tv Building Inspection Commission 51816 SFGTV May 20, 2016 11:35am-1:31pm PDT
[reading code]i believe there was a request for continuance for this case about mr. sweeney address that. >> staff: commissioners, ed sweeney secretary of the board. on may 5, i got a letter from the appellant, kamal urkel, with the court interpreter and he travels around the state and today he happens to be in
monterey county in business and according to 1058.26 of the san francisco building code, for good cause shown continuance of that repo [reading code] so i grant that. >> commissioner walker: no life is the life safety issues? >> director: none that i know. >> clerk: anyone here for public comment on this item? seeing none,, item the general public comments. items not listed on the agenda. seeing none, item e adjournments. motion to adjourn was that >> clerk: were now adjourned it is 9:45 am. will reconvene as the building inspection commission at 10:00 am. >>[adjournment] good morning t
is wednesday, may 18, 2016. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. over that to remind everyone please turn on off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is rollcall. >>[call of the roll]. >> clerk: who we have a quorum. the next item is item 2 president announcements >> president mccarthy: welcome to the announcement. the meeting may 18, 2016. in advance, forgive me if i mispronounce any names. madame sec. will correctly unsure. the morning every. congratulations to director healy on his panel discussion. at stanford university last month. at a us china third annual symposium on
tall buildings get one of the organizers of the event skidmore owns which are as home architects also had invited director healy to speak about the san francisco permitting process by safety designed in tall buildings at a special event in the som hosted at the front street office in june 2 -1:30 pm. also, continuing back and conversions to director and dbi staff word about his ongoing enthusiastic participation in the mayor's annual youth works summer jobs program. known as project youth. beginning in june, for an eight week period dbi will welcome a total of 14 high school interns to work in building inspection. housing inspections, code enforcement, technical service, record management, administration, and finance. mis as well as an legislative public affairs and communication. this year's
total is up significantly from last year's total of nine projects. the commission salutes the effort to help youth gain hands-on job experience with dbi staff and all these learning something for the next generation is well done, they. congratulations to dbi community outreach staff were participating in the may 21 community event hosted by local chinese radio station at the main library auditorium. dbi staff remind attending property owners about the rapidly approaching september 15 year to seismic retrofit that i'm as well as explain other programs tied to recently supervisors corridor including accessory dwelling units, units legalize asian soon-to-be implemented by fire safety requirements in existing building. dbi will staff the community outreach table supervisor norman >> yee that will be held
tomorrow may 19. from two-4 pm in the angle side presbyterian church at 1345 ocean ave. if you are in the neighborhood, please stop by. dbi will have a table and staff will answer questions about permits, inspections, and code enforcement. congratulations to those involved in organizing dbi's observations are this year's nations of this year's national building safety month made. dbi staff provided a workshop on soft story retrofit program last week and today what offer another workshop on unit additions program. these workshops provide opportunities for the public to get to know dbi professional staff and be reminded of the san francisco safety work performed by that concludes my announcements >> clerk: thank you. are there any public comment on the
president announcements? seeing none,, item 3, general public comments. the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction not part of this agenda. seeing none,, we will go to item 4. [reading code] >> clerk: >> staff: good morning commissioners didn't mind is carolyn guzman legislative aide with supervisor david campos. thank you for having me here today. the legislation before you arises out of many tragedies we've seen in the mission. deaths, displacement
of entire families and communities due to fires and the past two years. in 2015, alone, 130 people were displaced by fires in the mission. in 2016 has claimed seeing dozens more. last year in this summer supervisor campos in the wake of these fires wanted to ensure that we had a cd agency come together as well as community leaders knowledgeable around these areas created a chop passports round along with supervisor kim that went through three months. dbi was instrumental in making that happen in huge thank you to director he we are taking leadership on that. so the legislation before you today comes out of that task force process. both the meetings over those three months as was the creation of the report and recommendation in the month following in close collaboration with housing rights committee from the tenets
side, as well as the san francisco apartment association. the legislation incorporates a large portion of it is around fire prevention and then there's also a piece of it that is around a very innovative and important idea of having action plan to actually help tenants were the victims of a fire. rosemary provided eight chart i believe you all have that outlines all the details of the legislation. i believe you all have that? okay, good. the first piece of the round smoke alarms and ensuring this increase education and knowledge will tenants around smoke alarms. the second piece is around the fire alarm system. making sure we have maintenance of the fire alarm, but also that we moved to better technology around fire
alarms. the third is around ensuring, again, the firearm audibility is at the highest level. on the backside, is that he's around the action plan. so, this piece has two components. one is immediately following the fire. the information that tenants need to know right away in order to get their stuff is a major issue we see tenants not able to acquire the most essential belongings and ensure they have the contact information to the landlord. then, within 30 days but the number of actions taken in the landlord communicates with both the city and tenants around where things are at regarding repairs and run the tenants right of return. i know the rosemary is here as well to answer questions am. i'm happy to answer questions get >> commissioner walker: thank you and thank you supervisor for doing this. we see a lot of the results and consequences of
these fires and really are interested to support proactive as well as after-the-fact efforts. i have a question about the event list. what penalties occur if this doesn't happen? >> testifier: was married you i come and speak to >> commissioner walker: how do we enforce that? my interest is in expediting the replacement of whatever burns down and i think were frustrated that because sometimes it lingers forever. specifically, to that issue, how do we enforce this? >> testifier: will talk about is a fire damage billing. >> commissioner walker: with the residential >>
>> testifier: in that situation the action language is delineated in the report before you. the big issue there, while the property owner is determined with the schedule will be to rebuild, repair, etc., is that building be properly secure. so, that they have to update the action plan to do that. so the building is improperly secured, or if there's additional fires that occur or whatever, the department would look at that and see what the situation is. but, bringing the building completely back online really for us the control is whether the building is an unsafe building were not during the part of this while it is damage. now, the notice of violation while the timeframe. have a much more robust of the property owners to provide with all the details of the action plan. so, if they don't follow that they would be in violation and follow the typical abatement process that sets forth in the building code.
chapter 1 a. if they do that, right now the code is currently written, we really don't have enough authority to ask for anything further. the question is, is that building properly secured, and we do know from recent experience that a fire damaged building them a bad a lot of water poured on it has its issues over a period of time. so, the department would be looking at that or that period of time to see what else needs to happen and whether additional code enforcement is wanted and with that, i would then defer to the director if he wants to add any further comments. >> commissioner walker: just to clarify my concern is you be great at something in here that either provides incentive or a carrot or a stick, to encourage the building quickly. because we just go with the case earlier that has been sitting around since 2014 with a housing crisis. so, it would be great if we could look at that.
i think it is a bigger issue but maybe one we could think about incentives for. >> testifier: the notice of violation will specify repairs have to be made unless the building needs to be about the most now will be different. >> from our department standpoint whenever there is a fire [inaudible] we will put that in the first priority. we have a few of the job successfully done that has some of them because of the insurance is out of our control. >> president mccarthy: anymore, and? i just want to
commend because this is a, gated issuing these existed billions have challenges. to get them there so i think this is a good step forward. i'm interested, though, some of the mechanisms are put in place here like an understanding and awareness property owners, banners in the timeframe that trigger. for example, if it's 50,000 are permit. it be interesting to what see what we came up with 50? triggers it up. the other will be off to be in compliance by 21, 2021, i believe? >> testifier: the $50,000 trader is for both the upgrading of the fire alarm system. the fire alarm system your choice. either when used amid a permit for $50,000 were by 2021. it is a five-year window. for the issue of around asked and the safety of in terms of creating the fire
safety information that is only with the permit of $50,000. not everyone has to do that within five years. the reason we came to that number we do that in consultation with building owners, and with all the experts on the fire department 20 vi, looking at the numbers of permits issued and that seemed to be an amount that captured the large portion of permits and so and, at the same time, enabled us to ensure that was not if you're coming in for bar a small permit would not suddenly be expected to pay double the amount in order to the safety requirements but it does capture the majority of folks coming in to the city for permits. we felt that was a number we came to that kind of consensus process would be would be reasonable and we felt i would have impact. >> president mccarthy: yes. i think that's fair, actually. the other point and just this outreach, the property owners, it's kind of elective self
police at many levels. this consequences if you don't comply. obviously. i am wondering, is there mechanism where we can put out there to the insurance companies and stuff like that that these are new policies in place? that in itself is an enforcement aspect as well that you have to comply with these new policies? i know that's a big one. i do know if you destiny that. i'm looking at rosemary. i didn't see anything about that kind of notification going on there. >> testifier: there was a discussion in the advisory committee providing fax sheets to ensure that the thing owners are aware. i think the idea of sharing that with insurance companies makes a lot of sense. i don't know we have it in the legislation but i think in the education and implementation that's a great idea >> president mccarthy: well
done. >> testifier: thank you so much and thank you to dbi and rosemary and everyone who worked with us closely on that a lot of work went into this. thank you, all. >> clerk: if there's no further commissioner comments, is there any public comment on this item? >> testifier: from housing rights committee. we are in support of this legislation. we are specially happy about the action plan because many of our concerns did go into this action plan. so, we think that's great. i do have some concerns on the c- commissioner walker about enforcement. i want to give you a really sad example was kinds of things we see in my office all the time after these five. we had a couple coming about two weeks ago,, elderly couple, in their
70s. they were sleeping in their car. they didn't burn out about six months ago for whatever reason. they were able to get help. they ended up in their car. for two months they came into my office. luckily, i was able to get them a hotel voucher through the housing of lines through their voucher program there in a hotel right now but still without long-term place to stay. so,-and their landlord, basically, as i them nothing in writing. absolutely nothing in six months. they've run into the landlord on the stupid is verbally told him having trouble with my insurance company, but that's not satisfactory. i'm sorry. that's not satisfactory to this elderly couple in their car cannot even send him anything in writing or give them an inch about when they can go back or what's going to happen. so, i really feel strongly that dbi
needs to figure a way to deal with these kinds of situations because the housing organizations, we are doing with this as best we can get were not set up to find housing for people. it just by luck that it was this pool of money i knew about. we need your help in coming up with enforcement mechanisms that would you with these when words that, for whatever reason, are not reconstructing these places because the tenants are the ones suffering. every day that goes by that these buildings don't get reconstructed, there's a couple like this couple to beckon drivers that sleeping in their car. that is totally unacceptable. that this is happening here in san francisco. i really implore you to examine your process and see a way to treat these situations as emergencies and to figure out a way to put pressure and get these landlords to get these prices reconstructed so that parents can come back. if the right to return under right
control if you can't return for three years. certainly, that right means nothing if you have to spend three years sleeping in cars and couch surfing and doing who knows what in order to survive. thank you. >> president mccarthy:, thank you, tom. >> testifier: can you see what i have on my phone if i put radio? >> clerk: it looks like we we can. >> testifier: my name is-i'm a small landlord. i am also one of the good samaritans who took in one of the fire victims from shotwell street. this is the shotwell street fire. that's on my for good i just drove by there today. you see it's open. you see it's not secured, and that's exactly why the 22nd and mission fire went up for the fourth time the other day. i
don't understand where the building upon and cannot they tag this and force them to secure this building, because there, if you notice, next to it is a habitable place. those people are are at risk this place goes up again. not to mention, we don't have any housing to put those people. so, the five number family stayed in my one-bedroom apartment because they had no other place. they were not hotel and getting kicked out. they were through thanksgiving and i was trying to get them a place by christmas. then our place in the bayview. they are secure, but the building, this building, those people that rent control housing stock that's missing did i think the building department that could do something about this. the fire department, it's re: burn. it's not nurse jurisdiction is now in yours. i also want to say i do highly support this legislation. i like it to see it go further. currently, if i'm a small limb a bit i'd like a four unit building that doesn't have common halls. it doesn't get inspected every year because it's under seven.
there's nothing in the code i've ever seen or heard of there cars me to even have a fire extinguisher in either of those units. i like to see the code mandate that. any unit that has a gas stove have a fire extinguisher in each room there's an open flame. so they have a gas heater in the living room, and a cooking stove there should be two fire extinguishers that. i do that. not required to, which means the majority of them was out there are not going to even know about it or think about it, and at the same time, the smoke alarm has got to be loud enough right now you can get one that's got a 10 year battery. every, tenant moves out and i going to inspect there's always a disconnected smoke alarm because the battery started beeping and they just disconnected it. i'm not there every day. i wish they don't do that, but if right now today
the law change and they had landlord had to provide a tenure smoke alarm, then for at least 10 years were 9.5 years by tenants would be safe and everybody else will in the city would be safe. i'd like to see that. then, you were talking about enforcement. i don't know if you can see that this is what they do in the state, city of new york. they require the landlord certified and installed a firearm. the smoke alarm. there's no reason we can't have the landlords certified that they checked that this is safe, in cooperation with attendance units 30 notices of your rights and all that type of stuff. i like also to see that extension cords are removed and power ships are put injured they go towards responsible for doing that is not one upgrade electrical. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> clerk: any further public comment? we need a motion on the item. >> president mccarthy: was night, gimme a second please. thank you. to the speakers at last comment there, which i
touched on it as well, it's kind of the self policing going on here that has to be by the property owners. to the point they are is there any certificates they will fill out and send they they are not compliant? >> testifier: yes, the original installation is required by the housing-required an affidavit. we would have on file for any apartment building the required smoke detector could be called a smoker to the fire code calls it a smoke alarm in the unit. that's one of these. these are battery or hardwired. for the original installation. the legislation before you is taking that a step further and saying, usually the property owner will have to tender a notice to each tenants of a
building of any size where it's a rental building about that same thing and if the tenant says that it's missing or its effective the property owner will have to replace it. so, that's the unit within the dwelling unit or guest room. the second item that was talked about was the audibility. the audibility, typically, is not about a one in the unit itself, ms is a newer system. keep in mind, the fire alarm systems and most of the apartment buildings the city and county of san francisco on older buildings and they're there because of a provision that went into the housing code in the early 80s and at that time the fire code was not amended. so, the newer buildings were the buildings that had to comply with the fire code will typically have some kind of
audible device, not only in the common area but sometimes within that unit itself. what we are saying is, all those audible devices, be it also owns, by a your surgeon or being triggered by permit of a certain amount, they will need to go to a 75 db level. the language in the national standard from the fire protection association is that not only it be of at least 75 db but it be low-frequency for people like myself that are hard of hearing to be able to hear it when it goes off. so, that is being addressed with the legislation. keep in mind, those bells and horns are typically in the common area of the building for most of the alarm systems in the city and county of san francisco, which are the older buildings. but what we recognize the months
since [inaudible] we want to have something on a yearly basis so this is also saying not only does the property owner have to get this to the tenant every year, but a notice has to be posted on every floor of that building so that people can see that on a yearly basis. they have to keep that for a least one year thereafter. so, that recommendation from new york is being addressed here with this legislation. >> president mccarthy: yes, okay. i think you probably inserted their very eloquently and i just kind of-so when the homeowner notifies the tenant and notification in the hallways, editing up to go, that's also related to the department, right? this building is compliance, right this legislation? >> testifier: what we will do whatever doing inspection complaint driven or routine, and we don't see that notification, then work on a follow-up with respect to that. that's why it's been posted we can see they tended that information that information will be a document that is developed in collaboration with
both dvi and the fire department. >> president mccarthy: the actual property owner, they haven't notified you that mr. rather you probably would not know better, right? >> testifier: will happen if we don't see that notification the receptive to a notice of violation because they're not in compliance with the amendment of the fire code in housing code >> president mccarthy: not have to go to verify >> testifier: we go in only any. were not asking to get a copy that because the volume would be too great. we are asking for them to give us a copy of the servicing of the system. as you can see my notes here the fire department and the building apartment are still looking at who will ultimately put that on a website. so we have greater transparency, but the problem with this was the sheer volume of this was that we could not handle them cementing all those to us because we already have the affidavits for the original installation. what this is doing is making sure it's maintained over a period of time and the occupants are
empowered to note that it should be there. if it's not, it gives them the opportunity on a yearly basis to tell the property owner. >> president mccarthy: commissioner walker >> commissioner walker: thank you for your synopsis and the bullet points and this. i first of all would like to make a motion to support this. also, to the issue of this specific item that came up about the unprotected fire damage building, i believe were already supposed to be making sure that that is happening and i see it. there's a fire next of the auto body shop with windows wide open and damage wedding in the weather. so, i just would like to emphasize it's really important to secure--i will wait until-it's really important to make sure
that these buildings are secure. so that the weather does not damage it further and we experience things like the 22nd. in the data is part of what we are supposed to be doing. i think that just this reaffirms it. makes sure are responsible to it. but, it's a problem if we don't do that part of it. >> testifier: good morning. right now were working with the fire chief and then there will be a commissioner meeting on this particular issue. or the ordinance. hereby the fire commission on june. besides that, we are going to work closely with the fire department regarding how to handle the outreach. you know, the way i feel [inaudible] is most important how to
[inaudible] the five. after the fire, we are obligated to resolve it. we work closely with fire or sometimes the health department. sometimes, how to do outreach the public. then, actually, we propose some money for our reach by the nonprofit to educate the public how to [inaudible] the fire. but what i want to tell you is, junior there will be a hearing by the fire commission on this particular ordinance. >> commissioner walker: okay. can you just address the specific, shot while fire building and why it's not being protected from the weather? >> testifier:- >> commissioner walker: i thought we did that with fires.
>> testifier: maybe i can as my deputy to come up. i remember right after the fire, they did put the security on how to the barricade on the building. i think one time i also asked rosemary to send someone out and they did have some security but now i don't know what happened. maybe- >> testifier: it's kind of the same issue speak commissioner >> commissioner walker: below, these windows are wide open and were damaged more damage will happen to that building. uncontrolled building. we don't want it to- >> director: i look at one picture by my second they put the barrier on the window but now i don't know what. the picture--we cannot [inaudible] on the whole building except
put plywood on the windows. those are our responsibilities >> commissioner walker: i understand that and they were not there. double check on that? >> director: yes, we can double check. >> commissioner walker: maybe we can-there you go. that would be helpful because i think that's one of the big issues and needs an option plan is to secure the building as is so there is a path forward of replacing were facing these units >> director: generally, right after the fire, we always make sure they secure all the windows make sure all the-you know, for any people can get into the building. >> commissioner walker: do we keep a list of buildings damage like this so we can reject them? because, it seems like these things come unattached for some reason >> director: we usually put a
hyphen on the window building. we keep track of it but that's a complaint we always send someone out to check. i remember, this job we did someone out but i don't have the record writer. >> president mccarthy: one redirect on this director will look into and we can get a report that. >> commissioner walker: thank you. i make a motion to support this ordinance. >> moved and seconded. speaker is a motion and the second to approve the ordinance. will call vote. >>[roll call vote] >> clerk: the motion carried unanimously. item 5, discussion and possible action. [reading
code] >> testifier: good morning. i'm technical services dbi and secretary to the code advisory committee. i am bringing here today some revision that are proposed for an existing administered a bulletin, 107, which is the application of engineering criteria to chapter 30 4b of the san francisco building code. as you might 30 4b is a soft story legislation. it deals with bottom story of buildings. it requires that they be upgraded. this engineering in general deals with whole structures, not portions of structures. so,
kind of a new thing for engineers to figure this out. the clarifications are being issued and looked at by structural engineers in northern california among other people to address issues as they come up and that's why we have this amendment to try to clarify how this is to be looked at. i think a few months back there was an clarifications that go with the top of the walls how they integrate with the floor diagrams. i was a little i needed some clarifying for engineers. these have to do with the sheer walls at the base. how they attach to foundation two slabs. so it's kind of same thing. these are recommendations by the central engineering seven northern california, the code advisory structural subcommittee, and
they basically, apply the three things. one is that some references in so the engineers have some further documentation to look at. they look at the anchorage of us waives in concrete and allow you to tells what tables the american would american with counsel, national design specifications that can be used values from their tables. in determining this year at the base plate from the anchors that go through. it tells you you don't get any dollies for stuff that's in concrete that's not found or plates that are no good war anchor plates that are corroded. the last section, it deals with anguish into brick foundations. it allows you to turn values for existing brick foundations based on testing.
it's kind of the same thing. you don't get to count stuff that's out of plumb. anchor bolts at an angle. anchor bolts that are loose. it's common in brick that they work themselves with. they don't have a value and can't use those in calculation and then not again caught road it. that's a synopsis of it. it's no new changes to the no new changes excuse me, no new requirements. only clarifications had to deal with these. i'll answer any questions about your. the mccarthy thank you. commissioner clinch >> commissioner clinch: i think it's perfectly reasonable language and i think it's well put together and picked up the commentary and references. similar language in other codes like fema. so, i recommend approval or motion to approve.
>> i'm surprised this is brought up. i thought this was an industry standard. i agree. >> clerk: any public comments on this item? mr. clinch made a motion and second. all do it will call vote. >>[call of >>[call of the >>[roll call vote] >> clerk: the motion carries unanimously. item 6,, [reading code]
>> testifier: good morning again. dbi technical services and seconded the code advisory committee. this is to update you on every three years as you know, the california adopts new code and they have to redo all other amendment to model code to bring forward the laws that are existing in california. in san francisco has to do the same. related to san francisco. this is an update of the process. california building code production cycle proceeding with billions in his commission expected to publish the 26 in california building code, california code of regulations 24.2 by july 1, 2016. it amends the 2015 international building code and the final express terms sets the california amendment proposed changes to the 2015 international building code for the 2016 california building code are currently available online. chapter 34 of the
international building code, this time is not in existence. they've removed. in its place, if adopted in international existing building code. all of the california amendment to chapter 34 now have to be relocated to the international existing building code. so, we have that currently small portion of it adopted. it's available in part in volume 2 of the building code. part 10 of the title 24 come up but it was 506 pages now that several books. hundreds of pages long. in california amendment dovetail into that. in all buyer san francisco amendment to be carried along and dovetailed in there as well. >> president mccarthy: sounds like a lot of work? >> testifier: it is. all
previous couple you amendment to chapter 34 be relocated. california plumbing, electrical mechanical and residential code adoption process with amendment judy 2015 uniform code, 2014 national electrical code, uniform mechanical code and the 2015 international residential code respectively is addressing terrible parallel to the code. the call for new green building code was originally drafted by building standards commission and the california energy code drafted by the california energy commission is following a similar process in the new versions are expected to be published july 1 as well. in 2016 san francisco building code adoption schedule will follow and i've attached as a handout. based on july 1, 2016 california building standards code publication date. the codes will come out july 1. by
the state. technical services division has initiated a code outreach including general discussions with code advisory committee and subcommittees, dbi staff, and others questing that existing the event amendment be reviewed and proposed changes be provided. so that such changes can be considered in a timely fashion. plumbing, housing mechanical and electrical divisions have also been contacted by pst. the principle on which we will to guide the development of this job in san francisco codes these on the following: meeting minimum number of local amendment prior to 2013 san francisco building codes. much of this work has been done in the past to meet this goal. it's been generally thought that the last amendment the less confusing it is for people coming into the air. if they're necessary, their necessary. if they're not let's not add them. we also want to ensure the local amendment are consistent with state law including proper
findings. california section 17.9 56.7 something like that, requires this and it's part of our process. california the coat's code cycle will progress-excuse me the code adoption process not include any changes to the fee schedule or other code sections related to budgetary issues. that are even dealt with previously in legislation and would do nothing but slow down the process of this code adoption cycle. it's to make necessary corrections and pick up oversight from the 2013 san francisco code amendment. to incorporate new administrative bulletins in the wills and relations section of the san francisco building code, and in so far as possible review and update existing administrative bulletins for conformance with the proposed san francisco code. the references and things like that on existing bulletins
the code section numbering changes and so we have to change them in a current bolton so they reference the right sections of code. as in the previous code cycle, incorporate the residential code the intent to maintain current standard of safety for residential buildings in consideration to the unique building density and moment of san francisco. then, to bring conformance between san francisco green building amendment california green building codes. in order to meet these principles we propose to take the following actions: continue to notify dbi divisions and outside interested parties of codevelop and schedule and request review and comments from all interested parties. review each proposed go cycle independently both in-house and through the code advisory committee and subcommittees. maintain clear and comments of records of all code changes and actions taken by the department and committees. develop and maintain up-to-date and
accurate code adoption schedule to provide chapter by chapter drafts of the 2016 san francisco code amendment to the code advisory committee and others for review. incorporate any new legislative revisions into the current code. this is something that takes a lot of effort because we are correcting a code that is being changed by the very supervisors on the daily basis. if we make some corrections that corrections correct our corrections live comeback and correct those corrections into each legislation has to be watched carefully to try to integrate it, captured at the time it becomes effective. and gets reflected in published in the end for january 1. review paschal cycle issues to our sure lessons learned from the problems of previous cycles. that's one of them. following the legislation to make sure
that corrections are corrected. consider the incorporation of input from public meetings, and in coordination with the department of environment i need for cost specifications that he previously performed by the department of environment for any energy related amendment major california rebuilding code and evaluate findings and strategize any necessary conformance with the california requirements. coordinate with client training for staff regarding code changes. with early mid matches some public outreach. i'll go over the schedule a little bit. we have-it's this bar chart has been passed out. the page. basically, it all starts the code is not available to modify until july 1. the board of supervisors goes into recess in
august. so, july 1 we have the actual code and natalie will make the changes that are necessary to follow and correct section numbers. in august, while all the board of supervisors are on recess, the building inspection commission meeting bring all the changes for for your approval. we submitted to the board of supervisors while there always when they come back for state that they are back they referred to the land use committee. this 30 day hold. then there's a hearing on land use and then there's two hearings at the board and there's a third-then there's that 10 days for the mayor to sign and the 30 day to become effective that puts us into the middle of december. so, we have about two weeks to spare in the entire schedule. that's what we have to play with. it's very time definite and it's
important to make all the intermediate dates specifics. there are a couple of other pieces of legislation that may or may not be working with this. there's a solar permitting priority permitting piece of legislation that says the state requires us to adopt separate ordinance to expedite solar permits. we already do that buddies to be documented. we may work that into this code cycle. we made do it has several legislation. there's some legislation proposed to allow the building inspection commission to go to the board of supervisors and ask for 90 day extension in order to review some legislation that's given to the board. as you know, it's real tough to try to
squeeze in proper discussion and figuring out how these things with affected apartments. when we are given just a few days to play, and sometimes a complicated legislation it would be helpful if you could go to the board and say, if we had another 30 days we could fully discuss the 7 how were going to respond to it. i understand the planning code already has this, and we been piggybacking on that, but it could be integrated into the actual code to make it more official. then, there is some legislation proposed by the public utilities commission. it tightens up on all the actual devices especially with the alternate water sources and they are requirements, the proposing requirements are more restrictive than the plumbing code, so the plumbing code
backflow prevention tables in their likely be modified to match the puc's requirements. that's about wraps it up unless there's any questions i think i can answer for you >> commissioner clinch: so, we are going to do, force in august for approval. when we when will we get a copy for view? >> testifier: it's a continuous cycle. so after each meeting theirs, for each code meeting, there's documents per pairs and a summary document. basically. those get approved at each meeting. so, you will see a number of times along the route and then at the end it will be basically you've seen it all already. is it in final form that you can improve? to answer, the answer is between
now and then you will see a number of times. >> may i make a suggestion? looks like the commissioner to review and approve a proposal i august 17. is that correct >> testifier: correct >> commissioner lee: i'm wondering if there are going to be proposed changes to that that would delay everything, right? if there's debbie proposed changes to the draft after we hear this can be delay to the process, right? >> testifier: yes. there will be proposed changes. >> commissioner lee: hear me out. on the bring this up to the president. do you think we could possibly put on the agenda in july maybe just an update of what is happening? so that we know what's happening in august.
>> clerk: we can still get the documents to strip it of but we may not be having a meeting on july. >> commissioner lee: we can at least discuss what's before us. it does mean that we have to approve anything in july. just get an update of what's going on. >> testifier: problem we have in july were talking about >> president mccarthy: to your point, i think you're going in the right direction. because i'm really concerned particularly with a lot of amendment and really seeing what the unintended consequences and so on. over the years, i think this commission has had no time to deal with these code changes and kind of get in the weeds a bit. they are implementing and were finding out the quite problematic could not necessarily good for us as a
whole. commissioner clinch >> commissioner clinch: they could be a lot of work to review. expecting a very thick documents. >> testifier: it's the entire code rewritten >> commissioner clinch: just anonymous. hughes. >> testifier: it's all the code plumbing mechanical electrical speakers can you give us a draft preferably optronics? that would be great. >> president mccarthy: to follow on commissioner lee's point. basically the commissioner is given in your words one month to review the documentation, right which is we agree to be quite extensive >> testifier: to our code advisory meetings where those are developed in a sequential fashion over three months or so that we have to look at good
>> president mccarthy: you understand for us the commission just to drop our regular lives and go to all these committees is kind of a tough thing. so it goes back to back. giving us a big binder here and august and you're saying, okay guys we got to move this forward. >> testifier: i can go down to some extent because most of it is carrying forward the amendment already in place. they've are then improved. they're already in place with her getting deleted and not be there anymore. so it boils down to the things, small number of actual code changes are usually recommended by the plumbing or by the chiefs. they run into issues with trying to explain what a template platform for service means. well, they say i'm going to make temporary means 3 x 3 weather resistant, with a ladder. they want that added into. it's that kind of thing. i think of be a much
smaller summary to give you. >> president mccarthy: to your point, i understand there's a lot of there like the state code. there's not a lot we can do about that. that's what it is. but the ones that are kind of-like what rosemary did given the bullet points which he thought would be the main changes, in the state goes that would be different than what was there before. what type of business effects and what it really means. in the very quick kind of scenario. that's what i'm kind of looking for. i am obviously don't have the ability to sit and go through the whole year's worth of working one month. then, the other part of it, which really is the one i want to focus in on is the amendment we make in san francisco. now, those we have control over. because we either generate them ourselves. i want to know why we're doing
that, who does it affect, what the department in a fax. and why we are doing. i need a kind to understand why that amendment is coming from where it's coming and particularly, this coming from a different department either puc or dd up with dpw. why? i want to know that. that's the amendment i want to know. i find that i think in the past those one particular amendment was passive and nobody knew anything about it became quite a traumatic issue out in jobsites. maybe the type of unattended client classes and to this day i don't understand was implement it other than the fact summary put it in a. i want to kind of do an actual check and balance. now, you mentioned 90 days. can you tell me how do we get that 90 days if we need that timeframe >> testifier: my understanding is going to the board and requesting you be given additional time. the changes put it in the code so the coder allows us to do that. specifically. >> president mccarthy: let's say i've 10 amendment that i think are babbitt together.
nobody can give me the reasons as to why they should stay in their. what happens to that when i said i don't think that should be in their? i go to my fellow commissioners and we all agree it should not be in get what happens then? >> testifier: if would not go forward [inaudible]. >> president mccarthy: it would not have to go back into the normal presentations amount we don't support this. it just is not going there, right >> testifier: it does not go in there. it sounds at the city attorney was to weigh in. >> city attorney: if the commission felt there certain amendment should not go forward with this other amendment, that should go forward, a years is just a recommendation to the board of supervisors. they have the-the board has the authority to say, yes, we agree with them. were going to adopt those or reject them
>> president mccarthy: i just want to know exactly-it's why were having the conversation. i want to be clear on this. we don't have the ability if we can say no would still go forward to the mass. is that correct? >> city attorney: so, the charter requires that the building inspection commission conducted a hearing on all changes to the various building codes. other than that, your authority is limited. you can you can ask a be continue to a subsequent meeting if you want to spend more time looking at amendment. you can make recommendations to the board of supervisors for changes you'd like to see. you can't
technically stop it from moving forward. >> president mccarthy: no, i understand we can't stop that. i'm talking about our amendment in our particular ones that if we feel they are not good. we see no reason to amend them. not giving any particular reason as to why we should, other than what you say this doesn't work. or in my eyes or whatever. that still goes on to the board of supervisors in its form and at that point, who is there to make a presentation that's why it doesn't work? to the commission? >> city attorney: again, let's take a hypothetical. building inspection commission elects one particular additional amendment to the code that did not come out of the code advisory committee assess. when
what will happen is the commission secretary will report to the clerk of the board with the voting inspection commission's decision on the codes were. that might indicate the building inspection commission said we want this particular amendment additional amendment, made to provision of the plumbing code. that's a recommendation. when the matter comes before the land use committee of the board of supervisors, the staff, now has to present what you did in your recommendation. and why-because they're representing the commission and the departments. in that hearing room. so, they would get up at the land use committee hearing and say, here are the codes. the voting inspection commission voted whatever, 6-1 were unanimously
for this additional amendment. is the amendment that they wanted and we recommend that you adopt that as part of your approval of the code. >> president mccarthy: okay. so,this is the change, no video. thenmembers from the old to the new local and no big deal mrs. barber doing this. then, what about the time schedule in that. the other
agencies, if they have amendment to the code, why they're doing this. kind of a little bullet point rather than getting this big binder and asked us to go have added. is that possible? >> testifier: i can do my best. this aware of the changes by the minutes from 1000 different directions. to be a gatekeeper i can only take a snapshot that sasha is glasslike 12 hours because it's changing in the 12 hours. the other time the other code advisory committee changes here and there back and forth. you don't know what can be decided on. is not decided by me at all. but those goes to assume it could be completely wiped out, and acted. changes all the time. is there 1000 amendment.
so i understand your point and i think i can put this together some summary that will capture the biggest items and you will find that you have things similar to the light and air. i don't know if i can keep you abreast of view sees legislation, other than what i know, which i just gave you. all that is they go shaded outside of my world and it only comes to me in a final point just like you. i see it one day. it goes out of the advisory committee the next day to the subcommittee of full committee and then come see you. i'm just barely ready at >> president mccarthy: and we're supposed to vote on it. i'm not trying to-i know this is a way of the world but i'm tied to see what we can at least manage as much as we can. we understand- >> testifier: i try to put on the agenda any the items separately on the agenda. you could've me by looking at the
agenda passed out from the subcommittees and code advisory committees as he agenda items specifically the talk about the code changes. if there's something in there that warrants further discussion of the perfect time to jump in there. will do something about it in a special meeting or whatever. i can also at the end, were different times i can take the agenda items separately make a list like you're talking about. remember, the california cars codes on polish until july 1. the whole thing can change after july 1 even though we talked about it. we just made best best. >> president mccarthy: i think would help us it would be greatly appreciated. this 90 days i want to get back to the syndicate had we do this to get it to go to the board of supervisors and do we request 90 days if we want more on this? >> testifier: is when these moving parts. i just heard
about it. it's usually not part of this process. it's an independent legislation and i have not seen other than some notes on it. i've not had the time to review it >> president mccarthy: i appreciate you bringing it up. that's helpful particularly if we get bogged down in some these issues. >> testifier: this is the conversation i had a couple weeks ago with debbie city attorney and because it's already in the planning code, as i understand it, the thinking is it should also to the building code so if we get into a situation where we think a complex piece of legislation may require a little additional time with her at the code advisory level were here at the we would ask for additional 90 days, turning a correctly.
>> chief >> city attorney: i think were having two different conversations about 90 days. so let me see if i can explain this. one is the issue of how long it takes legislation to get to the board of supervisors process before it becomes effective. one thing i would point out there is the way the schedule is set up the legislation would be introduced at the board of supervisors. the building code amendment in september when they returned from their recess. i do think it's possible if you work with the board president if the code inspection building inspection commission feels like when i provided enough time it's possible to hold a special meeting or maybe perhaps even regular meeting in september.
how the legislation introduced then and you would work with the board president to waive-there's a 30 day period we are, since after introduced. it sits before the land use committee would take it up. so, it's possible to take advantage of that window and have that shortened if the board president authorizes it and you feel you need extra time. so, that might be an opportunity to have at least two full hearings before the building inspection commission and that something you could work with the board president now to see if that's an available avenue. when bill was talking about is the new amendment to the building code that the city attorney's office is recommended. right now, there is a process that set out in the planning code that when the board of supervisors introduces amendment to the
planning code it's also very time period, what the review authority is of the planning commission, what happens if once the planning commission hears what legislation, the board of supervisors amends it in a material way, it gets sent back to the planning commission for another hearing,-there's nothing like that in terms of building inspection commission. we felt that it would be important to spell out similar process so we better understand the relationship between legislation that the board of supervisors introduces two men the building code and how the building inspection commission processor. so, that's one of the new amendment that's going to be proposed to the building code. that's not in place yet, but it sets up a parallel process took the planning commission review produced any
code amendments. >> commissioner lee: what you just said, the first but i think may have addressed some of our concerns about-what you are saying, john, we can hold the first hearing in august when it hearing is prepared already and we can continue it or hold a second hearing in september what the legislation is sitting in the land use committee for 30 days. so that it gives us time to give our opinion, made recommendations whether to accept or suggest to the board of supervisors to change anything before it actually gets heard in the land use committee. is that correct? >> city attorney: that's an option and when i presented. recently could do that. what i had indicated was that the building inspection commission could hold the hearing in
august. the second hearing in september before the legislation is even introduce before the supervisors. then, you would work for the president of the board of supervisors to waive the 30 day hold. so, once it's formally introduced to the board of supervisors after two full hearings of the building inspection commission, it could still go through the process on the time schedule that's been presented just by short-circuiting the 30 day period that it fits. you also can do exactly what you suggested, which is the building inspection commission also hearing in august. they say go ahead, recommended for introduction to the board of supervisors, but while it's waiting for the 30 day hold, without any waiver of that period, you will be second hearing good if you want additional comment. in both cases sunday would go to
inspection commission at the august hearing and did this and at the september hearing did something else. >> president mccarthy: okay. so, >> testifier: one must think. the july meeting to finalize as much as we can possibly finalize so in august there's no surprises. that's a good time to-we may not have although words exactly correct but all have all the ideas in place release the majority of them. if i can give you the document update in july after my meeting i can be as complete >> president mccarthy: with it? >> testifier: i wonder that say the second or third >> president mccarthy: what time is that? >> testifier: 9:30 am in our
nap. >> president mccarthy: that's what you want to discuss which again >> testifier: without final approval of the final committee >> testifier: >> president mccarthy: would you if i was there, those documents can you shed him? >> testifier: yes, definitely. >> president mccarthy: that would give a pretty good >> testifier: i think would give you what you want. this last thing when you're considering all these things, the schedule is fairly important. california code will go into effect january 1. if we don't have our amendment in place with all the time frames prior to that, the california code goes into effect zero amendment, which may or not be a problem but certainly a problem in having interim period were the codes are completely different phrase eight three-week period work
two-month period. huge differences between san francisco and california in some areas. it's very hard punishing on the public to go by different standards depending on the day of the week. >> president mccarthy: thank you. i know this is stressful time of the year for you. i would appreciate we just try to-iit's very important we both correct the stuff. i think commissioner lee data point which is helpful obviously, maybe in july we go to the meeting and maybe then we could release it. are you were allowed to release it to the other commissioners for example? >> testifier: i can give you a full update. >> president mccarthy: we won't have a meeting but can you release it to us through sign and she can forward it to us >> testifier: sure. >> president mccarthy: let's say we do get bogged down on some issues here, and we need more time we can do something
in september as a kind of a meeting so that meeting could be a regular meeting or are using a special meeting on just code? either one? okay. i think most of us will be open to that. okay, great. thank you. >> clerk: any public comment on this item? items seven, directors report. update on dbi's finances. >> testifier: dbi finance manager. dir. madison got doubleclick today so i'll give the financial update. so, starting on the first pages the income statements, at the top revenues for the time of spending april 30 are 72 $29 with projected total revenue on $92 million for the year. this will see the budget of $72
million by $20 million. with regard to the expenditures, expenses for the 10 months ending april 30 are $42.5 million. we are projecting $69 for the year. this would come in under budget. this would come in under budget of 72 million of about $3.8 million. then, page 2, at the top is a year-over-year comparison of revenues. for this care 15-16 our revenues about $11 million higher. at this in time last year. the middle section on page 2 has information on number of permits issued and evaluation of those permits you we issued 20,003 and 95 permits so far in fiscal year 15-16 which is about a 5% increase over the same point last year. the related valuation of those permits is about $4.2 billion and this is 37% higher than last year. finally, the bottom
of page 2, with year-over-year comparison of expenses. april 2016 year-to-date expenses are $42 million or $42.6 million compared to april 2015 of $73 million. in april 2015, expenses included transfer to projects of $30 million. we exclude that. one-time transfer last year. our senses are almost the same. then, the following four pages have some additional revenue detail followed by revenue expense information in graphs. >> clerk: g great >> president mccarthy: we are good. thank you so much >> clerk: items 7b update on proposed were recently enacted state or local legislation.
>> testifier: good morning again commission. public affairs. i want to run through some of these highlights quickly. i do want to mention director and deputy director for budget has just come back from the first year on our annual fiscal year budget. they looks like that went very quickly and smoothly. we are, as you know, in the month of may and it's building safety month national. it's also when the board of supervisors has fee waivers for awning replacements and building façade improvements. courtesy of the supervisor tang that's now a citywide. i want to let you know to date, this being 18 may, we've had to cases that
have come in. last year, i believe we had a total of about 12. typically, these cases tend to wait until the last day or two of maybe four owners take advantage of this program. but, the fees that are being waived this year includes dbi's plan review as well as plantings planned review dpw is also waiving the street space permits fee and the fire department is also participating in fee waivers this year on plan review. the upshot of that is that one of these cases, paid a total of $51.50 for some of the fees that are state related, such as the motion fee that cannot be waived. in fact, they saved $650 on the one façade proven
made in any other case, they paid $58 in the required fees and save seven $750. i put those out because were early enough in this process that people can still take advantage of it and maybe in your conversations you can remind small business owners in particular, there are advantages they should look into. secondly, what to give you a quick update on the status of the building at asian and 22nd. it was referred to earlier when we were talking but the supervisor speed campos legislation in that building is now about to grade level. the be coming back in designer standard the owners and owners engineer for a permit in order to do the backfilling and securing of the site. and finishing removing all the debris that has been part of
the demolition process there. i have recommended to supervisor campos's staff and also to some of the mission community members who keep asking what is the owner going to do, ddi is in this position we wait until the owner submits an application so at this point we don't know what the owner is going to do. so, i been encouraging others to try and have a dialogue with the owner themselves. so that they might learn that information even had a boss. i can say, definitively, at least for our permit folks right now we have not yet had any applications some added by the owner for that property. so, we are still in a position of not knowing exactly. the good news is, the emergency demolition owner that began on 19 february is now
just about complete. we know that the building is no longer in eminent public safety hazard. the third item i want to mention was supervisor weiner as you know, has called for a citywide task force. dbi does have a building inspector participating in its. this is on the prospect that the state of california in november may have a ballot measure that will legalize marijuana use. insert very specific ways. they've had four months of meetings of this task force. supervisor weiner's public into giving a public hearing at the board for updates on this and this is basically all be managed through the department of public health, but dbi is one of the participating organizations and will continue to do so. i just want to mention in terms of the current ordinance that are already in
effect were about to take affect, you know about the avalos mandatory legalization of illegal units. in my conversations with the planning department, we haven't actually seen much movement on that but that corridor did take affect as of 11 april., so were only about a month into it. the confidences of that are, of course, that summary was to demolish, removal or merge but is now either a legal were illegal units, they will have to go through a review process for the life safety point of view from ours and a feasibility,, in terms of whether or not it's possible to legalize it. because the
building does take a look at it not possible to legalize it without extraordinary costs, it may be that they will come out of the pool that otherwise will be part of plantings conditional use hearing process. but as i said, right now from planning there has been much movement on this. it's still fairly early. i mentioned the awning replacement program, which is underway. the other ordinance that just took affect two days ago with supervisor campos it is one on general neutral toilets that dbi will have their sponsor ability for enforcing signs that are about to be changed. that is now law and we are putting together some public materials so that people will understand that if we get a complaint will be going up to investigate and make sure the signage is correct. the third or fourth ordinance that is about to take affect on the 22nd his
supervisor tang mandatory disability access improvements. the department has been working very closely with her on that and rick howell ran is one of our building inspectors visit disability access specialist will also be producing additional public the turtles to assist people in understanding the different elements of this. the idea is to provide goods and services in those situations of some small businesses, whether in chinatown or other parts of the city, may have to render in order to comply with disability access without necessarily going through the difficult physical changes that could be required. finally, i will mention the supervisor weiner code enforcement standardization, which will take affect on the 27th of this month. with memorial day holiday, for all practical
purposes will be in early june. we are working internally on an information sheet to provide some more specific guidelines on exactly how this is going to work. we may also be developing a couple of other forms but the overall thrust of this ordinance is really to take the code enforcement process that dbi follows and has been following for some time and have that process also nearer by the fire department and the public health department and do some three by the planning department. so, at some point will be working with the city administrator's office on these standardized code enforcement forms so that all of the departments essentially are using the same types of notifications that we currently go through. with that, i'll take any questions if you have any. >> president mccarthy: seeing none,, thank you.
>> clerk: 7c, update on major projects. >> testifier: good morning commissioners. >> director: good morning commissioners. as you see there's an increase up by 2.5% [inaudible] it looks like it's steady right now. for all the projects but like i mentioned planning deals [inaudible] the pipeline coming on is getting less we need to prepare for a. any questions? >> president mccarthy: seeing none, thank you dir. >> clerk: items seven the delta, update on code enforcement >> testifier: good morning commissioners. i'm here to give you the court enforcement. the
building inspection division performed with 5141. for complaints received, 340, for complaint response within 24-72 hours was 239. complaints with first notice of violation sent, 51. complaints received about notice of violation, 152. complaints with notice of violations were 21. second notice of violations,, 14. but housing and section services, housing inspections performed were 1000 hundred seven and plans received were for 17. complaint response within 24-72 hours were 410. complaints with notice of violations issued, 167. abated complaints with notice of violations, 309. number of cases center director, 33. bikini inspections, 352. code
enforcement and number of cases center director 40. the motherboard opinions issued were 11. number of cases under advisement, six. number of cases abated were 73. code enforcement inspections were 181. thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you deputy director. >> clerk: is there any public comment on the directors report, open items 7a-d seeing none, item 8 discussion on permit and project tracking system. >> testifier: good morning commission. department of technology. we remain on track for the delivery of their findings they complete their analysis phase. the no touching the recommendation or findings and recommendations. i have a weekly checkpoint with them on friday. i talk with them this
friday i should be getting the go-ahead to go start scheduling the sessions with stakeholders. so tbi bic, and city cio. i do want to mention miguel was traveling today so not able to attend but he looks forward to attending next session. >> commissioner walker: so, we are on track. are we going to be getting 80 assessment by the next meeting i think was was in june or something? >> testifier: yes. the track we are on now i'm anticipating the full report will be available. if there wants the added to the june agenda public comment is closed. >> commissioner walker: it would be great to get it in advance we can review it rather than on the spot. as soon as we could look at it. and maybe >> testifier: certainly, i can send you something >> commissioner walker:
perfect. >> president mccarthy: so what say you have enough time in june you'll come to us with except seven recommendations? >> testifier: it. the intention would have gotten to come since they do the analysis and make the findings and recommendations, to have them do a presentation. and review the content and then field any questions that you have. >> pre >> commissioner mccall: >> commissioner walker:.org and get a requisition for passport in time and in all that >> testifier: correct >> president mccarthy: is a your anticipation, then, once we have the report to make the recommendations we would concur with the recommendations and do order-were not to give >> testifier: yes. i've had this discussion and like other things presented to this committee, its recommendations from-it's really up to the
stakeholders, dbi,-i'm not sure the exact role of the bic is first jurisdiction stops and starts but the ideas they present recommendations back to dbi, and this commission and it's up to those bodies to decide how to proceed. ultimately. >> president mccarthy: yes, put what say we agreed with the recommendations, just say we did whatever there. would you have set up with a sickle those previously and said, okay this is what we would like to be the outcome, and then come to us and say everybody is on the same page and our recommendations are then a go for this weight? word you say, let's go back and talk to them. i'm trying to figure out how conclusive they will be when you come to us? >> testifier: by the june bic meeting there'll have met with the stakeholder groups individually and it definitely got feedback in terms of how the stakeholders are reacting to the recommendations and if
there's full support or something in between. >> commissioner walker: that's what he was talking about scheduling the stakeholders between now and june. to socialize it. >> testifier: correct. >> president mccarthy: perfect. good luck, henry. thank you. >> clerk: public comment on the item 8? >> testifier: my name is jerry-i believe the report was originally scheduled to be out in may. so we have-was a june? so i'm concerned that we don't slip because you're not comedian july. then we could be on it, and to have a one-year pause. the other thing i'm concerned about is the discussion regarding the recommendations. i think it would be useful to have recommendations that are not
deluded by compromise, and if there is a need to show dissent, that the stakeholders are able to provide commentary while i don't agree, but i think we force unanimous consent within a wind up with very deluded recommendations. thank you. >> clerk: any additional public comment? seeing none,, item 9, review and approve of the minutes of the right the meeting of october 21, 2015. >> moved and seconded. >> clerk: is a motion and a second. any public comment regarding the minutes? are all commissioners in favor all those in favor say, aye. opposed? the minutes are approved. item 10, commissioners questions that matters. input increased to set it at this time commissioners
may make inquiries to staff regarding base documents policies and procedures and interest of the commissioners >> commissioner walker: i've a few things i'd like to see on the agenda for our commission. the first one is dealing with the modular construction that is happening. a lot of folks in the community, it's an interesting concept but those concerns and an interest for information about what standards are applied to modular construction when they are reviewing plans and also especially unconcerned about the inspection process for modular pieces that get together outside of the state of california, in some cases outside of the country, and how we inspect and guarantee safety on those things. so, if we could have that as soon as possible. i think it would be helpful to have a hearing on that. the second item is, as a
result of a conversation that we've had ongoing with the code enforcement, with our cases that come before us and that deal with w porting we been doing with a lot of cases of litigation committee, without going into detail but becomes increasingly obvious that are privates have to work together better so i like to have a hearing on that that includes the department of health, our department, fire, dpw, whoever is involved with mitigating the neighborhood issues that come about as a result of according. the safety issues,. we are seeing a lot of cases where it's really engulfing whole properties and affecting whole neighborhoods. i think we need
to have a solution, since of the solution around how to engage and move forward and help people both in houses and in the neighborhoods. i would love to have our department holder hearing about that. maybe create a better cooperation between our departments. also, include, i believe the public guardian, department i understand which is sorely underfunded, they would be in play key role in going for. the final thing is to get some sort of presentation to the commission but the plans for moving our department to the new building that's under discussion. i think maybe everybody is in the dark about this, but it would be good to have the information shared so we know what the plan for. >> president mccarthy: thank
you. >> commissioner melgar: i would love to get a information about ocii. with a heads up this assist america needs tightening. i'm worried about it because these are the poorest areas in the city but also the richest. so, mission bay, and all the upcoming developments surrounding the former candlestick park. so, you are not here for that so i can fill you in. >> director: i was there. first of all, ocii, what we pay overlap sometimes you ocii, sometimes they're busy
[inaudible]. whoever ocii were planning, one space amid the permit we have a number to track it. when we talk to ocii, just know you talk to planning. when you are trying to do an environmental study, that's not in our tracking system because it's not a permits. it's just trying to get an entitlement. usually, we can communicate with planning, but i can do the communication better with ocii to see how we can if there's a person to contact but those are not-those are just talking with them for environmental stock. once they file a permit with us ocii were planning, this note tracking system there >> commissioner melgar: you
have a system the same as planning? >> director: yes. are system already has it. then the in the future will also have the same thing. but bob mentioned he didn't file the private he just talked with ocii for new building. is like a preplanning meetings don't get register. there's a train of thought where people would like to see record of those preplanning meetings as well which is a whole mother issue. but that is this point. >> commissioner melgar: thank you get my second request if the rest of the commissioners would consider moving this agenda item of commissioners questions and matters to the beginning of the agenda rather than at the end because i don't about you but i'm exhausted by
the time this rolls around. we offer their stuff that's pertinent note be nice to discuss. that's all. >> president mccarthy: it's fine with me. we go to the meeting we can come up with ideas we've also added at the end. i would definitely i'm all for change. i go to make the adjustment. commissioner walker per couple comments there in particular on the issue were doing with. it seems like i see where she's going with this where we look at these different departments and that kind of hands are tied and always seems to come back to us. there seems to be a lot of human issues and mental issues. particularly people with ownership of these properties. it's kind of it seems to be getting worse and worse and worse, and no particular reason as to why other than the fact it seems to be getting worse and worse. i think it's become a real problem for the
department and we seem to be talking a lot about trying to do the right thing, but we just don't seem to be able to get added. the department which one was the last apartment >> commissioner walker: if the public guardian >> president mccarthy: which was a department i do not know existed until we were talking about. >> commissioner walker: they can assist when folks can't necessarily make their own decisions about their own property to the public guardian can come in and help for that purpose. it just to resolve issues health and safety issues and help give the mutual direction to solving problems. they're woefully underfunded, as as is the health department in this area. >> president mccarthy: so, how do we-do a lot of departments mentioned there. >> commissioner walker: i think having a hearing and talk
about what our processes as a department and really engage in the other departments and having the other departments here if they need us to do something different if we can engage tiffany, i think it's always helpful to bring everyone together. so that we all work together. because i think it's a loss. right now, it's a lot to put on our inspectors and it's not going to solve the problem. >> president mccarthy: yes. >> commissioner melgar: to the issue of modular discussion is that if you're and we want to >> commissioner walker: it would be a presentation of our department policies about what standards are used when evaluating the plans. because it is unique. it's a whole different way of constructing. it's not good or bad. i just think we have to-we want to talk about i want to hear what standards do think the public would want to hear about that. what standards are used in
evaluating the plans themselves and the inspection process. i mean, i don't mean to bring up the bridge, but sometimes when you have materials but from other areas we have our own states and local and even national and international code. we just need to have a presentation about it. i think we just need to hear what, how we deal with those. it's a hearing. >> president mccarthy: yes. >> director: we do we can invite seconds oh >> president mccarthy: i think you would be a good hearing. we really want to air concerns if there are concerns with the product it be very interesting. i figured something you might see a lot more of in the future based on what i'm reading. i think we should get out ahead of that and see if it's a good fit for the city. and how we as a building department are going to deal with it.
>> director: get something we can present it. >> commissioner walker: perfect speaker so that apartment you mentioned would you like me to contact them to see if they can have a representative, >> commissioner walker: yes specifically on the issue they might have somebody they arty have the authority to work on that issue. >> clerk: okay, thank you. item 10 b future meetings and agendas. this time the commission may take action to set a date of the special meeting or determine those items be placed on the agenda on the next meeting or other future meetings get our next scheduled meeting is on june 15, 2016. is there any public comment on items 10 a- b? c without item 11 adjournment. motion to adjourn three get moves that >> clerk: all all those in
favor say, aye. we are adjourn. it's 11:50 am. >>[gavel] as a society we'e basically failed big portion of our population if you think about the basics of food, shelter safety a lot of people don't have any of those i'm mr. cookie can't speak for all the things but i know say, i have ideas how we can address the food issue. >> open the door and walk through that don't just stand looking out. >> as they grew up in in a how would that had access to good food and our parent cooked this
is how you feed yours this is not happening in our country this is a huge pleasure i'm david one of the co-founder so about four year ago we worked with the serviced and got to know the kid one of the things we figured out was that they didn't know how to cook. >> i heard about the cooking school through the larkin academy a. >> their noting no way to feed themselves so they're eating a lot of fast food and i usually eat whatever safeway is near my home a lot of hot food i was excited that i was eating lunch enough instead of what and eat. >> as i was inviting them over teaching them basic ways to fix
good food they were so existed. >> particle learning the skills and the food they were really go it it turned into the is charity foundation i ran into my friend we were talking about this this do you want to run this charity foundations and she said, yes. >> i'm a co-found and executive director for the cooking project our best classes participation for 10 students are monday they're really fun their chief driven classes we have a different guest around the city they're our stand alone cola's we had a series or series still city of attorney's office style of classes our final are night life diners.
>> santa barbara shall comes in and helps us show us things and this is one the owners they help us to socialize and i've been here about a year. >> we want to be sure to serve as many as we can. >> the san francisco cooking school is an amazing amazing partner. >> it is doing that in that space really elevates the space for the kids special for the chief that make it easy for them to come and it really makes the experience pretty special. >> i'm sutro sue set i'm a chief 2, 3, 4 san francisco. >> that's what those classes afford me the opportunity it breakdown the barriers and is this is not scary this is our choice about you many times this
is a feel good what it is that you give them is an opportunity you have to make it seem like it's there for them for the taking show them it is their and they can do that. >> hi, i'm antonio the chief in san francisco. >> the majority of kids at that age in order to get them into food they need to see something simple and the evidence will show and easy to produce i want to make sure that people can do it with a bowl and spoon and burner and one pan. >> i like is the receipts that are simple and not feel like it's a burden to make foods the cohesives show something eased. >> i go for vera toilet so
someone can't do it or its way out of their range we only use 6 ingredients i can afford 6 ingredient what good is showing you them something they can't use but the sovereignties what are you going to do more me you're not successful. >> we made a vegetable stir-fry indicators he'd ginger and onion that is really affordable how to balance it was easy to make the food we present i loved it if i having had access to a kitchen i'd cook more. >> some of us have never had a kitchen not taught how to cookie wasn't taught how to cook.
>> i have a great appreciation for programs that teach kids food and cooking it is one of the healthiest positive things you can communicate to people that are very young. >> the more programs like the cooking project in general that can have a positive impact how our kids eat is really, really important i believe that everybody should venting to utilize the kitchen and meet other kids their age to identify they're not alone and their ways in which to pick yours up and move forward that. >> it is really important to me the opportunity exists and so i do everything in my power to keep it that. >> we'll have our new
headquarters in the heart of the tenderloin at taylor and kushlg at the end of this summer 2014 we're really excited. >> a lot of the of the conditions in san francisco they have in the rest of the country so our goal to 257bd or expand out of the san francisco in los angeles and then after that who know. >> we'd never want to tell people want to do or eat only provide the skills and the tools in case that's something people are 2rrd in doing. >> you can't buy a box of psyche you have to put them in the right vein and direction with the right kids with a right place address time those kids don't have this you have to instill they can do it they're good enough now to finding out figure out and find the future