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 occupancy that's what trips from two to three >> because we've heard from the attorney for your client you've done a lot of project or so in the downtown area; right? are there any there are any other residential building of similar buildings that are built to the educate 3 that are not a public assembly

>> not to my knowledge. >> thank you scott from the planning department i'll try to be brief a lot of the issues are to seismic safety but at 340 fremont downtown residential zoning district this was overwhelming approved by the council in 2006 and stepped down in 2008, and 4 and 10 and 11 and 12. each of those entitlements would be appealed, however, none was filed. there are no conditions of approval in any of those motions that talk about a higher level of safety than by the klan code.

after the majority of those paralyze i would note that one of the policy,of course in that it is new construction be built to a new planning codes. and building this produce complies their building to the building code. if there are further questions about the validity of those, however, i'll defer the rest of the time for the building inspectors. mr. sanchez let's talk about that my earlier question related to gentle lists the portions of the - that relate to the general plan that relate to structural design and safety.

those statement are fairly general but, you know, they sort of lean a little bit but are their other statement that lean towards something stronger than the statement that the building department requires >> you're absolutely correct that is an element of the general plan their broad documents to be used by the city in adapting the code changes so if the city want to change and say if you're building a building lime go you go to code 3 they could point to this general plan and that's the rationale. that's not a code requirement and in particular i think one of the most specific will comments

in this policy 1.3 to insure that the new construction meets the safety standards they're meeting them and it's specific in the policy direction and the county safety element we believe that complies with the general requirement thank you. mr. duffey >> good evening, commissioners. for the chief permits that are before us this evening and to date they seem to have been approved and that's correct it's all seismic and structural issues we have hanson tom with me tonight he's a dbi principal and engineer and he'll address the seismic issues on the building permits.

thank you >> mr. tom. >> thank you, commissioners. good evening. i'm hanson tom i'm the principal engineer with the department of building inspection. the issue here is the 5 permit issues the department of building inspectors guidelines when we reviewed the site permit the design criteria which is the because of the design needs to obtain approved before the issuance of the building process. the design actually requires the engineer of record to show us the proposed building and did structural system of the building and the proposed a novels and methodology and

acceptance criteria and anything else expectation to the prescription of the building code has to be specified to all those design we have to two through what we call the construction design review groups and those groups we usually have a construction engineer in the industry of our profession and we usually consists with professor from a specified design area and it usually consist of one more popcorn who looks at the criteria from the earthquake design engineer of record.

so after we review that the selection of this group of people usually initiately by the engineer of record we have to go through the resume of those experts and dbi is participating in the review process of the whole design of the building. so in the site process we don't have the design calculation submit to us. usually, we're talking about the design perimeter, the structural system, the criteria of september as an so that letter of september as an issued by the constricts team they issued a site permit after that.

any questions i'd like to any commissioners like to ask i, provide some answers >> mr. tom we've received in the briefs a copy of the basis of the design document. >> uh-huh. >> this document did it under go changes from the beginning before you starred this argument. >> the basis of the design usually specified by the engineer of record and we go through the thinkers review process by our stiff in dbi. so at the overthinks of the site permit the basis of the design is accepted and not changed that

much >> okay. usually there will be some level of calculation done already to establish the depth of the design it relevant >> uh-huh. >> for this particular building and the geometry; is that correct . >> usually the design review team some form of ground erosion and preliminary design of the structural system could be submitted to them but they are not need for the site permit review. >> understood. i guess my last question then is on the basis of this design criteria you folks approved >> uh-huh and a; right?

>> yeah.. yeah, we usually at the site permit process the review team we issue a letter of september as an to us and then after that we review the acceptance letter >> thank you. thank you. >> can we take a very short break. actually i'd like to see a show of hands how many people will w francisco board of appeals we're returning to items abc and appeal numbers 14 dash 001 and 2 and ready to take any public comment? i'd like to ask people fill out a speaker card either before or

after and hand to our clerk. i'd like to ask those who wish to speak please line up on the for a side of the room the first person who wishes to speak please approach the microphone and i'm tim with the housing coalition on behalf of our 90 thousand members we want housing produced for quickly. having sat through the seismic issues it occurs to me what's at stake is not related to the seismic issues. we are astonished that a project that proposes to deliver something on the order of $5 million to the stabilization fund something approaching $4 million of impact foes and

$15 million to the mayor's office of housing by your calculations is 70 to affordable housing there's a engross disparity this is an important project and been through years of progress and vested again and again and permit renewed so they could start construction. i fail to understand what further benefit comes from delaying this project >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening madam president and members the commission i'm e timothy i'm with the local folks this project as the gentleman before me as said it's been approved it's been through the

ring are. we have members who are ready to go to work on this project now brothers and sisters in this room it can be vetted again and again but we're ready to go now, it's economic viability for some of us this is a job i can actually work on we build those buildings to the best we can we have pride in this work we're ready to build it to the safest standards let's do this. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners david with the local 2 61. thank you for the opportunity i represent over 45 hundred

members in the marina san francisco and san mateo county and on behalf of any membership and any brothers and sisters in the carpet we ask you reject the appeals. this process has been approved multiple times by every city agency now a group of neighbors hope to stall this project p to miss the market again. this happens our city will lose out on shuttle benefits. our members urge you to listen to the process dbi used to guarantee the seismic buildings go is not just a fly-by night job please deny the appeals and move forward

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, good evening. i'm joy i'm a significant awe price and thank you for allowing me to speak i apologize for any appearance i've been working it's not a 4 o'clock shadow this is what a woman in the trades lifestyles. i want to say this work is important and provides an opportunity for a woman like me as well as single mothers who don't have a college education this provides an opportunity to make a descendent wage we have health and benefits for our children and also that this

opportunity provides for many of the epinephrineship we can elapse if our journey map we can carry on our skills to others in the future and as of right now, i'm working it's only temporary from 3 to 5 months and with construction it's they lay you off or i would love this to be the next job and journey aisle out on a project that size. i've been on other job sites similar to this for instance, 201 folsom and i don't see any problems with the seismic quite honestly ambassador because on that site there are to buildings

one 43 and 42 stories and two one hundred and 10 stories tall so i'm requesting to deny the appeal and let's move forward to working with folks open this job >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening madam president i'm peter garza. i'm speaking on behalf of my union brothers and sisters a few are here tonight. i represent about 32 thousand men and women in the carpenters union in northern california and important importantly my local here in san francisco which covers san francisco and san francisco county i represent close to 3 thousand men and women and their families. we're would here to strongly ask

you to reject those appeals and move forward. those are the types of our city should move forward. 3 hundred and 50 now housing units are sitting waiting to move forward. we're in the middle of a housing shortage here in san francisco. this appeal asks you to reintensity the wheel by second guessing our department and california building code dbi have processes in place to enforce the laws. our uncle brothers and sizing sisters won't build an unsafe project this is for the transbay towers and acknowledge throughout san francisco this

has been used before. this is a delay tactic nothing i live we the men and women who build great buildings you're going to you deny the appeal and move forward >> thank you very much. >> thank you. any other any public comment? ? seeing none, then we will start with our rebuttal mr. white you have 9 minutes >> thank you. >> i be we've heard some concern this was a stalling tactic. that was addressed by the president of the board.

mr. mar is who spoke it's the position of the metropolitan they want to see the facility giend and built properly. the suggestion was made in the papers that show you folks were opposed to the project it comes from a unique problem that he metropolitan they had to correct and design the facility at the metropolitan maim leaks and things like that but they became acutely aware of the project at the present of the project not at the back he said but a particular problem in an earthquake we want to design a project where the project end up unforeseeable after an

earthquake and the materials by the design team doesn't show this facility has the capacity to remain operational after an earthquake will instead it's possible it could be unrepairable who is important the unique approach to the design those are the pg&e facility as well as our building that brings into question the wisdom of the approach that's been taken pr i have on the screen the cover page a of a respected book written by a doctor as you'll see the mayor and senator feinstein in this book the author expresses concerns about the in the course

approach. there's only one defense against the loading capacity. traditional concrete building have two lines of defense there's a wider margin of the defense. we have a board of directors that agrees with our policies in the city that the policies apply in this city. the issue is not something to delay it come out of 0 book. in addition the professor at berkley in american people oral history that's been published you can buy it on line or hardcopy he articulates in greater concerns this unique

approach it's called sliding share to which the type of design is plausible. the devil is in the details you have to make sure that the standards 90 in san francisco are being met. no where do we hear the designers are going to minimize property damages that's mandatory the general plan was enacted before the project we don't go back and use 2006 kwaerthd standards they have to apply to current standards. the design basis for this site permit was submitted after the adaptation of the community

element the community safety element with all due respect to those who have spoken those are the mandatory requirement for this project. we've talked about the a b-3 there are 3 steps to the analysis they each correspond to the project we have the minimal and maximum. there has to be a selection by the design team. contrary to the speakers the building code doesn't a cat which design team is to be coordinated. it's not fixed. the minimum standards are noting

not mandatory standards but minimum standards what we see in the caps practice writing program is that san francisco is moving away from the minimum standards and a b.a. likewise this to go forward to the standard code. we have to go outside the code t it has an escape pass we use the a b-83 in san francisco. a b-83 itself likewise enhancements to the standard. this is a starting point. what happens with regard to san francisco loma we're not stuck with the performance standards for the immediate occupancy and

the life safety for the dbi they've talked about they've moved to a different profile and it's under those circumstances not mandatory that you use life safety for a particular hazard and it depended on on the unique characteristics of the city. this is my greatest crimp it's not restricted to facilities that have 5 thousand people the code says a classification can be used in moving other structures represent a stubble hazard i'm sorry. i'll repeat it 3 class buildings can include those were they represent a substantial hazard to human life in the case of human failure in

other words, the 5 thousand people the 4 hundred people it's not mandatory those are examples. what do we have here we have a 42 floor structure with a culture heritage element it is a miniature delay on the ground floor and a room is invited in to look at things that's like a museum and important importantly there are outdoor facilities that can handle more people it's right next to the pg&e facility and it's inviting the public to come in. my opinion that is the wisdom of maximum standards we want to make sure a appropriate standard is cello.

you can see in the earlier slide there's another profile forbid the facilities that are essential. those performance targets are way above what is the 4 classify facility. we're asking you to revoke the permit we don't believe the right targets have been chosen and in spite of the unique proximity of the pg&e facility and because of those new standards anytimeings performance standards and allowing people to return to their homes after an earthquake >> i have a question mr. white. mr. white i have a question >> i'm sorry yes.

>> you cited the pummeling substation have you had conversations with them. >> yes. we have had one meeting in person and telephone conversations. >> did they weigh in open the project. >> they want to see the details they haven't seen the shoring design which is the next element over the she or he we don't have complete information but we've shared, you know. >> they're aware of this appeal correct. >> yes. >> that's something they're interested in it sounds like you're open the same page. >> they want more information they don't have enough. >> you don't have to intervene