the san francisco fire department approval for any open flame source. the department of public health approval for both the sanitation and the rest room along with business certificate. we have received all three at the time of permit issuance. we have not received any information at this point in writing from the department of public health as it relates to specific concerns to the bathroom. it appears that there is some, obviously, given that the applicant has gone back to the department of public health for clarification. let me show a picture of the proposed location. you can see from the picture the bike rack located at this location, and there is a muni pole located at this location. the food cart will be placed between the two locations. given the location of the cart

and the furnishings along market street at this specific location, it is highly unlikely that people would meander in and out of the pole and these bicycle racks as a normal pedestrian path of travel. therefore, we did not believe that was going to be an issue specifically. we followed the process, obviously. and we believe that this permit is appropriate. i'm here to answer any questions that you guys may have. >> mr. kwong, in your analysis of being no like foods, what restaurants are within that radius of the required radius here? >> i know staff reviewed it. the objections here specifically were for fall city diner, focacia and -- take a look -- star bucks. those were the ones listed in the brief.

>> in the brief. are those the only ones? those are ones that were in the immediate area. there were no other food locations at the time of permit application that i know of. none were reported to me that there were any foods related to either kabobs or gyros in that immediate area. >> do you have any knowledge about this bathroom issue and the reference to the original bathroom facility thing that jack-in-the-box which was perhaps outside the required radius and now they've shifted? or is that strictly the dph issue? >> this is a strictly dph issue. however, if at any time either health department or fire department inform us that their permit is invalid, the department will suspend the mobile food permit pending resolution of the issues as it relates to fire, health, and it

cannot be resolved in a reasonable time, we will seek to revolckv the permit. >> but dph would be the one to calculate the distance and okay or not okay the bathroom facility? >> that would be correct. ~ >> thank you. >> is anybody from dph here? >> is there public comment on this item? please raise hands of anyone that would like to speak. no public comment on this item. we can move into rebuttal. mc ~ ms. mckenna, you have three minutes. thank you. as far as some of the comments that were made, i can pretty much determine that the chipotle mexican grill at 5 25 market is more than 200 feet. you're going to be looking into

that. and there really are no other restaurants that are within 200 feet besides our [speaker not understood] you saw on our map, that's our building with the arcade there. my point is that our tenants pay high rent in that building. and to sell food there, even though there isn't the competition of gyros, but they sell soft drinks and we want to promote our retail tenants by not giving them any unfair competition. since they pay that rent. ~ and i guess that's my rebuttal. thank you. >> okay, mr. chalk. yes, i'm just not sure what relevance the rent that the tenants pay to this board here

in consideration of the appeal. it seems like the singular issue is the bathroom issue and i honestly -- it doesn't seem like either of us is absolutely certain of the footage between the mobile cart facility and the bathroom that my client obtained the signature for use of. but that's a matter that the department of health will be investigating. like you said, these permits are issued conditionally and if there is a finding there is a problem with it, the bathroom issue, i believe that would be addressed between the dph and the permit holder. i don't see it as any grounds to grant the present appeal. >> thank you. questions? >> thank you, mr. fong. anything further? okay, nothing further, then, commissioners, the matter -- >> i have another question for mr. kwong. what else is in this area in terms of food carts or food trucks?

>> along this block, i don't believe there's really anything along this block. i know the closest one i believe was a vietnamese, i believe, food truck -- i mean food stand near to what used to be e-train which was a couple blocks away. >> i remember that one. >> is the closest one on 2nd street, then? >> there's been a few food trucks that was in the middle of the block there. it's been a few cold trucks in the area. i don't remember whether there was one on 2nd street in this case. i'm sorry. >> it's a fairly long block. >> i know typically these food trucks are clustered in a bunch on 4th street, stockton street. there's a cluster on mission street near second, but really,

i don't remember seeing any in this immediate area. >> okay, thank you. >> does the department actually -- speaking of clusters, does the department take that into consideration? >> we are taking that into consideration. >> now you are or had you had been and just -- >> in the beginning the legislation is for fairly silent on evaluating and based upon the continued evolution of [speaker not understood]. we start looking at the issue of saturation, the issue of clustering. >> okay. okay. >> thank you. >> yeah, i'm pretty certain that there is no basis to revoke this permit. i mean, i've heard no evidence indicating that it was issued in error. there are no like foods. i believe the rest room issue

will be resolved by the department of public health. so, i don't see any basis to overturn this permit. >> i would concur. >> i also concur and would move to deny the appeal. >> on the basis that it's code compliant? >> yes. >> okay. mr. pacheco, when you're ready. >> we have a motion from the president to uphold this permit opt basis that it is code compliant. ~ on the on that motion, commissioner fong? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5 to 0, this permit is upheld on that basis. >> okay. items 8a through d have already been declared.

we move on to item number 9, vikki hart versus the building inspection. the property is at 5 25 folsom street, museum park retail llc, permit to alter a building interior tenant improvements rest rooms for men and women, demo interior partition and doors, new offices and conference rooms and new key under separate permit. this is on for hearing tonight and we will start with ms. hart . you have 7 minutes. i'd like to, as a point of order, the following information that wasn't included in our brief. i apologize, but we did not receive the charles m. salter & associates comprehensive acoustic report until the day after our brief was filed. but could the board have the conditions? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand --

we wanted to give out our conditions now. they weren't in our brief. >> what conditions? the conditions that we'd like to ask for. >> oh, that is based on your consultant's report? yes. >> and the report had not been available to you at the time -- it's not ours. >> right. so, i don't understand what -- >> i think they're saying that they have conditions that you'd like -- that they'd like you to approve, but they couldn't put them in their appellant brief because the acoustic wasn't available at the time they submitted the appellant brief. >> okay. that's fine. i can submit this? >> sure. >> [speaker not understood]. >> yeah, have you given it to -- >> and to d-b-i. >> are you indicating that you are in agreement now with the permit if these conditions are added? is that what you're saying?

yes, we would be. >> have you raised them with the permit holder? shall i start now? >> have you brought this to the attention -- is this the first time they're seeing this? yes. >> why is that? because we weren't able to get to any agreement before now. >> so, you put this together after your -- we put it together since we've seen their information. >> how much time has passed? we got it on the second of may. what happened is that the conditions are based on the findings of the acoustical report that was included in their brief. it was a comprehensive acoustical report.

we are asking to repeal before we submitted our brief. we never got it until the day after we submitted our brief. >> okay. ~ i'm just asking her about the process because if they're hearing it for the first time, what are we, the eighth, ninth? the eighth, a little bit longer. so, if you've had it for five days at least, right, and you had no opportunity, are you saying you've had no opportunity to bring it to the attention -- we didn't have it for five days because we were going over the report. we all hired our own acoustic -- >> why don't we hear the case. >> i'm just trying to understand. okay, thank you. well, thank you. okay. my name is vikki hart and i'd like to thank the members of the board of appeals for taking the time and effort to help us resolve this issue. i feel very privileged to live in san francisco. a city that has a board of appeals process. i'd like to thank victor pacheco for had i

professionalism. he was so helpful in 2008 with the cas appeal. now we have returned and he continues to provide wonderful guidance. ~ had i please help us resolve this issue to i don't have to bother victor with another appeal. ~ his the commercial owners and homeowners share a common goal, to have a long vacant commercial space occupied. we agree it would support and supply office space. we're not ask you to revoke the permit. we made a good faith effort and tried to reach an agreement before the hearing. the reason for filing this appeal is to resolve the history of noise and vibration transfer to our multi-use condominium building. there is a shared 6 to 8-inch concrete post tension slab separating our homes from the commercial space at 725-7 27 folsom street. i am here today to propose a reasonable resolution ~ which includes use restriction and acoustic plan and verification. i am requesting a two-part

solution from the commercial space owners. number one, isolate the noise and vibration from their mechanical systems, especially those attached to their ceiling and our floor. number two, reduce the airborne noises from the activities of their permitted 72 occupants. i'm asking the board to direct the commercial owners for now and for the future, please be a good neighbor. isolate your noise. on behalf of the homeowners and residents of [speaker not understood], i'd like to introduce [speaker not understood] who will speak about use restrictions and acoustical plan and verification. good evening. my name is mari eki, my husband and i have been homeowners and residents in the park since it opened in 1989. it was promoted as the first luxury building in soma which paved the way for many more mixed use luxury condominiums in the area now called soma yerba buena. the following information is not included in our brief. i apologize, but we did not receive the charles m. salter &

associates comprehensive acoustic report until the day after our brief was submitted. the results of the acoustic analysis are predicated on a quiet environment not exceeding 72 dba. any tenant having late meeting -- late night meetings, parties, music or training with amplified audiovisual will be outside the parameters of the analysis and would not be permitted. use restrictions would be consistent with the activities of the traditional office tenant. if we rely on informal agreements, we will have difficulty enforcing these restrictions. our concerns have not been fully addressed by the permit holder's brief and unless required, we have doubts they will fully implement the finding of the salter report. we are asking the board to uphold the permit with the following conditions, use restrictions and acoustic plan and verification. the salter report conclusions are based on assumptions for normal office activity, not exceeding 72 dba during the day

and 66 dba at night. these are normal speech activities ranging from a conversation to a group presentation or conference call. here are four reasonable use restrictions based on the salter report. one, no group meetings or parties after 8:00 p.m. two, no amplified or live music, kerr yoke i disk jockeys playing music, permanent portable music system or speakers mounted to ceilings or walls. three, no activities such as video games or recreational activities that would result in cheering, shouting or singing. four, the hours of business operation should be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. here is a two-part acoustic plan. one, all mechanical and instructional systems should be installed compliant with specifications from the salter report. two, no mechanical systems can be mounted to the steel platform located in the loading

dock area over the walkway west of 725 - 727 folsom street. verification, salter & associates should confirm to the appellant they have reviewed the final set of plans and specifications including tenant improvement mep, and their recommendationses have been integrated into the plans. when construction is completed, salter & associates would provide a closure letter after verification. in the future, any tenant improvements for 725 - 727 folsom street should be reviewed and approved by salter associates for compliance with the established acoustic sounders outlined in their report. we are asking the board to uphold the permit with the conditions i just outlined, enforced by a notice of special restrictions recorded on the land records and attached as an addendum to the tenants' lease. thank you. on behalf of the homeowner and residents of museum park i'd like to introduce our acoustic

consultant pablo [speaker not understood]. good evening, i'm [speaker not understood] acoustic consulting firm in emoryville, the bridge. and, you know, i had a chance to review the acoustic report. mrs. ecki has pretty much summarized most of the points that i'm going to -- bear with me and repeat, but you have a copy of the acoustic report prepared by mr. salter's office and i will point out a few issues about that report. it is a good analysis, however it's a fairly narrow in its scope in that it looks primarily at sources of noise which are speech. so, it assumes a typical office, cubicle, open plan type operation with people basically speaking no more than that. so, however, it does not

include sources with music or sound effects which are very common in offices, also with offices with young people, dot-coms and so on in the soma area. and, for instance, issues like audiovisual material, training videos product demonstration videos, parties, care yoke i parties that could take place at the end of the day. also the level of speech assumed 72 decibel is okay for a typical office use, but there are special conditions such as the public address system ~ like the case in retail or commercial uses or special events like broadcasting of ball games by television, things like that. so, i don't know if you have a couple second for the last point very brief. it also under estimates the potential audibility of the noises from the commercial spaces, the condominiums. by assuming the commercial activities only take place

during normal business hours. they perform an exterior noise survey in which they realize that during the night noise levels drop like you would expect, and, however, their analysis is based on only day-time hours. >> we'll have more time on rebuttal. sure, thank you. >> to the appellant, whoever would like to answer, i've got a question. what restrictions do you currently have between residential units? between residents? >> yes. within the residents, you're not allowed to do laundry or something before 8:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. you can't have speakers. and you can't have speakers -- oh, you can't have speakers

mounted to your walls because it is this concrete slab. and as it is, it's interesting how noise travels -- >> stay with -- we'll continue with the other. does that mean there's no parties? there are parties probably within the units. >> and there is no karaoke individual -- on occasion -- oh, in the units? >> yes. no, our rules after 10:00 it's quiet. you call the security -- >> so, you do have restrictionses regarding noise between residential units. we do, yes, we do. uh-huh. >> i'm very familiar with your building. >> i actually have a question as well. so, when you purchased this evidently because it's a condominium, there's hoa, ccnrs. yes. >> that govern, that govern the building, correct? right, yes. >> so, when you purchased it,

were you aware that there was going to be a commercial space downstairs? yes. i mean, there was a market there for years and that, though, has been vacant now for 12 years. >> and even though that is vacant when you purchased it, you were aware that there was going to be a commercial -- it is a storage for the residents. that room is all storage and it was quiet. it was all for everyone to have a storage locker for suitcases and things like that. it was -- >> so, the residents decided to sell it and use it -- no, there are three parcels. we have three parcel garage, commercial and residential. so, we have the three parts. so, there's other, there's other commercial tenants there. so, there's restaurants, there's a dry cleaner, there's a car rental agency. but then this particular space has been vacant for 12 years.

>> and so, are those restaurants going to conform to the same restrictionses that you're asking this particular -- they're actually different. you know, the restaurants on that side are like they do close at 10:00. >> restaurant, correct. restaurant closes at 10:00. and the other thing is that there's a construction difference between those -- the other businesses where they have an acoustic drop ceiling. >> are you aware of or that the hoa or the ccnrs, do they cover that commercial space now? well, not really because that would be covered under the moa, the master owners association, ccnrs. so, there's a broad, a broad ccnr provision that talks about the quiet enjoyment of your space. so, you know, that's very broad.

that's why we're looking at something much more specific because, you know, we've had a history of problems with that space. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, we can hear from the permit holder now. i am going to use the overhead. good evening, i'm judy workman on past of the museum parc retail. tic [speaker not understood] are here as are acoustical consultants who you will hear from shortly. this prominent ground floor

vacant space has sat vacant on folsom across from moscone center for 12 years. since a food market vacated in 2001. a thai restaurant is on one side and enterprise rent a car is on the other. the tic wants to be a good neighbor and takes the residents right into the quiet enjoyment of their homes very seriously. they've searched for a compatible use of this unit that won't interfere with the residents. an office is a nonintrusive legal use of the space. explicit lease provisions ensure residents bent be impacted by office activities and tenants will be screened for compatibility with the mixed use building. the tic property manager reported on the office project to the master owners association which includes the homeowner's association for over a year on this project. the homeowners requested construction after 10:00 a.m. each day and the tic agreed. otherwise homeowners raised no concerns until the permit was appealed by one resident. they suggested they hire an

acoustic firm charles salter specifically to analyze noise intrusion into the residences and the tic did so. salter's analysis concludes virtually no noise transfer to the residents will occur. all residents were invited to a meeting with the architect and consultants to discuss the project. the tic then asked the consultants to conduct a second analysis which also shows no sound intrusion from the office to the residences. noise issues cited by the appellant are from 12 years ago and were due largely to the former market's refrigeration equipment which has since been removedment the tic has made enormous effort to ensure an office won't enter fire with the residents' quality of life even though the appellant provides no evidence that noise will transfer to the residences. the tic, on the other hand, provides ample evidence that noise will not be an issue. we urge the board of appeals to reject the appeal and allow this project to move forward. [speaker not understood] will now present the architectural plans and the acoustical consultants will present their analysis.

good evening, commissioners. my name is alan gee and i am the architect for the project. i just want to give you a brief overview of what we have and some of the steps that we've taken to get the concerns of the appellant. this is a floor plan which you have in exhibit a which is a bit cleaned up. so, we were contracted by the owners to work with their leasing brokers to assist with the program for the spec office space that would be ready for a tenant to move in. the program was to have an open office space basically here, two private offices, a break room, conference room and the associated bathrooms. the design is what is considered the current esthetics of the market for office tenant in this area. this is a reflected ceiling plan which again shows the open

office with t-bar ceilings within the private offices, break room and a conference room. the rest rooms will have a painted chip board ceiling. one of the concerns raised by the appellant is the vibration of noise transmitted by people slamming doors. well, i don't doubt that people slam doors. i believe the occurrence of that happening is minimal and infrequent. to help mitigate their concerns, we actually have silencers on the doors which are basically little rubber buttons that stick to the door or insert in. as the name implies, they silence the closer of the doors. we also have overhead closers on some of these doors which, you know, doesn't allow people to slam doors. so, that coupled with the remaining doors which is a glass conference room door which doesn't slam, or two office doors which i guess if you have a boss that slams a lot of doors, that could happen. but they actually have something that's called a mute, which is a felt around the perimeter of the door which, again, mutetion the sound of

the door. ~ mutes another concern raised by the appellant is the noise vibration from mechanical units. we have two existing mechanical units that are attached to the ceiling and these are called water source heat pumped. they are hanging from isolators. these units have been previously serviced and tested and are in good working order. to help mitigate the appellant's concern about the vibration and noise, we will be replacing the isolatorses with spring andneo pre-ctionvtion isolator as recommended by charles salter. sort of like the belts and suspenders approach there. any new units that are installed, of course, will be installed the same with the spring isolators and theneo proem washers and any mechanical work being done will be done by to code. here is a conceptual rendering of what we actually see the

office space looking like. again, we have this up to date. charles salter the acoustic engineers and they can elaborate a little more on the vibration isolators and the sound and their acoustic analysis. good evening, my name is ben piper. this is my colleague ben decker. we are acoustic consultants with charles salter. at the request of the appellant we were hired by the property ownership group to conduct an analysis of noise transmission from the proposed office space into the residences above. we provided an analysis and provided our findings to the homeowners association. at that time based on their feedback, we increased our scope of work to include acoustickal testing in the residences themselves. we provided that testing and there was also our initial analysis as well