foresaw this and if you remember the first wave of new employees that we got were engineers. and we picked up a believe, five engineers. and we are probably going to request two more. and the building inspecters, which we have not hired, and since, four or five years. the list are there and it is just down to the final interview process. so we hope to have them on the next two-months. we have got electricals inspecters and plumbing inspectors and they are doing more and more as we go on of the planning check process. so that will continue. so to your answer, president mccarthy is i believe that we have enough people in house right now or we are ready to hire them. so we should be ready. and you may remember that some of these projects are i will not say simple. but they will be out in the next six weeks and as we get more, it should not... it

should maintain a certain level. >> and how is the actual plan check which you talked with and i know that you are involved in that. what is the time frame and are the other departments working well? and with regard to getting these plans out in a reasonable time? what is the expectancy time for the project its depends on the size of the project. what? >> there is no rule. it just depends on what is there. i mean, we are still trying for 90 percent over the counter on the fifth floor that is doing well. it is a little slow right now but it is the time of year, yesterday was very slow but we had an elevator down and the weather was bad. we are still averaging probably 110 permits out the door and over the counter services. and that is not, mentioning the electrical and plumbing permits. they go, they are all on the fifth floor but i don't keep track of them the same way.

>> there is a large volume of that going on. that should probably pick up to 140, 150, at the peak in the summer time. as far as in-take, we seem to be just a couple of weeks to get a couple of weeks to get it assigned, and depending on the job size, and complexity, it can be back out anywhere within six weeks to six months. >> okay. for jobs such as the transbay, of course. >> yeah. >> it is going to take a long time. >> yeah. >> that is the addendum process. >> okay, all right. >> okay, is there any further questions for deputy director sweeny? >> seeing none? >> is there any public comments on items 8 a to 8 d of the

director's report? >> seeing none, item 9? commissioners's questions and matters, 9 a, inquiry to staff, at this time, commissioners may make inquiry to staff regarding various documents, policies, practice and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. >> commissioner melgar you go first. >> so, i would like to for a future agenda, see if we could request the staff to come back in put together a real report on what a budget would look like to increase our automobile fleet purchasing electric cars. so since our last meeting in the report i did look into it a little bit. there are all sorts of incentives right now by the federal government. they just bill built out the

auto industry. and there is 0 percent financing for electric vehicles, there is also sorts of states and fedsal incentives for their purchase right now. it seems like it would be great to take advantage of that. and you know, rather than being in the position of requesting waivers from the department of the environment for just maintaining the level of the vehicles that is not even adequate for the size of our inspectors, we could make a little progress on that. it seems to me that that would be a good use of our surplus funds. so in that report, specifically, adding to our vehicle fleet, replacing the ones that are obsolete and if we could also build in the cost of what the permit and we would need to have electric stations to plug in. that would be really great and then we could take it to the next step and work with the mayor's office and the board of supervisors to help us out and see if we could make that

happen. >> okay. let's... sorry commissioner lee. >> i have two questions. it is my understanding that the mandatory seismic retrofit program is going to assign the task of writing the letter and composing the survey to the property owners is going to be assigned to our department. just wondering, may i see a copy of the letter in the survey at some point to see how we are communicating with these property owners? >> and then the second question is, what is our department's policy on requests for continuance and postponement of hearing? i am just wondering do we accept these up to a certain point? or can they come in at the last minute and then, how do we notify people that are interested on the topic that there has been a request for a postponement? because if they come in on the last minute, how do we do that

and so on and so forth? >> you don't have to answer me now, i just like to know what it is. >> commissioner. >> so i know, i may have mentioned this to president mccarthy earlier, an agenda that i wanted to put out was our pass in the housing in terms of tenant complaint. so i would like eye report from staff on just, our nlu, that we have now, what is our 40, because i understand that most of the complaints or most of the housing violations are advisory and so we work with the hud star and we say that this needs to be fixed and i think that we take it by their word that it is fixed. but if they follow up, for example, would there be a follow up inspection to make sure that was fixed i think that in population because the

mayor obviously is going to be making some changes with that housing is i want to just be kind of prepared in terms of any additional work as i mentioned before that would not only fall in our department, but also in our partners in the community. if that then become quasiprivate or non-profit, then it does fall on us to then, to make sure that any complaints are followed up on. >> commissioner walker. >> a couple of things, i think that an aagenda item updating on the notice of violations in the notice of process, and also, maybe a staff report regarding the funding issues that we talked about regarding code enforcement and maybe some recommended moves forward on that. just a point of clarification there, commissioner walker,

would that be something that deputy levan would put together separate from the novs? >> yeah. that would be separate from the report on the novs, right? >> yes. >> the violations. >> yes. >> now is there... commissioner? >> if i could modify that just a little. >> sure. >> it seems that is also starts with this code enforcement so it would be miss levon and miss bosky because there are processes that they have abandoned or have not been followed for a while to make that happen. >> exactly. >> and the key for me i know that the novs we should be able to facilitate. >> the items is what i am hearing. >> there are two separate. i am just hoping is that another time for the deputy levan to put something like that together? i am not saying the next meeting necessarily, but i think that we need to establish the beginning and we put it out there and if it is ready it is ready it is ready. >> if not...

>> and is there anything, any other items commissioners? seeing none. >> item 9 b, future meetings and agendas, at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that could be placed on the ago ahead and answer da of the next meeting and future meetings of the building inspection commission. >> okay. what is the next day? >> the next regularly skeled meet sg march 20th. >> and i probably will not be here. so, i want to ask commissioners, if we could, i would like to be here for the meeting is there another date? >> i really have an issue with moving our regular meeting date. >> okay. >> i guess, one item to consider is that at the next meeting we are going to have the election of officers and we wanted to try to have everyone here as possible and all commissioners present. >> yeah >> and so that will be the goal. so, could we weigh in this?

or maybe the secretary, you know? but by next month we need to have agreed on the new... >> typically we are supposed to hear the item in february or march, you know, according to... i think that it is in our rules that we are supposed to t.

>> if we have the quorum because you will not be here. >> i will not be here. >> if that is amenable we can propose that. >> we cannot propose anything. >> so i will take it there. >> we will keep it there. >> we will do that. and as far as that days, all of the other commissioners here will have formed and commissioner will be here and

chairing us. okay. >> okay. >> all right. >> we will discuss in the next couple of weeks. >> all right. >> is there any public comment on items 9 aor b? >> could i have a point of clarification if we were talking about the next meeting? because we postponed that abatement appeals with that one case today, we will have to meet again as an appeals board on that day, and could i, because it seems that we have a pretty full agenda all right. is it possible for us not to schedule other abatement appeals for that date? >> you mean the other ones in addition to that? >> right. because otherwise, we will be in the majority of the meeting will become the abatement appeals board. that is my concern. >> i am not sure but i will speak to the staff and the other city attorneys for the abatement *. i will follow up on that for you.

>> okay item should be ten. it is the discussion and possible action regarding ongoing litigation. item 11 a. is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. and item, is there any public comment before we go to the vote to go to closed session? >> and seeing none, item b, vote on whether to hold closed session with legal counsel. is there a motion to go to closed session? >> i move. >> second. >> okay. >> >> commissioners in favor? >> aye >> any opposed? >> we are now in closed session. it is 11:54 a.m..

>> item 11 d. reconvene in open session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in the closed session. >> is there a motion to reconvene in open session. >> move to reconvene and not disclose. >> i second. >> okay. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? >> are we done with that item? item 12 is adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> we are now adownedersinger, it is 12:10 p.m. >> good morning

and welcome to the san francisco board meeting. we are joined today by community member supervisor norman and joined by

one of our colleagues. the clerk of the committee is evans and we want to acknowledge the following members of s f g tv staff who are covering the meeting. mark bunch. >> do you have any announcements? >> yes, sir. please silence all devices. files should be submitted to the clerk. items may appear on the agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. madam clark can you call items no. 1. >> item no. 1, prohibit sales of law enforcement ammunition. no. 2, police code require reporting 500 or more round >> these two items have been

introduce by mayorly and supervisor co-hen. >> thank you very much. thank you. as many of you know i have joined with chief and other leaders to announce this legislation late last year. this has built upon to take on gun violence. ammunition, lethal ammunition. what the law doesn't restrict is it's possession. now we also have existing regulation that require anyone selling ammunition within the city limits maintain records of their sale which are required to be available for inspection at any time. but no city law requires any reporting of these

types of sales by vendors that do not have locations inside the city and county of san francisco but sell to city residents. this is enforcing our existing our regulations. the first proposes to restrict not only the sale but possession of type of ammunition that is in lethal property designed for use by military personnel. anything sold black talent which was designed with sharp prongs to cause significant injury upon impact. any ammunition

designated by manufactures to sale to law enforcement or military agencies only, any ammunition that serves no sporting purpose and any ammunition to disbanned or other objects that are intended to increase the damage of the target. now the ordinances also required by the police department to create and maintain a public data base of brands and product lines of ammunition meeting the definition of this ordinance. the second ordinance would actually expand on the city's existing record requirements by requiring that any person selling 500 or more rounds of ammunition to someone in a single transaction they must report the sale to the police chief within 24 hours. this is

required for anyone who sells ammunition in the city or delivers to city addresses. san francisco violence -- while legislation is not a panacea it is another tool for our efforts to address gun violence. since introducing this legislation, my office has received significant support from members of the community, clergy and other advocacy groups that have been working on this for years. unfortunately they couldn't be with us here today, but here in this hearing we do have a very important advocate. we've got captain oh leery from the police department and from the

mayor's office. dr. cambell regrets he's not able to attend this hearing but is in support of this legislation. he's the head of trauma surgery who ha provided a lot of guidance who helped us craft this legislation and the impact of what these bullets do to human bodies. mr. chair, i would like to turn the meeting back to you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much supervisor cohen. i would like to ask the mayor's office on be half of mayor if they want to add anything. >> yes, thank you. s f g tv if i can get the overhead. i'm not going to repeat anything cohen

said. i just want to show a couple visuals. these are hollow point bullets. we are not propose to to ban all bullets. you can see these barbs here, this is what a normal hollow point looks like. it flattens out. but these barb bullets this is what they look like. they cause significant damage to internal organs. these little barbs make surgical repair impossible on a victim. i just wanted to share those visuals. thank you very much. i'm happy to answer any

questions. >> thank you very much mr. elliot and this you for the leadership on this issue. i see we have captain oh leery from the san francisco police department and proud to say a former police captain. good to see you captain oh leery. >> thank you, good morning. good to see you again. the san francisco police department stands in support of both pieces of legislation as they will enhance public safety. my experience with firearms in san francisco has been over the last decades as a police officer i have seen countless of shooting victims and the injuries cause beyond the physical injury, they go into psychological damage as well. i also can tell you that over the years, over the last 30 years i

have seen shootings combo go from one or two shots to multiple shots fired. any ammunition into these shootings would cause more havoc. i stand in support of the legislation to eliminate the sale of these type of bullets as well as asking those that sell the bullets to report the sale of more than 500. >> thank you, captain. any questions for the captain. >> i don't know if there is anyone else, supervisor if you would like to bring up. let me make a couple more points before we turn it to public comment. i'm very proud of the fact that we have this legislation before this body. i think it's snag something we should be very proud of and an approach to

rising problem of having too many guns on the streets. my understanding of the 2nd amendment and how it has been applied and the regulation of ammunition, is that when it comes to regulating ammunition there is a different test when the ammunition is not commonly used in the public. in this case we are talking about a very narrow type of ammunition that has a military purpose. and the purpose is really to create additional injury and harm to an individual and we are not talking about banning other of ammunition that could be used for self defense. i actually think that this is a very measured approach that really strikes to our balance between the concerns that some people have about the 2nd amendment and the public safety concerns that we have. i also think that providing information is important and

the law actually does not even prohibit the sale of 500 rounds. it simply requires that the police chief be notified. i think that as a matter of public safety that is a very reasonable reasonable request. so, i'm glad that supervisor cohen a mayor have taken a leadership on this. i thank you for your leadership. i think this is on strong legal feeding and glad that san francisco take the lead in this position. thank you. >> i just want to echo your words in saying that i deeply appreciate supervisor's cohen and mayor's leadership issue. i grew up in san francisco, there is different periods in san

francisco violence hit different neighborhoods and i lived during that time. i just think this is a very as you say a very balanced approach to how we can do legislative and make the city safer for our residents. again, thank you very much. supervisor mark? >> thank you, i also want to thank chief and captain oh larry and this is nearly tailored and protecting public safety. i think this is important right now and recommend supervisor cohen for bringing this at this time. i do have a question about bullets, i will ask whether other types of hollow point

bullets are appropriate and why we are limiting it to barbed hollow point because it seems that if there is no sporting purpose or other purposes for other types, i have a question of other types of bullets and their use. i will talk to you off line on that one. i commend supervisor cohen for this issue. >> thank you. why don't we open to any member of the public who would like to speak on this item. please come forward. robert green and don duetel. you have three minutes. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is robert green. i want to say that i own no firearms. i stand against these ordinance. i believe the possession of certain sales of

ammunition is flawed and would do little if anything to enhance public safety and i recommendation you do not pass. it would require -- one specific ground is identical to another ground. even though it directs the police department to maintain, it also says failure to do so cannot be used as a defense against the violation of the ordinance. also it does not allow anyone to retain possession of what would become prohibited ordinances prohibited ammunition after the ordinance becomes effective and provides no means of deposing of ammunition for instance if someone is cleaning out their father's attic is deceased and fine that it's stored