>> because there are two appeals, you have up to 14 minutes. you don't need to use all those minutes, but you're entitled to them. good evening. thank you for your time. my name is peggy man got. just give you a little bit of background, i purchased the building in november 2010 and there were one tenant in the upper unit, terry malley, and another tenant in the lower unit. approximately eight months ago the tenant in the lower unit, her caregiver notified me that the tenant would be moving into assisted living facility and that she'd be vacating the unit in approximately, you know, 30, 60 days. i told her take as long as she needs. so, after she got -- that tenant moved out, that's kind of how we ended up here. so, it was time -- [speaker not

understood] at least 39 years of deferred maintenance. it has an existing brick foundation as it has been established here. and it was time to actually totally renovate the unit. so, that's why we're here today and that's kind of how this started. i will let you know that in my opinion, and based on what was told to me by the caregiver in the existing unit, that i have been the best tenant -- sorry, one of the best landlords that her person that she was caring for has ever had. that i've been very flexible. i never raised the rent for either of the tenants. i was responsive when there were issues and there were things that needed to be fixed. so, at a very high level i'm going to respond at a high level to terry's -- the elements of his appeal, and then separately to the dunsu

other appeal at a high level. and would ask that the very capable licensed architect, contractor and structural engineer can kind of help fill in the details. so, according to terry's appeal, he's appealing this on two bases. one, wee we're removing and not replacing a second required egress. it is our position that that egress is not required and the existing stairwell isn't safe or permitted. the second element of his appeal is that our proposal would remove a space that is part of his lease, this laundry room in the basement. and it's our position that what we are proposing is preserving his laundry facility, but moving them into his unit. i agree that that is his washer

and dryer, it's his. and i agree he's had laundry facilities as long as he's been there, or since i've owned it. but i do not agree that is his exclusive square footage in the basement. and also, if you look at the permit history, that's not permitted usable space. it was never a permit to installed a laundry facility. so, that's kind of a problem. and, you know, lastly, both terry and the other appeal, what they're asking for is not some sort of compromise. they're asking for you to revoke the the permit and for, you know, me the property holder to not be able to do anything to the property. and i'm not sure that that is considered reasonable. at a very high level, the second appeal -- there's three bases. the first one is that it is unlawful. and based on the approved building permits, everything has been done totally to code, totally by the book. i would argue that it is a

lawful project. the second element is that we have an incomplete design. i would submit it is a very complete and detailed design. and the third one is based on community impact, that not good for the community to expand to the basement. and i don't see a good basis or good history for why that would be a good reason to reject the building permit. and then i'll end with that also they're asking you to rescind the permit, not asking for some kind of compromise, which i'm not sure [speaker not understood]. with that i'm going to give it to [speaker not understood]. hi, my name is troy [speaker not understood]. i'm the project architect. there has been a little confuse, i think. this is a confusing property. it's three adjacent buildings

built with party walls between them. they are three separate parcels with three separate owners. i'm going to put on the screen a block book. so, the parcels are 9, 9a and 10. 9a and 10 are considered by the building department to be a single building that's clear in the records. i think dbi will probably speak on that. it is a four-unit building legally by the records. this is a, probably a [speaker not understood] thing and, you know, the cfc for this building is as a four-unit are two occupancy which is more than two dwelling units. the code requirements for an r-2 occupancy in terms of

exiting are more restrictive for a -- than they are 3 occupancy. [speaker not understood]. a two-unit building is similar to a single-family residence and it's less restrictive. this is a front view of the three parcels. 1240 is the adjacent neighbor to the north who is appealing regarding the foundation, and 1248 is the adjacent neighbor to the south. we are 1244. two-story over basement. the proposal is to develop space at the ground or at the basement floor. this will require replacement of the foundations as part of the overall building upgrade.

currently we have a one bedroom lower level unit. ms. man got wishes to make it more habitable in term of expanding it for additional bedrooms and additional bathrooms. so, regarding the issue of the elimination of the second means of egress, i've outlined in my brief the code sections under which this was approved. section 10 15, section 10 21, i'm sure the department of building inspection can speak about compliance with that. only one means of egress is required. the existing stairway which mr. malley speaks about, originally was not a part of the building. it was not constructed with the permit.

it is not code compliant in many ways. it's approximately 20 inches wide at the lower level, has a nine-inch tread, nine-inch riser incomplete and incorrect handrail. you access the basement through a hatch. you come down a stairway to a point at which the stairway stops. you open a vertical hatch and you go down into the basement. this is no means a code compliant egress stair and, in fact, creates a safety hazard in the event of a fire. i think ms. man got has spoken about the laundry room issue. the second appeal of the permit is regarding the replacement of

a foundation. our original building permit application requested that we replace the entire foundation with concrete. given the objection at the neighbors, we met with them to try to come up with a compromise solution. this compromise solution [speaker not understood] a new retaining wall which will carry the weight of four structures while leaving the substantial portion of the existing brick foundation in place. this drawing shows our proposed compromise solution foundation wall. in this solution ms. man got would lose a portion of her living space at the lower level

for the length of the building, but she's willing to do that in order to satisfy their concerns. so, you can see we are leaving a existing brick foundation and pouring a new foundation adjacent to it. this has been designed by professional engineers. we have engineering calculations to document all the concerns about sliding, overturning, and this is a superior design to the existing brick foundation. it's a big improvement and an upgrade. the weight of the party wall will be carried not only by the existing brick foundation, but by the new concrete retaining wall. our engineer, mr. iver is here if you have questions for him about the design of the foundation. he'd be happy to answer. so, in summary i think we've attempted to compromise with the neighbors on the foundation.

for whatever reason they don't accept it. with regard to the sewer line, we recognize that there may be a shared sewer line between the properties, you know. our contractor has said that he will do his best to minimize any disruption, give advance notice. he felt that he could, you know, replace the sewer line up to a point, disconnect the existing one, make the connection, and it would be a very quick process. so, we're available for questions should you have them. >> just one quick one. has this new proposal of this compromise been presented to the neighbors? yes, it was. it was presented early on via e-mail. i sent some e-mail documentation in our brief of that correspondence. i'm not quite sure if their

motivation for rejecting it other than some level of either miss trust or misunderstanding. i just want to be clear. we met with them in person, on the property, walked with them through the plan. it wasn't sent by e-mail, just to be clear. and walked through how this would be different, how i would be giving up space in order to accommodate them. so, we spent some time. >> do you understand the concerns that were raised by the appellant regarding the neighbor appellant? do you understand each of the points raised? regarding the foundation? >> yes. yes, i do. >> and how have you addressed -- you're addressing them by saying, we'll give up some space in our foundation -- the original proposal was to replace the entire brick [speaker not understood]. >> right and leave that there. he we have proposed this alternative should -- which we think is a reasonable compromise. ~

compromise to create the concrete foundation. they sent, i think they have a family member who has an engineering background who looked at it, raised some concerns. our structural engineer has addressed through the calculations those concerns about the stability of what we're doing. our contractor is, you know, well experienced in installation in supporting the structure during construction. >> okay. i think there was a concern raised about not having assurances or insurance coverage like some type of bond to the extent there was any damage to the neighboring property. was that discussed? [speaker not understood]. that was not discussed with us. >> i thought i heard that tonight, but maybe i didn't. there was a brief, that wasn't in the brief. i think that was brought up at the end of their testimony tonight. >> okay, but never before between you. yeah. >> okay, i see.

what do you think of that? well, i'm using bonded licensed contractors to do the work. and we've also made assurances that if there's any cracks or anything, that we will repair them at our expense. i don't think there's any issues there. >> okay. yeah. and i would just add, you know, i believe the existing design, not even the -- i think it's our position that the existing design is a good design and that some of the concerns around shifting and sanding are not valid concerns. if we're coming with a compromise more because -- not because we believe the existing design is wrong, but more because, you know, we believe they have living space down there, that they don't want personally disrupted by us removing the brick. [multiple voices] and the initial design was to actually replace b, the brick foundation that are supporting both properties. that's correct. >> basically giving it a much

sounder foundation for both properties. actually for both properties, exactly. >> okay. >> i have a question about where on your plans -- can i see where the laundry facility would be? ~ placed in the proposed? if you turn to sheet a2.0 -- i'll put it on the screen. detail number 3, laundry is right there. that could also be a stackable unit as well. if, you know -- >> so, currently that's based on a.0, there is nothing there but a little storage area.

so, the storage you can leave and do stackable next to it? correct. the storage there is storage overhead. >> okay. that is the location of this small stairway that goes down to the lower level unit. if you turn to -- if you turn to exhibit i in the brief, the clouded area is the stairway, the noncompliant stairway that mr. malley is referring to. >> okay. and, so, where that goes down would be infilled. >> i see. so, the stairs are down there. but those stairs go down to the first floor and then pass through the noncompliant stairwell. correct. in the original construction

that stairway was probably like sort of the back wall stairway from the first story to the second story. and the portion there was added, presumably -- i don't know when, but from the first story to the basement. and that's where that hatch is that was referred to. >> right. >> when you say the sewer line, the change you said would be really quick, what does "quick" mean? an hour? a couple hours is what the contractor told me, they would have the new sewer line brought to a point where they can connect it to the existing -- disconnect the existing and reconnect. we don't know until the excavation happens what the condition of that sewer line is if there is an element -- >> [speaker not understood].

this is our contractor. >> okay. [speaker not understood] contractor for the project. the plan was -- my name is eugene, oak leif construction. the plan was for the sewer line to have all our sewer connections done before we make the final sewer connection to the existing property. >> right. so, we'll take like 45 [speaker not understood] to make the final connection. in that case we give them a couple days' notice so it wouldn't be a problem. >> did you say 45 hours? 4 to 5 hours. >> 4 to 5? yes, 4 or 5. >> thanks. on the construction and the noise, both appel apartments have raised concerns about noise. ~ and the first appellant raised concerns about the all -- length of time the construction would [speaker not understood]. can you address that point? sure. in terms of length of time, that's under the control of the contractor really.

i know peggy has a great interest in expediting this. it's in everyone's interest for this not to drag on. i know mr. malley is very efficient -- i've worked with him on three other projects now and he gets it done very quickly. i would be very surprised if this took more than the four months. in terms of construction noise, that is always an issue. we have buildings all over the city. party wall buildings. certainly those limitations on hours of construction, but they will be there hammering, there will be sawing, there will be temporary supports made, suring. there will be concrete trucks. i don't have necessarily a way to mitigate that beyond saying that i know the design team, peggy, and the contractor will be very courteous and try to, you know, give notification when -- keep the neighbors and

the tenant updated as to what's going on and when. do the best we can with it. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, mr. duffy. >> commissioners, just on the building use, i got the [speaker not understood] for today. we're showing the building as a four-family dwelling with party wall. and obviously there is a [speaker not understood] foundation issues and stuff like that. we have buildings in san francisco that fall into this category where we started off as one building. it isn't two different lots. i'm not sure how that happened. it may have gotten a lot split and built like that, but it is what it is. and we, as i say, we recognize it in the building department as a four-family dwelling with party wall.

so, therefore when the building permit came in, it correctly stated that it was a four-family dwelling. now, the other property 1248 [speaker not understood], last week i was saying it's very frustrating sometimes on the permit history on these buildings. but appears from what i'm looking at, i do believe it is a four-family dwelling with party wall. and just -- the permit seems to have been applied for and went through the proper process of approval from what i'm looking at. i will speak a little about the brick foundation. any time i see a brick foundation and someone's willing to upgrade that, i would say it's definitely a good idea. as a matter of fact, it might make more sense to do all the foundations. it's possible at this time because the brick -- it's been proven not to work in the seismic [speaker not understood] we live in.

it's definitely a good idea. i would encourage anybody that in this property, if it's possible to do all the brick foundation, maybe get together and do it. but sometimes that's harder -- easier said than done. but in regards to doing the brick foundation and doing this work, certainly the building department would ask them, would ask the engineer to come up with a sequence plan. we're doing it in small sections at a time. you can't just take the whole section and leave -- you can sure the house, but it's better to do it in sequences of three feet and they can do it in maybe a three-foot section at one end, start off, and then meet in the middle or something. so, it's -- we see it all the time and it's pretty safe in my experience. we do ask probably for geo tech size reports on the progress as they're doing the construction. the other point is that i heard someone mention about maybe someone had concerns about the building moving. and you could put on some data points prior to construction and there could be monitored during construction to see if

there's any movement in the building -- any of the other buildings. that's something that we like to see as well. and that's usually monitored by the engineer of record. and the other party could hire their own engineer and have them work together during the construction. on the exiting from the unit on the other appeal, i was at the building actually -- i went to the building today, and i don't think that is -- i definitely wouldn't consider it a legal exit. it was more of a starter basement at one point you would walk down. there is a picture of it in the brief and it certainly wouldn't meet the codes today for any sort of an exit. and the gentleman that lives there may use it for that, but i don't think it is. the architect did provide me with some occupant load currents. i do believe from reading it one exit would be okay from

that second story. and i wouldn't mind doing a 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