codes. tell direct you to the site for the building, plumbing. electronic housing codes. you query by chapter 7 or go to the sixth floor does we will make you a copy of the section. >> give us a call and we will fax your copy. 558-6205. okay. windows. windows are part of a larger scheme which is to preside weather protection for buildings. all housing is required to be weather protected. that means water can't come in where it's not wanted, through the roof, walls, windows. weather protection is a major issue, if you get water in the building it has unpleasant conscience. mold and milldue. damage and rot. that's one of our regular issues in the housing inspection world where we see the building needs to be painted. paint is primarily a weather protecting material. stucco is not waterproof. stucco needs to be weather protected. roofing is a common leakage problem and we usually find the leakage for roofs not in the field the middle of the roof it primarily occurs at the flashings along the ed

of the code. previously, the argument had been one of my neighbors had it so why can't i. that, as you know, does not carry any weight in the planning code. i would like to briefly address the code issues that were raised with respect to the appellants, the issues and the diagnosis he made of the code. he is correct. there are various controls that relate to permiting on the roof of a building. complexity increases when you are talking about a non complying building. this building rises to 73 feet in height and is in a 65 foot district. it is about 8 feet over the base hight limit in this district. while the code does allow certain things such as a scared -- as a scare penthouse, they are limited to the top 10 feet of height. if you have a building that rises to a height of 65 feet, you're penthouse can rise to 75 feet. when you're building rises to 73 feet, you are only able to work with 2 feet on the top of your building to fit in. i think the words he used for that is not practical. he is right

code change. >> but that is not getting it. is it because the c.d.s. code change?would it be -- >> we can't merge the code. we certainly won't have the money if we chose the buena vista community. we would only have an opportunity to get it if we keep the manch nn code which is what we're proposing to do. i think the commissioner has already made a prior decision they want the this merger to occur. >> i can see why the joint committee didn't make a fuss about it. ok. >> i do need clarification about we will need to know what to put into the name slot to be referred to as because i do think we were expecting to keep horace mann but didn't think about the fact. we need to change that to k-8. if you want us to do more than that, we will need to know. >> it sounds like the k-8 piece is fine with everyone. where is the bane vista piece? if you're able to put this that in without jeopardizing any of the funding, if you're able to put that in then we would like to see that in. if it creates any kind of consequence, particularly around the funding then you need to be very

and the housing code. owner's responsibility to meet those standards. we do not always go out and say, your rainwater is leaking, fix it. it's the owner's responsibility to pay attention and fix stuff much there is a range of responsibilities on the tenants. we will talk about what the owner's responsibility and the tenant's responsibility. i think it's important to realize that the owner in the law is the person who is always responsible for the maintenance and upkeep and habitability of their property and units. even if the tenant may not be the best housekeeper. the owner is still responsible for the building's condition. the first item has to do with a real safety issue which is exits much an exit has to get you to the street or public way. so, you check exits from you enforce habitability standards? >> absolutely. exits also includes fire escapes and it's very important to always consider an exit something that allows you to get in and out of the builds and emergency personnel to get in the build noth

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,

every day they would change the code and the brits would crack the code again. it was incredibly important. it is arguable that this secret technological project did more to win the war for the allies than the manhattan project in creating the atomic bomb. i believe the answer to that is -- i don't believe it's arguable i believe it is true. >> and it obviously they had to -- the english should not have given away that they knew too much. so how did they sort of avoid it? >> guest: they had to be careful how they used the information >> guest: these were the decisions churchill was making all the time. they were rightly paranoid about letting the germans know. i think they suspected of long before the war was over there was not that much they could do about. they had their u-boats of the needed to send messages. still, the fact that i -- i'm not a military historian so i can't give the chapter and verse to hinge on the knowledge that commanders had but we didn't know at the time that is the public didn't know at that time they were in possession of. >> host: i d

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

every time the germans change the code the brits would crack the code again. it was incredibly important and arguable that this secret technological project did more to win the war for the allies and the manhattan project did with the atomic bomb. i believe the answer to that is i don't think it is arguable but it is true. >> host: end english could not have given away that they knew too much? hi did they avoid that problem? >> they had to be careful how they use the information. these are the accusations churchill made all the time. they were directly paranoid about letting the germans know. if the germans had known and certain they suspected before the war was over there wasn't much they could do about it. but they needed to send messages -- messages. but the fact i am not a military historian but go to the textbook and see many decisive battles with the knowledge the commanders had that we didn't know at the time or the public did not know they were in possession >> host: so i may have distracted you view were talking about shannon adds a bell labs 1943? >>

that is not allowed in the planning code. and, -- the buildings were constructed prior to the parking requirement in the planning code. the parking described would not be allowed. the appellant also complains about the notification issued, the mail that notification. -- mailed notification. the zoning district -- we have to have the type of property and the type of application. i would argue that rh-2 has greater development potential than rh-1. i would argue that if we advertised it incorrectly as rh- 1, that would be a concern. in this case, they cannot do two units. if people had concerns about development potential, that would have been triggered more by the rh-2. there was quite an extensive amount of community out reached done by all parties concerned. we receive letters in support and opposition to the project from many in the neighborhood. i believe there was notice of the hearing. we had notice of the variance hearing and this appeal hearing. we can rest assured that notification was properly done. i think that summa

what does the code say to us for that? >> the project at 14 costa street is located in the burn on heights -- bernal heights. this property does not provide more than what is required. commissioner moore: so this would be code-compliant? >> exactly. commissioner moore: can you issue the notification? >> staff prepared the labels. for many years, -- i have personally worked with the support staff and i personally saw that they went out. commissioner moore: it was just not received? >> apparently. but it was mailed out. commissioner moore: i move to approve it, including its demolition. it is the hot items. ," and can take them as one. >> second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i am impressed with how this was done. i wish we sought more of this new seat replacement projects. this is beautiful. also, as far as the other thing, icommissioner moore, they are entitled to have a roof deck just like the adjacent property is entitled to have our roof deck. you know, you're in an urban environment. y

in my belief, the planning code may be the most amended of all of our municipal codes. it may be among the most frequently amended codes in the country. of the 62 ordnances we reviewed last year, about 21 of them were sponsored by our department. about 41 were sponsored by elected officials like yourselves. there is a lot of interest in the planning codes. with all this interest and these changes, over time there have been errors. text has been inadvertently dropped. amendments made in one ordnance are not reflected in the next. they have become out of date. this legislation is intended to correct the accumulated errors in planning code and update sections as needed. the planning commission initiated the ordinance in july of 2010. on august 5 of leicester, the recommended approval to the board of supervisors. originally the legislation contained amendments related to historic preservation issues. since the planning commission action in august of last year, hpc has continued to have dialogue with the planning commission. as they continue in their dialogue about historic

zoning code. a zoning designation appropriate for standard sized lot on high street but not appropriate for an acceptably large lot that intrudes halfway down russell street, which is an rh-2 zone. therefore, the lot never had any planning sense applied to it. and the result of that inadequate planning is a conflict of use. existing park transit use versus residential use. the use changed to residential violates urban design principles. as the commission knows, it can take d.r. for extraordinary circumstances. and according to planning, those circumstances occur as follows -- one, where the commonplace application or adopted design standards do not enhance or conserve neighborhood character. in this case, the existing building use and mask conflict with the surrounding residential and n.c. area. the project creates an oversized out of character residential project by reusing the building for a new residential use. the units described as family units are luxury units. and will be sold at a market r

code. he may or may not have been the inventor of the telegraph. in bats, he wasn't really. he was the inventor of this code, and it was a brilliant idea. it solved the problem that people were trying to solve all over europe. how do you take language, either spoken or written, and convert it into a form suitable for transmission over electrical wires? you can imagine a lot of ways of doing that. maybe it is hard now because we know the solution is so powerful. you know, opening and closing electress of circuits. but before that people involved, people came up with solutions involving measurements. they had clock faces. anneal would move. you could move a needle at one end of the wire and the needle would move it the other end of the wire, sort of like a leisure board. >> time surprised that didn't catch on. >> actually, there were telegraphed that works that way in england for a while. you concede that it is a little more. on the other hand, if you were just sitting down, if you heard thes

ordinance amending the san francisco planning code by amending sectional maps su10 of the zoning map of the city and county of san francisco to establish the executive park special use district; amending sectional map ht10 to establish the 65/240-ep height and bulk district; amending sectional map zn09 to change certain executive park parcels from c-2(community business) and m-1(light industrial) to rc-3(residential- commercial combined, medium including environmental findings, planning code section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the general of planning code section 101.1. supervisor cohen: this will complete the transformation of the area. the planning committee has items before them on the budget for consideration. i look forward to hearing from you all and from the public, of course, about the specifics of this proposal. staff will be making a presentation. please? thank you. at the opening comments or concerns? we will go ahead and get started. >> good afternoon, supervisors. before you there are three items related to executive park general plan amendments and zo

the bottom chart shows the project is a code complying with regards to parking. last, at the may hearing there was a question about the status and the likelihood of cpmc obtaining the necessary approvals from caltrans of the underground tunnels that connect the hospital to the medical office building under van ness ave. in short, caltrans has issued a conceptual approval letter for the tunnel based on a few contingencies. that concludes the first half of tonight's presentation, and now i would like to turn it over to the office of economic and workforce development. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. that has been my task to work with cpmc and the other stakeholders to negotiate the development agreement which will memorialize the benefits that cpmc receives from the city and provides for the city. since you have seen a few proposals later, i will not go over the basics, but i could do that if you wish. on may 16, the city issued a detailed set of requests for cpmc in return for the long range development plan. this was a few weeks ago and we are in the

code section 103.4. this ordinance requires annual registration, a registration fee to be paid [inaudible] before you you have a packet listing 427 active addresses. of those, 291 have paid and registered their buildings. the balance are in different stages of the code enforcement process. keep in mind, over the past two years or so, there were 300 other buildings that were evaluated. the owners responded and provided us with industry documents and information. they were declared as not needed to be on the active list. commissioner murphy: what is the annual fee for that? >> $765. that involves the registration form, ownership, other information, other requirements for the building. commissioner murphy: so it is the same fee as a single-family house, as in multiple units? >> yes. now, if you look at any active address on the list, it does not give an indication of the amount of staff time involved in any of those entries. when a particular address comes to our attention, we do a quick evaluation and then

>> it is in the planning code. commissioner peterson: no, the way in which you did it for this case, this project. vice president garcia: the actual numbers. commissioner peterson: yes, and how you came to 49.4. >> the numbers were in part provided on the application, both leading what was written on the application by the architect and having our staff take a scale and do the math -- both looking at what was written on the application by the architect and having our staff take a scale and do the math. commissioner peterson: if they want to recalculate it, they would go back to the code and recalculate it, but have you gone through the process, where has that been asked of you? >> it has not -- or, has that been asked of you? >> it has not. commissioner peterson: conflict, i thought that is what this was about. >> i do not believe that anyone is alleging that the actual numbers exceed 50%. yet my understanding, and i would defer to the appellant is my understanding is correct, that would be a demolition. commission

the building code says when you build something with a permit and you're able to keep it unless the code retro activity changes. how old do you think it is? >> (inaudible). >> 50 years old. there is nothing retro actively that says that have you to remove a sign. is that correct? >> 24r was a case on there was a case on market street and we did it for signs and a couple had to be removed but generally no. once it's non conforming could remain until the end of the life of the sign. >> so generally that is the case with all building issues is that are you permitted to retain those that were properly installed with a permit unless there is specific legislation that says otherwise typically. is this a flag sign? is that what they call signs that stick out like that? >> projection signs. >> projecting -- projection signs and it's painted and neon and the required martini glass and you can see it's stabilized by wires to keep it from falling and the wind from pushing it side ways. the signs are regulated in the building and planning code and requires it for all signs and we will talk about wha

item seven is amending the planning code fees. primarily, this ordinance proposes to put a cap on fees that are based on construction costs so that the initial intake fee does not exceed 50% of the cost of the construction. this is primarily to address small, over the counter projects where the fee oftentimes is equal to or sometimes even greater than the cost of the construction project. and then also, it applies to 2.07 cpi increase. supervisor chu: thank you very much. any questions from the committee on these items? why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> madam chair, members of the committee, i believe the department has stated that they concur with the $113,608, and i have no other comments. supervisor chu: thank you. before we move forward, i would like to take action on items 6 and 7, which are the fee updates. these would allow for the cpi adjustments. we do need to take public comment on items 6 and 7, so why don't we open these items up for public comment? are there any members of the public who wish to speak o

but at the end of the day, the law is the law and the planning code is the planning code. we have submitted all the evidence before you. let's have the conditional use hearing and let the neighborhood settle this rather, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. christine griffin for the permit holders. i think the issue was presented clearly by the senate administrators, the two chief people who measured the space. that one out there, they have the plan, the area in question is not available for use as part of the bank. it is not a designated exit for the bank. at the door is not necessary for fire code from exiting from the bank. chase has chosen to keep the door because it is an added safety for patrons and employees. they do not need it. it is not required. and it is not available to them for use. that is it. >> thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. i would just like to note one item. there has been ovations made there were no public hearings on the case. this is the third public hearing, and the board of appeals still has the same notification requirements. notice was do

some people actually self- report building code issues on themselves. there is an emergency call out from police and fire that we get once or twice a week. when a complaint comes in, it is put on a standard form. as i said earlier, the standard form goes to one senior building inspector, housing inspector that is responsible for prioritizing and insuring the correct person does the inspections in a timely manner. there is also systematic enforcement. that would be the routine housing inspections, the boiler program, condo conversion, sprinkler ordinance, things of that nature. once we go out onto a site with a complaint that has a number, then we ascertain whether or not the complaint is valid. if it is valid, we need to prioritize it. if it is for no heat, they would be given 24 hours to comply. of course, we would have to send letters, phone calls to the owner, manager, if there is one. if the issue is not dealt with satisfactorily, we give a second notice of violation. a second notice of violation clears the way for a director's hearing. directors he

there is no evidence that we willfully violated the code. there is not -- this was provided for you. the inspector did not have direct knowledge of what occurred nor were they present at the time of the incident and did not complete the police report. the police report provided to you is not accurate, either because the officer was not present. [bell] ok. he said he had personal knowledge. >> your time is up. >> this is not enough time. this is not enough time for somebody's livelihood. the respect for myself, i have been having a hard time sleeping the past month because i have to face these people. these are children i have known since they were babies. these are parents and uncles and grandparents. this is not right. they are showing that i did this and there's a big sign posted. i am not doing this. these are kids coming in to my place, they call me uncle ray. i cannot face these children or these parents. i appreciate what the department is doing. in fit -- enforce the law as much as i can and i have never been cited. there is no way i

code for excavation. that knowledge is on page 8, first of all, that the appellant, my client, was told the foundation would be no deeper than my client's foundation, and specifies the so the civil code has been violated. we urge you to force the building to be demolished and no permits issued for five years. vice president garcia: your time is up, but i am going to ask you a question because i think this is a complicated issue. >> id is. we believe notice has not properly been given. there are safety concerns here, and you should find that the building should be demolished, in fact has been demolished, and that no building permit should be issued for five years in accordance with the building code. short of that, the building now qualifies as a demolition, given that more than 50% of the vertical elements will be removed, and it should start over with mandatory discretionary review. if you are inclined to hold it as it exists, a number of conditions we request should be added that we feel are imperative

it also places people in the task force under air conflict of interest code. that would be an action that is subject to referendum. given that we understand that there is a desire to get the task force convened quickly and up and running and doing its work, it seems imprudent to have that piece of it tied to legislation. what we are suggesting is to divide the file. i have done that for you already. we have copies of it. we could divide the file and create to get be of different ordinances. one would reconvene the districting taskforce and one would designate the members of the task force under the conflict of interest code. convening the task force would not be subject to referendum. then the task force could be up and running and conducting its business without delay. >> our city attorney has proposed that we divide the file. in motion by supervisor mirkarimi. sentiment by avalos. s --econded by avalos. with regards to the separate file, that would amend the city's conflict of interest code. that should be the case as well. why do we not now move to roll cal

code. there is not a pattern of these smaller lots, a predominant pattern in the district. we found at less than 2% of the 1000 lots within 1,000 feet, 1868 lots within 1,000 feet of the property, that less than 2% were smaller than 1100 square feet in size. also, as the product sponsor stated, their alternative is here. they can go through the condominium process. they have not exhausted all of their remedies to achieve the goals that have separate ownership, that means available to them. i am assuming they qualify for the condo, it would have on our occupancy for that time, sounds like approximately 10 years. that i think summarizes most of the points i want to make. some of the other sites that were pointed out by the product sponsor, many of them were nowhere within 1,000 feet of the property and were in different neighborhoods of the city. there were some that were close by, a few properties on cortland. however, those are very distinct and they are 3 lots. there is a different develop