tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 23, 2018 6:00am-7:01am PST
of the mailing that went out last year to determine if the correct plans were included. that is not an issue raised to the department. >> that is what happens when someone does not supply a brief. i appreciate you doing due diligence on this. >> there was only one complaint. >> starting to do the foundation work, there was the complaint there abated in 2015. there is not any open complaints or violations for the planning department for this site. >> you indicated that it is possible to check with repo mill as to what they sent out? >> it is possible to check with them. i don't know their policy on
keeping hard copies of jobs that go out in terms how long they keep those physical documents. i haven't had a chance to request that. because it appears that the transmittal of information from the planning department to repo mill were correct. that is the only kind of area that we haven't been able to explore thoroughly yet. >> i want to follow up the 3/11 notice has a description that referenced a four story project. >> it definitely referenced the newer plans. they are not what the old plans were, as mentioned. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> time is over.
i will start. one, it is really difficult to hear a case just orally, and that is why briefs are submitted and had certain questions been asked maybe some of those could have been answered here this evening. other than that, i feel that this is a conforming project. it has gone on a long time there. are no exemptions, no rare variances required. i feel a reason to deny the appeal and accept the project as it is. >> so if those plans -- if the correct plans would have been sent out, and that is the big
thing in this conversation tonight, if those plans, the right plans would have come out and there would have been a community uproar on those plans for the reasons that have been also mentioned tonight, which is primarily the fourth floor and some view quarters, i would have looked at the plans and asked the same question i did of mr. tieg tonight and his answers would have been the same, which is this is a compliant building, there are no variances, the setbacks are right, the rear yard is right, and it is not outside the general character of the immediate neighborhood, and, therefore, i would have denied the appeal under those circumstances.
i think that is the crux. even if the wrong plans were sent out, and the issue of the wrong plans being sent out we can continue and go through the process of going to the mailing house, but we are still coming back here, i believe, and find the permit was issued correctly. i think that would be our discussion, commissioners. >> there might be a case of due process, i don't know. >> right. >> go ahead. i was going to agree with that. briefs are not required. it would have made it easier. it is a fairly convoluted conversation. it is clear what has occurred.
i agree with commissioner lazarus there is a due process if it would merit the neighbors to have seen the correct ones or they may have seen the correct drawings if we can verify that is what they submitted. i may disagree with both the va and commissioner swig. i am not sure the fourth floor is contextual. it is very unusual that, you know, you have a hip roof and put a box behind it, you know. a lot of times when they want to use that to create an extra floor, they put dormers in there. i am not prepared to address those issues.
i wasn't sure they were in front of us in terms of what the scale and context of the proposal. i would like to see it bust to rest whether there is a due process issue here. >> if there was the emotion to continue for those purposes i would support that motion. >> i would ask we continue for a short timeframe so the va can verify exactly what was sent out to the surrounding neighbors. >> how much time would you need?
first is march 7th available for the permit holder and the appellant? okay. is it okay for the appellate? >> i move to continue it for two weeks to march 7th so the planning department can ascertain what was in the mailing. >> so there would be no additional submittals, just an answer verbally back in. >> i believe that is all we are looking for. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus continued to march 7th to allow time for the zoning administrator to verify what plans were sent to the neighbors. president funk aye. there are three votes in favor
and one opposed. that motion passes. >> can we t >> we are returning to the february 21, 2018 meeting. we are calling item five. we are dealing with the street artist certificate denial. they are requesting a hearing of 17-1131. -- 131. they decided 5-0 to deny the appeal on the basis the appellant did not satisfy the requirements of the application. three minutes. . >> on the order audio the
commissioner said even if it is a transient address like a shelter we will accept it. the new information is a shelter navigation house omission street which accepts mail. the place where the craft is produced is the cultural center anyone can rent space that is the physical location. the background or the continued merit less accusations against me. this application language for eight months without being acted upon with no reason given. finally cynthia goldstein contacted the arts commission and that is what started the appeal. you see an e-mail directing ann not to talk to me. she told him to confiscate
artwork twice. three has no subpoena power to attend today's meeting. never applied with the board of appeals rules. i had to run repeatedly to get response briefs five times. i waited in the hallway of the street artists office at least 15 hours during business hours when the office was locked. you may recall the botched address investigation and the task force new information ordering the arts commission to provide a index of records regarding the permit investigation. then there was the november 7th advisory meeting, a public meeting where i was factually details what took place at the board of appeals for the written public comment and treey doesn't
know the rules. i contacted the supervisor and there is yet another pending sunshine hearing over that. this is very unclear as to why this would even happen. and tricky called a dishwasher at 129 east 60th street in a restaurant who does not speak english. he is not staff. he doesn't even know me. she probably will show photos and a e-mail sent six months ago to howard lazar lieu has been re-- who has been retired. i was maced in 2017. i paid for a application in north beach which was denied. the community benefit district
does not have street art spaces. i don't know anyone there. >> please wrap up. >> these are the documents to support what i say. >> we can hear from the arts commission now. >> hello, members of the board, thank you for your time and attention this evening. >> identify yourself. >> i am ann tricky. manager of the street artist program. i worked for the arts commission since september of 2013. i have prepared notes but in response to what miss treboux submitted. she did not submit an address. she has never submitted to the address an office of any sort which we could investigate.
just so you know the references, the street artist program is mandated by article 24 of the police code, section 3 says every person desiring recommendation pursuit to this shall file an application upon a form provided by the arts commission. said application shall specify the applicant's address and place where that work is produced known as a studio. she has not submitted an address to investigate the qualifications. we hear the requests as defined by board of appeals. they are to prevent manifest injustice showing facts or circumstances have arisen. where they could have affected the outcome of the original hearing. in the request that the
appellate filed on september 14, 2017 she does not claim extraordinary circumstances or manifest injustice nor provide material fact to affect the outcome. it is to require a home or studio address to show they make what they sell. she has never provided one. she said soma arts it is a cultural center run by the arts commission. we are the landlord. i don't believe you can have studios based there as far as i know. i know in the mission cultural center they have a print making studio. she has never submitted an application to make prints. without seeing what the address was she submitted there is no way to investigate. she hasn't submitted anything. we have never been able to
ascertain the addresses are correct. the board of appeals uphold the denial of permit and not have the rehearing. thank you. i am happy to answer any questions. >> . >> you don't have a record of either a home address or a studio address. if there was an oversight or if she did not have a street address or a address where she made the materials at that time, when could she reapply for a permit as she now seems to have a street address and a location where she makes the material? can you clarify that for us, please? >> my understanding at any time
she could submit an address to us which we would investigate. she has not to this date. >> if we deny the appeal today because we couldn't find any of the elements that you have placed forward and also there is no proof that there was an address filed for either purpose, then tomorrow would you accept her application for a permit if that street address for a residence and studio were supplied to you? >> my understanding is that based on a board of appeals decision then we have one year before she can apply again. because she brought the case to board of appeals it depending on the decision of the board. once you enter a decision it holds for a year, as far as i understand. if she had not brought it to the board of appeals and we were in the legal limbo she could have
submitted the new address. we would investigate the address and proceed as such. >> not that i don't believe you. we have the city attorney and those are the questions to ask the city of attorney. >> i believe i advised on this same question the last time she tried to appeal the denial. it was the same issue failure to provide address. i believe under section 31, the business and tax code, the one year bar. there is an exception if there is a changed circumstance. i believe i advised that the new address could be considered change of circumstances by the department. >> if ms. treboux is not living at that address or it was not
available because she wasn't living there and if since the time that she applied for this permit she actually found and is manufacturing materials at a bona fide new address, in fact, that would be new circumstance and she could apply tomorrow? >> i think that could be a basis to invoke the exception in section 31. >> i want too know the rules, the legal. thanks. that is my only question. >> thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> your time is up ms. treboux. unless the commissioners have a question the matter is submitted. >> we haven't been presented
with the information in fact there was a residence on this permit. we haven't been presented with an address that there was a firm address and that has been inspected or confirmed by the arts commission where the material was being made, in the context of permit it would seem we would have to deny the appeal. i think it is important to surface as i just did with the city attorney, that if ms. treboux's circumstances have changed since this was first dealt with that -- and she has a new address that is real for her residents and an address were, in fact, she is making bona fide materials, then if we deny the appeal tonight, that due to that
change of circumstances that tomorrow morning due to that change of circumstances she could go down and start all over again? >> there is no more discussion. >> page 12 of 75 is the address i gave. >> i live in new york. >> ms. treboux, please sit down. >> last time she was given an opportunity to do that. this is a rehearing request. in this timeframe it hasn't been in successful in terms of an application in going through. >> i would like to deny the
rehearing. it does not meet the circumstances for such a granting. >> the rehearing request is not the way to approach this. >> i don't want to. >> there is a motion to deny the request. ms. treboux. we will adjourn the meeting. >> i live in new york. i am going home. if this lady can't do a correct google map. she called an historic building in new york a japanese building. in page 12 of 75 of the original brief. [ inaudible ] >> ann, please.
we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the request. request. okay that motion passes. thank you. >> next item please. 6:0it is 17-1291 and 192. the first by rasa moss dealing with 363 jersey street protesting the issuance on november 29 of 2017. new garage and foundation horizontal addition at rear and vertical addition. complete interior remodel and replace windows in kind. one hour property line walls and sprinklers. start with the first appellant.
you have seven minutes. >> good afternoon. i am the homeowner rasa moss at 393 jersey street. it is three units. we bought it in 1973. it is home for the past 45 years to me and my family for the third generation. my house abuts 363 which was built at about the same time 120 years ago. when i filed this appeal, my greatest concern was that my house and property would be endangered by excavation for a deep basement. this plan before you was submitted by ee wise architect and agent for the owner at that time of 363 jersey street. today 363 jersey has a new owner called 363 jersey llc.
they have informed mean and the other appellants that they will not build such a garage. they will not dig a deep basement and if shown a new foundation plan to require far less excavation. a many relieved. the deep basement is obsolete as the owners and appellants agree. however, it is still the plan before you. i therefore ask you to remove the no longer relevant eewyes basement from the site plan to lay it to rest. please keep in mind the property was sold by the owner after he obtained the site permit. i wish the best to the current team. these are uncertain times. it is not impossible to find it necessary to sell the property rather than complete the project and another buyer with deeper
pockets might want the garage with car elevator. knowing the garage won't happen would help me to celebrate my 84th birthday in peace. i.q. of you as a commissioner that you do so with conditions that assure that should damage occur during excavation or construction. the permit holders assume full responsibility for it and promptly make the necessary repairs, restoration at their own expense to conditions documented before excavation and demolition began. i talked to senior inspector joe duffy at the building defendant who explained that if i notice any damage to my property during the ex alaskaation i can -- excavation i can call and work would be stopped until repairs
are made. i could be sited and would be responsible for repairs on my property unless the project sponsor voluntarily agrees to repair the damage to my property my recourse would be to file a civil lawsuit. that is how i understood what he told me and has alarmed me. it is a measure reason for my appeal to the board for conditions to lessen the possibility of what could to me maybe a remote possibility it would be a financial calamity. i also request that is board of appeals add some conditions to mitigate this expanse i project with a big box looming in back. it is inevitable long-term intrusions of noise and light on the residents at 359 jersey. i ask the owner be allowed to
build it through the ad jay cents walls. the broaddricks have sound proving that works on their side it should work on mine as the three houses are connected wall to wall. to mitigate the disturbing unhealthy impact of light pollution i.q. out door lighting in back of 363 be minimized in the neighbors living in my garden cottage my daughter and her family. the massive addition in the rear of existing house of 363 jersey will aggravate a persistent problem. shielded low intensity downward facing lights would diminish light pollution. the building is now roughly the deck is about 25 feet from the cottage which only has north facing windows and two skylight
and they place the yard. this would bring it quite a bit closer, the addition in back beyond the current wall part of the building. there have been quite a bit of medical research about the effect of not having enough darkness during sleep. here is one quote. the changes that result from exposure to electric light at night have biological connections to diabetes cancer and depression. the ama made a strong statement against high intensity blue ridge lights like they are. i request that you make a condition that light be minimized in back so as not to intrude on the peace tranquility and health on the people in back.
i went too long. the broader son and i have met with the current owners and permit holders kramer of 363 jersey llc and on december 11th and later, and all of us hope for a fair mutually acceptable conclusion to the story. we appeal to the board for assistance by approving the four conditions described above. i wish we could have cut off the massive intrusion but we want that. the property will be developed for sale at a price someone at upper level income will afford. the owners have a right to make a profit but not at the expense of neighbors by diminishing of quality of their live and their home's value. thank you for your attention. . >> did you see the permit holder's response? >> yes and it is quite general.
they seem to be willing to agree. i think we need to be more specific. >> questions? okay. thanks. >> okay. we will hear from the brodericks now. >> good evening my name is carol broderick. we own 367 jersey. we are retired and have lived in our house 24 years. 363 and 367 are twin houses built by the same houses. the subject of which appeal is designated by the planning department as an individual historic resource. we feel several important issues
require extra scrutiny because 367 and 363 are very old buildings that share a common brick foundation and very thin adjacent walls. we request that the appeals board grant the appeal of the site permission and place certain conditions that we have included in the brief and we will speak about tonight. i will address one, 3, 5 that we listed. number one we request a settlement monitoring system and survey of the home to identify the existing conditions prior to construction. the surveyor will resurvey to determine if movement has occurred at midway and end of the project. permit holder will share all survey reports, measurements and
reports. it will be provided at no cost to us. three we request the permit holder will repair and rebuild any damage to the property 367 jersey related to the excavation and construction. number five. we request that the permit holder comply with requirements of civil code section 832. in addition john and i support rasa moss' lighting request. my husband will address our other concerns. thank you for your time and consideration. >> good evening, i am john broderick, co-owner of 367 jersey. thank you for considering the requests we are making in our appeal. in my statement i will refer to the site permit as the wise
permit. he is the occupant listed. first the foundation on the wise permit is item number two in our brief. 363 and 367 jersey's foundation is unusual bass it is constructed of unreenforced brick and shared. pictures of it there. >> can we have the overhead? >> the respondent's brief states the basement scope of work will be eliminated. we agree that the basement is problematic and it should be eliminated. therefore we request the board remove the basement shown in the wise site permit drawn on page a4.1 and a4.2, exhibit 2 in our brief. if the board does not agree to remove the basement, then we request the board place a condition on the wise site
permit sharing that tie backs are required. that is exhibit one from the mock wallace architects. now, i will discuss the sound dampening measures item four. 363 and 367 jersey are 1890 victorian homes with thin adjacent walls with no insulation. they are separated by half an i familiar. they may be joined. it is a serious noise problem. 363 is a single family home. that will be converted to a two unit building. there will be more increase in noise production through the thin walls to our home. the california building home requires sound protection between adjacent properties. the architectural wise drawings have not addressed sound dampening adequately. the project engineer told us
mr. wallace our acticket is a very experienced in designing sound proving systems. he told us a two wall sound dampening system would work well between the walls of these two homes. mr. wallace at our request reviewed the proposed modified structural drawings that were submitted to him. mr. wallace told us a two wall system would provide adequate sound production between the two buildings. please look at the overhead on the board right now. it is a diagram of a two-wall sound dampening system. the property line between 363 and 367 is indicated by a red line. on 363 side there is a two inch minimum space. the walls are green. the space is filled with r13
minimum bat insulation. there is a five eight's inch bat and it is carried on each floor of the proposed improvements at 363 jersey. the respondents says we will provide some type of sound proving along the property line. the respondent has not offered that adequate sound dampening will be installed at 363 jersey. we ask the board grant the appeal and place a condition on the wise site permit to require the i distillation of a two wall sound damp pennenning system. we have retained the services of the architects to protect our home and submitted the expert opinion in our brief. my wife and i feel the
foundation and noise issues are not the norm because 363 and 367 are 128 year-old twin buildings that share a brick foundation and very thin walls. there have been two llc owners since the project started in 2014. owners come and go. the conditions that you place on the wise site permit will continue to provide protection for us even if the ownership changes again. please grant our appeal and place the conditions on the wise site permit and thank you for your consideration. >> we can hear from the permit holders there. are two appeals. you will have 14 minutes. >> good evening, board members. michael cramer project sponsor
363 jersey to ask you reinstate our permit. rasa moss is concerned with the excavation to accommodate a car elevator which would expose the foundation. it has been removed from the scope of work. it will be reflected in the revised addendum. the work will not commence until the shoring plans have been approved. they have been sept to the engineer for review. they are concerned with the damages by the foundation work. in the event there are damages documented and it shows due to the foundation work or excavation we will repair the damages at our expense. ray sarequested a sound proving system. we will look into a reasonable sound proving system on the add joining walls.
lighting design is not complete or designed we will take that into consideration. in addressing john and carol broderick. they requested a surveyor to monitor the property. we have hired a surveyor for both properties exhibit a and b. the work will be eliminated. brick foundation will not be touched. new foundation on 363 will be built in front of the existing brick. shoring engineer has been retained. plans will be developed before the excavation work. see exhibit 3. we will repair damages documented and shown due to the foundation work done by civil
code 832. we will provide soundproofing on the property line walls where properties are abbutted for the walls as well. we will follow procedures in the civil code 832. >> i am michael, i am the new architect taking over. he is also present. i am also the engineer on the project. if there are questions regarding engineering or structural design i am able to answer those questions as well. >> the plans that are in our possession as part of this permit still show a basement. still show. you just said we are not going to touch the original foundation, not going subterranean. why not make it easy on all of us instead of feeling around
with mr. wise's plans redo the plans and make it a new permit with those plans attached? we are going -- my feeling here. >> we can condition it. >> so basically, the addendum plans that will be submitted will have that reduced scope. the basement is not part of the addendum. >> thank you. >> just so you know, i have not heard a permit holder give everything like you guys have in quite some time. congratulations for being good builders. >> can i ask one more question? with regard to the sound, this is the problem when 120 years pass. not your fault. it is just they didn't have 120
years ago stereo systems and amplified stuff and telephones that rang loud and stuff like that. it is not your fault, but still how can we or you were very forthcoming in saying we will look into a reasonable sound system. would you be willing to go further than that? i can make promises that are interpreted as one thing but in fact my interpretation of what i am saying is different than what is expected by somebody else. how can we move your willingness to put in the sound intennation into a concrete formality for -- format for purposes of this action tonight? >> i am not a sound proving expert.
i spoke to the new architect to come up with the details to reflect good sound proving. after he developed the details i will share them with ron wallace. the neighbor's architect for his review and approval. those are part of the addendum. we didn't have time to come up with a sound proving system yet. carbon yell is here and he may speak about that. >> it may be premature to ask this. i echo my fellow commissioner in your willingness to participate in really moving this forward in a nice way. wouldn't it be better if we maybe talked about moving this proceeding down the line so you
could come back and we won't have to speculate rather than trying to figure this out tonight? >> rather figure it out tonight, i think. >> we can discuss that. that may be where i know you haven't done rebuttal yet. it may be where it might be more appropriate your architect who is skilled, the sound guy can come back to really be bulletproof on the item for all of us to see. i am done. no responseness unless you have time. >> are you asking us to grant this appeal and condition your permits with the elimination of the basement? >> yes. >> we want to be fair to the
neighbors. they have been fair as well. we are okay conditions to remove the basement. we are fine with some kind of sound proving. we don't know what type. we will provide it for their architect to review. >> we can hear from the department now. >> evening. corey tieg. i will be brief. these are not related to the planning department. the original permit was filed in 2014. the 311 notice was last year. the project sponsor and dr came to a agreement. the planning commission modified the project to be consistent. subsequently after the permit
was approved there is new ownership and their issues working with the neighbors are before you today. the permit was properly notified and does need the planning code and the residential design guidelines. i am available for any questions you may have. >> is this property class a? >> i can check real quick. i think it is p but i can doublecheck. >> it is d. is the mechanized parking satisfy the parking requirement? >> i am trying to remember how many years ago it was. i want to say five or six. the planning code was amended so that stackers and tandem parking when you only have to move one car to access vehicles were amended to meet the definition of independently acceptsible. before then they were not.
they are under correct code. it is less an issue in some distracts. often projects are not required to do a min amount of parking, they do a maximum. i can check that right now if you like. >> i have a question so you can educate me. >> a common foundation for three buildings, which would mean one building with three separate constructions on it. how common is that? >> i will happily defer to my colleague from the department of building inspection for that. >> which area? >> we had several issues before. >> why isn't a planning question. if one foundation is under three
buildings and it is a common foundation to make them all built together in my novice interpretation. what are the common areas or condominium structures associated if that were done today? is there any carryover? it is all part of the same foundation. >> that is addressed in the building code and obviously when we talk about how it is addressed from a condo perspective that is under dpw and real estate law. generally speaking the planning code is regulating the portion on the subject property, and generally it is low grade and not an issue. it is much more of a building code issue. >> i will check on the class a or b right now.
>> shall we hear from inspector duffy? >> same question. joe duffy, dbi. in the permit for the garage addition and the remodel. the sprinklers under the deck. it was reviewed. it is a site permit currently. it has been reviewed by different city agencies including planning and plan check. the issues about the foundation are valid. i do remember speaking to the neighbor about this. i will give the different scenarios when i am asked that question. i have seen it done right most of the time, but i have seen it done wrong. i have heard how the permit
holder intends to do the right thing. the statement about referring to damages to the property is fine, but they do need to get an underpinning agreement in place before they start which will take care of the neighbors' foundation. i did explain to the neighbor that is pretty common. it is seen all over the city. we have talked about it here many times. it is under section 33 on 7 of the san francisco building code and 832 of the california civil code. there are parts about who pays for what and the civil code actually would tell you the neighbor has to pay for that. in my experience and a lot of experiences it would be the developer to cover the cost of lowering the neighbor's foundation down to what they are escalating to and that is all
designed by the injuries, inspected by dbi, all in agreement beforehand. it is all up front. you do it in alternating sections and it works out pretty well. i am sure they are familiar with it as well. in this case in jersey street there is a giotech as well. i worked in that block. there are underground streams and the water table is high. the water table would need addressed. obviously, anything under ground would need to be taken great care with it. i am glad we are having the discussion tonight about it. the sound proving isn't required by the building code on existing buildings. it only comes to play on new buildings. if they want a detail for that, that would be through a
difficult at that particular time or the architects -- consultant or architects. if it is something they feel they want to do it is no problem with dbi coming up with that. that is not code regulated. that is between the property owners. other than that i am happy to answer the question on the sured foundations. it was done years ago. the same developer built three or four houses. to save money and time they joined the foundations. now people buy the property and i am sharing the foundation with someone. we look at it as different lots. they are separate. no condo stuff in to play. we have had occasions before. i think they are going to pour the foundation. i have seen the foundations split like chiseled on their
side and great care with other one that is supporting another building. it is done. it can get tricky tok honest and it is taken great care. if they want to keep the sured foundation that is okay as well. they can't go underneath someone else's profit. else's property. that would be on the underpinning anyway. dbr are involved. the agreement for the underpinning. there needs to be a sequence how that is going to happen so there is no danger to anyone's property. the survey we like those. we can't require them. if someone is willing to do it we are happy with that as well. i am available for questions. >> i have a question, doctor duffy. although sound move proving is
not required. since they are enlarging the building, when they take the existing walls down, lath and plaster or sheetrock, is there a requirement from the city and county to replace and put in insulation and to have 5/8 sheetrock or gibson? >> yes requirement for insulation to meet title 24 and the sheetrock for the fiery assistant railing. >> did you look at the walls add joining to the homes are they opened up to require replacement? i i would assume. [please stand by]
>> sure. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. seen none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. first appellant. >> looks good. devil is in the details. i hope that with this, really, i do believe these are good people we're working with. but the vagueness does not reassure me on some of the points they're all agreeing on. therefore, i hope that you can be -- grant our request for this specific condition, particularly light and sound and on the -- that's all basically at this point. i didn't talk because there's only so much time, about the water concerns underground. i'm very happy that inspector duffy mentioned that because there was a dairy up the hill and lots of water flows down. we're downhill from 363 a little bit. so -- but it sounds like dbi who
i mistakenly called mr. murphy in my brief. >> that's his uncle. [ laughter ] >> that it would be okay. so i hope you grant our conditions. thank you. >> let me float an idea. the inspector indicated that only new buildings have sound criteria and that mostly applies to canada -- condos. the state code has a standard for sound transmission between party walls in a condo. that could be a basis of a standard here rather than us screwing around with the metrics of how sound is transmitted. would you consider that? >> i would, whether it would be the same with the other
appellant, i don't know. i'm not expert on that. they've had very bad experiences. so we've had the bad experiences with the light on the cottage where my 12-year-old grandson, daughter, and her husband live, and that was with the lights being left on on the deck. we're very concerned about there being provisions, if you can demand them. that's it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and from the other appellants, three minutes. yes. >> hello again, so we're very happy that they're willing to do the shoring and -- i mean, do the monitoring. we asked they provide it at no cost and they would share the reports on a timely basis. i didn't hear them say that. and as far as the sound, it's interesting that mr. hom does not know much about it. he's the one that proposed it to
me and referred to us mr. wallace. so i would hope maybe we could have accept the system that mr. wallace designed. mr. hom actually drew a drawing for me demonstrating what mr. wallace agreed to. i think my wife wants to say a few other things. one other thing i would like to say especially because commissioner brought this up. there are other changes they want to make to these plans, changing the glazing in the back and even trying to get some -- back to ion unit. there are a lot of things that haven't come up that might become an issue. >> i wanted to say something about the sound because those of us who have gone through the hell of living either in a condominium or a house where you can hear everything next door i, horrible situation. we have some people down the street who just remodeled their
house and so i imagine they did everything to code, and the people next door to them, it's just been here i believe. horrible. the woman plays the piano. it's her job. she's a pianist. they hear her all day long. it's enough to make them want to sell their house. i mean, the fact that we probably even share a wall means that we're going to hear everything that comes through. so whatever the code is, i would like to -- whatever they do to be stronger than what they have to do, if that's possible. that's my only -- >> ma'am, i have a question for you. have you had neighbors in that property prior? >> yes, we have. >> how was the sound at that time? >> well, for a very long time, there was an older couple, and we never had any problems