Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 5, 2015 4:00pm-4:31pm PST

4:00 pm
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
4:01 pm
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
4:02 pm
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
4:03 pm
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.
4:04 pm
>> 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
4:05 pm
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
4:06 pm
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
4:07 pm
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
4:08 pm
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
4:09 pm
>> 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
4:10 pm
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
4:11 pm
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
4:12 pm
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
4:13 pm
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
4:14 pm
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
4:15 pm
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.
4:16 pm
>> 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 >> good evening again commissioners greg on behalf of the permit holder in defines to the commissioners time and commissioner honda's schedule i'll be brief and glad to answer questions should the commission have any this is a structural mraerntd that is adjacent to the appellants property line he has a relationship wall and concerned that the planter and the trees in it would cause lateral loading on the wall the
4:17 pm
permits holders family purchased this property in 2007 and those planters were constructed probably a decade to two decades prior to the purchase by the kc family the bit of a misnomer it says retrofit planters the plan to remove the planters and sing it to bedrock and support a newcele concrete planter with a bottom on top of the peers to make sure no loading is exerted on the retaining wall both dbi and the permit holder civil engineering consultants inspected the wall and found no major cracks or recent damage to the walls as port of the permit process research was done and studies from hong kong that
4:18 pm
showdown actually, the tree roots stable the soil and litigate lateral loads on gravity walls was sited by the plan checker felt it should have a bottom and they're designed so they'll contain roots spreading that would therl impact the wall we trust the city's professional staff and extended a grateful of engineering times for this 4 by 14 foot concrete planter we ask you to uphold the city's issuance and we're here to answer questions should the commission have any. >> mr. duffy.
4:19 pm
>> commissioners in the building permit under appeal is nonsense to notice of violation retrofit of existing under box removing the box and replacing it with a concrete with reinforced peers it was reviewed by dph the building inspection the planning department our structural plan structures two engineers looked at it and i know that was an old for a while but they got it issued the permit was issued it is in response to notice of violation in 2012 but i think the gentleman filed a complaint over and over someone on his behalf and
4:20 pm
substantially we wrote it up for a violation and resolved the notice of violation we've spent a lot of staff time open this address dealing with this issue and the deck issue as well that the gentleman brought up i'll be confident our engineers spot checked that correctly and it should be done in my opinion that's what the gentleman disastrous with me if we were here but there is a properly issued permit i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> ami looking at the dates from 2009 until now wow. >> it should be resolved this has gone on too long for a planter box people hire consultants geotechnical engineers on both sides cost a
4:21 pm
lot more from the talking to do the work as you can see it is $18,000 for the cost of the planter box i ska can sure you a lot more money has been spent on consulate fees it is sad. >> mr. duffy. >> whether i was at planning we had 3 meetings with the color of the roses job security. >> thank you mr. t. >> good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners corey t that did planning department briefing that permit was routed to the department we determined it didn't require review by the planning department it was rolled to dbi where it underwent
4:22 pm
further review and didn't require our review we don't reject the permit today i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> any public comment on this item. >> do any of the representatives including the gentleman have any rebuttal okay commissioners the matter t is submitted. >> i'll be bold to deny the appeal on the basis it was properly issued. >> second. >> okay mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion month commissioner president lazarus to uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you. >> the vote is had to zero the permit it up legally on that
4:23 pm
basis. >> move our or on to item 8 versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval the property on 40526th street to robert edmond to erect a building with 17 hundred and 50 secret of ground floor area we'll start with the appellants. >> good evening, members of the board i live on 27th street and thank you so much thank you for the opportunity to voice any concerns and the concerns of fellow residents all of whom were on or after march 13 of 2013 by the live in four units that are negatively impacted by the site plan on 27th street we
4:24 pm
request you require positive design a changes to the plan so we can obtain our only source of sunlight important before issuing the site permit there's a light well, that serves 4 units in the building the only source of quality year around direct sunlight and heat from the sun the only source from the east yet even though current design is 3 stories high it is built to the property line and thereby fully obtains the light well oh, no, matching light well or resource for sunlight it takes up to 95 percent of any sunlight and impacts the story below that me i've heard from
4:25 pm
the board you preview to see the matching light wells on all sides of a structure i heap this particular project had will be a consistent goal additionally the height of the planned structure actually extends beyond the rooftop we're open a grade and it rises it enclosures our light well and takes the source of sun before us of the date we moved in our concerns have to be tooukt we moved in after the public outreach happened and after the march date the people filed for their construction permit basically any permits we tried to file other than the 311 notice stated significant
4:26 pm
modifications were made and the planning folks were happy with the neighboring on 27th street, however, none of us most impacted had a chance for our serious considerations to be look at all of the kwoigsz were to the north and east we're seriously threatened to be boggled in and take the heat in the sun and reduce our light source to darker all year long this will be a permanent unliveable situation for all you future tenants in the building unless you the board look at
4:27 pm
this please know that following the permit approval after the dr hearing any fellow tenants and i tried several times to dialog with the permit holder and share the modifications try to discuss our serious concerns but none of our concerns were heard they explicit take us seriously and never agreed to meet with us in person or by phenomenon after 10 separate attempts we hope to avoid escalating this but not taken seriously we need our concerns addressed this is the last opportunity for the permit structure gospel if that take away all our daylight not only us but future residents of the building it's a design challenge the architects should solve if a
4:28 pm
positive situation not only the residence of that new structure but an existing building as well i'm not an architect none of any existing tenants in the building are but the architect in 4, 5, 6 are it should be a design challenge they show be able to meeting meet i'll ask you did board to appeal to you to make sure that you help us address our last concerns for our needs to be addressed before this site permit is issued. >> i have a question so all 4 tenants have recently moved into the building. >> yes. >> and management company or an owner. >> owners. >> she knew buffs a developed not aware there interest was 3 stories she'll speak to that
4:29 pm
during public comment. >> your dates in our brief made me a little bit confused if you and your fellow tenants arrived after march 2013 but yet you participated in the dr process. >> the dr process in may of this year there was what was the name of that there's the letter that went out in december of last year basically was the last opportunity to see what were the plans going in to 4 5 and 6 that was any first opportunity when i received those i reached out the planning commission i said hey i just moved in i want to make sure i have a chance to
4:30 pm
voice new concerns the planning commission said there is a hearing in may you're welcome to attend and voice your opinion will let me know in you want to take pictures if our living room i invited him to get. >> sense of what i'm dealing with my main concern was the can we have more time we can have a course of action with the people next door. >> so your issue you didn't participate in the 311 notice. >> i wasn't allowed to participate in the neighborhood you outreach which were the only outreach. >> any future questions. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll hear. >> next speaker. >> from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners david silicon valley i'm working with the permit holders r


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on