the seismic upgrades of the building and are seeking conditions to protect the tennis from eviction either through making the work conditions so intolerable that they move voluntarily or that they are served some kind of notice of determination and they're camped out indefinitely. their responses are both in consistent with each other. one says that no one will be effected, not even temporarily. then there is a declaration that there is no way that this will be kept. we are here to ask for your assistance and protection.

>> i live in the building for 12 years. i love this apartment. this has been strange ever since we have started this process about doing improvements to the apartment, it is changed. we would want anything done in terms of safety but it started off with planning to remodel our kitchens and bathrooms. we don't really know what is happening. there has not been anything on the land lured side to fill the units and it really questions at what the intention is of this work since it has been so sporadic. the landlord, whenever we have

visitors to the building, he has been very difficult with dealing with them. he often approaches them outside a department and questions them and sometimes asking them questions to the point of harassment. there is a lot of questions about what the point is of this process. >> i live in apartment 11.

i am very happy in my apartment. i have really two issues. one is the issue of supporting any seismic work that is done to make the building safe. the second problem or i should say in addition, a want to make sure that the permit that is afforded by the board is a permanent condition on no one losing their apartment. that is really important. that building will be habitable during the work. they will use professionals who are qualified. that is important for us to know. i would like to make sure that mr. mccarthy has the financial

worth all two finished his work because what we would like to see the work continuing a set of being stopped due to financial considerations. do those things, we can service support what mr. mccarthy is trying to do. the other issue is the whole question of our relations with mr. mccarthy asbestos since this process started five years ago. of like to take exception to a statement that was made in response to the brief. i think that this is 0.19, lines 2-3. most of the tenants have voluntarily moved out and have been sympathetic to my situation.

i know all of my neighbors well and that is absolutely not true. most of the people have moved out because the climate has been very hostile and unsympathetic. this question of lamb or tenant relations is really important. we will be in the middle of this construction site and this is really important. one elderly lady who was getting harassed actually sought legal help and the attorney had to

write a letter on her behalf to make sure that her visitors and friends and family were not harassed. i noticed in her correspondent that the harassment continued even after this letter. >> i agree that there is a seismic upgrade. there is concern that mr. mccarthy is using permits out of this.

the very intense experiences have been hostile and not release supporters of a healthy living environment. he has gone through our garbage. he has taken our garbage. this is not just about a permit, this is the someone who systematically trying to prevent people. >> we will hear from the permit holder now. you also have seven minutes.

thank you. >> i am the cartilage engineer for the project. what is in front of you is a structural permit. i am delighted that some tenants are supportive of the seismic effort. there have been efforts through the years and this is exactly the type of building that we need to be upgraded. the structural drawings are in your template and they described the effort and what has been done to this space. all work would be done below the floor. this is all part of new perimeter footings.

the actual condition of the building is deplorable. this exceeds 11 and a half inches. this is substantially weakened. i was retained about 18 months ago to work with the building and property owner. in regards to the relationship between the project sponsor and the tenant, the attendant has ever been evicted. i just heard from ms. fox that she some read the click 15 -- that she read the conflicting report. if they have no issues with the permit, why appeal it? they call me, we can meet.

can we get the project sponsor to meet? it does not make any sense that he will appeal a permit that you are fully supportive of. why appeal? they made some statements in regards to mr mccarthy we would like an opportunity to introduce ourselves. & mr. mccarthy? >> 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