high-rise. we believe under the circumstances in addition to the new policies incorporated in your general plan the proximity to the pg&e facility requires is a different occupancy clarification welcome back be used such as used was modern art. typically a single-family dwelling is given a occupancy dwelling rate of two. if you have a lot of causalities two is okay. but the number of people adversely impacted by dedicate it creates an impact of loss of human life it's prefer

able to use a hire classification of 3, in fact, it was done to the modern art we believe that the classification should be used as 3 not 2 and for that reason if you do use the classification of 3 the capacity of the facility must be higher than contemplated when you use a lower classification so because of the unique classifications of this facility and it's location to the pg&e building we believe that the new standards of san francisco require a heightened design. so that moongdz you minimize property damage and you undercut the realignscy program that san francisco has spent a lot of money pursing.

we saw to a smaller degree at northridge in 193 and nooud entire neighborhoods became ghost turns down. a perfectly good building was red tagged. the entire neighborhood was disputing shut down that diversifying contract is not resilient in san francisco. not only are we trying to make sure that 9 resident can return to their property after an earthquake to make sure that the entire neighborhood it not cripp legally. i'm happy to answer any questions in the remaining few

minutes i'll explain the details how it's achievable. to date we've requested from the city and the developers that they share with us the information so we can see the 3 prong analysis that's used in the a b-83 the tall building initiative for buildings outside the code this facility is much higher than what the code is it is a b-3. there are 3 steps they're using that analysis one relates to a very frequent type of earthquake 50 percent of happening in thirty years and the second is an event that commissioner fung mentioned and the maps of the event. this procedure this a b generated includes demonstrates

to the accepted standard for those hazards are being met there's performance goals for each one of the hazards. we believe there are enhanced performance goals not minimum standards being adapted for this project. i'm going to give you a hypothesis how it works in the real world. this is from some of the commentary for the code how it worked in this arena provided by fema it's affiliated with fema and i can see we have 3 other than the vertical axis 3 hazards the earthquake and the design event that commissioner fung referred to and the maximum

event we have 4 corresponding categories of performance targets for the structures. the minimal standard on the far right for a facility frpgs for a single-family dwelling out in the middle of a cornfield you'll not have a large amount of loss of life and this is for the modern museum of art what happened there was the same design chosen it was illuminated in a presentation that was made by one of the folks at ucla they choose the note the red line but the target that is in the gastrogreen square in the middle that. that at the r789d from life safety to a performance target of halfway between immediacy

that's what we think should happen here. we shouldn't go with the minimal standard which is the red but in the direction 6 where we see the green. it's doable it was done from the san francisco modern art. i'm going to pace there's more things to be said but if there are other questions or not i'm going to turn it over to mike >> the last question your client and the appellant building is stipend another what level. >> i don't here the last part of the sentence and the client the metropolitan is designed for what seismic. >> we've tried to find out. my client the homeowners association was not in contract

with the design firm the same design firm that worked open 9 museum and is working on 340. we have some understanding but not a complete understanding of the performance goals for that design. we've asked they share their calculations they've chosen not to. we've tried to investigate san francisco has something called the board program which is an emergency program for the homeowners that requires a preliminary assessment of and characterization we need that design information to take the nifrpt to protect the homeland security and facility against dangle. that's the kind of information that should be available >> i actually have a question

so who determines the classification those 3. >> i know it's the initiative is wise with the design professional that's what you're design and procedures it's indicated in the original design basis is that the structural engineer used to get the proposed classification, however, the dbi is in a position to require a different classification and that's one of the things we need. we think the occasion permit should be revoked until we said the third part of the process whether or not the performance targeted their depriving from the computer analysis they've not finished that process yet so we don't know the results yes or

they can demonstrate they're meeting those performance standards we don't think the project should go forward until they meet the standards. i have two a couple more questions. >> what is the what is our understanding of the resistance to using the level 3 standard. >> cost. >> cost? it's a fairly simple situations it costs more money to build in extras again at this point in the permit process i mean, i think we're looking at to determine 0

permit and a site permit >> correct. >> is it not premature to be discussing this piece of it getting the calculation that you request and has been declined can you answer that. >> that's an important question. the executive summary to your question this is the time to file an appeal. the permit the site permit which is in question was issued in november in a timely fashion the board appealed. the materials that were submitted in conjunction with the site permit are 96 page of drawings. the last three or four pages contain the design basis for the design that's where i see the

classification in this case they recommended two as well as perimeters and some information about their targets. we believe that based on prior comments including the hill and the material that we've seen do date they building this facility should be designed in a way it might not be repair in a event we believe it should be designed to withstand an event and be repairable. in their not matching the standards >> so later on the permit is upheld and they precede with the project and they'll be another opportunity to challenge further

movement on this project; right? >> i would agree if another permit is granted but we don't this that's what happens we believe the only permit that was granted was granted in november and this is under that permit you have to appeal now or you list. >> on the siert yeah. >> for the site. >> right and - and your concerned about the structure itself you're saying that is you're one shot and a yes for the construction permit yes. >> thank you very much. >> so we can hear if the permit

holder. >> good evening madam president and commissioners. dennis appearing for the respondent and permit holder residential. inching i'll note there are several assert active based for the appeals one i describe as hi, competing it should be revocal cord there are several flaws with that position first that issue is a subject for the planning commission and not for this board section of the

planning code says that american people approval can be revoked if the construction has not started so the option at this point in that regard is to go to the planning commission and not attack or revoke. as the term permit was retained in 2013, the term xaelt began and we needed that the construction would have commends if not for the appeal. now for 360 fremont it was cancelled we pointed out in our brief the original demolition permit was lost and dbi suggested that the proper

procure with planning was to recommend cancelation of that permit so the developer could clean up the record. when the applicant did that, in fact, dbi found the old permit and continued to issue the demolition permit under the first police station. first, we'll august that not enough information was given. fremont 360 a demolition plan is not required. the 360 is in fact, a 4 story building it requires a demolition plan and it was submitted and persuade and it's attached to the packet we've submitted. turning to the hip they have the

metropolitan opposes the site and the demolitions permits there's something porsche wrong with the construction of the building and there's no evidence. like this project in inform over the 5 to seven years has in going through right away right now a rigorous design process. first, i point out that equity construction firm a.k.a. the engineers that did the construction for the last major towers in san francisco. those projects include the two towers and market and admission the affinity towers and 201 folsom and transbay tower.

brian and another gentleman is here to answer our questions during the process or for the design. 3r50ur7b9 to administrator believability 83 a panel is reviewing every aspect of the design. in fact, the panel is ron hamburger burger and the senior adversities and dr. john who is a professor of engineering at ucla. john a technical engineer that design review panel has been working with dbi since august of 2012 on this promise. first they were working on the basis of design in connection with the basis of design. this design sets forth the structural system and their size and a detailed seismic analysis

and approach but didn't include the collaborations o were prepared later in the addendums to the construction of both 9 foundation and super structure. the basis of design basis are the structural designs from 41 to 44 and attached to the papers. so the structural claukdz at this point were not a subject of the site permit when it was issued. the design panel and dbi continue to work with d b i for the and i democrats for the site permit that are currently in discussion and when they sign off then dbi continues 80 that review before they issue the

addendums to the permit. now the appellant is here do i donating tonight with the deduct core system that's been used by m k a they looked at newspapers articles and this ground has been plowed over for many, many years and the design approach and the deduct approach has bun used in many of the projects that are currently under constricts or have been approved. the affinity the lumina and transbay tower and 350 midgets and the transbay tower. the only argument it the structural platoon is not being used it should be used in a category 3 as opposed to a risk

category 2. every high-rise and office building in san francisco per code is built to the risk category 2 level. the code is specific on which a code 3 building should be provided and that's buildings that have obviouscy levels for group occupancy of 3 to 5 hundred people or more. the fact that this building like every other high-rise in san francisco risk 2 size standards didn't make it less dangerous. the life safety standard, in fact, the design uses in this case by m k a predicted an

absence of a collapse the maximum standard event. the same prediction used in a design risk category that building it's, in fact, being built to the standard equal to every high-rise building in san francisco that's been sdrooind designed in the last 10 years. and we're making all the standards and material that has been submitted and the other side concedes everything is pursuant and consistent with the code. the code describes the categories and what risk category the building is designed to and that's, in fact, what the building is designed to. i would suggest what the appellant is trying to do is insert itself into the design

process but it display anticipate third party engineers becoming involved in the project that's why the city and a dbi has a separate panel that's not significant to neighbors and everyone in san francisco that has a view to what a this should be designed to. the code is explicit and the review groups review the designs to make sure the sdiepdz are properly designed to proper code regulations and plans. that's the process that's flaw right now we submit the dbi should be allowed to do the job and they alone should make the sdigdz for the proper design for this building fiduciaries.

we'll got the engineers from m k a hero who can answer your questions >> i have a question you don't have to answer. structureing engineer firms varies to how they approach the conservation inherent to a design and they manifest their ways on calculations would you like to talk about the level of conservation >> as i say m k is here tonight and i'm happy to address that other than to say that m k a has designed 10 to 15 of those types of building in san francisco and they design those building to meet the mc e the maximum

considered event to prevent collapses as a 25 hundred year earthquake. that's risk educator 2 and 3 they're using their judgment within the code. if the code is going to be changed that's a different story they'll dine it another way but at this point their design more than compliedz with the code >> would i like to comment on my question to opposing council. a couple of items he's indicated are perhaps is on more of a general basis of codification related to the general plan. they sort of lean into the area beyond the life safety level for

design. would you like to comment on that >> i mentioned the m k mentioned their design goes beyond the life saving category payroll whether it's a category one or risk category 3 risk building ambassador but we wouldn't have gotten our site permit not received the demolition permits if your plan was not consistent with the general plan. >> okay. >> i think you're finished i think that you were describing the standard in the code for residential property for this risked category. >> yeah. >> to prospective and i'd like to hear i repeat it i wanted to stop you it's a lot of information for me.

at what want if at any minus the developer apply and implement the risk category 3 for residential property i think you said 3 hundred obviouscy >> when the structures whose primary purpose is public obviouscy more than 3 hundred code specification so residential himself. >> that's for the public. >> yes. that's why an example to a design category 3 it's more than 3 hundred and any one 7, 8, 9. >> i have a question how much more expensive is it to meet category 3 than category 2. i don't have no idea. it's not the expense it's the

issue that the third party's can enter into the process with the intended delays and interfere with the review >> i have another question open the reflex category 2 are you saying that because the design is designed or prepared to meet or exposed the m c e standard that the risk categories with therefrom super seated to which standard i don't know if i'm articulating this is the mc e standard it's the one you want to exceed and the other one fall behind it. >> that's not true i can't is this the designed to risk 3 but

there's aspects of the this that are meeting category 3 with respect to collapse. >> okay. thank you. >> do we have questions for anyone else. okay. thank you. mr. sanchez >> actually commissioner do i want to ask someone as part of the permit holder project sponsor. >> yes. i wonder in symptom on your side can answer my question. i was going to ask >> the principal engineer can probably answer that. >> so i'm don davis with the

associates it will be my signature on the documents to go from risk category 2 to 3. >> what's the difference in costs if you do what the appellant wants. >> and i say this in all honesty, i did would be inappropriate for me to quoted you a number there's more material into the building. >> not so much a number but the you are about to give some other indication how much more they're asking for . >> think of it this way we'll be asked to remember the three different earthquakes the life safety at the life safety event we're adding a 1.5 calculator

number. just to clarify one additional safety factor for the seismic design >> we're going to try to understand it in the measure of costs. >> for me to say i can tell you how much it increases my costs but i'm not the right popcorn. >> that's throughout the right structure 1.5 for the structure. >> that's for the seismic code that goes into the building. one clarification just to make sure it's understood from category 2 to 3 the occupancy has to be more than 3 thousand people or