it deals with code and safety and different from planning code issues. what exactly did the public health and safety have to do with land use policies and land use issues? let's start with the public safety aspect. we have a building code. the building code is an extremely important part of san francisco. we want buildings to be safe. we don't want this em to fall down in earthquakes. there is a requirement for life safety and when there is a fire, there is no risk of life. those are important for the building code. there was nothing raised at the last hearing in december that would say otherwise. where is the evidence in the record that says that a 5 story building would be any less safe than a 4 story building. that's the findings you are supposed to make under this code section. public health, we have a health code. you have a huge range from general to restaurant regulation. there is some overlap, there is some department of public health issues, storage tanks. you will find nothing in the city's health code or any other code that speaks to the issue

streets, lot 001 in assessor's block 1248 - request for conditional use authorization under planning code sections 719.83 and 303 to develop a wireless telecommunication services wtss facility for at&t mobility. the proposed macro wts facility would feature 122 roof-mounted panel antennas housed within individual faux vent pipes. related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in the basement. the facility is proposed on a location preference 6 site limited preference, individual neighborhood commercial districtt within the haight street neighborhood commercial district, and 40-x height and for continuance. sf 112341234 it's proposed for continuance for january 23rd. item 2. item 2: 2013.1695t e.watty; 4155 558-66200 request for a planning code amendment - pursuant to planning code section 302, to allow non-conforming secondary structures that exceed a property's maximum floor area ratio limit to be demolished, in whole or in part, and reconstructed, if certain findings can be made by the planning commission though the downtown authorization process section 3099. the ordinan

the placement of the new addition in the rear yard, the approval basis of this project, is planning code section 136, c26, and this is the language of that here and it refers to the garage, and it is not specific about that, it does not say a room, or a studio or a living room it clearly says a garage, and to me rntion a garage is purely an uninhabitable and we feel to use that without the public notice and without the public review, is questionable. in stream lining we review this approval as part of an ongoing effort to put more projects outsides of the purview of the public review. and the decision is fundamentally at odds with the traditions of the development in san francisco, and with the stated intent of the planning code which is to create the openness, transparency, and to foster harmony the construction along the property line and this is standard and encouraged by the design guidelines that the new rear yard additions be set back from the side property line, this is a remedy that has precedent and your board has used it and the planning department uses it frequently and thus,

>> we can talk about planning code. but it's similar to other buildings that are existing in the neighborhood already. that may have been built under previous code requirements but are still there and part of the fabric there today and part of the character that the building is attempting to match. >> a lot of it is driven by the corner lot? >> yes. >> thank you. >> isn't it though, along the same line, the reason these things are coming forth is because of your urban design, the criteria and what you wanted this corner to be, a code compliant solution would have had a continuous rear yard that would have been erect ohlin ear in ratio. the impact upon the only one that would impact potentially the tenant is where the distance to the rear yard is the subject. the other is in terms of light and air. you have windows and looking at open space. i don't see much difference there. is that correct? >> yes. i think that's an important point too and also considering maybe our urban design codes have evolved but the planning code

and this raised some question about the green building code which is a separate code. so as we are meeting right now, the building commission standards commission in sacramento is also meeting and there is a staff recommendation to go ahead and implement the new green building code, january first as planned. if the commission chooses not to do that, we would no longer have a green building code that would be in effect, since we have already had the board eliminate the old code, in preparation for the new. and that would mean that we would have to go to john, and his folks and have some help from the supervisors, and immediately introduce new legislation in order to continue the 2010 code, for green building it would probably mean a 6 to 8 week period where we would not have a green building code. i'm expecting a phone call from of one of our mechanical engineers who is in the sacramento meeting today, and so, maybe before the end of this meeting we will actually know and at least some time today we should know whether or not we are going to have to take a legislative i

it's not in the planning code. and planner or elisa or listensey, there is no written interpretation. the only thin that was given to us was this illustrated book of development definition and under that garage is clearly a service space for the storage of vehicles. the other point i want to make is about the 5-foot setback. there is great precedent for side yard set backs isn mechanisms for negotiations. these are typical situations for board permit appeals hearings. the setback is reasonable because it's absolutely achievable. it can be done and should be done and if there is no loss of function, if there is no loss of code compliance, if there is no loss of square footage and no loss of value, it should be done because it's a better project. thank you for your consideration. and we should have a hearing to discuss it. i want to say this. understanding both your powers and your judgment and recognizing that the fate of this project and the future definitions of 136c 26 lie not with some planner, but with you toni

the planning code clearly addresses the interaction of the special use districts in the planning code section 235 which authorizes a special use district concludes with the statement and any special use districts, the provisions of the applicable underlying use district shall prevail except as specifically provided in the ordinance. in this case, the knob hill special use district is silent in how non-conforming use is treated. therefore the under lining zone prevails. by upholding the eir is not setting a precedent to change the way special use district are used in the city. the code remains in existence and states unless there is a specific inconsistency between the sudden ordinance and the under lining zoning, the under lining zoning controls. it's nothing new, it's always been in the code. from an interpretation from the code that was issued several years ago. "special use district's are intended to modify the provisions of the under lining zoning to the extent and only as stated in the provision" therefore the under lining zoning prevails. earlier these same arguments were made i

the resolution approving the mills act property contracts under code 71 item 30. item 30: 2013.30.130463[mills act historical property contract - 1772 vallejo street burr mansionn]sponsor: farrellresolution approving a mills act historical property contract, under administrative code, chapter 71, between john moran the owner of 1772 vallejo street burr mansionn, and the city and county of san francisco; and authorizing the planning director and assessor to execute the mills act historical property contracts under code 71 item 30. item 30: 2013.30.130463[mills act historical property contract - 1772 vallejo street burr mansionn]sponsor: farrellresolution approving a mills act historical property contract, under administrative code, chapter 71, between john moran the owner of 1772 vallejo street burr mansionn, and the city and county of san francisco; and authorizing the planning director and assessor to execute the mills act historical property contracts under code 71 item 30. item 30: 2013.30.130463[mills act historical property contract - 1772 vallejo street burr

and that the structure is code compliant? >> yes. >> hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado. >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. thank you. the vote is 5-0 and the permit is upheld on that basis. >> we are going to take a short break, five minutes.

it's no our department manual and in the traffic code or the transportation code 6.6 that outlines thees cot and how much to be charged. commissioner joseph and then commissioner hyde >> i used 10 b a lot. in this past year i had an opportunity to use the k9 units after the boston bombing we used them for pride and i'm a dog lover they won't let me pet them. so i have a question 10 b is requested and you present them to the proefrment what's the process to come to some further agreement like for instance, there's a hypothetical street fair you think we can sgo do this with four officers and not 10 how do you resolve those issues. >> there's a process in the transportation code for them to ask for resolution and there's also the permit officers and the sergeant special event sergeant at the station work with the promoters to come to a resolution. it's generally considered outside how many police and other private security to hire to mitigate some of those concerns >> so it's subjective as to the captain of the station and the permit officer. >> they would be one of the first stops in this

into a single section of the code. so, in broad strokes, these two pieces he of legislation do three things. consolidate aye tier i can't used for the evaluation of the loss of dwelling units, change the control of the associated, particularly with mergers. you would not be allowed to merge two units. if the building had been subject to an ellis act eviction or another no fault eviction in the last 10 years as amended, [speaker not understood] the last five years. and then lastly it creates a new opportunity to expand legal nonconforming units unless there had been no effect eviction within that [speaker not understood]. >> okay, question. give me an example of -- what is an expansion of a legal nonconforming unit? >> sure. a good example would be a legally constructed four-unit building that was constructed, say, in 1923 before a neighborhood was down zoned to residential two family dwellings. so, officially the current zoning allows for two formal dwellingses, but a building was grandfathered in, it's completely lega

item number 3, resolution approving a mills historical property contract, under administrative code, chapter 71, between pacific heights, llc, the owners of 2550 webster street, and the city and county of san francisco; and authorizing the planning director and assessor to execute the mills act historical property contract. ~ city and county of san francisco. item number 4, resolution approving a mills act historical property contract, under administrative code, chapter 71, between 1019 market street properties, llc, the owners of 1019 market street, and the city and county of san francisco; and authorizing the planning director and assessor to execute the mills act historical property contract. ~ item number 5, resolution approving a mills act historical property contract, under administrative code, chapter 71, between brian jackson and thomas ranese, owners of 3769 20th street, and the city and county of san francisco; and authorizing the planning director and assessor to execute the mills act historical property contract. ~. item number 6, resolution approving a mills act historic

you see the revenue go up last month because of the code change. lots of people submit the permit for december before the code change that's why you see it barely go up from 6 to 7 period. any questions? >> no. i'm good >> okay. item 4 e i didn't want on code enforcement >> dbi monthly update the building inspector was performed for 5 hundred and 16. complainants received for 2 hundred and 33 complaints was 2 hundred and complaints for the first violation is down to 68 and complaints without notice of violation were 18. the abatements were 34 and second notice of violations refer to code enforcement 17. for the housing inspections performed there was 8 hundred plus and complaints was that hundred and 92 and complaint response was that hundred and 60. compliments a with notice of violation issued were you nine hundred and 60. number of cases sent to directors sent on the 26 and the code enforcement sent to the directors hearing was that 6 and number of abatements issued were 11. number of kinds under awe investment were 6 >> thank you deputy. questi

if you think it's code compliant. >> yes, i do think it's code compliant but i think we should have some kind of language in there that the permit holder worked with the department to clean up some of the languages with regard to the work that was performed that may or may not be on the permit. is that what you said earlier? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. perhaps directing the project sponsor -- what is your recommendation? >> the discrepancies on the plan are not material to our review, but i think would be more jermaine to building department review and if the building department is satisfied with the revisions and discrepancy of the location of the skylight and the roof plan and floor plan. i think that would be relevant to the location of the para pit. it would be in a different location if it wasn't matched up and lined up with the stairs. i think in terms of the things that were shown on floorplans and not on site plans. the work there is okay, but the quality of the plans are -- para pet. >> the construction is already there. those para pet walls are up already.

. >> that is right >> the section, 3307 and the code and then there is 32 in the civil code and it talks about, and when you excavate below someone's foundation that you have to do in my experience, i have seen, they have to bring that foundation, and then down to the bottom of that foundation and a lot of times who pays for that and that is not very, and that starts to get into who is responsible? but, and in answer to your question, the, i think that they had one a few months ago and there was the impact of holding a brand new foundation in one property and not taking care of the other one could cause on the engineers need to speak to this and the tilting theory that you are putting a load on something and it is going to effect the building and i think that we had it a few months ago. >> thank you, i will ask the engineers, thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> anything? >> no. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, then we will take rebuttal, starting with the appellant. >> unfortunately i have been able to finish my report here, but there are some portion by mr

that code. additionally the code is the street cleaning for the parking and traffic for the mta for the department for their traffic control. the 10 b unit is centralized on the floor across from the field operations control. we have one captain and two sergeants. what comes through this. the first time that comes to mind is the movies and films. any requirements they have for the shooting of movies we work in concert with the film commission with their requirements what they're going to need for the filming to take place. they generally need our motorcycle unit. we can't get the motorcycle officers we call on the motorcycle you officers and if not we try to get the regular officers with their bikes to perform the needs. next thing we provide services for is construction. throughout it city there's numerous construction projects and through the mta to - the construction companies are required to have mitigation for pedestrian concerns through their permitting a their required to hire additionall

two, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16, subsection c, for repaying aloan amount in excess of $120,000. 3 one violation of california government code section 81 104, subdivision a has incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 106 for not accurately reporting either the correct amount loan or the date that the loan was deposited into the committee's bank ak. four, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code for not providingdoms that were required to keep within ten business days after a request by ethics commission staff. five, 16 violations of california code section 1 4104 as incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 06 for faying to maintain detailed records that document the days on which his committee made 15 expenditures, the amounts of the expenditures, the names and addresses of the payees or description of the goods or services. 6,15 violations of san francisco campaign and governmentality condu