screen. we are planting in concordance with the recommendations of his consultants. >> you may plant ivy or other trees on the property to provide privacy? any comment on that? >> it is focused on the planting of bamboo with inner plantings by either bamboo or ivy to provide the green privacy screen. we have planted the bamboo, this is mid-process. we haven't yet installed the appropriate restraint to prevent it from hanging over, but it grows quickly and we believe that there will be sufficient privacy between the homes. the client and their interests are mutually aligned. they want the green privacy

screen of a gun see him and he can't feed them. our interests are aligned, we have a documented the settlement agreement. they just have to allow the bamboo to grow. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i don't see where we can do anything here other than the one thing that he asked for, that may or may not be reasonable, to have a planning actually look at the site, because i think all they have done is all that has been done is to look at haplography maps. as for us to decide anything else, we certainly don't have any jurisdiction over the issue of the planning, the planting,

and nothing has been raised that should cause this board to overturn a permit that has actually been appealed. >> other comments? >> i appreciate getting to the nub of the problem about the landscapers, i don't appreciate an appeal being brought on a permit that is not really the permit at issue. for that reason, i would lean to asking planning to go out and check it out, but i don't think there is much we can do on the permit that issue. >> i wouldn't want anything to happen that would cause this permit if it has already been suspended -- is there an active

permit and construction is not taking place as a result of this appeal? >> of the permit is suspended. >> i would ask that the request for planning to look at it would be in order for them to determine whether or not some other penalty is in order, and they can take it from there, but i would ask that if we were to uphold this permit, but i suspect we will, that the work not be suspended until such time as planning has had an opportunity to inspect the site. >> i would agree with that. is there a motion or further comment? >> i move that leopold the sperm and beyond that, we ask planning to go out, but this permits will not be suspended until such time as planning is able to inspect the site. >> understanding that the board

-- you are making a request to planning, but not part of the 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

>> 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 resnd 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 opposition to this project for the appeal, not the project. the owners claim the plumbing and electrical must be cut off at the beginning of the project

and throughout the duration. that is not true there are all kinds of ways to address that issue, like having a plumbing, electrical, etc. the other thing is a toxic dust concern, and that is controlled by the contractor who would be responsible for a beijing any toxic materials -- abating and a toxic materials. i understand they did not have any tests done. goo>> my thing is what is the td issue.

>> they say the building cannot be ensured. we insure buildings all the time. >> we can hear from you now. >> i am going to speak briefly about what i have today. they were speaking about the family's plans for this building, and i want to quickly address exhibit 13, and he may

have misread its. there are two parts. one is the $200,000 payment when the foundations are finished, and the other regards the tennis. good -- tenants, and it was our hope to get this done. >> within a year, does it start when this permit is approved? >> i think it starts on the 30th your ego -- the 30th. >> you are not going to be able to have a year. >> yes.

>> we understand the responsibilities due to neglect and disregard. the framing is rotten and unstable. they are fire prone and now, and the plumbing is leaking. it is a death trap out worse. we are red flagging our own building because we note this

needs to be addressed immediately. we are concerned about what is beyond our walls and our basement. noise and eruptions, power, water. we will be wearing masks and earplugs. it is a huge inconvenience. our contractors of experts that are geared known not to live in such an environment. we have a long relationship with state farm who has told us they will not insure us with this. we have $200,000 and receiving

upon and june 30 of 2012 if we complete the process. if you show an income ratio set forth by the bay. -- the bank. we do not know when we are going to have vacant apartments again. i do not see a situation where the building has two vacancies in the future. it is not a place to call home. we want the board to stabilize it so we can have our tenants return. >> will you stop the clock

again? you can do this winter and six months? >> yes. >> you will be doing work within the apartment? >> yes. >> how much beyond do you think it will take? >> we think we can have the units have a double within nine or 10 months -- habitable within nine or 10 months. >> i have been doing structural engineering whiz in the region within eight years. this is a foundation without water. they have a glorified bras that does nothing but