tv Government Access Programming SFGTV August 30, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
>> clerk: good morning. today is august 21, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeal board. i would like to remind everybody to turnoff their electronic devices. item one, roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: we have a quorum. and the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving
testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. okay. no members at the time -- there is someone? i'm sorry. i can't see up there. do you swear to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. okay. for the record, the department will present their case. each side has seven minutes. then, the appellant will present their case. next, there's public comment, and each member has three minutes to speak. lastly, there's rebuttal, three minutes for the department and the appellant. next, discussion of minutes for the meeting held on july 17, 2019. >> okay. are there any corrections or comments regarding the meeting
minutes from the 17? okay. i move we accept. >> second. >> clerk: okay. a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the minutes? are all commissioners in favor? any opposed. okay. minutes are approved. i also wanted to announce that our first item, case number 6861, 49 drum street, has withdrawn their request for appeals. >> okay. thank you. >> clerk: next item is order of abatement, case number 6863, 1139 guerrero street, rincon properties, l.l.c. action requested by appellant. time needed to work with tenant to get final inspection done. the departments can come
forward. >> good morning. my name is moises hernandez, chief inspector for building enforcement. -- a wall heater improperly working, causing potential life safety issues. a notice of inspection was issued by inspector loera, which noted that the wall heater was actually installed incorrectly and requested them obtain a building permit. a notice of violation was issued on december 9. the final warning letter was issued afterwards because they failed to comply with the permit. the actual permit was actually issued two months later.
there was a hearing on december 12, 2018. the hearing was continued in order for them to correct the heating violations. here's the inspection so far, which you can see on february 7, 2019, there was no one on-site, so therefore, the inspector could not inspect the site. the order of abatement was issued based on the fact that there was no inspection history afterwards after the initial inspection. as you can see, the other inspections in april, i believe, show corrective action, which the wall heater still hasn't been corrected.
therefore, code enforcement requests to uphold the abatement and all assessment costs. i do also want to point out that we've had multiple cases or open complaints again this property, multiple violations throughout the years which also applies to city attorney because they have filed to comply with multiple notices of violation. >> president mccarthy: thank you very much. >> clerk: is there a representative or appellant present? it does not look like it.
is there public comment? any public comment on this case? okay. commissioner walker? >> commissioner walker: thank you for bringing this. so you haven't been able to -- we haven't been able to access entry to see if there's been any correction, is that the case, since april? >> yes. i spoke with the planning department today, and as of april, they have no inspections from the contractor. >> commissioner walker: seems pretty cut and dry. i move to uphold the order. >> second. >> commissioner walker: because the evidence provided indicates there indeed has been a violation and it has not been
corrected. >> thank you. >> president mccarthy: -- [inaudible] >> clerk: yeah. so the case we're discussing is 1139 guerrero street. >> commissioner walker: yes. >> commissioner clinch: appeal number 8683. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner clinch. >> clerk: and we have a motion and a second. and there was no public comment on this item, so i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call]
>> clerk: okay. that motion carries unanimously, and our next item is item f, general public comment. general public comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals agenda. item g, motion to adjourn. >> motion. >> second. >> clerk: okay. all in favor? okay. we are now adjourned. we'll reconvene as the building inspection commission at 10:00 a.m. exactly.
are i he >> thank you so much for that. congratulations again to the director who made remarks at this year's time -- chinese real estate convention. you updated its members as members on an important d.b.i. safety improvement building program. thank you for that. finally, d.b.i.'s employee recognition committee reviewed some nominations and selected
building inspector clancy as our employee of the year. his dedication and outstanding work on multiple inspections under very tight timelines helps to ensure the new chase arena will open on schedule in early september, enabling san francisco and the bay area fans of the golden state warriors to usher in yet another championship season for our team and its brand-new state-of-the-art facility. we will be presenting this award i want to say that i was able to take a tour of chase centre. amazing work. it is huge, it is beautiful, all of us should go see the building it is really pretty amazing. congratulations to clancy. i think our secretary wants to read something and then i will present the award. >> i just have a statement from
the team that he worked with. i speak on behalf of the entire clark company as well as the joint venture when i say that he has been a partner through the can his -- to the construction industry, upholding the oath, values and discipline given to him by the city of san francisco , but also partnership and leadership he has shown to us throughout the last years. i could not think of another person more deserving to be recognized. we meet city officials in every city, county and town that we worked. some are very good, some with room to grow. he has managed to achieve the right balance of public safety and city obligations with being part of a team and he simply gets it done. from all of us at the clark construction throughout the city , we applaud the city in recognizing him. well done. >> thank you. [applause]
>> if you'd like to come on up, please. and recognition of your professionalism and outstanding service, on behalf of your division and going above and beyond the call of duty with engagement and responsiveness and -- encouraging code compliance, your confidence with stakeholders and staff make you an invaluable asset. this award is hereby presented to you as -- [indiscernible]. [applause]
[laughter] >> this completes my announcements. >> congratulations, again. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item three, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning, commissioners. i had a client recently who had an issue about property line windows. and the plan checker said, unless you approve evidence of this existing -- [indiscernible] the criteria for allowing these
windows would allow us to do that. the chief building inspector went out and got some photos to show these existing windows. i did not believe that. we know he did do that. let me say this. he said yes, look, here it is. here is what is going on. this is what you call service to the public. on another thing, i did appreciate mr. fergus from the permit centre who shadowed me for one day. that was really cool to go around with. lastly, there is a new way of
signing up for plan check. it is really great. thanks for holding the spot in the general planning line. there two people ahead of you. we will let you know when you are near the front. [indiscernible] status update from general planning is not ready yet, but please have the city -- if the city or san francisco need more time, you can reply. how cool is that? once again, i'm looking forward to this new building. we will see how it all works out great job, d.b.i. you always do a great job. thank you very much. >> thank you.
>> i have a presentation for commissioners, please. commissioners, my name is kevin chang. the topic today is on the follow-up of the july 17th b.i.c. hearing on the property on 18th street. on page one of the presentation, there is a timeline to the missed code enforcement opportunities. there are 20 on-site inspections for a total of 26 inspections over a 304 month period. checkout when these were conducted. excavations were from december 21422015. why did they not understand the
full extent of the permit? checkout when it was okay to cover the inspections that were conducted. sheet rock being loaded in may 2016. notice how the roof is ripped off the attic. it is highly unusual to load sheetrock when it is not closed. checkout planning taking two years to issue this after a zero permit complaint in may of 2018. the buildings have been known to force complaints to planning within a matter of days. checkout that 90% inspections including the complaint inspections were done by one building inspector. from start of work inspection to the final inspections, they determined there were no violations. why was there no rotation of inspectors. check out the building taking out one year to issue n.o.v.
why did building issue in n.o.v. only after the discretionary review at the planning commission? checkout special inspections being done without geotech reform. checkout the project that involves mercury engineering all under investigation by the city attorney. checkout page two. the excerpt of the building staff report to the planning commission, which was not presented to this commission. after building staff conducted 26 on-site inspections from december 2142 october -- december 2014 to october 2016. they did not document the as built conditions. are the wheels of justice low or selective? are building staff incompetent or corrupt? these questions should not be hard to answer. these questions will not be
answered if the building inspections commission does not call for an independent investigation that is thorough and transparent. commissioners, please call for an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation. thank you. >> is there any other further public comment? seeing none, item four, commissioner questions in matters, inquiries to staff. commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >> i talked with some stuff already, and forgive me if this was already going to be discussed. if i don't -- i don't know if everyone saw the news earlier, i guess it was last week, h.u.d. sent planning department on the building does -- building inspection department a letter saying it was going to be investigating the last ten years
of reports that were done by the department that led to legislative decisions at the board of supervisors and as far as housing, planning, zoning and all of those things are concerned, and the assumption that san francisco might be violating they fair housing act. as an affordable housing director, i have many takes on that. i guess i would love to know what -- i believe d.b.i. got a letter directly, and i would like to talk about that specifically today just to know if there is a schedule or game plan around it. >> so you want an update? >> yeah. >> and agenda item on that at some point when we are ready? >> when you have had time to download it, i would like it to be an agenda item, please. >> any other commissioners? okay.
>> our next item is item four b. , future meetings and agendas. the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission, and in our september meeting is on september 18th. >> is everyone good? >> yeah. >> okay. >> thank you. is there any public comment on item four a or b.? >> our next item is item five, discussion and possible action regarding the ordinance amending the plumbing code to delete the local amendment to the california plumbing code, rules and regulations and the section on cross connection control. to add local controls for
beverage dispensers in a testing requirement for backflow prevention, in addition to other requirements. >> we were expecting representatives today to speak about this to you from the sfpuc and the department of public health, i see they are not here at the moment, so i don't know if you want to move on? sorry, i didn't see them in the back there. would you like to come up? sorry. >> that's okay. thank you thank you for coming this morning. >> sorry, we were hiding in the back. >> that's okay. >> i am the epidemiologist and manager of several programs including the water regulatory programs at the department of public health. before you today is an amendment
to the local plumbing code that we have been working collaboratively on for a while. it has a bit of a complicated history that i can give you details about if you are interested, but essentially what the amendment before you does is makes the local plumbing code consistent with the rules that we have under san francisco health code, article 12 a, and together with your staff and the code advisory committee, we have come to consensus that we would like to all be on the same page about how, what we require of beverage dispensers with respect to backflow, industrial chillers , and the way we think
about some of the tasking requirements. >> is there any questions? >> i don't have questions, i will just make a statement. most of this is pretty standard now. and many of the other jurisdictions have already adopted it, such as a backflow preventer for the beverage dispenser, and requiring that they don't use copper piping on a downstream side of the backflow preventer. the reason is that carbonated water hitting copper causes some italy fact if people drink it, so that is why we want the backflow preventer removed. contra costa county does it, i
know that for a fact, and i'm sure other jurisdictions does it , too. >> great. is it backwards, as well, or just going forward? do people have to come up to this code? >> most should be in compliance, actually, and we continue to enforce it through the health code, and now this will just assist the building department to make sure it is enforced in their environment when they are on-site. >> okay. great. so whenever they run into it, this is it. >> right. >> got it. thank you very much. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we do a roll call vote. is there a motion to approve? >> i move that we approve this. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. [roll call]
the motion carried unanimously. >> thank you, again. >> our next item is item six, discussion and possible action regarding the high calculations for including occupy roofs as an occupied floor and code interpretation number 17-001. >> great. i believe we have our fire marshal. do you want to come up and give us the latest on this? it seems to be going back and forth. >> it is. good morning, commissioners. with me today is chief pruitt chief pruitt, he manages plan checks.
so just a little recap, in 2017, we put out a formal interpretation in defining high-rise buildings. typically high-rise building is defined as a measurement from the lowest point of fire department access, to the highest occupied floor level. the interpretation stated that a rooftop deck was considered an occupied floor when measuring 7r or not the building was a high-rise building. obviously there are many implications to this. the codes are dramatically more conservative and restrictive for high-rise buildings. there's a lot of reasons for that. the past fire marshal, who is now retired as of july, we have a new interim state fire marshal , i had gone up and met with him and his deputies twice, and had multiple phone calls.
this is one of the issues we talked about. and from those conversations, the fire marshal at that time told interpretation for further consideration and review. it has recently come to our knowledge that that same interpretation now has been reposted. nothing has been revised, nothing has been added or any kind of rationale provided in addition to what was already there. it came to our surprise that it was posted because we were not notified in any way. there's been a lack of communication with the state and s.f. f.d. that maybe because the new administration. i'm not here to be critical of the state fire marshal, but there has been some disconnect. what we have done recently over the past couple of weeks is we have reached out numerous times with phone calls, trying to set up a meeting with the state fire marshal to discuss this very matter. what we would like to do is understand the rationale. what are the concerns? if you look and read through the code, there's quite often
exceptions to exceptions to exceptions in the code. what i would like to know, from the fire department's perspective, what are the concerns, is it truly aerial access, is it increased fire load, is it delayed egress, what is it? and then maybe we can talk about a carveout for limited exceptions or something, and we were hoping to have that conversation, and that is what we are trying to do right now. over two week period, we got a phone call yesterday from the state fire marshal's assistant. i asked to the assistant, do you have the decision to make an authority, and he said no. he says he will relay that information to the state fire marshal and get back to us. so that is where we stand at this point. >> so, i do have one question. just for clarification, previous to this previous determination that was posted by the previous fire marshal about calling it a floor, wasn't there a period of
time where it wasn't considered a floor? >> correct. that was not part of the measurement in determining a high-rise building. that has been our past practice. it all changed with that interpretation in 2017 when it was rescinded or removed for further consideration that we went back to that practice, meaning we will not consider it part of the high-rise. as a local authority, we have the authority to make that interpretation, and since the stage did not have a formal interpretation out there, that was our interpretation. now since it has been reposted, we are bound by that interpretation. we would like the city attorney to weigh in on this. are we truly bound by that? but i believe that is the case. >> so there were actually projects that you considered under past practices that it wasn't a high-rise, so there was a period of time where it was in
flux, where we have some projects that maybe underway, i mean, i'm just curious. >> the way we handle that is if you submit your application, whatever the guidelines were at the date of that application, we follow those guidelines. >> got it. >> we don't go back and now so you are halfway through, you can't do this anymore. >> exactly. >> it goes by the application date. >> perfect. any other questions? >> from a layman's point of view on this, when i review a lot of plans that are coming in, one of the things i keep seeing is that the use of rooftops is increasing. it is a very desirable feature, and, you know, where it has gone from, you know, almost an informal viewing and gathering thing, now it is permanent cooking facilities, all kinds of other uses, different hardscape his, is this change of use and a
demand for more exterior space and utilization of roofs really triggering part of the thinking, or adding to your concerns about requiring it to be deemed a high-rise, and therefore the higher standards? >> where is the open space, up on the roof. we have the same concerns that you just conveyed. how do we find the use of that deck? so if you are having cooking, open flame, that is a whole other thing. that is an assembly space up there, and that occupant load of 15 square feet per person, and if you place an assembly and a type three a building, you cannot be above the third floor. you have to limit your load to
49. there are limitations here. we're not proposing you have 200 people on a rooftop deck, it is still case by case. you still have to follow the building and fire code for levels of where you can place assemblies, the area, all of that still applies. none of that is being waived, we are just addressing the fact, we are measuring for a high-rise. you still have to follow suit, but it is already there in the code. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> commissioner walker, i want to let you know, in 2018 in d.c. , they have interpretation to define that the roof is not an occupied floor. curiously we have this -- [indiscernible]
-- of course, that will be more for someone to talk to the state fire marshal to resolve it. the interpretation from all the building officials, we go by the roof is not an occupied floor. >> right. >> if i may add one thing, it really should be the starting point here. the state fire marshal is the authority for all high-rise buildings in the state of california. we as a local fire authority enforced those building standards at the local level, so that is why i believe we are bound by that interpretation. not only that, by state law, we have to inspect every high-rise building annually. that authority is given to the state fire marshal. we put in a letter requesting that we conduct those inspections, since our members are the ones who go in and fight the fires and respond to the calls. we have been granted, that was given to us, but we had to request permission to even inspect them annually, so really the authority lies with the
state fire marshal on this. i think we should all understand that that is the case. >> absolutely. and anything that we can do to help facilitate a conversation to get clarification on this, we are happy to do. i think i speak for all of us. >> i think we're on the same page. >> great. appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, our next item was discussion owned possible action regarding the green building code, but -- >> i just want to finish up, this is serious, and i think that there's probably projects that are affected by this that are in the process or being applied for, et cetera, so i meant if there's anything that we can do to help facilitate something around this to get a meeting set up or, i mean, i am
sure the governor's office would be interested in helping move this conversation along so we can decide one way or another what to do. let us know. thank you. >> thank you. item seven, it is actually going to be continued to our next month's meeting. were there any people here for public comment on that? >> i believe it was requested by our president, who is away with a family issue, so we can put this on the next agenda if we can continue it. do i have to do a vote on that? or can i just say? okay. >> we should vote to continue it >> i move to continue.
>> is there a second? >> yeah,. >> there was movement and a second. any public comment on that motion? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the item will be continued until next month. the next item is item eight, director's report. eight a, update on d.b.i.'s finances. >> good morning, how are you? >> good morning, commissioners. in your packet today, you have two financial reports. one is the approved budget for fiscal year 19-20, 2021, and the second one will be the first july month report for the
current fiscal year. i will take a couple of minutes to go over the budget. i think back in february, the commission approved the budget and when you approved this budget, there were some caveats knowing there would be some big changes to the budget, primarily 49 south van ness, some of those things had not been worked out. now we have the full budget here as you can see, the budget has increased from quite a lot when you actually did the approval. it has gone up by about $20 million. that is primarily for three major items, 49 south van ness, digital services, and s.f. permit. if you look at the second page, and you look under expenditures, you will see services of other departments. that would be on the last item before you get to the total, and you are at 18 million and now we're at 36 million.
most of the things that were added to the budget were basically work orders from other departments. forty-nine south van ness, real estate had some work orders and the city administrator had some work orders, brent is in there, too, so that is primarily the biggest increase that we potentially made to the budget when you approved it. >> so it is 26 now? is that the one you are looking at? >> i'm looking at 2019, if you look at the second page of the budget, the number under account is 58103, now it is 36. >> thirty-six, i see. >> the net has increased about $20 million. >> got it. >> okay, then there's one other item that was included, and this is when the board received the budget. so we had about $700,000 in cuts that were minor. they were basically some cuts to materials and supplies, and also some -- and not actually cuts,
because we are waiting for lists to do some hiring. instead of hiring in july, we were given the authority to hire in september. there was some savings there. the board has chosen to use those cuts to fund an a.d.u. pilot program. the details of that program are not yet settled. we have had our first meeting with supervisor mar's office. i match the city attorney who will also be involved. d.b.i. is a special revenue department and we have to make sure the program meets whatever the state requirements are. i have more information on that later and i will give it to then >> is it an outreach program? >> a couple of things have been thrown around. possibly a loan program, similar to the cover program, but they want to see how that will work. this is just one item in a host of board initiatives that will help with a.d.u.s. they want to make sure it complements. that is one of the items.
i think they talked a little bit about outreach, but once again, we have to make sure the city attorney his involved to make sure the program meets the requirements for fe. >> got it. >> i'm happy to answer any questions if you have an you questions about the budget. >> of the 20 million increase in services to other departments related to 49 south van ness, it is fair to assume these are all one-time costs and not necessarily occurring, or is this component recurring? >> the rent is going to be recurring. there are about 10 million, about 8 million should be one time. it is the furniture and fixtures we are going to have a move consultant. the department will have a move consultant that will actually help us with the move. about 8 million of that is one time, and the other ones will be all ongoing.
we are also funding a portion of the permit centre staff salaries that will be there. that part will be ongoing. >> the rent is because of a change in total square footage charge, or an allocation of square footage between ass and planning? >> the rent is because of the allocation. there are two different rent models on the second floor, instead of it being done by square footage, it is being done by the estimate of what is d.b.i.'s focus, and that is about 60 something, 63 or 64%. on the other floors, it is square footage. and our square footage isn't as high as some other departments, but the actual amount of the rent has gone up. so we are getting more square footage, but the amount of what it costs to be in that building
is more expensive than what it would cost to be in the older building. i can get more details once we have some things worked out. i can bring more details specifically as we get closer and bring in information on that , too. >> yeah, because we all know this is a much more expensive building then our previous one, and that is no surprise, but one of the ongoing issues with the allocation of space issue, so thank you. >> you're welcome. >> to the point of the increase and the a.d.u. program, i think i previously requested an agenda item to go over our current cover program, so maybe we can do that in the next month or two to look at where our cover program currently is, what the issues are with those
allocations, because there's also been some discussions about expanding its to cover some other code enforcement, because it is currently -- the cover program, just to let people know , is a low interest loan type program that helps small buildings owner occupy and one to four building units when they want to get assistance with funding code enforcement work. so it took quite a while to get the program together, and it would be great to see how it is being used so we can, you know, look at how to expand it, and what it makes sense to do, but a.d.u.s a.d.u.s is certainly one we talked about. i think when scott weiner and i were looking at forming this in the beginning, there was -- and a.d.u. was one of the things we wanted to reach two, but there is a lot happening now that
could use some assistance, like seismic work, and there's a lot of mandatory programs in some of our older buildings that we might want to capture. if we could do outreach to the mayor's office of housing with managing this, i believe we could get them to come and present to us about it and see how effective it is and what we can do to strengthen it and expand it. that would be great. >> i can do that. i can follow up. maybe we can work with the person there to come in and give an update. >> that would be helpful. thank you. >> sure. the second no more budget -- the second report is our july, 2019 financial report. this is our report for the fiscal year 19-20. it is very preliminary. it is usually during -- during the first part of the fiscal year that we are still setting up contracts. even for the projections, we project what we -- we will be at budget, but that is probably not the case. there is so little information. where we are with that is that both the revenues are up in this
first month of the fiscal year compared to last fiscal month -- fiscal year. if you look at the second page, page two of the memo, if you look at issue permit, you will see in fiscal year 20, the number of permits issued between one and 5 million is substantially going up. that is part of the reason why the revenues are up. normally the plan review and the building inspection fees are the ones that are based on evaluations, so you see 55 versus 301. that is where that is. we will not say that is a trend or something, that is just one month. once again, because our budget is higher than it was last year, of course, expenditures are up over last year, too. part of that has to do with salaries because salaries have increased because of some of the -- this is where we are right now. we won't really be able to see any trends for a few months at least. >> great. >> i'm happy to answer any
questions on that, too. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next item is eight b., update a proposal recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good morning, commissioners. legislative and public affairs. along with the cross connections , the plumbing code item that we just voted upon, we are expecting, per the continued item, this electricity preferred for new construction, green building amendment, that we will be talking about next month. that ordinance is likely to be introduced once the board resumes its normal business schedule in early september. as a result, there hasn't been any new items on that, so i'm happy to take any questions, but essentially the report remains the same.
>> questions? thank you. >> thank you. >> eight c., update on major projects. >> good morning. director of department of building inspection. as you see, there's some slight increases, 2.7% compared to the last reporting period. any questions? >> next item is eight d., update on code enforcement. >> good morning, commissioners. and sweeney from expect -- inspection enforcement. the building inspection division
performed 5,491. thirty-six complaint responses. forty-two complaints with first notice of violation. fifty-four complaints received without an ob. beta complaints without violation, 303. housing inspection services, housing inspections performed 1,018, complaints received for 411. complaints of notice of violation issued, 151. complaints with n.o.v., 442. number of cases said to the director's hearing, 30. routine inspections, 1309. number of order of abatements
issued, 50. number of cases under advisement , 19. number of cases abated, 101. code enforcement inspections performed, 204. number of cases referred to vic litigation committee, two, and there was no cases referred as of yet to city attorney this month. >> great. >> code enforcement outreach programs, total people reached out to, these are quarterly numbers, 42,045. counciling cases, 1,174. community program participants, 2,050. cases resolved, 173. >> thank you. questions? >> is there any public comment on the director's report? seeing none, next item is item nine. review and approval of the
minutes of the regular meeting of july 17th, 2019. >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and a second. is there any public comment on the minutes? okay. >> there is a correction to the public comments here. >> do you want a correction to the minutes? >> yes, please. these are corrections to last month's public comment, just to ensure, for the historical record, the accuracy and the detail of the comments made about the property at 3,084,718 th street, and the severity of the code violations that were at that property. what is highly unusual about this property, is normally these types of projects, once inspected, the code enforcement or inspections, there are stop work notices issued, red tags, suspensions that have been for months, if not years. that has not occurred. i want to make sure that the
details of that presentation was made and properly captured and noted in the historical record. thank you. >> so there is a motion and a second to accept the minutes as written. that can be submitted as an amendment. >> deputy city attorney, you would have to move to approve this amendment prior to approving the minutes, or decide not to accept the notice as presented. >> to be have to vote on it? >> if you wanted to approve this , you have to have a motion to amend the minutes with this. if you do not want to, you do not need to. >> could be also do this and continue this to the next meeting so we have a chance to review what was written? we haven't seen this yet. >> you make, that would be a competing motion.
>> there has been a motion to approve and second it on the floor, we can vote on that or we can vote on it yes or no, if you want to add that, we have to vote no on our current motion and revote on another motion. there is a motion on the floor to approve the minutes as written. >> second. >> we have a motion to approve as written, so -- >> we will vote on that. >> are all commissioners in favor of that motion? >> aye. >> aye. >> i will do a roll call. [roll call]
>> the motion carries 5-1. >> thank you. >> our next item is item ten, discussion and possible action on conference with legal council , ten a, public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. there is no public comment. our next item is item b., possible action to convene a closed session. >> is there a motion? >> motion to go into closed session. >> second. >> motion and a second. vote to go into closed session. [roll call]
motion is approved unanimously. we are now in closed session. >>. >> president mccarthy: and we're back. >> clerk: this is the building inspection commission meeting resuming. we are on the closed session item, 10-d. reconvene in open session to vote whether or not to disclose anything discussed in closed session. >> motion to come out of closed session and not disclose. >> second? >> second. >> all in favor? do we need to do roll call? >> clerk: okay. are all commissioners in favor of that motion?