>> 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 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 a cabinet and which retaining walls. they have recommended a new foundation system, and that is what we are providing. it is to the benefit of everyone to do this as quickly as possible. we want to vacate the premises.

they will slaughter us if we block this. we need to do this quickly. i am the structural engineer at the intersection. a horrific fire last week. we are lucky people did not lose their lives. the wiring is atrocious. that is what is causing fires. my client has the right to upgrade this building. he wants his building to bee passed on to his family. he wants to do the right thing. the system is perfectly suited for vertical loading all lanes

-- only. we want to do this project as quickly as possible so we can accommodate the end bring these five in a safe building -- bring these back in a safe building everyone can be proud of. >> good evening. i am very familiar with no work in the city. you are required to do a survey, and to a base that is quite a nice job. on the electrical wiring, most of them have 14-gauge wire.

you can imagine when you are plugged into a 14-gauge out let they are supposed to allow 15. now that is going to get hot. by the time you plug in all your electronics, it creates a hazard. to rewire a place, you have to open up walls and ceilings. is a major job. i would not want to live in it, and i urge to uphold. >> is there any departmental comments? >> i think the time is expired.

>> good evening, commissioners. i do not think there are any questions, and we do not have any way to say how they do it. i have seen these buildings were both units are totally located. we do not lose occupancy. the building department could get involved. if is unsafe, it is likely to be because of new lead or dust, but i heard someone mentioning the use of jackhammers.

gooi would urge them to figure t something on always so but we do not get those calls. that sometimes causes problems. nonthe permit would expire after three years. if there are further questions -- >> can you talk about -- you mentioned cases where people have stayed in the building while the work took place. of what about the lead and asbestos people talked about? it seems that would been in the air. >> they could ask for some sort of testing, and someone could be

cited for that. it all depends. it varies, but i have seen who people living through seismic upgrades, because most of it takes place on the foundation curator -- on the foundation. i think someone also pointed out they sometimes rotate the tenants. that is another situation we are not used to seeing, but that is not something we do. >> we did hear about meaning to open the wall, so that would

disturb the wall as well as the ceilings, but we heard about that in regard to the plumbing upgrades, but the permit is not for those things? >> it all falls into the other, because the opening of the walls would be part of the building, which the building inspector would in spec. there is a program in san francisco for a safe practices during a demolition and anything the and they would have to

appeal to the. there is an ordinance would save practices regarding lead. >> that complicates people staying in the building. >> it is more for the work. they have to put down car. they have to make sure they do cleanup and all the stuff. >> that address is one of the questions i have. >> there is a letter on the record of this building would not be insurable. do you know if the practice is common? >> i have never come across the

before, but i did understand that your good -- i never understood that. we would not get involved in that. >> why would you understand they would send a letter like that? >> because the building may not be safe, and if the building was in temporary shoring and something happened, those ethnic complicates structure? -- does that complicates structure? i have never seen that before. i find it interesting as well. >> i think tonight the appellant makes other buildings

so they were able to move around. the project sponsor has stated those were larger buildings were something where that was practical. given the type of seismic work that is going to be done, do you think it is feasible to have people living in those units when that is going on? >> when that is going on in the units? >> given the type of seismic work is contemplated. >> i think it would be in the basement or garage aboat that point. i have seen people living through that before.