>> good evening, and welcome to the may 25, 2011 meeting of the board of appeals. we apologize for any delay. thank you for your patience. joining us is the vice-president michael garcia, who commissioner fung. controls is our legal assistant, and i am the executive director. at the front we have representatives of city departments. goowe have the senior building

inspector and scott sanchez, also representing the planning department and the planning commission. we're also joined by a representative of the department of public works. we will also be joined by the department of public health. >> richard lee is here. >> i think we are ready to go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all phones, beepers, and pagers, so they do not disturb the hearing. the rules of the presentation are as follows. respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. affiliate's must conclude within seven minutes.

members of the public who are not affiliated party have up to three minutes to address the board. 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 when you come up. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. there are survey forms on the left of the podium. if you have a question about requesting a hearing or rules, please the new board's staff during the break or after the meeting, or colin -- or call in the morning. this meeting is to broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78, and dvd's are available for purchase.

thank you for your attention. we will conduct our swearing-in process. a few intend to testify, please stand, raise your right hand, and say, i do. the you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> calling item number one, public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? please step forward.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is barbara thompson, and i have an item for public comment which i have provided a copy of. at the may 18 meeting under item one, i made a comment and expressed concern that the board of appeals was not adhering to the san francisco charter for the rules of the board of appeals and that meetings of the board did not appear to be governed by rules of order. i asked the board to comply with rules. nonetheless, you conducted the may 18 meeting without regard to the charter, specifically article 5 of article 0. the conduct of the board, regarding discussion of items on

the meeting agenda. san francisco charterer item # 5, rules and regulations stipulate each member president -- present. the city and county of sandford cisco board of appeals rules of board of a field -- san francisco board of appeals stipulates at the discretion of the president, except with a starter, other rules to provide required procedure, meeting shall be conducted rules of order. the board has conducted meetings not in conformance with the rules of order.

i am bringing this to the attention of the board and requesting it comply with the san francisco charterer and the city board of appeals rules of the board of appeals when conducting its meeting. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move on to commissioner's comments and questions. item number three, for your consideration are the meetings and who -- the minutes for the may 18, 2011 meeting. >> seeing none, i will move for adoption during good >> is there any public comment on -- i will move for adoption. >> is there any public comment on this item and? we will move to the role of h -- to calling the role.

[calling fovotes] >> this is adopted. >> item 4a, a jurisdiction request. the board received a letter from jonathan sacks asking that the board take jurisdiction over application who 2009/12/18/03506 s. the request was received on may 3, 2011. the project is an elevator at the rear side of the structure. we can start with the requester. you have three minutes.

>> my name is jonathan sacks. i am here with my wife. our neighbor convince us to not object to his building permit are promising an elevator insulation would not generate motor noise. this is in exhibit b to the response. my note said, provided it is provided to insulate all motor noise from my residence -- it does not say some motor noise or most motor noise. it says all motor noise. we ask about this because our right to challenge at its issuance was usurped by a false promise. he has ignored our agreement, and his response tonight proves that. to defend himself, he hired an expert who broadcast 20 decibels

of noise in my bedroom window. that is twice the noise of mosquito makes and buzzing around inside a tent. it is four times the level of of of all lawyers. it is certainly not insulating against -- and the level of noise. it is certainly not insulating. our bedroom is often open. that would double the intrusion to 40 decibels. that window is less than 3 feet from the proposed elevator motor. a photo we brought tonight proves the window opens wide, but despite his claim that it is inoperable, there is a picture of it open. he cannot address hanging it from apply wood roof in a prefabricated tower or the vibration noise it might make to my house because it sits just inches from the master bedroom outer wall.

that is because the experts studied an elevator in oakland. peters elevator is not yet installed. in the proper forum, my lawyers will produce experts who believed the installation will likely increase noise in my bedroom well beyond what is estimated by his experts. peter might already suspect as. he told me his contractor, who has never installed one of these towers inches from a neighbor's home and rushed to shore up the elevator shaft after our filing with this board. peter has had ample opportunity to live up to our agreement. we have repeatedly asked that he higher noise mitigation experts. he has not. he argues this project should continue without interruption because he spent roughly $166,000 on his permit, but any interruption would be self-

inflicted. he could have avoided this action by living up to his agreement. peter is here tonight. am i done, or do you want me to finish this last paragraph? >> your time is expired unless someone has a question for you. i do not see someone. >> we will hear from his attorney. >> good evening, commissioners. i am here on behalf of peter and caro. i want to point out is to permit was issued 10 months ago. construction is nearly complete. we have spent $166,000 so far on reliance to the permit. there was no prior objection to this permit, despite a meeting, despite notice of a building permit. all notices indicated a hoist way of the elevator would be

located exactly where it is a constructive, very close to the window, but they have known about that location for the last two years. they have purchased and are installing a quiet, residential elevator inside an insulated hoist way. all indications are that it will be inaudible within the bedroom. we measured noise at the property with an identical elevator. now they estimate it will create 40 dba of noise. that is below the ambient levels. with noise reduction, it is not an operable window. from the window inside the bedroom, it will be 20 dba at most and nearly inaudible.

state law standards are 40 d -- 45 dba. they are simply speculating this is not true, but they have no proof it will be audible within the bedroom. suspending the permit will not resolve that this agreement. it is not until the elevator is installed but they will be able to do some measurements header in the different than what he has measured already. -- measurements that they are any different than what he has measured already. after the elevator is installed, if it does not operate quietly as it should, there will be other remedies the requester could have, but at this white, suspending the permit is not an appropriate remedy. -- at this point, suspending the permit is not an appropriate remedy. they are installing the

elevators so they can stay in their home of 47 years. carol has parkinson's disease and has great difficulty navigating the four levels are high -- levels of her house. a prompt construction is necessary for her health. mr. sikes has other remedies as the elevator is installed. >> the picture we are shown, is that the bedroom window and you are mentioning? >> i did not see the picture. good >> it looks like around window. the bedroom window is round or rectangular sign? the fixed window? >> i believe it is rectangular. >> thank you. >> i would have to see a picture. >> counselor, the letter from

your sound experts who -- her reading was taken at what time of today -- the reading was taken at what time of the day? >> the term. >> only one time? >> -- date time. >> only one time? >> i believe. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i have a question for mr. duffy. it goes more to the merits, but i am curious about elevators. would you normally expect to see some insulation or soundproofing around the exterior? >> i did look into the building code, and there is nothing there

for elevators in this type of thing. the only construction we would require is because of the proximity to the property line. the property line would have to be one wall, which would have sheet rock on the inside and the outside and plywood citing as well. i believe a days -- it is r 19. that is probably going to give some insulation, but it is not fair for sound. >> they are going to make sure it is installed, because my indication is it is not installed. >> if there was air-conditioning required, i would imagine the building inspector saw that.

>> so there is nothing that says it required installation. >> i went there yesterday, and it was probably 70% complete. the work was in compliance with the plans. i do not know for sure whether it was inspected. if it is required, our inspectors are out. >> what do you have to say about the idea that it comes up somewhat regularly where a neighbor will forgo their rights to appeal based on a private agreement, and where we certainly do not want to discourage all appeals when they can work it out, and here is a case where they have worked it out, and there