tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 21, 2018 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> good evening and welcome to the main ninth, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be with the presiding officer tonight and joined by vice president swig, commissioner honda and we expect commissioner bobby wilson to arrive after items five a and five br heard. will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls is the board's legal assistant. i am julie rosenberg. we will also be joined by representatives from departments that have cases before the board to this evening. we expect the assistant zoning administrator and at representing the planning department and planning commission. building inspector as well.
and we also have amanda higgins from the department of public works and mapping. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices. they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations i. the boards rules a presentation are as follows. appellant's, permit holders and department respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the boar board welcomes your cos and suggestions.
they -- there are survey forms on the podium for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing check the board rules or hearing schedules, speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 615 at mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sf double tv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 pm. dvds at this meeting are available for purchase from sf graphic tv. now we will swear in and affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant under the centre and ordinance. if you intend to testify at the proceedings and you wish to have the board to give your testimony of a don cherry right correctly stand if you are able -- able. raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. we have a busy night ahead of us. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. please be seated. when we do come, if you like to give public comment, you have to line up against the wall. as i indicated, have a speaker card filled out. okay, commissioners, we have a few housekeeping items. item number 4 has been withdrawn. this is the jurisdiction request regarding the subject property at 2519 harrison street. nicholas klein, the requester had planned to ask the board to take jurisdiction of the request for suspension which we issued on march 21st 2018. that item has been withdrawn. item nine, the parties have requested that this matter be continued to june 20th, 2018. this is a peele appeal number 1h 036. regarding the subject property of beech street. appealing the issue from march
2nd 2018 of a request for is a step engine. request number 10020336 be suspended for the reason that this permit was issued without the required review for the proposed scope of work. given that this is on the published calendar we do need a motion and a vote in order to move that to june 20th. okay. let me see, do we have public comment on moving this item to june 20th? seeing a nun o none on that moti will take a vote. [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes and that item will be moved. okay we will now move onto item number 1. general public comments. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but it's not on the calendar. please take a speaker card on line up against the wall.
is there any member of the public who wishes to speak tonight to an item that is not on the calendar tonight? thank you. i recognize you. we will talk to you later. okay. seeing then we will move onto item number 2. commissioner comments and questions. are there any quick commissioner comments or questions? none? okay we will move onto item number 3. the adoption of the minutes. before you pack are the minutes of the april 25th 2018 board meeting. >> any additions or corrections? >> clerk: president fung moved to adopt the minutes. are there any public comments on that motion? being none, the motion from president fung to adopt the minutes on that motion. [roll call] okay the minutes are adopted. thank you.
we will now move on to item five a and five b. these are appeal numbers 18 dosh 017 and 18-041. concerning the subject property at 121. >> commissioner lazarus: street. 18-017 is protesting the issuance for an alteration permit on the second and fifth floors for tenant improvement project. application 20117. and appeal number 18-041, protesting the issue on march 15th of an alteration permit. partitions and horizontal exits. on april 18th, 2018, the board
voted 0-1. to continue this matter to allow time for the parties to negotiate. on april 25th 2018 the board devoted again. so the parties have come back and the parties have a total of three minutes each to address the status of their negotiations and we will hear first from the appellant. >> thank you very much. my name is stephen. i am the attorney for the tenants. we did have a negotiation session with adr services inc. and that was unsuccessful, unfortunately. and i'm concerned because we are months off from notification to google of the effects on the health of my tenants the noise caused by construction.
and besides the efforts and the attempts made by google to ameliorate the situation, in their efforts have been unsuccessful at thus far. the noise is continuing. there is no solution and no resolution that google has even offered. they are coming here today to ask the board to deny the appeal so that they can get on with their construction. the main permit has to do with cutting actual concrete floors from floors 2-5 to make a stairwell. that is going to implicate the noise for the tenants and increase or augment the problem. and google hasn't offered any solution to offset the health effects for my tenants. they will be made to suffer through their continued construction until october
without any remedy from google. and i'm concerned. i'm really concerned because there's no effort from google to help the tenants here i will turn it over to the other individuals here. >> good evening. thank you for your time today click i do have a lengthy page. if i can get to it that's great. it is a summary and i will play a video and walk through that and try and get through this and three minutes. i would appreciate it if we did have more time. last week we were allowed half the time that google was allowed and google huffed up and down to the podium here without being invited. i would like for our representation today if that is applicable. so i will play this.
this isn't... the visual representation of the tale of the building. you can see from floors two 214, the level of the impact that's happening, level seven is my wife and i and talk to other tenants and laurel is on 14. cutting through the stairs over the next six months is something not feasible. we have already suffered through this. >> you need to wrap up, service. >> the damage we have already suffered and we've negotiated with google to move us out, we were the ones who brought this to google to actually move out. that has been fruitless. >> clerk: thank you. your time is up. okay we will now hear from the permit holders. >> good evening commissioners. my name is amy lee and i'm here
to represent google as it relates to the appeal of permits ending in 4399 and six to 70. we are sympathetic to the tenant's concerns regarding noise and the situation the board is facing. over the past few months and since a pass two hearings we continue to work closely with all tenants, expand the services for the sound consultant and made every effort to minimize sound disturbances pic. tenant protocols were established for weekly updates and meetings and a dedicated e-mail and contact. we were also finalizing the process to provide appropriate information for tenants and in some cases for the residents of the seventh floor, as needed, friday night hotel accommodations should they want to sleep and beyond our delayed saturday start times. exhibits a and b. of our submittal provide details of additional measures to minimize sound disturbance. highlights include the reduction of working days and tool hours. tool and equipment restrictions, despite specific training requirements and sound
mitigation measures. specific sergeant medication will be utilized to address airborne and structure born noise including acoustical barriers to cover the existing stair opening between the fifth and sixth floors, at acoustical various -- barriers to shield rooftops. given compliance with article 29, 91 construction hours per week would have been available with no limitations as to road hammering or saw cutting. we have eliminated all funding -- all sunday working and reduce saturday from only 8:00 am-6:00 pm for general construction. with hammering on the sixth floor only from 6:00 am to 9:00 am monday through friday and saw cutting from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on saturday. as a result, specifically for the two permits before you, we know only have ten hours available for saw cutting and currently are only utilizing five hours for it hammering per week resulting in an overall 90 % and 95 % reduction in available hours. while there maybe some additional hours for hammering
on saturday, overall, we have reduced our total louder construction work hours by over 84 % from what is permissible by coach. in regards to the appellant's, we have spent numerous hours in official mediation and have kept communications open. though not within the board process purview and despite the appellant cost as recent reaches of mediation, we can only share that appellant's are reaching financial dependent and we cannot be satisfied in a matter that is financially feasible or would be fair to all residential tenants. i'll wrap up, indeed, due to the manipulation of the appeals process, we have incurred over six figures in higher construction expenses and expanded the construction timeline unnecessarily. we have made every good faith effort to mediate or accommodate the effect attendance. nonetheless, any mediation or civil action that the appellants decide to pursue should not be tied to the approval of these validly issued permits as it may set an undesired precedent. commissioners, there is an enormous amount of construction going on in the city. and specifically at this time.
but directly across the street from the appellant's at 75 howard. we are committed to working closely with d.b.i. and the affected tenants and hope you will allow us to finish this work which should be completed within the next few months. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the department buildindepartment bu. spectra duffy, nothing to add? okay. is there any public comment on this matter? yep. you have three minutes for public comment. >> thank you for your time. and i get the projector police. i will need it in a minute. okay. >> clerk: if you could identify yourself, please. >> thank you. first off i was woken up at 7:0y hammering. i don't know what they are talking about when they say it starts at 8:00 am. that is alive. it was this morning.
you remember me from other sessions. i have a two statement and i request you for me to read all of it because we are running out of time here. over the past few weeks, you know, permits have been suspended. my health has started to improve except for this morning. i guess they just, you know, started up again. that is out of the window. do not make the mistake, out the hammering has continued during this extended permit process. there's no way, whether or not to know which work is permitted since there is no oversight, google and bcci has gratefully carried out with some of the noisiest work i've ever experienced during this appeals period. you will see here on the projector like on saturday, the 21st got there around 10:00 am, i personally measured 94 decibels on my cell phone. yes, it is not permitted or it is not considered. but it does not matter because
google says, hey,, we are allowed to do this because hammering and impact tools, you know, do not fall within the 80-decibel limit. and that is why i'm here. with or without the right, they continued to violate the noise levels with no recourse for residents about. they have repeatedly demonstrated little regard for the construction permit process, evidence by loud noises and the construction outside of permitted hours. mr blackwell representing google has argued that the drilling is exempt from the 80 decibels. he said quote to the construction noise can be allowed, but it is legal. not only is this ironic as it is convenient for them, since the impact tools are, you know, primarily responsible for the noise. if the permits are returned, i've no doubt the noise levels will continue to be violated. our physical and mental health will continue to suffer. to my deck google, i reached out to myself and fellow residents
until after being chastised by this board and the first do a hearing. since then, it offered us only vouchers and an e-mail address and a voicemail, thanks. throughout this whole process, we simply have done at the bare minimum to minimize the impact on us residents while maximizing their bottom line. i will place you up on the projector some socks as well as my proposed solution. i please ask you to revoke all these permits indefinitely, you know, especially the stairs. google can take the elevator like everybody else. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. did you give a speaker card? >> i will provide one. >> clerk: thank you. >> he is participating in mediation. >> clerk: but he's not an appellant's, mr blackwell. so he is allowed to provide public comment. he is not part of the appeal. you maybe negotiating with you any mediation, but he is not an
appellant's. he is entitled to public comment. thank you. okay. if you could step aside, we will have the next person correctly. >> i have a question for mr blackwell, sorry, the person that just spoke. so they said that google provided, has provided an e-mail and a number to call. >> and e-mail address and a phone number. >> so when the jack hammering or the rotor hammering started at 7:00 am, did you attempt to call that line? >> i did not. i wanted to speak to you guys today. there was nothing that they could do between then and now. it is unfortunate. i will be sure to do so going forward, but laurel here will also speak to her experience with using that phone number. >> okay. , thank you. >> good evening. my name, excuse me, my name is laurel. and i reside at the towers of
rinbring clon at 88 howard stre. after the second board of appeals hearing on april 25th, google and bcc construction company posted a notice in the elevators to the residents regarding the ongoing construction project, and in the notice, it states, if you have any questions or concerns, please send an e-mail to google.com. well i did just that inquiring what the project plans are for my building. i inquired what machinery and/or equipment google intends to install. and their function. google responded with, thank you for your e-mail. the project team is reviewing the request and will get back to you. instruction, construction has
started on the rooftop. comments sounds tells me that google has made answers. oh,, but google has to review those. i overlooked the rooftop and correct me if i'm wrong, but i feel i have the right to know what is being installed under my window. with respect to noise and health factors. associated with these machines and equipment. oh, but google has to review my request. so why does google need to review my questions. are they waiting for their suspensions to be lifted? that causes concern for me. or is that google is deciding which questions they want to answer? that causes concern to me too. or is there rooftop project top-secret? that would cause concern for me as well. bottom line, what causes the greatest, biggest concern for me and it's google's integrity. i ask you, does google plus does
integrity cause concern for you? thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> since the first meeting on april 18th, we've had lots of meetings. memos, notices, mediations, but really nothing has changed. tonight is the first time i've heard of any plans to mitigate the noise. there really have been no major changes in the quality of life in the building. business goes on as usual. as it has the last eight months or so. it really shouldn't be the responsibility of the tenants to monitor the noise for the law and understand what decibels are. there's a whole team sitting behind me f. professionals that represent google, the landlords, the management companies. why do we have to be here to defend ourselves?
we understand the project must and will be completed. that's not the issue. we get it. but to give google a carte blanche to keep doing what they have been doing for the last eight months is, i think, irresponsible. the substance of the debate continues to be chapter and verse of the building code. that is not really the issue. the home life, the medical issues, the stress, and the anxiety are all real, on the cause is not a mystery. if the permits are reinstated, it appears that the worst may still be to come. given that a major scare is to be constructed and a further demo through structural concrete. it is like comparing water torture to drowning. both are not good. both are not sanctioned just to quote get on with it. the following measures seem like they would be reasonable to me to monitor the work. no work before 9:00 am causing elevated decibel range is.
approved decibel metre is placed in units, not in common areas, add-on floors that are most consistently affected by the noise and vibration. provision of a clear channel of communication and documentation for when acceptable levels are exceeded to be entered into a record at available to the building department. we are dealing with a leading information gatherer and distributor in the world, here. what we have is this kind of mickey mouse approach of pasting memos and elevators, really? and then suspension of work that exceeds allowable noise levels and changes and i for the design or execution of the commercial work as warranted. and then no work on saturdays. primary duty of government is to protect the life, safety, and welfare of it's citizens. not to expedite what appears to be careless, calculated and callous plans for the commercial work in this building. the responsible parties in this mess, had some properties and
google, and their agents, could have approached this project in a very different and responsible way. they chose not to. do not reward them for this choice, please. >> and i ask you a question? can i ask a question, please? >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> i'm hugely sympathetic to your plate. but i need some guidance to ensure that the affected party. so what we are balancing here, you said it exactly right. the project will get done. all right? so what we would like to do, within the guidelines of the law, and within the context of what we can help you with or we can guide, so, if we put on a whole bunch of stringent guidelines, than the risk is, we will see you in october of 2019. that means that you are going to
be another 12 months into pain and torture. and so, how do we get to you, how do we get this project completed? because it will be completed click and while not extending the pain and torture for another year. because to what and, and i'm absolutely not arguing with you, because i am sympathetic to you. if you put in monitors in the affected apartments, it to what end? because it does monitors because a suspension of work, you are in october of 2019. to do no work on saturday, which by the way, i suggested at the last meeting, just so you know i am with you. that's 52 less days of potential work during a period or for the next six months. that's 26 less workdays. twenty-six more days are going
to have to be spent working on the building somewhere else. so, i just want to let you know what i'm wrestling with and if you want to help me wrestle with this, i would love your suggestions since you are the affected party and i'm sympathetic to you. >> that's a lot. >> vice president swig: it is what we have to deal with. >> no way understaffed. i mean, at the clock is ticking and decisions were made. if you could unwind it all, i'm sure google would do things differently, right? but here we are. i don't see why they shouldn't pay a price for the decisions they've made. now the measures that were outlined by the other team, they all make sense to me, you know, with the acoustical wraps and this and that on the other thing. it all makes sense. but that's the first we've heard of it is tonight. i have no confidence that it's
actually going to happen. why should it? is not a condition of the permits. i mean, to me it is just for show so they can get these permits and that will go on as usual. so i'm not answering your question. i guess because i don't have an answer. >> vice president swig: now you know my problem. >> yes, i do, i understand completely. >> vice president swig: thank you very much. >> i have a question for mr lee. so going through the brief and your oral statement, you guys are putting down monitors,, correct? >> yes. >> and the sound monitors, who has access to it and how is that information given out? >> as you see an exhibit to be, i want to make a note as well that we are in compliance with the concurrent coat. it requires 800 feet from the original sound at south. on page 3 and 4 you would see that we are in compliance. we are doing, there are two machines both at 160 away from
the site. and we are collecting the data every daily and it will be made available at our offices. >> since there was no disclosure earlier, is there a way that that can be accessed by the tenants at any given time? >> sure we collected every week. we had -- we would be happy to keep the data at our office. >> is there an office that could be shared on rather than having them have to go to the office to retrieve it? >> we can send it out weekly to the tenants, if that is helpful. i know some of the tenants are also leaving this may. they are set to him without inmate for their own personal reasons. >> in the second question is, what is the response time to the duke -- google.com... >> we respond fairly quickly in this particular case. she actually wanted to see the plans and we needed to get a copy and we weren't sure about the distribution. we were going to leave it for her at sight but we realized she
was part of the appellant's with the mediation. so we were not sure, legally, where, if it was a legal matter or a public inquiry. >> those plans can be left at our main office and people can view them. >> unless question is, since you, the company has but these notices up on the elevator, how many calls are you aware of how many because you have received? >> i don't keep a detailed log of the calls and e-mails. i believe there's been less than eight. and after the eight only five of them are specific. the other ones are generic. >> thank you. >> i have a question. i'm not sure you will know the answer, but on the commercial side, was there any success in trying to get those hours. >> yes, i understand we are trying to move on to work with them a little bit to try and push a little bit past past ten. but once again, sometimes we get calls and we have to shut down. we've been still trying to work
with everybody in the commercial side to see if we can extend it. >> are those constraints applicable on saturdays? >> no, they are not. that is why it is from eight 26. we reduce the hours that are permissible. i just wanted to make sure that we were, exhibit b was carefully read that we are in compliance. thank you. >> any other questions, commissioners? no. okay. so this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> what i'm not totally clear on as if there's anything in these policies for mitigation attempts that can be incorporated into the condition of the permit. i don't know.
>> new technology. >> now it says... did you hear me? okay. to anybody who might have better insight than i do,. >> i would refer to the building inspection department which of these conditions would be enforceable by them. and how to the conditions of the permit work. >> we are responsible for, we do monitor article 29 of the place coat along with the health department if we get noise complaints. , i did think about it when i heard it. it will be difficult for a building inspector to check every one of these. and they could be near to schedule a weekly inspection with the building inspector. so that they can get down and look at any equipment that is supposed to happen. if there's anything that needs
to be done there. i did not get a list of the conditions but certainly if there was something for example thethat needed to be covered, something in some piece of equipment i needed to have something on it can't inspector could do would drop by inspection. i don't want to pop too much on the inspector either. in answer to the question, we can do our best. and that is what we do with the noise complaints. we do call in the health department when necessary. that is aware you are really difficult because there are exemptions for the impact too in article 29. >> with these inspections then take place on a regular basis are only in response to the complaint? >> if you wish. i'm not sure how formal it is, but if you want to... >> we can request to? >> we've never had this before
we we do not normally get it. you could request certainly, and then i could, how we incorporate that into the permit, i'm not sure. the contract, the permit holder could be constructed to require to gerequiredto get a weekly inm d.b.i. for the purposes of making sure that the agreements on the conditions are upheld. i do know that the inspectors have been down there and some of the comments by one of the public speakers, the building inspector has gone down there and make sure that the work under appeal has been not allowed to be done. there is monitoring of what they are allowed to do versus what they are not allowed to do pending the outcome of this. that was made clear very -- made very clear at the start in the inspector was in touch on that. i don't think they're working on anything they're not supposed to be. i'd like to say that. >> clerk: thank you.
>> i guess i will start. commissioners are here evidently because it was a very poor planning on google's behalf. know for state and if there was,'s board often hears cases where permit holders come here begging for forgiveness rather than asking for permission. at the same time, what is before us is the permit. they are fully executed and i would have a hard time voting to delay it. at the same time, i wouldn't mind conditioning it so the monitoring of these noises have to be listed daily on a website that is accessible by the 600 or so tenants that are in the property. so that there is some instant notification in regards to the daily activities and noise that's being caused from construction. and, you know, i see that everyone has long faces and i don't think that this board is
going to be the end of it and it's going to go to litigation. but that's what my feeling is. >> as i noted last week, you know, we can condition it and not have them work saturdays, but that adds 26 more days of pain and torture. and i don't think, if i was living there, i would like to extend to the pain and torture. i want to mitigate that. i don't think it would do any good. if it helps, we can ask them to -- the condition that they make the hour start one hour later on a saturday. but again, every hour is going to add to the job. the job will take what it is going to take in the time it will take. nobody can do anything about that. that is where i am kind of stuck in placing conditions like more
aggressive time conditions than have already been proposed by the permit holder. because i don't want to add any more stress and strain and problems for the appellants. you are between a rock and a hard place. >> i guess i come to the same conclusion. it is not going to go any further. where they possibly could have created some of the alternative situations, it doesn't appear that it will go any further before i'm prepared to act on this case. >> what about my suggestion of
the tenant being able to monitor the noise? >> do you have a condition? >> and what about picking up the conditions that were offered by google? >> i agree. >> if google has offered to make those conditions, at least it would be beneficial for the appellants. i would accept those adds conditions, as well. >> should we have a motion? >> no. actually, can i come to the podium again, please? >> my thought process as you said you can have it on a weekly basis. >> yes, i believe it. >> i do not find that acceptable, personally. if you are working on a day-to-day basis, like you said, google is number 1 information for everybody. the fact that it would take a week to provide information, to me is unacceptable. >> are sound consultant is the one that placed the two monitors
on sight and i have to ask if you can make the data available. i think he collects it weekly. >> can you talk to him, because i do not want to make a motion that is not enforceable. >> maybe a day behind, but he can collect the data every day and make it available. >> how would you do that? >> frankly, i know it is google, but i think it would take a few weeks to create a website that is that dynamic, we could e-mail it out or make it available. >> okay. thank you. >> could you list, so that the executive director can help in the process of formulating some conditions. would you please list the conditions or is it in a brief? >> well,, for the record, i'd like to get an up-to-date if she could read it into the records. could you read the list of conditions and change those changes that you would be
willing to compromise on as you elaborate on earlier? >> sure. for the noise monitoring we would have two monitors on-site and that would be recorded daily, although a day behind. that is one condition. >> i'm sorry, noise monitors? >> would be on site and monitored daily and reported at least a day behind. >> and are we talking about an electronic noise monitors? >> we have a machine that monitors and collects all that data and sound. he has to pull that information and we can printed up on a hard copy. >> should be specified where those noise monitors will be placed? >> it is in the brief. if you look at exhibit b. we have to monitor locations. one is 100 feet away. >> page 204.
>> page 204, yes. >> that could be included. >> i'm sorry, i'm looking at exhibit e and it shows. >> exhibit b, b. as in boy. >> the long-term noise monitoring exhibit. on page 204. >> okay. >> that could be entered into the record for the location. >> so i see it on the sixth floor. and where else? or are we? >> it is both on the sixth floor but either closer to the site. >> i'm sorry, for the record, if we were set up -- we have no input here. >> i'm sorry, sir, correct. >> i e-mailed it to you kirk and gary e-mailed it to you a second time when you said you didn't receive it. and your attorney as well. yes you and yourself. >> continue.
>> page 204 can be entered into the record as a condition. and if we look at exhibit a, the noise mitigation measures lists and detail the items that we are doing with all the noise mitigation and rooftop construction and connecting stair. all four pages should be entered and as a condition. >> exhibits a and b. >> exhibits a and b. >> a and b.? >> yes. >> what about exhibit d? you talked about it. >> it can be entered as well. we are communicating with and improving protocols. tenets communication, exhibit d, can also be entered and as a condition. >> as exhibit c the existing? >> can also be entered an. it was redrafted and trained. exhibit c should also be entered as well. >> okay.
i'm talking about c. >> c., yes. >> it is a. b. c. and d.? >> yes. okay, i want to make sure we're not leaving anything out. what about the weekly d.b.i. inspection? we will have that, no? >> i understand that there is a lot of work being done and the inspectors are on-site pretty much every other day given the amount of inspection. >> okay. do we have a motion? >> to grant the appeal and condition the permit on incorporating all the items reflected in exhibits a through d. as presented by the permit holder, dated may 3rd, i believe. let me double check that. >> yes, in th a brief submittedy 3rd, okay, in for clarity, this would cover appeal numbers 18 dashed 017 and 18-041.
>> one more thing, madame director, just the google to provide access to the sound stuff, they said they could do it a day behind. >> okay. and how are they to provide that? >> they can figure it out. as long as the tenants have access to it. >> access to the sound monitoring data. >> correct. >> okay. >> i have a question. so that is nice that we are adding a b. c. and d., where does the accountability come in? who is going to, i mean it is nice to say that this will be done and that will be done, but where is the accountability of the monitoring other than the sound monitoring that has been made clear. it will be reported on on a daily basis but what about the
other conditions? who is responsible for holding google responsible? who is responsible for holding google accountable for abiding by a b. c. and 2d? that is my concern. if i was sitting in a department spelled, in an apartment building, it is great then you things are being addressed. >> would your suggestion be to enforce that? >> i'm asking some that he's advice. mr duffy? >> i think we've given the permit subject to these things. if they violate that on the tenants turn that and, this is not our board's responsibility to babysit them. >> right. i want to have a discussion in a transparent fashion so that the tenants are aware that, if there are abuses of these conditions, that they know how to make comment on those potential breaches, please. >> commissioner, joe duffy, d.b.i.
the normal weight is to file a complaint with d.b.i., and we look into it. it is going to be difficult, but, you know, there is no love here between these parties. you know, so there's going to be a lot of he said she said. i know that. i do it every day of the week. certainly we can treat it as a complaint and investigated. when there are noise monitors on projects, those are pretty, we can look into that. and again, i'm a little worried because of the impact to an exception. what do we do if there is an exception for it? so as long as they're not using it outside the hours of when they are supposed to, that would be something we could. we could issue a stop work order if it was abuse and, you know, we can take our usual enforcement action if need be. that is our normal process when we deal with noise complaints. and we do call in the health department sometimes. normally people get in line, but your comment earlier regarding the work and getting it done, i
said that the first day i met mr denny at d.b.i. this is hard. it is difficult, there is just, they will have to try to work very closely together if they can. >> would you agree that if a stop work order did occur due to either for one reason or another, i will not point at either party, that that really is, both parties lose big time? >> yes. >> because obviously, the permit holder doesn't get the job done in a timely fashion. >> yes. >> obviously the permit holder doesn't get the work done in a timely fashion and that noise related to that construction would continue to be an issue for the apartment dwellers. >> i agree with everything you're saying. one thing i will add is bcci have been around for a long time. i certainly remember, i have worked with them for many, many
years and they are a good enough company to work for. i mean there is a trust issue there as well with people that work with inspectors and companies. we are dealing, this is not the only project we'll be dealing with them on. we would hope our relationship with d.b.i. stays the same and maybe gets better because of this. and that can be a conversation with them. i mean, when the gentleman spoke about being woken up this morning at 7:00 am by an impact, i can't do anything about that. there's nothing in any coach that can stop that. obviously there is an agreement in place. we can say, looked, i would be surprised if they don't, to be honest with you. but we can go out there and we can see what's going on and we will keep our eye on it. that's the best i can tell you. >> thank you very much for that advice. >> okay. , so what i heard is a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeals and condition the issue went to the apartmen
apartments? >> grant to the appeal. >> clerk: when you are issuing a condition, you need to grant the appeal. to grant to the appeals and condition the issuance of the permits on the adoption of exhibits elite, be, see, ajit df the permit holder's brief dated may 3rd, additionally, the permit holder must publish, for the tenants, published daily access to the sound monitoring data. so on that motion, president fung? once his measures have been adopted. so on that motion [roll call] >> clerk: that motion passes.
>> clerk: okay we are returning to the main ninth 2018 hearing for the san francisco board of appeals. we are onto item number 6. and to this is appeal number 1 number 17... the subject property... protesting the issue on december 20tdecember12th 2017. a letter of determination regarding a request to prevent a massage establishment on this location for three years based that the property owner was not notified invite there's a violation of the health code and did not however... this is case number 20170085. the hearing request was granted
on april 11th. the board voted 1-4. it was faulty due to lack of notice to the property owner. lacking the votes needed to posh cat the motion failed. the determination was upheld by operation of law. and as i indicated on april 11th, the board granted the appellant's a prehearing request and here we are today. you have seven minutes. >> could you move the mic up, you are kind of a tall guy. i'm here in regards to...
>> you have seven minutes, please be not good evening commissioners. miss rosenberg, mr president. >> i'm sorry could you move the mic up, you are a tall guy. >> my name is william klein. i represent the appellant at 528 taylor street lp, in regards to a petition on prehearing tonight. to lift the three year band that was placed on property located at 518 taylor street. the van was placed pursuant to planning code section 202.284. rather than following the hearing procedures that were contained in the planning code, the department of health entered into a settlement agreement with the operator of the spot, and as a result there was never a
hearing or a notice of a hearing to the owner. as such, the owner was not provided the due process protections he otherwise would have been entitled to. due process has two requirements. it has a requirement of notice, it's not nearly a notice that your property will be taken, but it is notice that your property will be taken and you have a right to be heard on that issue. the second element is an opportunity to be heard. a hearing. if we had noticed that somebody process property would be taken next week, merely being told that that property was going to be seized would not fulfil the requirements of notice on due process. in this case, at the department of health testified that they gave constructive notice to the landlord when their health inspector, giving a list of
violations to the on-site manager. they have produced no document substantiating that fact. we have the on-site manager here tonight who will testify and has testified in the past. that they never signed anything. but even beyond that, even if there were adequate notice, there was never notice of hearing to be heard, and there was never a hearing which is an essential element of the due process protection. as such, we are asking the board to lift the ban and to grant to the appeal. [please standby]
ignored, especially one of this nature. in spite of our efforts in getting involved, we have been completely shut out by the department of public health when it came to the disclosure of health code violations and again shut out when no hearing on those violations ever took place. we made the best efforts to participate in a department of health public investigations and findings, yet without ever having been informed and a chance to be heard and to confront the issues at hand, our ability to participate has been hindered. had we known the extent of the health code violations, we would have immediately taken serious actions to remove the tenant and business operator. by the planning department's own characterization, it is my understanding that the planning code statute being applied to 518 taylor street is designed
to make landlords more responsive and accountable for their actions -- the actions of the tenant. it serves to end a bad process of landlords turning a blind eye. well, we have consistently sought to have open communication with our tenants and the city, respond promptly to any notices and correspondence affecting the property or tenant and take decisive steps to resolve any incidents that arise. and now, our resident manager. >> thank you. my name is jeffrey polk. i was resident manager, on-site manager at the 522 street apartment building on the evening of march 2, 19 -- i mean, 2017. i'm going to put a copy of the
massage inspection report -- >> okay. thank you. >> -- there, and i -- i first saw this report in december of last year or january of this year, a few months ago. i did not see it on march 2nd of 2017. and if you look on the page, you see a significant, it says received by, that is not my signature. i have a very legible signature. g-e-o-f-f p-o-l-k. it's an abbreviated type signature. i'm going to post the second page of the report here and also point to where it says received by, and i will, again, state, as i have stated on april 11 of this year that i did not, to my best recollection, receive a report
or anything in paper from any inspector of the health department on march 2. and i do not recall and i see no evidence that i signed anything or initialled anything. and again, as i stated on april 11, i was instructed by mary tran to call the health department -- >> please wrap up. >> -- yes, after i learned that there was an a violation, an unknown violation at the establishment. so i called on march 9 and was told that i could not be provided with the information about what violation. they confirmed there was a violation, but these details were not given. >> thank you, sir. you'll have time in rebuttal. >> okay. we'll hear next from cory teague, the zoning administrator. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, cory
teague, planning department staff. the subject letter of determination under appeals tonight was issued by the zoning administrator on june 15, 2017. as outlined in that letter, the dph had conducted an enforcing case at the subject property at 518 tail i don't remember street. this enforcement process ran from march of 2016 and march of 2017, and the settlement included acknowledgement from the business owner that the massage establishment had operated in violation of article 29 of the health code. once the settlement was reached, dph informed the planning department of the confirmed violation. in response, the planning department sent the property owner a notice of enforcement that pursuant to planning code section 202.2(a) 4 no new massage establishment could operate on the property for