little bit more research in the department on that, but i'm pretty confident that the architect has come up with a good -- with the tables in chapter 10 and the code that one exit is okay from that second level. i'm available for any questions. one other thing, i did mention -- i should have mentioned before i started. i know the contractor from [speaker not understood]. so, just so i let you know, i do know him. so, i wanted to say that doesn't make any difference to me judgment wise here tonight. but i just wanted to state that i know him from outside of here. sorry. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, no? okay. is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. my name is paul terry frances and i live at 1248 treat.

i represent myself and my wife jessica. we're both self-employed, i'm a web designer and she's a writer. the noise it will cause will drastically impact our ability to conduct our lives and our businesses. i rely on a fast data connection which we pay for through our rent. and if i were to have to go [speaker not understood] it would impact my ability to service my clients. i'm concerned especially about the shared basement. our properties share a lot as you've heard. the last when the lady moved out, the tenant who is quite old, this happened over the -- over the summer we're going to be in europe. when we come back, we had an infestation in the basement. they carried over from her property. they removed asbestos and we weren't notified, which i thought was really strange.

and it seems like the people removing the asbestos weren't really suited properly for it. then afterwards there was an odor from the removal of the asbestos for quite sometime like a week or two. the building itself is from 1893, it survived two earthquakes with with the brick foundation. i don't think the structural stability -- [speaker not understood] earthquakes, of course. i don't think the structural stability is at issue here. the issue is her getting more tenants in an already cramped space. so, my landlords have also raised concerns in the letter that i believe has been addressed to cynthia quick stone about the foundation and for other plans. the hazardous materials that probably contained in the construction and there is wet

paint. because the buildings are quite old, there is no paint around the building. there is like a said asbestos. yep, these are the concerns of myself, my wife and our neighbor [speaker not understood] who also can't be here today. and terry, of course, too. and i'm concerned about his health. we're all there pretty much there all the time. so, i interact with him a lot and it's a community concern for us if there is an issue not just like -- not just a personally affecting one. it affects all of the neighbors. that's it, thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay. seeing none, then we can take rebuttal starting with mr. malley. you have three minutes of rebuttal.

i would initially ask the board to look at my exhibit a and b in the brief and see what the egress stairs look like from basement up to the front stairs. it's total misinformation that i haven't worked and try to reach an agreement with peggy man got. she performed a bait and switch on me which we had totally agreed to work to be done to alleviate the egress, building egress in the back stairs, accommodate with me with a laundry facility. then she pulled a permit and there was nothing about apartment a included, no plans submitted, nothing. it was totally neglected that apartment b was exactly what she intended to do and she never intended to do apartment a. as opposed to the drawing that

they had -- you just looked at where my new laundry room would go, i have this picture to show it would be sticking out into my hallway. it's not as drawn -- >> put it on the overhead. it's not behind the doorjamb. it's four inches past the doorjamb. >> up the other way, face up and toward you the way you would look at it. that's right. >> that measurement would be -- the 36 is where my washer and dryer would come -- >> your current one. the one i paid a thousand dollars for. >> right. there are washers that would fit in that space. you're just referring to the one you currently have. well, i own them. if they want to buy me a new one that's two inches shorter -- in fact, i did approach peggy and say well, if you want to work out a deal with an

egress stairway off my back kitchen like you originally told me and your bait and switch, then i would agree to it and you could put the washer and dryer in there. the idea was the building department and bureaucratic malaise cannot get its record straight about what is a two-unit building -- what is a four-unit building, i mean, then it's an r-2 classification and i'm out of luck. but because it's a misrepresented clerical error. i mean when the bank foreclosed on 1244, did they foreclose on four-unit building or two-unit building? did she buy a four-dwelling building? no, she bought a two-dwelling building. the architect spent hundreds of thousands of dollars buying a building and not know how many units it has. so, it's patently absurd. it's a two-unit building, three units all singularly owned. that's it. thanks. >> can you explain to me

exhibit g on your -- i'm sorry? >> exhibit g, can you -- in my original brief? >> yes. i'm sure you referred to it in your brief. that is the existing apartment b private laundry room that still is there right now. >> downstairs? yeah. >> okay, thank you. that's the other reason why it's a fallacy that my washer and dryer is a common area. >> okay, thank you. okay, mr. [speaker not understood], you can have three minutes of rebuttal if you care to use it. my name is edmund sung. i am a professional civil engineer practicing in san francisco. i'll be speaking for [speaker not understood] for the rebuttal. first of all, in terms of the structure, it's three houses which are legally separate, but they act as one unit because

they do have shared walls and shared foundations. in effect, the foundation for any of the homes, you affect all of them. differential settlement. it is a lot worse than having a stronger foundation for just one unit. in terms of the compromise offer by ms. man got in 1244, it's pretty disingenuous because their square footage increases 900 or 900 square feet, three bedrooms. if you look at the factor of safety calculations from the original permit, it has a factor safety for over turning moment for the foundation type which they list as a retaining wall as 12. we compromise there 1.75. that is more than six times less than the original permit. that is not -- it is above code, but these are people

living in this home. >> right. i missed that. would you say that again? the original calculations showed a factor of safety of 12. >> oh, factor safety. compromise 1.75. even if you round it up to 2, that is six times less in terms of compromise. also they said that there were calculations regarding sliding. i did not see any in their set and that is basic textbook calculation for a retaining wall. in terms of what looks like graphically, this picture of all three properties have been shown. so, shared walls mean they go right through each of the properties, yet these foundations are across the

property boundary lines. they need information and they need assurances to the su family that they won't be impacted. there is resolution. they need to show planning design, construction, they need to guarantee no disruption. and if there is, they need to have a plan to compensate or to ensure that there is no loss or impact. thank you. >> have you had conversations with the architect, the structural engineer for the permit holder? i have not. i have only looked at the plans and calculations what they submited in piecemeal. so, we've gotten incomplete information. >> okay. they have not shared any of their construction planning which would be an assurance. >> thank you. >> i have a question as well, mr. su. so, given the building is three separate buildings attached with the same foundation, the initial plan was to actually

replace all the foundation. so, would that be better or worse? no, it's not three separate buildings. they act as one building. they are legally three separate properties. but if you replace one unit -- if you make one unit stronger, then you still have weakness. in this case the foundation is unbalanced as don had mentioned because it's a retaining wall. it's only favoring the center building. it is not favoring -- it is not balancing the other loads. >> okay. and then from the initial plan and the revised plan, what do you feel is the more solid of a -- it is a matter of standard of practice. it is not one factor safety more than the other. what you look for is consistency. if you're designing a structure, if you're designing the same retaining wall and the

same soil conditions, you need consistencies. you need the same level of factor safety. and you're out by a factor of six. so, there's inconsistencies in the calculations. >> i said from the revised -- i believe the initial permit was to put all brand-new foundation for the center building. would that be better or would that be stronger or less strong than the revised second? it actually would be worse for the three sets because you're only replacing the center -- for the center building. you are not accommodating for the three outer structures. >> okay. >> [speaker not understood] the plans accommodate for the two structures? the adjacent neighbors. >> i think if i understand your question, there was an original proposed plan for the foundation work that was rejected.

and, so, a compromise plan was proposed, also rejected. of the two proposed, the first one and the compromise, which is better or which is worse? the original is better. the compromise is worse because it's literally sheering the foundation, the old foundation. you're leaving part of the old foundations in place and you have a mix of old and new foundations. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear rebuttal now from the permit holder. my name is [speaker not understood] and i'm the structural engineer. i practice with a civil license. so my first, i guess issue was the factor of safety.

the original foundation is actually a bearing foundation, it's not a retaining wall. so, to argue the factor of safety is so much more than what we've provided as a compromise is, in my mind, comparing apples and oranges because the bearing wall is separate from the retaining wall. now, the issue of the sliding, that's pretty obvious that the sliding is taken care by the presence of a slab that will be there. and these are all common practices. so, the sliding issue is not addressed in the calculations because there is a slab to prevent sliding. the overturning, a we've shown in our calculations, is the factor of safety which this gentleman has presented. it's above the 1.5, which is what the code asks for. so, in terms of overturning, we've shown that the retaining wall is going to be stable. we've also accounted for the

existing load by a surcharge, which is also shown in the calculations. so, the compromise is actually stable, it's sound. we are more than willing to present that to the building department. we've done that on many occasions and it's been permitted. settlement, that's not necessarily an issue because we're actually increasing the bearing area. so, the calculations show everything. i'd be more than willing to submit my calculations and see what the building department would say. so, i guess that's my -- sorry, that's my rebuttal. questions? >> you heard the appellant for the neighboring appellant say that the original proposed plans for the foundation are superior to the proposed revision, the compromise. yes. >> would you agree with that?

oh, i am in full agreement of replacing the foundation with reinforced concrete. >> okay. so, the problem there, obviously, is that you will not have access to what's on the other side of the property line, right? if we replace the entire foundation? >> no. just -- as i understand it, the concern here is that to go with the more superior plan you would have to get permission from the owner of the neighboring -- the appellant, correct? yes. >> and you don't have -- that's not been provided. yes. >> thank you. commissioner honda, no? >> oh, i'm sorry. are you -- >> i was just going to suggest that we can replace the foundation without having access to their internal garage.

that's my understanding. is that correct? ~ okay, thank you. >> just to clarify, that's with the compromise solution? correct. the initial plan is [speaker not understood]. [multiple voices] >> correct. got it, i understand. >> i just addressed a couple things brought up in some of the public testimony. there was asbestos abatement done on the property with a permit by a licensed asbestos contractor. one other thing i forgot to mention in the original presentation, we will be adding fire sprinklers on the basement and first level. so, there is an additional level of safety imposed on that. that was a requirement as an r-2 occupancy of four-unit building. it would not have been a

requirement in a r-3 occupancy, two-unit building. and to address terry's concern, you know, about the space for a washer/dryer, there are numerous units that would work within the space allotted. ms. man got agreed to purchase one for him. i would certainly draw up the most economical use of space in the area so he would have a very functional law drib room in his unit. >> so, you would agree to replace and install at the apartment owner's expense a replacement? yes. >> that was communicated? yes. >> so, we heard testimony from the appellant tenant who stated that a compromise had already been discussed, that there's sort of a change or revoke -- revocation of that. we did look at options

during the planning phase of what it would take to provide some sort of back stairway deck off the back or an expansion of the building. unfortunately, the building is really built out to its buildable area. it's built out past the permitted rear yard lot -- the rear yard setback. so, doing that would require an extensive permitting process. i think there's -- you know, a significant chance that it would not be approved. we decided not to go down that road and instead provide the laundry in the unit. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, anything further from the department? mr. duffy, go ahead. >> i do want to state that the change in the design of the foundation will be reviewed by dbi engineers for the calculations as one of the engineers did state. we still need -- we will need to see that as a revision permit before -- because it needs to get approved by the city.

and the asbestos or the late payment requirement would be something that would have to be addressed prior to or during the construction if they disturb any lead paint they would have to take the proper procedures for that. on the noise issue and the work hours, they can work there technically they're allow today work from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. as you all probably know. nobody does that, but we do ask that the contractors post a notice around the neighborhood, let them know they're going to be starting work and that give an outreach number so maybe they can call them and maybe give their work hours and then if something happens outside those work hours or if it's too noisy, they can call the contractor and discuss it. so, we do encourage that. thank you. >> mr. duffy, i have a question actually. i know i don't usually have a question, but i do. >> oh. >> am i mistaken, then, if the board wished to revise the plans to reflect the compromise engineering, could it not be

done through the board's process by accepting revisions here as opposed to having revision permits submitted separately to you? >> that would make it available. >> so that's an option 1234 >> yes, absolutely. >> okay, thank you. ~ >> i guess one last. i would like to i guess address this to the appellant and to mr. su. is your client aware that by replacing -- replacing their original foundation, it will actually be according to the engineers that have spoken before us this evening, that it would probably be more beneficial to his building than the revised? ~ plan? can you come to the mic? we had discussed the positives and negatives of the original permit [speaker not understood] and the compromise.

what is the crux of the matter is the old foundation is -- it runs through the -- the whole length of the property, between both properties. it is the impact of demolishing that foundation, which is a cause for concern. the su family have indicated that they're okay if they build a foundation that's adjacent to the old foundation. they would be okay with that, but that was unacceptable to 1244. >> i'm just trying to sort this out, i mean, because if i had a brick foundation and someone is willing to, to upgrade that for me, basically making my house have more value and probably more solid -- it is one side. that's the problem. it is one side of the house. and you have an improved

section of the house. that means you're unbalancing the foundation for the other side. it means that there is possibility of additional cracking, weakness during seismic events, and it does -- [speaker not understood] requires pretty steady. >> so they would not be that great to do that. it may not be that beneficial to -- >> lopsided, i guess. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> want to give it a shot?

>> given the information provided by the building department as well as the engineers that spoke this evening, i'm leaning towards denying the appeal on the basis that -- >> both appeals? >> or both appeals, correct. that it's structurally sound, i guess. >> i mean, i'm leaning in the same direction because i'm not sure i've heard compelling arguments that suggest the property owner should not be allowed to go forward and do what she proposed. and it sounds like the building department supports what she proposes. and i've not heard anything to persuade me that it's a

problem. i understand the concerns about noise, but that's going to happen with any project and i'd like to believe that they're committed to taking whatever mitigation measures they can. so, i would be leaning towards denying the appeal. >> i think i feel the same way for the same reasons. i mean, in terms of the noise and those kind of things, i mean, there are avenues that the neighbors can take if it becomes an issue. there's a process for that. so, i don't really see those -- that's an issue with every project. i don't really see those [speaker not understood]. in my opinion, this was an improvement to the property and the permit holder has, i believe, tried to mitigate the impacts. and i would vote to deny the appeal. >> i would say if i had to -- my leaning is in the same direction as my fellow commissioners.

i think one of the things that concerns me is while there may have been some attempts to communicate with each other to try to work out something, i don't think that -- at least based on what the appellant -- neighboring appellant's engineer stated. it seems that there could have been further opportunity to have a better understanding about what's actually going to be done and that would be reasonable -- more reasonable than to just force something onto a neighbor that is not yet -- doesn't have all the information and then because of the impacts, and that could have been resolved. perhaps there are more discussions than were presented today, but that gave me some -- gives me some pause. but it appears that the leaning of the board is to go with the denial, notwithstanding. so -- >> commissioners, the way i

understand this, if you were to uphold the permit, the permit holder would have a permit they may not be able to execute because they don't have permission from the neighbor to do the work. it's still an option you can do and then leave it to them to work that out, or it's also an option for you to select plan b and -- >> maybe we should give it to them to work it out. >> would we rehear again or just -- >> no, not from us. >> you made a motion? >> yes. i would move to deny both appeals on the basis that they were properly issued. >> could we add that the washer and dryer -- >> i think they stated the representations on the record. >> okay. we have a motion, then, from commissioner hurtado to deny

both appeals and uphold this permit. on the basis that it was properly issued. >> they were properly issued -- [multiple voices] >> it goes on the same permit. >> sorry. thank you. >> on the basis that this permit was properly issued. on that motion to uphold, commissioner fung is absent. president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to 0, both appeals are denied. this permit is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> we're going to take a short break. >>please stand by; meeting in recess