The oath. Will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. Okay. No members at the time there is someone . Im sorry. I cant see up there. Do you swear to tell the truth to the best of your knowledge . Thank you. You may be seated. Okay. For the record, the department will present their case. Each side has seven minutes. Then, the appellant will present their case. Next, theres Public Comment, and each member has three minutes to speak. Lastly, theres rebuttal, three minutes for the department and the appellant. Next, discussion of minutes for the meeting held on july 17, 2019. Okay. Are there any corrections or comments regarding the Meeting Minutes from the 17 . Okay. I move we accept. Second. Clerk okay. A motion and a second. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Are all commissioners in favor . Any opposed. Okay. Minutes are approved. I also wanted to announce that our first item, case number 6861, 49 drum street, has withdrawn their request for appeals. Okay. Thank you. Clerk next item is order of abatement, case number 6863, 1139 guerrero street, rincon properties, l. L. C. Action requested by appellant. Time needed to work with tenant to get final inspection done. The departments can come forward. Good morning. My name is moises hernandez, chief inspector for building enforcement. A wall heater improperly working, causing potential life safety issues. A notice of inspection was issued by inspector loera, which noted that the wall heater was actually installed incorrectly and requested them obtain a building permit. A notice of violation was issued on december 9. The final warning letter was issued afterwards because they failed to comply with the permit. The actual permit was actually issued two months later. There was a hearing on december 12, 2018. The hearing was continued in order for them to correct the heating violations. Heres the inspection so far, which you can see on february 7, 2019, there was no one onsite, so therefore, the inspector could not inspect the site. The order of abatement was issued based on the fact that there was no inspection history afterwards after the initial inspection. As you can see, the other inspections in april, i believe, show corrective action, which the wall heater still hasnt been corrected. Therefore, Code Enforcement requests to uphold the abatement and all assessment costs. I do also want to point out that weve had multiple cases or open complaints again this property, multiple violations throughout the years which also applies to City Attorney because they have filed to comply with multiple notices of violation. President mccarthy thank you very much. Clerk is there a representative or appellant present . It does not look like it. Is there Public Comment . Any Public Comment on this case . Okay. Commissioner walker . Commissioner walker thank you for bringing this. So you havent been able to we havent been able to access entry to see if theres been any correction, is that the case, since april . Yes. I spoke with the Planning Department today, and as of april, they have no inspections from the contractor. Commissioner walker seems pretty cut and dry. I move to uphold the order. Second. Commissioner walker because the evidence provided indicates there indeed has been a violation and it has not been corrected. Thank you. President mccarthy [inaudible] clerk yeah. So the case were discussing is 1139 guerrero street. Commissioner walker yes. Commissioner clinch appeal number 8683. President mccarthy thank you, commissioner clinch. Clerk and we have a motion and a second. And there was no Public Comment on this item, so ill do a roll call vote. [roll call] clerk okay. That motion carries unanimously, and our next item is item f, general Public Comment. General Public Comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals agenda. Item g, motion to adjourn. Motion. Second. Clerk okay. All in favor . Okay. We are now adjourned. Well reconvene as the Building Inspection Commission at 10 00 a. M. Exactly. Next. We. Next are i he thank you so much for that. Congratulations again to the director who made remarks at this years time chinese real estate convention. You updated its members as members on an important d. B. I. Safety improvement building program. Thank you for that. Finally, d. B. I. s Employee Recognition committee reviewed some nominations and selected building inspector clancy as our employee of the year. His dedication and outstanding work on multiple inspections under very tight timelines helps to ensure the new chase arena will open on schedule in early september, enabling San Francisco and the bay area fans of the Golden State Warriors to usher in yet another championship season for our team and its brandnew stateoftheart facility. We will be presenting this award i want to say that i was able to take a tour of chase centre. Amazing work. It is huge, it is beautiful, all of us should go see the building it is really pretty amazing. Congratulations to clancy. I think our secretary wants to read something and then i will present the award. I just have a statement from the team that he worked with. I speak on behalf of the entire Clark Company as well as the joint venture when i say that he has been a partner through the can his to the construction industry, upholding the oath, values and discipline given to him by the city of San Francisco , but also partnership and leadership he has shown to us throughout the last years. I could not think of another person more deserving to be recognized. We meet city officials in every city, county and town that we worked. Some are very good, some with room to grow. He has managed to achieve the right balance of Public Safety and city obligations with being part of a team and he simply gets it done. From all of us at the Clark Construction throughout the city , we applaud the city in recognizing him. Well done. Thank you. [applause] if youd like to come on up, please. And recognition of your professionalism and outstanding service, on behalf of your division and going above and beyond the call of duty with engagement and responsiveness and encouraging code compliance, your confidence with stakeholders and staff make you an invaluable asset. This award is hereby presented to you as [indiscernible]. [applause] [laughter] this completes my announcements. Congratulations, again. Is there any Public Comment on the president s announcement . Seeing none, item three, general Public Comment. The b. I. C. Will take Public Comment on matters within the commissions jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. Good morning, commissioners. I had a client recently who had an issue about Property Line windows. And the plan checker said, unless you approve evidence of this existing [indiscernible] the criteria for allowing these windows would allow us to do that. The chief building inspector went out and got some photos to show these existing windows. I did not believe that. We know he did do that. Let me say this. He said yes, look, here it is. Here is what is going on. This is what you call service to the public. On another thing, i did appreciate mr. Fergus from the permit centre who shadowed me for one day. That was really cool to go around with. Lastly, there is a new way of signing up for plan check. It is really great. Thanks for holding the spot in the general planning line. There two people ahead of you. We will let you know when you are near the front. [indiscernible] status update from general planning is not ready yet, but please have the city if the city or San Francisco need more time, you can reply. How cool is that . Once again, im looking forward to this new building. We will see how it all works out great job, d. B. I. You always do a great job. Thank you very much. Thank you. I have a presentation for commissioners, please. Commissioners, my name is kevin chang. The topic today is on the followup of the july 17th b. I. C. Hearing on the property on 18th street. On page one of the presentation, there is a timeline to the missed Code Enforcement opportunities. There are 20 onsite inspections for a total of 26 inspections over a 304 month period. Checkout when these were conducted. Excavations were from december 21422015. Why did they not understand the full extent of the permit . Checkout when it was okay to cover the inspections that were conducted. Sheet rock being loaded in may 2016. Notice how the roof is ripped off the attic. It is highly unusual to load sheetrock when it is not closed. Checkout planning taking two years to issue this after a zero permit complaint in may of 2018. The buildings have been known to force complaints to planning within a matter of days. Checkout that 90 inspections including the complaint inspections were done by one building inspector. From start of work inspection to the final inspections, they determined there were no violations. Why was there no rotation of inspectors. Check out the building taking out one year to issue n. O. V. Why did building issue in n. O. V. Only after the discretionary review at the Planning Commission . Checkout special inspections being done without geotech reform. Checkout the project that involves mercury engineering all under investigation by the City Attorney. Checkout page two. The excerpt of the building staff report to the Planning Commission, which was not presented to this commission. After building staff conducted 26 onsite inspections from december 2142 october december 2014 to october 2016. They did not document the as built conditions. Are the wheels of justice low or selective . Are building staff incompetent or corrupt . These questions should not be hard to answer. These questions will not be answered if the Building Inspections commission does not call for an independent investigation that is thorough and transparent. Commissioners, please call for an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation. Thank you. Is there any other further Public Comment . Seeing none, item four, commissioner questions in matters, inquiries to staff. Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. I talked with some stuff already, and forgive me if this was already going to be discussed. If i dont i dont know if everyone saw the news earlier, i guess it was last week, h. U. D. Sent Planning Department on the building does Building Inspection Department a letter saying it was going to be investigating the last ten years of reports that were done by the department that led to legislative decisions at the board of supervisors and as far as housing, planning, zoning and all of those things are concerned, and the assumption that San Francisco might be violating they fair housing act. As an Affordable Housing director, i have many takes on that. I guess i would love to know what i believe d. B. I. Got a letter directly, and i would like to talk about that specifically today just to know if there is a schedule or game plan around it. So you want an update . Yeah. And agenda item on that at some point when we are ready . When you have had time to download it, i would like it to be an agenda item, please. Any other commissioners . Okay. Our next item is item four b. , future meetings and agendas. The commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission, and in our september meeting is on september 18th. Is everyone good . Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on item four a or b. . Our next item is item five, discussion and possible action regarding the ordinance amending the plumbing code to delete the local amendment to the california plumbing code, rules and regulations and the section on Cross Connection control. To add local controls for beverage dispensers in a testing requirement for backflow prevention, in addition to other requirements. We were expecting representatives today to speak about this to you from the sfpuc and the department of public health, i see they are not here at the moment, so i dont know if you want to move on . Sorry, i didnt see them in the back there. Would you like to come up . Sorry. Thats okay. Thank you thank you for coming this morning. Sorry, we were hiding in the back. Thats okay. I am the epidemiologist and manager of several programs including the water regulatory programs at the department of public health. Before you today is an amendment to the local plumbing code that we have been working collaboratively on for a while. It has a bit of a complicated history that i can give you details about if you are interested, but essentially what the amendment before you does is makes the local plumbing code consistent with the rules that we have under San Francisco health code, article 12 a, and together with your staff and the code advisory committee, we have come to consensus that we would like to all be on the same page about how, what we require of beverage dispensers with respect to backflow, industrial chillers , and the way we think about some of the tasking requirements. Is there any questions . I dont have questions, i will just make a statement. Most of this is pretty standard now. And many of the other jurisdictions have already adopted it, such as a backflow preventer for the beverage dispenser, and requiring that they dont use copper piping on a downstream side of the backflow preventer. The reason is that carbonated water hitting copper causes some italy fact if people drink it, so that is why we want the backflow preventer removed. Contra costa county does it, i know that for a fact, and im sure other jurisdictions does it , too. Great. Is it backwards, as well, or just Going Forward . Do people have to come up to this code . Most should be in compliance, actually, and we continue to enforce it through the health code, and now this will just assist the Building Department to make sure it is enforced in their environment when they are onsite. Okay. Great. So whenever they run into it, this is it. Right. Got it. Thank you very much. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, we do a roll call vote. Is there a motion to approve . I move that we approve this. Second. There is a motion and a second. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. Thank you, again. Our next item is item six, discussion and possible action regarding the high calculations for including occupy roofs as an occupied floor and code interpretation number 17001. Great. I believe we have our fire marshal. Do you want to come up and give us the latest on this . It seems to be going back and forth. It is. Good morning, commissioners. With me today is chief pruitt chief pruitt, he manages plan checks. So just a little recap, in 2017, we put out a formal interpretation in defining highrise buildings. Typically highrise building is defined as a measurement from the lowest point of Fire Department access, to the highest occupied floor level. The interpretation stated that a rooftop deck was considered an occupied floor when measuring 7r or not the building was a highrise building. Obviously there are many implications to this. The codes are dramatically more conservative and restrictive for highrise buildings. Theres a lot of reasons for that. The past fire marshal, who is now retired as of july, we have a new interim state fire marshal , i had gone up and met with him and his deputies twice, and had multiple phone calls. This is one of the issues we talked about. And from those conversations, the fire marshal at that time told interpretation for further consideration and review. It has recently come to our knowledge that that same interpretation now has been reposted. Nothing has been revised, nothing has been added or any kind of rationale provided in addition to what was already there. It came to our surprise that it was posted because we were not notified in any way. Theres been a lack of communication with the state and s. F. F. D. That maybe because the new administration. Im not here to be critical of the state fire marshal, but there has been some disconnect. What we have done recently over the past couple of weeks is we have reached out numerous times with phone calls, trying to set up a meeting with the state fire marshal to discuss this very matter. What we would like to do is understand the rationale. What are the concerns . If you look and read through the code, theres quite often exceptions to exceptions to exceptions in the code. What i would like to know, from the Fire Departments perspective, what are the concerns, is it truly aerial access, is it increased fire load, is it delayed egress, what is it . And then maybe we can talk about a carveout for limited exceptions or something, and we were hoping to have that conversation, and that is what we are trying to do right now. Over two week period, we got a phone call yesterday from the state fire marshals assistant. I asked to the assistant, do you have the decision to make an authority, and he said no. He says he will relay that information to the state fire marshal and get back to us. So that is where we stand at this point. So, i do have one question. Just for clarification, previous to this previous deter