>> hi. i'm a wheelchair user. i need to use blue zones frequently and i do find them to be really helpful. i think they are abused by people who are not disabled. and think that's a separate issue. it's an important one, but i think it's separate. they recently added a blue zone to a park, holly park, near me. it was a huge help. the blue zone is nowhere near the entrance, but it did help. i think blue zones are worth adding because that says specifically this is for disabled people. and i think that's what is really lacking. a green zone or white zone does not say that. and we have to compete with über and lyft drivers and cab drivers for my caretaker to drop me off at the hospital. i also think that when you cite people for violating blue zone especially, where does that money go? let me ask again?

where does that money go? i think it goes into the general fund. it should go to disabled people. it should go to disabled services and programs. don't just collect money and cite people who are harming the disabled population and use the money for somebody else. that's a problem i see. also i want to know what sfmta is doing about private bus drivers blocking bus zones. in my last two hearings with sfmta, which were horrible, the level of discrimination from sfmta against me for my disabilities has been unreal and is well documented with all my e-mail communication with mod. my last two ada hearings, both of which were because a driver would not pick me up, a muni driver would not pick me up in a bus zone, this is a bus zone, not a flag stop. the appointed officer in both hearings used obstruction of the

loading zone by private companies as an excuse for not picking me up in wheelchair. i don't feel i should be punished not getting on a bus because someone is blocking a bus zone. my last hearing was friday last week, specifically, they said that there was construction and that explained why the bus driver didn't have to pull up to the curb. i couldn't even get into the bus off the sidewalk. so if you're going to have construction in a bus loading zone, build a temporary ramp. if you're going to tell people that -- [bell ringing] -- there is construction that's why the bus driver want stop there, build a temporary ramp so we can get off the sidewalk. they did it on van ness. they have a great temporary ramp just a few blocks from here. they're doing better, but i would love to see more efforts in that vain. again, i think blue zones are great. i want to say i'm very much of the limitation, the time limits

for green zones. it's been helpful for loading and unloading and -- [bell ringing] i don't think eliminating disabled peoples' access. >> ms. senhaux (chair): number 9. public comment. items not on today's agenda. any speaker cards? okay. staff? zack? >> hi, i just -- i want to express concerns that i have for the way these meetings are held, but also i think the meetings are a good thing and it's why i have these concerns. i want to make that clear. the reason i fight for better access, i want people to know about them, they're good meetings. this time crunch we get in is a

problem. there is only been like two or three public comments today. and i feel like the council could do a better job of allocating more time for public comment. and not making us just like crunch in. i think that there could be better outreach for the meetings. at the peak of the meeting i think there were 10 people in the audience. and someone spoke today they wished they'd known about the meetings a long time ago. i have been here before speaking about how to do outreach through hospitals, organizations that disabled people commonly go to. i didn't hear about these meetings for an extremely long time. many, many years. i would have loved to have known about them sooner. i spoke just a minute ago about my hearing with sfmta on friday. it was appalling. i was bullied for two-and-a-half hours for a hearing that is

supposed to be half an hour. they refused to record it. they refused to allow me to record it. even just myself. and so there is no documentation of what was happening in that meeting. the hearing officer, so-called neutral officer had leading questions, informing the driver how to give their testimony. refused to let me ask the driver questions directly or the muni representative directly. i still don't have working evidence, public video footage that i requested multiple times. they've not given me a functioning evidence. a slew of unbelievable -- they cancelled my original hearing and tried to do all sorts of slimy stuff around that. and just an incredible degree of ableism i've not experienced with any other organization in san francisco. and i've sent a lot of documentation to mod about that incident and would love it if mod would take a stance and do

something about the corrupt ada hearing processes that are not at all neutral, not unbiased. they're extremely biased. and they -- [bell ringing] literally help the driver come up with excuses why they don't pick us up in the middle of the hearing. when i try to talk, they yell over me. it's terrible. i want to reiterate the point, of making the notices on trees accessible for disabled people when dpw want to cut down trees. those trees are gone forever. i ask that this body ask dpw to suspend that -- [bell ringing] for disabled people until they can make the notices accessible for disabled people. thank you. >> ms. senhaux (chair): thank you. one more public comment. flo? thank you for waiting, flo. >> this is my first time here

commenting. my name is flo and i'm a san francisco resident, a native, born and raised here. now i'm an adult and i have children and as a parent, i come here to talk about, there is issues, times i've been very frustrated in my communication with city agencies. they've asked me to lip read, or i feel stress and i asked them, can you provide an interpreter? they say we don't have anyone. you provide other languages, why not provide asl? and then, well there is a service called video relay interpreting, or video phone interpreting. in the event they're unable to find a live interpreter, you can go to the app, this software service and there is asl interpreter and i can have access to the services.

here when city hall surprised they have a video interpreter before for that exact service in city hall, but then was moved to another department i believe the mayor's office on disability, but i believe that service should be available not only in city hall, but other city agencies. i'd like to see every city agency be helpful and work together to provide access for asl users as opposed to being separated. i feel i've been discriminated than other people who have language access issues. i'm requesting that the barriers be removed. i'm not the only one. i have friends who are deaf who are afraid to approach the city for help because of this issue. i'm recommending we take action. and i thank you for your time and attention to this issue.

>> ms. senhaux (chair): thank you, flo. any more public comment? we're going to close public comment and go on information item number 10, which is correspondence. >> nicole: there is no correspondence today. >> ms. senhaux (chair): we're going to move on the information item -- >> quick comment. >> i have a quick comment. i want to thank you for your patience. flo was struggling, she was asking me who should i talk to and was very frustrated. so i think the problem really is that there is a system out there, video relay interpreting service out there, but it's not being taken advantage of. and i feel that in many agencies have this attitude of looking at people who are deaf and expecting them to lip read. which is very offensive. and really, i think they should be saying how can we communicate

best for you? it's language access. i needed to put that in there. thank you. >> ms. senhaux (chair): information item number 11. any council member comments? >> yes. two things, there is an event i would like to mention. one of my colleagues, city college, informed me about. and it is called coming of age stories by people with disabilities. it's friday, september 27 at 6:00. at a temple and the address is 290 delores street. it's a book of best voices of disabled writers. and it should be very interesting. i plan on going.

i just wanted to mention that and get that on the record. >> nicole: if you could send that to us, we'll make sure it gets out to the distribution as well. >> great, i'll do that. and then the second thing is as a new member, i also have a question. is there some way we could hear back -- when people make public comment and you are responding to them on behalf of the council, or behalf of the staff, is there some way we can be in the loop of how that communication went? >> nicole: yes. so you'll learn at your first executive planning meeting on tuesday that we have a process by which we delegate how the council is going to respond and what the response is. >> great, thank you. >> ms. senhaux (chair): thank you very much. i'm going to proceed to adjourn. i thank everyone for their time and patience for the meeting going over. and have a nice weekend. ready .

good morning, today is wednesday , september 18th, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn of all electronic

devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item is item be. the oath where are part -- all parties giving testimony please raise your right hand and stand. do you swear the testimony were about to give is a truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you, you maybe seated. for information his, we want to state the department will present its case first then the appellant. each individual has seven minutes to present their case. next there will be public comment. the members have three minutes each. lastly there is rebuttal time of three minutes. the next item is item see, approval of minutes great discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on august 21st,

2019. >> move to approve. >> we have a motion and a second is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. our next item is item d., new appeal order of abatement. case number 6864, 232 talbert street. action request by the appellant for more time to complete the work. please come forward. >> good morning, commissioners. i am the chief housing inspector for the last ten or so years, our cases have been presented by myself or rosemary, the former chief housing inspector, but we

do have inspector larry who has done an excellent job managing our district in the excelsior. he has recently been promoted to senior housing inspector. >> good morning, i'm jim lowery. i'm acting senior housing inspector. the subject property today is located at 232 talbert street. the notice of violation was issued on october 25th, 2018. the subject of the notice of violation was an unsafe interior staircase going from the second floor to the garage, it is secondary to the main staircase which is at the front of the house. it is a bungalow style home with a winding exterior staircase on the front. i have some pictures.

the staircase is a bad angle. the tread depth is not correct. the picture is in your packets. i am referring to the picture that is labelled noncompliant staircase showing angle and existing railings, it is dated october 25th, 2018. the second picture i have, which is also in your packet, is a picture of the staircase with a tape measure showing the tread depth, which is certainly less than ten and a half inches. if you look at it from the top, you will see there's just slightly more than 2 inches for someone to land their foot on that step. finally, on september 5th,

2019 at a subsequent inspection, the staircase was removed completely so it is no longer there. there were two permits pulled. the first was to repair stairs inside from the upper unit to the garage to correct the notice of violation, that permit was issued on march 8th, 2019. then there was a second permit to remove connecting stairs from upper units to garage to comply with the n.o.v. there were some other items that were on the permit that was filed june 19th, 2019. >> our pictures are showing that we had some technical difficulties. sorry.

>> okay, so this is the staircase. that is the bottom. you can see there's no rail on the outside of that staircase, but a rail on the wall that is not compliant with any code. this was rebuilt at some point, as you can see. this is the staircase removed at the subsequent inspection. and then here is the picture of the stair with the tape measure so you can see that the tread depth is not correct, and as i said, there's barely over 2 inches to land a foot as you come down. >> excuse me, we have a question >> hi, you said a minute ago there was a second permit pulled for removal of the stair. >> it was filed, it was not issued. >> okay. thank you.

>> is the home tenant occupied? >> yes. >> what is the original staircase? >> the original staircase was in the front of the home on the outside to get to the front door , and this is the staircase which is typical of these homes. it goes from the second story down to the garage and interior staircase. >> was there an original one that they replaced? >> this obviously has been replaced. it looks like new construction. i don't know when this construction was done or when that original staircase was removed. it does not look original. >> commissioner walker? >> yeah, it looks to me that there was a legalized unit on the ground floor added to this. it kind of looks like an afterthought, is what i am saying. the staircase in the back was added. you are saying that is normal for houses to have a staircase

down? >> yes. >> is this because it's a two unit and we inspect these on a routine basis? >> this was based on a complaint that came from the tenant. >> i see. >> that complaint was received by us. >> it seems like it would have to also be fire rated to separate the garage. i don't know, but -- >> typically these staircases, when originally built, were part of the original construction. whatever code was in effect at that time was the code that we would enforce, however, obviously this one has been altered or rebuilt at some point >> so we are saying that they first got a repair permit, they didn't repair it, they filed for removal, but it wasn't issued, and they removed it anyway. >> that's correct. >> and now that they've removed

it, they are subject to new standards, not repair. >> that is correct. and we asked them to file a permit with two sets of plans to rectify this. >> okay, and the lower level unit, is that a legal unit? >> our reports said two units. when the owner came in initially to discuss this case, he had a piece of paper that said it was a two unit building. it is not clear if there was ever a single change of occupancy from a single-family home. >> okay, well, it probably is worth checking the records if it has ever been legalized and if it isn't, obviously we want as much housing as possible, but we want to make sure it is done safely and properly. >> absolutely. >> this case is sort of indicating that there may be

some question as to whether things are always done with permit and to correct standards. i would really appreciate you are looking into that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> so the department is recommending -- we have found that the condition of the existing staircase represents a life has it to the occupants of the building. -- a life hazard to the occupants of the building. the department is recommending the order be upheld and all costs incurred by the department be assessed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the public -- the appellant can come forward.

>> good morning. i just want to make a correction the owner of record -- i am the owner, along with my wife. i just wanted to find out the owner of record and appellant on this notice of meeting, the address is wrong. >> thank you, we will note that. >> thank you. i bought the building, my wife and i bought the building in 1997, and this structure, the existing structure was there, and according to the three r. report, it was a two tenant unit we stayed there for three years with our children and then we

moved out to another part of the city and rented it out for the last so many years. there were tenants living there, low income housing. the stairs the mr. larry pointed out was already there. there was no original stairs that i know of, so i just wanted to present to you that i am here to comply with the law and i want to do the right thing to be able to fix it and legalize it. i just want the consideration of the board to reduce the charges because we just had my daughter 's wedding, it was a pretty expensive affair. i'm kind of low on my finances. if there is any consideration

given to me to be able to deal with this, i will be able to work with the housing inspector and other departments to be able to comply and make it code compliant. my contractor his is going around looking for parking. he just texted me saying he still hasn't found parking yet. >> any questions, commissioners? >> server, it mentioned that you owned other properties. county properties do you own? >> right now i live at may the property -- at my other property i have been living here for the past 26 years. i am a member and minister of third baptist church.

the city has been good to me. i came as an immigrant, but the church, the community, we worked very hard to be able to get to where we are. both of my children went to the public and private schools in the city, and now they are physicians. one is a psychiatrist and one is an anaesthesiologist resident in san diego. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, is there a rebuttal by the department? >> the department would just simply ask that it be upheld and the cost assessed. this has gone on for almost a

year now. there are some other issues in the building, as well. whatever you folks decide i think would be -- we will have to live with. >> thank you. >> i have a question. >> commissioner clinch had a question first. >> does the code require an interior set of stairs? >> there is some conjecture as to whether it is a two unit building or one unit building. the owner approached planning on the permit that he has filed to remove the staircase and there were some issues there. planning asked him to go to records management and pull records to the property history to see if they could come up with a conclusion to that. >> as an engineer, i would thank

you have an exterior set of stairs with the upper unit in the bottom unit has egress through the garage or through the side door. i wouldn't think an interior stair would be needed. >> that is possible with the occupancy. only one exit from each unit is required. >> it seems like a very simple fix to simply get the permit and get the stair removal accepted. >> you are correct, yes. >> commissioner walker? >> i'm just checking our permit records, and it magically went from a one family dwelling to a two family dwelling in 1995 or 1997 without any permit. i don't see how that happened. so what do we do in a situation like this? i mean, i'm likely to uphold the order around the stairs, but i think that this is kind of a bigger challenge that we haven't

gotten into, it just automatically shifts from a one family to a two family without any building inspection or anything, so i know that's not before us, but it concerns me. >> the building inspection division can do a check and it can be an administrative permit to change the occupancy or they can require that a building permit be pulled to upgrade or legalize. >> again, i understand our colleagues in planning are involved in this and i'd like to be sure that not only are we doing what we think is right from building's perspective, but since this also does involve planning issues, that any decisions made today, any further information is correctly and properly forwarded to planning so that they can stay

in the loop and be very aware of everything we are doing. >> understood. >> thank you. >> any further comments? okay. thank you. >> i just wanted to request for six months time for me to be able to fix this. >> okay. >> thank you. discussion? >> i think we did public comment >> rebuttal time is over. is there a motion? >> i think we need public comment. >> we did public comment. >> commissioner walker? >> so it's hard for me to look at this without thinking about the fact that this hasn't been evaluated for the second unit,

so i don't know. i would tend to want to support the order of abatement, but the solution may be more connected with the bigger view of the unit count, and inspecting what is there. so i'm trying to figure out if we should continue it to deal with the whole thing or support the order of abatement, upholds the order of abatement, including fees, period. >> okay. any other comments? okay, my feelings on this are that john, you know, again, we

have a situation where when we go in and we see one issue, and then we find there are potentially others, it does behoove us to make sure that we are not so narrowly focused that we also are cognizant of the implications of the other issues we discover, and that we are very aggressive on seeing that our colleagues in planning, in an instance like this, are aware of what's happening so that a correct solution to the entirety of the building can occur. i know there have been criticisms in the past where we've looked very narrowly at exactly what the complaint is, trying to stay very focused, and

concern is that we haven't been as aggressive about addressing bigger issues, which we have become aware of, and, you know, this is definitely a concern. so i would have to agree at this point that we uphold the order as correctly written and assess all costs. i would move that we do that and should there be any way that as this gets to planning, and it proves impossible for the owner to execute his plan in a timely way, possibly they could come back to us and we can reconsider from information we have now, it is compelling that not only was

the staircase removed and a permit was filed for, but now no permit was issued. that is a serious concern. clearly the condition was unsafe even if it was an existing condition when the owners bought the property. feeling sympathy for a small property owner, especially renting to section eight low income tenants, i do feel compelled to uphold the order as correctly written and moved to assess the cost. >> do we know the cost? thank you.

[indiscernible]. >> we have a second. >> brad rusty, city attorney's office. two clarified the motion to make clear for the property owner, once a board makes its decision on this case, there is no procedure for the appellant to come back to the board and request reconsideration. just to make clear if the motion >> thank you for clarifying that >> so in that case, i would just have to stay with the uphold and assess cost. >> so the motion from commissioner marsh is to uphold the order of abatement and assess the cost on the basis that it was properly issued. >> correct. i believe it was seconded. >> thank you. we have a motion and a second. i will do a roll call vote. [roll call]

>> the motion carried unanimously. our next item is item e., general public comment. general public comment for items that are not on the event -- bent -- abatement appeals board agenda. seeing none, item f., adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> moved to adjourn. >> second? are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. we are now adjourned and we will take a five or ten minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you.

we are ready to begin. good morning. today is wednesday, september 18 th, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] commissioner moss is excused. we have a quorum. our next item is item two, president's announcements. >> good morning and welcome to i announcements onto timer time or 18th, 2019.

if i mispronounce anybody's last name, please forgive me. thank you to tom who spoke to a delegation from south korea's local construction safety center about san francisco department of safety inspection to ensure the buildings in san francisco are safe for residents and visitors. stefan provided a great overview of d.b.i.'s permit process for the restaurant owners and the efforts that the department has made to streamline these process -- these processes in the recent years. i'm looking forward to seeing more feedback on that. we really need to do everything we can to keep that process as smooth and as productive as possible for these businesses so

they can get their goals. thank you to david jones from our clan review service team for taking part in the presentation on the permitting process of a.d.u.s with a small property owner institute. thank you for your reference to educate stakeholders on this important program. i'd like to commend our very own commission secretary, sonia harris, received a very nice note from a longtime customer thinking for her for professional, respectful, and very competent service to the building inspection commission. thank you, i know you are in the frontlines all the time and you get no credit. finally, there is somebody out there who gave it to you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to matthew from the technical service division who received a letter stating he was very helpful in accommodating details when helping a senior customer with their home improvement project. well done. those small little thank youse are important. a letter of appreciation was also sent to mr. shaw of plan

review services for helping a customer through the process of getting parking permits. the customer said she was great and consistent with her service and was very kind to her. a big thank you to others from the central birdsall -- building permit to received a letter from a customer thanking them for resolving a difficult case regarding missing address. thank you for that. congratulations also to director he we who participated in another seismic safety outreach program graduation in chinatown last week where another 70 residents graduated for a five -- from a five day training course. that brings the total number of seismic safety ambassadors to nearly 4,000 since the program began in 2015, and that means we are better prepared to respond and recover quickly after the next big one. well done on that, particularly on the 4,000 people qualified.

earlier this month, the director took part in the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the new chase center. well done, director. special thanks to you and your team for everything you did to ensure that the project was completed and ready to go on time. what an incredible achievement that was. was it done under time or was it right on time? right on time. i know that was monumental. it was a sprint from the minute it was approved to get it done. i know the inspectors worked really hard on their. special thanks to all the d.b.i. staff and management who worked hard to ensure normal operations when many of their colleagues were taking part in a mandated training at the work conference. i know it is hard to juggle schedules and duties, so we appreciate the efforts made to ensure that services to d.b.i. customers were not disrupted. i know everyone has to do double duty in times like that. we appreciate it all in the

interest of getting better service. that concludes my comments. onto the next item. >> thank you. is there any public comment on president's announcements? seeing none, item three, general public comment. we will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning, my name is jury with the san francisco land-use coalition. i am going to repeat comments i made at the august 29th planning commission meeting regarding one of four unpermitted demolitions that were on the agenda that day. 4118 201st street represents the failure of the city to enforce the building and planning codes. the planning commission is once again being asked to find a just solution for a project that should have been stopped. this project is one of many troubled projects for d.b.i. and planning.

they should have intervened and stopped the project at an earlier point and put the project on an acceptable trajectory. d.b.i.'s solution to the problem is to assign two senior building inspectors to handle similar troubled projects. d.b.i.'s solution is not working if we recognize this project, as well as 347 18th street as examples of projects that should have been stopped and redirected , we should examine both projects from a clinical perspective and asked, at one point should there have been a major intervention, and what solution should have been imposed? i asked the planning commission to task with this assignment. i was at a meeting yesterday with a district eight supervisor , and other members of the san francisco land-use coalition. he discussed his proposal for d.b.i.

a supervisor mandelman is planning to meet with members of the planning commission to develop a solution. i urge the planning department and planning commission to support supervisor mandelman's efforts. these are my comments, in addition to the comments i made on august 29th. on august 29th, many planning commissioners expressed frustration at being asked to address demolitions d.b.i. should have addressed. the citizens of san francisco have lost confidence in the department of building inspections, in this crisis of confidence has spread to the planning commission. how does the building inspection commission plan to address this problem? thank you. [please stand by]

for these situations where either an error has

occurred on the part of the project sponsor. two demolitions are needed at intake, the tearing down of structure, and the second one that follows section 317 with adjustments in the demo cal collisions. calculations. this is a way to preserve housing that should be preserved. also, studies need to be done to preserve viable relatively affordable housing that can be sensibly updated. there are four pages here, and it shows the different definitions. one the 200 -7 staff memo on section 317 prior to the passage.

building 103a demolition without permit. building code section 10 6:00 12 including other parts of the code. also, d.b.i. sheet. this came up at the 49 hopkins hearing or some hearing on the 29th. information sheet so4 dated jun. these are my comments. that relates to crown terrace. anyway, i just think that is a problem. one definition is not going to solve it in the beginning of a process. you still need to. you don't need one. you need one when you have a problem when people have not followed the law. thank you very much. have a good day. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment?

seeing none, next item is 4. commissioners questions and matters. 4a. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date inquiries to staff regarding various documents. >> future meeting and agendas. at this time the commission may take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or derm those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting or other future meetings of the building inspection. the next scheduled meeting is october 16th. >> no organization is perfect, but all of us have an obligation to look honestly at our organizations and do everything in our power to improve or

organizations in every possible way. for this reason it is disturbing to find several high profile cases of actions which our systems did not prevent or detect at the earliest possible time. these cases have used serial permitting, work beyond the scope or inaccurate representations to subvert our systems -- both ours and planning. illegal demolitions, destabilizing neighboring properties and other egregious results have happened. we have had strains developed with colleagues in the planning commission where the building inspection department and by extension this commission's confidence or integrity have been questioned. this has to stop. we need away forward where we are working closely with commission colleagues and respective staffs to uncover the

source of these problems and develop remedies required to fix them. to this end, i recommend we schedule a joint planning commission meeting to review all major cases which have brought attention to failures in both our systems and the course forward on these to ensure they are now properly monitored and recommend des strictly enforced. we need to do this because systematic failures can be exploited again and again. we should not be naive to think these were the only instances of wrongdoing. we share the goal of making bad actors and making it hard for those following the rules.

we need to know that we are addressing them firmly but consistently and fairly. i ask we set up such a joint building, planning meeting at the earliest possible date to explore these issues as we work together to find effective and targeted remedies to prevent or at least significantly reduce the occurrence of further cases. >> thank you. is there any public comment on item 4a and b? our next item is item 5, director's report. a. update on d.b.i.'s finances.

>> good morning, commissioners, deputy director for department of building inspection. before you is the august 2019 financial report covering july and august 2019. i will give a brief summary. on the revenue sides $12.4 million this year compared to $11.8 million the same time last year. that is an increase. increase is due primarily to increase in plan checking revenues. that is reflected also on page 2. i usually have revenues and expenditures and building permit data. as you can see the valuation of the issue permits have gone up.

normally when you see it go up we expect to see the revenues go up. they are based on valuation. for instance, during this time period, we had actually one permit of 100 to $200 million issued. that didn't happen last time period. on the expenditure side, expenditures are slightly higher due to an increase in salaries. salaries have gone up. this is two months. it is very preliminary. we don't see a pattern. if you look at the report on the projection of the first page we project apartment budget. with a few more months we will see where everything is going. i am happy to answer any questions if you have any questions. thank you. >> thank you, deputy director. >> 5b update on proposed or

recently enacted state or local legislation. >> good morning, commissioners, john murray, legislative affairs. a few updates for you. the plumbing code cross connection ordinance supposed to be heard on monday was continued on the advice of the city attorney to accommodate the code cycle. we want the new limits to go through and it will be added on in january. supervisor peskin introduced legislation to notice tenants for soft story additions of the right to return before the cfc. we met with staff from the rent board. they would be the ones required

to notify us that the landlord has fulfilled that obligation, both departments have concerns how this would actually work. we are going to reach out to peskin's office and walk through those. we will have an update for you down the road. as you know, the level of compliance for the accessible business entry program is not where we want it to be with about 9,000 noncompliant property owners. we have -- the director has been in contact with supervisor yee about amending legislation to push that deadline to extend that deadline to july 1st from december 1st. we sent out a notice to those noncome miant property owner -- compliant property owners in december. it was more official looking

than previous ones so we will see where that goes. compliance is not where we want it. we are working on doing that. as president mccarthy mentioned, steve from our plan check staff presented in front of the land-use committee on monday on restaurant streamlining. it seemed well received. i subject we will see legislation down the road dealing with that. maybe not on the d.b.i. process but other departments. we will keep you updated on that as well. any questions? thank you. >> next item is 5c update on major projects. >> good morning. director of department and building inspection. i see on the filing of the permit people want to get filed before the new code cycle kicked

in. any questions? roughly 2% increase. >> next is item d. update on code enforcement. >> good morning, ed sweeney. i have the august numbers. bid building inspections performed 6294. complaints received 519. complaint response 24 to 72 hours, 504. complaint goes first notice of violations sent 66. complaints received without nov, 278. complaint was notice of violations 48. second notice of violations refer to code enforcement 28. housing inspection services, housing inspections performed 1,134. complaints received 334.

complaints response 24 to 72 hours, 323. with violations issued 146. abated complaints 552. number of cases to director's hearing 42. routine inspections 185. code enforcement. number of cases to director's hearing 191. number of order of abatements issued 59. number of cases under advisement 24. number of cases abated 174. code enforcement inspections performed 295. we did not have a litigation committee last month, and that case is referred to the city attorney was two. code enforcement outreach programs on a quarterly bases we are awaiting the next quarter. any questions? >> thank you. any public comment on the

director's report, items 5a through d. next is item 6 review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of august 21, 2019. >> move to approve. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none. are all commissioners in favor? any opposed. thank you. the minutes are approved. next item is 7. discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the bic secretary. 7a is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. any public comment on this item? seeing none. the next is 5b. possible action to convene a closed session. is there a motion? >> move to go into closed session. >> second. >> there is a motion and second.

we are now in closed session. o. this is the building inspection commission. we are on item number 7. 7d. we convene in open session to vote on whether to disclose any our all discussions held in closed session. >> can i get a motion on that? >> we have a motion and a second. we will reconvene and not disclose. we are on to item 8. discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the director. 8a public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. any public comment? seeing none,