tion. i do want to thank a couple dbi's taras, and her staff, for providing a great deal of detail and back and forth with us to understand the financial picture of this department as well as controller staff room deel, and our auditor division to try to answer your questions, i know also the dbi staff can help with the specific departmental question questions as well. >> commissioner question for you. >> do they recognize publicicly funded versus privately funded? >> could you explain that. >> if you have a $3 million private enter rise versus a 300 million public, is there fee structure or the same. >> there was no distinction

between those maybe taras, has something to say. >> we have one fee table so it's the same fees. >> so it's kind of related. my question to commissioner clinch's question about one fee for all of the types of construction because as part of the fee structure, i read briefly, the city can take account, different projects for the public good versus projects that solely benefit the builder or the own r, for instance i was thinking about, we're trying to save older buildings, especially rent controlled residential buildings, so why would we not structure the fees for a remodel or tenant improvement, that would control

under the rent control, versus new construction which is exempt from rent control whether new sold or rental buildings, i don't understand why we didn't take that into consideration. >> taras, madison, department of building inspection basically, the fee table has been established forever, we're amending the 2008 fee table, when you charge fees the fees have to be as randy sunday before cost covering if you make a fee project, in essence, someone else is subsidizing that, that is not supposed to happen -- in some wayses you can do a deferral at the beginning of the project, but you have to pay because at the

end of the day commissioner walker's fees are supposed to pay for your fees pretty much. that's why the fee table is completely the same for the project, there have been discussions about waving fees, there is i think there is legislation right now, possibly waving fees for some of the apartment, and a plan review fee, there have been discussions about that. the overall fee table, you will see this any department inspengs there is one fee table to cover the cost of the service, the cost of the service doesn't change for a public or private or affordable housing, or nonaffordable housing project. >> commissioner walker please. >> what you are saying as we reduce fees for things that are public benefits like affordable house why, they end up saying the same rate at the end, it's just a deferral?

>> i'm not aware of us reducing fees for affordable housing it's the same fee table. it wasn't aware we actually reduced fees, for affordable housing, there is discussion now about waving fees for certain projects, at this point, all of the projects that come in they're using the same table, the table is one -- >> didn't we reduce fees for like a second unit program, was there a fee deferral. >> commissioner walker? >> department building inspection, that is the discussion of the waving of the fee, for the unit or [inaudible] but that is still in discussion by the board of supervisors, i think. >> but my question is, they can be -- reduced or waved by

legislation? >> yeah. >> does that factor into the bottom line? if we give enough wavers that it would actually bring our overage into balance more is that okay to do? >> a waver yes, i thought i was asking a generic question of, would you have different fee tables for different reasons, no, there is one fee table, then if there is something that the city, as a policy determined that, we want to do this, they would look at different ways to doing it. it wouldn't be a fee, it would be a waver okay these fees will not apply for a certain amount of time that would not happen yet, but that is the way to do it. >> that would be okay to reduce our -- not as a to reduce the

overage or fund balance, would the fund balance be reduced if the fees are waved? >> we have to look at each fee in particular. i guess it would be but the fund balance right now is going to be reduced. because just based on reducing the fees at this .7% because these tears, we are projected to collect more than we expect we would have to use fund balance -- i forgot what slide that was -- but that is the slide that shows you at x dollars every three years, you need 17 million to balance. in essence, we're doing that extending a 7% to everyone and we're also lowering though four tier it's general,

not for a specific -- >> deputy attorney this may get to the question you are asking we can only collect fees that are cost recovery based. so we couldn't continue to collect fees in excess of what our cost recovery is and wave other fees we still have to recalibrate our fees on a continual basis. >> like category or accumulate? >> it's my understanding, any fee we have should have targeted towards a cost recovery for that specific type of fee, and specific work, it can't be an overall accumulative basis. >> commissioner? >> i wanted to clarify i want to thank staff, they did answer my question, which is different

than commission walker's question i wasn't asking about fee waver, i was asking yes directly, do we have two different types of fees? if you are rent controlled tenant improvement remodel, i just want to clarify, my question is do we charge different fees for different types of projects and the answer was no. so thank you for the clear answer. [laughter] my follow up then is a policy question not to the staff or this controller's office my reading of the fee set is actually, the city can do this. because if we decide because my reading of the fees is that if the city reads the fact that your project or let's say a project is to the public good that benefits many citizens, and our legislators, and the mayor,

talking about the need to save rent control and residential unit, to me i'm asking that question, is that a public good versus a brand new apartment building condo the rental for sale that is totally market rate 100%. so i obviously, we're not doing it now. my follow up, i don't know if it goes to the city attorney or legislaturers, i will ask them, yes, we can have different fees for different types of projects is it under the preview of the bic, or is it under the per view of the board of supervisors shg we're not doing it now, i understand that was a clear answer, but can we do it? and who gets to make that decision, if we can do it? >> is that a question to me?

(overlapping speakers). >> i will defer to the city attorney on that. >> please run to the hills on that. >> deputy attorney marliny, burns, the board of supervisor sets the fees, and the body makeses a recommendation to the board about those fees. >> i'm fine with that love to talk to them. >> that is another conversation for another day, but as a priority, we do have policy in place to get the plan check but to the fees no. okay? >> thank you very much. >> i would like to make a correction to the tables in front of you, if you are taking an action for voting on this. if you look at table one p apartment license fee, that is a 7% for reduction, but that is

not charge for services rereduced the charge for services, that is a fee attached to the owner of the building for property bill, so we would say that we would keep it as it. >> what page is that on? >> that is actually you would have to look at item six. it's the red line of the actual fee schedule. >> sorry taras. >> i think it's table one p.. >> let me get it for you. >> i got it. >> this is the fee table that would change now it would include the 7% it will include eliminating technology surcharge. >> when my industry askses me we're talking about 7% with the

possibility of two more percent with the technology? is that the way you would sell it? >> well we're talking about 7% generally, with the 2% for the technology surcharge, if you look at the tiers it's going to adjusted slightly more. >> do we have it at 10%? or it's difficult to say because the only place it fluctuates is the building and plan review those are the two based on evaluation the others are strictly 7%. >> commissioner walker. >> i want to be clear, in the next few years, we're going to be losing money to get rid of our fund balance, you are actually putting in a set of fees, where we actually don't cover our costs. >> that's correct. >> it's called balancing the

books, isn't this? >> well, in some -- >> sorry deputy. commissioner lee. >> i apologize for missing the last two meetings, i realized i could have watched the meetings is there discussion provided by over-the-counter, versus submittal plans? i see some where in the presentation or in the package we recognize that possibly, why we're getting a big surplus is because we're getting efficient with the large projects a lot of projects are application submitted over the count ear counter. is there any of that into the decision? >> over study, it says we do it

-- the cost is less. >> correct. >> true. >> do we factor that into our study? >> so mgt, the consultant did not factor into the study he used that one of the reasons why costs are low, but as randy had said before shg the whole purpose of that study is if you bring in 15, the idea you should spend 15. so he identified a couple of things, if you look at the back of the report you will also see that dbi fees are a lot lower than places even though we're collecting a lot of money. all of that the purpose of the fee study is to say you are not supposed to be bringing in significantly more than what you are -- >> exactly, what i'm wondering is most of the over-the-counter projects are lower evaluation,

and they're paying more? they're paying the same as if it was the same rate as with the larger projects is that correct? >> well, so the difference between what the study does and dbi, fees for planning permit the study is based on hourly staff and some administration costs, plan review fees and building permits are not based on that it's based on evaluation later, you will learn more about the cost schedule. so that's the difference. the study did not say one is paying more than the other, in fact i think the study is saying, particularly for the large projects, there should be more tiers that's why we have those tiers. >> i see. okay. >> thank you deputy.

>> welcome. >> commissioners no more questions? okay, next? >> seven, there needs to be, i guess item six is for discussion and possible action there a vote on the building code fee table? >> excuse me can the motion include the change to table one p.? thank you. >> so the motion is i guess question if someone wants to have discussion and possible action to amend the code, fee table, one a-a-one a-q and one a-s including the changes to one p. >> i'm not ready to make a motion, i would like to generate some discussion. >> okay.

>> i understand the fund in balance, i know the problem with that we have to try to even things out i'm very worried about the fact that we still have a lot of pending costs that will exists whether the building boom continues or not, i'm especially worried about the need to relocate our officers whatever we're setting aside for the new office whether we have to build it buy it or rent it. part of the thing -- we're going to suffer the same problem that other people are suffering from from the building boom it's going to cost whatever we think is goes to cost i think it's going to coast more. so i'm worried about that if we cut our fees, i'm also worried about the fact that, some of the other things we have been trying to improve, which is our housing

division pushing more more routine inspections, we're supposed to do or pushing for more, the staff to do more to cut back on nov's, the notice of violations, that just kind of stand out there. that all requires -- we're pushing the staff to do a lot more, we have not hired everyone yet i know some of that is accounted for in the fee study but i wanted to raise those comments to my fellow commissioners. >> commissioner melgar. >> i'm worried about those things but i think our finance director is a rock star i think she has taken into account, the first of your two comments, i don't know about the second. that's what i would like to understand, what our process is going forward. because we approve our yearly budget every year in it there are a bunch of policy decisions, statements of our values in terms of where

we're going to spend our money and, you know, i hang out at the mission, where there's been a rash of fires, due to bad condition, as a gentrification, of the neighbor accelerates shg we probably will want to put more resources into inspections. and i think we have the lee way to do that. so my question is if we are decreasing that fund balance at a faeser rate than projected due to changing conditions or changing policy priorities what is then the mechanism for adjusting those fees? do we have to go through the whole fee study again or can we say well these are our costs, we went through it faster, because our policy priorities changed. then we can go back we would have to go through another fee study again,

the controllers office recognizing how volatile we are. as randy said earlier, we start the study at the end of 17, so by 18, we will have a new fee study in place if something happens f we find our spending down our fund balance quickly, if we find there were unfunded initiatives, the department has to take on that is impacting the department's fees too, that would be taken into consideration in the next fee study. as it relates to actual positions. we based our budget on what we can hire and increases there, taken into consideration, what the expenditures, we believe will be for the next year and following year. you hear this from me

every month, you can put a lot of money in the budget, but you can only spend so much at a point in time that's why we have had $70 million funds, budget and last year we spent 49 million. we're trying to be realistic, yes, we have to increase staff but recognizing the processing for increased staff, also, baby boomers are starting to retire we're filling positions, i can give you a long list of positions, i think we have done 30 since january, people are retiring too. with that net there. we have tried to be good at estimating do an accurate estimate, of our revenues sh and expenditures, based on what we think the expendures will be over the next three years, and the fund balance right now, the department would not be able to do what needs to be done. i

don't have a chrissal ball at this point in time it looks like we will be able to sustain ourselves. >> commissioner? >> i concur your thoughts, we are naming tea leaves here, i know it's part of the commissioner's to not reduce fees they fight hard to make sure that doesn't happen for a lot of reasons, because of programs, that need to be funded that have struggled in the past because of money that has not been there, i respect that at the end of the day we're man daters, to do this that is in our charter, that is correct, we have to deal with this the best way we can, and plan as best we can go forward, based on past experienceses, if things do change, i have total confidence

in our staff, and the city offices, to regulate and figure that outgoing forward, as we said in 2018 we could revisit this if we find situations, we are losing money and need to take a look at our fee structure again. thank you so much. >> is there a motion? >> did somebody call it? >> move to revise the fee schedule. >> second. >> a motion and a second is there any public comment on this item? seeing none i will do a roll call vote. >> president mccarthy yes. vp mar yes. clinch yes. lee? yes. mccray? yes. melgar? yes.

commissioner walker? no. >> motion carried 6 to 1. update regarding concerns with removal of debris in the candlestick park. >> on this what are the time frames, the three minutes for public comment? >> yes. >> three minutes, and presentation from the staff. >> it will be a staff presentation. and are you going to mention any updates about the visit? >> no. >> okay, then public comment following that. >> morning commissioners, deputy from dbi, i'm here on the demolition of candlestick park. per request last month, we have

inspectors going there on a daily basis, to observe the dust control plan we are satisfied with the dust control plan the area quality control project, along with the health department project since the last meetings shg we did have meetings with a dbi, we had meetings, with the clean air alliance group, and two more, to address our concerns, with the health department. with the quality management ocii, with the contractor they made some change -- (audio cut out).

>> for copd these are all things we're well aware of, both as a public health leader and as a medical provider we're focused on eliminating those disperties, for instance we have a federal grant, called reach. sen sense tracks, where population is at 30% of the population live at the poverty level and have low educational attainment, we have moneys to increase physical activity focus on after kin american and latino populations health. i see

past and present -- just like you heard in testimony in forms of current trucking traffic, permitted stationary sources, as well as lots of housing, that causes and exsass bate asthma i'm involved with that with a children's program and air quality program. if you remember with the air quality program, this is the exposure zone of our city this is where modelled air pollution is known to be higher in the very smartest particles 2.5, which are associated with the diseases i talked about. part of the baby most effected is the part closest to road ways and also permitted industries. and the bay view

this is a much smaller graph to look at, the second line 4.4 of the bay view parts are in that zone. unfortunately, parts of mission bay are even worse at this time. one of the speakers spoke about institutional realism, and trama this is a legacy, our department is involved in, 75 managers, have received a three day rational humility training, continuing today, 100% of the dph staff are required to go to trauma impact, to understand tra maw in our clients and population, in that context, that does form our work, that's why we have held the meeting, you have asked us

to hold for community member, all of our agencies to give entitlement, your agency, to grant demolition and construction permits, we're part of regulating daily activity we're obliged for this as with any other project. that is our method of operation, in this case, we have been asked to do more, we're providing daily spot check, that would normally in other projects, would be monitored by independent consultants, and asked to hold a forum of meeting with neighbors, and address their concerns the result of the interagent meetings, with the clean air alliance, you were provided with a handout from last night, unfortunately. 51815