code first. in other words,, the reimbursability would be good for everything from code-forward, but the owner would be responsible for bringing their property up to code to that date. >> if you were up to code when you built your house, you are not longer up to code for a new structure. and if somebody is applying for a backflow preventer, are they basically subjecting themselves to bring their home up to all new current codes? >> i think we better talk to counsel on that. >> and part is how we choose to word it. i fully support the idea that we shouldn't be paying for a homeowner's code improvement work under this program. on the other hand, i would hate to have that be phrased in a way that is so broad, that you basically create a disincentive to do what we want people to do which is flood-proof their homes. >> the codes are only related to the piping system and entering into our system and dbi will solely look at the drainage system in the household up to the property line to make sure that t

it includes the maps and the zoning code, and the zoning code has four pages in it. i'm going to let you look at this so -- >> what is the date now? >> i'm getting to that. [laughter] >> and then what i have here is the zoning code from 1979. it has six articles, 236 pages, and it's in one handheld convenient binder and a stylish beige. look at that if you like. >> watch your back. [laughter] >> what i have here is our current planning code. volume 1. volume 2. and volume 3. it has 11 articles, 1,335 pages and three volumes. so, somewhere between 1979 and 2013 we added 1,0 99 pages to the planning code. ~ [laughter] >> thanks for the city attorney for letting me borrow that. i didn't want to bring it all the way from the department. so, to put this in some sort of perspective, 13,000 residents or 4 square miles, that make it about 27 pages per square mile and 600 residents per page. in comparison, you have new york city which has 2.85 million people spread across 200 square miles and its zoning has 3,595 pages so that's an average of 11.nine-pages per square mile, ab

and if their in violation of the code the department of building code wouldn't issue those permits? >> the building isn't being unfit for code in its unless a significant allocation to that building >> wouldn't this constitute that or no? >> well terms the current code the building inspectors would look at that. such as other addition like egress >> you don't know. >> until building sees the final complete plans their withheld judgment until they see the egress and the batteries how much acid is in those batteries. this requires stamped codes arrest unfortunately not really we're not able to vir one way or the other and i don't recall that the batteries with on the ground floor - >> they're related to on ground floors and sometimes on the roof. >> it seems like mostly they're on the roof. >> when you remove them from the roof this was discussed earlier. you'd have to combaelg the area to accumulate the batteries >> the folks who are here we have to decide whether or not this applicant makes sense and the wireless guidelines we have before us. there were some legitimate issues to des

the next item is an amendment to the fire code. i'd like to start by acknowledging the fire department by the professional and heroic work that they do everyday. they do so by responding to fires and medical emergencies and they're the same department that respond to our pedestrian facility on our roadways. i've seen first-hand over and over the great work they do. we must make sure our streets allow for fire trucks and ambulances can provide aid for those who need it. we also need to make sure that our roads will save for pedestrians. that counts towards the minimum of 20 feet of street clears up. we by doing this we'll make sure that the fire trucks can go to provide assistance while at the same time allowing us the flexibility to build much needed safety improvements. again fire safety and pedestrian safety are two complimentary policy gallons they're not the same. there's also a resolution urging the state legislation to give for local flexibility in terms of implementing that i had safety and up grates on the fire code. and fi

and discussion and possible action amendment code section 16 a-2624 and health code 220 through 2012 and to expand the boundaries for which testing is required under specified circumstances and amendment the code. remembering session codes and making environmental you finding >> with legislative public affairs. we have the folks from the mayor's office and from the planning department that will give you an overview. we've been working with the department of public health to get where we're at right now >> anyway, here's kelly. >> good afternoon. i'm kelly i'm pleased to be here on behalf of the mayor's office to support this legislation. simply put this item will increase protection for health and safety and the groin water in the city more predictable before i i hand this over i'd like to take the time to especially thank director huey and shawn for their work. the staff and their public health are here for questions. i'd like to turn it over to paul >> timing and members of the commission. i was gotten going to say good morning but it's afternoon. the item before you is a proposal

so there is a different section under the code. can we bring fiber to a self-site without having to go and get a building permit for it. there's been all sorts of complaints filed and it's brought more energy to it but the reality of it is we have a permit and we have some equipment on the roof and whoa whether or not to debate the equipment we're happy to put it downstairs in the equipment room that was our intent three years ago. they would have you believe this was rubber stamped. this took 3 years to get through the planning department. i have not seen one in my time at&t at that's taken 3 years to find a design that meets with the planning departments standards and we have submitted structural report. we've submitted reports from our - we call her the sewer woman but your own department of public works has said this is not a flood prone zone. this was submitted on june 5th. you don't have to take our expert word for if this was what our hydraulics expert has state >> so you're saying the additions on the roof are not what you'

so there is a different section under the code. can we bring fiber to a self-site without having to go and get a building permit for it. there's been all sorts of complaints filed and it's brought more energy to it but the reality of it is we have a permit and we have some equipment on the

one is building codes and one is the first to go above building codes. building codes are to protect life safety. a cold built home is better in many ways. is better in home many ways. we helped develop a voluntary standard called fortified home or fall -- fortified for safer living. we try to lead identify the types of building construction techniques that will help for specific hazards. every insurance company makes its own decisions. several states have recognized fortified and require insurance companies to do that in their filings. we have a track record in mississippi, louisiana, south carolina. companies are making decisions in terms of filing. i want to emphasize that the types of things in fortified are not on affordable. they are low cost improvements a homeowner can make -- types of things in fortified are not un affordable. thetat for humanity is largest builder at this time. we have partnered with them in hurricane-prone areas. if we can get those fourth bystanders in a habitat home, you know those are not -- standards in a habitat home, you

to eliminate soil testing provisions; renumbering code sections in the health code; and making environmental findings. 4/23/13; assigned under 30 day rule to the land use and economic development committee. 5/1/13; referred to department. 5/2/13; response received. 5/14/13; substituted and assigned to the land use and economic development committee. 5/17/13; response received. 5/31/13; referred to >> item no. 1. sf 1 [!ez speaker 03]: >> this is presented by the mayor's office. >> good afternoon, i'm please to be here with this ordinance that is held by the planning commission , this is an important measure towards standardizing the hazardous soil and ground water. we have staff from dph and dbi as well. i will give you more details. thank you so much. >> chairman wiener, paul with the department staff. this item before you is a proposal to amend certain portions of the buildings by the mahar ordinance which was adopted in 1986, a public health and safety ordinance for handling contaminated soils during construction process. i will put a map down. if we can display that. the mahar ordinance

if somebody said is my building up to code, i will say yes it is up to code. it is up to the 1909 code. in 1909 there was no requirement for earthquake design. >> until 1933 when the reilly act went into effect after the disastrous 1933 santa barbara -- >> long beach. >> destroyed elementary schools. they were brick. if the kids were in school, we would have lost thousands of kids. that banned brick construction and required seismic designs to be incorporated in buildings. >> there was a major -- there are a number of thresholds over the course of the development. the big one is in the mid '70s, but a whole threshold, series of these thresholds. many of the older buildings, like the 1 across the street have been upgraded to meet some modern standards. this is the williams building that we were talking about that is the replacement of the building that was damaged in the 1906 earthquake. it was built just like it with the plans. >> this building they were going to dynamite it. in '06, they dynamited buildings to clear the path. >> from an interesting point of v

thee were 15,000 changes to code since 1986. 15,000.u have correlations, modifications, so forth. different groups want different things, congress goes along with them, and it has all built up. that is the same. in addition, the public back then was quite upset with sheltering of income, and today, i think the public is quite upset with something else. part of it is sheltering, and another part is lost income from overseas operations. especially low-tax jurisdictions and tax havens. that is a populist concern -- not just populist, but a legitimate, american concern. what is different? back then, president reagan was the primary force pushing tax reform on a very reluctant congress. today, it is the congress. at least at this point, it is the congress and tax committee starting the ball rolling on tax reform, but the administration is not opposed. it is a willing participant, and i think you will find the president more directly engaged. tax reform is going to help the american economy, help get jobs. in this comparative world of ours, w

and the japanese purple code. the u.s. was in a bad position when the war was coming to an end. we were about to go into this cold war involving russia. the problem was russia was our ally during world war ii so he paid virtually no attention to russian codes with one exception. but there was very little attention paid to russian codes breaking so at the end of the war the u.s. and britain decided that to create this secret organization known as tight-end which even today is technically secret. the nsa still has a secrecy rap on thai con for another five years but i managed to get the documents. what it was was basically the u.s. and britain wanted to get into germany as the war was coming to an end and capture the german codebreakers and code makers and a lot of their documents because they wanted to find out two things. they wanted to find out whether united states was vulnerable because if they had broken u.s. codes and number two they wanted to find out ways the germans used it to break russian codes so they f

rather than some by code and some by sequa. there won't be changes >> and i think the thirty day notice and those requirements are going to be done even though we're pretty much i'm combeen if i were to take 10 projects in those new zones i imagine 7, 8 or 9 be involved in this program. >> they - can i testify how many invests you did this year on this? >> with site mitigation cases like as you're a developer you have multiple projects all in states of projection. my oversight program we have 1.5 f t e cases with 50 cases. we are currently 65 cases we're working on. the large amount of time is in the review of the reports. we're trying to meet more with the consultants and go over their plan of action. and we sit down and discuss what the options that they're looking at for the mitigation of the hazard. it maybe removal or an engineer cap. that's the number of cases we're currently dealing with >> i appreciate the department of health being in the mix of this i think you make information available and educate folks but, you kno

my understanding also because the codes have changed, we are working with 2010 codes now and as we heard from the previous speaker the 2013 are coming out soon. we want to make sure that people that are doing plan checking are up to the latest. >> for mar and chiu, they are not doing plan check. they are only doing the application meeting. they actually continue to have those. they are working on those we have all those training. all the new code too. >> is there anymore questions? >> congratulations on getting the budget through. you can get some sleep now. thank you deputy. >> 1100-1101 van ness avenue cathedral hill campuss - the cathedral hill hospital site is a full city block bounded by van ness avenue, geary boulevard, franklin street, and post street assessor's block/lot no.'s 0695/005, 0066; the cathedral hill mob site is on the east side of van ness avenue, between geary and cedar streets assessor's block/lot no.'s 0694/005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 009a, 0100. the hospital and mob, along with an underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the two buildings under van ness avenue, const

the code now contains nearly 4 million words. here it is right here. the tax code. this is america's tax code -- all 24 pounds of it. paperback. just think how heavy it would be if it were hardcover. it would take more than 18 days nonstop to read the tax code. in fact, it takes the average taxpayer 13 hours to gather and compile the receipts and forms to comply with the code, and it costs americans $160 billion a year just to comply with the code, let alone the taxes americans pay. this complexity in the code is eroding confidence in our economy and creating uncertainty for america's families and businesses. clearly the tax code is broken. that's the problem. and it's a serious one. the solution calls for a more simple, more fair tax code, one that will allow growth -- the economy to grow and to create jobs. for the past three years, senator hatch and i have been working closely with all the members of the senate finance committee to reach that goal through comprehensive tax refo reform. we've held more than 30 hearin hearings. we've heard from hundreds of experts

since 1980s universities have tried to justify campus speech codes by dubbing them as harassment codesre narrower have been struck down. now, the feds are trying to impose a national speech code. >> paul: and they have also abandoned something reasonable person standard which sounds reasonable to me a reasonable person would find it offensive? >> they ex explicitly overruled that the harassment is offensive to reasonable person. >> paul: how can schools respond to this? do they have all have to follow it? what the coercion that the government can use? >> because the department of education has power over federal funding, they ignore the department of education at their peril. you can look at full term of the agreement, you look at the university of montana agreement and recommendations, it's basically impossible let alone unconstitutional for a university comply with it. so it's time universities to stand up and fight back. >> paul: they run the rick of losing their federal funds. they have the ability to sue in court to resist and sue and the fight on first amendment grounds. have the

i would hope that in the spirit of the severn san francisco code, to see if local contractors can be hired for the jobs remaining. >> is that a motion? >> i have a comment and a motion. i'm happy to make a motion; i am not interested in rejecting the bids. i agree that we should encourage the contractor to hire locally if possible. i think we have to keep in mind that this project is going to create future work all along the corridor. and slowing it down is not going to serve any of our businesses large or small so i really don't want to delay this. we are going to see this project drive the economy along the corridor in the city and it will create business in the city, that is what we want to see all the businesses large and small benefit and moving forward expeditiously will be the best way to see that. >> director ramos. >> director ramos: i do make sure i understand this. the tremendous amount a funny that we are getting from the feds is such that, this is federal funding coming from washington, dc. you said the lion's share the funding, do not fall from the sky or that we paid o

we deal with the code issues all the time. sometimes, the departments are not as active as they need to be in the code violations and the city attorney's office plays an important role >> the funds are made available we can make good use of it. >> thank you. thank you, mr. herrera. colleagues any further comment >> mr. herrera thank you for the presentation. i know there's a lot of work that's been done for disadvantaged communities to work with other but we're going to talk about equity and culture appropriate community can you talk about your work to make sure that your assessable to all of san francisco >> yeah. supervisor oar you're correct in terms of the work we have done substancely whether it's he wage theft or sensitive issues around elections to be sure everyone was accounted for. it's about process and procedure and we make sure we have language accessibility in our office to make sure we can make public increase. in terms of reaching out you may have seen we've announced a new app. it's trying to assess with the co

codes.odes that are much more narrow than the one the department of education came out with have been struck down by courts over and over again, but now the feds are stepping in and trying to impose this national speech code which would be laughed out of court if challenged. >> am i right that they have also abandoned something called a reasonable person standard, which strikes -- sounds reasonable to me, if a reasonable person would find it offensive, maybe it would be. explain that? >> they explicitly overruled the university of montana's requirement that the harassment be offensive to a reasonable person. and that leaves it open to the most sensitive person in the room getting to decide what people say on a college campus. >> well, how can schools respond to this? i mean do they all have to follow it? what is the lever here, the coercion that the government can use? >> well, because the department of education has power over federal funding, universities ignore the department of education

the requirements are set by the administrative code and their set in the code and we can't change the set requirements that are published in san francisco or print weekly we don't have a lot of flexibility. certainly we'll be ready to help them comply with those things. and your last question or your other question about payment i'm not sure about that. that the departments usually handle the payment side of it. i know we certainly wants to make prompt payments to all vendor and especially small businesses in the communities and we would be willing to try to do that and to work with the cloak of the board as well as theirs an agent that handles a lot of the papers and we can sit down with the cloak of the board to shoot even the period >> we're not - >> you have the discretion to amend the resolution to include the other biders. >> the board has included a number of nonresponsive biders in prior years. >> that's correct. and supervisor the bider were sent a binged package >> colleagues any further questions at this time? >> okay. we don't have a budget analyst report. anyone wish to c

and the proposed amendment to the planning code is limited in scope.t would allow an intermittent activity, such as a mobile food facility, within our rm, red, or [speaker not understood] zoning districts provided the use is located on a parcel that contains a medical institution or post secondary institution. and then further, any intermittent activity permitted in these residential districts is subject to restrictions on hours of operation between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. unless you have any questions, that pretty much concludes my presentation. >> thank you, ms. hayward. i realize i misspoke before about formula retail trucks. what the legislation provides is that if formula retail is allowed as of right, a formula retail establishment can have a formula retail truck if formula retail is either banned or requires conditional use, then the formula retail truck would be banned. and that is so we don't have -- i think the planning department was a bit hesitant to have conditional uses starting to apply to our roadwaysbecause that would be unprecedented