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 as the

follow-up testing led to the same conclusion that the expected noise levels in the commercial office space will, when transmitted to the residences above, will be ten decibelses quieter than background noise levels in the residences. and when a transmitted noise is 10 decibels quieter than a background noise level in the space, that is perfectly considered inaudible. we'd also like to add that in the commercial space in use, the restaurant, the thai restaurant currently in use on the first floor, there is no dropped acoustical ceiling and there are also heat pumps from the ceiling above. we feel that this demonstrates that that architectural construction is sufficient to provide mitigation between the commercial space and the residences above in this building. thank you.

>> thank you. >> do you have any information on live nation? i'm just kidding. >> i actually have a question for you. have you seen the conditions the appellant submitted? not until it was just handed to us tonight. >> so, you haven't had a chance to read these? no. >> that's fine. i just wanted to know if you had an opinion about what's in them. not yet. that's fine. thank you. >> i have a question for ms. workman. ms. workman? what kind of tenant is your client envisioning potentially renting the space? well, we actually have gene coe here who is the broker who can talk to you more specifically about that. but they are looking for a very i think conventional office tenant for that space. is that okay if gene responds? just a couple examples. the tenants that we're looking

for are creative tenants, office tenants, but, you know, they can be technology, they can be architects. they can be designers. but they're not particularly noisy tenants. they're the same tenants as any other tenants in any other office building. >> what might be the likely size of the work force in that place? probably between, you know, 50 to 70 people. >> i don't think architects can afford south of market. [laughter] you're right about that. >> thank you. did you want me to speak a little more about the tenants? >> that answers my question, thank you. >> mr. duffy, mr. sanchez? mr. duffy. commissioners, the permit went through the building department, went through the review for building code mechanical, went through the

fire department ~ that issued, it was a current permit of values, 275,000. it's a typical tenant improvement that we see. i don't see any issues with it. obviously signed is something that people worry about. i think they've covered that. the isolators are really good. that's a great idea to do that because we do get a lot of complaints in the department about noise from equipment on the roof so that the isolators were done, that definitely would help to mitigate that. but i'm available for any questions as always. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i just wanted to note the subject properties in the mur mixed-use [speaker not understood]. it was an eight year long zoning effort. it was previously under the purview of the redevelopment

agency a yerba buena [speaker not understood]. the office is principally permitted in the zoning district and there's no requirements or limits on hours of operation anywhere in the mur. so, and i'll just speak to the office piece itself. it is generally the quietest, we said the deadest kind of use you can have typically. typically we don't like to have those on the ground floor. we like to have more active uses like restaurants or things. seems in this case this use would be compatible with the building. would suggest the conditions that were proposed by the appellant. i mean, i think they are very specific, more specific than we would ever typically see even in a planning commission approval. so, knowing that this is a higher density mixed use district, that does allow this as of right, respectfully request the board not condition this permit with limiting hours of operation. should you do so, assuming a

responsibility enforcement of that would fall upon the planning department and we would do as you wished. thank you. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? everyone who is interested, perhaps you could raise your hands. okay. hello. my name is lydia chan. i'm the owner and also i lived in the condo in museum park unit 320 which is right above this proposed newly renovated office space. i'd like to just bring a little history, background of this noise problem. i moved into the condo in 1995, so, that makes almost 18 years.

when i first moved in, i had trouble really at night to have a good rest because there is a constant noise. it's like a motor running continuously and really loud. finally, i brought the problem to the homeowner association and it was decided that that was the noise that transmitted through the wall where the anchor -- the market downstairs, they needed refrigeration freezer. so, they have a big compressor and that causes this vibrational kind of noise. and then later on there were other units also had same experience and complaint.

but anyway, the problem couldn't be resolved because it was already there and the market has to be open. so, it was finally dissolved by they closed down and they moved away. and the last 12 years it has been vacant. so, my biggest concern is if there is any moving device attached either to the ceiling downstairs or on the wall, it probably will generate the same kind of structural type of noise and vibration and that can transmit quite far and very distinct. so, i would like the board consider to include the conditionses that we put into

our brief. and make sure this is not going to be a problem in the future. even if they put an isolator, i would suggest that they would come to my unit after the office is occupied and is in full operation just to make sure that there is no more vibration or noise problem. thank you very much for listening. >> thank you. next speaker, please. good evening, good morning maybe is more appropriate. my name is clifford cain and i'm a resident owner of museum park for 19 years. i'm also the president of the museum park board of directors and also a member of the museum park master owners association. and i'm here representing the

homeowners and the 92 residents who signed the petition and i think you have a copy of the petition, there's 92 signatures from museum park residents supporting vikki hart's appeal to implement a comprehensive acoustical plan and use restrictions on the proposed office space. this past weekend i was reading a new york times article that described office inhabitants as free range humans. an office occupied from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. is a definition of an office. nowhere are cutting edge more prevalent than soma. i would hope that the owners of 725 - 727 folsom would recognize this while at the same time be mindful they operate in a primarily residential mixed use building. if the owners want to take advantage of today's definition of office space, they should, we feel they should overcompensate by minimizing and mitigating any potential noise and vibration issues. even if they plan to restrict

their search to traditional users of office space, they shouldn't have any issues agreeing to use restrictions. the point being we don't know who that tenant will be and we need to protect our interest with an acoustical plan and use restrictions. this is an issue in a mixed use building where common walls are shared. i don't think we're asking for anything more than you would ask for if you lived in our building and shared common walls. i also like to say that the use restrictions we're asking for are basically what salter recommended. we're not asking for anything other than what's in their report. the report was -- the salter study was only done as a result of the appeal. it was not done by the owners prior. so, they've already gone through this exercise because of the appeal. that's it. thank you. one more thing. you raiseedth the question

about the ccnr. don't want to bring up the ccnr because you brought it up. ~ we do have a master owner review of construction. we brought that up and the owners were saying that they don't think that applies. however legal counsel said it does so we're kind of fighting that issue there. but that's kind of a separate issue. >> thank you. >> so, the disagreements of 6 years ago are still there? well, the disagreement -- no, we had the first tenant was the market, there were definite problems. >> okay. we'll bring it separately. i wanted to give the other commissioners some background. okay. thank you. >> next speaker, please. good evening, commissioners.

my name is wayne goldman. i own two condos in the building. and i appreciate your actions here and how you are unemotional about your decisions and make good decisions. i think, you know, looking at this whole situation, the biggest thing here is that we, a residents, want our quality and enjoyment of our condos. and that's what the issue is. we don't oppose an office space down there. in fact, that's kind of nice that it's quiet, although i would prefer to have something that we could use, like the rental of restaurants or dry cleaner or something like that. but i think the time restriction at 10(k) at night is really a good target for us. ~ 10 o'clock at night i was sitting on the porch and

that's a single use building. 10 o'clock they came out and said, you have to leave, we have restrictions, 10 o'clock the port chester close. and that was a single use building. ~ i think that we would like to have that same restriction on the space at 725 and 727. this is enterprise rent a car. they close at 6:00. this is a dry cleaners, they close at 7:00. this is chai an restaurant, they close at 10:00. we never had any problem with anybody with a lease. we'd like you to consider our conditions. thanks. >> thanks. any other public comment? okay. seeing none, we will start with our rebuttal. ms. heart, you have three minutes.

all we're asking for is the conditions. and in the salter report, they did the types of use would be normal conversation, group presentation, conference call. so, any of our conditions are just in line with what they said they wanted to do. so, this is all we're asking the board to uphold these conditions. right. the conditions that we have are based on really talking to our acoustic consultant and understanding, you know, what the salter report was assuming. so, their conclusions were based on specific assumptions. so, through that, that's why we put those use restrictions together under the conditions. so, i mean, it's pretty -- it's pretty straightforward and, you know, as you've referred to,

commissioner, that we have had problems with that space. so, that's why our resolution of this and appeal would be to have the conditions enforced by a notice of special restrictions recorded on the land records attached as an addendum to the tenants' lease. because then it will travel with the parcel and this won't come up every time there's a new owner or there's a new use for the space. these were the same owners when we were with cos. it's the same owns as before. so, they were well aware of the history. in our brief you can see since 1995, -- we've had a problem since 1996 and they were well aware of the 2008 and just for the record i have been to every meeting and voiced my concerns about this issue since 2008. so, thank you so much. >> ms. bark man?

thank you. i'd like to make a couple points. one is that the conditions that 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 -- an