into endless sessions of analysis and review because someone doesn't want the building constructed and hires engineers. it is not in the interests of san francisco. it is not in the interests of this project. it is just a very poor precedent, and i ask you not to do it. thank you. >> mr. kornfield, anything further? commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> just a variety of thoughts on some of the issues that have been brought forth. i believe that both buildings are probably being designed for basically the same intent. likely that both buildings in

the event of a major seismic event will suffer substantial damage, but they won't collapse. it is possible also that they would have to be torn down floor by floor. that factor i only bring forth because of the issue of what is safety brought forth by the appellant. the question of how one handles the other materials such as the skin, windows and things hasn't been brought forth. i don't see any responses to that. but it is likely that most buildings in downtown san francisco, except possibly a few where the designs are

extremely competent, are going to suffer the same event. it is interesting that what started out as a review process, you can see in the tenor of the letters got worse and worse. it appears that the disagreements turned highly personal to a certain extent, and that's too bad, because most structural peer reviews, plan checking and such usually occur congenially. it depends on how someone responds to certain comments. we have ascertained that the appropriate documents have been provided, although the reviews probably occurred later than

they should have. i do want to reflect a little bit on some of the comments made. yes, there are probably certain minimum requirements in a structural analysis. different engineering firms will tackle it slightly differently as a matter of their practice and their background. but also, more importantly, different firms have different levels of cons serve tism that they apply in the fact analysis. some firms are much more conservative than others, and others are more risk-takers. they probably don't last very long. but the question of then -- was the level of review here what

should be expected within the city and county of san francisco? i believe that it was. the peer review process appears to have been fairly complete. usually structural engineers don't have a problem sharing their information. in this particular instance, it didn't quite happen as compared to many other instances i have been involved in. i am prepared to uphold the permit. >> earlier this evening as some of you were here, someone in public comment raise the issue about certain members of this board and whether or not we were qualified to be up here, and suggested that we were rubber stamps for various agencies of the city that appear before us on a regular basis. a lot of times it is alan use issues, but we also deal with

public health, public works, the police department and entertainment. i imagine that some of the representatives of those various city agencies that appear before us were amused to think that we are rubber stamps of some agency because we have given them over the years a fair amount of opposition, modifying some of the things that have come before you, some of the permits. a point was brought up that what was before us is an engineer decision, and i'm going to consider it a virtue that one knows his own limitations. in this case i certainly know my own limitations, and i'm not qualified to make a decision based upon something having to do with engineering. to me what this decision is about is whether or not the processes that were applied to engineering decisions have been properly followed, and i feel

very comfortable about that. when we are told that the city, d.b.i., relies heavily on vigorous peer review processes, i feel pretty comfortable also relying upon those peer review processes. it has been suggested that a rerun be done, or that maybe there be some modification of this particular permit to codify or to memorialize a sill cut. i am going to rely on mr. korn field that that is not necessary. i feel like it would be highly prejudicial to the project sponsor. my decision to uphold this permit, which ultimately i will do, is not based upon anything having to do with jobs, but

hard to ignore the fact that we have such high unemployment in the building trades in san francisco. here comes a project that has met peer review standards that is going to provide jobs makes me want to enthusiastically embrace this particular project. >> i would like to echo some of the comments of commissioner garcia. i think i focused my concerns on this when reading the briefs and listening to the testimony on process as well. i think after hearing testimony, i feel satisfied that sufficient process in the peer review has been done. if you have the capacity -- any advocate will retain an expert, and i feel comfortable that you are well-arm here on each side, and it is a battle of the experts, and we aren't going to make those types of technical

decisions. i'm inclined to deny the appeal. >> i will jump in. with due respect to my fellow commissioners and recognizing that, given what we heard, my vote won't count, i would support a continuance because as the doctor said, someone should do a peer review of the new work and numbers. he suggested that the someone who do that review be someone who is not hired by either one of the parties. so i would support a continuance to allow that to take place. >> actually it sounds like this project is better for the process, including the advocacy that we heard tonight. i'm very well aware of the

recession. i think we have all struggled over the last couple of years to make sure we streamline the process. having said that, i think we do have to feel comfortable with the final result and that we are at all times keeping our citizens safe, and i do think there is a bit of a red flag here that the data was altered as a result of the professor's inchoiries as recent as last -- in choiries as recent as last week. i would support a continuance, but i don't think the votes are here for them. >> i think it was suggested for a 30-day continuance. i would be interested in making a motion like that to see that happen if you think that appropriate? >> if we could hear from the other commissioners on that?

>> i would ask that to be a friendly amendment and reduce that time period. it did strike me that the so-called independent experts were paid for by one side. but at the same time, there does need to -- i would be inclined to continue it only for one week. i don't know if that is adequate time. i don't know what the onsclure agreement is or if that is going to be a deal-breaker, but that is my inclination. if we did a continuance, i would amend to significantly shorten that time period. >> commissioners, the amount of review here, the amount of structural firments that -- firms that have been involved

exceeds my experience with much larger projects, and i don't think that is continuance is warranted given the high levels of review that have already occurred. i think we should resolve the situation and let them continue with their practices. >> and not to get into anything having to do with an engineering issues because i would be swimming in very dangerous southeast, but some of the changes that may have been made, like talking about cutting the sill, it was explained to us that that had already been taken into consideration, and that the movement itself would have cut the sill. it is designed that way. so that whatever is achieved by cutting the sill would have in fact occurred with the movement . the small amount of sill that was there was almost designed

to fail in order to provide that. at least that is my understanding. we have had so much review of this whole process, so many engineers have weighed in on it. if we were to weigh the engineers on one side or the other, it will seem we have more advocating for it than against it. i am saying it because it is absurd to think that we are going to gain anything from more review. there are real issues here. the project sponsor is into this very deeply. it is shovel-ready, ready to go. there are jobs that could be provided. i think for what we would gain compared to what we would lose by continuing this, it would be absurd. >> with due respect to my fellow commissioners, i am going to make a motion to continue for one week. >> being away that we don't meet next week, correct?

>> we do meet next week? >> we do? >> yes, we do. it is the week after we don't meet. so your motion is to continue this item to october 20th? >> october 20th. >> what would be the directive to the parties? >> to allow time to review the new material, the changes, and run the numbers, the squiggley lines. >> this is the first time the other side has seen it on the overhead, the new rerun on the line? >> that's right. the other side has not seen the numbers run with the new changes. >> so they have >> home run it. >> the other side hasn't run the numbers. i'm sorry. >> the permit holder has run

the numbers and has just not delivered -- >> the professor's suggestion was to have someone from the other side to look at that. >> it has been done. [inaudible] >> if the president allows you to speak, then you must speak in front of the mic. >> madam president, may i make a comment? >> not right now. it would be best if you don't. >> i think out of fairness, the other side is entitled to more time to react. i don't think bringing in an independent body to review -- these complicated tests are given at the last minute, and i think to the credit of the

professor, he raised issues to which the party responded. so it is more out of fairness to the state bar and to the professor. having said that, i am mostly in favor of this project. it is just that i think we should all feel comfortable that the t's have been crossed and the i's dotted. it was more out of equity in terms of timing. some of this could have been avoided by providing materials sooner. [inaudible] >> no, sir. otherwise, we could engage independent experts and really open this up. >> so the idea of engaging an independent expert, i didn't mean to suggest that would happen in the next week. my thought was to give the appellants the week to look at the new material.

>> vice president goh, would you invite the parties to address the board again? there is no time for briefing. >> there is no time for briefing, so it would be tomorrow. so orally presentations, five minutes each side. >> all right. >> how many votes do we need for a continuance. >> you need three votes. >> so then the motion is from the vice president to continue this matter one week to october 20th. the public hearing is held in and closed. no additional briefing is allowed, but five-minute presentations per side. right? >> right. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> can i vote twice?

no. >> president peterson? >> aye. >> commissioner hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 3-2. the matter is continued one week to october 20th. with that, there is no further business. we are adjourned. >> welcome to culture wire. the arabs don't possible has bringing you the best of the

arab film to the bay area. this year's festival is no exception. consider the most important arab film festival outside of the arab world, the festival offers a rare window to the arab world and its diverse community. featuring 24 films from over 18 countries, it is also one of the only four runs that showcases new works by established and emerging arab filmmakers. the possible films in four cities. in addition, the festival organizers a film series for high-school students free of charge. this year's lineup offers something for everyone, including shorts, documentary's,

comedies, and dramas. >> [speaking arabic] the mission of the arab film festival, since it its inception in 1996, and it came about -- members of our community realized there was stereotyping of arabs in the media, and they wanted to change that proactively. they wanted to use the power of film to bring in the stories, to bring in authentic images and

narratives of the arab world, here to american audiences, in order to fight the negative stereotyping, and to introduce the positive, authentic images to america, which iraq california, -- throughout california, a teasing familiarity, establishing harmony between our communities. the selection this year it is really a good selection. it is perverse, comes from more than 18 countries. it has a bit of everything for everyone. -- it is diverse, comes from more than 18 countries. there are shorts, and from us, comedies, you name it. this year, the film festival

takes place in the castro. there is a comedy film from nigeria that is pretty hilarious. you can get to know arabs threw their laughing as well. [speaking in foreign language] >> when you come to see all the diversity, nationality, ethnic, skin color, dialect, anything that you can think of, that world is very rich in diversity. we are trying to represent that diversity so people can see the different parts of the arab world. [speaking in arabic]

>> people should participate in the festival because of the benefits they can get. first, the educational benefit of learning about the stories of the arab world. diverse stories. people in the united states sometimes think of the arab world as a lump sum. what is good about the arab film festival is the also have a festival for the school's program, which we have films where we invite free of charge, i schoolers to come and attend. every year, high schoolers to go out really with a good experience, attending and watching these films. the arab film festival is not only about the festival in october. we also have year-round programs. check out the film festival to run the year, not just in the fall.

-- throughout the year, not just in the fall. the best thing that somebody can take away from the arab on festival is the arab cinema is talent. it is beautiful. the stories have that they represent are good stories, beautiful stories. also, the art form is beautiful and well made. >> for a complete film schedule and to learn more about the arab film festival, visit

there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production. it's interesting, you get to create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has a computer and who doesn't have

a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tools effectively. . >> the city is charged with coming up with digital inclusion. the department of telecommunications put together a 15 member san francisco tech connect task force. we want the digital inclusion program to make sure we address the needs of underserved vulnerable communities, not communities that are already very tech savvy. we are here to provide a, b and c to the seniors. a stands for access. b stands for basic skills and c stands for content. and unless we have all three, the monolingual chinese seniors are never going to be able to use the computer or the internet. >> a lot of the barrier is knowledge. people don't know that these

computers are available to them, plus they don't know what is useful. >> there are so many businesses in the bay area that are constantly retiring their computer equipment that's perfectly good for home use. computers and internet access are helping everybody in the community and people who don't have it can come to us to help with that. one of the biggest problems we see isn't whether people can get computers through programs like ours, but whether they can understand why they need a computer. really the biggest issue we are facing today is helping people understand the value of having a computer. >> immediately they would say can i afford a computer? i don't speak any english. how do i use it. then they will start to learn how to do email or how to go back to chinese newspaper to read all the chinese newspaper. >> a lot of the barrier still is around lack of knowledge or confusion or intimidation and not having people in their peer network who use computers in

their lives. >> the important thing i learned from caminos was to improve myself personally. when i first came to caminos, i didn't know anything about computers. the second thing is i have become -- i have made some great achievements as an individual in my family and in things of the world. >> it's a real issue of self-empowerment where new immigrant families are able to communicate with their families at home, able to receive news and information in their own home language, really become more and more connected with the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to stay in san francisco is

critical to that. >> the important thing that i see here at caminos is it helps the low income community, it helps the women who wouldn't have this opportunity otherwise. >> the workers with more education in san francisco are more likely to be able to working that knowledge sector. where they are going to need that familiarity with the internet, they are going to find value with it and use it and be productive with it every day. and half of the city's population that's in the other boat is disconnected from all that potential prosperity. >> we really need to promote content and provide applications that are really relevant to people's lives here. so a lot of the inspiration, especially among the immigrant community, we see is communications with people from their home country but we as much want to use the internet as a tool for people to connect within the local san francisco community. >> i think it's our job as public educators to give them this access and give them this opportunity to see that their

efforts are being appreciated beyond their immediate reach. >> you have to blend this idea of community network with computer equipment with training and with support. we can pull all that together, then we've got it. >> it's as much about social and economic justice -- in fact it's more about social and economic justice than justst