well, i guess i have a question do you mind come back i believe you said you had a conversation with the nickel sons on the day. >> it was outside the home. >> do you remember the date. >> i believe this was october wait a minute no, it. >> i thought you said october 15th and no, that was when i filled the appeal so i don't remember but i can look through my notes owe e and give it in about a minute. >> i was to see whether the timing was such they could file something. >> it wasn't the appeal time passed i filed my appeal on the

16th centuryth the deadline was on the 18 i rescinded my appeal after that it was when i was working the details of the recession that the nickel sons saw me. >> brown about when. >> brown about two weeks after filing the appeal. >> the window had a closed. >> yes. that almost closed on me because the law passed. >> i have a question for the appellant it's age hard we weren't supplied a brief they stated as well as your next door neighbor you had conversations with the developer or the project manager on this project can you tell us about that and i had a i was work being a neighbor i've been

concerned with construction site continuingly and i was actually given a tour by the project manager when they got the whole upstairs and removed most of the garage and repoured the great, great stairs floor i got a tour i was curious they moved the staircase and curious about the new bedroom lay out i was born and raised in the sunset. >> i was born in the sunset. >> i really my motivation to get a tour was to so how much character was removed no conversation. >> no conversation. >> the noticeable permits

before the structural permit that states clearly the wording of replacing deck in kind and replied august 13th. >> attorney that didn't answer our question. >> i think i had a conversation with the project manager. >> okay. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> i have after going through the brief i would lose the numbers are east to west and the al 3we9s north to south the concerns how much impact it does have i will defer to my fellow commissioners. >> whether the city caused

theville to lapse the period it is unclear they claimed they mailed it and the appellant requester saying they didn't receive that. >> i'll take him at his word. >> i will move to grant jurisdiction on the basis that the appellant had indicated he didn't receive the notification. >> thank you mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant the jurisdiction request on that motion to grant commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 3 to zero and given the boards vacancy the jurisdiction is granted and the nickel sons have a 5 day period

and this will end this coming monday. >> okay i believe that mr. donny is now in the room and return to item 4a and b mr. donny. >> commissioners, i apologize for being late here today, i want to withdraw my appeal i worked for the last two years with dbi and planning and the board of appeals staff and now reinstated the permit this morning i'll be withdrawing my appeals. >> is there anything in the department mr. duffey. >> joe duffey i wanted to conform the permits h have been

reinstated on december 9th the permit services and so there's nothing to appeal. >> okay well in that case. >> good solution anything to add any public comment on that item on those two items okay. so those items are withdrawn we can move on think to the next item item 6 versus the department of public health property on 1963 sutter street for a retail restaurant rewarding novice from equipment f this matter was on calendar november 19th and the board voted 4 to zero to overrule it didn't conform to the noise

ordinances. >> great. >> so, sir if you want to wait a moment did you see her. >> yes. she's right here. >> okay. fine. >> do you care to pour user some water and settle in a minute we called item 6. >> okay. are you okay. >> we can start. >> to the appellant you'll have 3 minutes. >> good evening i as directed by the board we've reached it

out to rooster tail at that negotiate a settlement they said they'd get back to us on december 9th i agree with the draft understanding and didn't submit a brief, however, in light of the city attorney's response their statements need to be addressed i have 3 points one depending failed to take measurement in my dining area where i spent a grateful of time i read and met at that time, there it should be included in the definition of living areas furthermore i was present with the inspector took interior measurement in my living room and bedroom instead of taking a measurement throughout the room as stated in section he stood in

one spot and only took would be measurement u mushlth dph has stated the rules and the inspector didn't follow the rules when we took the murmentd secondly, dph as repeating said the refusal noise o a only above a limit they arrived at this number by using a ambient value radioactively measures were taken by dph the ambiance number has not been used by maintain other than dph dph has stated the noise from the cooking fan is not high many people have come before the board and said

rooster tails fan is loud including the resident living in the same building as rooster tail it's documented in the record we have had to ensure that noise problem for 3 years please help us overturn this surveillance to the timeline for rooster tail to complete remetal action as quickly as possible thank you very much and mr. charles is available for questions. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holder.

>> commissioner president lazarus we have some letters of support i wonder if we might pass them out fine. >> so the letters are they from members of the public and, yes also an inspection report and that was not submitted before because a it was on a monday that was the first time it was not a city inspector a private contractor and if you wish to report on it that's fine hang onto those for now you can include those in your testimony. >> if you want to reference that in in your testimony it's a

fine. >> good evening david silicon valley on behalf of the surveillance holder the owner of the rooster tail in difference to the comments of the commissioners we made a financial offer to ms. huh-uh motto pay for the noise litigation appropriate that offer unfortunately was rejected a couple of things to report we didn't have a professional h b.a. c ventilation contractor inspect the site on monday he wrote a report i won't go through the entire report but i'll read the conclusion he wrote in my professional

opinion with over a decade of experience of restaurant work those fans produce no more noise than other restaurant sites no deficiency at this time furthermore i've read blue prints prior to the restaurant obey built the vibrations and a supercede the building code standards in addition to that there was submitted 20 to the board i don't know if you've seen them or not two letters 3 letters if members of the public the first one is a letter if the san francisco chamber of commerce dated december 8th urging the board to uphold the surveillance if any one of you wish i ask read from the letter. >> if we have copies.

>> i'm sorry. >> we have copies of the letter. >> no, if you look at your packet you have them. >> i also have copies second we received a copy of the letter sent other board by the golden gate restaurant association urging the board to support the variance third a copy of the letter by fran sin perkins the manager the property stating she's received no noise complaint about the kitchen fan from the tenants or anyone else finally, we have learned since the last hearing that the appellant ms. huh-uh mat appeared at the planning commission a year and a half ago

despite her saying she's suffered she appeared to oppose the permit for a patio she opted the patio and no time did she say anything about the noise in the light well or anywhere else so this statement she's been suffering from the noise of the fan is in contradiction to her statements she never made any complaint about the noise in the light well that's open that testimony i will be happy to answer any questions if no one i'll urge you to uphold the variance on the basis of the strong sport we've received as evidenced in the letters submitted thank you

yes. >> the what kind of offer was made to the to the public. >> monetary. >> could you be more specific was it into remedy the noise or monitoring. >> it of the to be paid to use for any noise mitigation measures her or her consultants thought were appropriate. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the department. >> good evening, commissioners i just want to make a brief point responding to ms. hum mat 2909 b for interior noise measurements require the

measurements of sound in sleeping rooms and living rooms that's why sleeping romance and living room are the areas measured i ask the inspected who is here today how he put the measurements if there was a single point or translated he didn't have a clear recollection of that market but the practice of the department in his practice to do the triangletion he didn't remember the market in 2011 and finally to include the noise ordinance section 2912b grants that determination to the director of the department of

public health it says the director shall be the drernt whether or not it effects public health other than that i'm available for questions everyone else i've said a lot two times if in our two appearances but he'll make the best judgment and honestly we won't create a new rile with acceptance. >> is that meant to be the larger public as opposed to the larger public. >> public health is a collective concept not personally whether or not level of noise or hot other health

issues cause a collective concern. >> thank you thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> please come forward we're on a tight schedule. >> i'm paul wormer i'm not sure it's appropriate to comment. >> then. >> yes. am i i am. >> we'll hear from the first speaker then. >> good evening, commissioners i'm matthew i live on behalf of the rooster tail a resident for two and a half years i ask i

have a ruling tonight my neighbor and cat and charles owe associates come to the residence to have the acoustic residents there's been a violation of the ordinance with our windows closed in our kitchen the noisy explodes 15 decimal levels above the noise level and our entire window are open our entire residents has noise violations from all the way from 3 up to 15 and our unit those numbers are in clear violation and we ask you to overturn the violation we hear the windows hum we want this addressed immediately and thank you for your a time and

consideration. >> i have a question have you ever complained to our management or company. >> i thought we had to deal with the neighborhood of a restaurant not aware of the noise level was dealing with the fans. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi, i'm katrina i live directly above rooster tail lived in the building with kate was there we didn't have noise issues when they were there. >> could you speak into the mike i'm sorry. >> sorry. >> i don't know that recently

those things were happening i'm excited about an opportunity to get it resolved talking to our landlady didn't result in my action since rooster tail opened everything in our apartment rattles the noise is a snapshot annoyance and other tenants have talked about that we've had reading done and it shows a clear violation in our unit and our upstairs neighbors unit please have rooster tail resolve that we've been living with this over 3 years, 3 months is a reasonable amount of time. >> same question you complained to our left hand.

>> yes. >> they said they had no complaints. >> yes. >> >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners kevin chin just here to say i've known the appellant over thirty years they're not making things up so it is certainly a condition that effects it greatly and we hope you can deny the variance thank you >> next speaker. >> hello, i'm gwen inlt with the golden gate association i've submitted a letter rooster tail is not a member of the association i'm here concerned about the nature of the overturning the variance and the impact of having restaurants

across the city in cases with sound problem the rooster tail went ahead and did 8 thousands of work to a light well issue under the code is not larger enough to be adequate it's disconcerting to rooftop our changing what the code sanitation i think some of the points the city attorney raised are important this will have huge impacts every restaurant have a rooftop and i have a fan my building shakes a little bit i rock, i live if a commercial corridor so that noise not ideal a a reality of operating

restaurant and it is upsetting if the unmitigationable noise is impacting want decision since our asking for i'm not sure of what is being asked for sdaem exactly but a payoff and the public issue can't be mitigated in that way it is the light well, it's not clear how to solve the problem this is the light well, it was created ta to be address i was on the planning commission when the issue came up on the noise on the patio once you decide someone is a bad actor no matter what they do can't be satisfied. >> what do you say to the fact it the novice wasn't there

before. >> i don't know what i can say is that she opposed did patio for concerns about noise and didn't mention the fans so i can't recall the relationship. >> restaurant you said restaurants we had a case that came up before the planning commission and she was concerned about allowing them to have a patio for noise it is surprising i have to say the noise didn't come up at that point so i think once you decide someone is a nuisance and that is what happens often i don't like the fact that that situation the solution solution is a based on an inferior light well, i can't any public comment? to the numbers whether or not their accurate you, you answered

my question thank you >> thank you any other public comment seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> who would like to start. >> well outside of city attorney's brief on the finding nobody poke to spoke to this matter the smaller description in the finding was to see if they can resolve what can be i disagree it can't be litigated nothing occurred so i'm prepared to accept the finding but the finding are well

drafted at least my position on the case that there is a strict legal issue related to the definition of what is damaging to public health. >> i concur with my fellow commissioner not basing my opinion or judgment on the public health i do think this is a deferring and disrupting to the neighbors as a small business owner for quite a bit time it is the responsibility of the business owner to work with the his immediate neighbors and also think there is some level of quiet enjoyment someone

should have and vibrating plates and things moving around from the neighbor and directly above speaks loudly something needs to be done about this. >> contemplating. >> move the same intent i brought forth last time to grant the appeal and overturn the variance and to adapt the finding as provided draft finding and yeah. and just the commissioner goes have moved to overturn the variance so i'll be voting if you're going in that direction. >> so mr. pacheco if you could call roll please.

>> we have a motion if commissioner fung to adapt the finding no revision. >> on that motion to adapt the draft finding commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. >> and commissioner wilson thank you. >> the vote is 4 to zero the finding are adapted and the 10 day rehearing request period is now closed. >> we'll return to item 7 which has been called appeal i believe is there anyone on behalf of the appellant? okay. seeing none then we'll hear from the permit holder