although the true owner of the building could get a permit to put this compressor in that portion of the property that is under lease, by this tenant, is that -- >> that, i cannot answer about who's right. commissioner garcia: i guess the better way to ask this is it seems we have had issues before the board whereby no one can get a permit on someone else's property, and as a lessee, that is temporarily or property, so -- >> either the owner or the owner's agent can get a permit, so they could be a messy, but they have to be acting as the owners' agent when they do that. i wanted to mention one or two more things very quickly about noise and noise enforcement. noise regulations are normally in article 29 of the police

code, and there is a fixed source noise, which is this type of noise, regulated by the department of public health, and that goes far beyond what i was saying about building code and noise control standards and construction. they actually have standards for what may or may not be reasonable in commercial or residential uses there is a nuisance noise under article 29 which is regulated by the police, themselves, but this is regulated by the health department, and i am sorry. i should have perhaps mentioned that earlier and been participatory. >> we know you are not an acoustical engineer, but does it seem logical to you that if you have something that produces 61

db or the and the noise in the area is 61 db, and you add to that india nor is something that produces 63, that the noise level does not go up, it would blend? >> i am afraid i am not -- >> -- commissioner garcia: thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? commissioners, the matter is yours. commissioner fung: just a couple of technical comments. commissioner goh isolated the devices that separate the piece of machinery from its anchorage to dampen vibrations and reduce vibration-transmitted sound.

it is interesting that there yard has fairly high in the and noise levels. there are not that many codes that related to sound transmission itself, , and there are residential units, such as condominiums. this division idea of the nature of the sound levels in the rear yard, which is quite high at certain times.

the issue here is really more of a civil nature dealing with the ownership of the property. if one was to utilize, and, by the way, let me backtrack, because i remember making some of those comments, and we did not ask that it be mutually tested for it. the question here is can the compressor technically have its impact in terms of sound and vibrations reduce sufficiently to not create a nuisance to the tenants, if it has eisa later --

isolators, if it is a created cabinet, if it can reduce it significantly, but also, what bothers one person sound wise may not necessarily bother another person, and so that is a variable. this particular case, however, has to be resolved in its long- term through the civil actions that they are going through. commissioner garcia: so what are your intentions in regard to this permits? commissioner fung: i believe the sound and vibration can be reduced, so i am prepared to -- commissioner garcia: what about the issue of replacing the

compressor in what may not be an accessible area? commissioner fung: i think the owner -- i may be treading in an area that i should not, but if there's an election is resolved, as i believe somebody mentioned in four months, then, perhaps, whatever we decide becomes moot. commissioner garcia: but at this juncture, you would uphold this permit? >> -- commissioner fung: yes. vice president goh: i guess i will china in because i am going the other direction. -- i will chime in.

additional briefing is allowed at three pages per party. we did not get any briefing. the questions that we had and the reason we wanted the continuance was for nor is steady for review of the falls of permits that would be needed for this, and for the hours of operation, which we got, we got a noise study only for the ambient noise. we did not get a noise study with regard to this compressor or with regard to the things that commissioner fung mentioned that could be used to reduce the noise for the appellant, and we also heard then at the original hearing that there was this lawsuit, it was supposed to be decided in september, so given

that we gave the party's an opportunity to file briefing, it to do the studies, to come forward with a viable alternative, i am inclined to overturn this permit, brigadoon not think this is a tenable situation for this appellant to live with a compressor, either directly under his window or in his garage. commissioner garcia: i am inclined to need to uphold or overturned but to continue. i think we made it very clear to the permit holder what this board wanted, and we cannot, at least, i cannot, maybe the other commissioners can, for the basis

decide the merits of all of the complex issues involved in this particular case having to deal with this particular permit. i want to know exactly about the construction, how the installation is going to be achieved, exactly where it is going to be, and under what authority it can be in the garage, if that is going to be the place it is. all the issues having to deal with all of the permits, and some citations as to what is allowed or not allowed having to deal with noise, i feel that we have incomplete information. i would lead more towards overturning than upholding, but if neither party is willing to that, then i would join vice president goh in overturning, but i would be willing to reconsider that issue, but before that motion is made, i think it should be made extremely clear exactly what

members of this board seem to want, which i thought had been done the first time. commissioner hwang: i would be inclined to continue, as well. i am wondering if there is any question here as to what it is specifically that is being asked. is the permit holder clear on what is being required? should this board continue the matter? were you not clear the first time, is the question. >> i think i was quite clear. there was the noise study.

it did not say how many types of noise studies you wanted. the existing noise levels at the exterior of the building, i think that the compressor in comparison to what the existing noise level is is what we wanted. i do not think you asked me to do any noise studies on the interior side of the building. if you have, i would have tried to do that. the only problem would have been with the one unit. as far as the location, i thought you just asked for alternate locations. i did speak to the owner of the property and to his brother, who was doing the installation of the compressor. because of the neighbors, the proximity of the building, the

neighbor has their interests on the north side of their building. it would be almost impossible to want to locate that compressor on the south side of the existing building, because it would probably cause quite a bit of noise to the up. commissioner hwang: so, basically, commissioner garcia, it would be getting the sound study from the perspective of the appellants, correct? commissioner garcia: exactly how it is going to be installed, the permits. >> that is something you did not ask before. if you have, i would have tried to -- commissioner garcia: i understand that you are not an

attorney and are not used to an adversarial situation such as this, but it is not to present information when they have the right to rebel that they do not see until tonight. that is not a reasonable way to proceed, and so the more information you give us, and had you given us the breeze and describe other alternatives, and why they were not feasible, and we also note need to now note because the issue has been raised that this and gentlemen, your client, owns the building. is there something in the law that says even though the tenant is there, you have the right to do it? a compressor run in the garage, and some measure is taken upstairs, because that tenant might have a problem, and then also, tenant number one or tenant number two -- at least to

run the test yhency. it may turn out that the garage is a worse spot than you had planned originally. >> i do not think that would be the case. commissioner garcia: nor do i, but we need that information to evaluate, and he needs and information to rebut. >> one thing brought up about the use of the compressor and the stone chipper and everything else is that it would be done during the day, hours during which the appellant is not at home. he is at work. and the thing is, we did say if he were at home during the day because he is taking the day off or is sick, we could always notify the attendant -- the tenant that he would prefer that no work be done, so there is a very minimal amount of

interference with the tenant being at home, it tended to number one using the compressor te -- nant -- tenant number one using the compressor. there is no reason why one tenant would want to get into a fight with the other tenant. president peterson: do you feel you understand what is being asked of you at this point? >> you're asking information which i cannot provide. president peterson: thank you. commissioner hwang: i move to continue the matter in order to give additional information. >> one other thing. the appeal said there was a change of use for this by tenant number one, and i think we

provided information to the commission that hopefully would have convinced you that we are not trying to change the use of the property from a sort of hobby-type of use of versus commercial use for a sculpture studio, and nothing was mentioned about that at the last meeting or this meeting, as well, and i am hoping that we can at least make a decision on that. commissioner garcia: i agree. it would be unreasonable to have another hearing and then have this issue arise. i think the person to weigh in on that would be the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. a variety of uses are allowed for a legal dwelling units, and

there are certain provisions. you cannot have members of the public coming and visiting. you cannot have signs up, display that you are essentially operating as a retail store. commissioner garcia: so i would say the answer to your question -- >> if we can at least have that -- president peterson: this is a logical person appeal, so we are limited to those issues. commissioner garcia: i would say you are safe.

>> i would like to recommend another date, because our calendars are quite full. commissioner garcia: two days after valentine's day, maybe there will be more love in the room. commissioner hwang: i would like the briefing that was requested at the prior hearing. mr. pacheco, do you have that? secretary pacheco: for the permit holder to go first? president peterson: we want to make it extremely clear that any briefing you choose to submit up to 3 pages in the exhibit, so

the noise study, whatever play and you have for where this is going to be, whatever permits are required to fully install this. >> you want this? president peterson: yes. is it a question? >> the architect failed to mention what was going on.

that 85 decibels, i contacted the manufacturers, both of the suppliers to handle this equipment, and the manufacturer has not tested this equipment under u.l. testing, and their best was 85 decibels on the low end and that it is likely higher than that. president peterson: that is likely a response you can submit. >> we would like them to submit something from the mfg. giving the actual wage of the equipment so we can have a representation. vice president goh: i have a question for you, sir. did i hear you that when they turned the compressor on is when they were doing the ambien to? >> last thursday, it was on for two minutes, but they were supposedly taking readings, but

that information was not provided. vice president goh: i have a question for the permit holder? >> please step forward. vice president goh: did you have the test with the compressor test on -- with the compressor on? >> i just did a reading. commissioner garcia: and you might include in your brief the manufacture ratings. >> sure, i can do that. commissioner garcia: think you. president peterson: i would like to hear about ways we can get a representative at the time of the testing. this is so that each party can look at the rating.

vice president goh: is there a motion on the table? that they did the test and that the numbers were not good, and then we did not hear about it, jimmy, that suggests that there is no reason for us to continue this. we gave them a chance. we asked for it very explicitly. they did not do the testing and then provided us only here at the hearing with only ambient results. i mean, 82.3 is to allow. -- too loud. commissioner fung: that is when it is outside. excuse me.

we are not taking testimony. it is up to you. if you want to call for a vote. vice president goh: let's see what happens with the continuance. i am unlikely to vote for a continuance given that we have the numbers that we have. commissioner hwang: the reason i am moving for a continuance is that the process was not proper. even if he had the data that was requested of him, it was not supplied on time. and this is coming off of commissioner garcia's suggestion, and this is where i am coming from, as well. >> as the permit holder stated

other hand, it has not been covered with the sound insulated cover, structure, rather, and that should reduce the db's. president peterson: why do we not go with you vote? secretary pacheco: the motion is to continue until february 16, 2011, to allow for the permit holder to conduct additional acoustical tests and review permit issues. additional briefing is allowed at three pages per party. it is due prior. on that notion, commissioner fung, vice president goh, commissioner garcia, president peterson.

the motion is continued. president peterson: mr. pacheco, thank you. we are ready to call item no. 7. secretary pacheco: i think he has another question about the directive? president peterson: the parties have left. you can call me.

here is my card. secretary pacheco: item number seven, appeal no. 10-110, john horvers and f. joseph butler, 1269 lombard, versus the zone in the administrator, protesting the grading on a two-for-one, 2010, for the rear yard variance disconcerting demolishing the existing two story single- family building and constructing two new buildings at front and near -- we are of a lot. >> -- note the front and rear of the lot. >> good evening. john is not able to come this evening. his mother, unfortunately, his 91-year-old mother in arizona

was hospitalized, and he had to go down to arizona. i note will do like to point out that he did ask mr. gladstone to continue this, and he refused. i say shame on mr. gladstone. however, we're going to continue with the process. i happen to also live in the neighborhood. all i am out1251 and 1249 lombard. -- i am at 1251. how did this new project get as far as it did in the approval process? it is seemingly far in excess of anything that as allowed in the code. there seems to be an assumption that a developer or project sponsor has a right to two units. and there seems to be an

assumption that it is compatible with the neighborhood. talking about requiring of variance in the back of the yard. you can put a two-family dwellings. that is a dwelling unit, not two units, not anything else. 2019-g says the in therh-2 zone, you need a conditional use district. it does not meet the code. you cannot put two units on this lot. you can only put one unit on the lot. when we talk about the

neighborhood compatibility, there were all kinds of comments made by the zoning administrator that this is compatible with the neighborhood. it is not compatible with the neighborhood. there are seven lots in the east of this project, all zoned rh-2. there are single-family homes. there are two in front and some else. and this is 1800 square feet in the back. this is not compatible. we take the remaining lots that are east of this project, and one happens to be my property, including one entirely in the rear of the lot.