and from where i see it, it's my opinion it's not an issue from the restaurant. >> there's been a restaurant there 20 or thirty years. >> i read that in the brief but the initial fan was not there until 2011 i understand that again noise is very up to different people but if you have to live there and alone to a beep like several gentlemen have said earlier that's an issue so i'm asking you right now since are you willing to work with them? >> if i have to. >> okay. that answers it okay. thank you. >> >> ms. kaiser you have rebuttal.

>> thank you i would urge the board to consider whether this dispute between the neighbors about noise is really something for capital hill at this point to continue to meet we're fairly clear that in terms of the noise are ordinance the board of supervisors made a number of choices that take that out of the realm of a dph public health noise consideration in terms of the actual violations that is equipment on the roof that no one what hear this is on ongoing legitimate dispute between neighbors but maybe in the form of a nuisance suit or some other mechanism is it roll for the city do i hear a motion to approve the minutes? to continue to keep roller-coaster tail in a position based on a noise violation no one can hear to have to tale with and extend

more money with a dispute with the neighbor you i'm not they're no dispute and the ladies concern is not serious but the department of health did the right thing consider the alternative if the department of public health does not grant a variants then roller-coaster tail wi be required to - rooster tail has done what we've asked that is above and beyond what the law required of it in order to get the variance what is a violation into place where known can hear it i that it's fair to up holder

dph's decision not to use the noise ordinance as the point of pressure in this neighbors dispu dispute. >> so the wraich of the duct. >> i can find an exhibit in the declaration i think what happened they were directed to wrap the duct we remembered out and established and continued to find a violation on the roof and come back and tell them you need to be in compliance they asked for another variance added which the abatements was held and we've said the sulter consultant said you'll have to wrap the rest of the duct we said that's

right either fix the problem that on the roof or we'll give you a vanes if you wrap the rest of the duct a that's what we did i'm sorry. >> they didn't follow the directions there's only half of the duct that's wrapped i'm kind of confused i understand half of the duct was wrapped the capital hill ordered the full duct to be wrapped. >> those were two separate rulings. >> they're no in guidance or are. >> they're currently in compliance of every everything that dph asked. >> i'm confused you ask them to wrap half the, if you will, duct. >> we asked them to wrap the duct and then asked them to wrap the whole duct the first was

specific. >> so they wrapped the whole duct at this point. >> that's - and okay. >> i have one question this is out of curiosity the dph is inconsistent whether or not the eliminate wells can be measured. >> yes and no i'm sorry it depends on how you're looking at the question dph made a mistake the law a mistake of lay to ever consider a measurement from a right well, that's smaller in an 9 feet square to measure noise there that's not allowed under the noise that requires a measurement to be

taken at least four and a half feat e feet it didn't say anything about light widens a larger light well could be properly measures it can't be properly measured the one we're talking about that's a matter of l there was a mistake and - >> how long has dph been making that mistake? >> i don't have first-hand knowledge of that my information is that the inspections who were directed to go out and measure the light well had in the first place didn't that that was okay. so there's not a - there's been a dmang this case not necessarily a change among standing practice. >> okay. >> yeah. >> okay. thank you.

>> thank you commissioners the matter is submitted. >> do you want difficult departments want to say anything? come on up and i was going to speak by the gentleman from sulter he addressed everything we'll expect to see them and that's all. >> has the department been to the department or site sorry mr. duffy commissioner honda i assume see i haven't checked the permit it wasn't a dph but a health department. >> you have a tibia bit of information thank you. >> i know, but that's it. >> okay. thank you mr. duffy well, let's start off with what

happened last time genesis of this board denomination last time was based on a position that noise generation and it's sources should be handled within the within the property and therefore the historical use of light wells or of interiors of building with the ducts is not something we felt a strong residence so that letting lead us to look at the rejecting the

appeal of the variance decision i'm still of that opinion that the sound like sources might have been fairly consistent in terms of sound sources need to be examined within the property and therefore controlled to a certain extent the issue that's coming up today is slightly different in the sense that there's the legal copy formation and the legal properness as to whether you can have a sound measurement it's not legal within the base a thought ordinance i don't accept that either the question of letting it whether it's residing between dph or whether it's preceding

within the court system is not something else i'm prepared to accept i think we should force the parties to have a greater settlement and resolve this it is a highly technical issue it's not going to go away whether one is being sensitive or not or more sensitive to sound or visitation we need to deal with that are the appellant should be aware that the city has made their position that this companions and therefore come to the table a little bit better the permit holder should be aware he's safe with continuing opposition if he didn't find a resolution. >> i agree i don't know what the solution it is i think honestly the

department has is throwing their hands up in the air that is a longs arduous situation i'm not willing to grant the variance myself i'd like to if monomy of my commissioners will have a recommendation. >> i'm not sure i'm with you on this. >> well, let me say what i will do and see if there's support i'll continue this for a very limited period of time and let the two parties met and see if they can arrive not only and a at the researching the technical information but what it will cost in fees. >> i can support that limited time. >> and as i indicated the appellant needs to be aware that the some costs are involved.

>> okay. i agree i believe the appellant and permit holder needs to come to the table table and the next time if this motion passes i guess we'll make the decision. >> any comments? i'm struggling here not because i'm new but i'm struggling with the issue before us and i be that council is right that dph what they did was within their discretion they see no public health concerns and it is so difficult to think of substituting any judgment for theirs i'm sympathetic i know it's difficult for the lady and the business owner but i'm struggling iowa our role is i

can support a short continuance but i'll be very reluctant to do so i'm a little bit where you are which is like i'm willing to give the alternative to see if perhaps there's a solution that mitigate our concerns >> commissioner. >> i'll move we continue this for a short period of time and see whether the parties can come together on that that. >> commissioner fung the boards purposes next week is probably too short the following meeting is in question we may not have enough commissioners on the october 29th meeting and the meeting on the next meeting we

have an lawns of cases or next week. >> i'll hear from both parties or november 19th is acceptable. >> thank you very much commissioners i'm climbing on a plane tomorrow morning at 6 o'clock and begun for 8 days i'll be useful in the process of go trying to workout an agreement and take into account as you're determining how long a period of time you want to grant for a continuance. >> i have no objection to either date but i would prefer a

sooner resolution than a literary one to bring this long and arduous matter to a close. >> the permit holder? >> i would noted prefer next week you can have some time for repair. >> november 19th. >> my motion to continue this to november 19th and we'll see whether anything comes out of it. >> okay no additional briefing allowed? no, they, give us a 3 page briefing >> i want it simultaneous so if there's a final it will be a maximum of 3 pages of argument with inhabits commissioners.

>> yes. and with any number of inhabits sfrngsz for instance, if you reach an agreement submit that to the board. >> i want to request and spelling your last name for the record briefing process we'll have the spectre study we saw it this afternoon in order to respond to the course of studying we need to see what that is. >> we'll stagger it madam director. >> okay and those of us unfamiliar with staggering today explain that pages of kings presentation but any number of inhabits. >> 3 pages of argument plus exhibit your briefing is due

three weeks on a theirs that's is the permit holder and the departments is due one thursday before the meeting everyone will have this in writing. >> so we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter until november 19th the public matter has been closed this is to allow the pirates it negotiate additional briefing is allowed 3 pages the vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda commissioner wilson and the vote is 4 to zero this matter is continued until november 19th. >> item 7 was rescheduled until

december 19th and item 8 a jurisdiction subject property on cap street the board received a letter the requester asking the board take jurisdiction over 0 the application which was issued owes on august 2014 by the deniable it ended open the 22nd and it was filed on september 12, '47 the permit holder is timothy to convert it as a single-family dwelling and we'll first mention that oh, no. we'll start with the requester who has 3 minutes.

>> members of the board i'm courtney brown a second year lull student under the supervision of rachel i represent mr. ceo the tenant open cap street we respectfully ask jurisdiction to repeal this permit the gentleman didn't have the opportunity to appeal the permit during the specified time in which your allot to do appeal i didn't know with the permit was issued there of the also no opportunity to sunday evening discretionary review because he didn't know there was a permit applied for this year that permit should have been under full review is seeks to remove an occupied unit this unit has been occupied by the gentleman for 31 years

they are the permit holder is stating it's at&t's an illegal unit we contest as seen by this picture so the unit is the top level here it has its own entrance and it also has a back exit it is two bedrooms a living room, a very nice kitchen i've been there and so it is not the traditional subterranean unit that's considered illegal for those purposes there is also a misrepresentation open the permit itself they misrepresented it's a one dwelling building it's not it's two dwelling and misrepresented

there is no change in occupancy there is a there's a change bus the gentleman will have to leave the unit and the permit holders didn't owner move american people eviction in june 2014 so it's our belief they're considering merging those two units to get out of the requirement they occupy this unit for 3 years bottom unit i'd like to have the gentleman come up and talk about the plan. >> good evening commissioners i'm been living on cap street for 31 years and i am a cultural working in the midst district living in san francisco all my life and yeah. i didn't have my knowledge of

any of this just last week last month and that's pretty much it >> thank you. >> are there any questions? thank you thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holder. >> good evening board and that's correct for your time i'm tim ig9 and my wife rachel we own 843 cap street florescence is that was two argument they put forth towards jurisdiction the first, the permit should have been reviewed by the department of health and what the not reviewed by the planning department the second was the

work is structural therefore it should have the believable should have sent out noticing notices i've spent time speaking with flaefrnsz approved the exact information we priority to the appellant showed the permit was signed off by eric jackson and when it comes to the type of work being done it's not structural work at all as determined by research that the department of building inspection performed the unit was originally constructed at a single-family home and used as that and up until a point it's unknown when an illegal dividing wall split it into an upper and lower unit it was not there that

wall it's thin it's on purpose to divide the upper and lower unit there's a tip to in a comment about roemg the front door they're not relocated only replaced then to address the comments about misrepresentations and our intentions just to give brief background my wife's family emigrated to san francisco from mexico in 1940s it is coming up on the 45th anniversary of the history of the community and our intention to live in the highway to raise our family and her grandmother will be moving in with us this is our plans our intentions to live in the house for the rest of our lives this is our home we respectfully request based on

that information to not have jurisdiction as the argument set forth thank you. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> you recently you purchased this property and over a year ago. >> what was it a single-family home or two unit building. >> two unit building at this point. >> he thees policies are given to you, you i believe there was issues i can't recall the timeline of thees policies but we may hamay have i don't know. >> thank you mr. sanchez

and good evening commissioner president lazarus and members of the board and look forward to working with commissioner wilson the subject property located within the zoning district that's does not have standard density limitations as most residential districts do so in terms of the property the permit seeks to note that the legal use of the building as a sfrnl is based on the planning including the sand born maps is a sfrnl we don't see a second unit at the property it self-not require neighborhood notification pursuant to the code and so there's is no neighborhood notification to have a discretionary review hearing no b d ms or to the jurisdiction requester in this

case that said the united can be legalized i note they're no density give the location of the unit it appears to have the endorse for a quality unit but we don't have a record of it being a legal second unit so when this document came in as a sfrnl and that extends greater right of preservation to illegal unit how have those are unit not predicament in buildings that contain 3 or more unit this is given just one or two building

that's all i have to present i'm available for questions. >> did you look at the 3 r report. >> the same building inspector thought it said unknown based on the permit history no permit found that went from 1 to 2 the evidence of the sand born's the single-family dwelling but based on the information we had could be navigated a one unit building and is there a separate gas and metering. >> i don't have that perhaps the project sponsor can provide that informational by historically that in and of itself is not determined. >> that's the legality.

>> yes. but can be zoned. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners just on behalf of the dbi i'd like to welcome commissioners wilson to the board thank you. i should have said that earlier. >> i missed our turn. >> i wasn't in my official capacity was i anyway 843 scape street i was at that address some point this year doing the unit verification a process that dbi has wherever we we have a 3 r report and the or in worries about to try to establish more units in the building i made an appointment with the gentleman to the property i didn't get into the property i believe maybe the tenant wasn't notified maybe i

can't remember the circumstances but i encourage him to apply for a building permit some days we do this verification if everything is clear can what it should be maybe a roofer pulled a permit and the unit changed i recommend he go through the planning department and get his this permit if he thought it was a single-family dwelling i got an e-mail i noted to telling him that the tuesday for permitting me in the property the purpose to determine the occupancy of the this i recommend you, you get a permit back to the single-family dwelling and the application should be 24r0u89d planning department the records