of support. why are we here? i think it is to satisfy

personal motivations which are not supported in any substantial numbers by any of the other members. this issue came up initially as part of our review and our negotiations as to whether or not they had been observant of the permit process. this one emerged as a somewhat confusing matter because much of the work was done under permit. specifically, a waiver of the sidewalk right of way did not appear to be covered. we support what the university did to solving the problems. every discussion about what is to be gained borders on the

frivolous. opening 600 square feet of downhill up hill the zigzag on one corner does absolutely nothing for the skyline. this is not affect its position. through all of the issues that you have before you, i know that you want to devote your time and that of the department's to achieving actual constructive results. we would like to have the original recommendation of the permit. we hear no evidence that anything of consequence is to be gained for the community in this. at understand that the commission has an obligation to support or sustain the city's interest in this matter.

the university association is emphatically rejected any notion that any funds should be devoted to this unfairly frivolous and meaningless solution. we have before us for traffic -- a splendid group of alternatives. we want all of those funds devoted to that. thank you. >> is any other public comment? please step forward. >> i am a member of the association. please note that miss karins did not ask. this is a brief comment.

i would like to rebut some of the contentions. in their own property at the west end of the property line, there is the soccer fields that provides some of the solutions that we might propose. this is an 8 foot fence bordering on the fields. you can see that this is down slope and the fence sits down on where the sidewalk is supposed to be. restoring some of the property line to this and it would give you a look like this rather than

in approaching right where the sidewalk is. thank you. >> i would appreciate if you can fill out a speaker card. >> the matter is submitted. >> i feel that something would be gained in spite of the very thoughtful comments.

how much of the fence and that plastic shielding, i don't know how to describe this. it would make someone feel more ham been to be there. to have that 6 feet and hopefully capture some of that open space even though we have heard from the department of public space, we think it would be reasonable. not that this should play into this but usf has stated that the cost would play out because they would not be paying a fee to the city for encroachment. i do feel that it would be unreasonable at this point to cause them to remove the entire length of the retaining wall that is now in the public space and i agree with the arrangement that has been worked out for that side of it.

there will be a fee paid to the city and i consider that to be a reasonable solution. >> i agree that returning to the public area is reasonable. i am more trouble with the fact that there is no evidence of the permit for the work that was done in 2004. i am inclined to allow for a continuance to search for the permit. i don't think that we can do that. i'm uncomfortable with that. >> it did sound like i was

almost conceding the point on the part of the council. it was moved out two feet into the right of way. i would agree with the idea of having a continuance. >> for me, there are two issues. one is the fact that this sidewalk and goes against a place that will likely remain in perpetuity for its particular use and therefore does it deserve the encroachment process to enhance that use behind it?

the other issue is from the residence point of view of looking at a very institutional use, this is not something i would like to see on a daily basis. there is no doubt that there was some type of usage here. it is hard to track exactly at one. whether there was always some level of encroachment. we know that it increased at a certain time not far past. if they have had a week to look for this permit, i doubt that it exists which then creates a secondary issue of construction of this magnitude without a

permit. that might also affect what the final position would be on this. >> i am more inclined to move forward with the global settlement and the traffic resolutions that the community has worked out. i have concern that this will be disruptive to the resolution. i would not be inclined for a continuance but probably at most i would concur with vice president garcia's solution.

>> is there a motion? >> i would move for a continuance to a date acceptable to the parties for an opportunity for the permit holder to find that permit. >> do you want to specify the permit? >> the permit that may or may not exist with respect to the retaining wall that was constructed in the right of way in 2004. also those for the removal of trees that may or may not have existed. >> we heard allegations that 11 trees were removed. it is your department that has

the bureau of urban forestry. we would expect them to see a permit for the removal of those trees. >> from all indications, the construction of this might have come from a building department permit in this case. >> they often granted permits that often requires a permit for tree removal. >> i know that there was certain inquiries. we searched the block for the baseball field. it appears there might have been a permit issued some time in 2004. >> what about the -- permit? >> i am uncertain about where

the property line was represented. if the property line is represented, we're not sure where the retaining wall would be. the trees would be behind the property line and would not fall under the purview of the department. i cannot speak to that in this case. >> i thought there was a certain distance away from the sidewalk even if it is on someone's property at which time a tree becomes a public street. >> in 2004. >> that would be the deciding issue, what codes apply in 2004. >> there are enough questions that may be a continuance makes sense because you are saying that there should have been a permanent and -- would have been the ones to issue it.

we don't have it in front of us. this magnitude of the project would happen in the public right away without a permit that we can look at. >> the this is the lot but there are multiple addresses related to this. from a surge, it would be difficult to find this in the database. we don't have an exact address. >> well, it might be worthwhile. >> the permit holder obtain a permit and they would have a copy presumably. >> the grounds keeper stated he

arrived in 2006 and the permit was acquired before 2006. i don't know the record. my motion would be to ask the permit holder to look through their records. we would like to move the hearing until such time that would for that opportunity. >> what i feel is before us is this specific permit. it is not my intent to get involved in the negotiation that has been going on for a long time.

>> to you have a date for your continuance? >> april 6th. >> we don't have a full board then. >> april 20th? >> it is a full calendar that night. >> is there any harm in pushing this out to may 11th? >> we are scheduling as of today for may 25th. >> there is no objection. >> the motion is to continue this matter until may 25th to allow the permit-holders time to

locate any permits for the wall that was constructed in 2004 and for the trees that were removed. >> perfect. >> one week before the hearing. this would be the thursday prior to the hearing. >> if there is the permit, it would be useful to have a dialogue about what process has been gone through.

>> two pages of brief regarding -- >> in the event that there is no permit found. is there any need for a briefing by any other party? >> know. -- no. there is no requirement. >> they would have to build that into the timing of it. >> correct. >> we could say that the permit holder has a few pages and the permits themselves and the appellant can respond orally at the hearing. >> yes. >> that motion would be to allow the permit holder the opportunity to submit up to two pages.

>> and the motion is 4-1 and it carries. is there any questions about the briefings? thank you. does anyone need a break or can we keep going? >> we will resume the meeting of the board of appeals. the next item is item number 8.