monitor and track, but thank you for clarifying that. >> and just one other thing -- the misrepresentation on plans is as big of a problem as demolition. i don't know if you're getting all that, that's one of the issues that we deal with a lot. someone shows something in a building as existing that's not there. that's a huge issue for us and that's something that -- i'm a senior building inspector, what do you do with -- like if the city attorney wants to get involved, go ahead. i don't think anybody at d.b.i. will ever object to that. and if you want to change the codon the penalties, go ahead, that's fine as well. we're all for that. >> thank you mr. duffy. in regard to, i would close out the comments here but -- first of all thank you for the speakers coming out and discussing the conversation that was badly needed and it's been

an ongoing blackmark for our department we have been trying to deal with for many years and i concur with all commissioner comments on the next steps. i want to also point out, as a department we issue thousands of permits a year. and i don't want to minimize this, but i really think what we're dealing with here is a small fraction of a group of people who seem to be continuously coming across and doing the bad apple -- the bad projects here. i see -- as i breakdown today, i think one thing to start with -- i kind of direct my comments the the director and as a commission i think this is something going forward this year is going to be one of the top issues, is -- and mr. duffy touched on it there, representations on the professional plans submitted to

the department. and i think that is something we need to really focus on and have a purer policy and what is the consequences if you submit a set of plans not reflective of exactly the work of the permit issued. i think we could do a lot better job on that. i myself was very involved last year in discussions with contractors who are dealing with this on a daily basis and we had worked on some policy and procedures we did submit to director and that was submitted on to the planning department that helped make these plans more readable and helped make the plans more manageable for the inspectors to see when they were issued and i believe it went on to planning and then we heard no more about it. and so, that's something that i think we need to really kind of focus in on and help the department get a policy in place and procedure on that.

and i'm very clear if you represent a set of plans that is not what's going to be built out in the field, there should be consequences for that. to professionals. that's something the department needs if they're going to do their job effectively. i feel strongly about that. we -- the rouge contractors, let's talk about the rouge contractors, this is important to me. i know most contractors out in the city and i'm going to look everybody in the eye and say they're trying to do the right job. not one of them wakes up most mornings to get in trouble with the department. it seems after many, many years and commissioner walker and other people can talk to it, it's the same type of contractor that violates and they are getting away with it. we can sit here and argue what is going to be the final consequences to stop these people from doing what they do, i'm not quite sure if i have the

answers. there were several recommendations from the public comment and i have to be conscious and careful on this, to mr. reardon and mr. duffy's comments, we do have contractors who go out there sometimes and they cross their permit because they had no other option and they do the right things and get back to the system and apply for permits and have to pay for consequences for that. but i want to be careful -- permitting is a very important part of our process and we should not as we say in ireland, other people shouldn't have to pay the sins for other people. i think it's important to keep the permit process but keep it with grace and integrity and policies and procedures that makes our department do their job and give them the role they need to do. it's a narrow line and i'm conscious to the director that it's a slippery slope, we want

to stop the serial permitters taking them out to build something that was not approved and then there are the ones who are pulling permits and have to pull more permits because of the nature of the project. we call it unforeseen consequences. the unforeseen consequences and conditions out there on the projects change all the time. i think if you come back to the department and do the right thing, you shouldn't be penalized for that. i think that's another thing we need to focus in on. the policies -- the other part -- in conclusion and i thank the department for their conclusion and thoughts on this, one of the things that jumped out at me today and i would be interested to hear from the staff how realistic is the mandate to start work inspection would be a benefit to prevent

these occurrences. how good of a policy they would be. once again, do we have the man power and what are the criteria. how do we tick the boxes if that would help. so with that, rouge contractors, how we deal with them and not get confused with the good contractors pulling the permits every day and talking about identifying and department able to understand unforeseen consequences out there that the contractors do have to cross lines sometimes by error and as long as how they deal with the policies and procedures in place there. otherwise, i think it's a good conversation and other commissioners want to add on now. commissioner lee, did you want to add anything? >> misrepresenting the project on drawings is a serious problem. if the department do discover

some of that, could they possibly talk to the state consumer affairs board that issues licences to architects, engineers and contractors to see what type of complaints they could file with the state. and the state would probably be able to investigate and probably decide what to do with these contractors, architects and engineers. >> sorry -- good point there. i think i'm going to ask of you director, take this conversation here today and come back with policies and procedures that you think might be effective that would help us stop this illegal demolition of properties that are not supposed to be demo'd. and i think there's one more comment -- >> just -- not just misrepresenting the plans of what they're going to build but

what is there. people have talked about doing inspections upon sale and that should be part of the record so we update our data because we only have what we have in our historic data. and i think that that is an issue. and also that we realized that our partner in this is planning. and that anything we do, we should do in partnership with them and that really i hope that sometime before this year is over we have a joint building and planning commission meeting. so if our president could push that, i certainly will. i think there are these type of issues we have to be on the same page about and work as a team instead of against each other. >> commissioner lee. >> and approaching the subject for the department to respond to some of the developed policies and procedures. i'm just going to add, if the department feels there are

co-changes or legislation that needs to be submitted, to help solve these problems, please let us know. don't let it stop you from coming up with the ideas. >> we can forward them. >> director. >> good morning. tom hui building inspection. as president mccarthy mentioned, i think nine months ago we develop how to define demolition definition with planning and work with them and submit to them and didn't hear back. maybe we revisit. but after hearing from the public and commissioner concerns, a couple of things i want to do. number one, i'm going to go back and stop waiting for planning, maybe i can issue an interim information sheet about the drawings and demolition plan and which ones to remove and so

forth and certain procedures we're talking about before. regarding how to refer, myself is neither an expert for the state to discipline some of the engineers but it's difficult. it's not that simple, i need to talk with the city attorney because only a drawing saying it's representative, is it intentionally -- hard to judge at that point. that's a bigger picture, right now i cannot answer. for myself right now, maybe we do information sheet how to present drawing first and there on, we move on. reach out to planning and then we have actually very good relationship with all the planner and the director of planning. we talk about lots of issue.

somehow that issue gets dropped and -- >> and i think we have -- we start this year january and we set a goal, we'll talk more about the goal as to full understanding and how going forward the projects are dealt with and the consequences of it. we're going to have these situations. i mean, whether they're done intentionally or not, we're going to have these situations. i think it's the nature of the beast. there are bad performers out there and they'll take advantage of any system. those people in my book should be dealt with because we are paying the sins and a lot of good contractors out there have to go through a lot of extra hurdles, that's the way it is. because of these bad actor sins. that's what most of the contractors come to me and talk able mind policy procedures as long as it's clearly identified

of what is the procedures and policies regard to demolition. we touched on it there, we have come up with good ideas with the contractors color coding and jumping out of the plans of what must stay. if there's an issue with the wall, bring everybody else to discuss that the wall is going to collapse because of a, b and c. it's full transparency and that's what it is about and all contractors want full transparency and want the goal post to stop moving on them and for their inspectors to make educated decisions and that's what this is all about. when you do go out you can go out as inspector -- mr. reardon. i wouldn't call that a promotion. >> what i wanted to say is we do -- we talk about rouge contractors and what not, you

clearly identified that and i totally agree that 99.5% of contractors are good contractors and who want to do the right thing. we do have contractors that come in from out of town and we hear this is how we do it in napa or -- we see a building needs to be upgraded and we go ahead and do it. that's what we do here. there is that, too. just to make a point of that. >> not familiar with it. but -- you know, they should be familiar. i would have less sympathy. you go to new jurisdiction, the first thing i would want to do is make sure i understand how things are done. but to your point, i know it happens. hopefully you never hear from them again. that's the end game here as far as complaints go. okay. okay. i've -- if there's no more -- >> commissioner walker. if we can revisit it.

>> absolutely on the joint commission meeting. i'm tired of talking to myself about that. we have been talking about it all last year. >> the year before. >> the year before and it's not from the lack of trying. i will revisit. commissioner dennis richards has been very out there with me in regards of having the meeting and so on. i think there's a little more that has to be done to have it. i hear everybody loud and clear and will set a pledge to have that meeting this year. i think it's important to go there well equipped with good ideas. put you under pressure director -- how long do you think something like this would be -- comprehensive approach from the department to take to the planning commission would be -- >> and maybe planning staff, too. >> maybe -- the information sheet i'm talking about, i can go back to do it to modify a

little bit for planning, but the other one you talk about the penalty and all those -- >> yeah. >> we need to think about how to do it. >> that's a big conversation and i know legislatively it's going to take some work. i would say let's set a goal for the next maybe two commissions from now to have an update on how we're doing with the goal of -- maybe i'll have an update. >> maybe june joint meeting. >> maybe have a form of confirmation of a joint meeting to take our findings there with planning. and of course once again, i know commissioner warshell, i, commissioner lee, commissioner walker, we're all available if you want to have committees to discuss what is going on, all of us can be there or one or two of us. if i had to put a committee together on this, an official committee together on this, i will do that. you come back with your

recommendations to me, what is the best path to travel with this. so we set the goal to have this dealt with this year. >> okay. >> go back to item five. >> thank you for your patience. >> i'm with supervisor hillary ronen's office today the legislation is about expanding

and strengthening the all gender rest room law that was initiated back in 2016 and expanded to the state level. but this piece is to expand it to particularly support people who are living in our single room occupancy hotels, expanded for all hotels but really have that big impact for those in the transgender residents in these locations and many of whom still experience safety issues regarding something as basic as using the rest room. and so when the supervisor did this and i worked on the law with him as well in 2016, it's been really embraced by the city, you see in the public, and many hotels and rows have embraced it, but we want to

codify that and frankly members of transgender community came to us asking for the expansion. some hotels have it, others don't, can we have it across the board. this is just about a signage change. it doesn't require plumbing or additional changes. and just to give a few facts, sro's are home to about 30,000 people in san francisco. and many of them don't have private bathrooms and share toilet and bathing facilities with other residents. this law really is again for single stall, for shared rest rooms and context of hotels, it would be the bathrooms in the lobby or some area not within someone's hotel room. and this is not only an issue that supports transgender communities, it's for people with disabilities, parents with

child of a different gender and frankly all women who people who resist the long lines in women's restaurants and short lines in men's rest rooms but largely about safety and fairness for gender non conforming and transgender individuals and we hope you'll support this law and help us move it forward. thank you. >> thank you for the presentation. any other speakers on this? >> with he he have a community member. >> thank you. open to public comment. >> good morning jordan davidson. >> thank you for your patience by the way. >> i sit on the single room occupancy task force where at our june 17th meeting we voted in favor of the common use facilities be gender neutral. i pushed for the issue due to a hard fought campaign which was

successful. i led it in my hotel to change the sign for single use shower room and outreach where i served in leadership academy in which i reported in several hotels with single occupancy rest rooms with single signage for the building inspection and not be able to proceed due to the loophole in the law which brings us here today. as a disabled transgender woman, i didn't necessarily want this to be the first thing on the task force. i don't want to be solely known for amenities but we have determined this as a long overdue code change and i want to stress this is kind of historic. in my research i have found no gender neutral rest room law in the united states on either city or state level that covers residential settings nor that covers solely bathing facilities. so we're going to be leading the

way right here. and also i want to point out that i talked to several compliance trainers and they're reporting a lot of problems with sro operators discriminating against the transgender community. i would like to thank hillary ronen's office, especially carolyn moralas for working so hard and the sro collaboratives for support on the matter and task force voting on it. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. is there anymore comments? seeing none, close public comments. commissioner walker, please. >> i would move to support this legislation. >> i second it. >> and -- >> there's a motion and second to support the legislation and we've heard public comment. i'll do a roll call vote on the item.

president mccarthy. >> yes. >> vice president walker. >> yes. >> commissioner konstin. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner warshell. >> yes. >> it carriers unanimously. >> thank you for bringing this forward. >> item eight tracking system. >> commissioner walker will you cover for me? >> yes. >> good morning commissioners,

i'm with the department and department manager on the project. i'm happy to report as promised last month, we were hoping to wrap up our initial sessions where we work on exactly what the new system is expected to do and that was wrapped up at the end of december as we hoped. it was a major milestone. not to be underestimated -- and i must say director hui and his team they put the right people in the rooms at the right time. they pushed hard for dates, pushed hard to make sure we did our side and that the vender did their side and everybody worked very well together. and it was a major accomplishment to wrap that up. we had to spend a lot of time in december on walk-throughs and

sign off procedures to make sure we were all signing off and make sure we all understood what we were building and getting and it supported the business process in detail. in excrushating detail. the materials were all signed off. there were a number of prototypes for problem areas. those were completed and another part of what we have been working on, there are certain areas we were able to start development early to try to get the plan to meet the dates. one of which was the san francisco business task interface. that's been completed and tested and signed off at this point as well. i should point out a couple years ago, the san francisco business interface was oddly a big problem area, there wasn't even an approach how to do it on the table at that point in time.

so to see that that hurdle has been passed and we have a working product at this point in time is a very good sign. you will see, you know, maybe there should have been a ceremony changing of the color of the dots but now we're past stages two and three and on to stage four. in the next few months we'll focus on build, basically heads down development type of activities. a lot of reports to build, a lot of interfaces to build, a lot of scripting to make the application do what we want it to do and that's the focus of the next three or four months. so you'll see activities for the coming months, that's it. we have to wrap up some of the interfaces and we have a lot of reports to work on. d.b.i. lives on through reports, by reports even things like permits and notices, actually a

substantial percentage of the report counts as things like that. things you post on properties and hand people to walk out and officially represent that certificate to the city. so a lot of those, that's exactly what we're talking about, building of the next three or four months. so project health status is good. we successfully completed a major milestone at year-end and we are now engaged in the build activities. so that's the update for the month. any questions? >> commissioner walker please. >> just one comment, you know, the issues that we talked about today that you also patiently sat through, i mean, as a commissioner, those are the kind of reportings i would like to see about how often these type of activities happen and are we able to interface somehow, maybe as a commission on reports that

we would like to make sure we are able to get. is that something that we can talk about? not now necessarily but -- >> i would say if you have a specific report request -- >> discuss it. >> yeah, discuss it with the department. >> okay. perfect. great. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> thanks and great work. >> commissioner warshell please. >> following up on that, one of the issues that came up in the article was the other subject of multiple permitting, you never really got the scope of what was going on, do a little here, do a little there. and so i know this is a progress report, not a capabilities report but clearly one of the things that follows up from the previous discussion is how this new system will better tie

together for full visibility of all histories, so that the incremental permits not shield the whole impact of what's being done. so that issue is clearly one that is part of today's discussion. >> yes. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good job. >> any public comment on item eight? seeing none, item nine director's report, 9a update on d.b.i. finances. >> good morning commissioners.

deputy director of department of building inspection. before you is the financial report that covers for the first six months of july through december 2017. i'll take a few minutes to go over a couple of highlights and also, this report is slightly different than earlier reports, we have added and updated some information. i'll point that out when we get to that section. so basically, from our revenues, i feel like a recorder every month i say the same thing. overall our revenues are slowing but they're still very high. although the revenues are less than last year, we're still projected to collect more than budgeted. once again, i think in fiscal year 16 we ended at 84 million and last year 80 million. this year based on the first six months projected at 72 million , still over 5 million more than

budgeted. we started at a high level so we still bring in more than budgeted. the main reason once again for the revenue projection is primarily in plan review revenues. so, the first change that you'll see in the report, we have year over year attachment. so in that attachment it kind of gives you an idea of what i discussed before, you can see in the first section of the revenue sections, you'll see we collected 40 million in december july through december 2016, however, this year we collected only 36 million. that's of course $4 million less. however as i said before, the revenues are still going to be above budget. we're still projecting to be above budget. if you look at the last column, in 17/18 17/18,