requesters. >> you have 3 minutes to present your case. >> i'm david nicholson on 34th avenue directly north of the avenue thank you for a taking the time to meet with us on thoith after a major remodel the conversion of a two-bedroom to a four-bedroom how is it is an investment group not an individual that thailand's to live there we're here because of the conduct of a above mentioned property that will have a privacy issue with our bedroom window address extend 6 needed out into the yard we've learned on the south side of the said property a notice was sent out in october we were completely unaware we didn't have the right

to appeal and had no knowledge we're fritter he are homeowners would no intention of movgs any contradiction will effect us long-term this lead to a impose that the deck was cut in half the privacy issue is of uppermost importance we're requesting the appeal window be reopened to allow us to express our concerns again, we didn't receive a notification in the department of building inspection and building we should have the right to appeal please fooks the right of privacy is legitimate and we wouldn't have been here today at the appropriate time we've

resorted because this was the only option after learning that we missed the appeals window address the compromise reached between her and the owner we've called the appeals office which was wonderful but we didn't receive a notice of appeal we waited for the notice but it only explained the deck was decreased by half the jurisdiction appeal was not the way we would have preferred it. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners mark rubke benefit and rose on behalf of the permit holder i want to run through.

>> i need to make a disclosure i'll retained them for a counselor but i want to hear this case. >> sorry. >> no problem i want to briefing round through the chronological construction started on this house from a single-family home to o a single-family home with more bedrooms for children the construction started in june and the requester has had conversation with the project sponsor and also the project manager none of which have to do with the deck the deck ass was

added into the subject permit with the issue that the permit was filed in august the permit was issued in october the requester knew there was going to be a deck in the rear advised project in no time did they ask the project sponsor to make any sort of a change rewarding the deck the opposite neighborhood adjacent to the project sponsor filed an appeal considering that was the only appeal filled the permit holder came to a swift agreement to move forward with the construction project i can't say for certain how the norngsz would have gone with two permits but they wouldn't have

ended swivelly i'm not here to talk about the project but i wanted to emphasize the chronicle order i can say it was handled by the city but let you know that the chronological of the approach the permit holder agreed to a settle they eliminated half of the deck and provided screen measures and other issues to address the concerns of one neighbor and now the other neighbor is asking to reopen the case to move the goal line to move the goal line and to allow us a second bite of the apple. >> excuse me. is there a

reason why there was no belief. >> yeah. we were brought only board later. >> sorry. >> okay. thank you is there departmental comment. >> good afternoon joe david u duffey dbi the permit that is the jurisdiction requests is on filed on august 21st, 2014, and it was issued on the 3rd of october 2014 it went through building inspection and through the city planning the building inspection plan context and got approved was compliant with the media

room and add one bedroom and bathroom and rear deck on second floor the complaint was a complaint filed on august 13th was received by dbi said they're working beyond the scope they realized they were filing the permit now the request is on for that's why the wording is on there not a stop order issue of the notification the bureaucracy that's the department the distinction within our department that does the notification only certain types it's called notification of certain additions notify the

adjacent neighbors on both sides and the neighbors on the backside of the property i have a copy of the letter sent by dbi i asked the clerical people how they do that they send it out by regular mail i can put it on the overlay i think the one we're looking at was 2236 avenue. >> so is that overhead nope let's see mr. pacheco can you dark even that it's light on our monitor.

>> that's a typical notice we send out to the adjacent pertains there are 4 properties that got the copies the property to the rear the significant property where the construction was taken placenta opening on october nicholson and others not every permit gets this notification but probably because they were doing the foundation work i'm not sure what triggered it was done by regular mail not recorded so the gentleman said they didn't get the notification not sure what happened i have notification we sent it.

>> show us one of the other letters. >> oh, sorry this one went to 2249 the 23rd avenue one of the properties behind that and 2263, third avenue there is a fourth one somewhere i have it. >> well, i saw the one in the brief. >> yeah. i can check any package i

thought i brought four sorry okay. i'll have a look you want to see the other one >> no, i saw it in the brief. >> anything any public comment on this item? commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak i'm ron do i own the home on 30th after the nickel sons and i are mature neighbors i want to speak in support off their request i received a notice when i received any notification letter i telephoned the name on the letter the gentleman is a part

of the, llc p little owner i asked the gentleman about the deck the second floor deck he never called my back but his project manager contacted me i filed an appeal and we came to an agreement the day i was restoring any appeal i saw dave outside any house he was not aware he had a voice in the progress he may have had conversation but that's entirely different i recall any notification letter may have taken the slowest path it was dictated october 3rd the postmark the 6 and to my home

the 10th i regret that i didn't have time to cooperate with the neighbors but my work schedule didn't allow me to respond i find out i was wrong i showed david the notification letter i received he was clear about never having received a letter like myself he's an immediate adjacent neighbor i was surprised to learn he wasn't notified when i make contact with the owner i asked him about the plans he said he might rent it out to a nice family it left me with the distinct impression he is not going to live driver's license and in creativity dave

and jennifer is going to stay there the nickel sons are planning on staying for the long haul there's no way to know it happened owe hover the long term consequence is to us and i'm asking the board to give the nickel sons the benefit of the dough by granting the request not are you paramount to meet their needs it gives those two long term residents the opportunity to participate in the process if like they've been properly notified >> thank you any other. seeing none commissioners the matter it submitted >> well commissioners this was

sent by regular mail it is difficult to prove either way but given the reasonable timing i'm declined to grant jurisdiction and allow them to present their case 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