reiterate. we don't expect this to be more today or it will not change it's the same amount of work but it will be done pursuant to code rather than some by code and some by sequa. there won't be changes >> and i think the thirty day notice and those requirements are going to be done even though we're pretty much i'm combeen if i were to take 10 projects in those new zones i imagine 7, 8 or 9 be involved in this

program. >> they - can i testify how many invests you did this year on this? >> with site mitigation cases like as you're a developer you have multiple projects all in states of projection. my oversight program we have 1.5 f t e cases with 50 cases. we are currently 65 cases we're working on. the large amount of time is in the review of the reports. we're trying to meet more with

the consultants and go over their plan of action. and we sit down and discuss what the options that they're looking at for the mitigation of the hazard. it maybe removal or an engineer cap. that's the number of cases we're currently dealing with >> i appreciate the department of health being in the mix of this i think you make information available and educate folks but, you know, in the real world in the development of san francisco i think that making it part of the code is smart because it will increase the workload of the he.

i think - this is why is when things have to go through t a sequa process there's a handful of people who pay attention to this. in terms of codes and building permits it's every neighbors in that property. people do check argue website. it becomes much more real on the ground in the way it the sequa process is a little bit more removed. so i don't believe that will be the case that your workload will retain the same that it is part of the code. i mean, we'll see. like anything else once we get into it and make the forms

available we'll see how it progresses and i hope - you know, so we don't bring a whole other level of hardship to developers and folks who are doing this and so things move smoothly >> thank you. is there any more comment on this item? do we open up to public comment? >> is there a public comment on this item? seeing none we need to motion to vote on >> i'm sorry are we voting to pass this on? >> to the board of supervisors yes.

>> just as we're missing two commissioners here two i want to acknowledge that so - commissioner walker and commissioner lee had to leave. so we can vote on this now or wait until full commission that's pretty much where i would be >> even though i didn't speak earlier i share some of the concerns about the issues that were raised. i don't want to back up of the people doing the work and without, you know, being up front about it i'm concerned with our ability to manage the department of health - the department of health ability to manage this thing

>> so why don't we do this we'll continue this to the next meeting and obviously we can think about it and maybe if we had some more questions. i would have questions on the staffing and the direction there. i would have questions about the timeframe to do this in the field. if you knew you had projects that took a certain time to do. and where staff would stand if the project didn't have to comply with this ordinance had to while the project was under construction and what is the situation there in the department of health had to come

out to observe the site. with those kinds of questions to be addressed as a commissioner i want to be sure this passed and is implemented out in the field and we want to do it as efficiently to the stakeholder. i'm thinking more of the smaller projects and they have to deal with. and the smaller ones don't have consultant and it can be very stressful. these are the issues i want addressed before i vote. so i'd elect to continue this to the next commission meeting. >> there's a motion and a

second to continue to the next meeting. >> john from the city attorney's office. maybe i can clarify a issue. the charter requires only the building inspectors here you're not required to act on it. so if you continue the public hearing you're still in the hearing phase you could also end of the public hearing and still consider your vote as the commission if you want to vote at another hearing. so you do have i think the way you've presented it everything would be intent both the public hearing portion and your decision michael if you do that

to the june hearing that i but it's not necessary >> i think it's right with the realization that we don't have to it could go to the board of supervisors it becomes political that we're not quite ready and we'll be heard there, too so that's clear. thank you >> there is a motion and a second to continue this item for the next he meeting. i'll do a role call vote. (calling roll). the motion carries unanimously. we're onto the item number 9

report fro from the nomination committee >> so i'd like to excuse commissioner lynch. >> okay. yeah so. >> how many people we need four poem so nobody else can leave. >> all right. so first of all, chair lee commissioner lee regretted that he had to leave. first of all, the committee we wanted to thank all the people who applied. given the short notice we had a good number of applicants and we decided to invite in 5 applicants, 4 actually came to our meeting and put a face on

their applications. i guess we do - the committee did have a couple of recommendations. we wanted to recommend for the commercial property seat or manage seat the advisory committee mr. henry who applied and actually came to our meeting and he's been the the - i believe he's been the committee before. for the architect seat in the board of examiners we wanted to bring forgot 2 candidates. we felt they were both qualified

but there's only one seat so with that i'd like to put forth the nomination of mr. sugarman. and we actually mentioned if it's - if this body is open to it - because there's going to be more terms expiring in august we want to hold the candidates in the pool because for whatever reason if the prior folks leave >> any questions? >> our commission didn't elect. >> the committee could decide

80 not put forward nomination. >> commissioner nails. >> it's not going to be voted on today, it's our report it could be voted on the next meeting isn't that correct. >> that's don't we'll have it imprinted and - >> okay. thank you. >> thank you for that commissioner. >> any public comment on item number 9. okay seeing none. item number ten commissioners questions and matters increase the staff at that time the commissioner can bring up practices and procedures that are of interest to the commission >> the only one i was wondering for the next meeting to give us

an update on the milestones for the next fill board meeting >> actually, i had been approached by residents whether there was a new list out on our website somewhere. >> any comments? >> future meetings and agendas at this point they could set a special meeting or place the agenda on the next meeting. our next meeting date is june 19th. >> so i would again like to

propose a special meetin maybe over the next few months and kind of authorize the secretary to pole the commissioners open their availability and to work with staff. i would like a special meeting of the and i basement board to take care of some of those lincoln issues and give plenty of public notice and allow the secretary to arrange for the room and stuff like that >> i'll be sure to follow up. >> is there any public comment on 10 a or b? seeing none. item 11 review the minutes of march 20, 2013, >> i move. >> second. >> and there's a motion and a

second to approve the meeting of march 2nd. any public comments. all in favor? okay. the minutes are approved. item 12 do we have a motion to adjourn? >> moved. >> all in favor? we're now adjourned it is