during new material is disturbed. >> wherever new material is disturbed. >> exactly. >> during the demo phase when new material it disturbed. >> yes. >> okay. during demo phase when new material is disturbed. >> yes. >> and third that the permit holder assign a contract person for all future complaints. >> and that person will be dave tompkins. >> okay. on that motion to uphold this permit with those 3 conditions (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld with all those

conditions >> we're going to take 5

minutes. >> november 13th the metro of san francisco board of appeals. we're appeal 89 at 174 brighten avenue we have the permit holder to report on the conference in the hallway. we're of we've alleged while the

bamboo combroiz that in that area i'll put up a lblgs screen that officers the amount of protection until the businessman both is grown so they can continue their privacy >> if you can step forward. something fun that bamboo the rufrn stuff might work out until the other bamboo grows >> you're smiling. >> miles assures me i'm going to put it in his hand. >> if you could stand here for one section i'm going to

memorialize that i'm glad you're doing that in person but let's get this duplicate. i'm going studio grant the appeal that the permit person is going to do a businessman both growing at the fence and during which time as it grows in the meantime permit holder will >> have a temporary. >> have is a temporary prices screen on the deck at a level of 6 feet? >> yes. >> that's the motion. >> and that's obviously on the appellants side of the property.

that's correct thanks for the clarification. >> appellant or permit holder. >> the appellant side. >> the appellant holders property. >> okay. so the privacy screen will be 6 photo in height and in place until the businessman both that's planted in the ground reaches equivalent height >> okay everyone do you have is a question. >> one question. >> sure. >> where do we go from here what happens now. >> the permit is approved with those conditions. >> we're good to go. >> assuming the motion passes there's a 10 day request

position that can't be waived. that notice of decision will be sent to you as well the department of building permits but until that's listed you have to wait the 10 days and dbi will list of the suspension but first a call. >> so the motion is to uphold the permit on conditions the permit holder is to plant bamboo with the temporary screen at the 6 feet in height foogz the appellants property. correct? >> correct. >> correct. >> on that motion commissioner fong is absent (calling names) thank you.

the vote is 4 to zero to uphold this permit with those conditions and no special conditions permit will be needed. >> and it's rare that both parties leave this room smiling. >> thank you for working it out. >> so president fong are you ready for item 11. >> that's appeal vs. the department of building inspection. the property is at 5 rock dale drive to shur better and shannon to excavate bedroom rooms and laundry rooms and remodel kitchen and bathroom and expend the property narrow the rear

yard. we'll start with the appellant . >> we are the owners of the property. >> thank you for the opportunity to hear us we believe that the issuance of permit is erroneous and has a i didn't and without any realization of the gas leaks going on. any type of construction should be put on hold until the pipes are replaced and for that matter in the entire block it's neighborhood rights to be safe is superior over the construction to be modified. it should be scaled down because it triumphs on our rights the

national air and light we've invested and gyrated for the last 25 years. there's something called neighborhood harmony. and those types of over the top construction is a residential neighborhood that are detrimental that distresses harmony and not going good for community. they've given the hospital in to us a if weeks ago. the dbi should be upheld, however, they tried to hide the fact the permit was issued prior to dbi knowing about the gas leaks. and recently as past june one of the mp u clubhouses and the prior to that the major gas leak

we had last friday on the boulevard that was a block away from our houses. the apartment holders claim it's our mental illness and we are only guessing pr this is the ignorance and dismiss i have nature that's been playing our community. the gas leak is real this is a picture of last friday. this happened last friday. i happened to walk by and their digging up the whole front yard and they're the owners were distraught. i spoke with them and smelled

gas it's not our imagination. moreover it would be thought less for them to assume there's there's no gas leaks on their front yard. them saying the garbage trucks can equally vibrate our pipes is true but your construction in that house for over a year and a half is going to further damage our property including their own. since the property holder claims their responding to our brief only as a gesture there's a conflict between the parties involved. the mp ic it's the neighborhood community that's the board of

directors that run the design guidelines they're on the board of directors. i've climbed to the president of the dp ic that the guidelines have on violated. they acknowledge ref my letter but he respond to their brief saying everything is okay. the third floor setbacks would be substantial if you look at this picture from my window this is their third floor. it's barely 6 feet away from the front of the revolver. it's not substantial it's completely hide 3 of my windows. even if he is certified he didn't know there were window in

our house he went ahead and certified. i don't believe he looked the guidelines. and there is no way to contact him buzzed he didn't respond to my letters and stuff. another thing in their brief exhibit a one shows a big portion of the backyard would be built. there is additional backyard decks that describe property and open space. in their exhibit 343, 4, 53 and 4 it shows how their addition w would block my windows. they're trying to show the other house 555 rock daily has all the way comes up front and blocks

everything it's not true you can't see it until you go to the backyard. on page 2 of the holders they say the gas pipe was replaced by 2014 that's false we don't have third degree anything in pg&e and the plan to replace the pipelines in our area is not until 200 for an and the homeowners will be notified in writing. this is not an option for us. regarding the largely support i tried to contract mr. harrison i didn't hear back from him. we don't need it be a rocket scientist to especially open the

third floor with this construction it would be blocking our windows regarding light and a air was not a consideration for them the architect didn't know we had windows. >> you're going to have the on rebuttal your time is up right now. >> okay. i'll come back. >> i actually have one question is your property immediately to the left. >> that's wrong. >> i'm looking at the picture here. >> why don't you put it on the overhead so - >> correct that's our property. >> okay. >> i wanted to ask the

presentation i printed several copies if you guys want it in your hand. >> no, no it's not necessary. >> one question on your property was that the original property or was it at&t one time. >> there's an additional on top of that. but the picture is the original >> we can hear from the project holder and a envy wife and i own the property on 555 rock hill. today, i'm here to ask you to uphold the permit. the appellants have brought up a number of issues. the gas leak issue we're not aware of this issue until she brought it up in her appeal.

we're concerned about this gas leak issue. the appellant mentioned the fact that our architect and members of the architect board and this is because we want to be involved and serve our community. since the appellants have brought that up the parking club the board on above the board contacted the pg&e and the response is pg&e plans to replace the piping in '90 fourteen. 2014 >> we tried to address all the issues such as a common fence we don't want want to destroy the

common sentence that we hired a contractor to assess the construction. and wind 250u7b8 effect. the structural engineer assessed that wyoming not be an issue and i found a report to the planning commission the windows say structures under one hundred feet would not create a wind effect. on the issue of light and a airy want to call your attention to let's see if i can find it. if i c if i c if i can draushgz. the pitch is 45 rescue daily

that's the resident of the neighbors. but in designing the third story addition we took into light my air of the incarnation and made sure the pitch comes down to the bottom of their window on the side to have minimum impact to the light. there were other questions about set back et and backyard envelope to that i want to mention that everything is subsequentially within the planning and building codes we're not building up to the maximum of the allowable never seen and actually, if you look at sheet a-1.

this is the appellants residents and this is the residence of the neighbor to the other day. their building comes up to this right hero. our design is actually in between the two setbacks. and we tried to take the look and feel of the neighborhood in the feeling of the design. you can see from a lot of elevations that's it's lower than the appellants building and the place between the appellants building and the neighbors building.

that's all i have unless you have any questions >> i want to go back. i believe you addressed the concerns raised by the appellant. the common sense if there's any damage your committed to replacing >> yes. >> the structural engineer they're asking for a structural report and it - what. >> that is attaching on page 7 as exhibit one. >> yep. >> it's prepared. >> so that's adding that request. >> that's as well as wind tunnel issue. >> okay. those are the ones. >> looking at the drawings our front is true east and the back

is phasing 20 true west. >> yes. >> so the light and a air since it's coming from southeast that wouldn't be effected since your die north. >> yes. in fact, the proposed height is lower than than the appellants. >> mr. t. >> greg t for staff. just to first touch on pressure of this project was by the planning department department is went through the notification and that notification began on march fourth and a no discretionary review as filed on the project and it was subsequentially approved.