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

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

mr. malley. you'll have 7 minutes to present your case. >>> good evening. i'm terrence malley -- >> one second. we'll restart the timer. go ahead. >>> i live at 1244 treat, i've lived there for over 12 years. the renovations to this building will affect me by moving my second, second story exit called the egress exit going from my apartment down to the basement corridor to an exterior door. ~ interior corridor the owner claims that this property is an r-2 occupancy code with four dwelling units, but it is a single-owned -- the property is owned -- 1244 is a single property. years ago it was a dual -- it was owned dually with 12 46. 1248 is a different individual, [speaker not understood]. two different owners. claiming this as a four dwelling unit is erroneous. it is a process of faulty records in the city and county of san francisco assessor's office or whatever. it's an r-3. the argument against me is that only one exit is accorded by law and [speaker not understood]. the second item is discussing removing my private laundry room in the basement which i'v