interaction. we think t >> i guess that is all my questions. thank you. >> if you think of anymore, go ahead. commissioner? >> obviously i don't have the technical knowledge of this. but it is a delight to hear that you are making this strong outreach to new zealand, western canada, the other u.s. cities. i am assuming portland and seattle have been among the u.s. cities you had outreach to?

>> yes, we looked at the entire package, the west coast from seattle to san diego. >> okay. just for my layman's understanding of things. it would seem to me that japan, in particular, has been dealing with this and building up expertise, especially for high rise vulnerability. have you been successful in developing relations there as well? >> yes. through my practice, we contacted the engineers in japan. and naturally some of the conversations are the shoreline.

i think th-- >> thank you very much. commissioner? >> thank you. thank you all for this very important work. i am interested in the notice that was recommended. i think it is really important and i hope that we prioritize it and provide what support you need for doing that. it is significant as we know from just recent experience to sort of figure out the geotechnical aspect of what is going on in addition to the development surrounding the areas. i mean, we know that it is not just one building, it is entire neighbourhoods and what is going on around it. i hope we factor that in. i also just was notices about the training aspect of our

response. the folks coming in to help us after earthquakes that we make sure that whatever we develop here as a practice, i know that we do annual trainings and i think this is something that should be included whatever information that we develop with partnerships with other cities to make sure all of us on the west coast and around, we can help each other. this is an active zone as we see. we had response teams that came in to help with prior earthquakes to ensure we went into business quickly enough. i was interested in also the different levels of the triggers. i mean that is an interesting

aspect. so as we determine sort of how we are going to start evaluating these buildings in advance and after the fact, the part about this lateral, the gravity, the damage, the suggestions, i am really hopeful we can really look at that and figure out where those triggers are and where we want to start inspecting in advance especially. i mean i am glad to hear back from the commission. all of this information is really good to help us move forward and, you know, we need to as a commission be able to support whatever your recommendations are about how to get ahead of things. i really appreciate the work you all are doing.

whatever support we can offer. thank you. >> a question? >> another comment. i noticed in the presentation, we were talking about the recommendation for training and assistance. i think that is especially important for the ssi work which is as you know extreme and analytical. could you elaborate on that a little bit on the report? >> you know, this programs is helping out with training aspects. we would be happy to collaborate. and also sometimes i get calls in terms of opinions on some

technical aspects. the practice is geotechnical. >> i think it is safe to say they are expected to have the breadth of knowledge of dbi and dbi is to understand the small residential models and tall buildings and have to understand all the factors. in a way it is not fair to expect dbi to understand some of the issues that are extremely complex. there are not many to do the analysis. i would encourage that we have the strength in the peer view process or a team arrangement at some time that allows dbi to

have access to the likes of some of the firms that have the capabilities of doing this analysis. and also, some people listening to this may say why are we doing this. maybe 10-15 years, we have become aware of the importance of this. the time is now. >> if i could present evidence. if there is anything i personally or the team can do, we would be happy to accommodate. >> commissioner? >> just a couple of issues. the triggers to operate the building, it is a very important factor in your work.

i notice that the team have a lot of developers and real estate people onboard. i just wondered if you include the homeowners associations of the building. most of the homeowners will be paying for this. especially the residential towers. i think part of the sort of kicking the tires that we want to do in the next, 6, 7 months or so with this report is -- that is an important stakeholder, you know, and certainly if we think about, you know, the people already started to talk, okay, you talked about the tall buildings and what about the concrete buildings. we need to be prepared to talk

to the folks about those buildings, but yes. >> the other item was about the expertise and the resource available. it may not effect san francisco, it affects the entire bay area. >> i mean i can tell you, i mentioned to mention, the commissioner walker brought it up as well. we have good relationships with most of the west coast cities. i do think with seattle, vancouver, los angeles, there are not that many cities that have tall, complex building. we work together with them so you can bring people in. certainly in california. you can bring people from seattle or other places, it could be helpful.

>> all right. >> i am the member of the team, i wrote some of the portions. you mentioned commissioner, what programs would rely on the fact that engineers would come from other places to help out. we go to los angeles, we go to san diego. they come here. all of those things are attended to, the local community may be already taxed. the issues will come up. we continue the board program. it is never really a good time. we want to make sure the resources are in place. if they are not, what kind of adjustments can be made. the special program, the recommendation is to recognize

that most sap training is about the family homes and small buildings. if we want to use the volunteers, we need to be in a position to use the right volunteers, maybe have a special training program for them, maybe have a special certification for them. and i hope if we are successful with that, that will be useful to the other major cities in california and the west coast who will rely on our expertise and developers as well so we have teams properly trained to use the procedures in the downtown areas of the major cities. >> okay. first of all, we do have the task force to be set up.

a there are a lot of materials her here to make sure everybody has an input. there is information about how to get help when there is an earthquake. when there is trouble, you can ask for help. but before we do this, everybody has to come in organized. it is part of our job to make sure it organized. regarding the technical part,

you don't know what is brought before. we need to make sure the street -- the structure of the building, how the building is holding up. we have to make sure all the people are commissioned. we need to prioritize the different type of buildings. not just focus on the tall buildings. 200,000 buildings, i want to make sure they are safe. >> thank you. i just have a few.

i know one of the first presenters, i was trying to get my head around, there were 150 buildings.

>> it means the process of getting it repaired or getting it back up and running recertified is much easier and we think about these buildings and the impact they have on jobs and so forth, it is really important. >> it is a win, win, win, it is

good for the city because it relieves d.b.i. of pressure because the burden is taken by the building owners themselves. it relieves the assessment program to allow their trained people to look at the buildings they are familiar with and a relieves the engineering community because they don't have to scramble because they've done some of this work and they are already planning wet their responses will be for their tenants. they are dedicated and don't have to face those pressures. it mostly helps the owners. i can't say for sure, but i think one of the original motivations to get people incentivized to do it, they did not do much incentivize asian is without the program, the earthquake happens, we call in volunteers from around the state , they go out to a building , and if they they're looking for an unenforced house, that is easy. if they are looking at a complex building and all of the tall buildings in that category, it is not clear what you are looking at. there is a predisposition never

to put anyone back into an unsafe building. you may have people bending over out of an abundance of caution, yellow tagging or read tagging a building based on damages they don't fully understand. meanwhile you have owners getting pressure to leave it open to. and tenants getting pressure to get back into the building. and tenants putting pressure on the building -- on the owner to set down the building. all of those economic and personal business most of the gate does motivations doors motivations are in place. we recommend extending the board not just behind the current prop of tall buildings, but more buildings in general. it does have joseph just so happens that the incentives have been mostly understood by the large commercial buildings because they are more complicated and can be dealt with by the sap. >> when i see when the big one

hits and i see what has to happen in this town to get it back on its feet again, i am looking at okay, how do we keep -- you keep relieving pressure from our existing staff organizations that is in place. if i am a building owner and i own a high-rise downtown, whether i am an individual or an insurance company, why haven't i done this koala i'm trying to put this aside. it is a little cost to do business. is it a huge cost cost. >> it is not. apparently for those -- >> the upfront cost, if i'm building that building in the morning and i am getting assigned by the d.b.i., how much more is it to have this done so i know it is in place koala. >> it is more expensive than

doing nothing in the short term. it is much less expensive in the long term. i think the reason, not to be too philosophical, but the reason more building owners hasn't done as -- doesn't -- haven't done this is because they haven't retrofitted. the more they become familiar with the issues, the more they talk to their engineers and the more they talk to their peers and there is a snowball effect. the more they see the long-term benefit in doing it. >> is at an upside down idea to be thinking and talking to these potential developers as they are going through the process when they come in and doing their preset koala and then part of the condition of approval as you would consider this for the best interest of this city and for the best interest for the building. >> yes. i will refer you to recommendation 18 where we want to recommend that. >> we are giving a very strong phrasing that this is something you should consider for a particularly large building like

this. >> the city recognizes that as we develop high-rise housing and as we develop the complicated structures, it may be a cost of doing that and you have to be ready. you can't rely on the city to come in and help you do the after work. we are relying on you. you have the benefit of building tall in san francisco. you have to be ready for the long term. the city needs that pick your tenants need that and the community needs that. >> as you read in the newspapers , they are making headlines. what is san francisco doing quiet i believe we are doing this as fast and as quick as we can to keep up with this. it is constantly evolving and it seems like every couple of years we have a whole new set of circumstances that we have to look at and catch up on. is it legislatively a hard thing to do to get that type of

program in place if i am applying for a new building and everything -- it is a different kind of argument. but it is part of approvals. >> are you referring specifically to the work program koala again, i would want to defer to d.b.i. who has managed some of these things. but my impression is, i can speak to the ten buildings at the city has put into the program because i participated in those efforts, it was not a large effort. i do think that as we start to think about going to hundred 65 buildings that are over 300, over 240 feet, we start thinking about all of those buildings. we will be putting pressure on the administration of the

program. i do think we have to think about that and how to make sure that d.b.i. has a proper support to process these and to do it along with all of the other tasks that they have. my understanding is the way it currently is, it is not burdensome. >> thank you [indiscernible] >> that is what we should always say. we should outreach to the public first and encourage them and talk about them to the new building and may be we can do some encouragement for them to do. but one of the things i want to remind you is first of all, i don't like the engineers out of town. it is an emergency meeting to get from outside. and also, there is a limit to do

this kind of work. and because he or she is handling 150, for example, that is why we need to look at the program to see. even the contractor may be needs to be cautioned sometimes. sometimes they change to other businesses and then they close it and then every few years we want to recertify. >> okay. >> i just have a question. is there any accommodation with ensuring these when they sign up to a program like the board koala does it affect the insurance aspect of the building yet koala we have gone through this a lot with seismic upgrades

and the insurance company sometimes. >> can you get an insurance premium discount if you do that koala i'm not aware of any. >> we should, don't you think cost. >> to the extent that the insurance is covering the downtime cost, yes. it wouldn't really change much in terms of any actual damage if you had damage or not damage. >> unless you are signing up in the new construction and you pay more attention. >> we hope they pay more attention for that already. in terms of your downtown -- downtime cost, absolutely. >> to market help sometimes. >> to better practice we have in place, hopefully they will pay attention. >> thank you. >> mr strong, i know we had a tremendous outpouring of support in 89 and had many resources come to our aid.

obviously that will be a part of our resiliency going forward as well and we have seen technological advances which would make us think that our ability to outreach and effectively use them would have magnified over the course with the technological improvements and as the director said about local versus nonand reaching them effectively, i wonder -- i didn't see anything specifically here about developing a technological network with great redundancy to really have that capability insured and perhaps

you can speak to that a bit. >> sure. if i understand you correctly, are you referring to the notification of people that an event is coming or in the midst of an event cost. >> probably after an event and having any receipt -- resources identified and updated to director qe's point that with all the changes that occur, we have the most current information of where the resources are, how to reach them , and we are really using technology effectively to be sure that all available resources are effectively made available to us, and all the goodwill that would be felt after an event and to be creatively and efficiently channeled into productive use.

>> right. we have been learning a lot from the other disasters that are happening around us. and to some extent, it is taking advantage of technology and even early earthquake warning us are pushing it down in l.a. quite a bit. they are making progress there that we are looking at a very closely and we will be taking advantage of what they learn. and also being not overly dependent on technology. we know in santa rosa and in some of the situations the alerts didn't go out and the way you informed people was to go knock on people his doors. you need to -- we need to be reaching out to using multiple channels to do that. redundancy, like you are saying, and that is something i know that the department of emergency management has been done.

we have talked about that and we are moving those forward. interestingly enough, in paradise, they are coming back to look at our siren system and the communities that are susceptible to fires are now talking about getting siren systems. which is the oldest piece of technology we have in the city to inform residents. it is effective. i think in that respect, there is a lot of work going on. i think when we are talking about the sap program and mutual aid to, i do think that those -- there has been a lot of discussion at the state about whether those are sufficient. so the sap program and other programs, if we will be having the level of disaster that we have had, how often can a fire department spare 70 people while we were responding to southern california and the fires down

there in northern california at the same time. so there definitely is a sense that we need to understand the impact of these types of disasters from a mutual aid and statewide perspective. i don't know if that is a satisfactory answer, but there is a lot of discussion about and we are looking at quite a bit. i would also add there's technology we are looking at 20 with buildings and to better understand buildings i'm not as familiar with that. >> is a public comment on this item koala. >> good morning, commissioners commissioners. i am an attorney and i don't

have any clients asking me to speak on behalf of them today. i am not involved in the millennium mitigation or the litigation involving transbay centre. i am here because i have dealt with the d.b.i. occasionally for clients in the past and i am familiar with the methodology that d.b.i. uses with regards to the new high-rises that are being designed. i am encouraged today to hear that in light of the work and other things in kayaking and including some of the changes and some of your own local ordinances, d.b.i. will do upgrading. i have a recommendation. that is that in the course of supervising the development of the design for the new high-rises, d.b.i. retained not just the final design materials, but all of the materials that have been exchanged between the peer review team -- and the

reason for me -- for this is when i have an owner that comes to me and says we have a problem with the performance of a building, it is a vulnerability and we want to address it before the earthquake before there is a problem, one of the things about the engineer i hire is i want to see the original designs. including calculations for sophisticated structures such as high-rises which we have added to the stock in san francisco. currently, d.b.i. does not hang on to the calculations and the dialogue that occurs between the peer review committee and the lead design professional. as you have decided to develop this very nice database for the high-rises and other structures, it would be wise for d.b.i. to consider retaining that electronic record in addition to the final materials that get stamped and approved. the reason for that is when my

engineers that i hire try to get at the cause of the vulnerability and the solution to mitigate the vulnerability, they always go back to the original design materials and they are looking for the demand capacity calculations and computer simulations that are essential to getting these buildings approved. when they are available, the ability to sufficiently repair and get the facility back up and running is enhanced. if it is absent, it takes considerably longer period given the fact that most of this information is now digital and easily retained to, on like decades past with large voluminous printouts, the digital information i recommend is being kept as part of the ab 83 revisions that are in the pipeline. this would be consistent with the changes including your ordinance that was passed last year.

supervisor peskin was the author required with the retention of public records. >> i have to ask you to close your comments. >> sure. it would be consistent with the addition and changes that would be made to the legislation. >> thank you. thank you for your comments. >> i would like to add to commissioner walker's comments about best practice and insurance. lots of people don't understand that large businesses purchase business eruption insurance in addition to quake insurance, and the benefits that were outlined today really speak to mitigating the business interruption loss. i think if there was some outreach to underwriters and

insurance companies who sell business interruption, this could be part of the whole incentive. there is an economic incentive potentially in terms of reduced business interruption preeminent -- premiums. >> thank you. neck speaking -- next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm with the building owners and managers association of san francisco. we represent the high-rise building owners in this city and other counties. but basically the san francisco. those office buildings are members. i want to thank the commission and the department for our long-standing relationship with them. i know a lot of you for a long time and we have worked together including on the port program which was before my time. it was a very important program.

we do have some concerns, not with the report, that was well done. we want to make sure our members are at the table with mr huie and you all and any other stakeholders to ensure that existing building stock and any of the recommendations done by this great team have our involvement and take into consideration what an existing building built at different time frames. when you look at the report, it provides to you a detailed breakdown of the building stock in san francisco and when they were built. you can tell that they were built at various times. you will be interesting to see how my members react to how this commission and the department decides to enact any of those recommendations. i do humbly request that we be at the table to help override those and make sure that they are -- that they have not only the buy-in, but have the time

frame to implement them in a way that makes them. not only for the building owner but for the businesses within the buildings. i want to thank the team here who wrote the report. it was based on data. we appreciate that. there are recommendations that could affect building numbers and we want to be at the table to help write them and make sure they have the right timelines. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. is there any other speakers koala seeing none, -- is there any other speakers koala ? amending the building code to enact an expedited and streamlined process for solar energy systems in addition to other requirements. >> good morning commissioners. we have talked about this at previous meetings.

this is an expedited issuance of permitting. we actually had supervisor peskin introduces ordinance a year ago. it unfortunately fell through the cracks and we are now bringing it back. it is a little bit like the charging ordinance that you approved last month. we are looking for your approval so we can move this to the land use committee and right through the board. it essentially only codifies what is current practice at d.b.i. which is we do expedite the issuance of these solar energy reports. >> commissioners, any questions? >> does this mean that this doesn't have these applications that don't need to go through planning anymore? >> i'm sorry? >> did they have to go through planning?

>> there are certain types of roof structures if they are atypical. we do have to have a separate fire department review. otherwise, our electrical section is able to deal with these. especially at slightly lower levels. not all of them are major systems. >> did you have a question? >> his or any public comment on this item? seeing none, is there a motion to approve it? >> moved to approve. >> second. >> motion to recommend approval? >> who seconded? thank you. i will take a roll call vote on the item. [roll call]

>> the motion carried unanimously. the next item is item seven. discussion and possible action regarding the proposed ordinance amending various sections of the building, existing building, plumbing, housing codes to correct or clarify existing code language and reenact a long-standing permit requirement for fences in addition to other requirements. >> commissioners, these are a series of technical and administrative types of corrections and improvements at the city attorney has been working with our technical services group on. there is nothing substantial here.

they change things like titles and page numbers and that kind of thing. we would ask for your support in approving this so we can finish this cleanup of technical service code related matters. >> unfortunately, this c.a.c. did not consider part of these amendments regarding the plumbing code. so they are technically part of the amendment and the ordinance language that is before you now is not properly before you and has not been considered by this c.a.c. which cleaved off those provisions in the review. i would recommend approving the sections are recommending approval by this ordinance. it will have to go back down to this c.a.c. for review of those plumbing code provisions either way. the next stop is in the board of

supervisors. and other option would be to ask we separate out the provisions from the rest of the provisions at this ordinance. and recommend moving forward those provisions that are not in the plumbing code up to the board of supervisors. unfortunately, they need to be considered by this c.a.c. before they can be brought up to you and the board of supervisors. >> what are the plumbing -- do you know enough about the changes that are being suggested >> these are our processes for submetering requirements for multi- unit resident developments. unfortunately because there were some changes contemplated in the ordinance prior to the meeting, they did not consider those changes. they do not believe they had the recent version. it is in this ordinance but it was not considered by this c.a.c. >> it is -- is in a timely -- can we send it back and review

it again next month before the board reviews it? >> that is probably -- consider the other options and the remainder of the ordinance that we recommend, but we are waiting on final recommendation before it has been considered by this c.a.c. >> i would prefer that aspect. i would prefer that option to consider and do -- continue this until they provide complete assessment. >> i would second that. >> okay. there is a motion and a second to continue this item. is there any other public comment on that motion? seeing none, do i need to do a roll call vote? [roll call]

>> the motion carried unanimously. the next item is item eight. update on s.f. permit. project tracking systems. >> good morning. i am with the department of technology. i did want to first say that i did not update the date on the top of the page that you should have read the 14th of last week. apologies for that. the content is updated. as i informed last month, we are now in the mode of working on all of the items that came out of the last round of user acceptance testing. the severity one and testing two items. since last month, that has been

the primary focus for all of the entire project team. the d.b.i. testers, the developers, since last month, we've had a total of 280 of the severity one and two items that have gone through 16 retesting. meaning they are done. they are over the goal line. what is currently in progress are the things that are being worked on. we have 361 items that are currently being worked on. and to be brought to closure. sixteen retesting and enclosing out. our timeline for completing this phase of work is this is basically our work to get done before we can have another round of user acceptance testing. we want -- our goal is to have these remaining items closed out by the middle of january and then with a target of starting the next round of user acceptance testing in early february. what would happen between the

closing of these items and the start of the uht round which is part of our renewed focus on quality and making sure our next round of user acceptance testing goes much more smoothly, as we will have what we are calling our pretest around, which i talked about last week. we will be having the project team, which i am a member of, go through the user test cases and without the users user so we can go through them if there's any other issues. we will get them addressed before we have the users. we want the next round to be much, much smoother and not have a repeat of a number of issues that we have had. let's see. in parallel with the pretesting that we are going to do, we've also put in place some additional process improvements on the development side.

we have instituted some peer review and peer testing of codes we were before a single developer that would develop tests and promote their code to be tested by the users. we now have peer testing occurring within the development team which is a best practice to have someone different than a developer perform a test before we had that over to the business to test. so we are taking those steps on the advisement of the city c.i.o. and with the partnership in cooperation with excel a. we have come together to make these improvements so we get the quality in place so we can get this project completed and ready for production. that was the completion of my update. i'm happy to take questions. >> commissioner walker, of course,.

>> i am glad that we are able to set some goals for some of the testing. i know that we had personnel shifting around. are we okay with personnel on our end as well as their end cost. >> yes. the movements are complete and we are back at full strength. >> okay. perfect. great. >> totally unfair question, and it is just the interest of transparency, i'm concerned -- fused. >> the dates i gave out -- >> i know you don't know, but based on when we are going into late last year, we had a go live date which was moved. i get it because of all of the new work that has to be performed. so you are not entertaining until you get past the next stage or public phase?

>> the stance we are taking, which i think linda and gerald were the first ones i presented this body that talked about this is as -- i know many of you, you are veterans of the first project. and me as well where we had a series of dates that weren't meant to. we don't want -- >> and commissioner lee. apologies. we don't want to have a tumbling go live date scenario to continue. what we are really looking at, and how we are operating is passing the criteria, which is no severity coming out of the user acceptance testing round. once we get through the next round of testing, if the quality is there that we are planning for and engineering for, then we will be able to have a go live

date. and then we know that we have quality product that we will be able to actually meet that date. we don't want to put a date out there and failed to meet it. >> that sounds good. i have had three or four people who have asked me about this. >> one of the things that i am heartened by is that prior to this, prior to last month, we were not even able to run through the whole system because there was things that weren't working to allow people to go through the whole process. so now they are doing the whole process and finding out where the targets are missing, and they are not bringing in the right data. and the 700 different fees that we charge from various departments. so they are mapping everything correctly and correcting all of that. i am heartened that we are going down in those numbers. we fixed 280 if there are 300 left.

it is now just chipping away -- literally, if you look at the fact there are several hunter 700 fees in the middle of this process, the fee structure change with the board of supervisors doing different legislations. it is a moving target as well as a lot of data. i am heartened, and i think by the time january or february comes around we will be able to have a date. that is what i am hopeful for. >> i'm just telling you what i hope for. >> we on the project team want this other data as well. based on quality results. >> it is just transparency. i think there's a group of people who keep asking me and we went from a large group -- i would rather that next time around we do it.

thank you for your updates. >> public comment? >> good morning. my name is jury. with the implementation of the cell in the next few months, it is important to discuss two areas of building code enforcement that should be improved with the implementation one, will the implementation have system controls to protect the alteration, deletion, or replacement of citizen complaints in the permanent tracking system? this problem currently exists in pts. and two, will the system accept the submission of photos with citizen complaints?

i am told d.b.i. has a policy for acquiring a building inspector to witness a complaint and will not accept photo documentation of proof of a violation. current d.b.i. enforcement policies are from the 1980s and 1990s. they need to be updated to recognize that many citizens of san francisco have smart phones and photo documentation and can be important for code enforcement. thank you. >> thank you. is there any more public comment seeing none, henry, whether you have the answers are not, we want to go through those points. >> i do want to qualify my segments. i will only answer from the technical capabilities of the system and others would be more perfect to answer the policy side.

in terms of controls to prevent deletion of complaints over any records of that matter, there are only -- there are no abilities for end users to delete records. no one within d.b.i. can delete records. that would only be -- the only folks i would have that capability would be application administrators, which are the rare and few folks that are part of the d.b.i. scene. but again, the policy is actually no longer needed. it gets marked complete by the history remains. even when a permit or complaint or any of the d.b.i. records have finished their lifecycle, there locked down from changes and they are marked as complete or expired. the second point about photos is the system is -- we do have the feature to attach photos to

inspections and attach them to complaints. effectively any record that a customer would originate or a request for a report, there is a capability for them to attach any kind of a document you can put onto a p.c., a photo, a document, could be attached to the record and would remain on the record for the life cycle and be retained as well. it wouldn't be deleted. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. the next item is item nine. director's reports. update on the d.b.i. finances. >> good morning. and the deputy director for the department of building inspections. before you as a november 2018 financial report and it provides revenues and expenditures for july 2018 through november 2018

and i will just highlight a couple of things. on the revenue side,, we collected about 28 million dollars for the first five months of the fiscal year. slightly above the 27.3 that we collected last year. we are about even to last year. on the expenditure side, we expanded about 23 million dollars, which is a little bit higher than last year here primarily because of two things. we have a lot more work order buildings that have come in earlier, and also this fiscal year, we have an extra pay period in the salary. so that is why salaries are over basically those two reasons are the reasons why we have collected a little bit more and spent a little bit more. our projections on the first page of the memo is that we like to wait six months before making true projections to see if we see any trends or things like that. i am willing to answer any questions. >> thank you. thank you for that updates.

any thoughts on the budget in january? do you think we would have two hearings class. >> we are required to have two hearings. we may need to -- we anticipate a lot of changes to the budget, primarily because of 49 south van ness. we are working with a variety of other departments to come up with that budget. july 16th, january 16th, which is the actual commission hearing, may be too early to give your true budget of what we need to. we will have to do something in january a little bit later to have a true budget for you. and then we will do the second hearing at the february 1. >> thank you. thank you for the clarification. >> item nine b. is update the proposed or recently enacted legislation. >> commissioners, i will just

call your attention to the distribution earlier and three different ordinances that are newly submitted this past week before the board took its winter recess. they are now on and won't resume until january 7th. but supervisor peskin has now introduced an ordinance to address illegal demolitions that we know we have been talking to the supervisor's office and colleagues at planning. this is something that halves been in the works for quite some time. it has been moving forward. according to the supervisor, he expects a lot of activity in february and march on this and in between. there may be some stakeholder feedback to the way the ordinance is currently drafted, and won't be -- we will be working closely with staff for

proposed changes. the other two items have to do with the vacant building and small business streaming. the mayor and supervisor brown has introduced a small business streaming ordinance to amend the health code and the planning code on flexible retail the idea that we can activate the vacant storefronts for uses. and there is a d.b.i. element here about when an inspection may be needed and it is tied specifically to an entertainment situation that we want to discuss and go further with the supervisors office and the mayor his office because there may be

life safety situations that could be coming up in such a space that we will have to address. we don't want those to fall under a blanket because you have had an inspection in the previous 12 months. we are okay with you going ahead to another use. so assuming that we don't see too many of those kinds of special situations, and i think that we will be enthusiastically trying to promote this and support it to take advantage of so many of these vacant buildings. the final ordinance is by supervisor fewer. that is essentially a revision of supervisor tang and the original vacant storefront ordinance. at eliminates the 270 day grace period that currently exists. i thank you know that if we get

a complaint about a vacant storefronts, inspector goes out. once that is verified, a notice of violation is posted. we do not enforce that for the following 270 days. that was deliberately from supervisor tang, and ordered to give the owner of the building and opportunity to find a new tenant and ultimately to reactivate the space. so under the new ordinance, that goes away. and a couple of other requirements such as registration within the first 30 days as required with payment of that $711 fee. if that doesn't happen, a follow-up notice of violation, which quadruples the registration fee too close to $2,900. we also will require the buildings to have an inspection within 60 days.