the state has adopted a new code. a 2010 building code that will be effective on january 1, 2011. when that is effective, they will appeal the 2007 building code standards that we have adopted. as a result of that, we need to adopt a new 2010 port building code, adopting the building code standard for that title 24 california board of regulations status pertinent to the port specific locations with topographical conditions. it will also conclude -- include our administrative procedures. so that we are able to process and permit applications and appeal to building code decisions. this includes a building code with a goal -- a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below the 1990 levels by the year 2012. as stated in resolution 158-02 in the city's 2004 climate action plan. we will have a water conservation regulation, construction debris management regulations, and commercial ratings efficiencies concluded in the building code requirements. they will all be very similar to the san francisco building code requirements, which are more stringent than the state. the state pre

in reference to the error in the code, it is an error in the planning code, referring to a code section that does not exist. it was repeated several times in the case report in error, but it was just repeated what the planning code said. we are working to correct that. the first issue -- it is code complying, properly viewed in that way. the second issue, the broader issue here, and probably what this board will want to consider, is the impact on the neighborhood. that is within the discretionary authority of this board. it was not within the discretionary authority of the planning commission. the planning commission had a -- the had to find exceptional and extraordinary circumstances to justify it not accepting this. the commission found there were not exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. it was noted it was going to be a neighborhood-serving use. the nearest is 7.3 miles away. they put a couple of troubled times on there. there is no clear indication how easy it is to find parking around those facilities, or how good that data is. there are probably facilities within a half ho

>> the current code, this reference is a section that does not exist, but the code cleanup legislation would correct it. i am not sure if it is in the current legislation or any subsequent legislation. vice president goh: ok. >> this is a hearing where the board can consider all of these items, but if this is code complying, we have approved other mcd's under these provisions and this is raised as an issue. that it has been brought to our attention, we will address it. vice president goh: okay, thank you. vice president goh: -- commissioner hwang: mr. sanchez, in your reply, this submission, dated november 4, it references planning code section 790.116. you excerpt it here. anyway, right before the conclusion, you reference this multiple times, about the definition of personal service. do you have whole colt -- the whole code section? >> yeah, sure. this will take a second.

change, the more restrictive code change. president peterson: will the findings need to be if it were more of a vested right basis? madam city attorney? >> i believe what the planning department has said is that you need to make a finding that this is legal non-complying to get a variance to proceed with this work. commissioner garcia: we do not need to find that a permit existed? vested would seem to me it is based upon a legal permit having been issued. >> i would defer to planning and building department as to whether legal non-complying require some evidence of a permit having been in existence. >> scott cinches, planning department. the fact is that it is a legal non-complying structure. that is the finding we would need to have the board make to rescind hour stop work order. commissioner garcia: we can leave the part to do with the permit out? >> commissioncommissioner fung:g to the planning department. >> commissioner garcia: that is who is here. president peterson: we would find that it was built before the change to

just briefly, the ordinance introduced had planning code administrative code, public works code and subdivision code amendments. planning code amendments are brought to you as well as administrative code amendments that have to do with land use issues and that's also before you today. the proposed planning code amendments would establish consistent requirements for street improvements associated with private development. the code is scattered in a number of different sections in the planning code and we have put it all into one section. and the proposed administrative code amendments would amend the existing better streets policy, which is chapter 98.1 of the administrative code, which called for all of the agencies to work together to improve the streets for all of the different functions that streets should play and the amendment would incorporate the better streets plan by reference into the better streets policy and would require that all projects in the public right-of-way conform with the policies and guidelines of the better streets plan. a summary of these amendments was included in you

the code says what order. what the priority is of how you spend that 20 percent in section 1134 capital d combepgz number one. the priority is the path of travel to the area of remodel do that first. that includes the front door and the metal hardware and the restrooms and it goes down and gets to the parking. it's almost always you start at the front and work your way back. the area of remodel always has to comply with the disabled access regulation. there was a question here? let's get that. >> the fine point on the cost. 11 119,900. is the 20 percent in addition? >> if that was 119 thousand dollars in construction you have to spend another 20 percent to meet the disabled access. >> reality is 20 percent more. contract price. >> yeah. you are allowed to deduct the amount includes to do the disabled access work. i'd have to look the specific language in 1134 d how you deduct that. there are certain things that are exempt from disabled access. disabled access is required when you are doing alterations, structu

of the public works code. i want to mention that this item was heard in committee and we did have presentations at that time. and i will defer to the director who can fill you in on the status of these two ordinances as they were heard at the board of supervisors today. commissioners, so, tonight we don't have a presentation from ken rich who led the legislation in conjunction with supervisor duff's office because our office has been intimately involved in the process. today, these two items were heard at the neighborhood meeting and passed out of committee. i want to make note of for item no. 8, which is the planning code, to recap that in our planning code, we did not have an intermittent use definition, so we now have an intermittent use definition based upon the committee's recommendation for this legislation, the initial time period was a maximum of three days. and based upon the committee's recommendation, it is now six days, up to 12 hours a day, and/or three days up to 24 hours. there's also noticing r

the second ordinance would amend the administrative code, planning code, public works code, and subdivision code, and in so doing, reference the better street plan. the main changes would be in the administrative code. it would amend the better streets policy, which is section 98.1, to require when people are making changes to the street environment, that they follow these guidelines and policies on the better street plan, and the planning code, which would establish requirements for streetscape improvements, which are currently required in various places in the planning code. this would consolidate those into a single section. for larger projects, this would also add a requirement for project sponsors to submit a plan, and the department would be able to require the standard streetscape elements that i showed before. those are the highlights of what the legislation does. this last slide is just to show that this is not the end. the adoption of this legislation would be a big step forward in terms of promoting a complete street design in the city, but there's a lot more we have to do to imp

>> we have to call upon the intent of the code. child care center is not included as a prohibited use within 1,000 feet of the mcd in any of the other planning code sections. go to article 2. go to article 8. it does not say you cannot be within 1,000 feet of each health care center. this is a code section that has been reviewed as in error. there is an error in having code section f. it has been applied. there are precedents. we have approved facilities under this as well. president peterson: all right. thank you. vice president goh: i have a question related to that. did the planning commission notice there was a reference to f? >> i do not believe the issue was raised. vice president goh: thank you. >> commissioners, if there are no further questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: i can start. usually, i am one of the commissioners who asks questions, but i did not in this particular instance for two reasons. one is i was curious enough to go back and look at the tape on the planning commission hearing. lucky for m

so if you were to say we're meeting the code, i would say what does the code require for durability. >> in terms of safety, why is glass in high rise buildings not laminated? >> sometimes it is. it is seldom, but the issue that we were just talking about could be -- is true for laminated insulated glass, or tempered insulated glass. it's the insulation that goes bad, not the glass. >> but we were talking about skylights, skylights were tempered, we had a problem with chardz coming down. >> and to answer the question, yes, laminated glass is very often used for glass. and we do use quite a bit of laminated glass. it's ordinary, laminated is two pieces of window glass together, with a pbb in between. ordinarily it's 030 or to meet safety requirements and they put a little bug on the corner that says what requirements that meets. >> if you use a piece of safety glazing it is required by the code to have the little stamp that's permanently etched into the glass or attached somehow. so that you can see what the safety glazing requirements are being met. >> sometimes, though -- sometimes,

for fire code reasons, we need folks to sit down. sorry to interrupt you. >> over the years, this board has said, "we believe this was constructed in approximately this era," and may have directed the building department to apply the codes that would have been in effect at that time. it is a difficult problem for us all, no doubt about it. commissioner garcia: in testimony, you heard him. the issue arose as to when this was built. if we were to say it had been built in 1970, it would not have required a variance, but would have required a permit. that was terrible. you touched on that now. how is that curable? >> what can we do? we have to solve the problem somehow. they can get a permit and comply with today's codes, or this board can say we believe it was built approximately in this era and therefore take some action to cure it. commissioner garcia: obviously, what ever they are going to do in the disputed area -- that would be current code in that they are doing it now? >> that is correct. commissioner fung: according to the build

it reference a code section that does not exist. if you look at article 8, which is similar to article 7, as the correct reference, and that is 890.50a. in looking at that, it does not include child care. it child care is separate item. that is not included and the list of prohibited uses. you have to be a school, you have to be a committee center devoted to it -- you have to be a community center devoted to children 18 years or under. the section 304.5 requirement is not really relevant here. that is the master plan which we addressed last meeting. yes, and the use in here would be subject to that, but that simply means you either meet it or do not meet it. the fact that they do not need it does not mean that it does not apply. i think 304.5 is irrelevant here. the key is to look at the enumerated sections, and the subject application is code compliant. this board has heard many medical dispensary cannabis appeals. i think they're well aware of the difficulties the providers have in finding a suitable location. we have very strict

and the code talks about other types of protection. you can't just have a single piece of glass, without some other type of protection, and it's in this handout that you have here. >> that code may change with the advent of special materials. eventually, we will come and say -- and it's been supplied in different cities, where we take a century -- it's called century guard, whereas there is this piece of plastic in between a couple of pieces of one eneeled, and one heat treated and the other tempered, so that even if it broke it stays together and stays rigid. so there really isn't reason then for that top handrail. >> the building code in san francisco says that we can approve products that are not specifically required or meet the requirements of the building code, if can be shown to us that there's a rational basis for approval, that they're meeting the intent of the code. we can approve an alternate method or material and we do that a lot now, especially with new materials flooding the market. we have to look at things on a case by

item 29. >> ordinance amending the said his gut environmental code repealing the current sections and adopt an unused sections for the gradual reduction and overall number of passenger vehicles and light duty trucks in the city's vehicle fleet by 20%. >> roll-call vote. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> item 30. >> item 30, ordinance amending the planning code and an initiative code by amending the inclusion are affordable housing program. >> this amends the inflationary housing ordinance and in the wake of the decision from last year, also makes a number of changes to other sections in the planning code. it is came to my attention that there is one section of the planning code that does need conforming changes but was omitted from this legislation. that is section 2 49.33 which references the special u.s. district. i have circulated an amendment to that section to delete the limitation that only 50% of the developer allocation -- can be consistent. i would like to ask us to first adopt this amendment and then is to go back to land use

enforcement of the code. this is really a unique property. i am not going to take up all of my time. instead, about two letter answer any questions you may have. we made a commitment years back to set this back into the middle of the site. we are committed to see it through in a good way. this complex project was reviewed by staff very carefully. the zoning administrator not only walked the site, but he met with all of us on the open space prior to the variance decision letter. when i say he met with us, this includes key members of the open space, the board of directors, booster members, the owners, and the president of the planning commission. this has been looked at very carefully. the decision was carefully considered. i give the rest of my time to my partner architect. >> good evening, my name is theodore brown. instead of talking about the architecture, i want to talk about our clients, who think are very special people. when they first purchase this property, they met with the neighborhood and they spent a lot of time. they spent twice

in every way, that issue is code compliant.it is a challenging piece of property on which to build. i have all due respect for everyone who is here, gave up their evening to come here to speak. but when i listen to some of the people who spoke, you almost get the impression that this project is going to be built in the open space. people talk about loss of open space and dramatic effect it will have on them. with all due respect to these neighbors, i don't see it as being that traumatic, and i intend to uphold the variants. -- variance4. and i would so move. >> we have a motion from commissioner garcia to uphold the granting of the variants. c9÷>on that motion, commissionr fung -- commissioner fung: no. >> vice-president? vice president goh: no. >> president peterson? >> aye. >> the vote is 2-2 to uphold the variants. four votes are needed to overturn any department action, so by default this variance is upheld. >> do we need any other commissioners vote? >> it would not make a difference. should we move forward? president pet

madam clerk: an ordinance amending the san francisco planning code. president shoot boat -- president chiu: any discussion? roll call vote. madam clerk: [reading roll] there are eight ayes and 3 no's. president chiu: this item is finally passed. item number 13. madam clerk: an ordinance amending the san francisco ministry of code dealing with landscape and landscape rehabilitation. president chiu: will call vote. madam clerk: [reading roll] president chiu: this item is finally passed. item number 14. madam clerk: to require any person who produces a drug offered for sale in san francisco to participate in an approved drugs george's program -- drug stewardship program. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to update the findings. this is that they are responsible for the public outrage. on page 8, line 19, through line two, this directs the ampara -- department of the environment to guide them in submitting plans. this is what they will use to measure the success of their plans. president chiu: colleagues, can we take