a straight. monterey boulevard goes one direction, you go to the right. >> this is the -- when you are coming from the monterey boulevard toward glen park, you face sort of a fork in the road. you take a left, you go diamond to the bart station. if you take a slight right you go onto the ramp that justin is talking about. leads to san jose by russo. where the bike lane starts essentially. the problem is you have cars coming in and wanting to weave into the stream of traffic with the cars that are coming at much higher speed from the freeway, as well as the cars that are coming from the other side of san jose avenue into the bernal cut so the bike lane is hanging in the balance.

a good amount of traffic headed from san jose avenue off-ramp northbound wants to take russo to go into glen park so you have crossings on the bike lane. that is the problem. >> in a more robust planning process where we are able the bring transportation engineers in and designers there could be an opportunity where all three connectivity points could be preserved but might involve more aggressive changes to how that is configured or how land use trade-offs or circulation trade-off modes so those are questions we want answered in collaboration with the community and partners. >> is there more discussion going back to san he say between randall and all the areas were, this convergence, where the

gutter is. actually talking about using the sidewalk area to be both bicycle and pedestrian -- there's very few pedestrians but a lot of bicycles that use that site. i would be great to move out of the gutter to that space. >> sure. if i understand your question, you are talking about the sidewalk which you see -- northbound bernal cut. >> this area, there is maybe an opportunity to use some of this wholly for bicycles. clearly would involve curb construction, which greatly increases cost of designing. certainly for a long-term vision, medium-term vision that would be possible. there is an additional pedestrian facility up the hill, which is much more pleasant to walk on. some community gardens and what not. very few pedestrians on that segment. >> we look to the possibility of relocating the light poles that are

practically on the curb on that northbound sidewalk to top of parapet, that keeps the hillside from coming down. pretty expensive receive things. part of a long-range vision. that would free up the entire sidewalk and maybe, you know, extending that a little bit within the perimeter of the current bike lane. you'd have a facility wide enough to do both. pedestrian and bicycle movement without the hazard of having the light poles in the way of moving bicycle. again, we are talking about fairly significant amendments of money. >> this is the biggest connector from this part of san francisco towards the northern part of san francisco. yeah, we have to figure out how to make these investments, do it right. stuff like this has to get

done. we are seeing more and more cyclists coming from there, which is great. >> go back to the slides. i won't dwell on all the finding, i think i have touched on them throughout the presentation. the real story of octavia boulevard, what it is. as i mentioned before,ly reiterate, it did bring sitting benefits to the community. some traffic diverted else where. as this part of town grows and we seek to provide robust alternatives for folks to get to their destinations via walking, biking, transit, ride sharing, car sharing, we will be challenged to do so to make sure these high traffic volumes don't impair the neighborhood's ability to grow and we are recognizing that travel patterns are really diverse and that we will have to be creative, supporting

employers that want to provide different options for their commuter, whether their locations are in san francisco or else where. i think what we have also learned from octavia boulevard and finding show that as the street is rebalanced d to prioritize non automobiles we need to focus on how this works in tandem. as the conversation provides at the city level how our corridors function in the next 20, 30 years, we need to be looking at those investments to be paired with those changes to the circulation network for automobiles. paired with robust tdm strategies and policies to manage that demand, whether it is in those that lead into the neighborhood. so if it is looking at how do improvements to san jose get paired with regional services, some of which are using the corridor, if you consider the shuttles going to the south bay a form of transit, they are use that corridor now. are there opportunities to

prioritize public or private transit in some of the corridors. finally, continuing to think about complete streets in a san francisco sensitive fashion. we will never have the right-of-way to have a single street, bike lane, brt way, boulevard for pedestrians and four lanes of traffic but a cross group thinking in integrated fashion how we are providing for the network. i will close with some of the next steps we are working on. we are coordinating the improves on franklin and golf. we are supporting other projects on the planning and design. earlier on the agenda if you can recall two hours ago you made allocations to the ongoing safety programs. these include activities such as reopening closed crosswalks. the mta is working on projects such as the lower polk bike network and

advancing planning for upper polk and other projects in the design phase. finally being very supportive of two key transit spines in the neighborhood of market and van ness, which are moving forward in the process or planning space to improve transit on the key corridors which are really the spines that the entire market and octavia neighborhood has plans around. with that it would be happy by to answer any other questions. i thank you for your attention at this late hour. >> mr. olagi. >> i just want to thank you for your presentation and look forward to the continued conversations on this issue. i worked on the market on octavia and it was pretty exciting as far as how it looked at all the different modes of, you know, transportation, walking, bicycling. we focused a lot on parking requirements at that time. at some point it might be interesting to get a sense of how that has affected or

not some of the goals i think, which is to build a more sustainable neighborhood, i think. i just want to see how the parking issue and what we did there has or has not affected the rest. you know, some analysis, i guess, would be interesting to have at this point. one of the buzz issues that i keep hearing about is the whole congestion pricing issue. i know you all have been studying it for a long time. i have gone to a couple public workshops. i don't know of any city in this country that has implemented it. i know stockholm, london has. where are we in the conversation? >> through the chair, thank you for the questions. they are timely and related. in some respects, the authority and various other agencies are advancing the

pressing dialogue in a number of fashions. in 2010 the areawide cordoned pricing feasibility study was approved by the board and board directed us to seek funding to move the analysis of congestion pricing into the phase. we have information from key stakeholders and community and other stakeholders to take a look at how does parking management get to addressing that need as well in terms of reducing that peak period congestion, making surface transit run better and providing funds to invest in mobility improvements. our present activities on pricing are along two streams. the first is we recently were awarded a grant from the federal highway administration to look at that question of how do our parking management policies sort of beyond simply managing on-street parking to an availability target, the sf park pilot, we are excited about and collect evaluation data on this

fall. the next generation of parking or regulatory strategis from a demand management. this will involve a lot of data collection of private supplies of parking and the usage of that parking, what are incentive of folks if they have that subsidized and options available to the city to use parking as a policy tool from a congestion management point of view. the second area of activity is the authority in its pending role as treasure island mobility management agency, actually have state legislation to implement congestion pricing in a very focused but important location, access to and from treasure island on the bay bridge. which is a really exciting pilot. not only from a congestion management point of view, important for performance but also from institutional and technological point of view in how we deliver and work with forecasts like

caltrans who have important jurisdiction over the bridge and interests in the pricing policy and how do we deliver the project on an ongoing basis in terms of all the revenues and how those are distributed in a set of improvements. that is very exciting. the ultimate objective of study is to say is, it is feasible and take an option as another alternative in a subsequent alternative view with congestion pricing that would be fully waived by decision makers and the public. i think this anticipates simply -- sort of lays it out to the public that we could let traffic grow as already has. it is having significant impacts on the neighborhood. we will be in trouble if we will be relying on the transit system to move people through the neighborhood and having safe n environment for bicyclists and being able to build the pedestrian environment and bicycle network we want. it is a really important

dialogue. i think this helps set up that conversation, a citywide conversation about growth versus the strategies we will need from the land use side to manage that growth effectively. >> great. we have a time frame? >> for which piece? >> the parking and the studies. >> sure. we just got our authorization from federal highway. we will be starting outside. about a year-long process. >> great. >> we will be coming back with updates and looking forward to all the commissioner's input. >> thank you. this is a great answer. >> i would say another thing to watch is san francisco transportation plan, the long-range update, which puts these issues on a countywide and even regional basis. >> i remember when i was look agent the treasure island plan, but not as it currently stands but the one that was approved about a year ago. the environmental impact report i remember having as

many as over 30 significant impacts due to this whole traffic piece so it makes sense to me that this congestion pricing would be applied to this. but are we looking at treasure island i guess preproject, right? as it is currently? as it stands currently? >> i will have him address that question. >> probably not the new project, right? interesting. >> deputy for planning. yes, we are working with tita to plan for the eventual day one of the housing perspective in 2016. currently 30 residents to eventually thousand in 2016 and 8,000 in the eventual build-out. >> if there are no comments or questions, thank you for your presentation. we can go on to public comment. seeing no one come forward

we will close public comment. this is an action item so colleagues, we have a motion to move this forward to the full authority. okay. we will take that without objection. very good. we have -- let's see. introduction of new items. >> this is an information item. >> colleagues? >> not today. >> public comment on item 11? we will close public comment. >> 12, public comment. >> again, we will -- public comment. please come forward. >> good afternoon, commissioners. jacob moody, executive director of bay view hunter's point commission for city improvement. sitting through finance and this committee i find out how complex this is dealing with all these transportation projects and

how infan test millie small we are. this has quietly optered bay view shuttle transporting hundreds to their health points in bay view, san francisco general hospital and st. lukes * allowing them to take advantage of life saving health procedures, preventive scare and lifestyle altering activities. in addition it's isn'ted toxic tours sponsored by black coalition on aids and ellis griffin to hunter's view to the housing authority mandated appointments to make sure they can remain in their housing, plus many other community activities. therefore it is disappointing our project is stuck in its process. staff around sfcta, san francisco department of public health, community health promotion and prevention and the foundation, worked on a

plan proposaled to take advantage of funding for two years of operation of the health shuttle. in addition the aforementioned staff developed a plan to support the san francisco department heal zone and fcta facility within bay view with intent of making changes in the shuttle operations agreed upon in the plan. in conversations with commissioner cohen on friday, i said that we could not operator on the budget amount or time frame offered in the proposal. perhaps question can but do so would require more negotiation with partners. it is our hope these can happen quickly and we can move forward with this project at the october commission meeting. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other members of the public who would like to comment? we will close public comment. >> 13, adjournment.

>> thank you. we are adjourned.

. >> good evening, welcome to the october 17th, 2012 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the present siding officer this evening is board president cis hwang. one seat on the board is vai captain and pursuant to charter section, the berd may hold a meeting when there is a vacancy. in such instances the board may overrule an action by the department by a vote of 3

members. to my left is deputy city attorney robert bryan, he will provide the board with any needed legal advice. at the controls is victor pacheco, i am cynthia goldstein and we are also joined by representatives of the departments that have cases before the board this evening. scott sanchez is here, he's representing the planning department and the planning commission and joseph duffy is here, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection. we expect to be joined also by representatives of the department of public health. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the berd's guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disrupt the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules are as follows. the appellants each

have 7 minutes to present their cases. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. member s of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, member s of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or hearing schedules please speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304, between devoss and van ness avenues. this meeting

is broadcast live on sfgtv, cable channel 78 and dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv thank you for your attention. at this point in time we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. (witnesses sworn). >> thank you, mr. pacheco. commissioners, we have two housekeeping items this evening. item no. 5, sashim

doing business as mayor marakesh restaurant, the parties have jointly requested that the matter be continued to the board meeting of december 5, 2012 and with a vote we can move it to that date. >> so moved. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, if you could call the role, please. (roll called). >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to reschedule 5-12104 to december 5. (roll called). >> the vote is 4-0, that matter is rescheduled to december 5. >> the next house keeping is having to do with item no. 6,

ahmad al sharadi, that matter was just withdrawn a few minutes ago and will not be heard this evening. then we can start with no. 1 which is public comment for items not on tonight's agenda. is there anyone here who would like to speak on item 1? seeing none, we will -- i'm sorry, please step forward. 600 monteray boulevard? that's going to be called later. that's quite all right. so no public comment under item no. 1, item no. 2, commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> i'm sorry, i should mention that i have to leave at 7:00 today and i apologize for that, i have to catch a flight for work-related travel. >> thank you. >> i also want to note there's a possibility i may not be able to attend next week's meeting. >> is there any public comment

under item no. 2? okay, seeing none then we will move on to item no. 3, which is the adoption of the minutes of the board's meeting of october 10, 2012. >> move to adopt. >> thank you, is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt the october 10th, 2012 minutes. (roll called). >> the vote is 4-0, those minutes are adopted. >> thank you. so i would like to call item no. 4 now. i'm wondering if there's someone here representing the department of public health. oh, great, thank you. so i will call item 4, appeal 12-100, quick and convenient

versus the department of public health, appealing the 30-day suspension of a tobacco sales permit imposed on august 9, 2012 and the reason for suspension is selling tobacco products to minors. we will start with the appellant. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, board members, sorry to intrude on your evening in this matter. however, i think there is something that really needs to be addressed on the punishment phase for this type of violation. >> before you begin, would you like to state your name. >> my name is howard hibbard, i'm an attorney. what is so important about these proceedings is that when i attended the other hearing, almost every single violation received the same 30-day suspension. when you commit a serious felony or even serious misdemeanor, many times the matter is referred to the

probation board to do an investigation to have punishment fit the crime. this is not done in this case and it seems to be arbitrary and capricious assignment that for this violation is a 30-day suspension, period. regretablely, this 30-day suspension, my client informs me, would be peril lus to her business. what i would like to recommend is that the punishment be changed or modified, there be a fine or the 30-day suspension at the election ever either the board or the defendant. when you have a small store like this, people come in and buy cigarettes and then they buy other things. there's certain things that lead people to want to come into the store. they will do what we call leaders in the retail business. regretiblely, in this store one of the most important leaders it has is tobacco sales. i'm not going to comment on whether people should or should not be smoking, i'm only going to comment that it is legal and it

is a way that people will actually go into the store and buy not just cigarettes but other items as well. this it's really important when there is a violation, yes, the violation should be addressed and it's a serious violation. what i'm questioning is that there should be an alternative to both fine and/or the suspension. the suspension in certain cases can lead to a punishment which is far worse than what would appear to be on its face. like in this case, my client pretty much tells me if she has to go through 30 days, she rather doubts her store will survive. people will find cigarettes in other stores and people will continue to go to those other stores rather than her store. so it's as if you had, we were in merry olde england whereby if you committed a felony for more than $100, they hung you. as societies modernize we find crimes can be much more

taylored and the more sophisticated the society to actually fit the crime. what i'd like to recommend here is that a fine be imposed in the alternative rather than a 30-day suspension. does the board have any questions? >> are you finished with your presentation? >> that's correct. >> i have a couple questions. in your brief you make a reference that the financial impact of this suspension was not discussed at the hearing. >> that's correct, sir. >> did you present any information on the financial impact? >> i was not offered -- allowed to present anything. we just appeared, they read the charge and they assigned the punishment. there was no, other than -- indicating that i was present, that's all i was asked. there seemed to be no, no assignment during the proceedings for me to present that type of evidence. >> do you want to present a

nexus between the suspension and her financial impact? >> i misunderstood you, do i want to present what? >> a nexus between survival of her business with the suspension. >> if the board will allow me more time i can probably gather the financial data. on the other hand, it's really difficult to show when you have a leader, people buying, i don't know if there's any way to collate from her cash receipts other than common sense observation certain types of products in stores which people will continually come back to, to buy at a certain location and then they buy other things other than that type of sociological observation, i'm not sure what i could prove economically other than my client's opinion that if she's forced to do a 30-day suen