comment on. >> the schedule is extended beyond 30 days. typically they are done within 30 days. if there is a reasonable inquiry for extension, we do go to 60 days, but demolition projects are fees of blida on within a shorter time we did our fuseli -- demolition projects are done within a shorter time. >> is it ok to go to july 12? would the department how of problem with that, or would that be subject to further hearings or consideration? >> it depends on the ongoing investigation. during this time demolitions are not part of the issue that would

require extended time. >> i do not think i understand your answer. but i felt like i was pushing too hard to go after the same thing. >> is there a problem to extend the time for this and who work to be completed through the time her post, which is 30, 2012, from the department's prospective nominee -- department perspective? typically this could be performed in three months, so when the parties subject to modification such as this, and would the department have any concerns with the permit holder to expand that beyond another

half year, take their time to complete a project of this nature? >> we have certain times to complete that but we ask the applicant to get the project completed. it depends on the scope and the amount. if you reconstruct of whole building, it takes a longer time. it is feasible to have a certain duration. >> what do you think about this project in nine months? >> on the department issue? it is lengthy. >> thank you superior -- thank you. >> are you in a position to shed some light on this?

>> we still have to get permits to do this work. this is not a situation where we can start to work tomorrow. we need to get a tree planting permits, and we need to get the building permits from the department of building inspection. we have not started engineering of the wall until we know which sections we are taking out, and we are trying to do this right this time. some mistakes have been made with respect to the conditions that are out. the department of public works was satisfied with a condition as it was. and we are prepared to get rid of all but 16 percent of the encroachment. we do not want to be in a

position where we leave for a dangerous condition. we think this is the particular time to do this amount of work. good evenin>> i appreciate him g through great detail to have this proposal. while you are up here, would you agree to change the language on page to having to do with the fence? the sentence that they may relocate the fence and change that too, they shall install the new friends? >> yes, and i think what it should say is the existing fence shelbshall be removed, and thenn

the second sentence, where it says they may either relocate the existing fence or install a new offense, -- a new fence, strike that and say the new fence maybe 18 feet in length. >> when the tree was decided, was out in consultation with the bureau of urban forestry? >> it was, and with landscape architects, they consulted with neighbors and also consult with the department of urban forestry carrier -- urban forestry. we got an e-mail emphasizing they would take a closer look death that through the tree- planting process. they are in the loop. >> if you deal west miss short,

you are in good hands. >> is there any public comment on this item? come forward. >> good afternoon. this appeal has given me the opportunity to work with partners in the city, the board of appeals, the department of building inspection, and everyone has been so kind and so helpful, and i am one have the citizens of the city of san francisco. -- one happy citizen of the city

of san francisco. >> will you repeat that? >> he is just kidding. >> they requested that usf pay per year. if they are going to take nine months after we have talked about this for so long common and may i please request that $760 be pro rated, though i would prefer for it to be done by christmas or the new year. this is my idea of how trees are affected by rain. when trees are planted in the sunshine, the leaves grow, but the trees need strong roots, and their roots grow better in the fall or the winter when there is rain, and when there are so many trees, there is less competition for water if it is during the rainy season, so for that common sense reason, i am asking the trees the planted and now by new year's so thank you

very much. >> is there any other public comment? please step forward. >> i just want to say good evening to the board. as many as you know, what san francisco is constantly trying to pursue safer streets, and as a result common and we fully support -- as a result, we fully support pedestrian walks, and we would like to work towards freeing the right of way back to being a public right of way, and we would like to see this done as quickly as possible. >> is there any other public

comments? please step forward. >> my name isn't mark mcintyre. -- my name is mark mcintyre. it has been agreed to do this iron in november. youthere is no reason they could not have gotten tree permits already. you should get permits, but as you can see, this is the procedure, which says any design

of an element in the public right-of-way should not fully enclosed it, because that would privatize the property. this completely encloses it, and the settlement would end close it, and the fact of the department of public works would point out they did not ask. there are a lot of things that weren't on done -- that were not done. it can be done right now. >> is there any other public comment?

seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> the presentation seemed reasonable. could they have gotten some permits before now? and when they came before us, they had a sidewalk and encroachment program. what was going to be done remains to be resolved. as to the issue raised by ms. clark, that would not be anything we would be involved in. i am sure they will take that into consideration.

when they plant trees or are involved in the planting of trees, they give you pretty explicit instruction on how to care for it, so there would be asked to increase the amount of water that goes today -- goes to it, so i think this is an extremely reasonable compromise, and my intention is to support it. >> i think we lose sight the permit had been granted. there are public policies, but there is some sympathy with the school year and promoting

settlement, so i would concur and uphold the proposed settlement your good -- who proposed settlement. >> i am leaning towards of holding. i appreciate the comments from the public as to why nine and a half months is problematic, and my inclination to support the settlement is because you have come this far, and for this to be a sticking point, i would not like to see the agreement undone because of fat, and while -- because of that, while the work can be done, they would make it happen like fashiothat. like i said, my explanation is to go forward with this. >> i agree with that.

is there a motion bowman'? >> do we adopt the letter with the alterations mentioned ensuring the new fence be put up and not exceed 8 feet? >> i think the way to do this would bee to condition the encroachment on the new plans that would be submitted. i do not think buchanayou can cn it, so i think you would accepted with respect to the revised plan. >> we are a excepting it. >> it is for-votes required.

>> i am concerned about height. it does not seem to be included. it is in the agreement. i think we are getting some of advice from counsel. >> i think it would be appropriate to reference the letter in addition to the plants. the board has no control over if and when the permit us are issued, so the board could not necessarily and force the deadline -- enforce the deadline, but there is a deadline they must apply in, so i think you would want to appropriate nine comments with a condition of the appropriate approvals. >> and 8-foot height

regulations. and the adjustments made to the record curio -- to the record. >> do we need to rephrase that bowma? >> i think we would include the revised language, so if you want me to read that, it would say the existing area should be removed and a new fence installed in conformance with the plan dated january 27, revised on october 12. the revised plan is attached as exhibit a, and the following would say these new fences maybe 8 feet in height. >> ok. >> i think we have a motion from the vice-president.

is that right? the motion is to grant the appeal. >> to grant the appeal on the letter and the plan. >> we have a motion from the vice president to grant this appeal, of hold a permit with conditions, the conditions being the adoption of the settlement agreement dated october 12, 2011, and with the adoption of the revised plan, also dated 10-12. on that motion --

[calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld on all those conditions. thank you. >> item #6 has been rescheduled to january 18, 2012, and we can move on to item no. 7, 524 howard st., appealing the revocation on june 9, 2011, of office allocation of the subject of property under the planning codes office development annual limit program. the matter is of for a hearing today, and we will start with the appellant. is the appellant here bowman --

is the appellant here? mr. park. it appears the appellant is not here. i understand the appellant also did not appeared previously when this was heard. we can continue the case. we can i ask the zoning administrator to speak. is your call. >> did we get a brief? >> no briefs submitted. >> mr. hart asked for reschedulings, and we sent out letters with the october 12 as the date. >> let's go ahead and back burner and item number seven. let's hear no. 9 enand give hima chance. i am sorry.

item #8. >> pat buscovich verses the department of building inspection. protesting the issuance of permits to alter a building commo-- an addition of reader, basement under deck, portables on in basement interior, horizontal addition on first floor, new decca audition at first floor leader, and we will start with the appellant. >> 7 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i always like to say what the case is really about. it is never what it is really

about. a permit was filed about a year ago to build a retaining wall. there was an agreement from my client to the owner of a certain amount of vegetation would be installed and they would not have to see the construction. the series of retaining walls and the addition in the back. we have been trying to work with the neighbor about fulfilling the requirements and having the landscapers talk. that agreement has fallen apart. we have the votes of the permit, reason we have looked at the permit, and a retaining wall we are talking about is this yellow area, and that was a permit issued.

it was subject to review by my client end of previous attorney. i am not going to justify the previous work, and now on the retaining wall they are building a structure. that is the only one we can appeal, and our contention is this previous permit was issued in error. if you go out to the sizete, and it is hard to see because it is pretty overgrown. there are trees everywhere, and if you go to the site, you can stand and see all the trees, but what is clear from the photos, there is a retaining wall filled out of cobblestone -- build out of cobblestoned of reuse the

grave four or 5 feet, and if you go to all of the adjoining properties, which i have done, including clients i have down the block, the yellow ones you can clearly see that what has happened, and maybe i can explain it here. this is a broadway and still more. this is a high section of the intersection. there is a nice cross slope, and in the middle, there is a knob. goosomebody in the 1940's raiset the grade 4 or 5 c. the permit i am going after tore down the structure. you cannot tear things down in the rear yard that are not

supposed to be there. it is about 9 feet tall. i could not get over to the section because is way over here trabout 7 feet or seven anf feet. there may be a problem because you cannot tear down a retaining wall and rebuild it without a very tense, and you cannot tear down on non-conforming retaining wall and raise it to feed. apparently the belief islam that this -- is that this trade is yellow, and they came and left this up in the air, and you can look at it.

this is an elevated retaining wall but someone has added sioux, and you cannot keep doing this. goowhat my client was left witho was sections -- his property is about 7 feet collin -- 7 feet tall, and the only way this convene -- could be illegal is if a properties gradually blend in tune in -- blend into the photography. for this to be there, they would have to show cliff. we are only asking one thing. stand in the backyard antel main this is native to grade.

it is physically not possible how it is surrounded, and you cannot keep raising grade, and if i am wrong, i am happy to have you look and tell me i am wrong. i want you to take a look and tell me it is appropriate to have this structure in the rear yard because planning code would not allow it. >> if we were to agree with everything you say, how do we do anything but urge planning to go out there, because when you directed your comments at has nothing to do with the permits. >> the current permit is sitting on his wall, so it was issued in error.

they are building on the part of the wall but was previously under permit. this section of the wall does not need of various. if this was issued in error, you cannot build on top of it,>> it3 feet tall. out here, is. the dangerous slope to say that we are going to piecemeal permits issued in error, they need to fix their permit and get a new permit for a foundation. >> can you put the picture back up? the one with the brown would which i believe -- is that the structure that you're referring to? >> that is the fence on top of the wall.

>> defense, is that the structure that is related to the permit at issue? >> the structure is way behind. >> offense on the retaining wall, it is the wall, the retaining wall itself was issued on an erroneous permit? >> i believe it required a variant because the height above native grade. >> defense is not an issue, it is the wall. where is the structure? >> of the structure is about 50 feet back. >> that is the permit on which the property -- >> this is a very large wall. you're seeing this section here where the houses being built on top of this wall. we look at this permit and the old permit in this current structure is sitting on this

wall. the permit was issued in error, you can't build on a permit issued in error. i invite planning out to look. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> and good evening, commissioners. attorneys for the owners of the home, also in the audience is matt williams of the architectural firm, and he will be available in case you have any questions are regarding the plans. just to focus the commission, the permit in the retaining wall at the fence that he is complaining about is not the subject of the permit that has been appealed.