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

>> lawrence -- laurence kornfield, i will definitely look into that. president peterson: is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move on to item number two. some questions? commissioner garcia: yes, i have some comments about whether or not the people who set up your qualified to be here, and in front of me, i have a memorandum -- the people who sit up here are qualified to be here, and i will give a brief summary of what it says. the first paragraph has to do with what the question is that has been raised, and the question is for those of you who are probably disinterested in this, as most people would be, you've asked for an opinion regarding the legally mandated -- this is not addressed to any member of the board, because we have not asked. it was addressed to those people who raised the issue. you have asked for this. specifically, in response to concerns voiced by members of the public, you of asked whether we do you have asked whether a section of the california building codes -- voiced by members of the public, you webcast -- you

kornfield? you can sit down. >> laurence kornfield. this was for work done without a permit.this was a letter of service -- the electrical service to the compressor in the back of the building, and so the wiring and the elector of conduits -- and the elector " -- an electrical -- and the electrical conduit -- we should not approve this until the complaint has been resolved, and the thing that will address whether there is another permit that might be required for this. i cannot answer that myself. sometimes, the electrical permit covers mechanical equipment like this. i would like you to know that article 29 of the police code, which talks about noise, does not require that the police take any action. private properties are the responsibility of the department of building notinspection. noise related to just disturbance and nuisance noise is regulated by the police department, and fixed-source noise, like air conditioners and food-service equipment, that is handled by the department of public health -- regulated by the police department, like fixed-source noise. i just want t

. >> laurence kornfield with the department of building inspection.i do not think we would find this to be a fatal flaw in the permit process, replace instead of install a new fence, but it appears not to be correct. i think that might broaden the scope of how you might choose to address this, but i do not think we would issue a notice of violation and say "get a new permit." the fact is they are here and you're hearing the issue. this is probably the time for discussion. president peterson: is there any value from you going to measure? we are hearing from ms. fleming it is approximately 10 feet. we're hearing from the other side it is approximately eight. have you measured the fence? >> i cannot tell you if we actually measured. somebody looks at it to make sure it is a parts of it. if you wish us to, we certainly can come out. president peterson: thank you. commissioner garcia: ms. fleming, can i ask you a question? when mr. sanchez put up the graph, i did not happen to notice what was no. and what was south. what is the attitude of your backyard? y

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 perso

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

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

kornfield. so we will move into public, it now. if i could see a show of hands of people interested in speaking -- so we will move into public comments now. the first person can step for than come and speak. -- come forward and speak. it would help if you would line up. and because of the number of speakers and the other items on the calendar, i believe it was said that they will be given two minutes? please do not be shy. step forward. it would help us also if you could hand the clerk a speaker card either before or after you have done speaking. if you have not filled one out, you can fill one out afterwards and give it to him. >> they call me m.j., and i take pictures of people who sell drugs in my neighborhood. you can see me on youtube anytime that you want under m.j. sqaan fran. we have people coming from the suburbs, and the pills that they are buying our from the tenderloin. the statement that we need a full-service pharmacy, i really do not understand, because from walking distance from where i live, and i live on jones, th

kornfield to address that. commissioner fung: i think he discussed that earlier where he said the complaint had to be updated before this permit issue. president peterson: before they would sign off on it at the cfc? commissioner fung: at the same time there is another question whether the electrical permit is the only permit that is required. >> that is right. we will sign off. we will issue the permit as valid but will not sign off until we have resolve the outstanding issues. mr. sanchez has provided me with some information to respond to your question. yah hoo says -- yahoo says marble dust is not poisonous if interested. it is calcium carbonate, like the white powder you find on chewing gum. it is granite dust which is the cause of silicosis and other problems. commissioner fung: the miracles of technology. commissioner garcia: he probably knew that already and was just looking for confirmation from whatever source he went to. president peterson: when do you plan to sign off? >> i am not in the inspection

kornfield, was the information for review sufficient? >> i could not answer that. >> could mr. tom answer that? >> could you repeat the question one more time, sir? >> i asked was the level of detail in the first structural' addendum package of sufficient detail for review purposes? >> hi name is hanson tam, with the department of building inspection. we concluded that addendum number two was actually submitted, and it included adequate information. as of right now, we have engaged again with the engineer of record to go through addendum two. i think right now we are ready to embark on the cap for this project. >> there were some discussions on the professional association standards and methods of analysis, and there was some disagreement on that. do you concur with the approach that was taken by the engineer of record? >> you are referring to the afce 41? >> correct. >> could you address that? >> when we start a project, the proposal is using a performance-based analysis. the project was presented to us using efce-41, an american standard of civil engineer standard. it is not

kornfield said we might as well take care of it here, which we can do, and it is probably not in keeping with their permit that they built that. commissioner fung: i disagree with that. i think mr. sanchez was stretching a little. i would read that as replacement with new and there is no guarantee what that new has to be. president peterson: 1 thought i have is if we reduce the height of the fence, that will be borne by the permit holder if there were a compromise in the leftist formed by both parties. vice president goh: that sounds right for me. commissioner fung: you want them to comport with something that neither would fully like but they are willing to accept rather than us forcing it? vice president goh: that sounds right. president peterson: certainly. commissioner garcia: you have to come up here to speak. >> my initial thought on your comments is that at least i feel that you are starting to dictate how we can use that backyard of hours, and i am feeling a little uncomfortable with that. it is our home. it is our first home. i understand where you are coming from. i guess we do

kornfield, the speaker mentioned vv? >> that is the type of construction of the building. it is a type five unrated building. that is any kind of bill permitted under the code. i understand this is a fully strengthened building. i want to point out that roof decks are not considered stories under the building code. i do not think that is a particular issue. the strength of the building allows great increases in height and area. if i may respond to the question that was asked previously about the orientation, from the photographs i was able to look at, it looks like one of these kitchen units is in another direction from what the plan shows. thank you. commissioner fung: commissioners, the question before us is was the department at fault, whether in the issuance of the permit. most of the speakers did not address that to the extent that the appellant did, or the jurisdiction requestor brought it up. and the points that he brought up related to where he thought the department was in error, or at a point more that are not totally definitive. however, the question is, in my o