Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 12, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm PDT

5:00 pm
where i really hung out was at the fillmore. that was my university, checking out be the king, and james brown, a cream. finding out how they were able to penetrate people's hearts. with their music. once you do that, something happens to their eyes. they become brighter. they start crying, they do not know why. they start dancing. it is like when a woman gives birth. =mmfirst, she cries and then she laughs. later on, she dances. and that, to me, is the beauty of what san francisco is about. >> one final question, and we are going to link it to your music today. such a rich legacy that you are giving us. you mentioned to me that you are working on a new album.
5:01 pm
could you share what is coming up? >> i love to dream when i am awake. kand so i had this dream of working with india arie and yo- yo ma to do the george harrison saw; and "-- song. this is the definitive way to do this. we are all in it together, we do not leave anybody out. t conviction, i am one of the few people that you can recognize by one note. god gave me that universal tone, and that is what we want
5:02 pm
to implement in all the songs. thank you. >> carlos santana, thank you for accepting the 2010 mayor's part award. >> to watch the ceremony, visit the home page of the arts commission website, sfarts commission
5:03 pm
5:04 pm
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
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.
5:08 pm
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
5:09 pm
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
5:10 pm
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
5:11 pm
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?
5:12 pm
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.
5:13 pm
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.
5:14 pm
>> 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.
5:15 pm
>> 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.
5:16 pm
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.
5:17 pm
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.
5:18 pm
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
5:19 pm
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
5:20 pm
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.
5:21 pm
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
5:22 pm
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
5:23 pm
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?
5:24 pm
>> 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,
5:25 pm
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
5:26 pm
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
5:27 pm
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.
5:28 pm
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
5:29 pm
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


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on