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 to do so in the set of laws commercial uses are not allowed in the residential zoning as stated so the appellant claimed the zoning administrator violated their constitutional right to legal protection unstomach for a lingual and commercial use they claim their commercial use we obviously disagree i think that if this were true turn a century of you land use law on hitting its head the city can decide that a commercial use is inappropriate in some places and appropriate in outside the so over the course the city can decide has it did here my clients residential garage and backyard may not be used for commercial storage and parking

so we ask you, please uphold the decision thank you. >> question counselor how long have your property clients been at the property. >> how long have you guys lived that. >> a year every two. >> they need to come forward. >> hi i believe we purchased the property in 2014 and moved ♪ august or september >> my question would be what was the disclosure in regards to the space in the back. >> there was a disclosure but the reason why we find out about the easement is because basically, the valid of the elicit in the disclosure passage the seller basically sent us corresponds saying they realized

the easement were against the applicable laws that's the reason we knew about whether or not we should challenge those easements. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening skooundz planning staff the subject letter was issued in response to a letter seeking clarification you first is it permissible under the applicable laws this is the commercial to store the trash cans at the subject properties garage and is it applicable for the guest to use the backyard for parking in reviewing this and the material submitted by itself letter of determination requester we found no evidence that the parking at

the rear nor any use of the building to store even though trash had been authorized by my city agency, in fact the information priority was a to the contrary an ongoing violation so with that information research from our starch we come to the conclusions there was no grandfathering in of the used for the subject property so we issued our decision this is before you this is a relatively straightforward matter the anticipate had the ability to submit any evidence that the parking garage in the required backyard rear yard or the space to store the trash it had mia any permits to allow the use i did not see any materials in the brief so your conclusion remains the same we don't see the use of

the garage for storage of trash is legal or authorized from the planning code i'm available for questions. >> a few coming mr. sanchez your chain of research did it go as far back as the original stone when it this building was built. >> that part of it certainly the zoning has changed over time and may be allowed over at some point about it was to the creaking contrary it was provided by i did letter of determination requester exhibit b in their materials referenced to a conditional use that referenced actually a leg expansion of the parking at the rear of the property after the code changed i know we've had

several rezoning 1960 from our first planning code to the second version that will wielded down to the residential property sometime at 1968 after the zoning change in 1960 an illegal expansion of the parking we didn't see did reported when we are be looking it historically given the fact the sand bar maps showed the extent of the parking we have this conditional use authorization which even is accrediting this as an enforcement issue is pretty clear-cut. >> when was that building built. >> in the accessoryed office 1908 but from the photos some

point that this was a major alteration i don't know what year that appeared around the same time as at adjacent builds but i don't have that date in front of of me. >> mr. sanchez at one point during your research b did the parcels connect. >> i don't have that information in front of me let's see if you can try to research that now but i don't see anything that jumped out. >> i mean when i glorification through my briefs earlier and they could have been but i don't have the past block in front of me. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? please step forward.

>> hi, i'm holly b a r b a r e i live in the building next to the corner adjacent to it i wanted to input that it is very much a residential and were and commercial conflict with the residing there my building is old didn't have a lot of noise installation so things like the parking and such it has a large impact are you done. >> yes. >> how long have you been at that property. >> 8 years. >> is there any additional public comment okay. seeing none then have rebuttal starting with the

appellant. >> i don't really have a rebuttal only a point of clarification i think our property that there's some amount of share of the driveway some questions about the driveway it's a shared driveway that was used historically by the entire block the evening terror block they forfeited their right to use the driveway it is a small slice of the driveway thank you. >> we can have rebuttal from the determination holders. >> no rebuttal. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> no? (laughter) >> so commissioners the matter

is submitted. >> maybe i was getting used to us. >> you know this city also amazes me how the patterns of land use are always to interesting question here is perhaps maybe resolved on a legal and civil basis more than at this particular forum but the question. >>was the zoning administrator letter of determination an error or i'll just say error because he would never abuse it sorry - and the question i think the answer to the question in my

mind it that he didn't error he is correct in saying it is a fractured determination the zoning is residential and therefore i'm not supportive of the appeal >> i concur going over the material i just couldn't believe this has gone on without anyone saying anything i agree with the commissioners. >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his position. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to huddle the letter of determination that the zoning administrator didn't railroad

error or abuse commissioner adams commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you the zoning administrator order is huddle on that basis thank you. >> okay. so we'll go back to item number 8 mr. halves please step forward madam president and commissioners we've reached an agreement with the appellant in the permit condition the only item outstanding was number 4 a contract showing a sold be it resolved back up left arms previously stated a dba we've reached an agreement on the product is a d bs 82 that's the

language in writing and the issue of replacing that with other method if necessary the next night is already incorporated. >> that's correct. >> okay. good thank you you made our job a little bit easier we would if there is further dislikes required no than that the appropriate motion to grant the appeal and uphold the permit to be extended to july 31st, 2014 and incorporation of noise mitigations as per the list dated day today. >> with the conditions agreed to by the party mr. pacheco i know you want me to