public i feel that the report does not reflect all of the findings and also we take proper action and you know, you remember right after the bic meeting at, you know the next day after and everybody get a copy of it and how we are going to deal with it and also, the follow up and additional action plan and spended time to read the report and that is about one inch and those who support, and the only first few pages is my summary. i spept the time and i watched the 49er game and i need to write my report, that is the sad part, over all i feel my staff do their job and then there is some oversight and

then the and only the procedure that we need 20 tobacco and the project that we need to and the oversight on the special job and this is, and you see this, you know, when i went to the site, that is why i implemented those and because for this kind of job if you don't go to the site by looking at the paper and you will not see the kind of complication on this kind of a job, we learn from these kinds of incident, that we want to avoid, lucky nobody is hurt and nobody get killed and that is the fortunate part, and then, that is all that i set out of the ground and how to move ahead. and i asked more on this kind of job like the inspection, and i asked my inspector to go out

and twice a week, you know? and those timing and we charged to the project sponsor, because those are extra work. and let me put them notice and how much that we have only to charged them. hopefully, we will move ahead and finish the foundation because according to the committee they want to stabilize the site, and we don't want to. and any movement during the, you know, the next storm, or, and you are in this concentration and any other question? >> okay. >>vy no further questions. >> commissioners would i like to open it up to the commissioner. >> commissioner? >> so, you know, i think that none of us thought that this thing came down on purpose, or anything like that. it was an accident, but what i feel that i am concerned about, and i think that this commission is concerned about, is what could we have done to

have caught the problems earlier and that is on our department and that is on our staff and so regardless of what the contractor or the builder was doing on site and, if we had done everything that we should have done and could have done, we may have caught the problem earlier. as a member of the commission we got this report late too, just to let the public know, because i feel like this report was actually finished, and i was surprised that actually, it went to the mayor's office first before it came to us. and i would like, you know, i feel like if we are a

commission that is supposed to be overseeing the department, i would have liked to have seen this report, the minute it was done. i know that the city attorney is looking into this matter and i said this at the last meeting and i was corrected that the city attorney is not obligated to let us know his finding, but i would like to say that for the public record that i think that this commission should be able to look at these finding because it may go some way to help us fix some of our problems, you know? if he, and if there is something that comes out, from the city attorney's investigation that could make our commission function better and policy wise, if there are some things that come out from the city attorney's office that maybe could make the department staff function a little bit better, and practicically, and i am sure that we would be happy to hear about it. before, it appears in the

chronicle, although it is up, i am sure that it is up to the discretion of the city attorney, what he does with the findings. and i am just saying for the public that we would like to know about it. with that said, there are some things in that report, that is a little bit troubling to me. one of the things is that the fees that were supposed to be collected on this project why was it so far apart? and actually, the fees, that were finally collected and valuation that we finally put on this project, and did not even come about until after the collapse, right? and so we were talking about 20 percent at the very beginning, and then, it was actually at 50 percent, and until after the

collapse until a week after the collapse, and then it came up to the current price. that is a problem on us and to the department and without getting into the staff involved. but that is on us. and how could it be that far apart? that there are favoritism and the special treatment and there is a letter in this report, where the owner of the property, and as we au know who served on this commission, called one of the managers and said, i need an inspection.

the district inspector was not available and we sent somebody else out and i am not going to question whether this was the best inspector to send out, he looked at it and it proceeded from there he was sent out, and there was a comment made in that letter, planing that we want a continuation of service and so we sent that same inspector out for the next three inspections. and so, for me, if it had been maybe a more experienced person, because of the complicated job? and on a complicated site, they might have caught some of the problems earlier. that would have prevented it. is that normal to call of the senior manager and say that i want an inspector and the district guy is not available and can you send me someone else and we do that and we send

them someone else. >> commissioner, why don't we continue with the inspection part. and i have a number of issues that i want to raise. and besides just, the inspections and i like to know, how we respond to these requests for inspection or what are our inspection processes? and by that, i mean, do we just respond to a call from a build and her say that we need an inspection now, can you spend someone right away and request an appointment? or do we even do the routine

inspections? i mean, we have projects all over the city. we have so many permits, some we notice where they are and some we don't. so do we, go around checking to see if the projects are progressing as we expect them to be? that is one of the very simple question that i had on this project. and did we even go out and did we even notice what was going on before it happened, before the collapse happened? did we notice anything, i mean could we have noticed anything, by a drive by and i am just throwing it out there as a possible solution on any to minimize any future problems. and in the second thing, i do

appreciate the builder coming here to want to explain what happened, and i feel like this report is our story, the building department story and i would like to hear what the applicant, the builder story is, and why did some of these happen? what they feel i think could have been done better? and would like to hear what they have to say. and we have to reevaluate how we assess the fees and it could be something as simple as saying, when the applicant submits, they are evaluation project evaluation to us, and it better be within 25 percent of what our estimates are or else there will be a huge penalty at the end and maybe it is something as simple as that could work, and so this will stop the haggling, i call it haggling. and because i know that the industry, and always will want to go with a lower figure because they don't want to pick, and the project sponsors don't want to pay more fees

then they necessarily have to. and we will have to determine what the cost is and then it becomes a negotiation and maybe we should eliminate some of these. i would liker to hear more about the gsa investigation and if that can't be discussed at the commission level here maybe we should do it at a closed session. i would like to just piggy back on what commissioner mar says, and i would like to know what that report says, just to see what we can do, to improve our department. so. that is my comment. >> thank you, commissioner. >> and commissioner, melgar. >> so, i, got to say for starters, i read the report, and i felt like we had enough time and i mean that i think that we got, you know, i have a lot of questions about it, and as commissioner walker did, as well and i think that we are

not done. and i am looking forward to the city attorney's report and i think that as we progress to this process, there is stuff that is going to come up, a lot of questions, but, people are going to have but they are going to be answered. and i have to say that i really appreciate, mr. santos for his cool headedness in the factual retelling of the story. and i appreciate that and i don't appreciate so much, the adhomonim attacks that have been put out in the press against this commission and i think that the individual commissioners may have said stuff in the course of the hearing and think that is okay for the people to have questions, to my knowledge, this commission has not taken a formal request, on this and there has been no action and i think that it is legitimate for people to ask the questions and to dig into the report. and so, that being said, i

think that it does not help, the public discourse to attack the commission, or to say, that folks are being unfairly tarnished because we are asking the questions, i think that is our job. and so i am really looking forward to this process and to this discussion, and i really appreciate the different perspectives that the fellow commissioners have on the inspections and on the process and i am interested in the human resources, angle, because, i do know that for other employees and the department, who have been watching this going on, and it has been pretty demoralizing and so, you know, right now, that we are, rebuilding the department back up, and thes really important to support our director in terms of the cohesion of the department and the following of the proper procedures and to reward that. and employees wh, we do it. and so, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner melgar. >> commissioner clinch? >> i have a question, maybe for

somebody involved with the projector maybe, director, what is the current status of the work? is the building, stored off of the site, the one that collapsed and we are just coming from the ground up? or is there just the building reshored or what is currently happening out there? >> santos for the project. yes, to both. and we are, five weeks away from completing the foundation work and we have a temporary resting place, for the existing structure which is properly secured and fully cribed and fully plywooded and anchored to the ground and we are going to be pouring the matt foundation around the crib and once we complete the foundation, then we will have to go through the planning process of repermitting, the super structure. and right now, we have a temporary resting place for the structure. and which is about 17 feet

below the final configuration of that structure, but, yes, we have done both and we secure the site and implementation of the system and reserving the portion of the project, that will be part of the alteration. >> and the cribing that is there, to support the existing structure has been inspected. >> absolutely. >> and it is plywood and it is part of the it. >> and the one of the things that we had on the original permit, and the structural drawings and they call for plywooding of the cribing and the diagonal bracing and without getting into why the incident occurred, let me just explain to the commissioners that this was work in progress. the cribing had not been completed. the permitting drawings, described plywood in the cribing, and put in diagonal braces to it and the contractor was fully prepared to do that,

the next day. the cribing was not completed, special inspections for the plywooding are done, and once the plywood is placed. and not before it. >> special inspections were going to occur for the cribing after it was completed so that we could call someone to look at the plywood and look at the crib and look at the angles. and it was not done. and the incident occurred during the implementation. the system now for the temporary resting place has been completed, the plywood is there, and the diagonal bracing is there and we called for inspection and it has been signed off. >> so that the original permitted documents did require special inspection of the shoring? >> yeah. >> it required an observation, and not a special inspection, and a special inspection for the drilled piers and the sizing and everything else. and everything, cribing, as you

know, being a structural engineer and great, with respect, and you have to give the house mover some latitude, you cannot tell him how to proceed with the way that they listed this. >> you are giving them guidelines and the final configuration and you cannot dictate to him, the steps that he needs to take and if you look at the permitting process, and he actually calls for an observation once the cribing is completed. we can't leave things half

done, i think and so it is just something that we need to look at more carefully i think for the future. >> sure, commissioner, we will welcome that, absolutely. >> thank you. >> i will close it out and obviously i am not going to, i concur with all of the commissioners comment and not to repeat it and i want to focus my comments on the report. i understand the work load that has gone into this to make this as transparent, for the community. and for the public, and for this discussion here today. and i kind of want to point out, a few things. and the very difficult report to put together. and make it read so that everybody can understand it. and one of the directives that the director got was when we did pile all of this very

complex information and very complex data, that it would kind of articulate to everybody that you could see, and read it and understand it. and that was goal number one and i want to compliment the director on that. and the staff and i want to point out that this is almost 200 pages here, documentation for everybody to read and when i got the report, i was really happy of the fact that we could read through it and we worked very hard closely with mr. strong to do that and we had to make it as user friendly as possible. and i believe that we achieved that. and that said, i think that it is very important as a commission that we understand, who signed into this report. and we have had, the best engineers and staffers that we have in the department and we have had to sack people and weigh in on this and we have independent analysis, from different engineering companies two different ones from the same one, who talk detail and i

think that it is very, in this section f, it is very telling as to if anybody really wants to know what happened out there that it is in that report, that if it is with mr. tim madson and he explains it in detail why he believes that the house did come down and i think that is something that we have to kind of look hard at and give us the answers that we need. we have a lot of questions, to answer, and i have heard them all here today and i think because some of them are delicate, we cannot talk to them, i am open to having a closed session in our next meeting to discuss your concerns, with regard to the timely release of this report, commissioner, mar and i understand your question and it was an issue that brought it to me as well. and if you could come up for a second i think that you could and i think that it is important because we worked closely on the release and i know that one of the comments by one of the speakers here today, and so, before, i want to be very clear on this. when we did finally get the

report ready for to send it to the mayor's office, to let them know that we were releasing it, we did that and what was happening to us was the mayor's office we are told by the city attorney's office, that they could not release the report. and that it did sit there for maybe a week and a half. and the reason that they give us was because they wanted the gsa report to be released because of the directive that was given to the city attorney's office and then in return, the gsa when they did have the report finalized, and then they did make the decision to do a summary, which took another few days, and so, in the meantime, we had to sit

there and i think that there is an issue that we want to add something to that and i think that it is important for the public and so when we did get the okay to release this, if i am not wrong, or if it is something like 4:00 on a friday evening, and that was that we got the okay, or it was a thursday and i am a bit confused. >> and i believe that it was at the end of the day, on thursday. because, we did release the report, and send it to the commission, first, on friday, morning. >> right. >> and we did send it, and we send it out and, then, you were working to put it on-line, which your tech people and which, just said that they could not be done until monday, >> right. >> and that is not until monday because of the department of technology, that is correct. >> technology. >> and so i think that it is important, commissioners that that is understood, that everything was done to release this, once we got the green light to release it. >> okay. >> okay. >> one other thing. and on it, and in the report, it comes up with a lot of suggestions, and on how we are going to address the problems

going forward. and which i think that is what our fellow commissioners want to dig into and we will probably have that at our next commission meeting and i think that we are missing some staffers who are very involved in helping you with this report and the deputy director, and ed sweeny is not here and also, is senior, inspector reardon out here as well. >> he is on vacation as well. and it is fair that maybe on the next commission meeting, we can delve into the questions that were raised into the commission and going to the report in detail, and if we have to have a closed session, then we can in regard to the gsa report. and the inspections that are going out there and i want to also, compliment he is here in regard to the stabilizations and so the inspections in this report were asked that there be

two inspecters and if there is somebody here that can give us an idea of what is going on and maybe dan, i see you there and could you give me a summary on the inspections and who is going out? because i know that the director requested, that i want to know what the other commissioners concerns are on the ongoing process are out there, right now. >> what is going on right now, is that, the chief, and to go with the rodrico and the

contractor there, and we monitored it for the whole time during the movement and everything went very well. and we and monitor the ground and the stabilization. >> it will be the senior building inspector and along with the district inspector, too. >> and the special inspections and how do we hon monitor that?

>> as it is being performed and they are sending this in and the firm is sending in the weekly report of what is going on with the activity along with the special inspections. >> so, their goals and they are following this and as you are requiring? >> yes. >> and that is good news. okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and my final comments is obviously the structure is going to be the next issue out there and i think that everybody has answered the questions and i think that it is very important both for the commission and the ddi that we and to the public that this is now a planning matter. >> yeah. >> it is not a dbi matter. all concern was the open call to making the site safety and getting to the report and the comments and the conclusions of how this happened out there and which this report has done, and it is a planning matter now and i am really with regard to the house and where that is going to end up, we have no say in, and i am presuming that there are ongoing meetings there with

how, and that is going to play out in its jurisdiction and not ours. and that will close out this case and, once again, thanks everybody for coming out and speaking today and it is important that we are communicating on this and the next meeting if it is okay with my fellow commissioners we are going into the detail and kind of layout a road map of what we can talk about and what we can't talk about. >> director >> the gsa report, and we discuss in detail, and in the

closed section. >> you are in the middle of the active investigation of employees and potential disciplinary procedures and so it will be my recommendation that that report stays with the dbi director, and whoever you are working with. and the department of human resources and the city attorney's office. and if you need advice. >> and so, to i think that what the director is getting at, john, how would you feel about a closed session with this with the commission to be discussed? >> the been inspection commission has no authority over the dbi employees other than the director. at this point i don't see a basis for a closed session on

this matter. >> thank you. >> we will leave that question to the call of the chair and we will take it from there and i will get the further council on that folks, but, that said, if there is any more conversation? >> or comments? i see none. thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> and on to item 9. discussion and possible action, for the divisions to the administrative bulletin, ab093, implementation to the green

buildings.discussion and possible action regarding proposed revisions to administrative bulletin ab-093, implementation of green building regulations, as required to implement the 2013 san francisco green building code. >> good morning, we have an update, a proposed update to the existing bulliten. >> as you know in the code it went into effect on january first of this year, 2014. and in that, current version, it is expanded the scope of it, and of the buildings and occupancy that it covers. and i have got the father of the green building bulliten, mary hooper from the department of the environment who can tell us the major changes and the things that the efforts that we took. good morning, and i will just briefly take you through a couple of highlights through the revisions f