competitions really to approve their permit but with new conditions and i'll suggest not the conditions i gave those accommodated ones we're close on so if we could hear from the respondents and then. >> is there someone here from probate to speak please step forward. >> good evening bay i by the way of background i'm shawn summaries i work to the management this project is essentially being performed to create safety liability upgrades doing a something to the effect retroactive and replacing the

electrical bringing it up to today's standards in order to create this contract sfmta had to perform this over 15 weekend shut denounce ata's it's united states highest ridership it's unfortunate this has to be performed on the weekend it greatly impacts the general public but we're essentially allowed to work from 8am to 5:00 pm p.m. but to shut down to change the activities during the shutdowns nevertheless of sequence so due to that we've discussed with the appellant and sfmta in regards to those noise issues what could be performed to mitigate the concerns of the

resident initially we had 3 shut denounce getting the night time noise issuing the notices and doing the due diligence didn't have appeals or any issues at this point in time once we started up in january the december period was essentially no work to be performed due to the holidays in january immediately there's no changes to the activity that we performed there is been a new issue a bigger concern that the residents feeling multiple weekend to mitigate the sound it's a going on we still maintain we're within the noise orients requirements millennial the permit is essentially requiring us to - sorry the police code said when a noise

issue are be is issued no maximum noise this is an issue for the residents on site currently in the neighborhood so sfmta pro-bin and others have met for an accord we provided initially our mitigation plan but since then we've met a few more times people agree with the back up system was a feasible option and i believe that a lot of the issues are down to a couple of small items that need to be clarified our night noise mitigation plan you might have read is superseded by a mta is offering to put together a urban lateral putting in stone the

modifications taking into account the residents concerns so at that i want to refer to sfmta to kind of go over their clarifications how they came about and where they stand in terms of 6 their windows that's all i have i want to defer to them. >> one question you indicated the permit has no sound litigants but the contract does. >> the contract says we are to apply and obtain a permit in the noise level below came bitten. >> your contract says 5 gaza over ambient. >> we're to obtain a permit it's a different interpretation 0 that's how we read that. >> could you address what the

appellant discussed in terms of the minor dpifdz between you. >> the main issue is the we agree that those back up left arms are a feasible option and proposal their initially concerned with since we did a test that's an acceptable solution with the toikz then they'll want to rise that the main contention putting a specific name to it a reading what we prefer i believe to say we'll use the exact left arms it is called an 82 dba alarm the reading vary so it requires a stringent

stringent dba reading. >> it's a matter of semantics. >> they want it switched to a flarpg you want to continue it that weekend. >> we've come to on a agreement we're paying people for the work and no reason to use the ball park lines the contention the compromise will be that we say the next night we could bring on - >> that night not the weekend that makes sense. >> it's too short of a notice. >> i didn't understand why a weekend. >> we have one night to place the tracks so to shut it down to

make the change will effect the progress. >> if you only implemented 3 weekend in november. >> one in november and one in january a total of 11 we understand remaining permit you need to file one more permit don't you. >> correct. >> the same conditions will apply to the next permit also. >> that's in mta and dpw can plain. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the departments. >> sir. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners nick with the department of public works i'd like to go over just brief process how we issue night noise permits in most cases in almost all

cases it is in coordination if there's a part of city there's public safety concerned sfmta typically requests us if the contractor can do the work at night retypically ask the contractor to do outreach to the neighborhood in this case sfmta was the applicant this was their contract even though probing management was the permittee ambassador based on public safety this public vents due to the ridership volume of the n judah and the safety of the tunnel you know it kind of outran it's life we determined that this would be a good candidate froipt to issue

night noise we've been involved in a conversations between the gentleman and mta and we're prepared to you know approve any conditions they agree to they agree to and i'd like to defer the rest my testimony to director vince harris of mta going over details regarding the contract itself. >> before you leave one question john this permit only has a relatively short time left. >> yes. >> only one additional permit a that's going to be required. >> they're to be asking the new permit be issued through the end of the contract. >> thank you.

>> madam president and commissioners i'm vince harris the director for sfmta construction division obviously i had a formal presentation based on what was been said this is an important project in terms of of the public interests it is a project that has in terms of our delay we would be concerned we'll be able are go to complete the work it is an important project we have old rail at its useful life that's been expressed already, we've been work with the appellant quite you frequently to try to reach an agreement on the item i think we've done a good job and issued a unilateral agreement to our contractor to incorporate into the contract those changed before the board

this evening once in a while we'll to ask for an dispensation extension through july of 2015 that's one request to complete all the rest of the work to be done i'd like to highlight for you in terms of the conditions we'll lay out in the permit extension first, the contractor will move to the extent to the west portal will be corridor 83 at the east portal material not delivered to the site to 9:55 p.m. saturday and sunday the contractor will implement to the extent the quiet noise by loading balance activity and next the contractor will install must have letters on the construction equipment it owned and make sure the

construction equipment is in your and already equipped with mull letters the contractor will not utility equipment not utilized with must have leaders and lower be it further resolved back up beepers as opposed light noise dated 2015 sfmta notes if the residents adjacent to the construction site obtain to the low frequency beepers the contractor will discontinue it's use of back up beepers and commending e commencing at the next night of work implement back up warnings slash flaggers for the remainder of the project next the contract will take the

continuous moving equipment installed near the property lines when the contract is performing night work and make the logs available to the engineer and the public on request the contract will sure the impact tools at the sited are equipped with the exhaust must have leasers or letters and just a second haermdz with the shields or shrouds the contractor will use rather than the diesel and make sure the generators will be shouted or shielded we'll implement another measures as possible to produce noise arising from the perform of night work and restating the contractor will not use just a second haermdz at night we've

incorporated that into the unilateral contract notification. as a highlight already mentioned sfmta agreed to the gentleman's mitigation measures as set out? his belief with minor chances that were approved on tuesday in the eager the changes order was to implemented the agreed to mitigates measures i previously state on wednesday morning this morning the gentleman asked for an additional requirement we'll have concerned about the additional requirement a lower noise rating important 3wbd back up beepers were approved when test on monday february 23rded this is the only objection to the appellants

request we're on to questions >> the contractor has indicated the specific name of that particular back up beeper. >> yes. >> and i'm not we can ask the appellant whether the introduction of those specific ones showed in the test will satisfy. >> i think our position we're referencing the approval provided by the gentleman at the time, we conducted the tests upon these or based on that we thought we had an agreement. >> i'm assuming what you read from in terms of the miegsdz and companies was different than our brief. >> slightly different based on and incorporating the changes suggested by the gentleman. >> thank you so we can it can public comment can i see a show

of hands holdup how many people wish to speak in public comment arrest rub9, sir. >> i think you've heard were close and you're right there was a thing about the whole weekend or the next night and indeed accident unilateral contract modification called for the next weekend and that was unacceptable so if they had as a program gentleman said the next night i'm good with that next night is fine and as far as those guarantee meters and measuring if they want to say the same one that's fine not to say anything about it and i say let's stick with the one we've reviewed it is an 82 dba

the manufacturers rating when they were measuring there are all kinds of measuring use a 82 be it resolved measure with that we have an agreement those to little things that's all i have to say. >> you think you and at other parties can modify if at all or agree on a copy if you folks are expecting us to incorporate those then once in a while we'll need a copy for the record. >> i do tesz and i worked on it until 3 today and then it stopped and the thing the catching point was the next weekend and as you heard the program say

oh not next night do you think we have an agreement you think? yes where do we go from here >> you folks need to write or modify any words and that that is memorialized. >> i can ask a copy i sent it to you; right? i could pass and make copies for all you guys. >> you folks need to resolve that first. >> the one i had written down here this one which the - you need to speak into the microphone. >> yes. yes. i understand. >> i suggest we complete our process and put this aside for a few minutes or hover long. >> it will not take that long. >> are you concluded. >> that's my rebuttal then.

>> we'll take rub9 from pro-vin and the department and go obviously the goal when we're all done with the pregdz we'll have a document that the board can adopt that recognizes the agreement mr. summers in you have anything more please step forward. >> i have no further comments on the request i think we need no refer to the unlateral contract motivations that sfmta put forward. >> i don't. >> if the departments ready we're ready for you. >> mr. harris and commissioners we believe we have an agreement with the appellant and the only thing we would like to highlight to make sure we stress to the

commission we would like to have the existing permit extended nil to july 31st, 2015, we believe we have an agreement how we incorporate what's been requested. >> do you have a written document not necessarily with the terms outlined. >> i'm told we will in 5 minutes. >> 5 minutes is good. >> anything else mr. hastings. >> thank you thank you for the opportunity to speak. >> commissioners it's in our court now what would you like to do you want to wait and give them their 5 minutes or deliberate now. >> it makes sense to wait. >> items concluded -

>> we could go ahead and deliberate and come to a conclusion and it's pend the receipt of the presentation if they need to do on both parties by reviewing the final thing and concurred it will be turned into a victory does that make sense madam clerk. >> i'd like rather not take a vote. >> i'll be prepared to do you want support the extension with the permit with the agreement it's reached by all parties. >> madam president a question to the commission do you have concerns that i might want to us address before we deliberately to put in print. >> no, but i have a question. >> okay.

>> how do you have a 5 dba over ambient with construction noise i don't see how it's possible that's in our standard contract. >> i'll express to the commission we're considering changing in our spifkdz we have more work of the nature coming down the pique your correct we we have difficulty in achieving that level of noise control so in future projects as we go forward we have several coming we'll be evaluating that standard. >> understand the police department and health department take on ambient noise and what is allowed between unit and things like that we've had a lot of cases a dealing with that. >> it is probably behoves our

department to not have something that is so restrictive you can't met but have the mitigations in place to be able to resolve an individual case by case what might be needed and so noted we'll be obtaining confidence. >> mr. duffy would recycle to any public comment? say joe duffy my name is on every issuances but the construction bid the actual and 5 decimals over the ambient you can work 5 decimals above ambient in section 29 maybe dpw rules are different that's not a

lot of noise you're right about that >> requires a night noise permit but this is actually a workshop in the city with all departments police and fire and dpw and mta working on this it is a very, very lutz a public issue with a lot of we do almost of - a lot of good things with outreach i'll say we had the same problem with the back up larmdz that's all people complain about the white noise left arms are making a big difference not many more complaint to hopefully, the same specification i thought i'd give my opinion. >> are we waiting for a

document? no? >> i'm going to suggest we move along. >> we'll hold this case out and move on to the next item item 9 sand hill versus the zoning administrator on hayes protesting to bryan a letter of the determination regarding whether commercial uses are allowed in the remain garages and parking in the backyard. >> you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. i'm niles we represent sun hill the property owner of the residential property next to the property next to the determination holder it is a residentially zoned property i should say near st. mary's hospital all the uses

discuses in the papers in this case are used that happen on our property and 7, 8, 9 next door neighbors property the issues are parking and garbage collection to store garbage nicole the parking is simply a function of the people working at our medical building pulling in parking their car and going to work leaving this is there's no members of the public coming in or intensive use of the parking of customers or patient the use is no different than that thought determination holders that also park in the back area this is an tension or exception of loud

neighboring property that is arranging owned outcomes my clients use of the basement mirrors the determination holders use of the basement there are apologize benefits the black blue green benefits we all use and paper and trash we just store it there not anything inner unintensive or different than the use there so what our concern is that the zoning administrator is making determination where the uses and the intensive of uses are exactly the same but the determination is being bans who is doing the use and we feel this is just improper and we would ask you to overturn the letter of

determination from the zoning administrator. >> thank you. >> hear from the determination holder. >> good evening members of the board alex on behalf of brian and cleveland owners of 2144 hayes street the property in question i have a photo here that might be useful okay. so it's late in the agenda i'll make my comments briefly as you can see the building on the right is the front this is the front door of my clients building here and this building here is the appellants building actually both of those buildings are my clients use the building

as their primary and permanent residents the appellant uses they're building for medical offers or their tenant use the building for medical offends and other relate businesses those medical offices are using my clients backyard for the parking and the garage for the vehicle refuge you'll see the overhead this is my clients building right here there's a small driveway and those two building are the commercial builds that are using this entire area as a parking lot the garage is kind of off the driveway. >> where's the property like that. >> i need a pen actually, the property line goes all the way back. >> on the space of our clients

building. >> so the property line i believe my clients own the derivative yeah. this is the driveway right here going as all the way back to this line this is the essentially the property line so okay. so the appellant is using my clients by way of of easements they agree that the uses of my clients property are inconsistent with the zoning decision as you know the appellant has the burden of demonstrating the zoning administrator has record or abused his creation would be an arbitrary misuse we believe the appellant has failed