Commissioner honda and commissioner fung and commissioner Bobbie Wilson commissioner swig will be absent this evening to my left a strident attorney and the clerk alec im Cynthia Goldstein the boards executive director were joined we were joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. In the front row is carli short and well be joined by joe duffy senior building inspector with the department of building inspection and Scott SanchezPlanning Department representing the Planning Department and the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other Electronic Devices are prohibited. Out in the hallway. Permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes no rebuttal. To assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to the clerk. Speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. Mrblgz if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 Mission Street, suite 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. Dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. Thank you for your attention. Well conduct our swearing in process. If you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. Please note any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. Please stand and raise your right hand please stand okay do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you. Well move on to item one commissioners for general Public Comment the opportunity for someone in the audience who want to speak on a matter between within the board jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar seeing none, well move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments and commissioners. I want to let my fellow commissioners know ill not be here for the september 16th meeting. Thank you. Any other comments commissioner any Public Comment on item 2 that is seeing none, the boards considers of the august 27, 2015. Commissioners any changes may i have a motion. So moved. Any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, then well call the roll commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus the Vice President made the motion commissioner wilson okay. That carries four to zero the next is the rehearing the subject property on jones street the board received a letter requesting the rehearing and thats mars versus the department of building inspection of the street use and mapping on july 21st at this point the board voted to uphold it is code compliant is it so systems i know the construction after wireless facility permit 16 and we will hear if the requester or the requesters representative im doug appearing on behalf of the requesters they have illnesses if youll recall this was one of 4 cases on july 1st involving the Verizon Wireless facilities for protected locations pursuant to article 25 of the San Francisco public works code you may recall before the hearing article 25 had recently been amended because those were the first hearing subsequent to the amendments this was confusion in evidence among the rent from dpw and the City Attorneys Office as well as the members of the board in fact the attempted to clear up the confusion midway a 20 minute recess was called to give the deputy City Attorney to formulate a correct standard to be applied to the appeals the problem and the reason for the request is that the deputy City Attorney determination on the standard to apply was erroneous and incorrect the determination said a zoning protected location capability standard this be applied rather than a stringent capability standard applicable to this case maybe the written prior written submissions from dpw correctly identified this is a a planning protected location and the determination issued by the deputy City Attorney occurred in the case prior to this case the deputy City Attorney incorrect determination informed the decision by this board of the not only prior case but in case as a result an incorrection determination a incorrect standard was applied to the decision for this case one of the sufficient criteria for rehearing it is the maufrtsd justice manifestly the incorrect incapability standard was applied to this case and as a result, the gentleman and ms. Mars had an unjust result because the their case was determined under the wrong incapability standards we respectfully request you rehear this case and the next hearing do so under the incapability standard. Well hear if the next permit holder. Good evening for written wireless this board made no error there is no manifest injustice or new evidence the citys brief clearly identified the johns location as an excellent for the planning protected standards the zoning protected standard is applied both standards and i watched the tape and stood before you and recited both standards word for word and tells you that of a was a good standards applied and the you made our decision i think you were amply advised by the City Attorneys Office as well as by the department of public works and your decision is sound the standards whether it detracts if the characterized of the zoning or that impairs one the aesthetic electricities by impairing the view of a landmark open space or park no evidence in that regard this facility would do any of those things we think you should stand behind our decision mia my remarks is covered by the citys brief and the City Attorneys opinion the remarks with irrelevant we were clear on the standards and should stand by thank you. Thank you anything from the department ms. Short public works im concur we dont feel the rehearing request should be granted we also building that it was clearly identified as the protected and the zoning protected location public works shouldnt have issued the permit in the first place if the Planning Department had not determined did wireless facility had the compatibility standards we feel you were properly advice by the da and you made a correct determination in this case that it meant the code requirements and therefore, well request the rehearing be denied thank you. Thank you any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. The standard your microphone isnt on is the Vice President s microphone on . Maybe you dont want me to talk. Its on. Yeah. I think the standard for manifest injustice has not been found my decision was on the briefs during the hearing i will not go towards a rehearing any other discussion. Speaking for myself the standards were quite clear so i also will not support a rehearing is there a motion . Motion to deny the rehearing on the gowns there was no manifest injustice. Okay. A motion if the Vice President to deny the rehearing request on that motion commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that carries 4 to zero thank you. The next item is appeal for the morris versus the department of building inspection the property on scott street protesting the issuance on june 2015 to scott street, llc for the interior modifications for the addition of subterranean parking garage with the residential use for the horizon addition at the modification and the front elevation and this i understand commissioners the parties have reached an agreement the permit holder is here to present it to the board please step forward and my understanding is that the appellant is not planning to attend this evening. Theres something i believe the permit holder has from the appellant to indicate his consent as well. Before you start perhaps madam director what are some of the others that had sent them letters are they present. Sure is there anyone here on this matter besides the permit holder great under Public Comment weve been certain to hear from them gentlemen 7 minutes. Im jim im here are recreation and Parks Department the owner others scott street, llc we submitted an application for a Building Permit in 2012 there was several components to the project for the ground space to living space that is parking and storage and add four and a half feet to the front of the building and make interior modifications after the site permit was approved the neighbor that lives downhill from the property objected and filed on appeal he expressed to me the concern he had was twofold one was structure for his building worried about a basement being built next to his property and have converting the ground space he also had a concern we were with standing a deck on the Building People will be on the deck and climb into his building after discusses with the appellants we have agreed to reduce the scope of work to remove the basement to remove the conversion of the ground level to conversion space it was part of the plan we will have a grail i have material weve gotten feedback from the Planning Department on one item a skylight weve proposed that is a peak skylight we were asked to make that a flat skylight instead id like to ask the board to accept the revised plans that reflect that change and weve made a few others changes consistent with the project as proposed i have a complete set of revised plans and a one page summary and a at the last minute gotten to Scott Sanchez it if so it possible to submit those revised plans as well as a summary of the changes and finally he have from the neighbor a written statement from the neighbor saying weve addressed the concerns agreed to the scope ive described and ive provided him a revised plans hes signed a statement his concerns are at rest Michael Levitt is here hes the architect if you have questions thats the ends of my statement. Is the revised youve provided in our packet the one you have here. No, it is not substantially the same but as i mentioned we got feedback to have the skylight flattened and on the exit diagrams not changing anything substantive the floor plans didnt match our updated plans so we revised that and also, we updated the page numbers we have various page numbers and updated the date to september one and then some of the one other thing on the existed floor plans that was based on on the old plans we updated that to reflect the new floor plans the only substantive changes are the skylight changes i brought copies id like to submit the whole set and the summary of changes and a loss packet if you want to see them. Well need a revised sit down for the records unless Everyone Needs to see it. If you can give one to the clerk. I dont know if there is questions we let other folks speak first. No other questions from the boards well hear if the department mr. Sanchez. Scott sanchez Planning Department to the revised plans as prepared this evening have addressed our concerns the revised plans in the packet have a skylight with volume within the rear yard wouldnt have been allowed without a variance to remove it so the skylight is flat with the building with the planning code ill noticed a slight increase to the penthouse theyre adding a mechanical area for as long as their, in fact, using that for mechanical equipment under the planning code in was a duly nose without identification otherwise the scope is being revised and the special conditions if the board approves this will note correctly the scope of work as it is now the Building Permit it references the underground garage that will be corrected as far as the process. Mr. Sanchez you took a quick look at this. Yes. And is it okay except the penthouse. Accident penthouse has expanded here and from the mechanical purposes which will be allowed in the planning code not needed to be revised if you choose to accept that. Okay inspector duffy has indicated no questions so commissioners Public Comment if you care to speak under this item please step forward. Step to the microphone. Yeah. A group of tenants were concerned about the noise involved and just a second hammering and the changes something might go wrong this is part of plan we were maybe got a lot of construction in the neighborhood roofs going in for a week if this as big project that goes a year or so were hoping possible we expressed in the letter weve submitted. Do you would you care to state your name. Francis occurring on scott street if you would care to fill out a speaker card 3 would be helpful. Im sorry. Thats okay and mr. Occur are you finished. Your letter talks about the just a second hammering that is related to the dpigs dont guess to install a new subterranean thats gone. Thats gone. Theyre still doing odds and ends including work on the roof this is some noise. There is a lot of noise theyre changing the floor plan 0 on the building to the south if were going to the winter months i guess they start at dawn pretty much. This may not be the proper place to ask for a little bit of control on that but we thought weed whacking give it a try thank you. Is there any additional Public Comment . No other Public Comment then if you have additional comments you have additional minutes you have to come up to the microphone. Not super relevant but for the record the mechanical equipment was on the plans you have before you and so the plans as submitted continue to include that. Mr. Roth. Yes, sir. Are the tenants i believe in the adjacent buildings were concerned about the noise any idea of what our work hours and work days. I dont know. Ive never done a project like this and not a contractor but there are rules that govern the rules. The rules are less than i cannot. Right . Im not sure what to say weve follow the rules and try to be respectful i live in that neighborhood since i live in the building i definitely know under is a lot of conduct that is annoying and try to minimize the impact that is reasonable. Is the recommendation it would, nice to have a weekend off. Im not sure i can commit when you have the money and dont know about the emergencies a certain part of project ive seen other folks sometimes do it on a saturday they will be open to discussions on that point. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything further from mr. Duffy. Good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the work hours are permitted in the police 7 00 a. M. To 6 00 p. M. 7 days a week so thats what we allegation allegation to. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. I would hope the permit holder since he lives in the building understand he needs to have some days of rest otherwise i see no other reason to not deny the appeal and i presume that the permit holder wants us to do you want those drawings. We need to grant the appeal; right . To condition the permit on the revised plans is that the boards okay. Further comments then im going to move to grant the appeal and to adapt the revised september one submit to this board this evening on the basis that less work is being shown and therefore the contentious part has been removed. Okay. And just to confirm with the permit holder is the date september one for the set your submitting now okay. Thank you so on that motion if commissioner fung to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the condition of permit to accept the revised plans dated september one the scope of work has been reduced commissioner president lazarus. Commissioner honda. Commissioner wilson okay commissioner swig is absent that motion carries 4 to zero thank you. Next item 6 appeal curtis verses the department of public works the area of note open masonic avenue protesting the issuance on may 20th to the department of public works of a tree removal to remove had 4 street trees with a hundred and 85 street trees this is order number and well start with the appellant. You have 7 minutes. How many of you have a tree thats your tree the favorite tree you are connected somehow. What you speak into the mike, we have a good news were here because were concerned about the trees number one the tree 3 one ratio apples and oranges no comparison we want to propose 3 studies to show a mutually way to look at trees number one it is a known fact that studies show old trees continue throughout the whole life two studies of trees accumulation increase shows the maturing trees do not simply act as a carbon reservoir but accurately fix carbon compared to a tree half its size this myself tree is developing enough for half of its why is it doing that whats the nature of the tree a mutually tree and third study capability of old trees to respond to environmental change a study 2000 years shows a flat line here along comes the spiritual revolution a huge spike were there today but look at what a matureing tree does when it comes into came back with this spike it doesnt go there but it is there how come that tree is doing that because it knows the necessity but has the energy already there it is not side body the same with an immune system are we have that in common with those trees theyre alive their there are for us giving us the clean air to be cleaned given that were asking the following preserve the 3 trees on masonic public, public space two allow the trees to continue on ma song and keep the medium from geary to farrell, 5 years ago under divisadero under a simple project i walked by you have to see how this 3 for one this project medium looks at many dead trees half the trees half there bann