kornfield or put them in my pocket? president peterson: i do not know if this came from you or someone else. >> we would need to have these plans submitted the thursday prior to october 13. if you have any questions on exactly what the board is asking, please call me tomorrow. >> and they should also be provided to the requestor. >> yes. president peterson: do you understand, dr. kravitz? you can also call me tomorrow if you would like to discuss this further. >> president peterson will call the next item, item five, trudy maurer and peter linn versus the department of building inspection processing the issue on march 29 to joseph and sophfia new to erect a three story building on 1325 portola drive. this was continued to today to allow time for the planning department and permit holder to submit additional plans, with no additional briefing. we will give each party 3 minutes, starting with the permit holder. or your agent. please step forward. >> the issue here, i think, is the documents mr. frong asked -- mr. forn ask

kornfield the same question. as you get into this and you start feeling as the engineer on the project that there is a life safety issue, is there a quick process for you to have the tenants removed for their safety? >> well, we would be working closely with a general contractor that would keep us informed of the pro depress of the construction phase. that is typically what we do on all projects. a general contractor will meet us early in the morning and give us a schedule of what they do that day. if anything deviates, they would immediately contact us, and we would probably have information related to how we can reach tenants and how we can inform them. perhaps we want them to stay away for y

kornfield, the first n.o.v. indicated there were two 80's, one with settlement of a concrete pad. the other is a settlement of a portion of the building. do you have any details on that? >> i do not. i am sure mr. santos has more details. i suspect that is why they are doing such an extensive seismic upgrade rather than a fix-up. >> i remember what he said about the settlement, but i was wondering about the departmental review board. i'm sorry. >> is there any public comment? seeing none. we will move into rebuttal. you have three minutes. if i could get a speaker card from mrs. donahue. >> absolutely. even now after having heard from the permit side, i am still unclear as to their position as to the tenants and their right to remain and their homes. one of the comments brought up by mr. santos was why didn't we meet? we did meet in 2009 in leah guillermo's apartment. we had rick gill breath from mirkarimi's office. we were trying to discuss a plan that would allow the tenants to stay in place. representations were made that they would not have to leave. when we started to ask abo

afternoon, laurence kornfield. is a penalty imposed for the installation of windows in the building at 3750 scott street. > i do not know that. i looked up the license of the 3sec licensed contractor who they said thc3>ñ

kornfield, are there life safety issues if the tenants were to remain in the building when this work was going on? >> not typically. once again, i don't know. there may be special circumstances that might apply. but typically there aren't. typically the structural work is done in a way that secures the building through the course of construction through shoring

kornfield, do you have anything to add? and is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: well, commissioners, i thought we were very specific what we needed at this meeting and the information was not provided. the situation is the following right now. if you look at the site permits, it is almost exactly the same as the 311. it shows that the things that were mentioned in the various letters -- it was also very similar to the set that was initially approved by the homeowner's association. two major issues there. one was whether the rear of the building was a retaining wall and therefore had no windows and therefore there was no grading beyond that point up to the next street. secondly, as mr. sanchez indicated, the sides of the garage. what we asked for last time was also some idea of the proposed typography of the grading the permit holder wanted to do and to establish their for an elevation to this building that then would establish the height of the building with respect to the site. that was not

laurence kornfield is here, and we have representatives from the planning commission and the zoning administrator, and also city in the front is carla short, émcurban forester, representing the forestry. >gwe will conduct the swearing n process and go over the meeting guidelines. secretary pacheco: the board requested that you turn off any beepers or pagers and carry on conversations in the hallway. ñ present cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three-minute period, and those not affiliated half of the to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board and the actress presentation of minutes, members who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff ~ikbkgmt;:1é! the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium, as well. pbÑiç having a rehearing or about board rules, please talk to someone during the break or call in the

i will let the deputy director kornfield elaborate, but that is my understanding of the process. that is what the plans may not be on file with the department. vice president goh: i wonder if i can see that again. that is revision 2. what is revision 1? >> the skylights and windows not visible from the street. vice president goh: to add skylights. that is dated april of this year. >> i think the permit was submitted in february. the action date is the last inspection date on the system. the permit number indicates the application date. it looks like it was a february 24 application. that was revision one for the skylight. the original permit was submitted october 21, 2009. vice president goh: does that original permit safe kitchens? i am having a hard time reading it. >> we have copies of the permit itself. you can look at that. >> should we call public comment, or the want to have a minute to look at those? vice president goh: go ahead and call public comment. >> is there any public comment on this item? step forward. >> my name is mary russell. my husband and i are new resident

corn fell -- kornfield. it was my understanding that this work would be for the nov, so we do not have the issue the and mr.hasson has by virtue of the appeal. what we have is a property owner who is trying to deal with nov. it is a pretty straightforward issue. now, this other issue about the adjacent property owners and the privacy issue, this has been brought into the mix. as you can see, this window is 5 feet 9 inches off of the ground. it looks out into the backyard. their property is visible from that window, but it will take a lot of work on somebody's part in order to be. into their property from this particular window. to answer your question, commissioner fung, i did reach out to mr. hasson, and i thought if we just discussed it, he would understand what we wanted to do. h mr.asso -- mr. hasson refused to talk to me on the telephone and only by email, and i do not think that is my preferred method of communication. the telephone hubs to conveyed the sentiment much better than doing something in the

kornfield. this is all over a foot and 2 inches. i am probably asking you a little bit about procedures having to do with planning. really, what i want to know is how hard would it be for the project sponsor to chop off a foot into insurance and create some steps that would become compliant and not extend into the rear yard? >> cutting off the rear wall of the building? commissioner garcia: it is a wall? >> i am not sure. i am having a hard time understanding what it is that is extending. i presume it was the rear wall. commissioner garcia: it is the rear wall itself, not anything having to do with the steps? thank you. i guess my feelings about this is that, you know, there is a part of me that says all of the process we have gone through right now, all the chance this project sponsor might walk out of here having to tear down some of this building is possibly deserved. you do not start a project without a permit. anybody watching that would hopefully say it is probably not a good idea. a lot of these problems would have gone away

. >> good afternoon, i'm lawrence kornfield. welcome to our brown bag lunch. the fire department as a lot to do with fire escapes in san francisco. we have tens of thousands of fire escapes in san francisco. it's sort of like utility wires, until you start looking for them. you don't even see them. today we're going to look at them and for them and talk a little bit about what they are there for and how they should be maintained. what our standards are. so we are right here in front of building services office at 1660 mission street. we have one of many buildings served by fire escapes. they are typically used when there's a required means of existing or egressfrom the building. this building has a main stairway and all these fire escapes. i don't know about the backside. it probably has more exits that would be typically required to have. >> typically fire escapes are the second. the first is for existing buildings. my guess is the building has been broken up. that's why they add more than one fire escape. >> and in fact one of basis of the building code is t