it's limited and that's what the code allows for. we can't go beyond our code. those are the tools we have. the nine times of course is -- we hardly see this, but when somebody were to go out there and completely tear down a building and have no permit at all. i don't know if i have ever seen that. monetary penalties as we're saying are typically small based on work valuations. what does add to the penalties is the code enforcement fees and orders of abatement, that takes it into thousands of dollars for assessment of code enforcement. referral to the city attorney for litigation and possible financial penalty, we have evidence of that here. our unlawful demolition code prohibits the project from proceeding for five years, in consideration of 317 of the planning code, where there's a bit of a contractor. i think what's important to understand about our code section regarding unlawful demolition, it states when no demolition permit is in place, the unlawful demolition and five years would kick in. but just bear in mind, these jobs have significant permits. they h

any subsequent permit that would meet the planning code and the building code and all other requirementscould be approved in the future. nsr is a notice of special restrictions that would be reported on the property to document any specification conditions of approval put on, and i was thinking about what conditions kind of long-term do you want, not necessarily just limiting the scope of work for that permit, but what additional conditions you want to apply to that, whether that be no this or no that or no more than this or no more than that. if you wanted to apply those types of conditions of approval in perpetuity that just go beyond this permit, that's the kind of thing that would be used to report the conditions of approval. that's what we do at the planning department. if you have an entitlement those conditions are recorded on the property as a condition of approval. the zoning administrator has the authority to put those kind of conditions on a building permit, as well as any kind of entitlement, and again, those conditions can run in perpetuity in addition to the permit. >> and

-it's time to call the code. -no! this is my code. you gave me this code. she's 21 years old.you need to feel the ribs crack. (irving grunting) that's enough. no. move. i'm not giving up. (heart monitor flatlining) i said that's enough. we got a pulse. you saved her life. her end tidal co2 was less than 15 for the entire code. -that doesn't necessarily mean that... -yes. yes, it does. she's been without oxygen to her brain for 26 minutes. congratulations, you got her heart beating again, but she's brain-dead. ♪do your, do your thing ♪do your thing, ♪ just do your thing♪ ♪do your, do your, do your thing♪ ♪do your thing baby ♪do your, do your, do your thing♪ ♪don't stop, don't stop doing it baby♪ ♪do your, do your, do your thing♪ ♪don't stop, don't stop doing it baby♪ ♪do your, do your, do your thing♪ ♪just do your thing as a meteor headsnderway toward the metro area. go, go, go, go, go! we can fit more! there's still more room! we gotta go. juicer! we don't have a juicer! the volkswagen tiguan. it fits everything you need, and everything you don't. this is three million dollar

consider the tax code to criminal code. imagine a tech engineer with stock options versus a public schoolteacher. white collar crime versus class-a drug offense. what i'd like to do to bring that point home is to make some observations from projects that have been suspended, to share in these cases some of the observations you can make about sections 317, parties have been suspended. one thing in common for all these suspended cases a structure has been demolished. key differences, the length of suspension between -- before hearing or decision have ranged from four months to 22-plus months. where the hearings are held or required, not always. some cases, no hearings are held. whether upzoning is required, fun so far. in one case, you eliminated all projects permitting expansion of the building size. in some cases, up to four times larger. so let me just go through quickly some examples just to bring home these points. this is a picture of 24 to 26 ward street in corunna heights. it was suspended for 17 months. for working w

that's not required by code? >> so in this case, the -- >> the code only speaks to at the property playing of establishment. >> we've gone into neighbors having these issues. >> we have, and i think that in the past, when we -- the code does not speak going into residences and doing readings. you know, it really speaks to at the property plane, and so it's a little tricky because when we do go into neighbor's residences and take a reading, what part of the code does that speak to, how can we regulate that? we can't. we would have to justify that with a change in code, honestly, so -- >> yeah. and then, when you say the soundproofing's 90% done, when the soundproofing's finished, we're going to go in and set new limits. >> we can go in any time and test. it's all science. >> the idea would be wait until they're finished -- >> my idea was to hold off because this was last tuesday i believe when i spoke to mr. bloom, and he said they were going to be having this hearing on wednesday. sean could come out after that t

. >> today i'll be presenting an ordinance to mend -- amend the planning coat code code for eating and drinking in the use. >> thank you. i do have but i'd like to pass out to you an amended version of the file we interduesed introduced on tuesday. we've been able to address the amendments before the commission. i have here letters i'm not sure were submitted in time to get to your district but from the jackson square historic association and to h.o.a.s in the boundary in support of the amendment. just very briefly, this is a packet of amendments. the substantive amendment is for the jackson square special use district. we've pursued as once in a decade cleanup of zoning and controls to match the status quo or advance the interest of community neighborhood groups. this one is no different in that regard. the principle amendment is to the jackson square s.u.d. relative to limited restaurants proposed to occupy a state that was currently or last legally occupied and this would require an addition use. this is not a groundbreaking control. it exists in north beach and other parts of the c

the project meets all general requirements of the public planning code. this concludes staff's presentation, and i am happy to answer any questions. >> president hillis: thank you very much. project sponsor? welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm going to be copresenting with timbuk2 as well. they're just going to say a couple of notes at the end. my name is justin. i'm the owner of four point brewery, and we'd love the opportunity to open a brewery in the corridor. we will create a beautifully designed community central run tap room and kitchen. the space will be open from 11:00 a.m. to midnight, and will remain to all ages at all times. particular buck 2 initially invited us to take over this portion of their building to not only activate the space but to invite the public to come and see the premier application of two san francisco manufacturers. we're honored to be offered this opportunity to activate the space along with particular buck 2. in our neighborhood outreach, we heard three primary concerns: one, how are you going to make sure the spa

that's not a rule, it's just a time-honored code. there was not a single word of disclosure in the permit application or to the planning department of mr. franklin's intentions for non-residential use. i have to believe that common sense and good faith and obvious facts should prevail and they show that a residential use permit is clearly the wrong category. flaw number two, the permit was issued despite the plans showing an intended commercial use for filming and fan visits and you saw that replicas of the rooms inside, of course they can't be 100% exact and we're not building a filming studio and we can't get rid of the roof but there's enough similarity there for any "full house" fan to love. and flaw number three and before that the commissioners made comments that mr. franklin's project clearly showed that it was a commercial use and were ready to vote that way. flaw number three, the permit was issued despite the two story bay window and the planning commission wanteds that removed and it was issued despite the roof deck not co

code. so the rent control provisions should prevail. i kind of agree on the front. it could use, you know, softening to make it -- i don't know if it's -- so it will feel less bulky on that building. there are some others like this on 27th street that have kind of the large kind of how things work, but i think, you know, the bedrooms, while there's five of them and they're fairly modest size, it's not what we've seen in other places where there's bathrooms on every bedroom. so i think the program works. i would just like to see some design modifications so it doesn't read as large from the front on 27th street as it does under the renderings we have before us. >> commissioner: i was going to say something very similar in that, you know, yeah, the difference to me is the design. it doesn't have, you know, two media rooms and some of the things that we've seen in some of these other massive expansions. it is clearly designed for a family, a large family. so that makes a difference to me. i do

we're bound by code. for us to be more restrictive, we have to through the ordinance process at the local level come up with more restrictive requirements. for type five, podium type five over type one, these are permitted and allowed in the code. to be more restrictive, we have to come up with our own ordinances. these are addressed in the code and requirements for non combustible decking and proximity to open flame to combustible material. it's in the code, it's all there. >> i guess my question was more related to do we emphasize these things with people building type five houses, wooden houses, whether they're over a podium or not. but we can talk about it -- >> we have a robust community outreach and on our web site we have many fire safety tips that address decks, cooking fires, barbecues, all those type of things. if an applicant comes in and do we sit there and say you are building a roof deck and you should be concerned -- we do not do that. >> okay. thank you. >> are you finished? >> yes, i am.

gibner, so this is a resolution effecting the add min code but not amending the addmin code? >> that's right. this section of the administrative code authorizes the board of supervisor to declare an emergency by resolution and authorized emergency work in response to that emergency and the amendment that you have before you indicates that the board may be adopted -- may adopt an ordinance, it wouldn't technically be an emergency ordinance which say special category under the charter but adopt an ordinance amending the administrative code or exemption s to the administrative code and it would be broader you could wave different competitive bidding processes by ordinance than by resolution. >> so this is not an addment to the code it is accessing that section of the add men code. >> that's right. >> that was it? >> ok. >> any public comments on this item? come on up. you have two whole minutes. >> jim san francisco chamber of commerce i want to thank the mayor and supervisor ronen and we urge them to vote this out unanimous will he and this is something we've worked with the ci

yes, yes. >> code enforcement? yes, code enforcement. i would really love it if we could look at helping fund this. it seems consistent with what our department does and maybe we could offer, sorry, tarus, but i think it makes sense as part of the code enforcement effort we look at helping with this. >> well, i will just say that there was a relatively recent meeting with deputy director madison and myself sat in on with the mayor's office of housing. they are still in the process of putting together their short-term loan program using the money from the wiener ordinance originally, which i think now is about $5 million that as i also understand the city attorney has relatively clear guidelines about it. the good part i guess from our perspective is it's being handled by m.o.d., it's not a d.b.i. situation. but they are keeping us informed about it. >> yeah, i mean, it's kind of -- talks to what we were earlier, you know. it's difficult for us because we don't want to displace people but we have the life safety issues. we have to have so

and 7 1/2 feet over the 40-foot code limit. two, the 4-story project visually overpowers other buildings. unit three, which is the top level gives 2,135 square feet of living space and 855 square feet of three private deck spaces over three levels to the detriment of units 1 and 2, which split level separating living and kitchen from the bedrooms with little or no storage or deck space. theres an inequity here. in order to give a 490-foot, expansive deck on one level and top floor, is just for living room and dining room. that is the whole level of the four fourth floor. it seems to overbuild in size to build one luxury unit while squeezing in two other units. all units split the kitchen and living room apart from the bedrooms by placing them on different levels, which may lead to access problems on a daily basis in the future. your consideration to limit the levels and height of the project is appreciated. >> councillor breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dan new

fight -- if they had their way american businesses would not have had a 21st century tax code giving them a fairer fight with overseas competitors, american workers wouldn't have the bonuses and special benefits and a typical family of four earning just over $70,000 wouldn't be on track to keep $2,000 more of their own money this year. fortunately, republican majorities passed the bill anyway and the american people are sure glad that we did.

look like they do meet code and they are code compliant. permit looks to have been properly reviewed through the proper city agencies. >> president honda: thank you. >> any public comment on this? board? >> president honda: welcome, sir. thank you for being patient. >> good evening. my name is david bancroft. i am a resident of the street where the subject properties are located. one comment i want to make right away, what's happened here is that with respect to the board of appeals first decision which is where the stairwell and the firewall were on the north side. what's happened now is with respect is that the stairwell has been moved to the south side. but not just moved. these were nonconforming decks. they should never have been put up to the extend they were. the planning department has so found. to those nonconforming deck, what is now an interior stairwell with respect to those decks has been moved to an exterior stairwell right up against the ap pellant's property. from that exterior stairwell on the south side, it's proposed that

and then i hear something about health codes or something about it being unhealthy, but the store has been open for 20 years and nothing has been stopped or said until now so i don't understand what is going on about the health and why it was allowed to run for so long if it was unhealthy for so long. thank you. >> thank you. ma'am, we cannot take additional testimony. >> i want to make a statement, if i can. >> you already spoke, though, right? >> yeah. can i? >> unfortunately, that was your time during that period. but you can submit additional information. >> you should have letters from me. >> we do. any additional public testimony? seeing none, we'll close public comment. i don't think we'll have good conditions of approval to ensure that it will be a healthy market that will not just be a liquor store selling potato chips. looking at conditions 11 and 12 for security and interior floorplan. i'm satisfied this will be a net addition of the neighborhood and i move to approve. >> second. >> commissioner johnson? >> commissioner johnson: i was the commissioner standing on a soapbox