and grass and seen growth in this group as well your proctors. throughout all my appearances in those favorable sfgovtv i developed a respect for this chamber of the people and for the work you perform on our on behalf of. your feeshz appetite for human rights, for associate justice and diversity is unparalleled and is the beacon of the san francisco values for the whole world to see and follow. the juvenile probation officer department is most grateful for the boards support. we're most appreciative of the fact that supervisors ca possess and tanking made it out to log

cabin rather than and got a peak at the kids we serve. throughout the men and women in the probation department we were able to reduce our over reinstates and expand our partnership with community based agrees and organizations that work with our clients all of our clients, re - we have reclaimed the futures of many san francisco families and we restored the public's trust in the juvenile probation as a progression. j p d no longer stand out with our hands out for money. our work - in our working

partnerships with the police department and the fire department and the united school district, mo e w d and the rest of the alphabet in ways that has never been are experienced before. we have been assembled into the city family that deals with juvenile justice. the graciousness you extend to me today is from the probation officer probation system and our system practitioners and to my key support group. my executive assistant who constantly on a daily basis provides the best face better than my face and the recognition

of the principle partners in the person's of chief probation officer allen nancy and deputy director alison. the time we've worked together i've been desired by their energy and intelligence i'll been grounded by their criticism i've been chord by their loyalty friendship and those two individuals become the battle ranks that will bring san francisco forward. and to my wife pat the love of my life who brokered that. leaving 8 kids to be on my own

where i never had an apartment on my own was a leap of faith but their belief in me and the ability for me to complete my career in such a wonderful area. at the finally to our 8 children our and 10 grandchildren if i could get this posted. this is my new caseload everybody (laughter) i'm not so sure my 8 children understand they're off of double secret probation yet they believe that since they've had children of their own they off the list. but this is where i'm fully commented. i'm tired of the dialog with my

grandchildren's words where's gramma. i want to expand our confidence there's not going to have two other words. but at any rate. thank you once again. to this body for your support during my stay in the best job in the best he city that any probation officer could hope to come to serve. thank you very much everybody (clapping) >> thank you chief

(clapping). >> chief godspeed as you hid off into managing you're next agency and colleague why don't we go to the next items 52 and 53. >> to me 52 and 53 compromise the next action the board of supervisors has agreed to sit as a committee for a public hearing in persons interested in or having the delinquent assessment of costs and fees from the building code submitted by the director of the building

inspection. to the members of the public this is a hearing who want to obtain or support the resolution from the department around coding enforcement. i want to acknowledge the sfgovtv staff and then the public will have an opportunity to speak about the charge before we make a final decision you good afternoon this marks the 9th year of the building be inspection for property owners. prefl triumphed to you was the charges from 2018. we've had two in house owners meeting to rectify that. the department asks for your

support in approving this building inspection report. i want to thank the support staff >> colleagues any questions to d b i staff. okay hearing no one let's hear from the public are there any members of the public. if you want to line up on the right-hand side and each men e member of the public will have 2 minutes to speak. sir, you want to step up >> good afternoon home minutes do i have. >> you have two minutes. >> this is about a property at

1267 rose island that has been penalized 9 times over from the vacancy fee that was denied in 2012 because a lack of insurance. i am appealing this imposition 9 times over penalty because i feel that it is gross and excessive. i feel that the - while the demand for insurance on the building a valid the insurance companies refused to insure the building because it was vacant so that place is a catch-22 situation which took us months to resolve. we were able to secure an

acquaintance so they penaltyized us for that with an excessive fee. i think it sdrimgdz against people who don't have the fund i'm currently employment and my sister is unemployed and on disability. one of the heads stated himself this was a tail of two cities stating that some people in some parts of the town can afford this and - >> thank you are there any

other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? come on up >> good afternoon i live in san francisco for 61 years. i'd like to thank the board of supervisors for holding this special hearing. in my opinion many property owners in san francisco don't have adequate knowledge on how to protest what happens at d b i. a case example a recent grand jury. i'd like to encourage all persons in san francisco especially ones that are not familiar with d b i please tell don't feel intimidated because the d b i has made far too many mistakes in the past and i

encourage if you don't understand or don't agree with the d b i feel free to pursue the matter on the state of level >> any more comments? seeing none. before we precede there's a question from supervisor wiener >> thank you a question about one of the items at 1:30 beulah street in supervisor breeds district. this item was here for in law units correct >> two in the lower area basin area and they have tenants in them. >> yes, sir. they do.

>> i understand the department is in a tough situation in the in law units but those are affordable houser areas of our city and i personally will have a hard time supporting the assessment based on someone beingpermits.

- it doesn't give them the ability to fix it and we're potentially pitting two residents on the street because of that. i have concerns about this process overall and i'm not supportive of moving in this direction. it doesn't provide a solution over safety issues >> i want to concur as well.

there's in my district on this list there are scores of in law units where you have whole families living in a single in law unit. we know that realty is there are people living there and the reeled in my district there are people who can't afford to pay their mortuary. it's not permitted. i think the city needs to figure out how we can understand how to create flexibility in our districts so we can maintain housing that's affordable for the property owners and other folks who couldn't pay their mortuaries. it's not always about making extra money. so i know it's not just this

district this property we're looking at taking a fee from its the other properties as well. i'm kind of hard-pressed to figure out which ones in my district are having the problems here. we have to have this item approved by the end of this year? how does that work >> supervisor avalos to the president i would have the staff from the department of building inspection answer the question. >> well, this was in 2008 i was the inspector. wife been working with ms. roberts and it's difficult for her to legalize those. we've been in contact with here as far as remedying the

situation. she's been to the appeal board and they concurred. we're more than willing to get the issues resolved >> there's that and there's like a score of buildings in, you know, single-family homes in my district that are on here that actually have an in law in them where, you know, people are getting a fee and - i'm wondering do we have to have this today or come back in a month and perhaps taking off fees. >> we can take the item off the calendar for today. we actually want to legallize it but we're more than happy to meet with ms. robert and walk

her through the process. i agree there's plenty of units in the city >> right and i don't think it's the matter of making the building like it was before we'd be casting out thousands of people in san francisco which makes no sense. but i think as a city i know my colleagues have been working on this issue president chiu and my office as well are figuring out how to have some neglect so we're not setting up people to get cast out of their homes. so we're helping them to maintain their property >> this is has an an ongoing

issue and it would be great to see a solution in san francisco. >> i want to add to d b i i've been in a group working on this there's a meeting in a week and a half and they will be raising an issue you can come too. what many of us agree is perhaps not the best way to handle the reality. supervisor campos >> thank you mr. president, and d b i staff and to my colleagues are that i think it make sense for us to hold-off on voting on the entire item until we have more information regarding all properties that a fall within the category. >> maybe i should ask are there

other units or line items on this lengthy list that are involved in those situations? >> without having the case in front of me i can't comment. we are more and more willing to pull the item and have the remaining items sfoeth. and we'll look at the items at o a more convenient time >> that's sort of the concern. but thank you for that clarification >> i get a lot of calls from people who have issues with d b i and i understand d b i's situation those are all issues we care about but those are on the list because they come with

great frequency to my 0 office. i'm wondering if we can continue this item not getting it done today and continue back in september >> can you identify yourself. >> i'm with the code enforcement d b i. if i could say we're happy to go through each and every item and work with our staff and if there's any property that is remotely involved with the conversation we're having but we'd appreciate if you'd approve the other items number. and someone in public comment said there was a review of the properties recently and one of the items they said we were a

little bit having too many fees but if we were to hold-off on all items it would he'd the inspection to the report. i'd like to have the list today approved and we'll remove southern items and we'll be happy to go through those with you >> i'd remove those after the fact? we're just approving overall and the items won't be impacted? >> when you take the vote there are be a day or two we'll adjust any addresses there are confusion about so when the final list is agreed upon only

the remaining items remaining after we clarify which would include removing the allowable units we'll have a better list. but you wouldn't impede the process so we'll have the properties you're not concerned about on the ballot in september >> we will horrify i'd be open to removing those items shortly and a - >> we'd appreciate that. >> is there a reason why if we get this done in the week of september that's not enough time to get this going your deadline about november. >> i believe the cut off-line is in august.

i will send our report over to the recorders office around mid-august and we - we can go back and remove any illegal issues >> are you able to identify the in law units. >> yes. >> one thing i might suggest as part of the resolution that we adopt language that says that the board of supervisors says they'll remove the fees to the in law units we don't know particularly but that maybe a way to resolve that and maybe someone will make a motion. supervisor yee >> actually, i was going to make the same suggestion we

amend the motion inform delete from the list any in law unlts that the department would identify in the next few days so i concur with you. >> so supervisor yee made a motion and i'd like to ask the city attorney - if i could ask you what's the property language to capture the intent we're not making a policy decision but on this particular list we want to remove those units that are in-laws. >> john. if it's okay with you i'd like to discuss with the department maybe during the break while the department is meeting with various property owners and could came back and advise whether that's a viable language and when the department comes

back >> let's continue. >> i want to let you know there's a few properties on this list i'd like to say let's remove. >> thank you supervisor. >> just a point i'm not sure unless you're able to identify the properties that are excluded from those lists you could move forward to that and that's a question to the city attorney's office. there are property we need to move forward maybe we identify those. i'm trying to figure out what's doable >> let's say that the city attorney caucus and the public when you are done we'll take up those items later than in this meeting.

okay with that why don't we go to our second 3:00 p.m. order madam clerk call items 54 to 61 >> a special order at 3:00 p.m. for persons who are looking at the planning project located at the 4016 california street is exempt under the california quality act and the planning commissions approval of a conditional use authorization at the 3216 address on all 16 that this property is requires a conditional use authorization. the motions associated awe affirming the clerk to provide finding are part of this special

hearing >> thank you madam clerk. on today's calendar there are two items where we want to install a wireless system containing 9 antennas within a ground floor medical service building. first tlrns there's an appeal from the environmental review and second there's a conditional use authorization. the issues on each appeal are different. our planning commissions review under the california quality act sequa announced the adequacy and completeness of the examinations. this is a legislation hearing and to over turn needs 6 votes of this