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 from looking at the permit application in your briefing in 2005, the one that was withdrawn in october of 2008, in it is the installation of a new 12-car garage and the seismic upgrade. i am wondering if the drawings that accompanied that permit that was withdrawn were the same drawings as the remodel page f-2 that you reference as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 a day or so and whatever we find in the construction phase. >> fs required they be away longer than that, you are hoping it is some someone's power that these tenants understand that with the type of construction going on, they may be asked to leave. even for it may be the wishes

of this board they get to stay, that if it becomes a life safety issue, it would be in the d.b.i.'s mour to effect that? >> yes. they have emergency orders and procedures to allow us to execute some structural effort that would be done quickly and notify the tenants. trust me, the key here is safety. we want to make sure that a building of this side and of this magnitude -- and i agree with mrs. fox's statement, that it is important that the financial resources are there to implement this work. we wouldn't want to take on this project without being able to properly fund it. >> and do we currently know that the financial resources are in place? >> i don't know that. >> if the tenants were to move out, how quickly could do you that? all the tenants move out and nonis in the building, how long

would it fake to affect what you need to do to make it seismically safe? >> right now, probably no less than six months. every time you ask a structural engineer how long it will take, we always respond six months, but in this case it actually would take six months. there is the retaining wall, the staging and the curing process, and the structural steel. we are ordering the structural steel ahead of time. as commissioner garcia mentioned, we will be working closely with a reputable, fully bonded and insured contractor that is going to be keeping up abreast of all the elements of construction. we in turn will tell the tenants if there are any deviations from the previously agreed schedules and plans.

>> can you estimate sort of by percentage how much the cost would increase if the tenants were to stay in the building? >> that is a good question. i think it was asked, and given the nature of that settlement, i want to venture to say it could be maybe 25% more than we would in order nearl spend for an effort like this. there is nothing easier than a remodel with humans not in it. >> would that be diminished at all if the tenants moved to one side of the building, everybody on the right or the left? >> we could relocate them and potentially sovereign the impact of the additional costs. that was one of the suggestions i made, and i think commissioner fong suggested it as well. where are they in the building

and how can we phase and restructure the work so the corners can be done first, and then we could relocate them. yes, that can be done. >> mr. santos, would you translate 25% into own absolute figure? >> it it was a $345,000 -- >> i didn't know what the cost was. so approximately $85,000 or $90,000? >> yes. >> wow. >> it's a big building. and it has a brick facade on it. it is a beautiful building, and we are by no means wanting to difficulter the historical con text of the building. mr. keark is willing to go through this exercise. >> thank you. anymore from the departments?

commissioners, the matter is submitted. there was no more time for the rebuttal. it is up to the president. >> i will give you a question, counselor. do you disagree with what your engineer just said? >> yes, in part. it is not that easy to ask people to leave. my job is to keep the tenants safe and mr. mccarthy free from risk of liability. that is the reason why there is a rent board, rent ordinance section 37.9, a, 11, called a rehab eviction, where you give the tenants 60 days notice, they get paid their relocation expenses. they get invited back when the work is done. it is in everyone's best interests for mr. mccarthy to keep the tenants in there if he feels it is safe for him and them. if you can get rent for three

apartments and keep the tenants in there, why wouldn't you? mr. mccarthy has to think about -- if there is c.a.c.ing in the building, and bending windows, and the doors don't shut, and we find out in the middle of the situation that this building is now unsafe and uninhabittable, do you think i could just call the sheriff if the tenants don't want to leave on time? absolutely not. it would be a wrongful eviction. you have to go through the eviction. there is consideration paid. we are trying to keep people safe. we are trying to keep the landlord free from potential liability. >> counselor, we understand the point you are making. >> you brought up the issue why would mr. mccarthy in this case want somebody to leave when he could be collecting rents? the reason he would want them

to leave is he would have to collect rent from each tenant in the amount of $5,000 per month to break even. >> he is not getting any rent. >> how did i get that figure? that they would have to be paying $5,000 a month for him to come out ahead. >> that is just a relocation expense. >> listen to me again. you made the statement that mr. mccarthy would rather have them stay there because there is the rent issue, and he would rather get the rent. mr. santos told us that the addition cost by having the tenants there could approach $90,000. so that means that in order for this to actually benefit mr. mccarthy, he would have to be receiving rents in the amount of $5,000 per month from each tenant. >> i don't understand. >> i can tell you don't.

>> you are trying to -- >> not at all. >> a less amount, be safe from liability, and he doesn't have to pay an additional amount of $85,000, being scared them suing him, then the most financially feasible thing to do is to move them. >> we have heard this before. can we go into deliberations? >> i am through, thank you. >> i have a point. i think based on these kinds of cases we have had in the past, it is kind of a mixed point of view. on the one hand, i support mr.

mccarthy and his right to pursue a permit that is authorized an approveable by city agencies and that makes sense. i don't think anybody disputes that here in this room tonight. at the same time we are trying to meld it -- not necessarily to the extent that ms. fox wants us to and the type of statements that she and her tenants want us to make with respect to our powers and what it can do assert their tenancy. perhaps i am too much of an optimist, but i think there is a middle ground here, and that middle ground is going to require us to continue this and give them a very short period

to see what they can do on a negotiateded basis since they haven't been doing that. i believe both sides have indicated that they know some level of negotiations are going to occur, and i want to see to what extent they can either agree or not agree. the point i think can revolve around two things. one is if the scope of the foundation work here is not something one could do real quickly, the type of work that there is a lot of hand work to do this, it is going to be requiring phasing. a logical scope of phasing would be where they took the settlement side, which is the norton side of the building, start there and work across the entire length of that building and then do the opposite side.

if that was the case, then the tenants could potentially remain and not create life safety issues for themselves. the other side is not the side that is settled, and as they jack up the building, there may be less of an impacts. at the same time, if they were relocated to units on the upper levels, then you have a little bit less of a disturbance and potential problem. there is a significant amount of work at that first floor level. between adding the steel there and the type of connections that they are going to need to tie the upper story building to the new stiffer foundation and lower portion, they are going to have to do an extensive amount of work to that floor to be able to transfer the loads.

i am laying this out because i think i would like to ask them to spend two weeks on a negotiation. if they can't get anywhere, then we'll have to do what we have to do. >> and let me be clear. what would take place in those two weeks? they would decide that the tenants might have to all move to one side of the building on some temporary basis? >> i am saying that is one option. the question is if the property owner and the permit holder is absolutely against it, we'll find out. but there are a number of options here, but it is going to involve a little give and take on both sides. i think there are ways to address the safety issues in terms of proper egress. there are easy ways to deal with the dust, not so easy ways to deal with the noise.

and ms. fox knows this. there are other issues related to how much time they spent at construction during the day, which days of the week. then you try to might be mies some of these issues. >> would part of your proposal that we haven't addressed yet whether or not the where with all is there? >> i think it is reasonable on the part of these tenants to have a certain amount of distrust for mr. mccarthy. i'm sorry, mr. mccarthy, but that's how i feel. and for them to be assured that -- let's say it turns out they actually have to be relocated. the project then starts, and then the project stalls because the money is not there, and when they thought they might be moving out for six months, it goes on and on because he doesn't have the money, and now the building is unsafe. that is part of what has to be in place, at least i think it

is important to have that in place so that the tenants have a very much clearer idea than they currently have as to what this project is going to do for them. >> it is going to be a very real concern of whoever the contractor is. he is going to want to know where the financing is coming from. >> but wame saying we share that information with the tenants. >> we are giving them an opportunity to see where they can get in a couple of weeks' time frame. instead of us imposing -- in this particular instance, it is going to get quite complicated. >> i just wanted to say to mr. mckeark's counsel is what you are hearing is i don't think you are going to have the votes for upholding the permit as is. think there is some motivation

here that has to be on your client's part to work out some solution. i don't know if that is possible. >> if you are going to speak, you need to come forward. >> there is a very simple solution. a hold harmless agreement. if we find a way for them to be safe that everyone feels comfortable with, and my client doesn't have to worry about being sued on this very decision we are makinged too, and if they sign a hold harmless that they are not going to sue on anything having to do with the building, that is very building. >> counsel, you and ms. fox as attorneys are going to have to see if you can find a way to deal with this issue. otherwise, it is going to be put on us, and we probably would like both sides to not be

happy. >> just a concern that mr. garcia had about if he runs out of money, a delay, they are out for long periods of time. the remedy is with the rent board. or with the superior court. >> we are trying to prevent some of that. >> pardon? >> we are trying to prevent some of that. >> right. think a hold harmless would be the way to go if they insist on staying in the building. >> i am going to interrupt you counsel. if your position is without a hold harmless agreement from these tenants, you are not interested in having a conversation to settle, i would be willing to call the question now. i think that is not a position of someone who is willing to actually engage in potentially fruitful negotiations. i understand, commissioner fong

you are willing to give the parties two weeks to try to settle it, you and maybe they could. but with that coming out of this counsel, i don't see it happening. >> my belief is it is the discretion of the landlord to decide whether to implement that type of temporary relocation. >> we are attempting to give you two weeks to try to work it out with the tenants, and i think that is generous, frankly. >> we'll take it. we will act in good faith. good faith is one of the requirements for this type of situation as well. >> typically when a permit like this comes before us, all these details have been worked out in advance so we know what the effect is on the tenants. i don't know under what authority we can decide not to let it go forward, but it would probably have to do with community standards. i would recommend you check the

charter and determine what the powers are of this board and whether or not your position is as powerful in this negotiation as you seem to think it is. >> i agree with the terms. we should definitely work out in good faith something that is workable for everybody and safe for everybody. >> i think that i accept that for what you say, and i think ms. fox heard me, too, saying i support the basic premise of this permit and the permit holder's right to do that. but i think there are innumerable ways that we can condition a permit, and most people are not happy when we condition them. >> that is why i accept the terms. let's work it out. >> i think that we need to continue this for you to have an opportunity, but it looks like the appropriate opening is october 13th.

is that ok with both parties? >> i will make myself available. >> ok. i hope you folks will get a lot of work done. >> and again, all this being done, we are assuming there are no life safety issues with the building in its current state. >> is that a motion, commissioner? >> excuse me. and all this is being done because there is an assumption that there are no imminent life safety issues in this particular building. >> currently. >> currently, yes. >> that is correct. >> well, in the absence of any seismic event. >> right. >> that is my motion, is to continue this, see if there is an opportunity for them to get closer, or even come to an agreement, to october 13. >> thank you. are you allowing any additional