melgar here. walker here. >> we have a quorum next item is president's announcements. >> good morning web to the may 20th. 2015 bic, meeting, forgive me if i mispronounce any names, as follows, tom hui briefed san francisco committee may first, and gave them an overview of the dbi, current responsibility in building load. we also talked about the retro fit program, noise, policy for adding dwelling units shg where they can be added with the existing building. chief inspector ron tom, joined them on a workshop may 11th. that attracted over 40 participants, on the focus on preparing your home and property for the next earthquake, this is the second held of the four that dbi is hosting, during the safety month. the first workshop was held may 6th chief commissioner vas kwez-to-for fife safety tips and the library. dbi staff participated in over site committee, and follow up of the city response to june 2014 civil grand jury, report on rising sea levels the board reject the modifying building and plan

melgar yes. mccarthy yes. lee yes, mccray yes, walker, yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. >> thank you. >> the next is for viet president. >> yes, i would like to nominate commissioner clinch. >> second. >> thank you. >> you accept that nomination? we have a motion and a second for commissioner clinch for vice president. clinch yes. melgar yes. mccarthy yes. mar yes. lee yes mccray yes, walker yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item f. general public comment, is there gentlemen public comment for items not on the abatement board agenda. >> there is the meeting minutes. >> the minutes are not ready. >> okay i see. >> we will vote on them the next meeting. >> okay, thank you. >> item g.? motion to adjourn. >> yeah. >> all in commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> we are now adjourned. it's 10:26 a.m. we will take a five minute resouse, we will reconvene with the building inspection. (meeting adjourned at>> good afternoon. it's delightful to have new this space. all of the partners who have been working in

vice president melgar, and commissioner gray are expected. all parties giving testimony today, please raise your hand right. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is true to the best of your knowledge? thank you, you may be seated. next item is item c, election of officers, but we will continue that shortly when some of the other commissioners arrive. item b approval of minutes, i would like to request that we continue those as well as possible. item e, new appeal order of abasement. case 6804285 kikz washington street. owner of record rita har personal opinion appellant mark, gupin. appellant, contends, that the retaining wall that is the subject of the abatement. on property. 2308 to 231 to. the wall was constructed maintained and controlled by the adjacent owners, appellant seeks edition to the property owners, staff? >> we will take these separately, so seven minute, right? >> actually the attorney request they be combine because some of this are related, she requested 21 minutes for all of them. >> the washington streets?

melgar? yes. and motion carries? >> thank you ma'am secretary, it's request to item 13 please if there is no objection. >> okay i them 13. >> discussion regarding approposed new draft cost schedule -- >> based upon research from our skigs, from a variety of sources ark teches, engineers, construction and cost data books. these sources of cost data are organized into 21 binders, or books that are in our technical services library, we also maintain an index i, on the methodology, with tracking the sources for each line item of the cost schedule by popular request, we have included three new separate sections for ease of use, and things that we're dealing with currently, costs that we're dealing with currently, this is tenant improvement section using information by construction estimating institute. a seismic retro fit from fema documents, and fire code developed with the fire department and dbi we have included many items, atm, machines store fronts, incline flat form and wheelchair lifts. are there any questions? >>

. >> commissioner melgar and walker? >> i have a question the letter from urita said a couple of things that were concerning firstly, in the letter the engineer, mr. rutia says that the wall actually is at risk of failure, which contradict's the testimony of the engineer, so i want your information on that. and the base of the retaining wall that drain onto the devisidaro property. i wanded you to clarify that that devisidaro property is the one that has not been sited, the one the weep holes drain into. third, there is an excavation scheduled for the washington street property to add parking, is that the washington property that decided? >> the neighboring property 2308 devisidaro. they did get a first notice of violation but because there were presentations made to the department it seemed reasonable, where it looked like the retaining walls and foundations were only on the other two property then the department moved forward with those. >> okay. >> if that's rebutted in some way, have you a situation where all three c

melgar? yes. commissioner walker? no. >> motion carried 6 to 1. update regarding concerns with removal of debris in the candlestick park. >> on this what are the time frames, the three minutes for public comment? >> yes. >> three minutes, and presentation from the staff. >> it will be a staff presentation. and are you going to mention any updates about the visit? >> no. >> okay, then public comment following that. >> morning commissioners, deputy from dbi, i'm here on the demolition of candlestick park. per request last month, we have inspectors going there on a daily basis, to observe the dust control plan we are satisfied with the dust control plan the area quality control project, along with the health department project since the last meetings shg we did have meetings with a dbi, we had meetings, with the clean air alliance group, and two more, to address our concerns, with the health department. with the quality management ocii, with the contractor they made some change -- (audio cut out). >> for copd these are all things we're well aware of,

every 3-5 years, the control's office is conducting one fy 17 to implement into fy 18 >> commissioner melgar has a question. >> i'm curious as to how we calculate the cost of service. so is it just that, you know, that individual permit provided to the owner, or project sponsor, or is it you know the cost of the department? i guess my question is, because there are portions of our department that don't generate revenue, like inspection, are the costs of that included when we figure out what the costs are? >> sure. in the fee study their methodology would consider costs to the department. so salaries benefits, all of that would be. >> overall -- >> so the cost for providing that particular service. >> just that particular service or all of the services? like she's saying, we do a lot of activity related to housing inspection, that are effected by the number of people that live here. so each building that gets built, kind of contributes to our need to do that work so. is it like our full administrative -- >> with the exception of what i mentioned before what we call the other revenues which ar

. >> commissioner melgar. >> i had a question about a case we saw la time on the deloris street, it would be nice to have updates. >> anything further? item b, future meeting and agenda at this time they may take action to set the date of a special meeting, and determine those items, placed on the agenda, next meeting, for june 17th. 2015. >> okay outreach to our ma'am secretary, on vacation time we're coming up on that time again, i want to make sure we have a quorum i'm sure we will have people missing. >> okay i can send out an e-mail ahead of time to confirm. >> they will be on vacation. >> any other commissioner discussions? any public comment on item 16 a and b.? seeing none item 17, adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor to adjourn? we're now adjourned. it is 1:18 p.m. thank you. (meeting ends at 1:19 week. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the san francisco. the reporter: has many opportunities to get out and placing play a 4 thousand acres of play rec and park has a place win the high sincerely the place to remove user from the upper life and transform into one of m

melgar here. walker here. >> we have a quorum next item is president's announcements. >> good morning web to the may 20th. 2015 bic, meeting, forgive me if i mispronounce any names, as follows, tom hui briefed san francisco committee may first, and gave them

. >> commissioner melgar. >> thank you for being here. i appreciate it, i known you for a long time i know you are topnotch at what you do. i would like to suggest, people's perceptions are based on their reality, and i actually understand it. from your comments, i think you are looking at it in terms of compliance with what is required, i can see how the city sees it as a systemic problem out of balance, the attorney for lenar was here last month talked about how they want to be good to the community because their reputation and you know -- i'm sitting there thinking if i was a community residence and my first line was to call the developer, even though that's the requirement and you are telling -- >> some requirement. >> you said the third party contractor, is on the developer, it's their requirement to do so, not your requirement to monitor every day. that to me is a systemic problem from a community perspective. so i get it that's the way it was written, the bad is on us for requiring it that way, but i can understand how, you know, w

. >> melgar? >> the walk way, you showed us who uses that walk way? >> i understand the walk way is part of the neighboring property that you are asking about. >> so the one that has not been sited, or the one that is sited, you decided was not part of it? >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> so i have heard conflicting discussion about when each of these developments was built. like which came first the chicken or the egg? so it looks to me like the house up above on the wall was built on top of the retaining wall that was there. was the wall built at the same time of the house. >> we have no way of telling. >> we don't have any evidence one way or the other about any of that. about the timing? >> even if we did we avoid that, from the department's point of view it's not in an unsafe condition, and avoid any dispute of that nature. >> in this case, there is evidence on all sides of this issue, would you normally include everybody? >> i acknowledge you have a very different position because there are three properties being spoken