other members of the public that wish to speak to this item? seeing no one at this time, public comment is close. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i appreciate the robust discussion around this. before i forget, i have a number of amendments that have been circulated. i do not know if you want me to go into detail? >> i think that that would be helpful. many of these have been raised based on the initial proposal. supervisor mirkarimi: this ordinance was introduced in april, it was never tabled. it was in the legislation since the time of its introduction. we have taken into consideration a number of concerns that strengthen the ordinance from a retail, manufacturer perspective, making sure that this is lined up effectively.

the first amendment, removing the prohibition of selling of drugs in the city if the manufacturer was not in compliance with drug disposal programs. line 2323. removing from the ordinance the confusion, meaning only manufacturers and importers covered in the ordinance. however, if we find that this is not sufficient in time, reasserting drug wholesalers, illustrated in deletion on the following lines. page four, line 18 to 19, age 11, 19, 12, 5, and the term the elimination of " section. clarifying the definition of producer, manufacturers and importers, page five, line 17.

with page 893 and packaging separated from disposal, clarifying an existing, i would motion that we take those amendments. i very much appreciate the comments from the supervisors that want to strike cautioned with regards to was proceeding. when we brought forward the documents that provided the

deliberations in other states in the pharmaceutical industry asking for those states to not go forward, those arguments are incredibly similar to the arguments we have heard here. those of us waiting for state government to come forward with legislation that uniformly tries to to morton made municipalities throughout california, that would be like waiting for the gedout. it's not going happen. there may be some glimmer of hope, as i had opened in my remarks in the beginning of this deliberation, we were heartened to see the obama administration moving forward and advancing this level of interest. but that level of interest has not been assigned to state and local governments get. this is where the doors open to other levels of government to

take up the initiative spirited through the obama administration. there is nothing that says that any of those laws, federally speaking, the state to local governments are precluded from moving forward. san francisco is no stranger from initiating a law that is then followed by state and federal government. this is not something that we are stranger to. if we are able to investigate what i think would be seen as a pilot program for other municipalities, so be it. if the challenge is to align the municipalities, i see that as a welcome problem. but the absence of any law whatsoever in the state of california should be considered unacceptable. in the discussions with the city attorney during the orchestration of this particular law, there is no unintended consequence with regards to the concerns articulated by the

representatives of the manufacturers. lip balm and toothpaste would not be included in this particular law. there would be a more defined segregation to make sure that that would not be an unintended capture. with regards to take back programs, we hear very differently on mandatory take back programs in canada, as well as europe, completely. the 1998 study that was mentioned about germany, germany is actually one of the leaders in europe right now on the question of recapturing pharmaceuticals from getting into the waste stream. it has been well updated by the parliament of germany that focuses on manufacturer responsibility. the difference is that a lot of the same manufacturers that might come to the united states to debate at the level of the state or even local levels in preventing us from enacting such

laws are being reined in in europe and other places for compliance and enforcement. i think that this is the slow trend that will hopefully come to a head. we are a state government now sees the writing on the wall, having a law that is meaningful and shows efficacy for producer responsibility will alleviate local governments from having to go this direction. let's hope that they do. but it is not on the radar any time soon. i ask that we move forward in san francisco. supervisor chiu: from my perspective, i have been thinking about this for a bit. first, i would like to thank supervisor mirkarimi for accepting the riding of the amendments that he did that were proposed by the industry to make this legislation more effective. i do think that this is an issue that we have all known. the industry, the public has

been aware that the lack of places to dispose of medicine has engendered health and safety issues around the country, including here in san francisco. my understanding is that the city attorney does not opine that that is the case. localities have a constitutional right to address health and safety concerns within our borders. that is what i believe this legislation is doing. i do think, i do believe that the good faith efforts and comments made by the industry and business community that they wish to address this on a voluntary basis. that being said, that has not happened yet. if there are other, smarter ways to do this, now is the time to propose it. i think a number of us are open to hearing that, but it has not

happened yet. i appreciate the fact that the obama administration has addressed this general area and i have received a copy of this from industry representatives earlier today. interestingly, specifically they provide encourage the attorney general to promulgate regulations in this area that specifically states that such regulations may not require any entity to establish or operate a delivery program, which at the end of the day is why it is appropriate for us in san francisco to consider moving forward and proposing a program that hopefully will be efficient and respectful of the needs and issues within the pharmaceutical industry that accomplish the goals that we want to accomplish. i will be supporting this legislation today. that being said, i know that there are still questions and concerns. my office is absolutely willing

to meet and hear from various representatives of various stakeholders that need something address. but of the many amendments that have been adopted today, this goes a long way towards addressing those concerns. if there are any additional discussions? let's call the roll. can we adopted this? let's call a role. >> on the motion to refer this item to the full board? supervisor elsbernd? no. supervisor mirkarimi? aye. supervisor chiu? aye. two ayes, one no. supervisor chiu: with that, madam clerk, is there any more business in front of this board? >> no, supervisor chiu: mr. chairmanchiu thank you -- no,

mr. chairman. supervisor chiu: thank you, at this time this meeting is adjourned.

supervisor maxwell: thank you. these are routine ordinances replacing an appealing -- and the peeling -- and repealing may happen every three years. why don't we start with someone from the fire department? fire marshal, actually. >> the afternoon, supervisors. assistant deputy chief from the fire department. i am ecb's fire marshal. every three years, the state of california goes through a code adoption process for building, fire, electrical, mechanical,

etc. california standards commission adopts a model code been the case of the fire code this year the 2009 international fire code. it then adopt amendments at the state level than adopt a state level fire code. the 2010 california fire code was published. this is what it looks like. it will become effective throughout california on january 1, 2011. local jurisdictions have 180 days to adopt their own commitments in the form of an ordinance, and that is why we are here today. in general, the proposed 2010 fire code carries forward the 2007 san francisco fire code without substantive modification. the primary changes and new requirements are described in the legislative digest that was described to you. i would like to provide a brief overview of the injured -- the issues that have generated interest to bring them to your

attention. we are proposing to adopt the california state fire marshal solar photovoltaic installation guidelines, which outlined certain requirements for solar panel installations. clearances' provide a minimal working space so the fire fighters can work more safely to access routes and ventilate them in case of a fire. the quick ventilation of a roof is extremely important because so many of our buildings are built [no audio] -- [inaudible] the guidelines were developed by the state fire marshal. locally, we have been working with the department of the environment similar task force on this issue, and we continue to address their concerns. i believe their main concerns are that we can continue getting their permits out in a timely manner, which we are committed

to. in addition, we will be working with them to develop and administrative bulletin to clarify any issues that are not clear in the california state marshall guidelines. another significant change is that we have rewritten the section in our code that covers our notice of violation procedures. working with the city attorney's office, we have created a process that will allow us to carry out the enforcement process with persons who choose not to comply with fire code requirements. as part of that, we are adopting the use of the administrative citation process that is located in the administrative code and establishes minimum fines for certain serious violations that endanger the public. we are proposing to adopt appendix b sectiond 105 of the international fight could which requires five department access roads in the areas when the

buildings are over 30 feet in height. this would would allow for aerial trucks to operate and provide a safe working space around them for fire fighters. in response to concerns for supervisor max low on this issue related to the better street plant, we would like to request a modification to the proposed fire code, which would create an exception when buildings are equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system. adding this exception requires us to print the section of the code and the exception on pages 60 and 61 of the document, rather than just stating that we are adopting the appendix section. i would also like to request two non-substantive changes to the documents that are typos. on page 27, line eight, the word

"assess" was misspelled. with your approval, we will forward a revised copy. before i take your questions, i want to emphasize the time- sensitive nature of this process. we are on track to have the ordinance through the process by january 1, 2011, but that is if everything goes perfectly. unfortunately, the state's process puts us on a very short time line. we would appreciate your approval as soon as possible. i'm happy to take any questions. supervisor maxwell: thank you. you outline basically the things that san francisco, after going through the california code, felt was important for san francisco because of power to a biography, our geography, our landscape? >> yes, also, our code includes administrative provisions. >> you felt that making those changes would put more pressure

on people to do the right thing and penalize them if they did not? >> our current process is clear but just does not give us the ability to follow through with civil action if they do not comply. >> thank you. supervisor mar: the requirement for solar will take systems -- solar photovoltaic systems, our other systems creating more stringent requirements like this? among many jurisdictions around the state are adopting these guidelines. supervisor mar: the other one on setting minimum street with four access roads -- that one comes out of an international fire code. what is that?

my understanding is date codes are requiring us to make those changes, but our requirements are often more strict than the state, but this one comes out of a recommendation of an international fire code. >> it is made up of one this document came -- before it got to the state, it was the international fire code, and the state took it and amended it and took it into this document. that particular section for st. with -- for street width is similar to most of this code, which is the model code requirement for firemen access. supervisor maxwell: all right, why don't we open this up to public comment? actually, maybe it would be easier if we just have all the

departments come up at this time and we have public comment after that? any department who would like to come up because there might be some changes you are having, even if they are minor, we would like to find out what that is. thank you. >> good afternoon. the form of building inspection. -- department of building inspection. there is a three-year cycle. the city of san francisco adopt amendments to the mandatory california building codes on this cycle. it has been approximately a year-long review to get to the point where we can bring forward amendments that we believe everyone agrees to in the city. the only minor changes to that are brought forward by our director at this time. >> yes, good afternoon,

supervisors. what is happening -- have been working with the other departments very closely, with the public utilities commission and the department of environment, to make sure that the building code incorporates all of their requirements also so that the code becomes a code for the whole city instead of just for the building department or the department of environment or the public utilities commission. with all the changes that are happening with the energy conservation, the water conservation, storm water control and things that are going on, changing monthly it seems like, we need to be able to change the building code and use more restrictive codes, so we may propose some amendments to the language and building code so that we can actually deferred to the of the departments' code as the more restrictive.

the other clarifications we have going on regarding water management plans between the state's definitions of some of the items and our city definitions of some of the items for plans that we already have in place with the city which are more restrictive than the states, so we want to make sure we have all of those amendments in here. the other part with the first two paragraphs has to do with the commencement of work on expired permits. what is happening with the economy, a lot of people cannot start work on their permits, and inadvertently, these two sections were inadvertently left out of the code and not brought forward as they have been for many years, so we needed to put those back in. we talk to all attorneys, and

they were considered non- substantive. i should clarify -- supervisor maxwell: i should clarify about the fire department. the idea was it our streets are narrow were -- narrower, it makes it safer. in the southeast sector, we have more city streets that we are really creating. when i was in seattle, we went for housing developments that they were doing and be doing. the fire department, along with the form of housing, have come from -- have come a long way in

determining what they could do to make those streets and no work. you heard today that if the developer put in sprinklers, that they could narrow the streets. in talking to the fire department, they agreed that that would be ok, and it gives some flexibility and does not compromise safety. again, i want to thank them going to that extent so we can do what ever it takes to make our streets safer. next department, if anyone would like to speak to their apartment. no one else? >> i posted a reference, all covered under the san francisco building code. >> all right, why don't we open this up to public comment? public comment on these items?

seeing none, public comment is closed. on the amendments that have been brought forth without objection, so moved. and then, on the items as amended, without objection, thank you very much. all right, reid items 8 and 9 together please. >> 5 and no. 8, resolution authorizing and directing the city's civic control of to prepare a report for infrastructure financing district num ber one, and item nine, resolution of intention to establish an infrastructure financing district number one, rincon hill area. supervisor maxwell: why don't we hear from the mayor's office?

>> good afternoon, board members. the office of economic work force development. we are passing out updated versions of the two resolutions before you. i believe it is items 8 and 9. minor technical amendments have been proposed, which are outlined in black line form on those draft resolutions. these two resolutions are the first steps forward in the planning committee scope of work that you authorized a month and a half ago. if you recall, there was a resolution forming a committee, was not shared by the capital planning committee with members of various infrastructure and finance agencies and for public stakeholders. to be determined, but two members, one from the eastern neighborhood cac, one from

market octavia, and two at large vendors -- the resolutions before you initiate what will be probably a four-month process. we hope eventually to launch a pilot project for rincon hill. these projects did not commit or authorize the city to do anything other than these projects. one of them authorizes us to begin to prepare what is called an infrastructure financing plan, which is the blueprint, the study required to determine the fiscal impact of forming one of these districts. >> and that is a state law? where state laws come into play? >> yes, and in fact, all of these resolutions, and i apologize in events that state law requires many resolutions. i will be back with at least four more resolutions before we even get to the point of an ordinance. the state law has been for the drawn-out process which i think

is important, given this is a very new concept. we discussed it briefly when i was here presenting on the committee, and i would be happy to rehash it if you would like, but this initiative process of us exploring financing district, and it allows us to form an infrastructure for repair and draft an infrastructure financing plan, which is primarily a fiscal impact study, saying how much revenue could there be and what effect it would have on the general fund and our ability to fund city- wide services to create one of these districts. remember, these are many tax increment district. in a sense, many middlemen areas without any of the powers of redevelopment. the sole purpose is to fund infrastructure. as you may or may not know, there is a significant gap in most of our infrastructure planning. in the case of rincon hill, the

cost of infrastructure propose in that plan was estimated in 2005 at about $26 million. updated estimates today estimate that might range from $35 million to $40 million. we anticipate between $16 million to $18 million of impact fees, you can see that leaves a gap in the range of approximately $20 million, so this is an opportunity we hope to fill that gap and be able to build that infrastructure. one of the resolutions and then allows us to launch the financing process and eventually released the financing plan to the public. the other one declares your intent -- intend to pursue this in the future -- your intent to pursue this in the future. supervisor maxwell: