better understanding. and in this 26 or 27 years the department of health has become more efficient then we were back in the day. does this address all the questions? >> in the thirty days are you allowed to continue work and that means moving more dirt around the site? and 50 cub it yards is like a blow up so it doesn't take long to get to 50. i'm at a job i determine i have to move more dirt than having yards can i continue my job?

>> the developer through their consultant will estimate where the area of contamination is where it needs to be removed. so i don't know if - i'm sorry the disturbance of the 50 cub itself yards is on the ground not in the truck >> you asked about the permit i don't know what the permit condition is. so there has been times when grating permits have been issued. there's determination there's contamination unless the permit is withdrawn work can continue in other areas of the lots that has happened.

you're asking me do we shift the work down not that i'm aware of. things happen quickly we meet with the developer, their consultant they make the determination of the turn around time and the analysis of their sample. motion folks go two weeks to save money. the department of health site is thirty days >> director tom, i have a way of this ordinance we have a meeting we have paul and kari and generally overall departments put this ordinance it's a good ordinance.

let me explain from previously how the permit process with this t is generally in a limited area mostly a large promise project. at the gas stations they go to department of health and before they get a building permit. now because of this overall with the citywide area we've got our pbs system we can't track that area. one of the solution is to talk to planning they should first go to planning to find which area they require to go through this study. to do the study everybody know the time when i request a report how to mitigate the soil and

underground water i'm not an expert. i recommend he department of health have a station. a basis station on the fifth floor station thirty they can send someone to answer the questions and they can do some permit progressing and then hopefully by the end of the year with the pbs system and to check out by next year, we, do something. we've all this stuff i recommend all the - to check out the development first. for me, the way i see the hazard

materials take a year to mitigate and all those, you know, it's not only underground the surface how does it go that's what we recommend maybe at that time we send information inform developer and owner >> i'm a developer i understand it i'm concerned about the smaller people here and i don't have to move the dirt from the site. you could be - >> it's disturbing 50 cub itself yards so - >> and maybe acting director if you could explain it to me if i'm digging down to get my

footings and i have to mitigate and i compliment to the department are you going to come out and inspect my project which could take thirty days and is the department going to go out and continual inspect why is this done parallel? >> i'll - generally, we look at the site and the call section and measure it and inform them all. by the time i are doing inspection we don't, hard to measure because the soil when

you get open the ground they expand to 23 or 3 times >> well, maybe somebody in next door calls the department of health and they say i think it's more than 50 yards and where does the department stand in going to that project. it that project going to be stopped until this is mitigated? >> no, we resend to department of health we can't stop it because they measure is and do the approval at the time. >> okay come back to temporary solution i suggest to go to planning and then the developer

or anyone who need to make sure, you know, require to do that study. then second item is department of health come to our station on the fifth floor to answer all those questions and check the area or maybe issue the letter right there to speed up the process. then they also future our pbs system can put in another safeguard. the permit is - you may be, you know, depend upon the size of project >> just one question. how many staff inspectors have to deal with this? >> we have half 0.5 currently.

>> so you're going to expand the whole program? >> definitely not. we're still looking at the anticipated number of projects and we'll be developing our staff at that time, but we are currently staffing with zero .5 staff >> just a clarification does that half time f t also have other responsibilities? >> yes, a their you assigned to other projects. >> how is that position paid for . >> it's a grant funded position excuse me. it's a contract with the state water resources control board.

>> and is that for whatever rain the funding dries up what what happens? >> i'm not sure. >> we could be looking for answers and we don't have a person to address - i mean seems to me if we're relying on the department of health to be the entity to whether it is hazardous or not we may get into a logjam. >> i very much appreciate that and it is fully the department of health will have staff people to see about this code but future where this person is

funded we can't know but, of course, there will be someone to measure those codes. no one wants to not have a person on the other end of the phone >> i'm in charge of the health inspectors. the way it looks like the program is starting to be reduced. so we think that our half time person we have working on l o p plus site mitigation that person will have less responsibility for working for l o p. >> when do you expect this to

be implemented into law? >> so it's likely if this legislation continues through this process that 3 would be up to the board of supervisors in mid-june. because it's an ordinance it has a thirty today detailed date so mid-july >> so you'll be fully staffed to deal with pretty much the expansion of this whole program. >> it will be every tennis to have the staffing under this code to take care of business. >> i tried to make this point earlier i guess i want to

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 department of health.

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 meeting. 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 isin the

for spanish speakers or cantonese speakers. >> the chair has called the meeting to order. >> pledge of allegiance. roll call. commissioners. we have a