>> to speed up the policies and our future pdf system can put in another safeguard. the permit you may be - you know depend on the >> just one question how many staff inspections do we have to do? >> half ore .5 currently. >> so you're going to expand this whole program with one - >> that's not our intention definitely not. we're still looking at the number of programs and we'll be

staffing with zero .5 people >> okay. any further questions? >> does that also have other reporters. >> yes. the staff person is signed to our program that mitigates contamination from leaking underground. >> i don't know if you know but what kind of condition? >> it's a contract with the state board and for whatever reason that funding dries up then what happens? >> i'm not sure. >> then we don't have is a staff person to address?

could that be in the legislation as well? i mean it seems like if we are relying think on the department of health to if you happened this then we're in a jam >> it's the full tennis that the department of health will have this future egresses to where that's staff person is funded we can't guarantee that there would be no one on the other ends of the telephone to answer that.

>> i'm in charge the health inspectors. inspector talked about the l o p program the local oversight program and it looks like that program is starting to be reduced. and so what we think are the half that time person plus doing all her responsibilities that person will have less responsibilities to the l o p >> when do you expect this to be implemented into law? whatever it has >> the timeframe. >> well, it's up to them. >> it's libel if this legislation continues through this process it would be up to to the supervisors in mid-june

it has a thirty days delay so mid-july. >> so your testimony here today you'll be fully staffed to threaten with the expansion of this whole program to deal with the situations out in the field. >> it's the staff under this code. >> again, i tried to make this point earlier i want to reiterate we don't envision this being a big expansion for the department of health what they do beyond today, it's through the blue zone or the sequa it is the same amount of work deity

pursuant to code. >> and you feel those requirements are going to be done. if i envision 10 projects in this area i imagine 7, 8, 9, 10 of them will be participating in this program >> i could - can only say it's the intent for them to - >> let's say this year on this? >> with site mitigation cases

like as you're a developer you have multiple projects they're all in different states of projection and we have 1.5 f t e and in the site mitigation between our clean up program we're currently 65 cases we're working on. the large amount of review is in the reports. we're trying to go over what their plan of action is in the project we sit down to discuss what the options that they're looking at for the mitigation of the hazard and it maybe removal

or the engineer cap there's a number of opposition - options they have >> i think you guys do have a public health approach you educate folks and that's helpful that about, you know, in the real world what happens in development of san francisco i think that making it part of the code is smart because it will increase the workload of the health department. when things have to go through a sequa process there's a handful of people in the city that pay attention. folks who pay attention took

this. in terms of codes and building permits it's every neighbor in this property. people follow our website and it becomes much more real on the grounded for people who surround that property. i don't believe that your workload will remain the same. he'll see i mean anything else the new requirements once we get into it making the forms we'll see we'll plan ahead and build for - you know, just so we don't bring a whole love other hardships for folks who are

doing this and it runs smoothly. >> there any more comment on this item? >> seeing none we'll vote on this. >> i'm sorry that he recommend and pass it on? >> on to the board of supervisors. >> it's conforming. >> just we're missing two commissioners here, too i want to acknowledge that, too. commissioner walker and lee had to leave. so we can vote on this now or

wait until full commission. >> even though i didn't speak earlier i share some of the concerns that were raised. because i don't want a back up of the people doing the work and without, you know, being really up front about it i'm concerned with the health departments ability to manage >> so why don't we continue this to the next hearing we'll have a few commission and we can take a vote on that and observe we can think about it and i would have questions on the staffing. and the direction there.

i would have questions on the timeframe it takes to do this in the field and i'd like some examples on that if you had some projects that took x amount of time. and where the staff would stand if the project that didn't have to originally comply with this project and what would the position of the department be on that if there were litigation >> i would second it. >> yeah, with those kinds of questions to be addressed and that's our job to pass to and make sure it can be implemented out in the field and we