tv Government Access Programming SFGTV March 23, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
storefronts. usually, they're not lit, but in this case, i think we have been trying to help the situation forward for many years. there is a path forward, and if you can't take it, then someone else needs to, because it is really important for the neighborhood that these things be moved along, so i would make a motion to uphold the arresorf abatement and all fines associated. >> second. >> okay. >> the information presented to us justified our -- the order of abatement. we've -- again, there's violations for several years that there's a path forward that hasn't been taken. >> absolutely. we have a motion and a second. the only thing, you know, just
as comment that i'd add to it, it will be better if this property is demolished in my opinion. the commercial district here is struggling to get on its feet, and we have to do everything to support them. and while we know that properties can be entitled for quite a while and not built on, and it's a problem we face throughout the city. here, we have something where it's really creating some harm to a struggling corridor, so i think that the motion is absolutely correct. i'd just add a reminder to the owner, even if you demolish, your responsibility to maintain
this in good condition remains, and we suspect your neighbors will be vigilant. that's just a moment. basically, the motion as offered is perfectly fine and seconded. >> just to restate commissioner walker's motion, uphold the abatement and impose assessment and costs on the basis that the notice establishes that the order of abatement was properly issued and the department in issuing did not abuse its discretion? >> yes. >> we'll deal with a roll call
vote. [inaudible] >> -- and that would be -- it would be bad to leave the existing building in a damaged condition, so that's why i'm voting yes. >> thank you. commission [roll call] >> okay. the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item f, general public comment. seeing none, item g, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> and a second? >> second. >> all commissioners in favor? okay. we are now adjourned. it is 10:00 a.m. we'll take about a ten-minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you.
>> good morning. today is march 19, 2019 regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turnoff all cell phones and electronic devices. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. we have a quorum. our next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody, and obviously, forgiveness in
advance if i mispronounce any last names here or anything in my announcement. we welcome to the march 19 b.i.c. we join in congratulating thomas tan lee in his retirement. thomas is hanging up his calculator at the end of march, having been completed just about 30 years of kpleent public service kpleent of excellent public work to the city. big thank you from the commission. a big thank you for structural engineers association of northern california, to whom senior engineer gary holmrecently made a request to assist d.b.i. in one of the applied technology council's recent recommendations from the
tall building safety study to gather some of its geotechnical experts to help the department improve its geotechnical experts in the value of tall buildings. we appreciate their expertise their members provide us. thanks to d.b.i. staff, who participated in yesterday's walk-through at 3150 18th street, a building with about 150 small businesses whom supervisor ronen and the office of small business are trying to assist in obtaining required permits from department of building and planning department. hope that goes well. good luck to director hui. hopes to confirm the date in early april.
a plan to attend the annual reminder of what we need to do to get ready for the big one. staff member philip saunderstor making sure that we install netting for future litter containment. a big thank you to team d.b.i. staff for including deputy director sweeney, director hui, bill strong, for the owner finally securing an abandoned building permit at 1735 hyde street. thank you for director hui for being hands onto guiding a
customer in the proper steps to follow to revising their permit and also obtaining a plan review for further assistance. thank you to the building inspector, steve hajna for excellent and continuing assistance for resolving a permit issue. a letter was also received for helping a customer submit plans and remodel their home for the first time. and finally, i mentioned please nominate the d.b.i. providing outstanding customer service for 2019. we need those sent to carolyn jane which is email@example.com before the end of march so we can have
the employee recognition committee make a -- make the selection that the b.i.c. can announce in the early april meeting. madam secretary, that concludes my announcements. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? okay. seeing none, our next item is 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. there's no general public comment. then our next item is item four, discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the litigation subcommittee. our current members are commissioners konstin, m mccarthy, and walker. >> would you like to keep it the same? i would say let's renominate the same members, the same three people on the committee. >> second.
>> i'll second that. >> clerk: thank you. so we have a motion by commissioner lee and a second by commissioner moss. i'll do a roll call vote on that motion. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. thank you. motion carries unanimously. our next item is item five, discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the nomination subcommittee. the current members are commissioners lee, commissioner moss, and commissioner warshell. >> same? >> yeah, if everybody's -- i'll make a motion to keep it the sa same. >> clerk: okay. >> second. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion and a second. any public comment? okay. seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote on that, as well.
[roll call] >> clerk: okay. motion carries unanimously. next item is item six, commissioners questions and matters. 6-a, inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> i have -- >> my apologies. go ahead, commissioner walker, please. >> so i -- we have -- monthly, we have our code enforcement report, which is very helpful in looking at what we're doing and what kind of things are coming before the department. i would like to add maybe --
maybe it'll take a couple months to do this. i would love to add reports from our code enforcement outreach program team who do a lot of outreach in advance of our department taking official action, and they work with the tenant community and the landlord community to resolve issues before they come before our department. [please stand by]
and -- -- and commissioner walker to -- >> if i've got it right, it would also basically any -- any confrontation there going on between, let's say, a tenant and an ownership, whether they are non-profit or not, it would be representative of everybody. >> commissioner walker: exactly. i think the non-profit partners are really just the partners that we -- we contracts with to provide the outreach, but they go out on any, on any issue that might come up in a multi-family unit dwelling and they are involved with the inspectors to resolve the issues. and they do a really good job, but it would just give us numbers, don't need the details, but how many notices are issued -- >> what triggers it off, what
triggers their involvement. >> inspector request, tenant request, landlord request. i mean -- you know, if -- i think, you know, if i can just say that as we did the ghost ship discussions it was helpful to bring these groups in to work with our inspectors before there was an official notice of violation or anything. it gives you more flexibility. >> okay. good. >> commissioner walker: for solutions. so, thank you. so, we could get a plan back and, perfect, thank you. >> any other -- if not, 6b, future meetings and agenda. at this time commission may discuss or take action date of a special meeting in order to determine those items placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the
building inspection commission. our next meeting is going to be on april 17th. >> commissioner lee, please. >> commissioner lee: i would like to ask if we can put on the agenda some time in the future, i don't know when, i'll let the chair, the president decide, how the, i would like to know, maybe get a presentation on how the second floor permit center in the new building is going to work. the building is going up pretty quickly now and i suppose we are expected to move in a couple years, even less, and i would like to see what happens when a customer walks into the second floor. i mean, the idea of the permit center and having everybody there is great but how is it going to work? does a person have to go in and take a number, is there going to be a desk to greet them, to tell them where to go, or does the customer have to go up and find the counter they have to go to.
those kind of details, who is going to be there. there was an article in "the chronicle" about a restaurant owner not knowing that he needed certain permits until he was going through the process and it caused delays in him opening up his restaurant. so these are the kinds of things i like to see if the permit center would resolve. and how would it work to resolve that. thank you. >> president mccarth >> president mccarthy: commissioner. >> after our last session i was thinking of a very similar thing with how we can assist small business in particular in really streamlining the processes between planning, d.p.w.,
p.u.c., fire and building department, you know. we have seen how on the a.d.u.s when we are able to meet earlier and together we can really speed up the process. and if speeding up the process is very important for e.d.u.s, which it is, it's doubly important to be a device to assist small businesses who generally, once they sign a lease, are paying rent, and then they are going through the long process, so anything that we do that speeds up the process and makes it more easy to understand and navigate for the small businesses fits with all the efforts that the board of supervisors are rightly trying to do to help our small business community as we need all the challenges of retail in general that they are encountering, and
escalating rents and everything else. so, at some point in the near future i would like to, you know, really see what we can do to hopefully be a convener of all the agencies that have input and are needed to successfully navigate through the system so that this process really, really streamlines again building on the success of what we saw with streamlining a.d.u.s. so, however that could be done with, you know, maybe a committee work in advance, and then getting it on a joint session possibly with some other agencies, it's just a really rough time for small business
and we know things take too long and are too cumbersome and to commissioner lee's point, if, when we move into our new building and we have, what else can we do to make things simpler for our small businesses and all of our clients. >> ok. thank you. just on the point of clarification on the april 17th, is that, i'm just confused now. when we were just joint meeting. >> joint meeting also is supposed to be the next day on april 18th. but that's earthquake day, so we are trying to see, i'll have to talk to you guys about if we are still going to do it on that day. tentatively the joint planning and building inspection meeting on the 18th. >> president mccarthy: yeah, and probably what's driving that date, too, the new part of that
equation is legislation that's been revisited and revised. so, that's going to be ready and so on, right? >> uh-huh. >> president mccarthy: any -- when did they say they might confirm? >> it's -- the date is already tentatively scheduled but i have not heard any recent updates as far as the legislation. >> ok. all right. i know there are quite a few of our commissioners who want to see that happening and want to make sure they are here for it and obviously the other big part of the equation, whatever preparation we need to do, well in advance notice so we can prepare. >> i'm trying to be in communication with the planning commission secretary and to my understanding, the first meeting, we are supposed to have two meetings. first is informational, and then our second joint meeting will be where we take action on the
item. >> president mccarthy: the information is driving the legislation. so if it's not ready, i can't imagine we will have it -- see where it lands. >> public comment on item 6a or b? seeing non, item 7, discussion and possible action regarding ordinance, board of supervisors, file one # 90214, amending the building code to waive fees for 100% afford abld housing projects, for approximately one-year pilot program, in addition to other requirements. >> thank you for hearing this legislation today. i am sophia kitler, policy adviser for mayor london breed. san francisco is experiencing a housing crisis, both of general supply and in particular affordable housing. a january report issued by the
budget and legislative analyst by the board of supervisors said fee waivers would likely, not necessarily, increase a.d.u. applications and suggest we conduct a study to that effect. legislation before you is a pilot program of just over one year to waive d.b.i. plan review fees, inspection fees, record retention fees for accessory dwelling units and affordable housing projects. 100% of the units are deed restricted and does not peg it to a particular level of affordability. fee waivers are projected to be around $2,700 for single-family home a.d.u., around one-third of the total fees that a single-family home would pay on an a.d.u. we expect there to be around 90 applications for a total of around $200,000. we have also identified six new
affordable housing construction projects slated to reach the permit fee paying stage during the pilot period, representative approximately $150,000 each in waived fees. and we have identified 15 small sites, affordable housing projects during that period which has a median of $12,000 in d.b.i. fee waivers. we believe given the projection, the one-year pilot period will cost around $1.4 million which we believe can be covered by department efficiencies. the fee structure is modeled to be cost recovery only. this cost recovery model, however, takes a long-term view, so as to ensure the project during high periods of growth like now can create kind of a contingency for when the department has lower fees coming in so they don't have to cut costs or lay people off. currently we project there to be approximately a contingency of
$40 million at the end of the fiscal year. this legislation is set to expire one year from the date it is signed by the mayor. it is retroactive to the date of introduction so anyone who apply for an a.d.u. fee during that one-month period does not have to pay if the legislation does not pass. the department can select those fees. however, can he did not want them to have to reissue checks or cut checks to people who already paid so we gave them the authority to defer that fee in the meantime. two months before the legislation sunsets it calls for a report from the department to understand not only lost revenue but whether or not the program is indeed successful in increasing housing density and supply in san francisco. at that point we would revisit and consider expanding the program or allowing it to expire or any suggested modifications to come out of that report. i would like to thank director
huhy, ms. sean and ms. madison for help in drafting the legislation, and happy to answer any questions. >> president mccarthy: don't go anywhere. commissioner walker. >> commissioner walker: thank you for this. i want to get clear about what is defined herein. so, it's for affordable housing projects and it's for all a.d.u.s. >> indeed, including multi-family dwellings. >> commissioner walker: we got a letter from the code advisory committee, i want to read, i don't know that i agree, they request a provision be added that the fee waiver would not apply to a.d.u.s created in existing multi-family dwellings unless they are 100% affordable. that's what the code advisory committee said and i don't agree with that. i wanted to be clear about what we are voting on. >> absolutely. one discussion that was had at
the code advisory committee, why we might apply this fee waiver to a multi-family dwelling a.d.u. but not new construction next door if they are adding the same number of units. i think that is excellent feedback. part of the thinking is that in most of these multi-family a.d.u.s are under rent control, and so these would be rent controlled buildings. >> commissioner walker: great. thank you. i also saw the letter, and talking about the a.d.u.s, $200,000 of the 1.4 million, i think splitting hairs on that and saying some yes, some no, gets to splitting hair and not worth it with the money involved. i also had trouble with that
one, and again the price sensitivity, the fees can be a very significant piece because of the financing fees. some of the other comments that they had, however, were that the fees be waived, including but not limited to, planning department, fire department, mayor's office, disability, and public utilities commission so they are not misled as to what fee waivers entail. that one gets to, you know, some things that we had talked about, i believe, last month, that you know, we all want this to work. we want there to be lots of a.d.u.s created and want there to be as much 100% affordable housing as possible. and when b.i.c. fees are being
cut but none of these others are, a, creates a great deal of confusion, somebody comes out, you know the press will say fees are waived, and then a person gets there and you know, they may hire an architecture, draw up plans, get all excited about it and come and find out a very small portion of their fees are in fact waived. they still have planning, they still have fire, d.p.w. so, i do really think, you know, i believe commissioner mccarthy brought this up last time, it's very troubling to have b.i.c. and not the others if we are really trying to make this as successful as possible and really have clarity and impact. so, i wanted to reiterate the
concerns we had last month similarly expressed in the c.a.c. report that only b.i.c. is being asked to waive their fees. i don't think it's great policy and i don't think it sets this up for as much success as possible. so i wanted to make that comment and then the only other point that i had regarding this, you know, i'm glad that you said of the one year, then we will evaluate it and i'm just really wondering if you have some idea of the metrics that you are proposing, what qualifies as success, what qualifies as moderate success, what -- you know, how are we looking at this? you know, invariably something more will happen but what really qualifies the success, you know, it's one thing to do a one-year
pilot, another thing to be looking at, you know, a significant amount coming out for a longer period. >> absolutely. i think that is excellent feedback. we have heard and absolutely understand the interest in expanding the fee waiver or perhaps changing it to a fee deferral to the other departments. it is our hope if indeed there is some measure of success in that perhaps the dropping the fees by what appears to be around a third in the single-family home a.d.u.s, if it does encourage people, implementing a fee waiver or deferral across the board, i think it's a fantastic suggestion. that is the thing that would make a lot of sense after that pilot period. i think our analysis in examining which fees we are
comfortable waiving had a lot to do to absorb the costs and we don't think they should or could absorb on a permanent basis, and that's why we have a time-limited piece of legislation. i think a fee deferral across the board is something we would consider if successful. >> and that was another piece of it. we had also talked about again, not the a.d.u.s, the a.d.u.s, i think, if we waive them, it's 200,000. i don't know that that's an issue. but the other million 2, million 4, 100% affordables. and my limited understanding of this from talking to developers, deferrals really matter if you don't pay the fees up front if you are doing high cost bridge financing and they are deferred until you are closed and you are
on your permanent financing. when you are talking about especially the large one # hundred% affordables, it appears to me, at least, that deferring the fees is probably the most impactful way and getting deferral across all of the fee categories for those is really the way to move the needle for supporting and encouraging more construction of 100% affordable. so, to my mind, given the goal is to really get more of this build, i would love to see that as really the mechanism rather than the waiver. but my opinion. >> thank you. >> i want to second as affordable housing developer how, thank you for this, this is great. i don't want you to think that
we don't think that you know, cutting a third of the fees is important. the deferral is a major thing. a lot of times nonprofits don't go after projects because they don't want to be floating hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know, we have limited capital. so i'm wondering if the pilot program, if we could like specifically say, you know, if this success is hit, that you are, you know, that you will look at the deferral. i think it would be -- is that -- is that the case? >> we can certainly recommend it goes in the report. >> that would be -- you know, because knowing that those fees are deferred will, and by the way, a million 5 is what it costs to build one # hundred unit affordable housing project, that's awesome and you know, if it could go into the reports, you know, i think that would be helpful for that to kind ever be on the horizon for people to be
thinking about. >> thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner walker, please. >> commissioner walker: i also really support expanding to get what we need and what we want, which is more affordable units on the market, and to that end, i also think it would be interesting to look at those kind of fee deferrals for like a.d.u.s, if they agree to release them at below market rate. i don't know how you control that, but it's -- you know, it's one thing to have a rent-controlled building at an a.d.u., it becomes a rent controlled unit, but releases at market which is pretty high these days. so, having the option of signing in to a below market release might be an interesting thing that some, you know, owners would look at even in the market rate projects. or rent, the rent controlled buildings.
>> president mccarthy: concur with the commissioner, we think it's a great program. i think, you know, commissioner walker perfectly articulated here what our thoughts are, how we can make this better. so i concur with everything said there. and i think just to kind of fast forward to the end of the year, what happens at the end of the year? automatically stopped or is there an option for you to extend it? >> to extend or introduce new legislation to be more inclusive or look different in nature, perhaps, a deferral instead of a waiver, that includes other departments. >> stimulus package and the construction in the town, and commissioner warshall pointed out that was the difference in the funding of the projects, and banks traditionally will not fund that type of money. and the equity tradition in most
of the projects to have into it, already the develop error the applicant has, you know, the structural architectural fees, which is a whole octuplet set of fees. so, i think it's really great program, it would be great at the end of this if we came back and commissioner walker and moss would say, we could share the data and see what we have learned from it. i'm not advocating for free fees. what i am advocating for is the stimulus package that works, because it did work for the private sector, and as i said, this project that i've built back in that day could would have not broke ground only for that, mayor lee at that time, and when the project was finished i paid those fees, which i readily had the money to do, which was very important. so, it really does work. so i like your thinking, the way you are trying to take the market and kind of put it into the non-profit, that kind of
thinking, and complimenting commission are moss, so out of the box thinking, and energetic, and getting affordable housing out there, they think in those terms, i think we can -- we could solve our affordable housing problem. i think we are on the right track. >> and if i could just again on the amounts of fees are relatively so small compared to the 80, $100,000 it takes to build. i would argue that deferring them would lead to more fees that wouldn't have been paid otherwise. because the projects that don't get off the ground, you know, don't pay any fees, and so i think that it could make the argument this will augment the budget of all the departments, you know. >> president mccarthy: i believe there is no more questions. one point, so it goes to the
board of -- where does it go from here? >> it goes to the g.a.o. committee and board of supervisors and scheduled for the first week in april. >> president mccarthy: good luck with that. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> clerk: i believe public action, public comment -- public comment on this item? >> president mccarthy: before we take action -- no, sorry. >> clerk: ok. seeing none, is there a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> clerk: a motion and a second to approve. item, a roll call vote. [roll call vote taken] >> clerk: item eight, update on
sf permit, accela permit and project tracking system. >> good morning, commissioners. henry bartley from the department of technology. the status report this month, over the past month as we had in previous months been dedicated to fixing, retesting items. total over the last 30 days on that effort was 211. severity 1 and 2 items fixed. we also completed our pretesting, u.a.t. pretest, and with both of those things we actually set the date and began the user acceptance testing this past monday. so, we are just, our third day into the testing at this point. we have two rounds of user acceptance testing for the remainder of the project, this is one of those two.
the -- we have two rooms on the sixth floor dedicated to testing. they have been filled, starting, you know, 8:30 on monday morning. the d.b.i. staff and their usual fashion has dedicated themselves so the task, the rooms are filled throughout the day. all the test results, i get emails with test results and i'm seeing emails from folks starting as early as 7:30 in the morning, been getting some as late as 6:00 p.m., folks are dedicated to getting this testing done. on the project team as well, that i lead, we are working very hard as things are found to turn them around and make this go as seamlessly and quickly as we can. and the -- and parallel -- so this test round will be followed by a round of -- we are already starting the fixing things
already found, fixing already. but that will continue after this round and parallel we are looking at refreshing our communications and public outreach plans. we had rhad those ready last fal and we need the activities in parallel with this round of testing. >> president mccarthy: commissioner walker, please. >> commissioner walker: when i saw this, i said there is nothing negative on here. so, i -- i am really happy. so, so it is, this is a really good progress and you know, i just want t applaud you for moving this along. >> i have to say it's definitely a group effort. i contribute but there's a lot of people supporting me. >> commissioner walker: that's really great. our department and our team is
doing amazing work. and so may i assume that the communication and outreach includes retraining and maybe connecting to those like departments like the assessor's office and such that have been waiting for us to have something for them to look at, because i still want to make sure that we reach out as soon as with he can to other departments who are going to be partnering with us on this. essentially. >> yes, yes, and lily is the brains behind this, we have events at city hall inclusive for the departments here. definitely the departments that participate every day with d.b.i. now in doing plan reviews, they are part of the training and always have been and departments that have an interest in excel and seeing how it's working, events planned for them as well. we are also working with ron thom to identify and other staff
to identify contractor groups so we are getting the word out, there will be changes -- those that use it online, what they will experience online. >> great. neighborhood groups and maybe if you could let us all know when the trainings are, it's worth going and sitting and being trained in what's going on early on so you can get your constituent groups involved. i know we all have outreach to our own groups and are very interesting in coming in. let us know when the trainings are as soon as they are scheduled. >> definitely will. >> and i want to throw a gin party, i don't know if i will get in trouble for it, for all the key people. you deserve, ok? ok. i'll probably get in trouble for that. >> commissioner walker: after 5:00 p.m. >> president mccarthy: thank you for that.
>> clerk: public comment on item eight? seeing none, item nine, director's report. 9a, update on d.b.i. finances. >> good morning, commissioner. deputy director for the department of building inspection. actually have two updates on finances, first i'll start with the budget update. there were a couple of outstanding issues the last time we spoke. don't have that much resolution but we are still working on it. so we submitted our department budget on february 21st, and we had two big issues. 149 south van ness, most of the cost except rent were not included. we are working with the city administrator's office.
we continue to work with the city administrator's office and all the other departments still going to be moving so we don't have an update right now. i have been working very closely with the permit center director and we know for instance in the initial spreadsheet, $7.8 million in costs, a miscalculation in spreadsheet with double counting so it will bring the funding down. and counted the number of desks applied to d.b.i. on the fourth and fifth floor and overstated, we don't have anything final to share and part is because the city administrator wants to coordinate with everyone before releasing to make sure we are on the same page. so hopefully at april's meeting i'll be able to give you an update on the new costs are. fee waiver, i won't take a lot of time item six, already discussed, but we did work with
the mayor's office, looked at some projects to use as a sample. i'm not really clear if i know the exact amount will impact the next fiscal year for a variety of reasons, but an average and the averages were given to you and the reason i'm saying i don't know what the fiscal amount will be in 19-20 is because we talked about the 100% affordable housing deferral and we have something that happens, usually the mayor's office will send a letter to the director referring deferral, so we do give that until the fee issuance. a big project may come in in 19-20, we were not expecting to collect that revenue anyway in 19-20. so for me, the impact whatever it's going to be, not specifically a fiscal year and i think we talked about this before. just depends on when you are going to do the collection. you can have filing fees for a.d.u. and issuance fees, so we
can't target, this is how much we would have collected in 19-20, but over the life of the project how much money we would have collected. >> any questions on those two items? so, on to current state, that will be the february 2019 financial report, sounds like all the other financial reports i've been giving over the past year or two. revenues are better than budget but down year over year, down by i think it's 1.6 million, and plan checking revenues, this year 18 million year to date, and last year at 19 million. but once again, if you compare to the budget we are doing well and still looking to have some balance, some actual, collect more than they actually budget. but we are seeing a slow down compare to the actual. expenditure side, we are
spending it, showing a bigger spending this year and primarily because of service of other departments or work orders. if you recall, last year was lying like the first in f.s.p., and now they are billing timely, you see the uptick there. happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> clerk: 9b, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> bill strawn. supervisor fewer ordinance for the tougher vacant store front, that is expected to actually be passed finally this week, i believe, the final vote was yesterday. the mayor will probably sign it by this friday and it will take
effect about the 22nd of april. we'll then be working with our code enforcement group to provide actually a notification. we have been planning to send out another notification to let property owners know that this is coming and to give a head's up because we know people don't always pay attention to even the media stories that cover these kinds of things. and then i think it will take a little time to see the impact and the registry in that 30-day period, and if they don't register in that 30-day period, then they are going to get a warning letter for another 30 days, and then it will be subject to an additional penalty to make the registration closer to $2,900 instead of the $711 if they register in the 30-day period.
so, the jury is obviously still out on whether this will be stronger incentive for the property owners to come forward and move these vacant store fronts, but as i know all of you know, this is a regional issue, a statewide issue, a national issue, it's obviously a bit intractable, it's not simple. but maybe this new effort will, in fact, push us toward the goal line we would like to see. on another matter, the mayor's ordinance for emergency homeless shelters, that passed the board yesterday. i'm sure that will pass next week as well, and so that will probably take legal effect, again, by the end of april/early may. and the department is still working with the mayor's office along with public works, the department of homelessness and the fire department to finalize
the m.o.u. as you know, the life safety inspections will still occur, just there will not be a building permit issued in order to expedite the review and approval process, and as long as life safety standards are met, then a letter will be issued to that effect that says that yes, inspection does show that life safety standards have been met. and then we will hopefully be able to see more of those shelters in different parts of the city, as i understand the mayor's office is still searching for those types of locations. i think that the only other thing i'll mention is supervisor peskin did move forward with the solar energy, that we started working on a year or two ago with katy tang, kind of got lost
in a lot of other legislation, but it is now back and i expect that to actually take legal effect by the end of april, early part of may. so, we are definitely making progress on that front. so if you have any questions, i would be happy to take them. >> president mccarthy: commissioner walker. >> commissioner walker: have you been in contact with peskin's office regarding their demolition amendments? >> well, i have spoken with his aide, lee hepner, and lee did say that he was going to let me know when they had a revised version that they were in fact working on a rewrite of the ordinance that was originally submitted, you may remember, in december. i have not yet seen that, but i do plan to stop in and see if he's got something ready or when we might expect to see it.
president mccarthy's earlier point, if we have a joint informational hearing in april, we would all like to see what the new version looks like. >> commissioner walker: and probably a good idea to include our staff in those revision discussions. >> we have made that offer that we would be happy to sit down and have staff provide input on that. >> that would be great. thank you, let us know. >> thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you, bill. >> clerk: 9c, update on major projects. >> good morning, building inspection, as you see, compared to last report period go down 1.3% for the construction cost for major project.
>> thank you. >> clerk: 9d, update on code enforcement. >> good morning, commissioner. deputy director inspection services with code enforcement and d.b.i. monthly update, february 2019. building inspections performed, 5,033. complaints received, 396. complaint response within 24 to 72 hours, 390. complaints with first notice of violation sent, 66. complaints received and abated without n.f.b., 174. with notice of violations, 39. second notice of violations referred to code enforcement, 21. housing inspections performed, 1,066. complaints received, 513. complaints with notice of violationsish an issued, 177.
sent to director's hearing 50. routine inspections, 172. code enforcement services. number of cases sent to director's hearing, 161. number of order of abatements issued, 39. number of cases under advisement, three. number of cases abated, 128. code enforcement inspections performed, 260. there was no litigation committee in february, and cases referred to city attorney was two. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: any public comment on the director's report items 9a through d? seeing non, our next item item 10, review and approve the minutes of a special meeting of january 30th, 2019. >> move to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and a
second. any public comment? seeing none, all commissioner in favor? any opposed? thank you. minutes are approved. next item, 11. review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting february 20, 2019. >> move to approve. >> second. >> a motion and a second. is there any public comment? no public comment, all commissioners in favor? >> opposed? thank you. next item, item 12, adjournment. motion to adjourn? >> motion. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor? we are now adjourned. 11:15 a.m.
>> good noon. welcome to the hearing for march 20, 2019. i were like to remind commercialmembers ofthe public e any disruptions of any time. if you care to state your maim fonamebefore speaking. (roll call). we do expect commissioner johns to be absent today. general public comment. at this time, members may address this issue. with respect to agenda items, opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes. i