we're just seeing the first time five minutes ago absolutely do not reflect what's in the salter report. the use restrictions that include no group meetings after 8:00 p.m., business operations ending at 10:00, i'm going to point out to you it's almost 10:30 right now. does this mean that after we're done, i wouldn't be able to go back to my office to do more work or that at 10 o'clock i would have to leave? what if i have clients that are overseas or in asia? it's really not reasonable, although it's understandable that the residents want to make sure that there isn't going to be noise intrusion from the activities of the office into their residences. i think that we have shown and the salter studies have proven that there are not going to be noise issues either from the mechanical systems or from the activities in the office into the residences above. and i would like gene to explain to you a little bit more about how the lease provisions can kind of control the activities of the tenants

so that their activities don't bother the residents. so, in san francisco office leases, in every single lease nearly, there are provisions in the rules and regulations that specifically address noise, things like no stereos, no phonographs, no radio receivers, musical instruments. that's in every single lease out there. and we are sensitive to the residents there and we'll have this in our lease. but secondly, the type tenants are not noisy, route i rowdy people who play karaoke and scream at the top of their lung. ~ tech the ones i've interacted with and done this for 20 years, they're mostly engineers. engineers like absolute quiet. they put their headphones on and write code for eight hours. they're much quieter than my real estate firm which is infinitely more noisy.

so, i don't think these tenants are going to be noisy at all, number one. and number two, we're going to be, you know, making sure that they follow the rules and regulations of the lease and do not have excessive noise in their offices. and i think just touching on the time restrictions that they have requested, you know, a lot of these tech firms do a lot of business overseas and a lot of them work on very strict deadlines. so, they work quite a bit. so, to limit that -- and in most of these leases, it always says a tenant has 24/7/365 access. so, i think, you know, in fairness to that, you can't really limit the hours. >> so, mr. coe, would you think a provision like this in a lease could be deterrent to certain tenants? yes, it would limit the landlord's ability to lease to a lot of tenants. and the tech tenants would not, would not be able to live with

those restrictions. i don't think they should have to. >> ms. workman, can you address the conditions listed under acoustic plan and verification whether you're in agreement with them, disagreement? you're referring to the charles salter -- >> uh-huh. the silence conditions under acoustic plan and verification, you address use restrictions, but you didn't address acoustic plan or verification. if it's all right with you, i'm going to ask the salter consultant to come up and talk about those. >> i asked them earlier and they didn't have an answer. ~ i think now they can address it. >> okay. sorry. joe nodeker also with salter. ben and i worked on this. the question about future verification has actually been addressed. we can give you actually copies of our proposal that's been

signed by our client already that authorizes us to come back and do two things. one is observe the installation of the vibration isolators that will be installed on the existing and the new e-pumps to make sure they're installed properly. and second, while we're there, to the extent that the residents will allow us to enter the units, we'd be glad to and we're authorized to measure future noise levels from the heat pump and the mechanical equipment. ~ in their units. and it also states that if we find noise from the heat plums to be intrusive -- >> you need to look at the statement. the statement doesn't say that. the statement doesn't talk about just one time you come back in the near future. it's forever. ~ heat pump that's what the condition is. okay. >> i mean, i guess i want to know the lawyer for the permit holder, are you in agreement

with the conditions under acoustic plan verification yes or no? i haven't had a chance to look at them. you walked away with them. >> we're being asked to impose these on your permit. so, i think it would be probably be important for you to look at them. >> while you look at it, let me give you an opinion. under use restrictions, number 2 has already been covered within your lease. under acoustic plan number 1, you're already planning to do. under verification, the first paragraph, you're already planning to do. so, the question is any of these others acceptable to you or are they all not acceptable? the others you have not mentioned? >> yes. i would have to confer with my client. i make it clear, i'm not a lawyer. you referred to me as the attorney. i'm not. >> why don't you confer. there are a couple questions i have. >> if you're not the attorney, can you tell us who you are, then? yeah, i'm a public affairs

consultant they hired to work with them to help them get -- >> somebody is here from collins? yahoo! >> somebody is here from collins, yes. >> just let us know what you think about the conditions. >> what is the flooring? carpeting throughout bct in the break room, tile in the bathrooms. >> anything further from the department? no? commissioners, do you want to give them some time to look at -- >> let them look at it. let me give my fellow commissioners a little history. >> okay. >> when this case came -- [laughter] >> yes, ma'am. when this case came before us before, it was, as you saw in the brief, for a culinary sort

of central kitchen, but also combination event center kind of thing. and there is -- and i'm not going to go into too deeply, but there are significant disagreements between the various ownership portions of this building related to who has management rights, et cetera, et cetera. i gather from what the two say that's still ongoing concern from the -- especially the condo portion of it. what caused the permit to be overturned previously was that that particular use generated a lot of air changes and, therefore, two thing were being done. they were hanging mechanical equipment off the pt slab which

is quite lively. there's a lot of vibration and also some probably vibration to do sound with transfer through the slab. there was another thing, too. they were exhausting out across the floor line up past some of the units. >> in this application, we have none of those. >> none of that is there. but i'm just giving you what we saw previously. and in the meantime, the space has not only been empty since then, but and i presume they want to cash in on -- at least get back something from the current cycle.

>> i'm wondering if we could suspend this and move on to the next and give them time. are you ready? okay, great. thank you for giving us the time to take a look at this. so, under the use restrictions, we would not agree to the no group meetings or parties after 8:00 p.m. or no business operations after 10:00 p.m. the question about amplified music and so on, those kind of things are addressed in the lease provisions where you cannot have noise that interferes with the other tenants in the building. the same goes with the recreational activities that would create noise. you can't stop people from singing, for example, so, you know, basically we really can't agree to any of those. or they're already covered in the lease provisions. the mechanical structural system to be installed, yes, we've already said that that's something that we plan to do.

now, under acoustic plan number 2, the mechanical systems mounted on the steel platform, that is not in the commercial property. that's the property of the garage. that's a separate owner so, we don't have -- there's nothing that we can say about that. and salter is going to come back when the construction is done. they're going to observe to make sure that the acoustickal equipment has been installed properly and they'll make recommendations at that point. does that answer your question? >> the second two paragraphs under verification, the second and the third, the second one means in perpetuity. i don't think that we -- >> the third one asks for an nsr . i don't think we would agree to that.

part of the problem is -- this is carolyn [speaker not understood]. part of the problem is we only have two copies of that document . we're trading back and forth. >> we understand that. i think it's fair to say that at this point the tic owners are only willing to agree to the additional conditions that they already self-imposed. so, they have already entered into a contract with salter associates to do follow-up work. and the provisions of that contract, that's what they're willing to do. i think that they've gone above and beyond. and i hope that's been introduced for the public record. did you receive copies of that contract? >> we received -- i apologize. we have approximately 25 copies here. >> just to clarify -- what is it?

>> the contract for future work. >> so, at the request of the appellant at the community outreach meeting, there was a concern about follow-up work. and, so, what we have done is asked the tic owners to memorialize that in writing as that follow-up work will be done. charles salter associates has been outlined for the work in the contract victor will distribute. >> which contract? maybe you should give them a copy as well. well, i hadn't seen your thing either so it goes both ways. >> good thinking. i will mention, however, that this was in the brief and their expanded scope of work was mentioned in the brief. we just didn't have executed contracts. and i did not want to include a draft contract. i wanted to make sure the information was in the brief. >> okay. >> wait, so, one more question.

in relation to the conditions documents that the appellants submitted, so, you would not be in agreement with the last two paragraphs of that document, is that what you're saying? that's what we're saying. >> okay. but you would be in agreement with the first paragraph under verification because that's what you've already agreed to do, correct? >> we reached number 2. i'm sorry, i think it's fair to say that what the owners are willing to agree to they've already agreed to in writing with salter associates. that way we're making sure that the terms of their follow-up work is consistent with our contract. >> i'm just trying to get some sort of agreement between what they are proposing and what you're willing -- and i understand that this is your contract and this is what you would like, but i'm trying to get some sort of understanding between the two proposals. that's why i'm going by the

conditions document. so, if you could just -- i think it might be a good idea to have salter associates one of the representatives review this paragraph and see how it compares in their interpretation to what they've already been hired to do. because i can't speak for their specific work. this may go above and beyond in their opinion what they've already agreed to. >> well, all it says is -- it just says charles salter & associates should confirm to the appellant they have reviewed the final set of plans and specifications including tenant improvement mep and their recommendations have been integrated into the plans. when construction is completed, salter & associates will provide a closure letter -- i don't know what closure letter means. >> i think that would be a good idea for them to speak to whether or not they understand what this requires of them. >> could we get the salter representatives up here, please?

do you see the paragraph i just read? yes. >> do you understand the closure letter would require of you? not explicitly. i mean, i could guess, but that's all it would be, yeah. ~ >> okay. does the appellant want to explain what a closure letter would mean? sure, typical letter would state they have reviewed the installation, that it complies with their recommendations, and that the measurements that they conducted reveal that the noise levels comply with the industry standards. something as simple as that. >> just confirming what's been done is in conformity with the recommendations. that there has been a successful installation. >> okay, thank you. does that make sense to you? yes, that's about what we plan to do with the contract we already have. >> oh, boy.

>> i'm a little concerned that we're asking people to react to something that they're all just seeing and my instinct at this point would be to move to continue this for a week in the hopes that they can all get together and parse out what everybody is offering because i really am not comfortable asking people to make commitments based on something that they received half an hour ago. >> well, it's worth a try. >> yeah. would you like a continuance so that you all can come to an agreement and bring it to us rather than us trying to do it for you? no, we are really not comfortable with that. we feel like this has gone on for such a long time and, you know, the project cannot continue until this is resolved so we would really like to get this resolved tonight. >> i'm going to recommend that the parties, the representatives that can speak to it whether the acoustic

people or lawyers or public relations supervisor yeev l, step outside, let's move on to the next matterment that will ~. that will give everyone -- if it's not completed by the time we get to the next one, we'll just continue it, okay? that should give you pledthctionv plenty of time to go out in the hall and figure it out. and talk to each other. >> i agree. i would be more inclined to continue it simply because the proposal -- the two proposals are exchanged tonight, they don't square. and, so, if you have conversations that you could have had before today tonight, let's get it done. >> if you want to confer among yourselves somewhere else in the hallway and then when you're ready to talk to each other, please talk to each other. if you can't do it, then we'll

schedule -- move it out a week. or we can just decide on our own what we want to do. and not let you guys decide. why don't you give it a try, please. thanks. okay. so, we are going to suspend item number 9 and call number 10, 13-034 vicki shipkowitz versus the [speaker not understood] llc, the subject property at 349 afar street protesting a release of suspension request dated march 11, 2013 addressed to the department of building inspection acting director tom hughey, asking about the suspension against building permit application no. 2012-11-29 51 00 be lifted for the reason that the planning

commission has held a public hearing on the project and voted usevly to not take discretionary review and approve the project, which is to comply with notice of violation number 201 27 590 1, legalize construction of deck through the roof at third floor built without benefit of a permit. we will begin with the appellant, ms. shipkowitz. hi, i'm vicki shipkowitz. i'm the appellant and thank you for hearing this tonight so late. i bring this discussion here with the input of concerned neighbors regarding a roofer deck that was installed without permit at 345 bank street. i will first discuss essentially the errors that were made by the planning department -- yeah, i'm sorry. it's not on, but it's here. okay.

>> projector is tired, too. are you kidding, we start the computer? don't take this time out of my -- >> the computer is tired, too. [laughter] >> what happened? [pause]

>> take your time.

[pause]

so, thank you. i'm sorry.

okay, i'm going to give it a shot. i'm the appellant, hi. with 345 bank street, and i'm here related to the deck at 349 bank street that was built without permit. i'm going to talk about the errors -- i'm required to talk about the errors made by the planning due to errors made by planning dealing with the permit process and talk about the negative impacts it imposes on myself and neighbors and the attempts we've made to reach resolution. first i'd like to say thank you to the planning department, they were very helpful in helping me to understand the complex process and i totally under the large amount of paperwork that was involved with this. therefore, i know how easy it

must have been to overlook some of it. but in this case that is what happened, some of it was overlooked and the permit was issued without the block notice review and that permit was suspended rather than revoked. that had a material effect on how i'm required to present tonight and it also was -- the review was necessary for the reasons that i'll discuss in the next slide. to secretary some context in terms of time frame, the deck was installed around october. the block book notice was issued on november 19th. the permit was issued in error on december 4th. and subsequently suspended but not revoked on december 8th. there were certain discrepancies in the permit that were overlooked and had they not been i believe some of the issues that i've called out in my brief would have been considered by planning before issuing this permit. and also there are administrative errors related to the discretionary review in the process itself that led to an outcome that i feel is

biased. [speaker not understood] and the permit was issued over the counter. and because the permit was revoked, was suspended rather than revoked which would have been appropriate, it allowed the false assertion that the investors had been given the right permit in november. this set the permit date as november rather than march, which disallowed a de novo appeal. it is important to talk about why the community feels so strongly about this deck, why was it even necessary. here the properties involved, 345, i'm a resident. i've lived there for 15 years. as an owner and as have many of the neighbors on my block, investors who own a real estate development company were alerted about the intention to renovate and put the property as a single-family house. immediately evicting the one-time resident. [speaker not understood] before

they left. ~ even starting work before they left. their desire to flip this property quickly without addressing neighbors concerns in a professional way has led us to this hearing. here's the deck. this was built in violations that were issued in november. based on the scale, you can see how exceptionally easy it is to access all the houses to the north. all the properties attached. every neighbor to the north except for the lady at the very end of the block who only speaks italian has written letters to ask this permit be revoked or modified. and either individually or as a group. and there have been other residents on the block that have written letters and former residents of the property have written letters. investors have called this appeal for this, that any process that causes this kind of universal concern and

directly impacts the people who live in these properties as a community isn't frivolous and deserves due process. the roof provides exceptionally easy access and is about degree of difficulty. you can get up to roofs other ways, by ladders. but a step over small wall invites more recreational use especially if there's kids in that property and we don't know what's going to happen there. since it's a single-family house, there are liability issues. there are -- there is vacant property security risk and skylights and it threatens roof damage because roofs are tar and delicate. also from a fire and safety issue, 24 inches off of my roof is simply inadequate as a fire barrier. and as i question, why wasn't this measured as 42 inches off my roof line since these firewalls are supposedly according to building, there to

protect the properties on which they sit. also there are new noise issues that have occurred since the deck was installed that didn't exist before. it means that noise will now be coming from above and from a living space to the rest of the community and the enjoyment of my property and the privacy of both properties here because this deck sits just above the bedroom. what i'm asking specifically is that this permit be either [speaker not understood] and they close the deck or that relatively simple modifications are requested, meaning required meaning they add barrier and access barrier that's at least two feet to make it slightly more difficult to get over this wall, hopefully retard atctionv barrier and tempered glass. and the soundproofing and installation of the walls which currently has none and they claim it does but it