okay good morning. today is wednesday, march 20 issue 2024. this is a regular meeting of building inspeck. i like to reminds to you mute yourself. first item is roll call. >> and president alexander-tut. >> present. >> commissioner chavez. >> present. >> commissioner nuemann. >> here. >> commissioner shaddix. >> here. >> commissioner sommer. >> here. >> commissioner williams. >> here but we are not logged in. i will log everyone we have a quorum. and next is our land acknowledgment. [ramaytush ohlone land acknowledgment]

>> thank you. next for any members. public this may be listening in, the public comment call in number is 415-655-0001. the code is 26606355861. to raise your hand on an agenda

press star 3 when prompted. and the web ex password is 0320. >> next we have item two, president's opening remarks. >> i'm not signed in. i have to -- just a moment, everyone. i will keep comments short. as we close out the cycle and elect officer i wanted toup hold

the values of the commission focussed on andup hold. in this role and that is balancing the need to uphold the highest standard and root out corruption and support the investigations to clear up our reputation and processes. with also acknowledging that work needs to continue to happen where working to move the permit process faster and increase our efficiencies. and i know sometimes the elements can have chilling affects on staff am when you seat colleagues needs in the newspaper and i wanted to sends my thoughts and support to the staff who are doing this work every day. and doing the good work of dbi

and i know that morale can be difficult. when you know when you are when you see your department in the news all the time not the best things. know you had my support and you have the support of the commission. and the respect for the job you do every day. with that i thifrng everybody

and look forward to the rest of the meeting. thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment on the president's opening remarks? seeing 91 on to item 3 general public comment. the bic will take comment in the commission's jurisdiction not part of this agenda. is there general public comment? >> is there remote? none. there is next we will have item 4. election of the bic president and vice president. is there public comment on the motion not motion but on the item of election of president and vice president? >> there is none in person or remotely. next we -- the commissioners can

nominate -- i would like to nominate commissioner shaddix as president of the bic. i think he has been an appointee both of the board and of the mayor. i think he has shown himself to be very balanced and open when listen to items on the board. that is my nomination. >> good. well is in second required, so. thank you for this nomination there is one for commissioner shaddix. and then next are there other nominations? regarding the president? >> i like to nominate alexander-tut she has been doing a phenomenonal jab and maintaining her as president makes sense to me. >> thank you.

>> are there other nominations? for president. >> so i will -- i will do a vote on the first nomination and then if this one passes that will be the result. if this does not pass we go to the second nomination. so the first nomination is for commissioner shaddix as president. dot roll call vote. alexander-tut >> no. commissioner chavez. >> no. >> commissioner nuemann.

>> yes. >> commissioner shaddix. >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> commissioner williams. >> no. >> that is 3-3. so then the motion fails. as 3 to 3. so next we have the nomination of commissioner alexander-tut as president a role call vote on this motion. commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes. >> commissioner chavez. >> yes. >> commissioner nuemann. >> no. >> commissioner shaddix. >> no. commissioner sommer.

>> yes. >> commissioner williams. >> yes. >> the motion carries 4-2. congratulations. you are president. >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> next we have office of vice president. is there a motion for vice president? wrong wording nomination. >> nominate commissioner shaddix as vice president. >> okay. and are there other nominations? >> if there are no other nominations, then, we doll a roll call vote on the motion to nominate commissioner shaddix as vice president.

>> commissioner alexander-tut? >> yes. >> commissioner chavez. >> yes. >> commissioner nuemann. >> yes. >> commissioner shaddix. >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> and commissioner williams. >> yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. congratulations. you are vice president. commissioner shaddix. congratulations to both of you. >> thank you. >> all right. next we are on to item 5. discussion and possible action the building inspection commission meeting to 10:30 a.m. is there any discussion on the item? >> so moved. >> okay. then there will be a motion by alexander-tut. and is there a second.

>> i will second. motion and second it approve the start time to 10. . 30. is there public comment on this motion. there is none. the roll call on this motion. president alexander-tut. >> yes. >> vice president shaddix. >> yes. >> commissioner chavez. >> yes. >> commissioner nuemann. >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> and commissioner williams. >> yes. >> this motion carries mumsly. >> so the abuyment appeals meeting is 9. . 30. every run over today this meeting does in the star at

10:30. start when is, buyment ends there is the notice to the public on the agenda it says that our meeting at 10:30. tell start when the appeal's board ends. >> no hard stop on that. >> no. >> >> can i confirm when there is in ab which will not be for awho i we can move this meeting to a 9:30 start. item 6 for board member ordinance. amending the building code, business and tax regulation code

and planning code. and the approval process and local approval process for accessory units meeting requirements and multifamily. >> good morning is it morning? and commissioners. president alexander-tut. christine assistant direct. >> i have nate from president supervisor peskin's office and veronica from planning who are also here to speak on this ordinance. i get the next sliechlt this is discussion and possible action regarding an ordinance to amend the code building code, busy and tax and planning code to clarify

the approval process for adu's. one action is for you to approve recommend approval to the board of supervisors. you can recommend approval with the building code amendments removed. you considered in an earlier version of the ordinance in october. and there are additional building code amendmentos pages 57 and 58. of the ordinance, which i assume you got in your packet. >> the committee met last week and made the following recommendations. . the cacy voted decline moving as written. in its place suggested the department of building inspection begin a press to create a bullet tin to address questions when came up who i reviewing. and pertains to how the time

lines are different for adu under the state code and all units that produce housing ab1114 to january first. a time line for units for projects that produce housing of 25 or less. we have 30 business days for all department its review the applications. if 26 units or more we have 60 business days to review the applications. the way this the adu's under the state code are counted is different temperature calendar days and so -- it does not stop for the amount of time it is with the customer. where as with ab1114 the clock starts when the customer starts and back with us. i think the code committee was going with this is that -- they felt that the two different ways of counting time are confusion.

having this in the moderns would be cop fusing as far as how we impelement and how this changes the way we count those days. with that, i'm going to does president supervisor peskin's aid to come up and speak about the ordinance. >> hi. commissioners. to provide background i'm an aid for board president peskin. this ordinance you looked at in october was originally created to conform our adu to changes in the state man dated adu. and because our local program the way the state law is written we have 3 different path ways to approve adu's. the local, state and hybrid

program. we president pits kin duplicate third degree file because it became clear the state program does not require rent control and the local does. and as public policy, we wanted look into whether we could drive more project applicants in the local program. we have gone kind of down that road to figure out what is possible under the state. law and hcd opinion about this. one -- the reason this language was added the 60 daytime line language is required in the state mandate program. one of the ideas that was that put forward to make them more similar to each other is add the same language to a local program and inknow tension to incent sunrise the program and make

them more similar to each other. but after -- talking to assistant director and understanding this better, i have a better understanding a better understanding of the time line man dated by a b 1114. already applied to adu's and agree that it might be simple to stick with this time line. although either way you have to have there is still two time lines because the 60 daytime line we can't change. it was created by the state mandated program and state law. and hcd said if you get rid of this language then san francisco will be denied affordable housing funding that the kind of -- stick here. so. we are open to accepting the recommendations. but either way there will be 2 time lines and we want to make

sure the local projects local low approved adu's don't have a longer time line than the state adu and appreciate the offer to provide administrative bulletin. thanks. >> good afternoon. commissioners veronica planning staff. they already explained that the proposed amendment would be longer than when we are in practice come what would comply with ab1114. society recommendation is to modify the ordinance and remove this new time line, it is confusing to have this additional language within the building code and this is what we will recommend to planning commission bh we take the item to them next month. i will share or provide or share

your recommendation to them at there hearing in the next month. this will be april 25th. this concludes the presentation and i'm available for questions. thank you. >> okay. thank you. commissioners have any discussion or questions? commissioner chavez. >> can someone there are a few time lines what is in the ordinance and what is getting recommended can you lithat out quickly? thank you. the -- current time line for local adu is 120 days. the proposed amendment is to reduce this for the permit review to 60 days however with

the with now ab upon 1114 and practice and within the planning department process improvements as well, we are approving local adu faster and well within or under 60 days as well. but the ab1114 brings us down to the 30 days. so this is -- again adding confusion with the different numbers. they are then out as well. the recommendation ask s to strike this new language from the building code we are implementing ab1114 and the practice would be faster than the proposed. >> would be in alignment on the same time line or on its own time line of 60.

>> correct. >> thank you. commissioner sommer? >> i'm confused. we looked at this in october. i don't think and excuse me i don't think we were mo provided with the language of the ordinance again and say this is is amendod page 57 and 58 of the ordinance, i did not read pen and 58 and compare to previous page pen and 58. okay. the things you are talking about now that recommending refrom the code you say what is in the ordinance that again i did in the read the ordinance that is proposed or say willing is a proposed ordinance that includes time line language and now you are saying we like to move this forward but remove some language? >> it is confusing.

>> apologies for i did in the realize you did not have a copy in front of you. great. the over head this is page 57. the subsection highlighted in green, were in the original ordinance. and this is related to the state adu review time line of 60 days, that is already passed and either first or second read of the board i forget the dates that is in process and we are not looking to resunrise that section. but looking to discuss and recommend eliminating the new amendment highlights in yellow. >> it is related to the local adu programs.

apologies. that is the section where it is talking about the 60 days for low adu's. but as previously mentioned local adu's are already on the ab1114 time line. so this proposed amendment would not change the review would adhere to ab1114. it is out of confusion and unnecessary. will be on a faster time line with or without this proposed amendment. >> so does this change removing the yellow part. i called in the code advisory is hard to hear on the phone call. i didn't get everything expressed. they were discussing at length and summarized and discussed briefly here; they were hung up

on the telling when does the clock start and stop. and also we are talking about when we say how many days we are talking about a number of departments having to you know when we say 60 days for approval not just building that is a bunch of other public works and other things all of whom no over seer it is like how would any of them communicate to each other. this is my understanding of one of the issues they were expressing at that meeting. i wish one had come here to reiterate. but -- one of the members of the committee. does removeing address the concerns that were expressed at this meeting? do you believe? or not necessarily? >> i think that was a different. the conversation was a different place what you are referring to. we do have the umbrella

organization the permit center helping to implement a b 1114 and all departments stay on target as far as our responsibilities are. my steak away from the committee was that because these time lines are differently the 60 days and adu program and state law and ab1114 has the telling and business days versus calendar days. they wanted us the code committee suggested in information sheet or something to just clarify how we count the days and which of the you know and how we are making sure we stay in the mandates. >> was there also concern of -- the language itself. i'm bouncing back with the telling and count and over seeing of departments and also

the what counts as a business day. turn the clock on and off. does striking that piece address that? >> i think this was their suggestion. let's take this out of the building code and issue a bulletin that explains how we count the days and how the process works. gotcha >> and in proposal to strike this yellow text was in the proposed when you met with you were there. i could not see like. this was not proposed at the code committee meeting you discussed it in full? all the codes and everything in green and yellow here. they had other issues with the language and so -- they suggested striking the building code changes and issuing a bulletin. >> and since some taken in account by striking some

building code language or all. >> the committee suggested strike all the building code. we are specific low targeting the time line. use of it. but it is up to your determination. what is an administrative bulletin in it is i'm not sure fiwill get this right. but -- our technical services department issues administrative bulletins that clarify the code for the practitioners. do you topped add >> that is what it is. and also it gives direction to the stake holders in regards to the process and time lines and anything relating to the administrative bulletin that

taylors to the code. e will beerate on the code. and the bulletin. i have a question. does not hopeful low a clarification. it seems like i heard from president peskin's office there will always issue two different time lines. that is in the when is before us today. today is just eliminate the 60 days reference so this everything can be in the 30-day time scomplien that does not need to be in the building code. there are other authorities that will lead us down 30 days is that correct? >> correct. more questions from commissioners? is there a motion? commissioner chavez. why i want to make sure striking

this we are in alinement with the state law. you mentioned that funding is at risk. jot state what is in the state law remains, this is putting it in local. okay. >> great. >> making sure. >> great. >> may i ask, if we wanted further you know to electric at the text before making the recommendation or to have the code advisory committee look. what is the time line, what is happening what are the affects if we were to take more time on this item? i believe the 90 day dead line that we have to provide our recommendation to the board clerk is may 6. may 5 or 6 and a few days off. again planning commission will

hear this on april 25. may have an additional hearing if this body were to continue and hear this later. i want to provide them with the update from your determination. but may 5 or 6 is the dead line. and our actions are to either recommend the ordinance as written or with amendments or -- not recommend? is that our purview? to be honest >> deputy city attorney, yes. commission can recommend the ordinance pass as written now which would include the yellow language or yellow highlighted language. you can recommend this the ordinance be strike the yellow highlight language. seems that is the recommendation of the experience here today include the language in green. i believe? or you can follow the cac

recommendation which was do not move ordinance forward. the other option would be it continue temperature you valid to hear it within the 90 days or the board have to pass a resolution extending the time to consider the ordinance. why and in any case our system a recommendation not the board of sprierdzs does what they? right? >> yes. you have considered about 4 options now on the table for this ordinance. anything this goes to planning or up ahead to the board will have been before this commission already. when you decide all options are on the table only if an another iteration come up to strike different language or add new language that would be something new that would come become to you if you torch pass it in a form today. >> i [inaudible]. may be i'm not speaking.

i'm still confused. part of this is so -- how had is the difference from the state code and does the state still supercede what local ordinance we put in place? so there are 3 adu programs. the amendment is to reduce the time line for the local adu. is this more or less restrictive then and there the state mandate temperature is a longer review time line than the state. so 120 days for local and 60 for the state and hybrid programs. the original amendment was to make the match and make them 60. however in reviewing it more and speaking with the experience we highlighted ab1147 is faster

than the proposed amendments. society change that is in front of you today does -- go in the 120 day review time for local adu that is when we are saying is much longer than when we would be doing today. we are trying to simple foil it and clarify it and we believe that modifying it to remove the new language would be the cleanest way since we already have the ab1114 time line. that we need to abide by. it is confusing and also i'm don't have personal knowledge of this ordinance i believe the situation is we -- set in time

lines for our local and hybrid and the state determines the max days >> the state process as 60 daytime line, i believe to approve. and when we had a local process we had 120 days and we wanted amend it to make 60 t. is draektive to chose the state, hybrid or local the timing would not be detriment to chosing local you are subject to the same time line. ab114 to adu and all housing projects has cut the time line for everything we consider. the suggestion is stop referencing the time line it is stricter for everything regarding housing from the state of 30 days. no reason to make a difference or call out a time line all the projects are subject to the new

time line i'm not sure if this is exact low correct if staff agree. that is my understanding. >> i'm still not sure. >> can i say one more. i want to thank you for grabbling with this. this is like unnecessary because we did not understand the this new exactly how the ab1114 would -- apply to adu when they conform them. we made changes includeing one to the building code. but it is unnez. >> does it apply to adu's? >> ab14 >> yes. >> it applies which is not manage we understood if we keep the 60 day mandate in the legislation the 30-day is the

law anyway? >> yes. >> so it would be dead language. to keep it in? >> it would be confusing you have something in our ordinance that would supercede it by over riding state control. and remove any mention of tag lines to ease confusion? . the city attorney, i know. i don't know what is in the green language. but the yellow language provides a time line for the local process. >> thank you. >> yes. so, the yellow language is the new amendments and language that is up for consideration. of the green language it will be in affect within the next month. so -- planning has been analyze it is new language but if the experience is open and able to strike both yellow and green for full clarity that would be i

deal. but -- planning recommendation is base on the new language that we are analyzing under this. why that would strike any reference of a time line? >> no. we would like to strike any of this -- unnecessary language. if yellow language is striken, [laughter]. deleted. this commission looks at things pertaining to the building not planning code if yellow texted is out is there anything else this changes the building code

in the proposed amendment? >> no. if yellow is not there we are not talking about this group. >> is the problem our planning and building code are one or married in the same. the permit piece is that part of the issue? like the -- because it seems like a planning -- question, however because like our permit system says everything happens at once, like is that really why we are confused here? >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. there are multiple reasons why we are confused. the ordinance itself is amending the building code, planning, administrative code and as far as i understand. i believe per of the confusion here from the c, c as well and we look at the proposed changes to the building code and

thinking that is all the ordinance does. and meanwhile we don't think we need the changes because of ab114. i guess the recommendation not to move this forward makes sense. there may be changes to planning administrative code tht sponsorments to move forward. i think the clarity here would be whether you just propose -- move nothing the ordinance forward and striking all building code changes. moving the ordinance forward but strike the highlighted yellow provisions? or just saying from i building code perspective we can't contemplay the changes regarding the code in this ordinance, which is the same as deleting the entire reference in this ordinance. and in any event, that would leave the board to review all options the board of supervisors. >> can i ask one more thing. can we put the yellow language up for 2 minutes to all like

read it and then flip. >> i wonder federal we just continue today and --. i don't know. yes. i apologize you did in the get the text if you want to continue so you can read it. we will full in the 90 day time line. >> i think it is time to continue this. >> and is there a chance that anything would change between now and if we continued this to the next meeting that -- >> the next is the 17th. that is before. >> according to the planning commission will be hearing april 25 you would be before the planning commission meeting. give us a chance to read it. and understand basically if we wanted to. i guess the thing that is confuse figure we are recommending it to continue but

remove building code changes. we would if building code changes we would not do a recommendation we are rmdzing manage we have no like i recommend it continues to planning but have no authority. it is a weird catch 22 situation. >> theasm tach tampment was not include and some were not included in everything. >> that's okay. >> >> deputy city attorney, sorry i'm speaking so much. on this one. that could be the motion to recommend that all references to the building code in the upon ordinance are deleted and you would have considered the item. there are other aspects to the ordinance in planning and code

this sponsor would like to go forward. continuing especially it there would be a cancellation could put that ordinance in limbo and might need a resolution to come back. the real consideration to strike the building code language or not. then it would be ideal to weigh in on that today. there are this is not an ordinance that just touches the building code we can hold on without risk of slipping dates. >> that's recommendation by the code advisory. body. right? >> that's i didn't was not certain on yea. if that was their recommendation and the now the department's recommendation. it is now the same. that was in the clear. our recommendation is to strike the 106a120 which is the 60

daytime line. what else. >> can we put it up. >> i think commissioner nuemann asked for that. or i could pass this around. >> the you want mow to read it? it is local access row unit property city provides a discretionary press to the consideration of permits to construct accessory dwelling that neither require planning code section. the city shall approve -- application for permit to construct adu under planning code on a lot containing dwelling within 60 days from the application if the construction complies with requirements set forth in the planning code. other applicable requirements this shall not alie to permit

subject question for discretionary review if the applicant asks a delay. this per mitt might be considered entitlement?

>> there were recent planning process permit changes all of the entitlements upon planning. the zoning and waiver associated with adu's would happen through our planning approval letter. this is before the building permit submitted. this 30 days under ab1114 is all after planning entitlement. >> got it. upon commissioner sommer. why that was i know another confusing item was the words, you took it off the screen but like complete application. versus, is it your complete application or receipt of

permit? those two different. my question was we are not looking at the green is there other stuff in the green and again if that is in the related building we don't talk any it. may be this say moot point. >> sorry. deputy city attorney. you believe the green charges to the building code. >> yes. the green cover changes to the building code for the state. state adu programs and i believe those are required community development so that i believe should still remain in the code and again this is already on its way to being effective and will have on the over head here. >> what do you can you tell us on its way to be effective.

>> so the item in front of you today the new change under them ordinance is only the yellow. the items in grown appeared last october. it is continued throughout legislative process. it is signed by the mayor in the next week or so. >> okay. okay. the ship sailed on the green we are talking about yellow and striking. >> strike. yes. >> let's strike the yellow. so moved. >> seconded. >> so there is a motion by who. commissioner sommer? >>. and -- oh. >> you want to -- state the motion. >> my motion is to recommend

this move forward with the yellow removed. >> okay. >> a motion and second? i will second, yea. >> okay. and is there public comment on this motion. >> roll call vote. >> president alexander-tut. >> yes. >> vice president shaddix. >> yes. >> commissioner nuemann. >> yes. >> commissioner chavez. >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> commissioner williams. >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. thank you. next we have item 7. >> item -- commissioner williams. the bulletin the cac recommended can we i like to make a motion that in addition or this we also direct the building inspection

or department of building inspection to begin the process of creating that bulletin which was the recommendation. we can do both. i think this would be helpful we just spent how much time working that up and helpful for the constate wents to have clarity >> second. >> a recommendation to the recommendation for the department. >> part of the motion but a recommendation to the department. >> okay. >> thank you. commissioner williams. >> item 7 director's report. 7 adirector's update. >> i'm wondering in the interest of time. can we dot director's 7a and then accept the rest and alex is not here. and is that something that we could do? >> i guess that would be up to

your discretion. that's up. >> i would like to. >> can i make see if the rest of the commission aggress. make a motion is it appropriate to make a motion? >> deputy city attorney. if it is to continue or not hear the item you do it my by motion or just instruct the director to give a shorter report and then consider the item completed for this month. i'm not sure what that -- request ises. my preference is to not make a dwdmation without the rest of the commission weighing it. i would like to make the motion to hear the director's update and then accept and continue the items b-e. >> that's a motion. is there a second for this motion? >> we would hear 7a and others

continued to the next meeting. >> not continued to the next meeting. not be heard. hear updated reports next month. >> allow public comment. >> full presentation. >> is a second. >> clarify the materials provide for b-e would still be valid and. yes. >> not put in the minutes you don't put the supporting documents they are still prepared and have been you know reviewed. yea. not going through them one by one. yes. joy will second that. >> >> if i understand the motion sdpt second is to hear item 7 aand to not discuss the remaining items? >> yes. >> are all in favor of that?

>> aye. >> yes. >> yes. >> any opposed? >> is there public comment on this motion? >> there is none in person or remote. so go forward director. >> sure. good afternoon president alexander-tut and members of building inspection. i'm patrick o'riordan director of the departmentful i want to congratulate president alexander-tut and voip shaddix on your appointments. so -- [applause] >> dbi and departments is electronic plan review for in house permit review. this transition is a corner stone to improve san francisco permit process. and was remarkable effort in

collaborate rigz between dbi. permit center and digital service, city planning. dpw. sf fire, sfpuc and public health. we created a new permit application portal. new web pages with better customer service with the permit center we reworked the city's processes to enable concurrent review of application and supporting documents by multiple departments. >> zeal data to understand the results of changes and we look forward to sharing that information with you. in the report next month. >> it is worth noting that the other changes we made the past throw years shown results. improve ams preplan check a tier based system of assignment and

permit tracking review results enhancements have an impact. medium times for all in house permits including housing have been reduced by months. and year over year we -- we are reviewing housing and commercial significant low faster. this fiscal year. compared to the last fiscal year. we look forward to sharing more next among >> feel good about the progress we are seeing. thank you this concludes my report. >> thank you. >> thank you. and next item 8. public comment any public comment on 7 aor 7 a-e. well is no public comment. item 8 commissioner questions

and matters. 8a is inquire toes staff. make inquiries to staff regarding documents, policies and procedures which are of interest to the commission. b, future meading and agendas the commission may discuss to set the date of a special meeting or determine those on the agenda the next meeting and other future meetings of the commission. next regular meeting o is april 17th. >> inquiries to staff or e mail me if you don't have any now or future items. >> i have a question. the director, i than we blue beam had a big a hiccup and we were affected by it. and i know that the department was communicatetive and responsive and i was just wondering if you could update on the stats of the blue beam the internal problems. >> we were experiencing some

glitching with the software up to a now days up to tuesday of left week. and then on tuesday of last week, we discovered there was an outage a complete outage. staff -- pivoted to reaching out to customers they could not up load materials. and are provide their responses to comments which they did for a couple of days. blue beam we are working on a solution which what happened as a result of updates. provide doing to their system caused the problem and the outage. but we were back online by friday morning. we were never really down because we had a backup plan for submittal of materials outside

of the platform. so we were back online. last friday. >> thank you. and thank you to you and the staff for pivoting so quickly. >> thank you. thank you. any public comment on woman 8? item 9 call 9 and 10 together. 9 is review approval of the minutes of the meeting of awning 18 issue 2023. and january 17, 2024. item 10 is review minutes of the special meeting of january 11 of 24. are there edits or questions regarding those minutes is there public comment. all in favor? yes. >> any opposed? >> seeing none the minutes would be approved and next is 11.

the discussion and possible action reader's performance evaluation, continued. 11a public comment on closed session. is there public comment? well is no public comment. in person or remotely. the next is 11b. possible action closed session is there a motion? motion to convene to closed session >> a second? >> okay. >> and all commissioners in favor of convening the closed session? >> aye. >> opposed? >> we are now in closed session it is >> hello members this is the

building inspection commission. we are resuming our meeting we are on item e11e. reconvene in open session on whether to disclose any or all discussions in closed session. >> if i may ask council, what is the the motion we are making on this adjourning? >> deputy city attorney, first move that we don't disclose items discussed in closed session and then that would close this item and move to 12. >> make a motion on that? >> make a motion on had you said. [laughter]. a motion to not disclose items discussed during close the session. so moved by commissioner chavez. >> second. >> seconded by commissioner

williams. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> and -- all right. thank you. next is 12 adjournment. a motion to adjourn. >> yes. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> we are adjourned it is now 1. . 19 p.m. thank you.