binding decision. when >> my feeling is that if there is -- [audio problems] if there is something improper that was done, it can be dealt with through the penalty system or whatever. >> he mentioned suspension of a previously issued a permit. again, that is not this permits. >> the motion is to deny the appeal at the pull of the permit, have separately with the request to planning to make a site visit. >> that is based on a finding that the permit the appeal it is compliant. >> and absolutely nothing was mentioned or demonstrated to cause us to believe otherwise.

>> i would support that motion but for the bases on which it was made. i think if we're asking planning to go out and have a look at the potentially erroneously previously issued a permit, it is the foundation at all of this one, i think that is a problem. >> i am confused. what with the problem be? >> he would uphold based on the fact that it it is compliant, but would not be cut comply if what we're asking for them to go look at is true. >> nothing has been demonstrated that wasn't cut compliant, so i'm not holding it on bases that no evidence came forward that would cause us to think it wasn't code compliance. and it turns out that they are in error, planning has other ways of dealing with it. i think it is reasonable to make a finding of code compliant

when nothing was demonstrated to us causes us to believe otherwise. >> we have of motion from the vice-president to uphold this permits on the basis that it is code compliance. >> and that nothing was submitted to suggest otherwise. >> and no evidence submitted by appellant to suggest otherwise. on that motion, with that basis -- president goh: i'm going to vote no, because of the bases, no evidence presented. there was evidence presented, but perhaps we didn't accept it.

peter mission nearson -- commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the permit is upheld on that basis. >> we will take a short break.

>> you have to start construction within 18 months of

authorization, and acknowledging the economic crisis that we are in, the commission adopted a policy whereby they would monitor but not automatically revoke these entitlements. in 2007, we got an update to the planning commission and in 2009, we gave the status of these requirements. the commission requested an informational hearing on this. we gave them a hearing earlier this year. the commission said, in their estimation, this was no longer viable for moving forward with the project and it should be brought forward for revocation. on june 9, 2011, we had a hearing on the revocation of the office allocation. the project sponsor did not show at that hearing. the project's sponsors submitted when the p.o. of the suspicion

to revoke authorization. they did not submit a brief, and requested a rescheduling of the item to give them additional time to prepare their case. we agreed to a one-time continuance, and they did have the requireme three weeks ago. we respectfully request to uphold the revocation. >> they did acquire with the intent of moving forward with the project. but they have not done anything else in order to affect the project. they can go back on the market, they have the rights to those that they can rescind the those or move them on the market. >> any public comment?

the matter is submitted. >> unless the commissioners have comments, i make a motion to deny the appeal. >> from the findings based on the planning commission's motion? if you can call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the president to uphold this revocation on the basis with it in the planning commission's motion. [roll call vote] >> thank you. the vote is 4-0. the revocation is upheld on that basis. >> president goh, the parties for item 9 i believe are in the hallway negotiating.

so if you are in agreement, i can call item no. 10. >> unless they are ready to speak to us. >> are you here with item 9? no. >> number 10. >> ok. calling item number 10. appeal with planning department approval at 1100 lombard street, protesting the issue went on august 22, 2011, permits to alter a building. to 10 feet wide, structural strengthening of floors under the permit. this is building application no. umber two. we will start with the appellant

and attorney. >> they are all in the audience, we will be in response to the opposition. as you can tell, we have been willing to negotiate with the permit holder to work out a way in which the tenants cannot be displaced for a lengthy period of time. they were told it would take one to two years for this project. or the capital improvements will not go nearly far a enough to fund the displacement for one to two years. i have here on the overhead, just a summary of how much they

will pay just for three months of displacement, anywhere from that above the amount, it will be statutory relocation. it is a six-month displacement above the statutory, they are retired on fixed incomes and won't be able to afford the displacement from this property. a hardship will be greatly reduced if they are allowed to stay it will take longer than when the estimates were made, which was one-two years. there might be some extra costs

in accommodating the tenants, but that pales in comparison to the voluntary upgrade excavating for a five-car garage, putting in an installation above the first floor. there was an argument in the opposition. they won't get the extra $400,000 loan payments. they are not going to get it anyway because they can't get the 1.4: 1 debt to income ratio because of the rent-controlled tenants. the rent is a state control and the operator cannot meet the ratio required by the bank. i have shown here on the overhead the debt service will be 77,000, so it is more like 0.93 instead of 1.4.

>> can we stop the clock? going to the point you just raised, what would be eligible for a pass through on this project and how would it alter the ratio? >> we have to apply to the rent board to be a process, people get an exemption from the past and get a hardship appeal. through at least two of the units -- >> why is that? >> the rent board as a hardship exemption in the nature of an appeal through capital improvements had passed through a petition that the landlord would file. fixed income seniors routinely get them. it works better to benefit the unit, the market rate units, the

empty units have to take up some share of that pass through, and the parking garage also has to take up a share of that. not all the tenants have cars. the new parking will take up a big share of that as well. then the rent board determines that only 50% can be passed through the schedules, so i don't know how much of the figure is going to be. even that is only allowed to be passed through at 10% a year. the first year, there was a 10% increase if they don't get the hardship exemption. the next year, another 10%. it will be years before they get the debt to service ratio. >> that is based on what assumptions about the two vacant units and the rent would be charged -- >> we are assuming based on

discussions with the actual property management company that managed the property prior to the owner buying it that the rent would be $3,500 a month for each of the vacant units that would in crude -- include the parking space. from the one bedroom apartment. they are sizable, they have a lot of nice amenities, but it is still very high and in a very desirable location. i will turn it over. >> i am with construction and design engineers, and a registered construction engineer and have been practicing in the area for 38 years. i am here to address some of the structural issues that were raised, arguments against the 10 and's appeal. the insurance system proposed, in order to install a deep grudge or below the building, it

has to be short and the shoring system proposed will make the building unsafe for tenants. this type of shoring system that is improving system backed up of members with real beams, and are involved. this type of system is usually arranged to make sure it is safer for workers. we feel it is safe for the tenant to occupy the building. we have worked on several buildings were they have occupied at much larger buildings. they also claim that there will be a lot of noise that we disagree with completely. one of the major noise issues is jack cameron out the rock. the existing building in order to and give up the foundations and the new garages.

from my experience, this type of rock is good bearing material typical excavating equipment. i am sure there'll be some jack cameron in a vault. we think it is exaggerated. the tenants have agreed to put up with this noise. we believe the tenants can be protected. they can provide that protection while tenants are living in other units. i bring an example of many projects we're working on. the building is 50% occupied much like 1100's lombard.

being 50% of rated, the second half is upgraded and it is a similar kind of work with a the same type of shoring extension removal of the interior finishes. it is done easily in that situation. they're arguing it will add time and money to the project and we can't disagree with that. but again, it has been done on many projects, and their expert also agrees that the tenants can live in the building even though he says if may had more time and cost of the -- they are adding additional costs for the upgrade work that he is doing in the upper part of that is not mandated by a cut. >> stop the clock again, i am

sorry to do this, but the time is being divided. you did not address plumbing services having to be turned off? demonstrating that those needed serious -- >> the contract expert will be better -- >> are you unable to address the timeline for the work, the scope of the work? contractor? ok. >> my name is dave hilborne. dave hilborne. i have a general contractor in san francisco, principal constructor at licensed architect. i will be responding to three of the arguments made in