housing codes. the graphics you see here is the bid, building inspection division, notice of violation status. the number, first notice of violations for 2012, this is notice of violations. these aren't complaints. this 332 notices. the number of second notice of violation code enforcement is 181. that's for the year 2012. the number of first notice of violations between january this year and march is 195 and the number of second notice of violations refer to code enforcement as 19. these are the actual notice of violations. what happens on some of these violations here is that permits required. so, if there is a first notice of violation which requires marked time trying to obtain a permit or obtain an architect line, you usually work with the code -- individual to give it more time. if compliance is not responded to in a reasonable amount of time, a second notice of violation is issued. a lot of these cases that we have for open of notice of violation, there are plans that follow the planning [spe

so, that is his analysis of what the code enforcement section is dealing with. >> okay. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. daniel lowery, deputy director, [speaker not understood] services. notice of violation are official citations to document conditions in situations that do not comply with the san francisco building plumbing, electrical, mechanical and housing codes. the graphics you see here is the bid, building inspection division, notice of violation status. the number, first notice of violations for 2012, this is notice of violations. these aren't complaints. this 332 notices. the number of second notice of violation code enforcement is 181. that's for the year 2012. the number of first notice of violations between january this year and march is 195 and the number of second notice of violations refer to code enforcement as 19. these are the actual notice of violations. what happens on some of these violations here is that permits required. so, if there is a first notice of violation which requires marked time trying to obtain a permit or obtain an architec

number of second notice of violations refer to code enforcement as 19. these are the actual notice of violations. what happens on some of these violations here is that permits required. so, if there is a first notice of violation which requires marked time trying to obtain a permit or obtain an architect line, you usually work with the code -- individual to give it more time. if compliance is not responded to in a reasonable amount of time, a second notice of violation is issued. a lot of these cases that we have for open of notice of violation, there are plans that follow the planning [speaker not understood] still aren't approved yet. and there are permits that are issued with these to obtain compliance that aren't final yet. we keep the notice of violations open until we get full compliance before we abate them. >> i have a question. so, we got some information about the backlog from the housing division and i wonder if you have a concept of how many open notices of violation are backlogged through code enforcement or the building. >> we have -- >> yo

are they forever, good for a code change, good for a month? we put some language in there that the state thought as long a the code provisions affecting that, the application letter haven't changed, then the pre-app remains valid. so, just because it goes through a code cycle doesn't mean we necessarily have to throw that away. both stay the same [speaker not understood] the work over again. then the last item is relating to fees. there are two types of meetings, a pre-application immediating and pre-addendum meeting. pre-application meeting [speaker not understood] board submitted a pre-application so there are no fees have been paid for -- except for through this process in order for us to support that meeting. pre-he addendum meeting is similar, but they submitted for a site permit and it's been through planning and before they submit their addendum all the structural detail, they want to have -- sit down and have a meeting. that meeting we haven't been charging for -- we actually have been charging for it, but not according to this adminis

i don't know all the code. what if a field inspector code goes out and says this thing was stamped, this is not up to code. what happens then? >> [speaker not understood]. we approved it. >> what happens then? >> okay, tom, acting director. as soon as i take over the office since last year and then you see from the website and then we pass out an information sheet, what is a common issue for a small project first, okay. then to resolve those issues uniformly, we have a joint meeting, we have fire department with us and staff that discuss all those issues, i am out, we send information to all staff including inspection. everybody will be agreed. this is the -- because the interpretation from the code, [speaker not understood] issue and all those stuff, [speaker not understood]. and then by the time to discuss the code, staff can go in there and listen and have objection or opinion and then try to [speaker not understood]. small project, also they sometimes come in for verification. now is substantially big deals

because the codes are not clear. in fact, the planning permit advised the board of supervisors that it is unclear that it cross-references the sections inconist ently to make it sound like it is an active use and when it is people look at the code and they decide, what will it take to make an active use? they look at the provision in the code that says, that you have to have 60 percent of your frontage to be clear windows. and it has that. they look at the code in the definition of financial services. they look at their documents on the secretary of state, irs and all of their licensing. and they see their financial service. i supply ask you to look at this in a broad way and look at what is equitable and fair. and look at what can really expect a tenant and the land use attorneys at their side as expensive as we are to be thinking this is confusing the board of supervisors did not follow the advice to make it clearer. the zoning administrator years ago, wrote an interpretation, making it clear and you have it in fro

got a code 3 down the hall. what's that? uh, code 3? not as bad as a code 4, but a hell of a lot worse than a code 2. that's a code 2. ♪ i can't do this all on my own ♪ ♪ no, i know ♪ i'm no superman captioning made possible by buena vista television

it's really just a code clean up and nick cal changes made to the planning code. over time as we noted some clarifications and corrections that needed to be made. before i invite anne marie rogers from the planning department to kind of walk you through some of those changes, there is a nonsubstantive amendment that needs to be made on page 93, line 24. basically refers to section 315 of the code which has been deleted recently and is now section 415. so, with that i want to invite anne marie rogers here. >> thank you, supervisor. and welcome to the board. anne marie rogers from the planning department and i'm here to go over a little bit of this pretty large ordinance that is before you. as you know, the people of the city of san francisco and the board of supervisors care deeply about the planning code and as a result of that it is amended about 50 times per year. that results invariably in some mistakes and some unintended consequences. as supervisor tang described, there is one ordinance found since the introduction last week, and i do have a couple other chan

i also brought the code book with all of the sections that it is code compliant for. egress and as far as the egress goes the proposed stairs are much more in accordance with the permit building code and much better stair. for egress. a couple of misrepresentations in the appellant's brief. we have direct access for the public way. that is very important as far as the egress goes. he states that we don't, we do. so just, so, so this is

i look at it at code section as no different than any other code sections, the people in a 40-foot high limit will sometimes want to build up to the high limit and they are going to want to use the exceptions in there for either penthouses or elevator structures or etc.. and it is just another requirement that one deals with. i don't see this as a defacto demolition given that both the planning and the building department have checked the details and yes, people do get it to a... i should not say the other word, the difference from the percentage requirement. and that is no different than what we do when they take it for a set back or any other planning requirement. the question of whether this house impacts the two adjacent neighbors, i believe that the enter face has been addressed by the design. they tried to minimize the issue of direct openings of windows facing each other and i think that over all, i am prepared to up hold this site permit. >> i think that people probably gathered from my questions that i i am troubled by the evidence that was presented around the potential circum

the code minimum. what we're asking for is eliminate the variance, eliminate the garage, and shrink this penthouse. if you're going to allow the penthouse, it has to be much smaller to come close to fitting in the neighborhood. thank you very much. >> second dr requestor. you have two minutes. >>> thank you. john casey, [speaker not understood] property management again. the one point i wanted to bring up, the project sponsor's continued reference to the front of the property setback. but as we know, it's offset by the variance request to the rear of the subject property which severely impedes the open air space and privacy to the rear. so, again, i am strongly opposed and request -- based on all the facts, to reject the project. thank you. >> okay. project sponsor, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >>> firstly, i'd like to address a couple of things mr. williams said. he makes mention of in his submission we are creating a fourth floor. we are creating a fifth floor to be clear. it's an existing three-s

complying for the roof deck, there were two issues, one the codes were not code complying, and two, given the location of the deck, it is on a non-complying portion of the building and it required under our policy, a ten-day notice to the abuting properties as a notice to the roof deck and that was not done with the review. and we thought that continuing it, hopefully the parties would come to an agreement and there is also already a sign-off from the abuting property to the rear, so that the notification issue would be settled and the co-compliance issue would be settled. >> before the hearing today we did receive revised plans for the roof deck and i reviewed those briefly and the plans do comply with the planning code and made modification to the plans and i don't know if the appellant had time to review those, but rather than having this take much more of the board's time or having this be continued and i don't know if we are going to come to a resolution to the parties. the board could deny the permit, and have the applicant submit over, and right now the plans that were with t

, section 302, findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and planning code, section 101.1. and item 20 is an ordinance amending the administrative code, section 10e.2, to integrate the western south of market area plan into the eastern neighborhoods monitoring program for purposes of reviewing the effectiveness of the western soma area plan and inclusion of the western soma area plan into the eastern neighborhoods reporting requirement, eastern neighborhoods capital expenditures plan, and the eastern neighborhoods citizens have iery committee; and making environmental findings. ~ >> roll call vote. >> on items 17 through 20, supervisor mar? mar aye. supervisor tang? tang aye. supervisor wiener? wiener no. supervisor avalos? avalos aye. supervisor breed? breed aye. supervisor campos? campos aye. supervisor chiu? chiu aye. supervisor cohen? cohen aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. there are 8 ayes, one no. >> those ordinances are finally passed. item 21. >> item 21 is resolution concurring with the controller's establishment of the consumer price index for 2013, and adjusti

it will meet the stand standards of the code and mr. santos is here to talk about issues but you have three minutes and come up. >> in terms of the engineering issues but this will be a better, safer situation once this project is built. >> commissioners, santos, (inaudible) for the project. stability of the site, we are proposing absolutely the best thing that can happen to this hill. why? one, we are going to take all of the water and create a permanent new watering system, so all of the drainage issues that are occurring on the adjacent properties have been solved by the fact that we are taking that excavation. two, we will have retaining walls that are properly designed and properly reinforced and more importantly they will be peer reviewed and we will have another pair of eyes and structural engineers and source engineer and geologists this is the best possible thing that could happen to the hill and stabilized and let's talk about the demolition. mr. williams is saying, is that according to his interpretation of demolition, if you

and tear down more of the building than would ordinary be allowed by the code. mr. murphy, at first said, or at the request of the dr request that we had. he said, well they could be placed or take the walls down and replace and repair them and put them back and now he is saying that he is going to add to them. not take them out. that they will still stay in the same place and add the sheer wall to them and that is

the labor code provides for the state labor commissioner to enforce. the state labor commissioner is not going to enforce a prevailing wage requirement on a privately funded san francisco project. so, the language could have been better. >> how was that language crafted? how was the process, was olse part half? >> olse was not part of that. ~ so, we requested payroll documents including time cards, check stubs from all the contractors as part of our audit. neither the event authority or hartman would provide olse with a copy of the contract between the event authority and hartman, which was confidential. but both parties agreed that if it contained the prevailing wage requirement. ~ that it contained none of the subcontractors we spoke with at olse informed hartman of the prevailing wage requirements. none of the subcontractors maintained or kept certified payroll records or hired apprentices for the work. the audits were difficult because most of the subcontractors did not keep track of the hours worked specifically on this project. and, so, they had

that window has to meet the minimum code requirements. >> yes. and what is, you have done enough houses what is the minimum requirement. >> it depends on the type of window. >> what is it? >> probably i would put inform a double hung and it will probably require let's see, maybe somewhere between 2, 8 in roof, and 5, 6 in height. >> they got bigger in height? >> or encased i need three foot by, three buy five. either one below it in the guardrail. they don't want a door. >> fine a window and we could do a window. and will be on the egress side. >> right. and double litter. >> that is what we want to do. that is what my client. >> you still will have joint custody over the gutter. >> okay. >> in terms of a foundation, i think that the department is already done the inspection and the engineer issues an inspection matter. >> all right. >> okay. >> you want to come back on that issue? >> okay. okay, we have a conclusion is that we will agree and accept that the pipe one pipe and then the border goes to the pipe and the sewage. >> but they are respon

building than would ordinary be allowed by the code. mr. murphy, at first said, or at the request of the dr request that we had. he said, well they could be placed or take the walls down and replace and repair them and put them back and now he is saying that he is going to add to them. not take them out. that they will still stay in the same place and add the sheer wall to them and that is not going to count toward any demolition. but that is not repair and maintenance and it simply makes the load bearing of the original house nothing but cosmetic and it is replacing the walls that he is supposed to be keeping. >> one ceiling on the top floor is being raised two feet so he is saying that it is being retained but it is not being put back in the exact same place so it does not even follow the city planning calculations of what a demolition is. also, this is, there are three zones in this area that are r1, r2, and r3, that is why there are bigger conditions, he is in rhone that is what he should be compared to. >> thank you. >> next speaker pl

it not meant to replace code, policy or a legislative item. it's meant to be a very short value and mission statement for the department. so it does have 3 components, mission statement, vision and value statements. and we have revising the mission statement to incorporate your comments and comments by the public. i would like to read that. the san francisco planning department under the direction of the planning commission shapes the future by generating an extra ordinary vision, improving our surroundings through environmental analysis and preserving and enforcing planning code. if i may, there have been comments from the public about making sure we incorporated affordable housing concerns and that statement about encouraging the broad range and the preservation was incorporated hence the phrase preserving our unique heritage. the one thing you asked us to do is that we understood and you understood how this is to be used and the tactics if you will. the second page of the memo it outlines those tactics. it will be used in general by managem

he's the only surviving code talker at 92 years old. >> this is chester and my's book, "code talker: the first and only memoir by an original navajo code talker of world war ii," and tester is the code talker. he is actually the last of the 29 code talker and turned 92 last week. a code talker for people who don't know what it is was someone who helped the marines in the pacific war in world war ii to be actually to transmit messages without the japanese being able to intercept and decipher messages. before we had navajo code talkers, the japanese were intercepting and desafing all messages, and it was a huge problem. we were actually losing in the pacific. a man named philip johnston suggested to them they use navajo. he grew up on the reservation. his parents were missionary, and he knew a little navajo, kind of what they call trader navajo, and he knew enough to know how complicated it was, and he went to the marines and said, look, this is what i think you need to do, and they said, well, how coyou prove it? can you give us a demonstration? he found four navajo men who worked in

so by the code they are supposed to be doing a peer review and i made that section to mr. santos and i am sure that he is going to discuss it. i think that it is a smart thing to do. last, there are two criterias for demolition, there is a dba and a planning criteria, they are different. they are really different. dba, you don't include the foundation, you don't include the roof. planning has different thresholds and also have a (inaudible) but i am not going to speak to but they need to be looking at both criteria and i could not find the second criteria and they need to clarify that and move on. >> thank you commissioners >> thank you, we can hear from the permit holder now. >> anyone here representing the permit holder? >> does the board wish to have this picture of mr. williams left up here of the appellant's property, or should i give it back to you. >> it is not in our packet. >> is this in the back packet? >> it is not. >> good evening, commissioners, for the permit holder, if i could have the audio and visual i would like to review the real issues here and not the

so, that is his analysis of what the code enforcement section is dealing with. >> okay. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. daniel lowery, deputy director, [speaker not understood] services. notice of violation are official citations to document conditions in situations that do not comply with the san francisco building plumbing, electrical, mechanical and housing codes.

therefore, we are proposing a new tax code that is more of a progrowth tax code. let's take obamacare, the affordable care act. we don't like this law. his is why we are proposing to repeal the law in our budget. more importantly, we believe that this law is going to collapse under its own weight. please know that when americans see exactly what the law entails, which they have not seen all these details are those of us who work on these oversight committees who know what is going to happen through the provider networks, they are not going to like this law. this is why we are not only repealing this law because we don't think we can afford to borrow $1.8 trillion in extra spending that it entails, we think we can replace it with a better healthcare system. that is also something we are going to be proposing. here is a better patient -- centered system to replace obamacare. this is consistent with everything that we believe in, which is getting rid of obamacare because we think it destroys the health care system. it will make it an inferior quality of care system,

s >> right. >> to put it back on the code. and in dedicate, the money will be as a policy body i think that it is best. and it may not be single family home owners. in fact, that stopped making sense 25 years ago. so... >> i think that we should revisit that. >> yeah. >> great. >> commissioner mar? >> yes, i would like to thank our partners for coming today. i think that there is going to be another item on the agenda next month which perhaps some of you might want to come back to because i think this has been an important partnership as the mayor has talked about moving the hud housing into quasiprivate for lack of a better work. i think that there might be a need for us to expand the work. also with our staff we want to take this on, i feel that we have to always look at how we can do more for the under represented tenants in the city, it is a job that we want to do but at the same time we have to have adequate resources whether it is to our community partners or for your own inspecters and this is just one other point that