vacancy rates in terms of businesses in general, our businesses are bleeding. most of them are not open. they don't have a way to participate and keep their doors open in terms of delivery. it's not just happening in district 10, but it's happening across the city. and we have to do something with crisis response and emergency response. and this gives us the opportunity. i do not believe in any way, shape, form, or fashion, that we would exhaust the funding in this legislation, but we would be able to save some of our businesses, and the controller's office would be able to reassess how much of those proceeds we have used up until a certain point. even though i understand your concerns, and they are very valid, this is the only opportunity we have to act and move today for some of our fall businesses to save them. otherwise, we won't even have small businesses continue when

we come up out of this crisis. so i would like to move items 10 and 11 forward to the full board with a positive recommendatio recommendati recommendation, understanding all the concerns that exist. >> chair fewer: supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, supervisor mandelman. this is a constantly shifting situation. we're never going to have all the information. we have to act boldly and take a leap of faith at times to say we see you, we understand what you're experiencing. we understand you're deciding today whether or not to close or stay open, and here is another option for you to help you make that decision and hopefully allow you to stay open for three more months while all these other programs are put into place. the idea is to act fast, and it

is to act without high barriers, so that all businesses, even those run by immigrants, have a chance. >> chair fewer: thank you. so i want to say that i don't even know the full picture. i know there's been efforts from the city to help with the funds. i don't know where that is, but i also want to say that i just got off the phone this week with merchants in my neighborhood, and yes, small businesses are suffering, and they will continue to suffer throughout this whole pandemic, which we don't know where the end is. i think the questions for me is what are the criteria that

we're asking to secure a loan without the possibility of paying them back. also, in this loan, there's nothing about geographic balance, and i don't want to see these loans going to one pick neighborhood, when we know that every business in every part of san francisco is suffering. another concern is language access. from speaking to commissioners on the small business commission, i think they're having an issue on getting information out in an equitable way through language access. again, how will this be implemented? i also think that i'd want to know if there are other loans that we have in place that the treasurer's office might be looking at a possible default, and that this isn't the only

loan out that might be defaults. i also want to say that yeah, i am completely down with what this is trying to do. and i'd just say if i wasn't on the budget committee, and i wasn't the budget chair, i wouldn't know what is going on in the city and county of san francisco, and i'd want to know. and so when we are looking to see folks, when we are looking for all these support systems, i would feel much more comfortable if i had the whole picture. and i say that also for the most vulnerable people that are living in san francisco, that they're going to need unique

financial help individually themselves. and so our small businesses, as i know, are the backbone of our community, and i want to help them, too. i just want to get a bigger picture, and absolutely, i said my job as budget chair is to get the bigger picture. and so we have a motion on the table today that supervisor walton has brought forth to continue this item -- i mean, to vote for this item, to pass it to the full board, and i would like to propose a motion that we continue this item for another week as we first hear from, as i said, scheduled next week is a full report from the controller about projections, and they'll have much more information then. i am also requesting information on the $1 million that the mayor has set aside, has that fund grown, what is the criteria for that, and how are these two differently --

different, or is it a meshing of these two? so i do have some other questions, actually, from the treasurer's office, but i can submit those during the week if the motion passes. so first, i'd like to have an opportunity to vote on supervisor walton's -- >> clerk: chair fewer, one of the clarifications, at the beginning of the meeting, supervisor ronen did submit amendments to item 10 for your consideration. would you like to consider those amendments? >> chair fewer: i think we can vote on the amendments, quite frankly. so let's have a vote first on the amendments to supervisor ronen's legislation. so could we have a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion by supervisor fewer to amend item number 10 as stated earlier by supervisor ronen -- [roll call]

>> chair fewer: and then, we have a motion on the table from supervisor walton to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. could we have a roll call vote, please. clerk yes. on the motion by supervisor walton to move the items to the full board with a positive recommendation -- [roll call] >> clerk: there is one aye and two noes with supervisors mandelman and fewer in the dissent. the motion fails. >> chair fewer: thank you. i'd like to make a motion to move this items 10 and 11 as amended to be continued to the next meeting of the budget and finance committee. could i have a roll call vote,

please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are two ayes and one no, with supervisor walton in the dissent. the motion passes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, do we have any other business before us today? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> chair fewer: thank you, madam clerk, and thank you so much, everyone, as we're trying to figure this out. the meeting's adjourned. [gavel]

>> sfgov-tv. we're ready to begin. >> president mccarthy: today is wednesday, march 18, 2020. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection committee. i remind everyone to turn off electronic devices and the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy? >> president mccarthy: here. >> clerk: commissioner moss? commissioner clinch. commissioner jacobo. commissioner tam. commissioner alexander-tut. we have a quorum and our item is item 2. president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning, everybody. just moving -- everything is moving parts here. i just wanted to have a few words to read into the comments and to my president's announcements. i'm confident and dedicated -- i

am confident that the dedicated and hard-working staff throughout the department of building inspection are aware of the response to the people of san francisco and will continue to do their duty and uphold the public trust which they've been doing in the last week. as you know we're dealing with, you know, a public health emergency in our city. and our state and country, that we have never, never had to encounter before. on behalf of the commission, i urge all d.b.i. staff and customers to follow the instructions under public health officials and to do their part to prevent the spread of covid-19. i applaud the department for taking steps to limit the virus spread such as increase social distancing between the customers and d.b.i. staff, and the more frequent cleaning of commonly shared public services. continue to pay attention to all of the public health instructions and take all of the possible precautions for your own health and your loved ones. be proactive and help to keep

each other safe. and that concludes, madam secretary, my comments. >> clerk: is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, our next item, item 3, general public comment. matters within the commission that are not part of this agen agenda. >> good morning, my name is jerry grantler. the resignation of tom huey in the march 12th stories about the city's expanding probe of former president and instructial

engineer rodrigo santaz are clear indicators that an outside investigation of the department is long overdue. my interest in d.b.i. began in 2012 when i served on the civil grand jury that wrote a very unfavorable report on the department. i have attended b.i.c. meetings for the last seven years. it's difficult to monitor projects like the rodrigo santaz prctses mentioned in the city's lawsuit. this lack of transparency is by design. an outside investigation needs to focus on the department's lack of internal controls and weak building code enforcement process. current code enforcement penalties are not a deterrent. 98% of the penalties issued are below $1,000. $1,000 is the cost of doing

business. d.b.i.'s weak internal controls are present by design, not by accident or lack of funding. d.b.i. has sabotaged the installation of new computer systems that would have made the department's practice of favoring a few individuals more difficult and visible. d.b.i. failed to implement a system that would have eliminated the current process where contractors, expeditors and instructional engineers get to select the d.b.i. engineer to review and issue their building permit. if you had the choice, would you pick your buddy? humadic is similar to the process by the california d.m.v. to randomly assign customers to counter employees. d.b.i. also sabotaged the implementation of asela. when you drill down into

mr. santos' projects you find that it was the same small group of d.b.i. employees who should not have approved his building permit ove over-the-counter and field inspectors who should not have approved the final inspections. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. so president mccarthy, i believe that there needs to be -- >> president mccarthy: so because of the nature of this meeting today, we're going to remove some items from the calendar, if that's acceptable to all commissioners, please speak up if you have any concerns. do we do just a point of order -- do we still have to do the commissioner's issues and matters, do we still do that, or just items on the calendar. looking for clarification?

>> you asked whether it's required that we do. >> president mccarthy: that we remove that. >> you can move to remove it for today's meeting. >> president mccarthy: commissioners, do you want that to remain on the calendar to weigh in -- (indiscernible) okay. number five, i have a request to leave number five on and i wondered what you might have thought about that as a quick discussion and move that forward because of the calendar that's on. and then we can -- if i'm correct we could do public comment on this again if we needed to though we have moved it out of our commission, is that correct? >> city attorney rob capla. if you feel that you have enough time to move it forward, the board of supervisors, where there would be more process, you could do that. and you can also schedule a time to take public comment on it in the future but you wouldn't be able to rescind the

recommendation to move the item forward. >> president mccarthy: okay. so, obviously, 6 we'll take off the calendar and move to the next available hearing. and then, obviously, we would keep the closed session which we would do last. and then pretty much remove all of the business off the calendar, if the commissioners today have any comments? >> clerk: do we have a second? second? >> so there's a motion and a second to remove all of the items or -- >> president mccarthy: except for 5, we will leave 5 in which we discussed now and number -- where am i -- 5 and 9. thank you, commissioner. >> clerk: so there's a motion and a second to remove -- except

for items 5 and 9. do a roll call vote. president mccarthy. vice president moss. commissioner alexander-tut. commissioner clinch. commissioner jacobo. commissioner tam. that motion carries unanimously. i'm going to read item 5 just for the record. i initially thought that the item would be continued. but all of you have received all of the correspondence and there was additional public comment that you have received as well. okay, so item 5, discussion and

possible action regarding a proposed ordinance, repealing ordinance numbers 38-17 and 102-19, and re-enacting certain provisions by amending the administrative code to update the hotel conversion ordinance including adding a redefining of definitions of low-income household and procedures to convert units and harmonizing the fees in addition to other requirements. this is continued from the meeting. >> president mccarthy: do we need to discuss. >> i want to thank the commission for tabling it until today or continuing it to today. i talked to the community group whose appreciated having time to review this and they're all in agreement with moving forward.

thank you. >> president mccarthy: if i see no more comment on it, -- >> city attorney rob capla. there's a request to be read into the record. >> president mccarthy: is that the letter from mr. zach friedman? yeah, okay. >> this letter is from zach friedman and patterson, a public comment, dear president mccarthy and honorable members of the building inspection commission, our office represents the s.r.o. hotel coalition, hotels, and other individual owners of s.r.o.s who will be affected by this proposed ordinance. in light of yesterday's shelter in place order and the serious public health risk of covid-19 we reject to this hearing taking place without public participation as required by the ralph m. brown act. neither my clients nor attorneys

or other concerned members of the public can violate the order and risk their health to attend this hearing. this hearing must be pro postponed. and including reacting the record in real-time and the statements by city staff and other members of the public. this is not an imminent matter. and this could be accomplished without the proposed new amendments contained within this ordinance. these amendments are not urgent and do not affect any government function as defined by the order. we respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the shelter in place order is lifted and we reserve the right to have additional arguments and materials in advance of the final hearing on this matter. thank you, for your krrs, very truly yours. so that was the public comment. and is there any additional public comment here?

seeing none. is there a motion on this item? >> president mccarthy: we do need to make a motion to approve. i move to approve. >> clerk: a second? >> second. >> clerk: there is a motion and a second. i'll do a roll call vote. president mccarthy. yes. vice president moss. yes. commissioner alexander-tut. yes. commissioner clinch. yes. commissioner jacobo. yes. commissioner tam. yes. the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item 9, public employee appointment. director of building inspection. discussion and possible action to appoint director of building inspection. 9a, public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. >> good morning, my name is dray

grantler. if the commissioner is looking for an interim d.b.i. director my suggestion is the former deputy director rosemary vosk who is an attorney. and who is thoughtful and has good leadership skills and knows the department. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. there was also additional public comments submitted via email by last name of mr. white, mrs. white and i have submitted that to all of the commissioners. so they have all received it as well. our next item is item b, possible action to convene a closed session. is there a motion to convene closed session? >> i'd like to make a motion to convene closed session.

>> second. >> clerk: are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? we are now in closed session. it is 10:24 >> we should be back.

>> hello, this is building inspection commission meeting resuming. we are on item 9(d), reconvened in open session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in closed sessi sessi session. there is a motion to reconvene. >> i move to reconvene. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second to reconvene in open session. we are now in open session. >> all in favour? >> aye. >> our next item, is there anything to disclose? >> absolutely. thanks for everybody's patience here. we had a really good discussion here and a lot of commissioners' thoughts for the future were brought up and what's going to be needed, particularly for this

department, which i concur for everything. obviously, mr. weir, we unanimously approved you to step in as acting director through this difficult period. as a commission, we thank you for stepping up and doing that. >> to be clear, we've acted to appoint mr. riddin interim director. >> we had a debate about interim and acting. interim director. so if you are acceptable, you can come to the mic. officially you could accept the position for us and that would satisfy us, correct. >> thank you. >> good morning again, commissioners. thank you for appointing me as interim director. while i am deeply g