white paper with the notice of hearing theire. >> if you could put that on the overhead -- >> yes. behind that is the photo. president garcia: who sign the affidavit? >> it is the architect. he happened to be there. president garcia: could you point to the image of the posting? >> this is the window. there is a lot of reflection. you can see up here better. it is a notice of public hearing. >> what is the date on that

notice? >> the date was february 23, 2011. >> what does the after that it say again? -- the affavdavit say again? >> "after that it of posting, and posted public noted -- pose a public case for 234 9th st. in san francisco, up block for -- block 4. hearing to be held on the planning commission in february 23, 2011 he get -- 2011."

i determined that the notice was real quiet -- the notice was posted during the required duration. as far as the question about the parking, we started construction on this permit december 5, 2011. the permit had been issued months before that. that is when our contractor was able to start. we did not need parking at that time. there was no posted parking even though the window indicated that we had a 90-day parking. the signs on the curve were posted on december 16, two dozen 11. -- 2011.

i do not know if that covers it, but for now. thank you. vice president hwang: how much of the work was completed? >> is started on december 5 and most of the rough framing is in. there has been no proof he worked at this time. the rough plumbing is about 70% done. electrical is about 30% rough. there was an at&t permit that was concurrent to this project. they started in the middle of november and they were doing work on the roof throughout december. >> mr. sanchez.

>> good evening. congratulations to former president go as she moves on. it has been an honor to work with you for the last four years. i appreciate your careful deliberation and you have served the city very well. thank you for your time. just some background on the case that is before you. i think the confusion stems from the fact that there are two different projects here. there is the conversion of the building to a residential use, which required a variance and building permit application under section 312. that project occurred earlier this year and there was a section 312 notification posted for 30 days. there was a variance hearing as well as a notification for the variance hearing. that hearing occurred on february 23, prior to the section 312 notice having been issued.

there were no members of the public that approach are hearing and expressed concerns about the various. i am not aware of any correspondence of anyone who expressed concerns about the project. ms. bryson did not indicate he intended to file a discretionary review. i did not ask specifically about that. i do not have information about what may have occurred during that time during the section 311 identification. . it is clear that notification was performed. in the variants decision letter was issued on may 6, 2011. there were no appeals on that. the building permit application was issued on june 1, 2011. that permit became final on june 16, 200011. there were several applications for the wireless facility. that is specific to the conditional use hearing, which was heard by the planning

commission in the middle of september and that building permit application was issued on december 9. that is when it would be commencing on that. in her brief, there was reference to a different notice that goes up. that is something not regulated by the planning department or planning code, but by the building code. the building inspector can elaborate on that, when it is required and not required. i am available for any questions. president garcia: you mentioned a decision letter. who gets that? >> is sent to the progress of her and any party to have requested it in. they are usually people who have attended the hearing. president garcia: it would not go to the three people -- >> it would only go to those who requested it. >> you have the notification letters?

>> i do. >> is the jurisdiction request your name within the radius -- requester's name within the radius? >> her name is on the map, that is correct. i have not had a chance to look at the mouth so far. just to be clear, the list of the owner's name is on the record and it -- if it is not alone, if it is rented, it will be listed as occupant. i will look through the records. commissioner fung: just to clear up a final point on my earlier question and, either an appellant on a variance or permit is not required to do any mailing labels -- >> the discretionary review requester has a requirement that

if you submit the review, you submit the labels. it is not a 50-foot radius -- not a full 150-foot radius. that is something we do require, the mailing labels from the d.r. requester. it is from the adjacent and never groups. commissioner fung: is that the only notice that is required? >> for the dividing properties across the street and adjacent and also to the right groups. vice-president hwang: getting back to the notice that would go to the property owner, the jurisdiction request for, -- requester, you said it would not

give the names of tenants that it is not occupied by the owner. does each tenant in the building get a notice in their mailbox or how does that work? >> good question. there are two for processes. the various process is owners within 300 feet. we get the owner information from the assessor's office. it goes to their proper mailing address. for the section 312 notice, it goes to owners within 150 feet as well as occupants. four occupants, it says occupant and has the apartment number or whatever it may be. vice president hwang: so each unit would get its own notification. when did that one go out? >> that was for the full month of march. >> mr. duffy of. -- mr. duffy.

>> i would like to echo mr. sanchez regarding the commissioner goh's departure. congratulations. on this case, i looked at it today. dba would not have done any notifications whenever the permit was issued because it was not determined to be a structural addition to the building nor a demolition or a new construction. in section 106 of the building code, there are times we do it posting when the permit is issued or renewed -- or we notify neighbors of the adjacent properties, but in this case, because of the type of project, that was not necessary. i checked with the central permit bureau and they confirmed that. i am available for any questions

if you have any. vice president hwang: thank you. >> there is reference to the street permit, which was posted, and i just noticed that. i do not have any details on that. i did notice, as well, that this licensed property is not adjacent to the site where the work is being done. it is actually just off that. even if we had done the notification, i do not think she'd fall -- she falls under the notification process. >> is there any public comment on this item? president garcia: ms. bryson, you seem anxious to go to the

microphone, but i'm going to give you a short leash. >> i did bring the discretionary review data that i have said -- i was sent from the planning commission. they do require two copies of a typewritten list, including all parties must be submitted with your application. the names and addresses for the mailing list can be obtained from the assessor's office and it is to include names and addresses all properties, including those across the street grid if you needed to see that, i was going to be required to get these names and addresses. i physically was not able to do it writ if you need to see this, i have it. president garcia: it is not really relevant to a jurisdiction request, but i am asking you a question, if you do not mind. where is your objection to this project? >> my objection to the project

has to do with the possible negative impact on the health of the people who lived in my building. we are practically in -- president garcia: you do not note -- you do not need to go into great detail. i just needed to go a little bit of specifics. what raises the health issue? >> the health issue would be noise, dust, the times during which the construction would be taking place. we did not have an opportunity to even hear from the person who is proposing to do this, what it is they were doing, and they did not hear from us. there was no meeting with the neighbors who might be interested in coming for those who wanted to write letters. again, it is giving people who

are already living there, and we live there and have been there since 2005. not giving them an opportunity to hear, once again, another warehouse to be converted into something. a basically, what i am saying is i would like to have an opportunity to be heard. i like my neighbors to have an opportunity to be heard. there are people in my building new -- who could not make it today. hwang: i have a follow-up question to that. i know you had made an effort to make your issues herger it did you attempt to directly -- to make your issues heard.

did you attempt to directly identify your issues to the building owner or facility managers? >> i was not able to do that. i appreciate you recognizing the fact that i have availed myself of the process. and the outcomes were quite positive for all concerned that i am very reasonable. i am very easy to get along with. my concerns are reasonable ones and they have been resolved by them in the past. vice-president hwang: but he did not take any opportunity to communicate directly with them? >> i do not know who these people are. they do not live directly in san francisco. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted.

president garcia: someone. commissioner fung: i will start. what is before us is a tradition request on the variance which is granted spring of last year. the building for that all the variants -- that followed that variance. what is before us is not anything that relates to the discretionary review in process itself. the c.u. process for the wireless, which we have no heard you on, would have been better venues for the

jurisdiction requester. the issue for me is in between -- between knowledge of the impending project at that time, there was an extremely long gap to the point where it took notice of construction starting to bring forth a jurisdiction request. have -- the appeal of the variance and the permit itself has aged tremendously. i am not prepared to accept jurisdiction at this point. vice president hwang: i am also inclined not to grant jurisdiction. the information provided by the

zoning and mr. was useful for me to understand the communication to occupants in the building. i appreciate the clarification of what was going on with the two different permits. if the jurisdiction request your did learn of it in december and filed a jurisdiction request, i do not think that creates such a concern that my fellow commissioner had on timeliness of the request. that is not an issue for me. i think it -- i do not think it was sufficiently timely, given the notice. i also want to point out that i am happy to hear of alternatives for recourse on the d.r. concern that she raised here. it is not relevant. we are not going there. that is not what is before us. those are different thoughts.

commissioner goh: i agree with what the vice president's said. i am also alarmed about the planning potential failure to accommodate reasonable accommodations. hopefully that will be addressed. otherwise, i think that it is, given the jurisdiction request er's concerns about dust and noise, that the construction might affect you and your neighbors' lives, i wonder if speaking with dbi and attempting to control that might be a good avenue? mr. duffy is nodding. he is amenable to hearing from you about those issues. president garcia: is there a

motion? commissioner fung: i'm going to move to deny it jurisdiction. president garcia: before we take a vote, mr. duffy, will you give your card to ms. bryson? obviously someone who is involved in issues in that neighborhood. both of you would benefit from that communication. thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny both jurisdiction requests. president garcia: aye. vice rpesident hwang: aye. commissioner goh: aye. >> we are now moving on to item no. 5.

-- item #6. 1290 fell st. she will not be attending the hearing and has asked that the board decide the case on the papers she has submitted. carla short this year and we can give her time to speak. >> thank you. karl a short, department of public works and bureau of urban forestry. i would like to take a moment to congratulate commissioner goh and wish her the best of luck. i do not know if the public realizes how much time the commissioners put into preparing for these hearings. as a staff person, it is satisfying to know that the efforts we make in preparing our briefs and attending the

hearings are really being very awfully considers. you've always taken time to consider the briefs before the hearing and always the testimony presented so thank you very much for your service to the city. it's been a great service to the city and i hope people recognize that. commissioner goh: thank you. >> in terms of this case, this is a tree that's currently the maintenance responsibility of the department of public works, and it was identified for removal by our staff after we have been monitoring it for several years. we did perform sidewalk repairs around this tree a few years ago. it's a species that is not highly tolerant of root pruning. we did not have to remove a substantial number of roots and repair the sidewalk but did have to remove some roots which is why we have been keeping an eye on it. in my brief i submitted some photos that i think showed the

lean of the tree. if i can have the overhead, i'll just point out two photos first. >> where do i sit? wow. commissioner fung: please continue. >> this is a photograph i don't know the contrast is sufficient but i wanted to show, you can see the area of new sidewalk, it's the lighter color in the photograph. and i think it -- commissioner goh: would you please not disturb this meeting again. president garcia: it's not

appropriate for you to be speaking when someone is speaking. thank you. >> the photo i have on the overhead is what i described as the gurdling -- girdling root and what we identified in the area around the root was some decay present. there is also some new cracking, it's not showing up well i don't think here in the sidewalk and our concern there is that that has occurred because the tree has shifted a little bit more. one of our arborists who is responsible for pruning the trees in this part of the city asked me to take another look at it as he thought the lean had become more pronounced. so -- thank you. is there any way to deal with the glare on this? ok. so i'm trying to get a little bit at the degree of lean to

just show you that when we see a tree that has grown into a lean, frequently we can see that there is a correction. they might be growing away from the building and then they may grow more upright. in this case it looks as though the entire tree is angled and that suggests less growing into a lean with some correction but perhaps shifting of the tree. and then lastly, i printed out a couple color photographs that we took in october to try to show the decline that we're seeing in the canopy of the tree. so i'll just try to point that out a little bit. when you see these small branches that don't have any leaves on them like you see here and back in this area really throughout the canopy of this tree, that's an indication

-- this might show it a little bit better. that's an indication of some decline in the canopy. this type of tree is a resilient species and more often we see a very healthy canopy and then the tree itself falls over. but when we have a decline in the canopy associated with some root pruning we had done, what seems as though a lean that may have increased over time, that's when we decided we should no longer monitor this tree and go ahead and post-it for removal. to address the email that ms. oakes submitted today, it's always a challenge for me when someone is attached to a tree, i certainly feel a lot of empathy in the case but i want to state for the record as i think you all are aware, we don't take tree removal lightly, we generally have a very preservationist policy and

try to preserve trees whenever we can. but we also have to take a tree decline and public safety into consideration. we did actually email her these photos even earlier before today to try to at least let her understand what we were seeing and the concerns. she just to address point number two, in my brief i indicated there's a lack of structural supporting roots opposite the lean and she questioned how we knew that and that's because of the records we have of repairing the sidewalk so we have a root pruning record when we repaired the sidewalk. i think that's all i have. commissioner goh: i have a question, ms. short. since i asked you this question many times over the last four years and this will be my last chance. what is the expected life expectancy of a black

witacashea and how old do you suspect this tree is? >> there are many factors that contribute to how long a tree can live so i am -- when i don't know the age of a tree, i'm often very reluctant to make a guess because there are so many factors, especially in urban conditions that can affect size and vigor of a tree. having said that, because this tree is located on fell and a portion of the haith where many of these types of trees were planted in the mid 1960's. i would -- and given its size, i would suspect that it probably was planted around that time. this type of tree, many people -- again, there are many examps of trees that live well beyond their life expectancy. so life expectancy in and of itself would not cause us to post a tree for removal. but i think it is -- to estimate about 60 years for

this type of tree is actually a pretty long life expectancy for this tree especially in an urban environment. commissioner goh: thank you. vice president hwang: with respect to the replacement tree, how is that process handled in terms of talking to people what are attached to the tree that's removed in this case the appellant or other people who might be affected by the selection of the tree? >> in terms of the replacement species? president garcia: how do you go about that? >> for trees we have a maintenance responsibility for we have a recommended replacement species and on fell we've been using the brisbane box. it is a very fast-growing species and does, i think, oftentimes is a good species to choose if people are concerned about the loss of the size of the tree. however, we are always open to discussion with