Skip to main content

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

tv   BOS Replay Public Safety Committee 2817  SFGTV  February 15, 2017 8:00pm-10:01pm PST

8:00 pm
>> sfgovtv we're ready to beg begin. >> good morning today is wednesday, february 15, 2017, this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board i'd like to remind everyone to please turn off devices roll call commission president clinch commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy commissioner warshell
8:01 pm
we have quorum and the next item is item b the oath will all parties giving testimony please stand and your hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you you may have a seat. i have an announcement that case no. 6831 regarding 1010 bush street has been continued are there any parties here to give public comment on the item okay. seeing none item c election of officers president and vice president. >> commission vice-president walker. >> i would like to nominate
8:02 pm
kevin as the president and like to nominate gale as vice president. >> second >> it is abatement appeals board. >> i understand that. >> we spent a lot of time talking about this (laughter) months of preparation and (laughter) next year anyone else filled back (laughter) there is a motion is there a second. >> do you accept. >> sure, yes. >> okay. i should are asked you is there any public comment our okay. seeing none there is a motion to have commission president clinch and commissioner gilman as vice president roll call vote on the item.
8:03 pm
>> commission president clinch commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy and commissioner warshell okay. the that item passes unanimously congratulations to you both. >> (clapping.) >> all right. >> on to item did approval of the minutes discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes on 2016. >> move to approve. >> second interest there is a motion that has been seconded my public comment always commissioners in favor and. >> opposed? the minutes are approved item e continued oewd /* order
8:04 pm
of abatement the department will present its case first and the appellant and each side has 7 minutes to present the case and 3 minutes for rebuttal good morning joe duffy dbi the case today is complaint number 201693 61 do dbi on january 4th, 2016, raising the roosevelt and closing up the front entrance with a single door that was assigned to a builder inspector inspection
8:05 pm
hernandez from the 21st of january we issued a notice of violation on the february the 10 i'll read the notice of violation a complaint was filed with the department for construction beyond the scope of the construction permit a new front door at no door existed previously this is a new door with a frame and a window on the side light the corrective action file a building permit within 10 days and get a permit within 60 days as final inspections and sign off and obtain the permit with the planning department with the new door on the front
8:06 pm
porch and to close the complaint the second part of complaint will be investigated with roofline it was sent to code compliant on march 17 it ended up at a hearings around april 2016 there was a order of abatement and an appeal filed but continued ever since the cost associated with that are around $1,075 a building permit has been filed it is a form 3 building permit to come imply with m and a
8:07 pm
violation 201693 of one install a security door at the front the property the building application was filed i believe office of the city administrator it was constructed in 18 those are historical aspect so i have photographs overhead they're not clear but in fact, can i have the overhead, please? so the area in question is this door here at the front porch this was installed in the side light i believe put in as well so i have a photograph of the existing condition taken off the computer the screen shots were
8:08 pm
out of depth but see an open sort of lobby before and this building and closed the front of it off so - >> that's where we are with the case currently available to answer any questions commission vice-president walker. >> so did they file a permit to legalize it as is or remove it. >> they're trying to legalize it is it a standard inspection. >> the biggest problem is the planning department preservation with an 1880s building putting a door front of the of that modern buildings may not be a big deal but 1880s got a lot through the planning process so it is currently on hold with planning but that's the latest workshop
8:09 pm
the person that will speak so for the property meg i have an update on that. >> great, thank you thank you. >> okay. >> commissioner warshell. >> this is also in a recognized historic district the hpc have to evaluate it. >> that's correct that's correct it is currently with the preservation staff with planning. >> now but separate from the planning historic section when it is a historic district and a trickling building hpc hag to approve and that's a separate approval process i'm asking if this is something that rise to that. >> with the certificate of occupancy it has to be done with the approval on the permit it is 5 i think your creak in saying
8:10 pm
there is a separate process - yes. exactly. >> thank you i see no other questions can we hear from the appellant. >> good morning, commissioners henry the situation is the historic is for security at the front and a small foyer i live around the corner people have broken in and stuff like that happening hates one thing but, yes this is in the district so, now the plans since january 19, 2017, often hold with them because for 0 certificate of occupancy certificate of appropriateness it will take
8:11 pm
time to go through the process we ask a 6 month continuance to get in approved as commissioner warshell said that will go from before the historic preservation commission and takes another three to four months this is a long process and don't want to remove it for security reasons want to keep it there and hopefully at the end of the day approve whatever door that be appropriate for that building. >> no questions for the appellant? seeing none, thank you does the department want to come up with rebuttal or any more information? no anything from the appellant no second chance? >> as i want to talk about the
8:12 pm
planning is the big stumbling block with west anything done over-the-counter as it is historic for the preservation planners we have projects and got bay windows at the back of the property can't see it they'll say well we'll approve it you can't see the back of the building you have to go to fisherman's wharf and barely see is it is really, really tough process to go through and taken forever too did it i urge you to please give us the time. >> commissioner warshell. >> you mentioned you live near the liberty hill historic district and a. >> yeah. >> you're aware and the client is aware this should have been pursued first, the historic building needed clearance. >> i don't know about my client this happened with people
8:13 pm
in the building they're not aware of it not uncommon for owners not to be aware of the historic district and what is supposed to do you figure if for security it got the glass and should be fine and then find out not the case like i said not uncommon i live in the area i know what it is like and a lot of people have no idea. >> unlike the situations your refer to with the rare and endangered not visible this is down a sidewalk way it is not the front entrance to the main building it is to the rear building but that is visible from the sidewalk; right? >> that's correct commissioner that's right yes. >> thank you. >> is there a motion? >> i think director duffy. >> if i can ask the attorney is
8:14 pm
that acceptable can i ask the department to come up. >> director duffy. >> you wanted to say a comment. >> ounce we ask the question yeah. >> i way at the property it is the fronts o front entrance to the property no other carrier to get in. >> thank you it has street frontage and have to walk along the side and actually like a driveway like the back area the front indigents to the building it is on the side but the front entrance i couldn't find any other entrance i wanted to correct that. >> so they closed up the front entrance or recommissioner borden that. >> the front entrance used to be an open old (multiple voices).
8:15 pm
>> so at the pulled it out. >> it was done without a permit like i said. >> sorry for speaking out of turn. >> any public comment. >> anyone want to make a motion. >> commission vice-president walker comment. >> well, i appreciate that it is a cumbersome process uphold the order of abatement and hold in obedience for 5 months to let the planning and historic preservation commission process catch up. >> i'll second that. >> there's a motion on the floor to uphold the order of abatement and to hold in abeyance for 5 months and assessment of costs? >> include the amendment of costs. >> including the assessment of cost roll call vote on that motion. >> if i can find my paper.
8:16 pm
>> okay commission president clinch commissioner gilman commission vice-president walker commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy and commissioner warshell okay that item passes unanimously item g general public comment any general public comment for items not on the abatement agendas a motion to adjourn. >> there is a motion that has been seconded all commissioners in favor we are adjourned that is 9:24 a.m. we will take about a 10 minute recessed and reconvene as the building
8:17 pm
reconvene as the building inspection
8:18 pm
él es reginald. nunca ha estado en internet. hoy él quiere cambiar eso. su instructora. su plan: comprar boletos de avión y sorprender a su esposa
8:19 pm
8:20 pm
you. >> good morning. today's is wednesday, february 15, 2017, this is the regularly of the building inspection commission i'd like to remind everyone to please turn off electronic devices are the first item is roll call commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch commissioner warshell we have quorum and the next item is item 2 prourpts. >> good morning, everybody. and welcome everybody to the wednesday, february 15, 2017, big monthly meeting and madam
8:21 pm
secretary in my presents announcements a warm congratulations to inspector bernie and michael and william and shawn who responded to the terrible fire on stockton street in chinatown that he provided excellent public service to the victims of that devastating fire they took time to say escorts for the services to enable the residents to retrieve some of their bloolgz the sprishg donated a sum to provide not wear for the victims to reenter the building once again stories we never hear but this is what the department does for the inspectors in the evening in the early hours of
8:22 pm
the morning and don't make the newspapers all four intrshgsz as well as director hui were singled out by supervisor aaron peskin and were presented with the certificate of commendation for their outstanding business and we sing their praise and so thank you guys and thanks to the board of supervisors and particularly supervisor peskin for recognizing them and didn't happen often enough but thank you a big thanks to dbi staff that answered questions for the professional services during the weekends of annual chinese new year's and jimmy chung as building inspector housing inspection technology services
8:23 pm
and the fire department (calling names) were at the dbi booth on sunday and were there on saturday and sunday as well as director hui this is the year of the fire rooster and people born in the chinese sign for hard working and observant and we admire those in the dbi staffers thank you and thank you to the builder inspector thanking our colleague for the timely friendly attitude and coordination and housing inspector dennis got a thank you letter for helping families to get heat in their building that had problems and said even if courteous and professional well done a small thing to make a difference and congratulations to director hui on dbis ongoing expansion it is schematic preparation training academy as
8:24 pm
last week director hui attended yet another graduations for 50 more this brings the total number of graduates of one thousand and more coming where seniors and youth in the bayview and the sunset and richmond are completing the 5 week training to make sure they know what to do when the next earthquake strikes san francisco this is an important preparation work that everyone living in did city e city needs to do for themselves thank you to the nonprofits d y a and the self-help and dbi lilly that working closely with the vendors to implement the important program just a reminder to the manages and supervisors and staff to send nomination for the quarter one dbi employee of the quarter to mr. strong to enable dbi to
8:25 pm
continue to recognizing program for staff for a meeting and studying the performance exception we're accepting the nomination and will announce the winner at the april bic meeting madam secretary that concludes any announcements. >> any questions on the director's report. >> item 3 general public comment the bic will take public comment on matters within the jurisdiction not part of agenda no general public comment? okay. we're on item 34 or 4 election of bic president and vice president >> good morning, everyone on this first item best time of year we have to get together and vote on the president and the vice chair with that, i will united states of america to whoever wants to take the lead
8:26 pm
on this nominations. >> i know things are well with the current president and vice chair i want to renominate them for the coming year. >> i would like to second that i think the leadership that both deborah has shown is complimentary and make a good team for the commission. >> thank you for that call the question and thank you for making a call the question. >> okay thank you so there ares a motion and second to nominate commissioner president mccarthy to continue as president and commission vice-president walker as vice president any public comment on this item? seeing none, i'll do a roll call vote commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman
8:27 pm
commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch and commissioner warshell okay. the that item passes unanimously and congratulations to you both. >> (clapping.) >> thank you for your vote of confidence on behalf of commission vice-president walker and myself. >> next speaker, please. >> item 5 commissioners questions or comments and the commissioner may make inquires to policy and policies and procedures that are with the commission. >> okay commissioners at that stage i mean do we have in inquires or anything we want to bring to commission vice-president walker please for no, i thought you were going to make a comment. >> no, i was thinking you heard me thinking. >> if you don't have any at
8:28 pm
this time contact me further agendas the commissioner can set a date of a special meeting or determine those items on the next meeting of the building inspection our neck regularly meeting on march 15, 2017. >> okay. is there my public comment on items 5 ab? okay. seeing none item 6 distribution of the project on that accela project >> good morning, commissioners shawn here the project sponsor for the project go with a monthly just want in front of you the good news and the bad
8:29 pm
news made a lot of progress on the deliverables that will windup in the january and february timeframe we have reviewed the change management plan and discussions with the core team with steering on the other hand, and the activities behind us reviewed the analysis and shared that with dbi and that process is behind us and we have ramp up activists with the vendors and documented the findings in terms of what i call preceding with eyes wide open to know what the application could or couldn't do and asking same questions over and over again trying to get things settled and understood so the activity are largely wrapped up up that's part of the one outstanding item at the moment the stable work the negotiations are preceding and are ongoing
8:30 pm
and that's the main activists that is outstanding at the moment of course, we're pursuing the most expeditious and exploring the fish path for the contract amendment we can so we're one is the actual terms and two the most efficient way to get it approved and the work started that's basically, it the updates i'm available to answer any questions. >> commission vice-president walker please. thank you you began by saying the good news is there my bad news are there obstacles that present a real challenge that could be problematic. >> negotiations are kind of like the old met for of sausage making do you really want to know what goes into the negotiation process. >> if i'm going to eat it,
8:31 pm
yes. >> exactly so the good news come a long way and the bad news is a lot of work. >> we knew that so if that's the bad news keep those on grinding that i can handle that so we're still on at some point we'll get a rough idea about what this new scope of work is. >> yes. absolutely and we're getting closer to that. >> yes. i think that scope i believe it actually fairly well defined at the moment it is if you go back to the gander findings that was around around methodology and who is responsible for what that's echts terms more of terms who and how and exactly which activities need to take place to get that done i think the scope
8:32 pm
is well defined. >> thank you shawn that should be it thanks for coming out this morning. >> any public comment on item 6 seeing none, item 7 discussion and possible action regarding your proposed ordinance for the board of supervisors file number replacing a provision of the planning code with a new administrative code requiring all city believes that are assessable to the public to install and maintain one baby diaper changing that is assessable to 0 women and one assessable to men with the changing that is assessable to all genders and with the lead code to require the businesses that make the diaper challenging assessable for women and to install a baby diaper assessable to men or all genders and amending the building code to
8:33 pm
require the new sfasht and it be serving the public for baby diaper changing and other requirements. >> good evening, commissioners i'm deanna a legislative aide to supervisor katie tang's office i want to start request context for this legislation and then i will describe additional amendments that have been made based on the suggests from the code enforcement committee our office decided to pursue this inspired by a law called the bathroom assessable for babies in all situations also known as those the babies act the federal law requires all federal buildings assure there are baby changing stations available in all restrooms so the male and female parents can
8:34 pm
provide diaper changing accommodations for their children we wanted to see open a city level and unsurprising the city as already completed efforts on is this 2005 the board of supervisors actually required that new or substantially renovated buildings must have a situation for parents nfl nfl that provided challenges with enforcement because the planning code deals with the outside of building not a lot of opportunity to enforce the law so we thought that might be best in the planning code and after further discussion with the department on agreed that would be the best route possible in addition, we wanted to mimic the federal law by making sure that all city public buildings have those xhomsdz available we
8:35 pm
put that in the administrative code and we had those discussions realized that a lot of the establishments right now comply with the code or allow companions but overtime have the accommodations in female but not in the male restrooms that provides a challenge for fathers particularly in same sex gender if they want to change theory babies overtime not any conformations available we heard horror stories of people changing diapers and cars and tables and chairs on the staffs - we put in the police code if you are current establishment that provides a female restrooms should provide in the male restroom or a restroom available to all genders and the reason we the city attorney decided the
8:36 pm
police code would be the best location was because of recent work on all gender restrooms if it person found in was not compliment they can submit a compliment to the commission and that will be forwarded to the department of building inspection if it warranted review so we brought this though the small business commission received unanimous support also to the code advisory they have a lengthy discussion and provided great amendments those are the amendments i will delve into and provided a summary as well as the actual changes to the protective but i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> about any aspects of the legislation with the suggestions by the code advisory committee made sure to clarify the language said available for use slopping to
8:37 pm
assessable because oftentimes the restrooms are not assessable but available to the public we clarified this throughout the legislation we also winded the scope of public service establishment we saw from the planning code the building code we had to be more clear which establishment it will include we added subsection 610 and 11 some of those include the daycare and nurseries and hospitals, etc. pr so we thought these starnth should have the accommodations available without a clarification if they don't have for instance, not a bathroom assessable to the public don't have to comply. >> one clarification on the like restaurant. >> uh-huh. >> are they included.
8:38 pm
>> they were originally included in the planning code and transferred to the building code they were included in the original language it is members of the code advisory committee asked why did we not include the daycare centers, etc. in order to be clear we included the subsections and obviously some other parts may not necessarily have the restrooms but hope this is the most clear way to transfer that. >> they also asked we include that the signage that has to be posted that be the conformations are available must be in compliance with subsection regarding the signs and practical signs and they really added the emphasis the language needs to be clear this requirement shall not impede with my federal, state, and
8:39 pm
local for access to people with disabilities and balance for the necessary requirements for a diaper changing to not included in the restrooms so we provided ways to wave that recipient for we also heard from different downstairs and added amendments introducing one it is the compliance from six months to 12 months to give for instance, to the building they have need additional xhoopgsz to be installed we're allowing for a one year timeframe. >> can i interject to the commissioners. >> sure. >> is there going to public outreach. >> yes. >> and question to the department is there a permit required for the baby changing station. >> so this will be included in the outreach. >> yes. >> okay.
8:40 pm
>> it was mentioned at the code advisory that a technical document should be added. >> okay thank you. >> we also included that the requirements of ordinance will not violate or impair existing contracts we made sure that was highlighted and clarified the waiver procedure so if you look at page 7 the city attorney wanted to make sure it was very clear the procedure is a waiver needs for public buildings and supplied by the city for subsection two for public building under the jurisdiction of the city control and subsection 3 for all other public building initially we only had the department of building inspection as the main overseer the waivers but realized that the administrative
8:41 pm
services and the mayor's office of disabilities so they'll decide on the waivers of inclines and clarified that applies to all gender instead both and we clarified the existence of a bare diaper changing accommodates we added work surfaces a term of art that the departments ask we clarify and we amended the many substantially renovated that was for $50,000 a construction in general we said if 50 thousand or more for one or more toilet rooms and the. >> so i'm clear so if i go into a restaurant and roommate their air conditioning that didn't trigger off - >> correct. >> just permits that are pulled for the remodeling of the
8:42 pm
bathroom that exceeds 50 thousand. >> correct. >> and the late we included again that the ordinance didn't require a reduction in the number of toilet facilities or other facilities to assure that the requirement didn't come afoul the regulations and other building code regulations. >> so this is the summary of the additional amendments he apologize we were only able to get this to you with the code advisory in part with the city attorney's office to make all the changes i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioner. >> yes. i have a question. >> okay. >> the criteria for the waivers of the non-city public buildings will be the same. >> yes. >> they will so the authority
8:43 pm
to determine if this is enough space or a restaurant or whatever space to accommodate. >> in addition you know people are establishments in good faith maybe installing those xhomentsz already but they maybe impeding the right-of-way or the passage so it actually adds an additional oversight to make sure they're coming applying with accessibility. >> the reason he ask we have a lot of small restaurants in our city small underbuilding that space is a premium and and they might not be able to - >> those current building will not have to comply unless their offering it in a female restroom and with a new renovated building before they built the restrooms are waved in advance
8:44 pm
for the current establishment we wanted to provide a kind of rethinking of who is providing childcare my colleagues time or went to an establishment and face that problem should had been to the one to change the child's diapers because nothing for her partner. >> it was simple for those who have a separate room already and change the signs for all genders or whatever. >> exactly. >> just to go back a minute because i'm a contract person the unintended consequences trying to achieve is well done and a compliment to supervisor tang and you and the presentation here today and you know working with our code advisory the 50 thousand that number came from the
8:45 pm
planning. >> correct in the planning commission uh-huh. >> code. >> yeah. >> you know remodeling a bathroom can trigger a lot more money to the commissioner lee to some of the smaller businesses we're looking at 75 to $100,000 that number seems low to me these days i i don't know how the discussions because it is a planning number and - >> so it was interesting at the code advisory committee they were okay with the number but the 50 thousand in the planning commission was in general so if you had $50,000 of construction it triggers this and supervisor tang narrowed that down to 50 thousand of restroom construction so we actually -
8:46 pm
>> no definitely. >> it narrows it but even at the $50,000 to remodel a bathroom is low in contractors term what the damage the bathroom can be high and their concern about the construction if the renovation is 51 thousand that triggers - the requirement they have to put a station a change of station but space is limit could be the project sponsor can ask, ask for a waiver. >> it is technically or spatially. >> i know you discussed that decide is made by the - department of building inspection. >> good morning commission tom hui i have a along with supervisor tang initially they didn't have the 50 thousand only
8:47 pm
for a bathroom the concern about mechanical change first of all, 50 thousand why i picked 50 thousand in case they need to remove a wall that is a substantial change you have time to remove for the accommodations and to answer the question early they need a permit step one an outreach if they need an information sheet and second thing they only school you in those diaper changing tables don't require a permit we'll losses on a complaint basis to make sure they comply to school on those we don't need a permit once and start to remodel the bathroom is 50 thousand we have a construction an inspector there and see how - because
8:48 pm
this is more than changing a tire only sometime the bathroom only 3 feet wide how do you put a table you cannot it move around. >> that's when the inspector goes out and makes the - and we'll look at the drawings and the approval process that's why we want to constrain on the bathroom we don't want the mechanical change or changing and equipment and effecting the whole thing. >> commissioner. >> yeah. >> perhaps i didn't read it carefully enough but if you have an owl gender bathroom as opposed to a female and male one equipped with the changing table available to all genders and not necessarily have to have every one of them so in effect it is almost an incentive to having
8:49 pm
more bathrooms converted to all gender correct thank you. >> yes. i have and vice chair. >> thank you for this it is helpful for a lot of people so the question i have i've seen the ones there on the wall and pull down is that - are those permittable i would think you'll not need a permit for that. >> that's what i said we install that in a couple of screws into the wall. >> it can folded up and not affect the path of travel. >> we learned in the state code it had is ton deployed and - so we understand because of this may not effect a huge number of businesses but at least we're getting that mindset out there please put in an all
8:50 pm
gender restroom keep in mind some xhomthsdz available for everyone. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i think we're good and commissioner lee please. last thing director hui i suggest the department put some procedures together about criterias for waivers just in this case we don't want to seem arbitrary. >> that's what i mentioned to the commission commissioner lee we'll have the information sheet first and put more outreach and educate all the public what they devoting to do that's why we experienced - >> thank you for the bullet
8:51 pm
points. >> the underlining looks like a mess. >> any public comment. >> before we - >> i was going to make a motion. >> move to support this legislation. >> i second that to promote keeping families in san francisco. >> and just another point you know for future just it is important for us to work with them and show exactly the changes in the code and to make those allows rigorous to make it more comfortable for further staffers it was the way it was done is really helpful thank you. >> thank you a roll call vote no public comment.
8:52 pm
commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch commissioner warshell that motion carries unanimously thank you item number 8 distribution user drugs about a administrative code chapter four 1 to update the hotel conversion with adding a definition of tourist and transit use compatible unit and low income household and procedures for conversion and rental units and harmonizing the code and eliminating the short-term rentals for residential hotels that have violated the conversion and authorizing the building inspection to issue administrative operate active dates and with the california california environmental quality
8:53 pm
act. >> good morning circles city council members rosemary bosque, chief housing inspector. as the commission is aware chapter four 1 that protects approximately 4 hundred and 90 residential hotels and residential restrooms the ordinance was adopted in 1981 and it is not any deputies with respect to the reporting recordkeeping code enforcement to change the units so this particular legislation wants to achiever pertinent definition for conversions and updated the recordkeeping requirement for for profit hotels it is updating the annual reporting requirement and it requires more information if they did hotel wishes to change the use of residential
8:54 pm
guest romance and play other tools that are in order for a number of years i can't imagine in 1981 no ability to taser room and a number of rooms that property are taking the residential rooms aside from the high season if may to september and renting on a weekly basis to tourist there is a mechanism to do that the ordinance duties units will hang changing that if you're an residential hotel owner and keeping records you're doing our temporary occupancy on them and renting the residential rooms for residential use not doing rothman and other things and the changes in that legislation are not going to be a problem for you, however, if you are doing illegal conversion
8:55 pm
or violating and not keeping the appropriate records this will be a problem without this update the department of building inspection will sierra club not have the told to be able to make sure this inventory is protected for residential use and low income elderly and disabled with that, i don't have anything to add i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and want to thank commissioner gilman for being the representative of the commission before the land use committee on january 23rd at this point there maybe been 5 or 6 sponsors with the first reading and the second reading that was approved now on the way to the mayors to be effect thirty days after the mayor signs it or 10 days after his receipt. >> commissioner gilman and commission vice-president walker.
8:56 pm
>> i don't have my questions thank you rosemary and our sro collaborative's and thank supervisor peskin office and his staff for all the work they put into the update it was socializing needs and i believe this came to us a juror of the 6 hotels that are trying to convert and not properly i want to commend the department for the advisory committee for coming together and updating in. >> if i can add we have deputy city attorney rob and thank you he was instrumental navigate this this was a tremendous amount of work and thanks to him as well. >> commission vice-president walker. >> thank you such is it possible to send the final version. >> absolutely. >> i'll be happy to do that. >> there was one amendment
8:57 pm
that requires for profit hotels when we file the annual report to give us a profile that was adopted by the board it was no discussion against it whatsoever an idea of a collaborative a great idea we find that rooms get made into the other uses they have to do it once a year or change location of the rooms they'll have to do that provision it is in the ordinance so i'll be happy to forward that to the commission and the tenderloin housing clinic with randy shaw as over a year ago brought it to my attention and laid out the updates so - really good that's a good outcome there and the housing stock this is very, very important to us thank you.
8:58 pm
>> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? open item 8 seeing none, item 9 update on the caucus for the department of building inspection cost schedule. >> good morning kirk dbi technical services we're here for building code section which requires the building department to technically update the squall schedule to reflect current pricing for the year to increase or increase the construction costs we use to up the figure for the architect the used for amending their costs evaluation every year so we look at their figures and apply them to the
8:59 pm
cost schedule and in addition make corrections that people bring to us throughout the year and in this case, the only thing we changed the power operator we're expecting to the update to many of the buildings there will be a substantial number added and so we added that to our schedule that's all i have i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i'll respond. >> i actually - we don't have anything - you've given us nothing kirk. >> sorry i came from a different location from another committee it is the same from previous times with the cost installation of three and four percent across the board with the addition of two door operators the battery operator and a regular ac powder power
9:00 pm
door operator. >> so i get so many complaint about the fees you'll not building it in the standup 5 i get cornered on dbi issues and i can argue a lot of fees but you know we're jumping three to four percent now and i've not - other than a power battery but moving up to class 3, three or four percent so we have no data or no nexus other than than the fact we turn to the stage of what they do that's what we're doing. >> a national estimated published document at the end of every year. >> do we have the power to say
9:01 pm
yes or no to that recommendations. >> my understanding no only a report but you guys have in the code it says you can weigh the increase or entire increases you've done this in the past or downturn in the economy the costs are sensitive to construction. >> you know i'm all for doing the right thing by what is important to me this is - we're not not an action item. >> no not an action item only an update. >> commissioner gilman. >> no. >> i don't know commissioners for better i don't know what is the interest in a presentation on our fees so on and see where we are with other cities and stuff and exactly what we're getting for the fees
9:02 pm
so on but three or four is too big of a jump we're not voting on this really but like to know exactly how we get that data and th nexus for the fees director something your staff can put together to explain the costs. >> that's one thing we can get details next meeting. >> okay. >> that would be great. >> this will be a good conversation we need to be brought up to speed. >> can we - will it be appropriate to add fees we collect for planning. >> sometimes, i thank the public they can't distinguish between the policies. >> yeah. we can get a comparison what we charge and
9:03 pm
compare to planning. >> look at it collectively seriously and it is a healthy discussion with the larger projects with a large projects might have bigger impacts and sometimes i'm confused but again, i'd like to have an update to know exactly what the fees discussion is and maybe as commissioners be better equipped on this so we're good okay. thank you. >> thank you any public comment on item 9. >> seeing none, 10 discussion and possible action regarding proposed update to administrator bulletin ab and implementation of green building to rehabilitate the requirements off 2016 green building code.
9:04 pm
>> good morning. i'm berry with the department of environment we continue our collaboration with the department of building inspection bringing this item before you the city's green building regulations for implementing green building code needed their traditional minor updates coinciding with the code circle and the document before you has a little update as possible because it is consistent with the procedures in place for many years the biggest changes that are minor updating to reflect the 2016 code as well as renaming the submittal forms with the term g s and a number of systems starting with one so this is pretty minor points but make to
9:05 pm
things - things more straightforward and some updates to reflect how the code changed over time the code that applies to a particular code is an update for a building permit and as the codes change, of course, that leads to applicants needing to keep in mind that you know the requirements are consistent throughout the life of the project the one other change of note was that in the past we had an attachment for making adjustment to our energy code compliance documents and this is not currently necessary in this code circle because the green building code and energy code are alike not too existing but hold it as a
9:06 pm
place holder so the applicant are understanding it is no longer applicable in the building code. >> commissioner warshell. >> thank you very much obviously we all welcome opportunities to have better green building code and encourage the actions while it is not part of codification you know as i was reading all that i'm going not unlike you know costs different filings are required and experts need to be brought in all those things are cost that will apply to our sensitive situation of high housing costs in the city while we welcome any approach
9:07 pm
for green buildings and need this to those in compliance with the state have we put together you know real estimates on you know what this really impacts the average construction costs of you know up front here's the costs but the life savings or the annual savings anticipated so the average person you know not only feels that i'm doing the right thing performing and being part of this process of having greener buildings but the broadly message of there are significant savings that come to make that whole process really have a pay back. >> there has not been outreach on this topic but collaborated with the building department but, yes particularly when an amendment to san francisco's code or the state energy code
9:08 pm
relating to energy there is a cost-effectiveness this costs comes before you when former supervisor wiener proposed want building ordinance last year and it would be i'll be happy to provide more information and also measures that are mostly required by the state but they are, you know, not not necessarily tied to a cost similar to the baby changing tackles there is a cost in the public interests rather than a direct exchange in return for operating costs both measures exist and this you know - the green building code that was adopted is a matter before you more about the you know
9:09 pm
finalizing the process that is formally prepared to enforce that, however, the code enforces it anyway, the code is on the books i'll be happy to bring more information. >> that would be great one of the things i was relatively a new member come to appreciate the good intents of the building department and how the public didn't always see the whole process and how much all of our efforts are really not only to accomplish good goals but taking their considerations very much to heart and our ability to be sure that that is communicated adequately is an important thing for us as we're doing more
9:10 pm
public outreach so your support on providing the data we can page it and make that available to the public is very much appreciated thank you for that i had a second question you have very good information about the alternatives for historic buildings and the credits that accrue when things are retained i'm referring to a judgment table 3 and i'm a sort of adamant preservationist this is clearing close to my heart this leads to percentage of the historical localities it didn't go into
9:11 pm
when the same things that are here are restored on historic buildings they may have been lacking you know this may be a reach but you know i'm just occurs considering consideration having the same sensitivities of expend towards you know within the confines of the secretary of interior standard and the preservation using those as ways to encourage restoration of details that may have been lost in historic buildings or may it appears to me if we inclusively from the historic assets are in place and used and maintained
9:12 pm
but was there my consideration about the other. >> so this section was which we did the green building subcommittee the advisory committee reviewed that in september of last year and the question was asked the preservation from the planning department and from the preservation historic experts we're first retaining this and second they were - contributed some careful words to the footnotes on attachment a-3 so the retention is rehabilitation and repair of the historic localities because there was some perspective of ambiguity that when materials had to be replaced might not count so that that clarifies it is inclusive
9:13 pm
of that action i'm not aware of your question of you know completely missing historic element to a building whether this is how often that comes up but defer to the building department but see no objection or barrier to incorporating that as contributing to those points as well. >> okay. >> thank you very much commissioners seeing none, thank you for your comments. >> any public comment on item technology is there a motion? >> i make a motion to approve. >> acceptance. >> there is a motion that has been seconded to approve ab zero 93 roll call vote. >> commissioner president
9:14 pm
mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch and commissioner warshell okay that item passes unanimously okay item 11 discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance for the amendment of the building code to establish a commission review of legislation opposed by the board of supervisors in addition to other requirements. >> hello kirk dbi technical services so similar you guys went to the code cycle with us and went through a review with the other and there's a lot of legislation that happens at the same time due to elections and things that coincide a ton of legislation and a review of our all our san francisco amendments happening all at once with the
9:15 pm
time schedules and the impact they have on our federal government so suggestion was made in the middle of the legislation whatever to that will give - offer the department of building inspection an opportunity to have more time on pieces of legislation that they needed more time to review rather than having us come up with immediate responses and on and on in particular all the code amendments to the advisory committee a lot of review time that happens months and months and months before it gets to this point in particular though the legislation that is brought by the board of supervisors directly here it is overwhelmed to us thirty days during a thirty day wait period before they start hearing it in the
9:16 pm
land use committee or whatever to hear it you guys have thirty days that includes the entire process it gets received to us with the code advisory committee makes represents and staff has to review it so what happens is if the it is referred to the department which is required by city charter if it is referred to the department with thirty days to review it it goes to the code advisory subcommittee for technical expertise on this portion of it their recommendations to the code advisory committee and recommendations to you and your recommends to the board of supervisors that happens in thirty days if it didn't happen side board of supervisors can go in with their intended actions
9:17 pm
and they don't get the benefit of the response from the department that rules that particular code in cases it is highly impacted it was thought that would be advantageous to have the ability to take additional time in the proposed ordinance up to 90 days by requesting if the board of supervisors having a resolution saying we have additional time to review it and that's really the crux of the proposed ordinance it does that it amends the section of building code one 4.8211 and adds a section for board sponsored legislation being brought to us and in
9:18 pm
general that legislates a process for the legislation initiated by the board of supervisors the process is essential the same for the planning commission to review a building code amendment as set forth in section 302 and awhile we've followed the process generally it is appreciable to have this process spelled out the main items in the code that are added are from the board of supervisors initiate an ordinance effecting one of our codes and spelled out would with an of the codes might be and that's kind of a deal nights because we have relative new green code i mentioned a lot of
9:19 pm
charters and other legal documents we have a green code we enforce we kind of assume we have all the same rules we have an existing building code neither should have you know response to the building code i'm sure we'll get the resident but have it codified there's a reference to the chapter section d-3750 those our codes are amended that it has to come before you guys for a public hearing give the 90 day period i talked about for approval or disapproval from you guys the there's a thing that is added in there if you don't take an action to be assumed that the disapproval that was interesting
9:20 pm
how it was handled didn't have time or didn't make an actual thing that is an vantage for you guys to get your approval and then a provision from the board of supervisors makes the 3 modifications to the legislation that has to come back to you guys for a rereview so basically start over and get a period to review it all over the place respond if you want and again i'm not sure how it is handled in the past i've seen it purely substantial modification by the board of supervisors you know i'm not an expert i don't know what really have to come back here or not. >> commissioner. >> it sounds like very, very good because i believe we've seen the front page of the code it says published by the
9:21 pm
building department and given little time to review it and give it our thumbs up what you're proposing makes sense with the 90 daytime talk about the 6 or 90 duration is that 90 days coincide with other reviews or in addition to - >> it is the total so that thirty days total so the thirty days when the board of supervisors i forgot the word received the legislation they refer to a subcommittee and an immediate thirty day hold with a response from the planning department mapped it is still the same thirty days but the option to extend that to 90 days. >> commissioner lee please. >> i think -
9:22 pm
>> john from the city attorney's office maybe i can clarify we're talking about two different time clocks running so the board of supervisors has a policy to have a whole book of rules they follow and one of the rules says for a major - more legislation that involves a major policy decision the board of supervisors itself puts a thirty day hold on any action on that legislation just give the public and the city departments more time to look at that so i think that is what kirk's have referring to the thirty day hold dpa happen all the time but if it is a basic piece of legislation didn't have a thirty day hold with this legislation proposes to do for the first time actually set up on explicit
9:23 pm
process of the rules and procedures for when the board of supervisors interests legislation that will amend one of the codes that you have authority over it sets up a time clock extinct of the thirty days that the building inspection and the code advisory committee has a minimum amount of time to review it and take action on it this nothing like this has existed but what you see here is parallel to the project that the planning commission has for will legislation that had amend the planning code not anything for the department of building inspection and what we've attempted to do was follow the similar process because there was a similar in terms of legislative review but not
9:24 pm
mandate that will put into the code a process that gives the bic 90 days and from when the clerk of the board transmits the protective to the department. >> commission vice-president walker. >> my read it is true for planning is that regardless of what action we take merely evidentiary didn't stop the process if we don't approve it it can be approved by the board is that true with planning as well. >> generally yes john from the city attorney's office let's see if i can try to present this in a simple way one the differences between the bic
9:25 pm
and the planning commission is the charter rules for the bic say the bic has to hold it's hearing open all the legislation that changes the code but doesn't say anything about what happens if you approve it or disapprove it there is no rules regarding you have to only hold a hearing the planned commission is absent different because they need to provide a statement about the general plan consistentcy code amendment so that is from the planning department says we don't like the legislation or the bic the board can overrule you by a majority if you say we hate this legislation we want to
9:26 pm
disapprove that the board can override you kicker mentioned your 90 day clock runs and no action deemed disapproved by you same language in the planning code it is cleaner to say if you don't like it rather than automatically saying yes, if you've not held a hearing on it depends on. >> so, now this proposed legislation is essentially putting it on record that board of supervisors please wait for a response before you consider whatever proposal that is sent up. >> that's correct i probably would i'll talk with the city attorney that drafted this we
9:27 pm
need to make a little amendment even if it is deemed disapproved the charter says you have to hold a hearing we can't have a situation where the board of supervisors move forward ahead if you haven't held the mandated meeting we'll do a language change the other thing that is important to note is and this is this is as occurred some days you'll hold our hearing an legislation and take an action and then goes to the board of supervisors and changed in substantive way and there was nothing it dictated that was you get to see the amendments and so one of the things that does it speldz that out if there was a substantive change that the board makes after you've reviewed it like a legislative proposal. >> this sounds a proposal from
9:28 pm
our department or commission has anyone reached out to the board is that the process later on. >> has anyone reached out to the board about this legislation. >> i don't think- i don't know. >> not that i'm aware of but up to me to start that conversation although we basically wanted to find out if you guys you're talking - >> some disagreement a. >> commissioner gilman. >> so again, it sounds like great it is just i mean urban design group really good but i'm concerned about the timeframe in a sense there is a timeframe you get the mold and a time to publish the city code and want to make sure that we're not adding to that that will be happening with the current allocated timeframe.
9:29 pm
>> maybe if i can take it john from the city attorney's office this shouldn't effect in any way the cycle changes every 3 years that starts at the department and works through the process this what is established is when the board of supervisors introduces legislation and gets sent to you. >> commissioner gilman. >> i thought the other main thing i've heard is that i think when we informed did board of supervisors we should remind them that our code advisor i advisory committee are all volunteers who actually in some months might be volunteering than we as commissioners do what i heard sometimes there is as confluence of the code update and the 33 their slammed with a
9:30 pm
thirty day window i think one way of framing this when we to the board of supervisors we should and should again, that outreach through the communications staff and government affairs staff if we preview this gives the lead to the advisory committee and give us more of an opportunity to spent a lot of time and be more thoughtful about the protective that comes before us. >> commission vice-president walker. >> i mean, i really appreciate this and think probably our entire staff will i'd like to make sure if there is some emergency situation that comes up it spells out a line of conversation they can speak to us rather than you know mail it so i think that is good i think that it offers a better
9:31 pm
scheduling especially for the advisory committee they are all volunteers and ensure is invaluable working with staff this is a good thing to do certainly so - >> one last comment if you can imagine a situations where the two departments yesterday a referral happened yesterday and thirty disease from yesterday to response you have today already two late but the only options for the special meeting set up a special meeting all the supervisors have to set up special meetings a huge impact on our department to try to squeeze that in because of a coincidental timing of the planning department didn't happen very often
9:32 pm
john from the city attorney's office i want to add one other thing a way to give more of a formal shout out to the advisory committee one thing we've instituted on all the legislation you approve we add a section this says the building inspection on such and such a date to approve the action and add another thing the advisory committee took it's action on another date and easier to track i think for the board of supervisors to understand and the public and the bic you how much work needs to get done before legislation can be back before the board before they can disproportionate it. >> good. >> any public comment seeing
9:33 pm
none, is there a motion? >> move to approve there is a motion that has been seconded roll call vote on the item. >> commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch commissioner warshell okay that item passes unanimously item 12 discussion and possible action regarding our possible san francisco building code meantime to the 2016 plaguing code deleting section 911 good morning. i'm steve the plumbing inspector i wasn't supposed to give this but the person it - it is a
9:34 pm
inventing testimony stopper a waste system a combination vet system this system has been in the appendix l felt plumbing code every sense we've had a plumbing code the appendix got moved to the board this year this is a reader for the cycle at this time we're requesting to strike out the section and continue to keep it as a need a combination waste vending system that we always used in the past an example safeway costco and big building they have to use a waste system and come down and show us and therefore approve the system accordingly i have a picture i don't know if it it will - >> is there a way. >> it is on just put it there it
9:35 pm
should, visible in just a moment there we go. >> this is a combination of the have the opportunity system in the system here you see only two vents one there and these are all the waste systems that are boy and girl installed one trap one vent it balances the trap and the waste and water when you flush a toilet it actually continues to keep the balance so a trap seem like so it didn't come back into the system if we lose this location by a stoppage, break, being capped off and removed you lose the balance of that system therefore your sewer gases and everything comes up we don't want to have this
9:36 pm
attach situation let's be honest everything in san francisco gets remodeled in two or three years and don't hire the same people knowing how the system was installed we're at a disadvantage someone sees it a different way and someone caps it off we lose did have the opportunity system and back to square one therefore i'm requesting if you could support this system. >> okay. i of the wondering why you wanted to strike this out the location of one vent and only one last. >> only the one vent that's adequate if you lose it that's for the whole line if you lose my any of those. >> my experience this has run
9:37 pm
a long, long time striking out the legislation with the technical engineers construction industry. >> no i have not i've had during the board meeting with i mo certain areas use this and adopt the appendix into their code system to have it not something that was brought into the code system there are other situations where other jurisdictions have allowed for vending systems to be done this way and some have not based on the type of installation one of the things that came up with the advisory committee is this is like a case by case basis and i poke with them and august with that what can we leave in the body of the code the only problem something is a problem in the near future for one and two a system not approved
9:38 pm
because it could be done in a system that be done and therefore now we're back to seeing you do the this whole system 10 in floors and did it wrong or not approved you could have done this this way and now spending twice as much money i've reached out a kansas and san diego and whatnot again, when those systems come into play it is the appendix not in the body theretofore we've not had that situation i've talked with the engineers and engineers that have done similar systems they've come forward a lot of the larger buildings with the changes if we ask for a full vent through the building you're talking about a 18 or 16 inch vent that will not happen the vending systems we'll sit down and look at their plans and diaphragms make sure that
9:39 pm
everything mediated the minimum requirement and therefore we approve that system and go forward. >> this is a significant change i've seen practices. >> it is something that is there in the body we're striking out from the body of code and making it - if they want a combination system we work with the systems but - >> (multiple voices). >> not by code but saying this is in the in the code we'll do this and this is what we'll do. >> come forward and show us and then from tell you this is for jerry. >> this is allowed. >> right. >> go ahead. >> commissioner lee i'm nervous about this fill if i
9:40 pm
come in it is a large project this is pretty much geared to a large project as a whole now as a whole. >> you'll see it on some projects maybe on some smaller ones but i'll be worried about any type of remodels using that vent and don't have it on the last you have things that are documented so therefore if someone don't a change later look at the documents and make those changes that have all the information in front of the them. >> it is usually used in large assembly type of buildings like ball park. >> very much see and therefore - at this time you have that because it is in plans we're actually having to come forward we're actually able to make sure it is staying that way and be able to track that according if it is put in right now like the
9:41 pm
body find code we'll have them put that in no need for changes therefore anyone coming in behind them we have no idea. >> what constitutes to. >> those are appendix l not adopted by california those are in appendix l the appendixes we have we can look at those with an additional means and use this appendix and show you why therefore we'll look at it and make the determinations it makes sense for the sidewalks not for all situations they're taking that appendix and saying not to be used for all situations. >> california did it you're talking i mean since 1998, 96
9:42 pm
was not in the body and all of a sudden from the appendix to the body multiple reasons i don't know all the political reasons i don't want to know but went from one appendix into the body and not through before. >> let me ask one more question. >> let's take anything like they submit the plans and one of the circumstances can do you do. >> we get into contract the engineers and sit down with the plumb what is happening in if situation and an isolated incident and come down with why we're doing is this way and move forward from there. >> i guess the question is. >> would we say no right off the bat. >> (multiple voices).
9:43 pm
>> that's why we understand this type of system some places that let me call is a grocery store they have a system and then again, you find out there is walls they don't need a combination no need for it they have the way to vent this so we'll say you, get this at the location i understand why you couldn't get it therefore go ahead. >> if you're going to do that i hope we put those procedures in place. >> anyone said oh, we don't like this. >> that's my job to make sure it is fair. >> commission vice-president walker. >> it seems to me this is the way to say been and the purchase for the documents is part of a file so that it didn't get
9:44 pm
undone without somebody knowing it i mean that is worthy in and of itself it didn't stop it it didn't discourage it unless it should be discouraged. >> correct. >> have you ever looked at the cost. >> no. >> tonight i don't look at the money cost side of it i'll say that i want to see more money on infrastructure extra vents and not have sewer gases and need to you know have - whoever is living there i mean, i don't know how you compare one to the other it's been always been the balancing act of the trap seem like not the other. >> this is new in the new state code we adopted. >> it came in this year.
9:45 pm
>> okay i don't know. >> commissioners mike inspector forgive me for coming in late i was expecting 11:30 steve covered it and commission vice-president walker hit the nail on the head this is a specialized system if their in fact, installed and someone adds there will obtain problematic go guaranteed and in addition, we have over stacks that combination systems balance of the pressure changes in the system is down to 4 hundreds of an inch of a water column that puddles a trap seal one stoppage you can do that that's steve's concerns i not your concerns but please you know bear with us our concern is public health if we allow those under specialized as we do a combination we're 100
9:46 pm
percent clear we know the system is recorded if someone adds to it we'll change it at this point or make sure it is done correctly but the staff - the stack they're in commercial building is meant to allow exchange and if we allows it air exchange we lose our traps if we lose the traps that's the bottom line i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> but a that's really the long and short of it. >> okay. >> any more further comments from staff. >> thank you. >> okay any public comment on this item? 12. >> is there a motion to approve the item. >> commission vice-president walker. >> you move to approve this. >> is there a second. >> i second. >> there is a motion that has
9:47 pm
been seconded roll call vote. >> commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner clinch commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner warshell that motion carries unanimously item 13 discussion and action regarding our possible deletion off a existing san francisco amendment to the 2016 electrical code section 411 inadvertently with no location to locates not permitted. >> kirk technical services start out with unintended consequences
9:48 pm
as far as i know no unconsequences changes this is administrative in nature it is early in the corroding code advisory committee no unintended circumstances foreseen it is strictly the state code excuse me - not the state code but the electrical code title section for 10 plus years maybe 10 or 20 years the title of this section was locations not permitted and in 2008, the model code destroy was the exact same wording chang's changed to title to specific locates when they changed that san francisco didn't pickup that change so
9:49 pm
submittals they retained the previous titles they're really the code changes within the body of text and the code has to do with with the extended ceilings in the code section this is not changed we want that amendment that was the intended amendment all along but the title change we looked at the and questioned why are redondo tainting this 10 year old title to the section location not permitted and the answer under the electrical department was didn't intend to retain that i have no problem with using the specific location titled in the code and so being that the paperwork was approved to the board of supervisors and the legislation and everywhere else the way it stand right now we changed the
9:50 pm
title the specific location requirement and -- excuse-me. two locations not permitted the old title the electrical provisions and like to undo that part of our intended code change by reverting to what is called the - >> commissioner any unintended circumstances that's the keyword for me we have it on the record (laughter) there will be none. >> okay. thank you is sure. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, there a motion to approve it. >> move to approve second. >> there is a motion that has been seconded roll call vote commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman
9:51 pm
commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch commissioner warshell that motion carries unanimously item 14 discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the department of building inspection for fiscal years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. >> good morning deputy director for the department of building inspection and before you is the departments proposed fiscal year 2017-2018, 2014, 2015 bucket this is the second reading of it at the last meeting of our first reading and the commission approved is one outstanding item in the net outstanding item has to do with with the increasing some years for the fee opt in the federal collaborative and rosemary bosque is the project sponsor for those two programs so she
9:52 pm
and her staff look at some other items to see what was extended and did a good job and here to answer questions this is attachment a and basically, we increased overall the grants to city grant program by $500,000 200 divorce and 200 to the collaborative and attachment b actually has what the budget would be now with that increase and the last time we were here the city grants program on attachment b above the supplies a 5 hundred increase of seismic safety this is good for this what will happen once the budget sew approved we have to submit to the controller's office been
9:53 pm
next tuesday and then they'll prepare it for the mayor's office and work together with the mayor's office we are the main implicit department we should go to may one to the mayor's office and usually other additions to the budget during that time and when it goes to the board so i'll keep you abreast normally during this time sometimes increases in the portfolios that's the other things i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commission vice-president walker. >> i want to thank you and chief about - for addressing the issues i think a lot of us have expressed about the c opt what we're hoping to get help with we've been meeting as you may know with task force to look at the issue of the warehouse buildings and how the c opt
9:54 pm
programs can come into that to evaluate in relocation and temporary or permanent and identifying fad forward so all the different participates we have in the process are really counting on this program to help them with that it that would be helpful for making sure that people don't unnecessarily losses their homes and that we lose the assets of having those places whether their illegal secondary units or warehouses that have residential use it really has been a program that has worked really well and defining those paths forward i think this is money well spent thank you for accommodating our requests. >> commissioner gilman please. yes, a thank you to staff for - would like to ask once the
9:55 pm
budget is approved by the board of supervisors on this particular item the increase in fund to community-based organizations do a press released release and after a community partners to highlight we're making 24 investment in the just warehousing you saw with fire and in chinatown that many of our dwelling units are still at risk and the tenants are displaced in san francisco often leads to things the fact we can show the department we should highlight and once the budget is approved by the board of supervisors. >> thank you okay. >> vote. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we need a vote is there a motion? >> i make a motion to approve 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 as
9:56 pm
presented. >> second are there is a motion that has been seconded roll call vote commissioner president mccarthy commission vice-president walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner clinch and commissioner warshell that motion carries unanimously. >> thank you deputy director. >> okay item 15 a director's report. >> back again sorry. >> good morning deputy director for the department of building inspection before you say is the february 2017 year to date highlights of our seven months of revenues and expenditures for this fiscal year so july through january and similar to prior months we condition to see the same revenues are better than
9:57 pm
budgeted we're doing well but lower than than last year that is once again we say every month it is w67 was a banner year we're proeblg to collect additional revenues for the budget because of the first stage you know $7.4 million more than budgeted and primarily due to the building permit and planned review those are the two that are driving particularly in the plan review those represents and then on the expenditures side we continue to exceed our expenditures from last fiscal year in the primarily due to the increase in salaries we're about one million dollars more than last year primarily due to salaries as we continue to hire we'll spend more and more of our salaries money i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> just do you coordinate with
9:58 pm
the planning department how they're doing right now for the statement we make those equations. >> i know the director with the planning and normally what we do is - because when - someone pulls a permit for the building permit into the plan reviews they'll pay the filing fees but afterwards what he happens we have to wait for the issuance and sometimes that is a little bit complicated we have actually lowered our projections for next year but we did that two years ago to - part of it is those projects sometimes, we don't know when the project make their way back to us yet issued
9:59 pm
during the times with additional funding yeah. >> okay. >> we normally eye the trend of what we're seeing now. >> okay. >> thank you deputy. >> you're welcome. >> item 15 b update of the recent combablthd state and local legislation and. >> good morning, bill strong public rigs your unaware of the proposal that was just endorsed to we don't have to talk about that much we have a new records retention proposal for supervisor peskin that staff has been reviewing and we're going to send back clarifying language to the supervisor through the city attorney's office just to make sure that what we agreed to do we're able to do going forward.
10:00 pm
>> through the future process here the only 09 item i'll mention that supervisor tang about a year ago did introduce legislation for streamlining restaurant approvals permits and dbi did provide along with other departments some button this the supervisor will be calling for a hearing on that matter and dbi will be providing part of updated report i'm expecting that to happen either this month or early march the only other item i think i will mention on the mandatory disabled improvement legislation that commissioner chung also introduced we are still working on that director hui met with the supervisor and the annual catch up on pending