to talk buttons at trial shelters. rider when pushes the button, the text is displayed -- when a rider pushes the button. >> the success of these tests led to the expansion of the program to all stations on the light rail and is part of the new shelter contract, push to talk will be installed. check out the new technology making your right easier every day

good evening and welcome to the october 12 meeting. vice president michael garcia's, chris wong, and commissioner peterson. to my left isn' the deputy. she will provide any legal advice this evening. i am the executive director. iwe are joined by executives who have matters of business. we have the department of public health, and i believe our

representative from the department of public works. at this time, if you would please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in bohol way. the board rules are as follows. appellants and representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated who conclude their comments within three minutes or seven ministers. members have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no time for rabat calls. members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to board staff when you come to

the podium. speaker cards and hands are available on the left side of the podium. there are customer service satisfaction forms as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to staff during a break in the meeting or call the board office in the morning. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television company and now and dvd's are available for purchase directly from the sfc tv. we will conduct are swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of the hearings and wish to have the board give testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do after you have been

affirmed. any member of the public may speak without taking a note. do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> we have two housekeeping items. the first pass to do with a jurisdiction request regarding 3525 pacific ave. that item has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. also with respect to item no. 6 regarding a proposed medical care of those dispensary at sutter st., the parties have jointly requested this matter be who reqsumed in january. goo>> i guess what the fed is dg

may have influenced that, but i would move to reschedule. >> is there any public comment on that item? seeing none, call the roll please. >> on that motion to continue appeal 11-069 on january 18, 2012. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the appeal is rescheduled to generate 18. >> moving to the first item, which is public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? seeing nine, item two, which is commissioner comments and questions.

>> i want to announce i will be and who absent for the october meeting. >> we will move to item no. 3, which is adoption of minutes. for your consideration are the meeting who menace -- meeting minutes. >> comments? i will move for adoption. any public comment on minutes amonte who will call the roll please. >> on that motion to adopt the minutes. [calling votes] lotus 4-0. those are adopted. >> item 4a has been withdrawn. we will move to item b.

the board who received a letter regarding the case decided in september. they voted to uphold the 30-day suspension of tobacco sales permit on the basis of health code violations. i do not see the appellants, the requester is in the room, so you have a choice of continuing this later in the hearing or deciding now, and we can hear from the department of public health. >> let's go ahead and hear from the department. >> did you find your phone? >> yes. good afternoon.

i am with the san francisco city attorney's office. i am here on behalf of the department of public health. i believe the board received a letter from the requester on this matter received by the board of appeals on september 26, 2011. i reviewed the letter. you have as well. in light of the fact that requester is have not appeared, i would ask the board to deny the request for consideration. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the

matter is yours. >> i would hesitate to do something on got off chance the person is late and will show ou, but there is nothing new, as stated in the brief, so i would move to deny the request for rehearing. >> i would echo that. >> should we call the roll? >> on that motion to deny the rehearing request. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this rehearing request is denied. >> we will move on to item no.

5. subject property is golden gate avenue, and this is protesting the issue on october 9, 2010 to the university of san francisco for a minor encroaching on to the sidewalk right of way. this permanent public hearing was held on january 19, 2011. on march 23, 2011, the matter was considered further to allow time to provide of st. in 2004, and trees were moved. on may 25, the matter was considered again to allow the parties to continue discussions.

we will give each party three minutes. gov. >> you need to oust the board if they want to a accepted. >> good evening. i have a letter outlining proposed conditions of approval and modifications of the permanenit the usf will accept. >> i am curious why we did not get it in our package. i would move to except it. -- accept it.

the only issue we believe is described in this letter. i am going to walk you through the proposal to modify the encroachment permit previously permitted. we have been here a few times, so i will not go through all donthe history, but there is a six-foot area with a retaining wall. the current proposal, u.s. the fed is prepared to remove abortion of the retaining wall, and reduce the encroachment by approximately 84%, so what we would do is, this is a of a corner of where i'm pointing for the offense starts here. it would be moved all the way to

the property line, so it would follow the property line along all of this section until it gets to a point here and then for roughly 200 feet thick ankles in and encourages about 3 feet into the public right of way, angles back inside the property line when it runs back here, so all that is left would be down to only a three-foot encroachment for approximately 200 feet, and what we are trying to preserve is the existing retaining wall. we would remove the retaining wall but extends to the east of the fence. it can go to a natural grade, and the portion that is in the

public right of way would be retained the hindgut france. we would also install 11 new trees. this is the product of a lot of discussion with other neighbors. we had originally indicated we thought the work could be completed within two months as we resolve this. we got close to a rainy season. we do not want to have to start during the baseball season. they will complete this work as promptly as possible, and it

will be completed byroby july 3o we would ask the board granted this appeal, which would reference to this plan. >> the best time is in the rainy season. is it in feasible to plant trees prior to doing the other work? >> i think it would not be appropriate to plant the trees and take out the fence. if we take it down, then we would be in a position where there is no protection for the public. i think it is clear that all the work wants to happen at the same time.

i do not think we want to install new trees. >> someone else seem to be concerned about whether you are going teuton recycle the fences. -- going to recycle the fences. >> if you are going to speak, you need to speak into the microphone. >> i had not talkined about in being removed. >> what i meant was to reuse the same sense. >> it would not be appropriate because it is going to be a different height 3 goo. we wanted to be the black one

rather then the silver france during of >> i think the question is having to do with the height. >> what is the existing height? >> 12. >> we can hear from the appellants now. >> before we start the clock, did you get a copy of what we were just handed no. did you get those just now? >> i got an earlier version, so close enough.

>> just reference to the overhead. >> i basically agree. this is a compromise with one major condition. i did want to quickly clarify one point that was touched upon. if you look of the actual letter, it says we may relocate the existing fence, but if the new fence is installed, it will not exceed 8 feet. i am asking that letter be clarified, but to go through the other issues of timing, basically what mr. bryan said was about was the only issue.

i recognize we made a lot of progress. the timing issue is of concern, because if you look of the original note is to repair a sidewalk, it was issued. it is that a repair within 30 days, -- it asked that the repair be made within 30 days. now they are asking for nine and a half months. the other thing is i actually contacted jodi about the timeframe for a typical sidewalks, and she said usually it is 30, 60, or 90 days, but not beyond that, and i have a copy of the permit for some other work they did last year.

they started out in october, and they finished in december. it is not the same thing, but they got it done in two months. i think that is relevant your good -- that is relevant. while i support this, the reason i think it is appropriate to put a time frame on, they are making a compromise. they mentioned the encroachment was long standing, but actually, in 2004, usf constructed the retaining wall without a permit, and i want to be clear, because you ask if there was a permit. they said no permit was required for the retaining wall, but i

notice of violation has been issued. i think it should be appropriate to have a tight time frame. thank you very much. >> could we go back to the letter you said you got a week ago and we got today? you agree with this letter except 1a, where it talks about eight-foot maximum. >> there are two issues. i am happy to have it clarified. there will be no sense taller than 8 feet. they could relocate the taller fence, and the second issue in

is they have given themselves until july 30 to get the work done. and we have to wait another nine and a half months to get this done. it seems that is an unreasonable time. >> i just want to be cleare. i see that at 1c. do you see that in the other place? >> also 3b. >> thank you. is there a discussion regarding the types of trees? >> there was a lot of discussion with urban forestry and other neighbors but were involved, and i believe there is discussion of a tree and now

that is apparently suited to it, so i am fine with what is proposed for the types of trees. >> can i just ask you -- i found interesting the permits that commenced in october relating to the retaining wall, that you discussed earlier. >> i am not saying it has any relevance. i was only giving you an example. it is just an example.

not exactly the same, but you could work in october, november, december, and something roughly similar. >> shall i call the department of public works gunma -- the department of public works? >> is that an extra copy of the document? >> good evening, commissioners. just to reflect, we consider our process, and we are considering some minor encroachment. the negotiations between th ong.

if there are any questions, i am happy to hear. >> will you offer an opinion on this? >> the department's position is that we did receive some drawings recently. there are some incomplete applications today reflecting other items, but we can look at it, and it is possible if it is within the timeframe allowed common -- timeframe allowed, i

can comment on how the trees are. >> i guess the question was not direct enough. normally someone is loud -- allowed 30, 60, 90 days, and it would go from here. july 12 is more than 90 days, and that is what i want you to 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