>> mr. santos, if you could fill out a speaker card or give me your business card, i would appreciate it. >> madam chairman and members of the board, i am dennis mccarthy, the owner of this building at 1166 haight street. i have owned it for 17 years. over the years this building has been neglected. i was aware of that when i bought it. there is no record of any repairs whatsoever done to that building. right now it is in dire need of repairs, and there is no easy solution. the first step in this is new foundations, and i'm here to

ask of you board members to not cancel the permanent doctor permit. thank you. >> mr. mickie, i think -- i thought you were done. i apologize. he said thank you. i thought he was done. >> is anybody else going to speak for him? >> i apologize. please go ahead. thank you. >> good evening. my name is karen, and i am the owner's new attorney, dennis mccarthy's new attorney with respect to landlord-tenant matters. i don't know what happened in the past, but from what i heard, i have a feeling that it was -- some of the tension that

was caused between mr. mccarthy and his tenants with respect to work in the building was as a result of some bad legal advice that was given to mr. mccarthy regarding the tenants and removing the tenants based on the kind and scope of work that he was told he should do. this building, just as ms. santos has indicate, needs a lot of work. in the past he was recommended to do garages, and kitchens and things like that. those were band aid rehabilitation. this needs major rehabilitation. if the tenants are suspect, i hope to move that over. i am the new attorney, and i have a few things to say. i believe that the three tenants' concerns that they are going to loose their apartment

or rent control of the apartment if these permits are approved really have no place in this permit appeal hearing. all the concerns they have are meritless, and their suspicions regarding the landlord are speculative. i say so because under the applicable statute, a landlord is allowed to temporarily relocate tenants, and they can come back and enjoy their rent-controlled apartments. they are paid $5,100 to $8,500 to relocate. they're leases are not permanently terminated. they come back to a newer, saver building. so denial of the permits here in this hearing really would not keep the vacant apartments low rent. i don't understand what the relevance of what their

arguments are except to try to communicate that their suspicions of what the landlord has in the future are i have relevant to the proceedings. it is just to benefit the tenant to keep them out of harm's way. it is a benefit of the landlord, too, so he wouldn't be at risk. i have personal experience with a case where i had indicated to the landlord you need to do the temporary eviction, you need to pay these people, but that landlord was being cheap, and he wanted the rent. this case, and those tenants did in fact sue the landlord because of the construction inconvenience conferences -- inconveniences. there were decreased services and so on. it was a nightmare.

>> did you read the submission by the engineer? >> yes, i did. >> and i believe that was based on -- we had a meeting, and he was saying well, it is possible to keep these people in the building. it is really the landlord's discretion to decide whether it is financially feasible for him to do that. >> may i read to you from his submission. you used the word possible. on page four, the first sentence read because this work is limited to upgrade, no tenant will be required to locate even temporarily. >> that is not true. >> wait a minute. >> no. >> you are saying -- you are trying to portray these tenants as being unreasonable people and why are they bringing forth this issue. of course they are bringing it forth when they have two submissions by one party that are in direct conflict with one another. i would bring this before this board also. >> the structural engineer said

it was possible, but what he omitteded from his papers was that it would be significantly costly to the landlord by moving the tenants around and doing parts of the building piecemeal. yes, everything is possible for an enormous amount of money. but the statute was not meant to say -- >> wait a minute. you are going off of what i am trying to get you to address. >> ok. >> i guess the first thing i want you to say absolutely it is reasonable that these people bring this matter before this board because there are direct conflict in two submissions by the same party. the submissions are in direct conflict with one another, and in such a way that they totally confuse the tenants as to what their future is and how this is going to affect them. >> far as this is concerned, the intention of the landlord is to do the safest, economically reasonable

procedure to get this work done to keep the tenants out of harm's way -- >> i am not questioning his motorsives for having them move or not move. i am asking you again. please address the fact that you agree it is reasonable that they are here because there are two submissions that are in direct conflict with one another, and then we'll start from there. >> it is reasonable for them to be concerned. what i am saying is it doesn't have anything to do with the permit. >> it has everything to do with the permit because part of what we have to decide is the effect of the tenants. we would all agree that the work has to be done, but before we sign off on it, this commission would like to know how long you expect these people to be out of there, when do you intend 0 start the work, how long are they going to be out of there, who is going to do the work, and you are dismissing them as though they are vexing you? >> no, because i didn't get to

finish what i had to say. this -- there are forums other than this forum to take care of their grievances. if you go to the rent board -- if it takes too long to do the work, you go to the rent board. if you think you are being denied access back to the unit. you go to the rent board. if you think you shouldn't be evicted does not make the place uninhabittable, you go to the superior court. this is a building permit. for them to bring up their suspicions, this is not the proper area. >> you need his vote. >> i am not trying to be disrespectful. it appears we have admission by the tanlt -- >> i get it. your point of view is that their issues are irrelevant to

this. the only issue we should consider according to you is whether or not this work is necessary. maybe i am the only who feels that way, and you will be lucky, but i doubt that. i think our concern is how it is going to effect the people in the building. >> one, there is no eviction action. we haven't had any discussions. how would mr. mccarthy be held harmless if they tenants insisted on staying and something happened to them? it is too premature to get into those discussions. i am sure at some point we probably will get to those discussions if it gets there. at this point, i am i am saying, i don't mean to be respectful -- >> that must have been a froudian slip. you said i don't mean to be respectful. >> i mean disrespectful.

>> i know. >> nobody has said this is a permit appeal. >> i understand you. i might have a difference of opinion. thank you. >> thank you. >> so what i am saying is the rent board for grievances -- >> your time is up. >> counselor, i think you should look at the charter as to what the powers and responsibilities are. >> is there any departmental comment? mr. corn field? snoor lawrence kornfield with the department of building inspection, just to let you know that we strongly encourage the seismic upgrade of buildings in strans, particularly the multifamily buildings, to preserve the

buildings, affordable housing and the other characteristics we so enjoy in san francisco. we in the building department are emparked on a comprehensive program, as mr. santos had noted to develop regulations for seismic up grades of soft story buildings. i don't know the cause of the need to vacate the upper floors. i haven't discussed that or understood that. but the program that we are currently embarked upon and which i understand will be introduced through legislation by the mayor possibly later this week and at the board next week is a soft story seismic upgrade program which provides opportunities to do the soft story retrofit on the ground floor without the necessity of displacing tenants. that is one of the premises of the program we are developing.

you may wish to explore what the displacement issues are. while we encourage seismic upgrade, we typically find that it is not necessary when you are doing ground floor seismic upgrades to move tenants. there may be something special here. i don't know. >> i have a question. i seem to recall that we have had cases like this come before us where the work was to be done in a non-habitable or non-inhabitted floor, and i think you've told us before that there are ways to keep the dust and debris and what-not from seeping through into the upper floors? >> there are people who can do containment with plastic and other things, vent lakes and dust control. it is possible. there obviously will be some impacts of construction, especially a big project like this. this is not just a minor

seismic upgrade project. we are putting in some braces. this is a really major and significance seismic upgrade program, more than the minimum standards we might be promulgating through the forthcoming legislation. because there is so much work in this one could well have greater impacts on the upper floor tenants. >> how long would you anticipate this work to be in reasonable -- >> i can only say that work is permitted under the building code -- i believe this work can take up to a year under the building code with extension of right possibly for another year. i didn't look that up specifically, but i believe it is approximately that. how long would it take? it continues on what resources you choose to apply to it. but our opinion is in the building department, you have the right to take the time the building code permits you to

take. >> mr. kornfield, are there life safety issues if the tenants were to remain in the building when this work was going on? >> not typically. once again, i don't know. there may be special circumstances that might apply. but typically there aren't. typically the structural work is done in a way that secures the building through the course of construction through shoring or whatever needs to be, and utilities are provided. so typically life safety is not an issue during this kind of work. >> thank you. >> mr. kornfield, the first n.o.v. indicated there were two 80's, one with settlement of a concrete pad. the other is a settlement of a portion of the building. do you have any details on that? >> i do not. i am sure mr. santos has more

details. i suspect that is why they are doing such an extensive seismic upgrade rather than a fix-up. >> i remember what he said about the settlement, but i was wondering about the departmental review board. i'm sorry. >> is there any public comment? seeing none. we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. if i could get a speaker card from mrs. donahue. >> absolutely. even now after having heard from the permit side, i am still unclear as to their position as to the tenants and their right to remain and their homes. one of the comments brought up by mr. santos was why didn't we meet? we did meet in 2009 in leah

guillermo's apartment. we had rick gill breath from mirkarimi's office. we were trying to discuss a plan that would allow the tenants to stay in place. representations were made that they would not have to leave. when we started to ask about the scope of the work, the interruption of utilities, could it be worked out where the work was done during the day when the tenants were at work, things broke off, and i heard nothing for 10 months. the next time i heard from mr. santos was via an e-mail from his associate letting unfortunate knows the per mitt had been issued. that is why we are here. we ask you to condition the permit on allowing the tenants to stay, allively, to revoke us and -- revoke it and let us go back to planning, talking about paying for this week, the

hiring of professionals that are licensed and bonded, that there is proper containment, and that is the work is done in a fashion that ensures the tenants will be allowed to remain in their homes and not lose their homes. i've spoken to other people from this voluntary project, and it seems to be that the general thought that you don't need to displace tenants. i have had conversations, including with katherine barnes, saying typically people don't get evicted. i wanted to leave the last minute. >> i just want to additionally request or further appreciate supervisor garcia's comments earlier. we are looking for advocacy for tenants who care very much about their homes and want to see that honored in this process. i appreciate the comments that have happened.

the conditions that wofede over the past five years has been very challenging and led to us feeling like this is our only recourse, is to come before the board during a permit session to talk about living conditions and wanting to be assured of a place to live. i respectfully and greatfully thank you for your team. >> mrs. donahue, thank you for the promotion. >> promotion? >> you called me supervisor. i am only a commissioner. thank you. >> you're all supervisors to me. >> if you could fill out a speaker card, i would appreciate it. >> if i could ask a question? >> sure, your honor. >> i am not of a mind, just to let you know ahead of time to overturn this and let it go back through planning, d.r. and all that. >> that's fine. >> i want to explain. there could be an earthquake tomorrow, and i am going to

wake up and say we seriously lost some affordable housing because we didn't allow this gentleman to upgrade this building. i'm going to hope that we can work out some solution that would let the work go forward with greater understanding as to exactly what is going to happen to the tenants and a whatever that is, is very reasonable. >> that is our preference. we really just want to have conditions that are consistent with what the structural engineer is saying, that no one has to leave, and it is all work limited to the ground floor level. and inconsistent with what miss otiama and her clients are saying about this week. we just want to protect the tenants. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> can you tell me where your clients live in the building? >> yes. leah is on the first level, and

you guys are on the second and third? first, second and third. there is one occupied unit per floor? >> yes. the most recent tenant who moved out couldn't take the harassment -- >> we heard you earlier. are they in different parts of the building on the floor? >> the first is the front right corner -- >> you need to speak into the microphone. >> all of them have been -- >> leah lives than 0 the front right corner, i left on the second floor in the left corner, and olivia lives on the far right corner. we are tiered, somewhat isolated from each other. >> thank you. >> i have a follow up question. from looking at the permit application in your briefing in 2005, the one that was

withdrawn in october of 2008, in it is the installation of a new 12-car garage and the seismic upgrade. i am wondering if the drawings that accompanied that permit that was withdrawn were the same drawings as the remodel page f-2 that you reference as including a garage and foundation plan? do you know the answer to that question? >> no. and even if i had that, i couldn't answer it because it was a moving target. every time we met with ross mirkarimi, the plans that were being submitted kept changing. so i don't know if this is something new, but i thinking it something new. but i'm not sure because it has changed so many times. >> ok. thank you. >> mr. santos? >> the structural plans for the

seismic upgrade have not changed at all. >> so the ones that were submitted in 2005 that included the seismic upgrade and also included a garage, these are the same as those? >> i was retained by mr. mccarthy 18 months ago. i don't know what happened before that. the permit in front of you is a seismic upgrade, structural replacement consistent with the future mandatory legislation. we did have a preliminary meeting with the tenants, and the purpose of that meeting was to explain to them the extent of the structural work. some of the conditions of this building are unusual in the sense of a dramatic settlement that has occurred in a particular corner of the building. i am delighted that

commissioner fong brought out the location of the tenants in the building. it is possible, and that was a statement i made at that meeting, that a relocation of the building for the structural work can be done. i want to apologize to commissioner garcia for not coordinating the briefings between the attorney and the report that i wrote. the intent is to do a seismic upgrade. perhaps we should have been slightly more in tune as to we presented the scope and implementation of that scope. having said that, anything is possible structurally, but it costs a lot of money. a did he formation of 11 inches of one corner is not marginal. if we were to jack up that one corner, that would generate a

dramatic c.a.c.ing of the building. it would be a different thing to explain to the tenant of that unit how we can prevent windows from popping. this particular exercise in this building is unusual in the since there were two buildings that were combined in 1918. so we have a national hinge. structurally this is a very complicated project. what is in front of you is a seismic upgrade that has been fully permitted by the city and has been studied carefully. wyoming not an expert on tenant-landlord relationships -- i am not an expert on tenant-landlord relationships, but i am an sexernt in struck turel work. something needs to be done. commissioner garcia mentioned the fact that if we don't

implement this work, we may be subject to a dramatic structural failure on this building. so we need to consider that, and particularly the message that we will be sending to people that will be within the mandatory legislation. we need to be able to work out a relationship between the tenants and landlord -- a relationship that ultimately cull mate in saved buildings. >> mr. santos, absolutely you did not have to apologize. i inferred from your firm's submission, that in your opinion, and i don't mean to put you in conflict with your client's attorney, but i inferred you felt as though this work could be done with the tenants remaining in the building. is that correct? >> that is a correct statement. usually that statement has to be linked to potential

financial ramifications of having to implement this type of significant work with people in the building. we will have to have some coordination about utilities. we may have to turn them off or unhook them during the construction phase during the day and rehook at night when the tenants come back. so there will be some significant coordination. you do not lift 11 inches of a building without expecting some type of dramatic line rupture. >> could you give us a better idea by what you mean by that settlement? where is the settling, and is the first n.o.v. predicated on the settlement? >> it is, and needless to say it has gotten worse. i think there was some construction that occurred on the eastern portion of the building that has a retaining wall. it is about six and a half or

seven feet below the level of our grade. our building has been settling and causing lateral pressure on the retaining wall. so it continues to move downward and generating stressers on the headers. >> which side? >> that would be on the southeast corner of the building. northeast. >> the northern corner? >> correct. >> and the 11 inches is across that entire corner or property line? >> yes. >> are you intending to jack up the building? >> yes. for a project of this nature, we are going to be replacing all the foundations. we have going to be replacing the intermediate footing. most likely we will have an intermediate shoring system. once you hold the building temporarily, we will use that effort to level the building and create a horizontal

condition on the habitable space. >> the original two structures that forms this building, i presume it was originally connected in the east-west direction? >> right. >> and the soft story curse across the front damage? >> fronts and back, right. a soft story condition is a condition where there is no lateral stiffness where there is a sheer wall, panel or a brace frame. >> is it in more than one location? >> sure. >> i mean is it at the stair, the entry -- >> it would be at the front, on the sides, at the light wells, in the back. a soft story condition is a lack of sheer wall that extends down to the foundation. >> so it is not a localized condition? >> it is not. >> mr. santos, i am assuming,

and i will ask mr. kornfield the same question. as you get into this and you start feeling as the engineer on the project that there is a life safety issue, is there a quick process for you to have the tenants removed for their safety? >> well, we would be working closely with a general contractor that would keep us informed of the pro depress of the construction phase. that is typically what we do on all projects. a general contractor will meet us early in the morning and give us a schedule of what they do that day. if anything deviates, they would immediately contact us, and we would probably have information related to how we can reach tenants and how we can inform them. perhaps we want them to stay away for y