thomas melon circle in the bayview area open 8:30 to 5 welcom >> >> good morning. today is wednesday march 15, 2017. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> commissioner konstin. >> here. >> commissioner lee. >> here. >> commissioner warshell. >> he. >> we have a quorum and commissioner clinch and commissioner gilman are excused long with vice president walker

is excused. our next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> good morning everybody and welcome to the big meeting march 15, a couple of days before st. patrick's day which is going to be a long weekend so happy st. patrick's day to everybody as we start the meeting here and congratulate the director on the fabulous green tie here. he's the only one that actually wore one want all right. i take that back. commissioner lee as well. good morning ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the march meeting building inspection commission meeting. congratulations to commissioner chang yu that retired after years with public service with dbi and did pw and awarded proclamations and a

dinner in honor my his colleagues and well done. he will be missed and what a great city servant for 30 years. on the andrea ruiz-esquide on the. >> >> dbi seismic and the commissioner commiss went to the graduation and yet another class grateod february 24 when 65 seniors received graduation certificates of emergency and survival bags and from the director at the senior center and the program focuses on seniors and youth in chinatown the western edition bay view and richmond who complete a five week training course to ensure to know what exactly to do when the next earthquake hits san francisco

and this is preparation work that everyone in the city needs to do for themselves and families. special thank it is to the fit fut vendors, cya, self help for the elderly and dbi's lite matis that, woes with the vendors to implement these important programs. thanks to the how longing inspector tim ree woo who got a letter of appreciation for helping tenants in the candlestick haights to get hot water running in the homes. appropriate we're having the conversation. the tenants were grateful the inspector came out two hours and well done and commissioner dennis ye got a thank you letter for a family getting heat in the family that were having problems for a year. they also said he was curacy professional and went above beyond the call of duty and thank you and well done there inspector. just a reminder to all managers and supervisors and

staff send the nominations for this year's quarter 1dbi employee of the quarter to william strom to continue to continue the recognition program of staff meeting and exceeding performance expectations. we're accepting nominations now and will announce our quarter one winner at the april meeting. madam secretary that concludes my president's announcements. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none item 3 general public comment. the bic will take comments on items that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning commissioners and thank you for providing this public comment. my name is wilma parker and a long time artist and a graduate of the art institute of chicago and rhode

island school of design and i came back later on for five years as a trustee and my main concern then was how do you accommodate artists? the term "artist housing" is misleading. they're not pdr or not factory workers and providence has the same problem as we have here and most of the buildings died when the industrial revolution fell apart so we have the situation in san francisco. it's really hard to find artist housing. what comes to mind fntion is the great trfnlg the ghost ship scbeerp all watching the news. this was a tragedy that never needed to happen. we have known for years how the artists live and to me is the great tragedy ever is the constant phrase "rich artistic community." starving artist community is more like tin fact the day of the fire people were talking

about getting together to party with this rich artistic community. i mean the fact that maybe a couple -- ten, 12 artists were able to burn themselves to death by running too many extension cords and no stair case and invite the friends, the general public to join the party that's the art cry. if it hasn't been for the sons and daughters of the general public burned alive i don't think we got the attention we had. the ship building -- we had plenty in san francisco. our main industry die whd we defeated japan by knock out all the japanese shipping and retaliated and enjoyed our shipping industry. that building in oakland wasn't occupied since japan signed the surrender. these buildings are all over. we know about them. when they're inhibited by

artists and the joke is artistic -- aws autistic you mean but when others get involved it's a problem. what do you do with the artists? the ghost ship and others like this and owned by the widows and elder women and don't know what is going with the buildings and turn them to criminal or not to predatory building managers and expect artists with no money and have not made sales forever or ever to bring them to code. it's impossible. we're building so much in the city. homeless housing is easy to imagine. you need a little bed, bathroom and closet. artistic housing or housing artists and the cultural workers is harder and we need to do better because a city without a cultural life and ability to house these people is like a body without a head. it's not

going to the last long. thank you for your time. >> thank you ms. parker. good to see you. thank you for making your comments today. >> good morning commissioners. my name is john lofton and represent tim shik and one of the condo owners on noriega and here because of the illegal garbage sheds in the area. this matter has been going for four years now. there were sheds that were erected behind the building. they're a nuisance, dirty, smelly and attract vermin and in violation of the easements and covenants and restrictions on the building and this department has inspected and issued a notice of violation in 2015. we went through the appeal process, the abatement appeals board upheld the notice

of violation, ordered the sheds removed in november 2015. the condo owners tried to meet with the bakery to work things out. nothing happened and there was a request for rehearing and denyed in march 2016 so it's been nearly a year now. the garbage sheds are still there. we're asking the commission and the department to take action have those sheds removed. there's obviously been a lot invested in this dispute over the years. the department's inspectors, you the commissioners, the condo owners and the bakery owner and we would like to see this brought to a conclusion and send a signal to the public that the commission will enforce its notices of violation. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. >> is there any additional public comment? okay. seeing

none are we going to do number 4? >> yeah, we will do number -- >> four and five? >> no, let's move four. let's move five. and let's go to number 7 number 7 if there is no objection from the fellow commissioners? >> no objection. >> item 7, a couple items will be taken out of order today. discussion on accela permit and project tracking system. >> good morning commissioners. my name is sean beautiful scpint project manager working on the project. as you see in the status report we provided we actually have very good news to

announce. we worked closely with the vendor and arrived on a statement of work that will basically outline the actions and the plan necessary to implement the accela system and we've reviewed it internally and we've come to alignment and in fact we've reviewed with the dbi steering committee which consists of the dbi leadership and they agree with the pran plans and the contents so it looks like we're moving forward. at this point now we have a statement and work and add to the amendment and we have to go through the normal kind of contract approval processes involving contracts administration so that's basically where we're at right now. the good news we have agreement on content and scope and requirements and importantly the methodology to get it done, and we have a plan for moving forward at this time. if you have any questions let me know.

>> no questions. so we will probably maybe next month get a further update. we will probably have more questions then. thank you sean for coming out. next item. >> any public comment on item 7? seeing none item 8 discussion of regarding the department department's procedures and plan review and policies for tall buildings and performance based applications under administrative bulletin 082 and 083. >> good morning. i want to make sure everyone has the updated slide show that staff is going to present this morning and with that with introduction comments to the director and the staff and i want thank the director and staff for what we're going to hear this morning in this report. we're pleased to have received your report. the department of building

inspection's tall building review process in response to questions that the commission outlined in a letter that we sent to you director december 6 in 2016. this report provides a comprehensive look at the complex process that goes into plan development and review, construction and inspections of tall buildings and it demonstrates that many experts both with dbi but particularly with reference to design and professionals and inspections all hired by the project sponsor required to ensure that tall buildings are constructed to meet the minimum building code standards and are safe for occupancy. the commission is appreciative of this work that went into this preparing this report and looks forward to continuing the work with dbi to help them inform the public around these important safety regulations. i would like to note that today's discussion is intended to review the tall buildings generally and that we

will not be discussing any one building in particular. with that director if you have some comments before we go to the presentation. >> good morning. my name is tom and director of building inspection. thank you president mccarthy and all the commission to give us the opportunity to present and discuss about this tall buildings procedure and policy. first of all to define a tall building we have a definition in 2008 and then any building over 240 feet. then we consider as a tall building in the definition, and then to remind you we have 200,000 building in town, very little over the 240 feet, only less

than 1%, and later on we will give you more detail in the presentation. however, the ability of construction material and capability of the design continue [inaudible] in early 2000 we have more proposal to do more tall building of this kind and also the department took the positive way to improve our procedure and requirement to monitor this building design. in march 2008 we developed two administration bulletins ab082 and 83 address those issues. we believe this is good starting point you know to develop for our department to review the

tall building in the process and then follow our publication on this administration bulletin and also we get recognition by the university of california berkeley pacific engineering research center in august 2008. they saying we are foresight and leadership in developing this process procedure. the administrative bulletin has been recently amended by dbi and also modified able to other improvement in our review process, and then also we also written -- we have confirm aigdz from the president of the association of [inaudible] california and they accept the request to reveal this administrative bulletin to see

any improvement in our administrative bulletin in the future and also i would like to take this opportunity to appreciate some of our commission here and also our staff especially [inaudible]. we extensively work on the report and give you more detail how this process, how we feel about the tall building and super tall building 240 feet or more and i don't understand to spend too many time to talk and have my assistant director give you brief overall the presentation. if you have any questions you can ask us. we can give you further discussion. >> good morning. >> good morning. ron tom assistant director of department of building inspection. president mccarthy, fellow commissioners thank you very much for this opportunity to

present our very robust process that we have in place for tall buildings. >> before you get started -- sorry for interrupting you. i was thinking before you started with the presentation and i don't know if it's okay with the commissioners if we hold our questions to the end of the slide show? obviously if you have a question that needs to be answered no problem and then maybe at the end if this is okay with you -- >> certainly president mccarthy. >> okay. we will hold that to the end then. thank you so much. >> all right. again thank you. dbi welcomes this opportunity to talk about its work to make san francisco tall buildings safer. we appreciate the building inspection commission's work and oversight on this important topic. we look forward to continuing the collaboration with you other

city agencies and the stakeholders with a vested interest in this process. in presentation we will discuss the following items the difference between code proscriptive structural design and performance base structural design and talk about safety including the pier review process. what is the role of professionals and design design inspections? and talk about inspections at dbi. what is the san francisco building code made up of? it's made of three parts. we have the international building code. that's the model code. california adopt its and makes make amendments and becomes the

california code and san francisco also makes amendments and provides the minimum standards and what is the dbi role in this based on the san francisco building code? >> >> we regulate design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy. what dbi doesn't do is we don't propose plans. we don't make repairs. we don't design or construct buildings. and the code is updated every three years. it's a living document. types of structural design. under the california building code under the san francisco building code we have two types of structural design methods. it is either the code

proscriptive structural design which is the prevailing method or the special case of the performance base structural design. so what's this about code proscriptive structural design in well, we have over 200,000 buildings in san francisco. 99.99% of the buildings use the proscriptive design method. what is it? it's like using a recipe. it specifies building requirements including height and size restrictions. when there's a building that is over 240 feet and becomes a tall building then we have peer review and we will get into that later. when choosing to submit a

performance structural design the project sponsor commits to utilizing advance detail computer analysis and designs to develop a building that will have the same performance and code proscriptive structural design as a code proscriptive structural design and one that meets the minimum requirements or exceeds them as contained in the san francisco building code. we're talking about a very rear number of buildings that have utilized this process. for the past years we have over 3,000 new buildings. we only have 15 of those as performance base design buildings. so we're talking about less than .4 percent. appearance

and structural designs. what this slide illustrate is how those performance based designs represent a very small sliver of all the new buildings that we construct in san francisco for the last 16 years. this slide illustrates the differences and the historical changes that have occurred where we shifted from the old financial districts with the high rises occurred into the south of market area. this has been a dramatic shift. a collaborative approach. everybody has a part to play in this process. it's very complicated. it's very complex and takes years to accomplish. so what did the owner and developers -- what's their responsibility? they hire

design prch professionals, the inspectors and contractors and in turn the subcontractors. the design professionals design the projects. between the design professionals and the owner they decide what method to use in terms of structural design, the proscriptive method or the performance base method but of course if it's 240 feet or more it's a proscriptive method -- performance base method utilizing peer review. they choose building materials and they work with city agency to get the building constructed. they maintain safety of the building during construction and after the department issues a certificate of final certificate of final completion and occupancy and if anything comes up that is a safety issue it's their obligation to disclose to the department of building inspection. what's the role of the design professional?

they propose the structural seismic design and they look at the geotechnical soil report to determine how the structural system will be built. they follow the san francisco building code. they keep their own records and responsible for reviewing all the inspection compliance documents and submittals are made at the end of the project. these design professionals include on this team the architect, the engineers structural and mechanical and electrical engineer. what is dbi's role? we ensure that the plans and construction follow the san francisco building code. we inspect life safety systems in a building it ensure they're code compliant. we monitor all changes approved by the

engineer of record and in the end we issue the certificate of final completion and occupancy certificate of final certificate of final . >> >> what this slight ilslates is the pro-- illustrates is the proportionate responsibility of all the participants in this complex and complicated project. dbi inspectors -- we do spot check at important milestones. the design team especially the structural engineer and the soil engineer go inspect the site on a periodic basis. the owner hires special inspectors to have full time observation of the structural installation and the owner has on the job full time his contractor and the

subcontractors. so this illustrates the proportionate time that we as a department spend on the duration of the project. from design to construction the owner perfect purchases the site, secures the financing and hires the design professional and submitted to the department and for the permit. >> >> unique to san francisco they use a site permit process. it's a set of conceptual design drawings for new and existing construction. it's the first step of seeking job approval from dbi and the planning department and it recognizes it as a legal project giving it entitlements. it does not allow for construction. structural design criteria is also required for peer review projects at the

initial site permit stage. the agenda following the approval and issuance of the site approval they come into the department and in sequence of construction generally and describe construction like the a tukture and mechanical and planning and each of the stages are authorized with approval for the construction in the field. and what this peer review have to do with these tall buildings especially compared to other cities? as the project goes through the process the peer review process is invoked and extensive and robust compared to other major cities. the panel consists typically of two, three independent experts. they are

the geotechnical and structural engineer and often a seismic expert. the geotechnical and structural engineer are experts with california license as engineers and are current practitioners in their field of expertise. since 2008 all new building projects in san francisco are subject to these bust robust standards with review. dbi improves its process to ensure the independence of outside experts. let's look at the history of peer review in the process comparing pre-2008 and to the current process we have in plan and looking forward. prior to 2008 there were no written peer review

processes in place. it was not required but upon seeing more tall buildings submitted to bb i they took the initiative and we were proactive in supplementing the san francisco building code. in coronation with the structural engineers association of northern california we developed a formal requirement. first ab082 and later ab083. formally requiring third party pee rereviews and for anything over 240 feet it's mandatory. what about october 2016 to the present? we're improving. we have made improvements and they're under development. third party peer review appointments are now made by dbi

without project sponsor input at the expense of the project sponsor. we have started drafting a request for qualifications to set up a vetted pool of peer review experts to engage in tall building projects in the future. permitting inspection and occupancy. so we've gone through the site permit and process. the agenda are issued. construction begins. dbi spot checks the project's progress during different points in the construction. we make visual inspections of the site to ensure work is code compliant and conforms through proof, plan and permit documents and also are the special inspector and the engineer of record during this time. as the project

nears completion a multiple multitude of things must happen even before we consider to do the final inspection and ultimately issuing the cfc. all the agency have to approve. it could be public works, public utility commission, the fire department, our own divisions, plumbing, electrical, building. the owner design team have documents they have to submit to the department like structural observation letter, special inspector have to submit. third agencies have to submit an affidavit. after all this is done and we're sure that the project and the progress have reached the point where it's suitable to do the final inspection we will conduct that final inspection and if everything is in order, all

paperwork is submitted we issue the certificate and all maintenance and safety is the owner's responsibility -- is the owner's responsibility. so what's the role of this special inspection that i refer to earlier? it's required by the building code. it's conducted by a certified third parties who are engaged by the owner developer. they are separate. they perform their own inspections and they're qualified third parties in addition to our dbi inspectors and the project design team. what do they do? they monitor the project for material and workmanship critical to the building's integrity. they're on site full time for the foundation and structural

aspects of the construction. they keep daily logs. at the end of the project before we will even consider issuing a cfc they have to submit an affidavit to the department and that affidavit coming from the agency that employs the special inspector also has a letter stamped by their on staff engineer, a registered engineer. what about the design team? the engineer of record, the engineers of record both the geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer have to submit letters of observation. they attest that the required structural observation conforms to the approved plans. we require this before we issue

even consider a final inspection to issue a cfc and it is regulated by administrative bulletin ab46. from time to time a tall building will want to exvacate for basements or sublevels for other uses below the water table. how do we know where the water table occurs? every site is different. well, it's contained in the soil report. the soil engineer through the borings and investigation establish the level of the water table. the structural engineer provides the design on how far into that water table and below it the construction will occur together based on the recommendations of the soil engineer they determine and craft the strategy for shoring and dewatering. dewatering is the removal of water from a construction site in order to make it suitable for

construction and inspections. it is the responsible and possibility of the owner and his or her construction team. it also includes the geotechnical engineer as part of that team as they move forward in the dewatering process. who has oversight as far as the city agency is concerned? it's not dbi. it's the puc and the public health departments. dewatering is not in the building code so we have no jurisdiction. finally the last slide is about our record retention policy. throughout the permitting and inspection process numerous documents are approved and issued. san francisco current record retention departments go above and beyond california building code. dbi is making them even stronger. dbi continues to

update the policy for documents to make them centrally located and accessible. and just in the last 16 years we have recorded over 2 million documents. commissioners that brings an end my formal presentation. i am open to questions and i gladly welcome them. >> well, thank you very much assistant director for that presentation. i have a lot of questions for you. it's like the best seller for me last night going through and i wrote down the questions when i get to my questions but i would like to go to my other commissioners before me and do you have any questions commissioners? >> do you want me to start? >> yes please. thank you. >> i have a question regarding a special inspectors. i

understand the role and relationship between the project engineer and the department, but is there any relationship between the special inspectors and the department? meaning if the special inspector sees a problem out there of course he's noticing the project engineer. what did the project engineer doesn't tell dbi or our department and is there any recourse? how do we know if the special inspector says there's a problem? >> commissioner lee as i mentioned earlier on the slide it's a collaborative effort. a lot of parties are engaged. if there's a deviation from the approved initial plans or deviation from the accepted standards for that specific type of work and it's cited by the special inspector that report goes to the owner, gets transferred -- transmitted to

the contractor. also it is transmitted to the engineer of record. at that point and time together they have to craft a strategy and how to address and mitigate those deviations. some of them are not very high in terms of complexity so they work that out themselves and we don't -- it just moves forward from that point. you missed the bebar or the cable didn't go the correct height. those can be dealed with in the field. if substantial our inspector that goes out periodically number informed by the general inspector that there is a deviation, and the special inspector will provide the information for our inspector. our inspector has the opportunity to write a correction notice and gives it

to the contractor and gets the process rolling and how to mitigate and have him place something written and disseminated to all parties including our department and if it requires a supplemental, amendment to the approved issued plans then that is submitted to our department for review and issuance. if it's substantial and there's an impasse which is very rare we always have the opportunity to issue a notice of violation which could stop a portion of the work or if it's really extensive we can stop the job. >> i understand that. i understand ultimately the responsibility belongs to the owner contractor engineer of record, but what happens if there is something that maybe

the engineer of roar decides it's not a big beale. deal. >> maybe they build it into the 6 inches of right-of-way and it is building is structural sound but the department doesn't catch it butt special inspector says it's 6 inches over the line. >> >> but nobody reports it to the department but the department later on say hey wait a minute. we found out it's 6 inches over the line and the building is up in the air how do we correct that? is there a way for the special inspector to reach us first and this is causing a little problem and we may see a bigger problem in the future? >> well, the answer to that question really relates to the stage that it occurs that it's

brought to our attention. if it's early on while we still haven't yet to construct the super structure part that is of a level -- talking about -- encroaching a public way is of a level we can stop the job because it is severe. we don't want to construct the project and the whole building and one portion encroachos public way. i would expect something as severe as that would never get to the point where you start building the super structure without anybody aware of it until you actually get halfway through and completed. i think that fits into the category of being sever and potentially a game changer in terms of construction sequence. you have to address that right away. you cannot just ignore that because what happens you compound the problem if you let it go on and we would exercise our ability

to stop the job. >> i think the director may want -- director. >> commissioner lee first of all i have 11 years of design experience for design high rise buildings, small building. what happened is everybody have responsibility because we are licensed engineer, myself a structural engineer. when we do a project it's required by the insurance company we go out and work with the special inspector you know to make sure they do their job. sometimes recommend the owner to fire the special inspector if they're not doing their job. to answer your question regarding encroaching to the public line it's a severe thing. that would be [inaudible] give you the boundary if you go over that it is the responsibility of the contractor if they go beyond the

public line. then you know their responsibility. i don't think even the architect or engineer can take it easy on that kind of major item because later on they have a responsibility. they will sue by the owner and the department of public works if encroaching on the public way. that's why we have check and balance on all this stuff. i don't concern that much and that's why our inspector also go out there to work with them cooperatively. >> can i ask a second question and then let the rest of the commissioners -- >> absolutely commissioner lee. >> my second question is dewatering. i didn't see anywhere in the report -- do the other cities that we approach like los angeles, seattle do they require a permit for dewatering? and if so how do they handle it?

>> no. california. dewatering really has been the responsibility of the construction team and the geotechnical engineer and the owner. >> but we did ask? none of the other cities require it? >> the administrative process itself maybe a little different. >> okay. >> as i stated earlier in our jurisdiction the puc and health department have oversight for the discharge of that water. in l.a. they use a different -- they actually have -- within l.a. they also have utilities so you may have to go through -- prove to them everything you're doing complies with the dewatering process already contained in the permit process in their review of this issued

permits, but in my investigation it just is for us in california a construction -- means -- methods of construction because generally speaking once you accomplish your foundation and let's assume you have created this impermeable bathtub and holds back the base and water of the bathtub and dewatering at some point no longer occurs so let's say in the bigger scheme of things it's a temporary measure. generally not a permanent measure so that's why it's a methods and means of construction. >> thank you commissioner lee for your comments. commissioner warshell please. >> this was also best seller reading for me, and i will

preference my comments unlike my colleagues who are in the construction industry, architects, engineers, i'm the most layman so i apologize if any of these are too layman oriented, but another preliminary comment i would like to say that i respect the comment that we shouldn't be speaking about any specific building and this is not meant to be that, but you know it will be thinly veiled as to where the reference maybe on a couple of my points, so for instance we talk about dbi doesn't randomly inspect without cause. you need a complaint to generate an inquiry. the owner must disclose any safety concerns,

and you know the requirements of the engineer of record to maintain records and the like. i guess my question really comes up -- you know, we may get to the completion of a building and decide that it's structurally sound and issue a certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion but there maybe discrepancies that come up that some elements of a building are not performing as expected, and when that occurs you know we still seem to be in this mode of saying that we're going to be

complaint driven. you know some citizen or somebody has to make a complaint before we can do a follow up investigation. it leads me to wonder if there should be some trigger for follow up you know almost perpetual monitoring generated when any element of performance is not in line with the original expectations, so could you speak to that if i made that clear? or if you need clarification tell me if that was too circular? >> so if i understand your question, your inquiry here we have certain processes in place subsequent to the issuance of

the cfc, and if something occurs is there another method to be made aware of it and to be able to follow up on it which may include continuing observation after the building is completed? is that the right -- >> yeah, is there something where a performance is not in line with what was originally expected that would trigger more continuous follow up? even if it didn't rise to the merit issuing the certificate of completion certificate of occupancy? >> i think the answer to that is our current policy as stated before is complaint driven and there's a reason for that. well, there are several reasons. first we do don't regular inspections of buildings other than the housing group looks at

the older residential buildings about every five years. for high rises the fire department will do their inspections annually but they're looking for the life safety systems to be in order. structural systems by its nature are fairly static. they're not dynamic. i mean even there are changes those changes are so incremental, so inperceptionable to the human eye and maybe they're anecdotally ways that you see something as no longer level, but there's very incremental and historically with 200,000 buildings it just doesn't occur very often, so i think our current policies and procedures which are complaint driven and

are very transparent. they're responded to very, very quickly, and they're tracked making them available to the public. i mean that's a the process in place that has worked for 200,000 buildings. i believe in my professional opinion that's the only practical way for this to continue. we would have to adopt and vet out a whole new process where we as a department had to have continued observations or awareness of a building once we issue the cfc, and as an administrator looking at all the other responsibilities we have as a department for the ability to manage all of that for such a small -- in fact infin tassal

problem that is currently being perceived would take away from all the other responsibilities that we have and so the priorities have to be established by this commission at some point. where do you want our limited resources to be deployed? keeping in mind that the owner and a host of -- i whole team of design professionals and construction s have a legal obligation to own sure that the -- ensure that the building is safe and in california we have a ten year latent defects law like a stature of limitations for things not readily seen by the naked eye for any party who has ownership to file litigation and that process is well established and it holds the design professional, the owner, and the construction team fully responsible for what gets built. i think those checks and balances have worked very well

and i would propose that we maintain our complaint driven process so that we can deploy our limited resources to using the priorities set by this commission so i will wait until -- the director will wait until you change those priorities and then we will then address them as the time comes. i hope that provides you with some insight into where our department considers how to address this very small problem that has occurred. >> yes, it does, and thank you for your response. i think that you rightly point out that when we have 200,000 buildings and the massive numbers it would be completely impractical to try to have a follow up system on any deviations and the question

really is you know where are the numbers and what rises to that? you know it's almost like in the discussions of -- you know, the proscriptive designs there is such a small piece of what we do, and the tall buildings are such an infinitesimal small number of the total number of projects that we work on that it would bring to my mind a question not that we have you know a blanket policy that every project -- a small wood frame construction house, but rather you know in these very high

profile, very high consequence cases that we consider having more stringent monitoring follow up and review of deviations just because the implications here are so much more profound, and again if it's your opinion that's such a small frame of reference that the overall policy is still over effective then i certainly respect your opinion and i know it's more based in fact than anything i would have, but to ensure feelings that where these

essentially stable situations exist and differences are almost imperceptable to most people as you rightly point out to have some of these rely on citizen complaints when they would be virtually imperceptable and not sort of draw on our insights and knowledge that certain elements are not performing as we had expected, and those very rare situations to not interrupt the total department's procedures and priorities, but for those rare exceptions where there is something where a citizen

complaint based on the inperacceptability would be hard to come by but we do have knowledge there is something out there that might be a cause for concern that we might want to have some follow up is really what i am suggesting. thank you. >> commissioner warshell. >> thank you for your comments and observation. >> okay. i think ron is going to need your help up here and i want to apologize up front here because like i was saying commissioner warshell was working on it last night and it's an incredible document and a road map but the commission obviously it's great roll back for the representation but the general public can see what our criterias and how stringent and how there's strong policies in

place for all the good reasons we're talking about this evening but i want to apologize up front if i am asking the same questions asked but i wrote a bunch of questions here, and they're kind of -- forgive me -- they're kind of like -- they're clarification in my eyes so i can read in the record they're certain procedures that definitely happen and i don't know if we go to the collaborative approach design professional slide and in mine it's ten and it might be different. it's the same? okay. so based on my understanding of design professionals section of the report can you confirm and it can be yes or no and if you want to elaborate that's fine the following statements. the geotechnical engineer recommends it is subsurface and system? >> you're correct. the geo engineer does the

[inaudible] >> yes. >> the geo engineer recommends if piles or piers are necessary. >> yes. >> the geo engineer recommends specifically the types and piers and piles called out in the design. >> yes. >> the geo engineer does the test piles for a project? >> yes. >> okay. the geotechnical engineer specifies the depth of the piers and the piles. >> yes. >> the geo engineer specifies the blow count. >> it's the blow count or to achieve if it's a pile the skin friction requirements that are delineated in the soil report. >> okay. but that's his job? >> that's his job. >> okay. the geotechnical engineer recommends the spacing

of the piles so whenever they are around the site. >> >> yes. >> okay. the geotechnical engineer recommends and accepts or rejects and this question you might have answered any changes in the field? i think you answered it with commissioner lee. >> that's correct. >> all right. the geotechnical engineer determines the soils type, what kind of soil it is whether dense -- >> yes that's true. the soil boring stage where they're doing test boring and they interpolate between the bore scption what the soil looks like below grade and the height of the water table. >> okay. so the geotechnical engineer perform site visits? >> absolutely. >> does the other design professionals rely -- this is important to me -- relies upon the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer? in other words the structural engineer

work closely with the geotechnical engineer? >> that's correct. it's a process engaging both design professionals. >> perfect. does the department rely upon this report? >> yes. >> the reports that you're given from the geotechnical engineer? >> the short answer is yes and our staff utilizes both the values contained in the soil report and look at the recommendations and compare it to the plans submitted for permitting. >> very good. and the geotechnical engineer write a letter at the end that all of the work was done according to the recommendations they put in their reports? >> yes. >> very good. geotechnical has a very big part -- >> it also starts with the

geotechnical engineer. >> yeah, it starts with him. so do you mind -- >> breeze do. >> it's not fair but the special informations part -- inspections part and i broke it down this way. special inspections -- special inspectors and that part of the equation of the job. they're primarily responsible to determine if the installation of the piles are consistent with the recommendations put forward in the geotechnical report /test pile thaws see on the job site? >> yes. >> okay. the special inspections report reports any changes in the field? >> they will document it. >> they would document it. okay. but they're the primary eyes and that is not consistent with what is approved and make that -- >> yes. >> okay. special inspector monitors let's say for example

the rebar, the spacing, the sizing all of the things called out in the report. >> yes. >> the special inspector monitors concrete columns and walls and strength of concrete stuff like that you know the concrete pour and the test are done on that? >> as we all know concrete is -- all you see is the finished product and a lot goes under it in a floor or in a wall and those eyes and ears look at those installations and they document it and put it in a daily log if they conform or don't conform. >> okay. special inspector monitors welding -- a lot of buildings are steel and they monitor that? >> yes, in fact if it's steel frame building there are multiple special inspectors

conducting welding testing in various locations all at the same time. >> so these professionals are pretty much on the job a lot and not -- if not all of the time versus the dbi inspector? >> yes, in the previous slide i think we try to illustrate the proportion of how the two relate in terms of working on a job coming to a project. that's slide 11. >> okay. okay. so i guess -- yeah, -- >> so the answer is yes. >> that clearly -- okay. so i think the final certificate of occupancy, a very important document -- >> affecting the whole project and the single most important document. >> right. so this is the be all and end all of journey to

get -- so a few questions regarding to clarification for me and the public and who might be looking in on this so does the department require a letter from the geotechnical engineer before issuing the certificate of occupancy? >> yes, the cfc is not issued as i stated earlier a lot of things happen. one of the extremely high level -- high importance is that letter of observation from the structural engineer of record and as we said earlier the soil engineer of record. >> what would the department be looking for in this letter? >> it's very brief letter but essentially states that that i, the engineer, have observed that attest to the fact that the construction and installation complies with the plans. >> okay. so it speaks to the installation of the piles, the leapt, the spacing, the blows of all the stuff i called out earlier? >> that letter would not get

drill that that far in specificity but passes what you cited? >> does it require a letter from the structural engineer? >> yes. >> what are they looking for in this letter? >> the structural initial provides a letter of observation and at the end of the job. >> >> and the cfc is never issued unless we receive that. >> just playing devil's advocate you're missing a letter and say it's coming would you issue the certificate of occupancy? >> i would expect all of our inspection staff prescribes to the requirement to receive and verify that all the required documents, everything has been completed approved and signed off, so in other words there are many -- within dbi there are various staff who are responsible for the different

aspects and so if i'm the inspector in the field i'm going to check all of that and talk to the party in our department who handles special inspection to see that has been completed and the letter is in our file. >> so no cfo unless you have everything? that's it. >> correct. >> that's the law of the land. so the next one is the peer review section and i have a few questions if that is okay and thank you for your patience after you have been up here a long time, but can you -- the peer review, can you open that section? okay. you got it. can you walk us through this section on the bottom here? what page is it on? it's actually in the report. sorry. my apologies. which i believe it's -- >> 13 or 14?

>> [inaudible] [off mic] >> the peer review process table two. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> perfect. lily. thank you for that. sorry. i should have give you a heads up on that. could you put it up? that would be great. >> there it is. >> reading through the report this document really jumped out on me on the review and i thought we could read it as commissioners and go through the points here i think it would really help us. so i wonder if you could go through the items here and just on the blue section here and reinforce the peer review process for us. >> what is up on the screen is the portion of the process

roles and call it table two. dbi -- what's our role? we activate the peer review panel and choose the members since october 2016. we approve the scope of the work and service to be provided and any subsequent changes are reviewed. what is the role of the pe er review panel? it consists of two, three individual experts. they report all findings to dbi. they check structural engineering concepts, provide constructability review, review project assumptions and a project approach and they review structural design criteria and analysis and design methodology. what is the responsibility of the project sponsor or owner?

has a contractual agreement with peer reviewers and compensate the panel and the members for professional services and fees. >> okay. so this is where you're making big changes. you mentioned this is going forward and the director you kind of instructed from new policies and place in regard to this? >> yeah, we're working on it and try to get -- >> yeah, that's the big one, and i kind of want to read this into the record and i found this page clarifies this peer review and to the general public it's complex and this document lays it out and i appreciate that in the main report and just -- this is just me getting too much in the weeds here but there was discussions about some of the complicated -- what did i write

down? complicated software systems that the department doesn't have but others have. can you explain why we don't have them and why they have them and like that. >> as stated earlier the tall buildings are complex, complicated. they have to handle gravity lateral loads for wind and earthquake in san francisco. the model of how it responds to earthquake action whether moderate or severe they're beyond the capability of our staff. we don't have soft story -- software and often it's it is proprietary and don't expect the government to have that

proprietary software in all the itderations waiting for a job to come in and we don't have the ability to employ it or have the ability to analyze the output of very complicated information, so our staff depends and relies on independent third party peer review panel members to provide us with their findings. >> okay. so it's pretty unique software. >> yes. >> just as any other jurisdictions might have that software? >> no. >> no? >> i think los angeles -- bigger jurisdiction than ours. they have this process as well and it's follows similar to what we have. >> okay. okay. good. so the definitions in the main report there were definitions there and i do know them but once again for the general public i want to you explain them quickly to me. life safety systems. that

comes up a lot in our reports and your definition of life safety system would be great. >> it's very inclusive. what most people understand about life safety or what they see they're look at i've aisles. they're looking at quarters and stairs and fire doors that protect the stairs. fire doors in the path of egress that protect them and provide safe passage and evacuation of a building during an emergency. it includes also when you look at it strobes in high rise building, audio e nawns eightor and a sprinkler system and many components composed of the safety system. collectively what they're there for is to protect the occupants and provide them the ability to

safely evacuate a building during an emergency. >> we talk a lot about the engineer of record, right and your definition is? >> so engineer of record is used often and what it means is that engineer of record and really in a tall building there is more than one engineer of record. engineer of record in a tall building would be the geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer. >> okay. all right. i got them down here. and quickly ab bulletins are something the public -- i only learned what they meant and getting your reports and what does it mean exactly? >> for a department to operate on a regular basis trying to answer issues about how to interpret the code we use the

information sheet. those are modified as processes change. in comparison we have administrative bulletins. those are actual code amendments, information sheets are not. they help to facilitate ongoing processes in the department to get things done but administrative bulletin they have policies and procedures and go through the process includes the code advisory committee and composed of experts in the field and we're talking about in this case ab082 and 083 engineers, practicing engineer, registered initials in california. they contribute to the development of the two administrative bulletin. all of the other administrative bulletins that cover other

issues like life safety systems are accessibility are also contained as code amendments and they're vetted through code advisory as well. they are brought before this commission and this commission passes them and goes to the board of supervisors and when we do that they're incorporated into each three year iteration and changes the san francisco amendments. >> so three years -- >> every three years or as necessary but generally three years we try to make sure we encapsulate any new administrative bulletins and modify any that need to be modified because of technology changes or just updated because of changes in the construction industry. >> okay. thank you for that. so i'm almost finished commission if you can bear with me. i highlighted this because some of the questions in the

report which i think is kind of important that we read this. i think page 13. i can give you a break and i can read it so forgive me with my bad reading. >> i am just getting started. >> thank you assistant director. dbi doesn't propose building plans or refairs or construct or design building and inspections include life safety systems in buildings and code compliant. once dbi issues a certificate of final completion and occupancy upkeep, which we talked about, upkeep of the building including continued maintenance and safety is the responsibility of the ownership. dbi doesn't randomly inspect buildings without cause but the department will respond to any citizen complaint filed about a building by performing a visual

site inspection. complaints maybe miled on line email or through the system and talks to your points and clearly here and i think i think you did a really good job explaining that how you feel and -- >> all those -- all that you stated is correct. >> okay. so finally in closure here okay and the director maybe you want to weigh in if ron can't answer these questions. the department has put in place and is considering new policies regarding tall buildings. it will see a comprehensive report outlining these along with a look at following pertaining to tall buildings so what i notice in the report which seems to be something that you focused in is record of retention policies. what changes are you doing there? and i guess in all these

questions director maybe we can close it out is when we would be getting back with the changes? when do we expect to hear back when these new policies are fully implemented and in place? >> one of the significant changes that we're talking about has to do with peer review. what we're doing now is preparing a request for qualifications so we can vet the qualifications and then we can retain a group of individuals and experts in the field and licensed engineers have them on for future projects rather than seek them out when a project occurs. >> the record retention policy, the one on that. >> my apologies. >> no worries. >> so the record retention policy or peer review we implemented that on that one stage and keep the iteration of the letter and when they produce it it's centrally located and

accessible to staff and if you need to look at it you just have to provide the permit application number. other future retention policy changes -- >> well, let me go through them here for you. >> okay. >> digital -- digitizing our records and another thing i heard in the report that we're working on. >> yes, digitizing the record -- well, that's generalized meaning that all the records that we are supposed to keep like permits, like the application, like the plans. >> yeah. >> we are going through right now a five year -- we're more than halfway into scanning all of that and indexing them and making them readily available to specific individuals within our department so they're readily accessible. >> right and the peer review process is changing, you changed policies there? >> yes.

>> to what exactly -- what have you done now that's definitely in place? and obviously there are more changes coming along? >> what is definitely in place now as of december is we're collecting all of them and they're all in a centralized digitized format location a file that is accessible to the staff, and -- >> [inaudible] >> perhaps the director can assist me on that. do we have anything future that we have discussed regarding that? it's not coming to mind. peer review. >> well, i think maybe i'm not clear here. i know we had a policy of the -- who maybe for example who funded the peer reviews? who paid for the process? was it the department, the ownership? was that kind of -- >> commissioner --

>> sorry -- >> yeah, the owner still needs to pay for it but in the process we want to set up they pay the department and then we will pay them independently so that's still in the process because that's contractor's stage and [inaudible] and how to get the expertise convene. >> okay. so that's something in -- so -- what i am kind of asking here i would like to see a comprehensive report coming back on all the changes that is happening that you see improvements that need to be done based on this report that you have and saying here's what we have done differently now, what we learned from and improving going forward and inspector training. i'm not sure what the process is for training of inspectors. for example let's just ask ourselves this question. it's a very

difficult job and there's so much evolving and changing and code changing and different designs coming out. how do we as a department and inspectors keep on top of this so we're cutting edge when the inspectors go out and know what they're seeing? i imagine as a builder contractor every time i look at plans there is something new that i have not seen before, and i don't expect the answer now ron but are we looking at that as something going into the future how we will keep on top that and this is our policy and have in place? >> yes commissioner. >> yeah. we are? okay. okay. >> training is a top priority for me as a director. even myself i always go to the training. even tonight i am going to the night class. also within the department each staff meeting we always have a training for the staff for the

new policy and procedure including the ada or other topic and also we annually we always send our inspector and [inaudible]. that's why we have [inaudible]. remember we organize our staff to go for training. you know it's a big topic for us besides all other management class. we want to make sure technically we're up-to-date because in this world everything is evolving, changing, new technology. you mentioned about the computer program. however, it's time consuming for those but we need to understand those program. >> right. what is coming from this report is really we're seeing -- we've got to make some changes to make our system

better and so what i am asking and i'm going to ask you director when we make these changes and we're improving these new policies that it's put into a report and comes in some help hen report here's what we did in 2017 to address policies that need improvement and modernization. >> >> and special inspections if we approve that and what we did and evolving and showing we're cutting edge and engaged in all the new policies and changes that the industry keeps facing so i guess ron tom is there something like a report that could come as a commission that updates us every -- do i break it down and say record retention policy. can i come next month and what improvements and changes happened there since we talked last? i am trying to find out the most efficient way to do that. >> commissioner mccarthy i think that would be a prudent

way as a department to stay on top of this and how the progress is encapsulated, how it's disseminated and also provide the commissioners with a report on a regular basis at your call. >> okay. so somebody that has worked very hard along with lily and i want to call out lily and bill strom and the deputy director who is participated through the direction of the director and yourself that worked hard on the report what is a fair time to come back with these type of reports? >> i would recommend a quarterly basis. >> okay. if we want to take one item and calendar that item and have a discussion on it if the information is available and ready? >> yes commissioner. >> well in closing the most

enjoyable of packages that i got as i sit here. as a builder it's going to be my bible going forward and particularly teaching and we're talking about tall buildings but this resonates to all buildings because a lot of the process they're in tall buildings are in and the smaller buildings around town so i think it's a great start and i look forward to having this report constantly updated and improved on and i want to commend the staff for putting it together and their hard work and thank the commissioners for their patience and commissioner lee wants to say something. thank you for the time up here and giving a great report here today. okay. >> commissioners thank you for the opportunity and i want to say representing our staff that worked on this it's been challenging but look at ourselves and our processes internally it makes us think about how can we improve them

and be accountable for them as well. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. i will be brief -- i will try to be brief. thank you ron tom for this discussion. it's useful very informative. being on the architect seat i'm a member of the industry so my view of it always is that the owner of the project, the architects, the developers are responsible for the project, but this discussion forces me to remove myself from that industry and put myself on the other side as a public member. as a public how do i know that the project is safe for the public? that's what i am looking at at this point and this whole discussion is very useful, allows me to think how the public views projects and how we may be able to make sure that the public trust us to make sure that the projects are built safely. >> good comment. commissioner warshell you're not off the hook yet.

>> okay. again thank you for all this. it really is eye opening and informative. one thing that i didn't see is any discussion about how when we're developing regions or clusters of buildings you know when we rezone an area whether rincon hill or trans bay or the hub we get many of the 240-foot buildings or higher in very close quarters, and by almost the inherent nature of them many of them are sitting on top of our transit infrastructure or other very, very complicated infrastructure systems, and can

you just speak a bit to the comprehensive plans and the interactions of the variety of projects that are like to happen in a high development area as opposed to the very project specific which is what i really see here, you know, within the confines of your order we have these guidelines, so you can speak to how we're getting that broader overview and interrelationship? >> i think it's quite difficult for our department to look at this on a regional high level basis because we're not charged with providing that entitlement. we don't see the bigger picture because the

projects are coming to us incrementally and transmitted to the planning department. the planning department they do the regional planning. they do the local planning and neighborhood planning. they set the height and the mass. they set all of the guidelines so when we get tall buildings next to each other and low rise in neighborhoods. they have the high level view how that development occurs because they provide those parameters. what we see is one building at a time come through and as soon as it's submitted it winds up going -- transmitted to the planning department and sits there -- especially the tall buildings we're referring to -- probably years before they get their entitlement so there's a long period of time that goes by before we even see it again so for us we have no control over that how the sequence, how often it comes so we have would have

a difficult time to have oversight of that. we can plot them on a map but all that does is show when it first came in and later when we finally get it. the building code has been reinforced even most recent iteration and the reinforcement has to do with how a building on one site has to review how it may impact the building on the adjacent site. it's in the building code but still puts the onus on the design team but a requirement they consider the impact of the adjacent building that has already been built so if you don't have a deep foundation it my not be a great impact. if you do have a significant foundation relative to that property it may have

significant impact and you have to take that into consideration and codified and strengthened this year. we implemented the 2016 building codes and all the models -- different san francisco building codes collectively. >> so you feel it's adequate, the degree to which we understand how all of these projects that are happening in a very concentrated area or likely to happen in a very concentrated area mechanically interact? i understand what you are saying and planning determines the heights and where to occur but you're charged with make sure each building is safe and properly built with possibly some complicated interactions based on so much going on in a

very, very dense infrastructure rich area? >> commissioner warshell, i have personally witnessed acute awareness raised among the plan review staff, and what they're now doing -- what this whole process is now done to everyone is raise their awareness, their acute awareness how important it is at the very on set looking at a project to see what the parameters are set, and the soil report and what they recommend and also look at what is adjacent. to ask questions and they're not answered to keep asking the same questions until they get a reasonable and satisfactory answer and they will ask the soil engineer and also ask the structural engineer what are you doing about what is happening next door? are you

going to put in safe practices, good practices, like monitoring, like setting benchmarks on the adjacent buildings with surveys and monitoring that on a regular basis during the course of that construction to verify if there is an impact on the adjacent properties? that's one of the -- any good contractor would do that but that's what we're looking for now. if you don't have it in the soil report or the construction process. keep in mind that at a high level taking into account the larger context of where all these buildings occur adjacent to one another. at the planning department we have the environmental impact report and looks at the various aspects including what does it do to wind by another building and wind is diverted and changes the

dynamics of the building because of the wind and there already but impacted by the next building so dir goes through the technical modeling oftentimes for wind and wind tunnel testing with real scaled models and looked at dir and provides the high level more regional more comprehensive look at the impact of one project to the adjacent projects and we know that includes transportation and issues of that ilk. >> thank you. that's very helpful. just two shorter comments. reading the whole thing about peer sister city things and los angeles and seattle were forthcoming in

information and san diego and san jose a bit less so. you know again in reading this my supposition is we may have the most stringent standards already and something you hint at. >> i concur with that commissioner. >> but do you see any need to more aggressively go back to any of the sister cities or expand this to best practices in other pacific rim high density cities such as tokyo or osaka that have similar experiences and similar situations even though they're not dealing with california building code? >> up to now we haven't reached across the pacific to our other jurisdictions. i mean it's

something we may consider but certainly we reached out to those on the west coast and los angeles which has this process. >> and finally a great deal of the report was really talking about proscriptive versus code compliant, and while you're right the numbers are never going to be big for high rises to the total construction of that it will dominate over the proscriptive there is uptick in proscriptive and just as a layman that is always skeptical of everything on computers when i am reading this my first thing is almost gut reaction if it's code compliant it's based on our real experience and it's sort of tested and has evolved over time and we have great conviction behind it. therefore if you're meeting the minimal standard on

code compliant you know we ought to feel a fair degree of confident that this is quite good. while i understand how sophisticated all these different computer modeling systems are and as you mentioned there is a variety of them out there that somebody can choose to use i am always more skeptical it isn't the one that we have the greatest experience with and a computer can model something and in the interest of doing these proscriptive designs we may accept according to the computer models it meets our minimum and while we love them to do more we're not in any way charged or able to be sure that a proscriptive because it is

based on possibly less practical experience maybe exceeds to have some margin of error that this is based on a computer model, not long history, and accepted practice. do you have any feelings that you know perhaps when we're in proscriptive designs that the standards might be more stringent? >> well, excuse my correction commissioner. what you're referring to is the performance base -- >> i'm sorry. >> are the ones not proven over time -- >> thank you for it is correction. >> -- to provide us with buildings that are safe. the area that is most acutely changing in my professional opinion is the ability to model earthquake

performance. the more the professional learns about the behavior earthquakes, the location of earthquakes based on history and we're very familiar with the san andreas fault as being one of them. the more that the profession learns both at the academic level and the professional level the better i think we will be able to forecast the behavior of a proposed structure under performance base structural design, and as computer modeling advances i think that will also help to achieve that as well. keeping in mind i think we all know that the computer used to take up a entire room and now that power rests something like a laptop so it takes a lot of

computation to provide the modeling that we're talking about, and as we have advancement in both software and hardware i believe we will get to a place even better than we are today but that will change over time and it has already changed. over the last ten years there has been significant advancement in the analysis and modeling of tall buildings. now i'm not an engineer. our director is and i welcome any additional comments. >> yeah, first of all you know the performance base design they need to satisfy the proscriptive design as a minimum [inaudible] the technology change like this building and isolation is developed for building and that was in the [inaudible] in the new clear plan and employ the

technology here. also when we develop this building they also need to go through the analysis and on this type of building. same thing on the high rise building they doing performance base because the technology they want more appearance of the building architecturally then to design the building but they need to satisfy the proscriptive design to at a minimum and then have -- yeah. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you and thank you assistant director. we have no more questions for you. excuse me john and to the director. i am looking forward to a comprehensive report on the changes and maybe you could let us know -- >> quarterly. >> does quarterly sound fair? so we can expect this -- >> quarterly -- now is what --

june some time. >> some time in june. all right. thank you again assistant director. >> commissioners thank you. >> okay. >> so john -- john malumed from the city attorney's office. i want to clarify one point made earlier about administrative bulletins. they're regulations that the department puts together. they're reviewed by the code advisory committee and they do come before the building inspection commission for your consideration and approval. they adopt go to the board of supervisors. >> >> but they're published along with the san francisco building code in its own section and they're updated oftentimes on a schedule that is independent of the three year code update. >> okay. all right. thank

you. >> is there any public comment on item 8? okay. seeing none which item? >> so we have to finish the meeting by 1:00 o'clock today one commissioner has to leave and we have to have quorum and i will do my best to get through everything but forgive me if we pull items. i would like to go to item 10 madam secretary. >> item 10 discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance to require the installation of electric vehicle charging station infrastructure in san francisco. >> hi good morning. kirt beans dbi technical services. i am just up here to introduce this ordinance. it was developed by the department of environment but it has gone through your code advisory committee for bottom almost a year and a half in developing it so they're in full support of

it as your recommendation shows, but i will let the department of environment explain it to you and answer questions if you like. >> good afternoon commissioners and director. i am with the department of environment. i will have a brief presentation to set the stage for and context for the ordinance thank you for your time. so we're coming to you as kirk mentioned after performing a interagency staff working group to look at what would be effective in terms of supporting development of electric vehicle infrastructure in san francisco and subsequently working -- excuse me, that staff working group included planning department, building department, of course environment, and a number of subdivisions within the building department as well, and subsequently then we have

gone to of course the code advisory committee and subcommittee about 11 times over the year and a half as well as outreach to affordable housing developers, other stakeholders including builders and engineers, specialists vendors because this did have to look at new technologies considering what is appropriate and really and also there's an ongoing discussion with market rate developers who have a particular concerns with regard to costs so coming out of that discussion the code advisory committee have unanimously recommended the ordinance to you and i will give a little context why they came to that conclusion. so a major motivator of course of this effort is electric vehicles are a cleaner transportation and this is part of san francisco's long-term effort to meet the greenhouse gas mitigation goals

which have been remarkably successful in under lining there is not necessarily a choice between the environment and the economy. the city's economy has grown considerably over 20 years. the population increased and we use the buildings more intensively and have more of them and the greenhouse gas in san francisco have gone down more than 20%. since there are relatively few members in the community that think about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and zero-50-1 hundred roots and zero waste and 50% by sustainable modes and sequesters greenhouse gas emissions back into plants and the soil. and important in

having those goals is a number of them are set on the basis of the city's responsibility, the best available science says as a city bounded on three sides by water it's our respond to demonstrate that we can cut emissions by 80% or more through 2050. >> >> but the question is raised can we actually get that done and what is the economic and what are the other implications of that? we worked in detail with siemens over the last year and a half to look at the range of activities necessary and changes throughout the market including the grid itself, the built environment and our transport systems necessary for the goals to be achieved and they did find it's technically feasible and that a early core element of course is reducing emissions in transport and there are considerable job opportunity and that the job impacts of the

system are electrifying individual vehicles as well as improving the electrification of the use of car share services such as a number of them headquartered in the city. another major consideration of course is do people actually want these vehicles? and it's a fundamental one and what is interesting step back from san francisco and look gloapally and banks and auto makers are tracking the growth of the electric vehicle market in the coming years and the bottom line they're regularly revising their estimates upward and they're not environmental groups. this is morgin stanley, bpn perritace and globally and the total number of vehicles globally be in the range of this amount

electric and see similar comments from auto makers and yet u.s. auto makers have brought electric vehicles into the product line even though they return to the mass market in 2011 so that is important context because that's you know a global very broad picture and also what is going on in san francisco? turns out san francisco is a hot spot regardless how you draw the blocks around the city for plug in electric vehicle adoption and a major limiting factor that could limit the growth is the infrastructure and fundamentally links most of the city's buildings already exist and they were design and built before electric vehicles were available in the market so the availability extent charging to them has greater cost and so

looking at in a little more detail i will breeze through to have mercy on you but we do recognize that plug in electric vehicle adoption will vary considerably regionally and of course wealthier countries are likely to be places where there is turnover in passenger vehicles and a greater concentration. within the united states it's basically california alone that makes the united states a global electric vehicle hot spot. half of the electric vehicles in the united states are on california's roads. within california that growth in electric vehicle use and adoption is concentrated in san francisco, los angeles and san diego, so mostly a coastal cities, and the growth while they still do represent a minority of vehicles in the road the growth is faster than the

projections that the air resources board created in the zero plug in electric vehicle action plans. within pg&e territory putting this another way their data indicates that pg&e is the largest number on electric vehicles on the traveling roads that are served by its utility infrastructure in the nation and there is about 2400 new electric vehicles on the road in pg&e territory and largely concentrated here in the bay area. and that adds up to local adoption rate of eight times the national average and context of growth of electric vehicles in california was a large driver for why the state adopted a requirement that new buildings as of the 2013 green building standards code, the update that went into effect in july 2015 began to require new

buildings not to have electric vehicle chargers installed but have infrastructure so it would be as straightforward as possible to install electric vehicle chargers and currently the state's requirement that is for a new non residential building spaces need to be electric vehicle ready and no charger installed but can readily do it and have the services to do so and for new residential 3% of spaces. the proposal that we're bringing to you from the code advisory committee today is to ask the question what would be necessary to maximize flexibility? because as the electric vehicle market grows it will change over the life of a building so the question is what is the level of preparedness appropriate for new buildings delivered today and tomorrow and the next years and what is the level that is appropriate for the expected groaghtsd of electric vehicles use among residents and

occupants of the buildings? and what we're aiming for is a least cost up front solution that would enable even 100% electric fleet accommodated by new buildings city-wide. this proposal is focused entirely on new construction and major alterations and i want to underscore that major alterations is intentionally a very high bar and it's a definition that existed in the green building code for eight years and this would not modify the applicability of this definition of major alteration so it's i project 25,000 square feet in area and significant change significant structural improvement to the building and based on existing dbi definition of that and also mechanical electrical and plumbing upgrade so that's essentially a definition designed to capture the fact that we do frequently have buildings that everything

but new construction and only when it's very large scale and so the proposal in a nutshell is that the buildings electric's service should be sized to accommodate simultaneously chairnling of the standard level which is level two which is a 40amp or 240-volt circuit depending two, three phase wiring so be able to provide level two charge to 20% of the parking spaces simultaneously and then in addition 10% of actual parking spaces be fully wired with a circuit from the infrastructure to the parking space so it's called turn key electric vehicle readiness that the activity that would be necessary to add electric vehicle charging to that space is installation of a charger or an additional 10% of spaces asks would be required is either the

same thing, another fully wiring ten spaces or optionally just running an empty conduit and pull string sized at that level so it's straightforward to install the circuit but you also have the option if the vehicle owner desired a different level of amerrage for any number of reasons you would have flexibility and not pulling out wire to change the sizing. for the remaining spaces draft ordinance would require would be design documents for how you would ultimately be able to expand charging to any other space in a building but not installing the service panels, nor the conduit for the spaces. only indicating where on those conduit runs, down to that levelef detail it's it's run through the space and otherwise

more expensive and difficult to access post construction so it's really long way of saying essentially a sleeve through a deck or a wall in most cases and only installing those sleeves in those cases and having space to accommodate additional electrical panels when it's necessary. a common question and a guiding principle working on the ordinance is flexibility so one key element i would like to highlight there is an electric vehicle ultimately a battery and electric motor and the more power that can be supplied the faster the battery can be charged so the level of charging the ordinance is based on the industry baseline is accessible by any vehicle in the market today but there's a number of options that could provide greater amounts of power and the ordinance specifically tries not to be in the way of voluntarily upgrading to the

other alternatives so there's a trade off if a fast charger is installed the building could trade off installation of a fast charger against and reduce the number of ready spaces by five spaces so it's kind of four to one. we have looked in some detail at cost effectiveness and i think that is a lot of what we discuss and we continue again to discuss with wide range of stakeholders. we took the team that analyzed the same issue for the state of california for the building standards commission and the cost model they developed in look in great detail and service panel and all the way down to the receptacle so all components affected by the policy and companies energy solutions and we have the lead

consultant present today. they then for both san francisco, oakland and the city of fremont looked at readjusted the cost model looking in detail of the specific components necessary for larger circumstances examined by the state but in this case still focused on smaller new residential buildings where we expect the greatest level of concern and care would need to be taken particularly for new affordable development and it is two scenarios they looked at was new residential building with 12 parking spaces and another one with 60 spaces and bottom line was they then looked in detail of the difference in cost for doing this level of preparedness with new construction and adding after the fact. found it was more than a 65% savings by

doing putting in the effort now and that was broken down in detail between differences -- great detail of differences of permitting cost, overall construction management, applying both rs means and other resources to calibrate the estimate for san francisco costs and then vetting that with dbi electrical team which gave us great feedback and did lead to some upgrades in the model as well as a wide array of stakeholders from electricians to major builders and what you see is the results. nonetheless the comment that is apt and said by the advisory committee when

they expressed unanimous support for the ordinance those cost estimates nonetheless are not necessarily applicable to a larger building where there is more complicated infrastructure and will be a different cost and so that's where we're continuing to work with developers of new large buildings to better document that consideration, but the code advisory committee even considering that difference and expected cost did believe that a accurate cost for large buildings would nonetheless be well supported based on their own experience and the concept applied. they just wanted to see the estimates better calibrated for new large construction so that's the end of my comments. thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. stay there for a second. >> we're done. the users of this be charged or how would that work?

>> i'm sorry. >> who would pay to get their vehicle charged? >> all of the sorts of decisions from the installation -- where the location of the charger is installed and whether it's installed and how power is distributed, whether a charge to the occupant -- the ordinance would not regulate those things. in some cases there is existing regulation but mostly it's voluntarily so to answer the question outside the ordinance typically when a charger is installed at a city facility the city gets the power from the hetch hetchy system and provides that power at no cost. more commonly at sites that are not owned by the city and the charger is not provided by the city a third party and a there is a number of them owns them and the electric vehicle owner has a subscription or pays for the power they're consuming

from that particular point and that's passed through to the building owner but this ordinance isn't seeking to regulate those transactions, and you know it's -- there's a lot of flexibility on that front but we expect people to generally pay for the power they consume. >> thank you. commissioner lee. >> thank you. it's a worthwhile proposal but i want to cut to the chase with my question because lack of time. how about the supply side of the electricity? what i am saying we're putting the guts in the building and we're ready for charging stations. i am concerned about the buildings that are under major alteration. for a new building we can plan for it in the future. in the existing buildings when we have to renovate how do we handle that and the utility company provide you the extra --

>> that's a great question and one that the director had a lot of emphasis on and make sure a suitable answer was provided in the ordinance so there's a couple of layers. even in the alteration there is two pass. if the scope of the major alteration includes scope of electric service and paying pg&e for the upgrade of the service then the ordinance applies fully. if instead in your major alteration you're not subscribing to new electrical service or upgrading then the ordinance directs the owner to only install charging infrastructure up to the level -- this ordinance doesn't cause that upgrade. at the next level if there is new service in a new building or major alteration the ordinance has a cap in the code and that is for upgrades on the

utility side of the meter where the building owner does compensate pg&e for upgrades that are specific to their own service, not to the general distribution infrastructure but their service, which can include a transformer and can be variable in costs there's a cap of $400 per parking space so that was a point debated at some length and because although labor costs and other cost efficients are much higher in. >> >> factors are much higher in san francisco and pg&e said that was consistent in the territory so we kept that number. >> commissioner warshell. >> a couple. you mentioned roof sequestering of carbon and the availability of power s there any provision in this to encourage solar roof conversions simultaneously to generate your

own power? >> the ordinance -- we wouldn't recommend that the department of environment recommend that the building code take that action. sorry. we try to encourage only adoption of building code regulations that are directly enforceable by the department but at a programmatic level we work with a organization that is -- we actually host them in our office, the business council on climate change which provides a non government -- non-profit convening voice for companies that wish to contribute to mitigating our climate crisis and they run a program called sun shares and offers reduced cost for purchase of photo voltaic

installation and do rfp so vendors can compete and you're likely upgrading the electric panel and offer the electric vehicle in the course of that. >> >> and that has been offered to all city employees, to wide array of the biggest employers in san francisco, google and gentech and so on so that concept is certainly important and valuable and we see it happening more and more though we wouldn't recommend require tg in a regulation. >> thank you. you do bring up the point of support and subsidy and clearly san francisco is kind of at the forefront of early adopter on this, but recently the federal subsidy for purchase of electric vehicles is coming under question or challenge and has your group been able to evaluate the

likely effect of federal policy changes likely adaptation rates or is that too speculative at this point? >> it's fairly speculative and we encourage the federal government to maintain that support while at the same time while somewhat famously the first vehicle that demonstrated success were luxury vehicles. you have a growing array of subcompact vehicles affordable without the subsidy as well as not to toot any particular company but as an example eslafamously is bringing the model s and the price point is within others of that size and capacity and i think there would be a legitimate argument what is the role of incentives as the technology matures? it's a

period it's certainly to have them but the two epi centers of preregistration for model s are san francisco and los angeles. >> absolutely and that also does bring up the question about having the lower rates of required spaces if you have the fast chargers because it seems that more people you know are attracted to the luxury brands they're the people that demand the highest level of service, so having a sharp reduction in number of spaces to get faster charging seems like it could be counterproductive in this particular market where in particular people demand luxury cars but super charging as almost a given, so i was a little

scwiky on that one. >> fast charging is not limited to tesla and any reference or the thresholds in the ordinance are not intentionally calibrated for any individual product other than the industry standard level two charging and then a minimum threshold for fast charging that is intentionally lenient and include a super charger of that particular brand and a wide array of other faster than level two chargers. so the last we try to apply is the core item of greatest importance is there is sufficient electrical service that power can be allocated to the vehicles and that the decisions about what type of charging, what the rate for the use of the charging, what the speed of charging applied other than the floor set in the ordinance should be left to the

market, particularly the building owner and developer and the particular program that is going to be applied at their site. >> thank you very much for answering the questions and doing this work. this is incredibly important and i look forward at some point to having an electric vehicle and thank you for laying infrastructure. >> i actually would have questions but i would like to go to public comment and call you back and close out. okay. call for public comment madam secretary. >> public comment on item 10? >> hello commissioners, director, and president mccarthy. my name is joel colep i work with the san francisco electrical construction industry. i'm the director of sustainable energy solutions. i'm an electrician by trade and work in the office now and i deal with renewable energy

systems, micro grids, energy storage and what not. i wanted to give -- >> add commissioner. commissioner. yeah, i am here on thursdays down the hall but today i am speaking from my day job hat so i would like to shed a couple comments about the topic that will put this into more practical context. one thing i want to say that will tell you where the market is going i went to a press event at the rockwell which is a recently completed building on pine between franklin and van ness near whole foods and have multiple electric vehicle charging stations installed. i speak with the newer residents that just moved in and said "look we've got double digit numbers of parking spaces that haven't been by the residents and we have our electric vehicle spaces over here that have been

sold out since day one and number of spaces were purchased by residents have gasoline cars" so what that says that even the people that don't currently have a electric vehicle will get at some point a electric vehicle so these smais spaces are are in demand and that's where it's going. i wanted give a brief construction context of what is means to kind of think about things ahead and install things easier and more cheaply if you kind of think about things on the front end and plan for the technologies. let's just say we're going to build this room from the ground up and there's going to be an electrical panel over there and have the charging station over

here. before they procedure the ground floor slab of concrete it could take an electrician like me maybe 30 minutes to install the conduit path way from this way to this wall. being soath it's in concrete the materials are cheaper. we will use plastic one opposed to later on when the slab is pulled and use a metallic condue scpit costs more and more rigorous to install and most fastening involved and going up and down the ladder and what not, so once that slab is poured my conduit, the path way is in place and shorter distance and installed over a lot less hours of time saving on labor and materials opposed to coming back down the road after the knowledge is finished and -- building is finished and install the

conduit and take longer to install so once again the spirit and the idea of thinking about this ahead of time planning for it in the beginning and being able to install it more cheaply and more easily after the fact so we're here strongly in support of the language and i hope you do so too. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. you're going to get me in trouble because i gave you extra time there. more public comment please. >> hello commissioners. director, mike mc cone developer of the rockwell. i am here to speak on behalf of the development community. we're very supportive of the ordinance. we're lucky enough to develop a luxury product in san francisco that was well

received. this ordinance of course would apply to all housing. we see for sale and apartment communities having different needs. i do think that -- i have been working with the department of environment staff and they have been wonderful to work with. we do have a concern about the broad reach and there's a difference between upgrading the system that will allow it in the future and what is put in the building on the outset and we're sensitive to housing costs in san francisco, so while we support the ordinance we will be working with staff and the mayor's office to hopefully right size it in our opinion. we put in 31 charnlers at rockwell and represents 15% of the parking spaces. we didn't

sell out from day one. we still have four remaining that may not get sold. of the 27 we have sold only six are in use, so that represents around -- what is that? around 5% -- actually less, 3%, so i want to clarify that. it's important that we build for the future. we recognize that and in for sale luxury housing there is a demand. they will get sold and used. a little concerned about the overall effect on all the housing in san francisco. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> here's a private citizen that lives in the shipyard a

new developed thing. i am on the board for the hoa and the condo side and nothing was done to build in electric vehicle stations in the buildings and we have owners with electric vehicles and we're figuring how to get them charged and predone and prebuilt and easy to install and mentioned by the planning commissioner who isn't here as a commissioner today and simply do to the work and easier if they put them into the system and the owners can back fill it in without it being thousands of dollars of modifications to the building to get it done and i highly encourage you and do whatever you can as quickly as you can and the buildings are constantly approved and the shipyard is done for 20 years and most is done and passing things done for that and the better it will be the quicker

you do it and we have people in our building and have issues and how do they charge and they're using not the right spots and i encourage you to move forward with the department and will help the homeowners in the city. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker please. >> hi commissioners. i didn't expect to pop in here but i came in to talk to joel and this was on the agenda. my name is alex and i live not far from jason but outside the shipyard. i worked in the sustainable issues for quite some time and i think and without making a comment on this particular legislation i hope you think what you're proing to do here and other things that come at a building and district level and look at the appropriate scale for some of the -- for emerging

technology. for something like this where you have users, residents in a building it may in fact be incredibly appropriate to have the charging stations within the buildings itself and right to the end user. larger systems whether district or micro grids, things like that, need to take a step back. i'm not saying make a decision one way or other but down the line think about where the appropriate scale is in order to get the highest utilization because that's ultimately our end goal. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. is there anymore public comment? i see none so we can close public comment. commissioners i will -- yeah, as somebody -- 12 years ago now i built my house and put solar

panels in and in the fog and everybody is look at me like i'm crazy and i have a charnler and -- charger and it's out dated and there is no electric vehicle one in the garage and it shocked me how long to get to this point and the stats today are encouraging and i believed that many years ago so what we have in front of us is something we have to do and happen and i guess the question is the implementation plen of it and the comments so as a builder and the commissioners are tired of me hearing this what is the unintended consequences regarding to the installation? what is the cost for a small builder? i talked to some of the building community they outreachd and we haven't been invited to sit at the table. you did mention there were builders there so there were a lot of questions for example do

we have to do a different set of plans to demonstrate for dbi and another added cost and one thing uch touched on was the small buildings and most want to do this and positive marketing thing and a lot of the users of these are kind of buying the smaller products and the larger homes in town so there's no resistance there in doing it but one of the challenges that we're having and commissioner lee can help me out with this when we do exceed our load limits pg&e -- for example if you have 400asms and pg&e and the fast charger and in the calculations and put you over that amount and triggers off a transformer and triggers -- for someone that did one in the neighborhood of

$150,000 to install when doing the right thing and with that said i am asking the commission if it's possible is not to move this on today and if we could sit down with the smaller builder and talk about the language and anything we can do as it goes forward on that and particularly on the upgrading and working with dpw if we have to because it's very difficult to get a transformer in a sidewalk. it's very dism. the requirements you have to leave it inside the building and these issues i want a good understanding and all of the departments are on board when trying to do the right thing as builders in the community and i am wondering commissioners if it's okay? we could bring it back next month. i could set up a time to talk to the stakeholders and language that talks more to that so i am wondering if there is any point

of view with that. >> that's fine. >> that's fine. >> i am interested to hear comments on that if you have any. >> the timing at the discretion of the commission and -- >> yeah, so we can bring it back next month and i know there is language we would like to write in here and if we do that and move forward that is great so as you go to the other commission and so ons it's not watered down when it gets there. i would appreciate that. sorry. i know -- i shouldn't be doing this but if you have something to say. >> sure. commissioners. i i am with the department of environment. just to add to your knowledge and information. the department is working with the mayor's office and supervisor tang who are both the sponsors of this item. they would like to move this item in april and it's scheduled to go to land use so i think it's an issue of typing associated when they want to take it up in land use. >> >> and also wanting to hear

your input and thoughts. certainly the department is committed to working with all stakeholders and we're committed it to do that but make sure that the commission understands that the mayor and the supervisor want to move forward in april given it's earth month and advance the ordinance in that process. i just wanted to share that. >> thank you. so when is the land use hearing? do we know? >> commissioners i am from the department t of the environment. the land use committee that the supervisors, mayor's office and our office has been looking at is either moving it before land

use depending on their agenda schedule either april 10 or 17th. >> okay. when is our next meeting? >> april 19. >> okay. so that misses both of the dates then. commissioner lee. i'm not trying to be obstructive -- >> is there urgency it's heard on april 10 or 17th in land use? >> the item was introduced earlier and we're using the 30 day wait process for the items. this item is also going to the environment commission's for action this month and take us out close to almost 60 days of date of introduction so that's why we were looking for those earlier dates. >> is it possible to postpone it one week instead of the 17th it's on the land use committee

on the 24th which would make it after our 19th meeting? >> certainly the department is supportive. we don't control the agenda but we're happy to take the message back to the supervisor and the mayor's office and i don't believe there is any opposition to do that. certainly it would have our recommendation as well. >> yeah, i feel there's probably not a whole lot of concern but it sounds like we want to reach out to the small builders and make sure they understand the legislation and how it affects them. >> certainly and the department of the environment supports that and welcomes that conversation. >> okay. so is there anymore -- we closed public comment. we did close public comment, didn't we? >> there needs to be a motion to continue the item to the next meeting. >> could you make the motion? >> let's move to continue the item until next month. >> next meeting. >> next meeting. >> okay. that's the motion. is there a second? >> second. >> so there's a motion and a

second to continue the item to the april 19 motion. i will do a roll call vote on the motion. presid. >> president mccarthy. >> yes. >> commissioner konstin. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner warshell. >> yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. >> okay. so the clock against us here. maybe i can talk to -- so i would like to -- let's see -- so i think we should go to -- what items can we not -- can we move the litigation to the next month's meeting? >> sure. those are just procedural. they can be moved

to next month. >> okay. let's do that. commission questions number 6. do we actually have to hear that today? >> you don't have to. the commissioners need to contact you or i about the items. we don't have to hear them. >> okay. so there is no objection there. so what item have we left? >> nine. >> we have nine. >> and 11. >> nine and 11. >> 12. >> nine, 11 and 12. kirk could i get you for a second here? thank you. to the mic please. thank you. i know one of the items i continued before. would it possible and accommodate us -- >> sure it's no problem. >> we will lose a commissioner and can't take action and bad against the time table. >> it doesn't create any

problem at all. >> okay. thank you. we will bring all the items next month. director's report. do we have to deal with that? >> no. >> okay. all right. so we will continue that to next one. approval of minutes. i would like to get that done. >> okay. so item 14 review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of october 19, 2016. >> i move that we approve. >> second. >> is there public comment on item 14? okay. seeing none are all commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? okay. the minutes are approved and item 15 review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of november 16, 2016. >> i move to approve. >> second. >> okay. motion and a second fltd is there any public comment? seeing none are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> aye.

>> any opposed? okay. the minutes are approved. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> okay. and for the record we need to make a motion to continue the items that you said we're going to continue. >> i make a motion -- >> i will mention the numbers. >> i will move to continue item 4, five, six, nine, 11 and 12, 13. >> well done. >> to the next meeting. >> okay. second? >> second. >> okay. so there's a motion and a second to continue those items. is there any public comment? seeing none are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> okay. any opposed? none. item 16 adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move. >> move to adjourn. >> second? >> second. >> okay. commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> aye.

>> opposed? we are now adjourned. it's 12:52 p.m.. thank you. >> thank you going this is the regular meeting of the san francisco small business commission held on monday, march 13, 2017, the meg is call to order. alters 5:302 commission thanks staff and others for tlifgz the meeting viewed an sfgovtv 2 or life streamed members of the public silence our cell phones

and other electronic devices and public comment is limited to 3 minutes unless otherwise established by the presiding officer speakers are suggested to present their names in the written record please place speaker cards in the electing turn and called in the orders in which their - additionally a sign-in sheet sfgovtv show our slide welcome and in tv land our our custom, we begin the small business commission with a reminder that the office of small business is the only 35u78d supposing official forum to voice your concerns regarding policies and projects and issues that effect the economic vitality so if you need assistance with small business matters start here. find us online in personal and best of all