first item on our agenda is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> clerk: vice president moss >> here. >> commissioner jacobo. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner tam. commissioner tam. okay. thank you. commissioner clinch is excused and commissioner alexander-tut is expected shortly. >> i am here. can you hear me? thanks for helping me figure this out. >> clerk: you're welcome. thank you.

also wanted to read for the public, due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect commissioners, the employees and the public, the building inspection hearing room is closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting it remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to the stay-at-home order, and all proceeding and proceeding local and state and federal orders, declarations and directives. committee members will attend the meeting through video conference or by telephone, if the video fails. and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. both channel 78 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number at the top of the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via phone by calling (408)418-9388,

146 632 7982. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment either the following ways, a couple of days prior to the meeting. email sonya.harris sfgovtv.org. it will be included as part of the official file. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the building inspection commission agenda of july 15th, 2020, unless otherwise stated. our next item is going to be item 2, president's announcement. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for your patience. as we are learning our way to

getting these meetings started. thank you, sonya, for getting us all aboard here. as my president's announcements for july 15th, are as follows, good morning and welcome to our july 2020 building inspection commission meeting. our second webex, meeting. i'm joined today by our commissioner members, along with interim director patrick o'riordan and senior d.b.i. staff. as we continue to cope with the circumstances caused by the covid-19 pandemic, we are well into our first full quarter of providing billion inspection and permit services during a public health crisis. while we are certainly still working through many issues, including mayor breed's and the public health directives recent decisions to slow down the city's reopening plans, as a result of an upsurge in key indicators that the department is -- upsurge of key indicators, the department is continuing to

do an outstanding job of keeping both customers and staff safe, by adhering to rigorously to the public health protocols that have been fine tuned over the past month. and even though this public health protocols mean that 1600 mission is not open to the public, the department is continuing to issue permits, conduct on-site and scheduled job inspections. we respond to complaints and take code enforcement steps, as warranted. in addition beginning june 24th, the department began offering curbside services to speed up the issuance of the over-the-counter permits. i understand from interim director o'riordan that the department was given great feedback from our customer on the new system and we have a staff update on this this morning. so looking forward to that. in short, d.b.i. is still fulfilling its motion on behalf of the his. i want to thank you to our

hardworking and dedicated professionals for their absolute terrific jobs they are doing and have been doing. under the enormous stresses caused by this virus. this continues to require multiple adjustments in very reduced timeframes and under challenging conditions. and we are all deeply impressed with our staff's achievements to date. on top of everything else, the entire department is moving its offices to 49 south van ness. the move will start on july 23rd and take place over two weekends. it will mean that the curbside services are unavailable for a few days and again staff will provide more details on this later in the morning. the city, as you know, is keeping a very close eye on the resurgence of the deadly virus. we'll keep you updated as changes occur and we have steps that are designed to keep the construction industry working, while ensuring the safety, staff

and customers. thank you for attending our virtual commission meeting today. please continue to participate in our public process. madam secretary, that concludes my announcements. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? our next item is item 3, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. moderator, i will pass the duties to you to check if there's any public comment. >> not seeing any public comment. >> clerk: okay then. okay. thank you. >> actually, sonya, someone raised their hand. >> clerk: okay. okay. >> there is someone.

sonya, i don't have hosting duties. >> clerk: okay. just one moment. okay. callers goo>> caller: thank you, president mccarthy and fellow commissioners. this is georgia shudish. i live in noaa valley and i've been talking about things like the demolitions that are approved as extreme alterations for the past six years in noe valley and i was at your joint hearings with planning. recently she was an extreme alterations with an expansion and addition. the small unit had recently expired 311 notice. there was no d.r. filed. however, the cost of this work was listed on the site permit as a mere $50,000.

and i think anybody that knows anything about anything, would know that's ridiculous. another recent project in noe valley 4 a site permit valued at $400,000. while that seems a bit more realistic, it's still a bithlo, given construction costs. and this project also has its entitlement sale pending, even though the site permit has not been issued. and they were asking $600,000 over what the cost when they bought the building. anyway. these undervalued site permits means the city is not getting the fees it should be getting, at a time when money is really needed for the city's coffers. and these site permit applications were filed long before we had the covid, and the shelter-in-place. so asfy recognize that -- as i recognize these are really trying times and things are really difficult, i just want to bring this to the commission's attention. and hope these two projects are anomalies and the city is able to collect the appropriate and

solely needed fees from developers, even during these extraordinary times. now i don't like to say who this was. because i don't like to publicly shame people who should know better. but i did send screen shots of these two from the tracking to president mccarthy, so he knows and miss harris has those as well. so i just think, you know, it's an anomaly. i know you're moving. it seems to me that money the city should get now, particularly if the projects are never built. it's money that the city should have, because you did process these permits for them. so that's it. thank you, everyone. take good care. be well. be safe. be happy and good luck with your move. thank you. good-bye. >> clerk: thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you.

our next item is item 1, commissioner's questions and matters. inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission. commissioners have any items? >> so -- commissioner mccarthy here. i was just staff there, in regarded to valuations there on the projects. i do have the evacuations. risk is -- i do have the addresses. we'll be evaluating those. >> thank you, president mccarthy. happy to look into those when we get the information. we'll follow up. >> please. and give us the detail. i'll be interested to get back

to see those valuations are pulling correctly. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> commissioner alysabeth alexander-tut has her hand raised. >> clerk: okay. let me -- she's unmuted. >> okay. >> thank you so much. i was wondering if we could get an update on the conversation we had at the last meeting about -- and if this is in the curbside pick-up, let me know. it feels a little bit different about the online permit system. and if some of the glitches that we had talked about, or we had heard about last time. if the time lapse is feeding up? just wondering if we can hear about a follow-up on some of the conversation we had last meeting about the online systems. >> commissioner, and i believe

later i think we'll have a conversation. we're going to get an update from the interim director later on that. so i think your questions will be answered in that. i believe so. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. our next item is future meetings and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set a date of a special meeting and determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. at our next regular meeting will be scheduled on -- i believe it's august 19th. >okay. that's item 4a and 4b. is there any public comment on items 4 a and 4b? seeing none -- our next item is item number 5. discussion regarding a proposed

ordinance, board of supervisors file number 200701, amending the building code to require new construction to utilize only electric power, adopting findings of local conditions under the california health and safety code, in addition to other requirements. [ please stand by ]

line ruptures posing a major hazard both to our first responders and put lives and property at unnecessary risk. damaged gas lines are also something that take a lot longer to restore than electric, means that all electric buildings make our city more resilient in the face of emergencies as well. this is all in addition to the everyday health impacts to residents and workers, especially workers in commercial kitchens, for example, that are associated with the use of natural gas in our buildings, which includes higher incidents of asthma and respiratory diseases, as well as the obvious risks of carbon monoxide exposure and of course fire. all of this is why the building

supervisors have made building electrification a priority. the climate emergency resolution was approved which committed san francisco to doing our part to limit global warming to below 1.5° celsius. last fall we passed the electric preference ordinance that requires natural gas buildings to achieve high degree of efficiency standards, and earlier this year, this board also unanimously approved legislation requiring all electric construction for new municipal projects. today's ordinance to eliminate natural gas from all buildings next year builds on these efforts and puts our city on the path to a safer zero emissions future. staff from the department of environment will get into the details to provide a very brief overview -- new buildings to summit building applications --

where all construction is not technically feasible. this would apply to roughly 60% of the current development pipeline, leaving time for applicants who have not yet filed a permit to plan accordingly while not disrupting projects that have already proceeded under the current building standards. while this is certainly a big change, we are confident based on months of stakeholder engagement and conversations with city partners, affordable housing builders, labor representatives, housing and architects, engineers, community advocates and technical experts that all electric construction is not only technically achievable and cost effective, it is also essential to meeting our climate goals and protecting our city from future hazards. of course this conversation is taking place amid the uncertainty as we just discussed related to the covid-19 crisis, and while i know it is certainly difficult for us to focus on much else at this time, one hard lesson i think we've been learning from this pandemic is that when a crisis hits, the

steps we took and failed to take in advance that determines how we will respond. the climate crisis is not going away, and it will be the bold step that we take today or do not take that will determine our resilience in the face of climate change and future emergencies. i would like to thank the department of the environment staff and everyone who participated in the task force process over the last several months. the advocates and community organizations who led the call to action and worked with us throughout this process, to all our city agency partners, especially dvi, particularly james zaun and as well the planning department, the mayor's office and others for their support and expertise along the way. in conclusion, today's hearing is an informational item so that we have an opportunity to discuss, to hear your questions, address concerns that come up before returning for an action item to your next august 19 meeting.

with that, commissioners, thank you so much for your time, and i will turn it over to the department of the environmental office for the proposal and i will be available for any questions. thank you all so much. >> thank you. >> thank you for that introduction, and i also would like to thank supervisor mandelman for his leadership on this ordinance. so i'm going to share my screen so we can get the presentation started. so again, my name is cindy cumberford, and i am the climate program manager at the department of environment. i am joined today with my staff, barry hooper, who is the senior green building specialist, and he was kind enough to join us from his vacation this morning, so thank you, barry. and we are also joined with med

fenny, the vice chair of the co-advisory committee, and also a member of our new construction working group, so he will provide some remarks at the end of my presentation about the stakeholder outreach process. so this slideshows what i'll be covering today. i'm going to talk a little bit about the health, safety and resilience climate context. we went over this pretty thoroughly already, but i'll just provide some quick bits of information. we're going to talk a little bit about the stakeholder process and outreach. we'll review the core tenants of the ordinance, and then we'll talk about the cost impacts and implementation. as jacob said, just a reminder, this presentation is an informational presentation only, so at the end of this presentation, we're really hoping just to have a robust discussion about the ordinance, and we're hoping to either be

able to answer your questions today or answer them over the next four weeks and then come back in august and ask for your support. so first i'm going to talk about the context for this legislation. this legislation is an update to the san francisco building code which makes maesmts under the purview of the california health and safety codes. and the objective of this proposed legislation is really to recognize the health, safety and climate -- and ensure that our new construction does not worsen these impacts. and jacob already touched upon these impacts, so i'm just going to briefly go over this slide, but it's important to note that as jacob said, you know, national gas is bad for our -- natural gas is bad for our health. there's air pollutants within natural gas, such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide, which are linked to both various

chronic and acute health impacts. this includes respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and there's also just a growing body of literature that shows that natural gas triggers asthma attacks, and it might actually cause asthma in otherwise healthy children. natural gas impacts safety and resilience. in the united states, on average a gas or oil pipeline catches fire every four days, results in an injury every five days. there's an explosion every 11 days and leads to a fatality every 26 days. we saw those examples last year in san francisco. the hall of justice needed to be evacuated and also the fire that erupted around parker avenue and gary boulevard that destroyed buildings. you know, natural gas provides

the city with resilience eliminating fires and earthquakes, and for electricity about a week. and lastly, for low-income communities and communities of color that are more likely to suffer from asthma and other health impacts of poor air quality, zero emission homes really offer an important opportunity to deliver social equity benefits. so this next slide kind of illustrates what jacob had talked about. half of the city's pollution comes from natural gas, and the commercial and residential buildings, that's about 44%, and within that 44% it's about 82% of the building emissions stem from the use of natural gas, so

that includes space heating, cooling, hot water, cooking and other uses. many years ago people thought natural gas was a cleaner source of electricity compared to coal. well, we have now moved away from coal, and it's really time for us to move away from natural gas, towards more renewable sources of energy, which includes solar, wind and hydro. as we talk about natural gas and carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. and without the elimination of natural gas, the city cannot achieve its climate change goals. we will talk about our stakeholder outreach process and the development of this ordinance. so our mayor, london breed, has

committed to net zero emissions by 2050. this includes all new buildings being net zero emissions before 2030 and all existing buildings by 2050. so to accomplish this goal, we embarked on launching the mayor's zero emissions building task force to ensure that we had both inclusive and diverse engagement that helped guide the city on the development of this ordinance. and as you can tell from the slide, the zero emissions building task force had multiple working groups, and today we are only going to focus on new construction, the new construction work group, and the deliverables from that work group. there were other work groups that looked at existing buildings, but at this time we don't have any policy outcomes around existing buildings and we still have a lot of work to do in that area. there are still a lot of challenges around existing building -- and infrastructure and that is something that we will be working on for years to come. so just to reiterate, this

ordinance will only be talking about newly constructed buildings. it does not apply to renovations or major alterations, and no matter how many times i give this presentation, people always ask questions about existing buildings, and we'll be happy to come back in a year or so to talk about that, but just to reiterate today we're talking about newly constructed buildings. so getting back to the slide, it shows the structure of the zero emissions building task force, and we had a new construction work group that formerly met three times, and we had many subgroup meetings. the work group brought together participants from key perspectives, which included community and neighborhood groups, different advocacy groups, affordable housing developers, commercial and residential owners, developers, investors, design professionals, environmental advocates, workforce and labor

representatives, along with our city department. we also had an executive steering committee which we reported the finding from our work groups, which was a public-private steering committee. so this next slideshows an overview and the breadth of our outreach efforts, and our outreach efforts weren't just centered around getting the ordinance complete, but really establishing long-term partnerships with stakeholders building trust with our stakeholders and identifying the best opportunities for the city, for partnerships. and speaking of partnerships, i should mention that while the department of environment facilitated this task force and the work groups, the department of building inspections have been an incredible partner throughout this process. they have spent many hours supporting the development of this ordinance and the accompanying administrative

bulletin, and i do want to express my gratitude to both james zaun and rosemary shake for all the time they've spent in developing this work. so in addition to the work groups, we've had various workshops which are illustrated on the screen, expos. we have met with groups of affordable housing developers and the golden gate restaurant association. so overall, over the last six or seven months we've had about 15 meetings and interacted with about 750 people in the development of this ordinance. so this slide kind of summarizes the new construction workgroup feedback that was provided on the timing applicability, implementation and equity around this ordinance. and so one of the key things we heard first was it was important for the city to act now, that

zero emission technologies were available and cost effective, and delaying the implementation of this ordinance would not make the transition easier. also that fossil fuel systems and new construction will just immediately become a liability for owners. we heard that health and resilience are paramount to equity. this is a big concern and one of the -- wanting to eliminate fossil fuels from buildings w. we heard from stakeholders that they wanted the city's support to help make smart design choices, that projects will benefit from an early warning, clear messaging and, you know, for the city to help developers along the way of this transformative process in the way buildings are constructed. and lastly that workforce development and stakeholder education are essential, which go hand in hand with my previous

comments. like we said, this is a major shift in design and construction practices, and the successful implementation will require the city to invest in resources around education and outreach. so in addition to the education and outreach we have been doing in san francisco, electrification of buildings have been -- have become a state-wide movement, if not a national movement. in some of the questions we got is around where does -- sit on this issue, and i just want to let you know that pg & e have been a stakeholder in this process and has publicly supported electric infrastructure and has expressed it does not want to continue to invest resources in natural gas. in addition to -- (lost audio)

start at proceedings or enact legislation to prepare for a fossil fuel-free future. and as jacob said earlier, the city of san francisco has already started to embark on this process. earlier this year we passed the electric preferred code and also eliminated natural gas from newly constructed municipal buildings. so that was a lot of background information, so i'll jump into the core tenets of the legislation. so before i start diving into the legislation, it's important to remember this is not an energy code, so this -- we have local authority under the california health and safety code, and this ordinance will

amend section 106a and q o2 of the building code. there are five key components to this ordinance. so this project will apply for projects that apply for initial building permits after january 1, 2021, and that will mandate that heating, cooling, water heating, cooking, drying, will be electric. no permits will be issued to convert all electric buildings into mixed use buildings. once you have an electric building, you cannot get a permit for mixed fuel post-occupancy. for projects that include commercial food service establishments, mixed fuel permits may continue to be expected until january 21, 2022, and this would be exclusively for gas piping, for cooking

equipment only. we have had several meetings with the golden gate restaurant association, and based on the severe impacts of covid-19 to the restaurant industry and our ability to continue to do the necessary outreach with restaurants, we have decided to postpone the implementation of this ordinance for that type of establishment for a year. so mixed fuel permits may be issued upon the finding that all electric construction is physically or technically infeasible for a specific area or system of the building, and i will talk a little bit more about that in detail, and lastly when mixed fuel permits are issued in the rare case, we will make sure that the building is electric ready as feasible while also complying with other provisions of the building and

electric code. next i want to talk a little bit about the cost impacts of the implementation of this ordinance. so although we do not have to submit a cost effectiveness study to the state because this is not going through energy code, we do want to present the best available cost data we have. generally we believe this ordinance will be cost neutral based on the qualitative and quantitative information we have collected as a department. this slide here shows data from three different cost effectiveness studies that were completed for the state codes and standards. and it generally shows that building all electric is less. in many scenarios, the construction cost, which is depicted in the column that says change in construction costs are less. the negative numbers represent a reduction in costs from first

costs and also the elimination of the natural gas infrastructure, and then the column to the right of that labelled lifetime net present value shows costs dating over the lifetime of the building when compared to a mixed fuel building. so this is looking at specifically the operational costs and societal costs. so this slide here shows an actual hard-line cost from a building, and this is a building that has yet to be developed. it's an apartment that will be developed on treasure island, and this is an affordable housing example. and while this just gives an overview, some of the key drivers of the reduction of costs were around obviously the elimination of natural gas and the elimination of a solar hot water heater. we've seen some increases of costs around heat pump water heater, the domestic hot water, but overall for this building we

saw about 200 -- a less little than $250,000 lower cost net impact. i think it's important to note that even without this ordinance, we're already seeing the development of all electric buildings. you have many examples all around the city from office buildings to infill development to student housing. a couple weeks ago i had the opportunity to go down to the 260 fulsome site, which is just a really fascinating story. it's not fully constructed, but this is an example of a building that will offer 127 permanent affordable housing apartments for low-income households. it will provide transitional housing for homeless individuals, and it's interesting talking to mohcd and

the architect on building this. they started this building about five years ago, and when they started building it, they estimated cost for building all electric to be about $500,000 more than a mixed fuel building, which is a very small percentage of the total cost. over time it became cost neutral because all electric technologies have just accelerated over the past five years, and also talking with mohcd, building all electric provided a lot of safety aspects for the building, specifically around cooking and the elimination of fire hazard. it's just a really great story and a really great example of an all-electric building in san francisco. so now we'll talk a little bit about the implementation. i just have a couple more slides to go. the department of building inspections will be the implementing agency for this ordinance. so again, starting in 2021, all

new initial applications for building permits will go to dvi, and if they are all electric, there will be no special documentation needed and it will just proceed through the regular application process. in the rare case, if a project sponsor determines it is not physically or technically feasible to build all electric, it will need to submit a waiver [indiscernible] and that waiver request will need to be accompanied by verification from a third-party reviewer. and as a third-party [indiscernible] system is also known as a special inspection, and this is something that dbi uses for systems and situations that require special analysis or expertise, and it's something that dvi uses for fire, seismic, energy and other green building issues. it's just important to note right here that these exceptions

will be limited to technical and physical feasibility. we are expecting to see circumstances that are either exceptional or extraordinary. the onus will be on the project sponsor to demonstrate this infeasibility, and then the third-party review has to confirm that there's no other alternatives than to build a mixed fuel building and then also make sure that it is electric ready as possible. this information will go through a plan review, and the plan review would look at the information from the third-party reviewer, and we're expecting that this third-party review would rather be a team than an individual because we're looking for electric, mechanical and title 24. once all this documentation is submitted, like i said, it would go through a plan review, and then that plan review would make a recommendation to the building

official, which would either approve or reject this waiver. and the implementation of the infeasibility portion of the ordinance and the third-party review will be in an administrative bulletin for dbi, which is one told. and we are not going to review the administrative bulletin as an agenda item, but the next slide i will give a little bit of a preview of what that looks like. so just to provide a little bit of context on the administrative bulletin, it is not an agenda item for today. we did present it to the mechanical, the mep subgroup last week, and also the green building subgroup. they had requested that we continue to work on it with subcommittees, that it wasn't really ready for prime time yet, and then when we presented this ordinance at the co-advisory committee we actually didn't have enough time to have this

agenda item. so we do invite members of the commission to reach out after this presentation with questions, and you know, the goal of this administrative bulletin is really to provide dbi staff with the best guidance to make decisions about the exemption process, and we have worked hand in hand with dbi on drafting this guidance. and i'll just briefly touch on what's in the guidance because it is applicable to the implementation, but we won't spend a lot of time going through it. so things that it will look at is code conflict, utility infrastructure, energy code conflict, and then the other exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that we actually don't know just yet. the first item, the code conflict, is specific to the electrical transformer, and i know there are many members of this commission that are intimately familiar with this issue and have been dealing with

it for years. [please stand by] into one public policy document. so that would be a public work order. the goal is this document has the latest design criteria and procedural am information for much. and our hope is that it will provide more clarity and

transparency on the issue. this order is going through review at d.p.w. right now. and we're hoping that we can make this document public in the next couple weeks. and that it will eliminate some of the uncertainty, develop our stake on this issue and and it will be necessary for us to reference this document in the development of the a.b.112. i won't go into a lot of detail about the other issues. but we are looking at making sure there are exemptions around if there's restrictions on our utility infrastructure compliance with title 24. as i said, other exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. and we look forward to working with the commission and the subcommittee members. and hope to come back with more information for the committee in august to present a final draft of this administrative bulletin. so this is my last slide. then i'm going to turn it over

to ned. so our immediate next step is to have a discussion with all of you, to listen to your concerns and then we look forward to working with you, addressing them over the next month. we plan on working with d.p.w. in planning to finalize a public work order. we're going to work with the subcommittee members and d.b.i. on further refinement on 112. we're going to continue to do outreach and education with our key stakeholders. then we hope to come back to the various subcommittees and to the building commission in august to ask for your support on this one. so next i'd like to turn it over to ned. ned, as you know, is the vice chair of the co-advisory committee and also a member of our new construction working group. so he can provide a couple remarks on this process.

>> thank you, cindy. and thank you, commission, for allowing me to speak. as a zero-emission task force participant, i got to experience firsthand the well thought-out outreach effort that the department of environment did on this issue. it's obviously a huge code change. there's a lot of learning involved. and i think that the cross section of the stakeholders that were invited in the outreach was tomorrow for. i think that the success of changes republican really -- in how well the outreach and training and orientation is for a new ordinary, such as this. the outcome of that outreach is that the draft ordinances quite fully formed. and the administrative bulletin is coming out in synch. so both of those things are really important to get adoption

of an ordinance like this. as cindy mentioned, the c.a.c. did discuss this last week at both the committee level and subcommittee level, the m.b.c. subcommittee and the green building level. i don't think that we're able to take an action on it at c.a.c., like others, the meeting went on quite long. so i wasn't able to participate. the committee members of the c.a.c. did have some concern. and there was a fair amount of discussion about shifting the energy source of building needs from gas to electrical, both on the service side and that would be upstream side, pg-13 side -- pg&e side. that would include, you know, breaker sizes, conduit sizes, and transformer sizes. but the committee wasn't able to

determine whether that upsizing really was going to be dramatic or not. i think where the discussion was going that we'd like to see a little bit more analysis on what the actual incremental change might be to that electrical system. i think the department of energy -- or the department of environment has done some studies about that, but we didn't have enough time to really dig into the details about that to get a comfort level at the committee level. the other concern i think was that the -- both the subcommittee level and at the full committee level was that both group wants a little more time to review the administrative bulletin, because obviously the devil is in the details. the administrative bulletin has a lot of details about how buildings would be accepted. so that -- that's one area that we really want to dig in a little bit more to on.

i'm not speaking as a representative of the c.a.c. today, because we haven't taken action. if we take action and our chair deems it to be, i'll be back with another report next month. but i did want to mention, personally i do support the legislation. i have to say i was sort of a nonbeliever when i joined the task force. and after seeing the amount of research and data that supports this change, especially in moving towards climate change and safety, i've become a believer in this ordinance. i think that this -- that limiting the ordinance to new construction is -- will allow us to basically get a proof of concept, it's easier to integrate into new construction, than it is in -- construction. and i think like most big code

changes, there's a lot of concern about how this is going to impact projects all over the city. and this will allow us to actually see it into action on new projects, where it's probably the easiest to implement. so that we can get this proof of concept going. i also personally believe that unlocking the single source of energy supply to our buildings is one of the best ways to allow new renewable sources perform energy to be implemented through the grid, as opposed to being locked in and on a natural gas service only. those are my personal beliefs. and i would urge you to support this ordinance. thank you for allowing me to speak. >> thank you. >> thank you, ned. and so that concludes our presentation. and we're happy to open it up to questions. >> thank you.

do you want to do the public comment? >> yeah, okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. so actually have a couple of items before we take -- is there any call-in members? there were six members that submitted the same letter for public comment for this item. karen, lamenty, mary brown, harlow pipinger, patrick mark and josephine coffee. the letter states -- hello, i'm a resident of san francisco, writing to support an even stronger ordinance banning the use of natural gas in new construction. eliminating natural gas from our buildings is essential, not only to meeting our climate goals, but also to improving the health and safety of the residents of our city. this is a major first step that will make san francisco a leader across the state and the world.

it will protect san franciscan from both health hazards and future costs. i ask the committee to consider the following changes to the ordinance, and associated bulletin, as laid out by the s.f. climate emergency coalition. required developers who exhaust all efforts to place a transformer inside the building, under the sidewalk or on the sidewalk before granting an exemption. loss of a unit or another amenity financial loss is not a legitimate reason for an exemption. make the exception process more transparent to the public and for cases that are strictly in the public interest. making electric-ready, 100% mandatory without exception, boards of jurisdictions across the state have mandatory electric ready requirements. it should be the minimum backdrop, remove the blanket one-year delay for spaces. it would do little to help the small businesses that are currently struggling due to covid. and saddle the future owners with unsafe infrastructure. thank you for your consideration and for taking up this

incredibly important issue. and for prioritizing our health, safety and climate through your support. and that same letter was sent by all of those six public members. and there was also one more public comment from commissioner joni isaacson. she says dear secretary harris, as a grandmother lives in san francisco district 10, whose residents have been subject to poor air quality than most other districts, i am writing to support as strong an ordinance as possible banning the use of natural gas in new construction. eliminating natural gas essentially methane from our buildings is necessary, not only in order to meet our climate goals, but also to improve the health and safety of the residents of our city. this is a major first step that san francisco can take and it can be a model for other cities to follow. to more protect san franciscans

both from health hazards and costs, i examine the building inspection commission to consider the following changes to the ordinance, and associated bulletin as laid out by s.f. climate emergency coalition. require developers to exhaust all efforts to place a transformer inside the building, under the sidewalk or on the sidewalk before granting exemptions. make the exception process more transparent to the public. make electric ready, remove the blanket one-year delay for a new restaurant and spaces. thank you for your consideration and for taking up this incredibly important issue. and, moderator, if you'd like to take any of the public callers. >> there are four public callers. please allow me a moment to queue the first > caller. >mr. warner, please go ahead. >> caller: oh, yes. hi. my name is cole warner.

[inaudible] >> i want to expand on a couple of items. involved in climate change, delay and work -- [indiscernible] the impacts are happening faster than anyone expected. and the emissions continue to rise at dramatic rates. so clearly natural gas -- [indiscernible] for that reason i believe the waiver process to permit use of natural systems, in the case, really needs to be a public process.

it is unfortunately very easy for items to be a public process and a decision to be granted. [indiscernible] one loses a focus on the number of exceptions that are granted. i encourage the exception process. and require some severe thunderstorm of public process and public notice of the permit granting. the second comment i'd like to make is this does a very good job of specifying uses, relating to heating. what it does not necessarily do is address the decorative uses. i don't know of fireplaces in this day and age are considered heating -- space heating devices

or not. >> clerk: i'm sorry, caller, your time is up. >> thank you. >> three more > -- callers in the queue. miss boreki, please go ahead. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> yes. >> first, i'd like to thank cindy and jacob and mandelman's office for their diligence on working on this ordinance. i support making this ordinance even stronger and passing it. i also echo the concerns of the previous callers regarding making the exceptions as limited as possible and only in the public interest. for instance, i believe that the previous caller was talking about whether something like a gas fireplace would be

considered decorative and, therefore, potentially allowed. and that's clearly not in the public interest. in fact, it's in the public harm, because it will cause more air pollution, more fire risk and more global warming emissions. so the exemptions process, in addition to the excellent thing that there's a third party required to confirm that the building cannot be -- could not be all electric, the building should also have to prove that it is in the public interest for it to be built. and that process should be a publicly accessible process. we need to eliminate natural gas for our health, safety and our future. and anything that gets an exemption with natural gas should be only in the public interest. for this reason i also think the

one-year delay for restaurant spaces should be removed, because remember this is new construction only. so the little restaurants that are hit so hard by the covid crisis, are not going to be helped by this restaurant exemption. because this is for new buildings only. thank you very much for your work and for considering this important topic. >> clerk: the next caller. >> caller 415793, please go ahead. >> caller: oh, hello, yes. my name is shawn keaton and i'd like to provide a voice of balance to this conversation. it's my understanding that the committee members and the thanks, that participated in much of this debate and working group, perhaps entered this

process with less than an open mind. they were there to prove or to justify the predetermined agenda. and maybe it is time to move in this direction. maybe it's not. i'm not sure. but we need to be very real about the cost of this. this is not cost-neutral and will add to the cost of housing. i had our membership meeting and i couldn't find a single person in the room who would at least be open to the fact that it would be cost-neutral. most said 30%, 40% increase. and there's obviously no doubt that at least for a while, until technology can improve, it's going to diminish our ability to cook and the quality of cooking. having said all of that, i understand the movement is going pop and our members want to be a part of that movement. and we wish we had more time to allow the industry to manufacture better equipment, manufacture things and get the manufacturing going, so the costs will come down.

but right now there is going to be a big cost. there's something really important that has to be stated. this policy will create an odd proportionate expense to the two to seven-unit buildings. why those buildings? because historically those buildings have never needed transformers. the increased electrical load will force those projects now to get transformers and that comes, a, at a tremendous cost. b, in many of these smaller projects, there just physically is not room for these transformers. so i appreciate the dialogue we've had with jacob and supervisor mandelman and we are committed to rolling up our sleeves and making sure that these exemptions are proper and fair and recognize the disproportionate impact of smaller projects. we want to be clean, simple to use, and we appreciate the dialogue. again we're committed to rolling up our sleeves and recognizing

it that this is the way of the future. do i think it's the right time, -- >> clerk: if you could summarize your comments, please. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. >> one moment while i get the next person in queue. ms. greenwald, please go ahead. >> caller: okay. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: all right. well, first of all, i support this health measure. and i'll quick tell you why, because, well, i don't know about having an open mind. but just imagine that our improved electrical technology had been available years back, before gas was used. and imagine back then somebody came to you and said,. >> commissioner haney: -- and heverybody y, let's pipe explosive gas through the city. let's pipe it into our buildings to conveniently light it on fire and use the flames to heat our homes and water.

and cook our foods. of course, you wouldn't do it now. all right. our ancestors wouldn't have done it either, except things were different then. now we have alternatives. we can stop using this dangerous stuff. okay. i'll calm down. for this public health measure, of course, i support it. i would love to see the exemptions and exceptions set up, get a little tweaking. i think it needs to be really transparent, really public. we need to make sure that exemptions are decided on a case-by-case basis, the process open to the public. we should make the electric-ready 100% mandatory, even if exemptions are granted, because things are going to change. we don't want these buildings to have gas piped in and then that building has to pay for all of the gas piping throughout the city, for heaven's sakes. you know, we need to do this very fairly. i don't see why san francisco is proposing to roll back

electric-ready requirements for some developers. and i think a blanket one-year delay for all restaurant spaces is too broad. so thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we can go to the next caller. >> one moment while i queue them up. ms. linden, please go ahead. >> caller: hi. i'm a resident of san francisco. like many of the other callers, i am calling in support of this ordinance. and would like to see some of the exemptions removed. i don't, like the other callers, believe that the one-year exemption for restaurants will not help them in this time. and will, in fact, straddle them with retrofit costs in the future. i would also like the exemption process to be more transparent.

and for exhibit no.s to not just be given for financial loss, but only be given in the event that the transformer can't be placed in any way, shape or form. thank you so much for considering this bill. >> clerk: thank you. we can go to the next caller. >> caller user with the 401 area code, please go ahead. >> caller: hi. i'd like to express my support for this ordinance. and for prohibiting natural gas in this new construction, along with what other people have said, i'm echoing. i think that this is a no-brainer. and it is really important for san francisco to take the lead for -- and set a strong example

for other cities in the world. we acquired developers to exhaust all efforts to replace the transformer inside the building. make the exception process more transparent to the public. make sure that they are deciding only on a case-by-case basis in the public interest. make electric-ready 100% mandatory. and remove the blanket one-year delay for restaurant spaces. this will make sure that we as a city and for future business ownerowners that they don't havo take on retrofit costs. and in short, san francisco needs to have a strong ordinance that other cities will look to, to set an example. and we can't afford to do this, because we are a wealthy city.

we are responsible for a lot of pollution in the u.s., compared to other countries. even if it means a small amount of sacrifices, which, which are pretty negligible, it's something that we need to do as a city morally. thank you. >> one monument while i cue the next caller. >> clerk: thank you. >> mr. lee. please go ahead. >> caller: hi. can you hear me clearly? >> yes. >> wonderful. as many of the callers before, i am in full support of this measure. i am both a resident of san francisco and the manager of a food service establishment, that will benefit in no way from this one-year exemption. and while we have been struggling severely during covid, this is -- this proposed one-year break for restaurants

is not a benefit to those of us impacted by covid. it's an overture to developers and an attack on those of us who will face health impacts of gas infrastructure in our restaurants. i highly discourage you from keeping that in the final ordinance. and also i want to echo the other talking points from the letters that were submitted, particularly that electric-ready must be 100 mandatory without exemption. and that, a, more robust oversight program needs to be established. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. would you like to go to the next caller. >> two more in the queue. mr. naso, please go ahead. >> caller: hi there. can you hear me? >> yes. >> i'm chris. i'm a resident of san francisco. i really want to thank supervisor mandelman, the s.f.

department of environment for all of their hard work in preparing this ordinance. i absolutely support prohibiting gas in new construction. i don't know if you saw this week in the s.f. chronicle, they reported on how human-caused methane emissions are the highest on record, with devastating consequences for our climate and species. i'm a little concerned about the ordinance and the associated bulletin, with regard to some of the exemptions. i'm pleading with you, please require developers to exhaust all efforts to place the transformer inside the building, under the sidewalk, or on the sidewalk before granting an exemption. and the recent code advisory committee meeting, one of the members says the transformers can absolutely be placed inside the building. loss of a unit or another amenity is not a legitimate reason for an exemption. we need to treat natural gas like asbestos and lead paint, toxic substances that have no place in our buildings, regardless of the circumstances. i'm echoing the call from other individuals that we need to make the exception process more

transparent and see a public interest exemption process, where the public can attend a hearing and provide oversight. right now these exemptions will be considered honestly in pack rooming. and -- in back rooms and that's not acceptable. 100% mandatory electric-ready requirement for san francisco. you know, perhaps the buildings should not be built at all if they expect be electric-ready. finally, i oppose the one-year delay for restaurant spaces. and finally i just want to remind you all, that the building code is meant to protect people's safety and health, not profit. thank you so much for all of your work and service. >> clerk: thank you. thank you. >> one more caller. >> clerk: yes. >> mr. tahara. >> i'm a resident of district 8. i want to thank the k-for taking -- thank the committee for

taking up this item. climate change and public health are deeply intertwined, it's a really, really big opportunity. i encourage the committee to ultimately approve the ordinance and the bulletin, with some suggestions that you've heard from previous callers. above all i want to thank barry, cindy from the environment at large, supervisor mandelman's office for taking up this important issue. and continuing to carry it forward, despite all of the other demands on their time. this is really how the city continues its leadership in caltrans and the -- in california and the world stage. i want to echo the comments around exemptions and exceptions. i want to take a step back and point out all of the things that are great about this ordinance and why it is imperative that we pass it as soon as possible. again with those modifications. it's categorical, applies all building types and usages, what we saw is that developers,

architects, engineers said that these things are feasible, building all-electric is feasible for labs, hospitals, offices, et cetera. and the ordinance really recognizes that. it applies to all buildings at building permit, rather than entitlement. and as jacob had mentioned, covers about two-thirds of the buildings in the pipeline. actually even more aggressive than what berkeley had done. and so again this is just san francisco strengthening is leadership. and lastly, it requires specific limited exceptions to only the particular electrical systems, rather than the whole building. again this prevents whole mixed-field buildings, like previous callers, i would like to see electric-ready be an absolute requirement. there's no reason that we need to be making an exception here. just to close, to give a face to some of the health benefits, since moving to san francisco, i have developed asthma.

>> clerk: if you could summarize your comments. >> thank you. thank you for supporting this important ordinance and please consider the suggestions. thank you. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> there's actually one more commenter. miss reinhardt. can you hear us? >> caller: yes. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: i'm a resident of san francisco, a homeowner in district 7. something i wanted to add on to cindy's great presentation is on the health impacts of continuing to use gas in our homes. so the e.p.a. has themselves acknowledged, based on meta analysis, and dozens of studies over the last four decades, that gas stoves in homes increase childhood asthma rates by 42%. to the previous question who questioned whether or not it was the right time. the right time would have been 40 years ago when we knew that gas in our homes was already harming our health. a recent study showed that billions of dollars would be

saved solely in the san francisco bay area in health costs from decreased bronchitis and asthma by moving buildings to all electric. i want to pass a new construction ordinance and follow that up with retrofits as soon as possible and making sure that there are no holes that put families at risk. unfortunately many of these health costs are worse for lower-income folks, because they're in smaller kitchens, in smaller homes, with less ventilation. and this is yet another example of sort of systemic, racial inequality that is built into how we build our buildings today. as a new mom of a 2 1/2-year-old, who developed asthma while we had a gas stove, not having read the research, there's a 30% chance that having a gas stove is what gave my child asthma.

that put us in the e.r. six times so far. and to those health costs are very, very real. and that's an ongoing problem. as a homeowner, who recently did a remodel and was not yet aware of the climate impacts, i would have been overjoyed for the building department to have let me know that i should be building in an all-electric way, not only for my family's health, but also for the climate and also for my pocketbook. since retrofits, -- >> clerk: if you could summarize your comments please. >> i'm strongly in support of the ordinance and would encourage -- make sure it's passed without loopholes. they're real societal costs that this is causing every single day. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you. would you all like to go to commissioner discussion? >> yes, please. if we could do that. thank you, madam secretary. so, commissioners, if i may, i'd

like to open up for comments. and i'll close out. thank you. >> clerk: if you'd like to go around, like you did last time. check with commissioner. >> i forgot about that. commissioner jacobo, please. >> i just want to thank supervisor mandelman's office for putting this forth and bringing it to us a little bit sooner. i appreciate the time to be able to reflect and listen to the comments. and be able to chime in. so i really do want to thank for that. and getting to us 100% electric i think is the way that we should be moving as a city, and setting the example is important. thank you for that. thank you for the thorough presentation. >> thank you, commissioner. vice president moss. please. >> thank you. and i do want to echo that. thank you to supervisor mandelman and it's good to get something ahead of time now and be able to think about it. i just -- i know that the

presentation said that there were affordable housing developers on the committee. i just want to say that -- with that and the affordable housing demonstrator, this is something that we actually engaged in with all-electric for decades now. and definitely with our new construction. and, you know, what i want to point out, when affordable housing develops something, what we build now lasts as long as possible, before we need to fix it or it becomes irrelevant or just completely out of date. and, you know, the all-electric building seems to be pushing that envelope even farther. so when it does come to us, i look forward to the negotiations. but i do support the spirit of this bill. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner tam, please. >> thank you. i do actually feel that full electric is the way to go.

my thought is i'd like to understand a little bit more about the exceptions. and, you know, kind of look into detail of how that process would be, if we were to move forward. >> cindy, would you like to answer that? >> sure. so we decided not to bring forth the ab-112 as an agenda item today. and that document will have the exemption process in it. and so what will be in that document will elaborate on code complex and that's specific to the sidewalk transformer issues that we spoke about at length. if there is a denial of utility service, a potential conflict with title 24, and lastly, you know, any other extraordinary or exceptional circumstance that we were not able to foresee.

so it's really limited to those four areas, within the domain of being physical or technically infeasible. so those are the areas around the exceptions. they're drafted in the administrative bulletin, which we're happy to share with the committee and we'd love to get feedback before bringing it to you in august officially. >> wonderful, thank you. >> commissioner alexander-tut, please. >> i, like many other commissioners, wanted to both thank supervisor mandelman and all of the city staff who worked very hard on this project, on this presentation. and, you know, for coming before us, you know, to give us all this information before we make the decisions. it's very helpful. i am very supportive of this. the only question i had was -- and forgive me if it was

actually in the presentation. i missed it. but several people who in public comment talked with the one-year phase-in for restaurants. and asked them to eliminate that. i wondered if -- what was the thinking behind that exemption? and what would be the barriers to eliminating that? >> that's a great question. so we met several times with the golden gate restaurant association. and their members expressed concern about the ordinance, given the impacts of covid-19. and i understand that it would not specifically impact any existing restaurants. but they felt like they needed additional time to do outreach and education, to cooks and owners of restaurants around induction cooking. this is something that we started to do in february. we had an electrification expo.

we had mayor breed do all-electric cooking demonstration. but unfortunately our outreach was curtailed by the coronavirus. so we agreed with them that there was additional outreach that we needed to do with restaurants, that we're not able to do. and this one-year extension will provide us that time to make sure that we had more inclusive and diverse outreach to areas in the city, that we were not able to get to, such as chinatown. >> commissioner tut is that good for you? >> yeah. i think i still share some concerns. but i do understand -- i appreciate the very thorough responses. >> thank you. did i miss any commissioner? i don't believe i did. just myself.

and once again thanks, cindy and jacob for the presentation here this morning. i'll kind of share -- when i was first introduced to this legislation, i actually, my fellow commissioners, along with stakeholders had sat in these meetings and had a lot of concerns. and i believe there was tremendous outreach done by our department and particularly it was helpful to understand. as edgar said, as far as legislation goes, this is probably one of the biggest ordinances i have seen come our way. and as i say, what is the intended consequence? spirit i absolutely agree with this. i myself am going to be doing an office building, even though it's not required for me to be all-electric. i am doing everything i can with the existing building to convert to all-electric. so i do believe in this.

and i do believe that this is the future and this is what we've got to do. but as a contractor and sitting on the contractor seat, particularly when it comes to the smaller contractors and i believe mr. keen came on the phone and discussed the added costs. and obviously in the committee meetings, we did talk and, cindy, if you could help me and break it down this way. we did talk about certain projects that wouldn't be able to go electric, because of the size of the lot. and obviously because maybe, for example, d.p.w., the sidewalk wouldn't be big enough to put a transformer in that sidewalk. my understanding is there would be informal m.o.u., a memorandum of understanding that takes place between the planning and d.p.w. early on in the process. where this would be an agreed,

approved on by planning that this building could not go electric for these reasons. i believe you talked about the public work order. can you tell me that's going to be captured there? because i am a little bit concerned about some of the public comments, where one in, one said, if it shouldn't go electric, it shouldn't be built. in the smaller development world, there's going to be a lot of this, because it just physically won't be able to -- i mean, the other one is it's a health policy. and so the building shouldn't be built. i believe the other comment. so can we just talk a little bit about that. and particularly i need to reinforce in my community and the building community, that there's nothing in this legislation that will stop you from building this building, because you cannot put a transformer within the building boundary. >> so thank you, president mccarthy, for those questions. and i do want to just state that, you know, in our department, we believe that climate policy is also housing

policy. and building dense urban housing in san francisco also eliminates greenhouse gases. and having housing is also a health issue. we have a lot of unsheltered people on the streets. and we fully support the development of housing. zero emission as possible. so our goal here is not to impede the development in housing in any way. we definitely want it to be zero-emission housing, but we do have an exemption process where that's not feasible. so our goal is not to deny housing being built. i want to make that clear. that we understand the efforts within the city around affordable housing. and feel very strongly about supporting that. secondly, getting back to the requirements around the sidewalk vault, with planning and d.p.w. so planning and d.p.w. are working together. the planning department has finished those design guidelines. and has given them to d.p.w.

d.p.w. their leadership is reviewing them right now. and so the goal is to make a stronger public document, rather that was in the m.o.u. that you might have seen, that provides more transparency and more clarity on the placement of the sidewalk vault transformers. and then that way we could reference that in the administrative bulletin. so it is something that planning and d.p.w. are working on together. planning has finished the guidelines. it's under review with d.p.w. and the goal is to make that an official policy document of the department. did that answer your questions? >> yeah. it did, cindy. and i think it would be parallel with the legislation being approved at the supervisor level, i'm presuming, right? >> we are trying to have those process for d.p.w. and planning be accelerated. and we would really like to have

the commission have an opportunity to look at that public order in advance of the august meeting. >> good. because i know i'll get a lot of phone calls from a lot of thanks on that. because that was one of the big hurdles that we had in our meeting that we talked about it. and we did give examples of it. the one other thing, i am in agreement with you. i was never really 100% sure of what would trigger off the upside into these buildings, inside the buildings. edgar, can you talk a little bit about that and what you hope and you feel comfortable on that? >> i'd be happy to. the discussion at the c.a.c. was that mainly in buildings, a lot of gas services is applied to heating of the space, space he heating. and switching that over to heat

pumps may actually add a requirement to add more power to the building, to handle the heat load. and so whereas right now the electricity is running essentially lights and so forth and the gas is running the heating. you have basically two energy sources to the building. by eliminating the gas, we switch that load over to the electrical service and it may increase the sizing of the electrical service. i think that's one of the callers said in the smaller buildings. the electrical service is relatively small, therefore, it doesn't trigger a transformer. but by taking that gas load and switching it to the electrical, it would trigger the transformer. i think president mccarthy, you're right. we need to look at those particular buildings in that narrow band of when the transformer gets triggered and either exempt them or figure out how to work with d.p.w. about how to get them in the sidewalk. so those are the key. i think you nailed it.

those are in the narrow band of do we need a transformer before, but they may need a transformer now. >> yeah. and thanks, edgar, for that clarification. and one of the other big conversations that the upside triggers often is the cost. you know, we had some really good data on that. it more or less kind of was for larger buildings at the end of the day. the smaller building costs are definitely going to be increased here. and that's really -- that's probably one of my top two, three reasons that i have a problem with the legislation. there's really nothing in there to kind of help the smaller building. bus a transformer does cost somewhere in the neighborhood, i'm thinking my last one was $155,000, $200,000, by the time you finish in ground, and put it in there. that's a cost that you would not have to have done on a small two- to six-unit before. because you probably would have been able to get that building up and running for 400 ample

service, for example. and that doesn't need a transformer. i don't know if there's any talk on that, edgar, i don't know. >> i think that the cost data about the initial cost versus the long-term cost is where the cost neutrality comes from. so if you are looking at the costs to actually implement the construction, there will be an increase in costs. but i think the department of environment has shown that long-term that the cost reductions, over the services, may actually offset that. so if you have folks that are looking at the very narrow band of the, you know, the cost to build a building, versus the folks who own the building over the long-term, who reap the benefits of the cost savings, there may be a discrepancy

between the two groups. >> that's it. obviously, cindy, we've talked about that. that's an von going conversation i get phone calls on and so on. but really appreciate everybody bringing this to us today. and giving us this chance to just talk through it before it comes back and the opportunity to reach back out to you guys again, if you have any more questions. and i do encourage if there's any stakeholders listening, they forward in more questions to get them answered. i do believe this legislation will happen and it will happen soon. i do believe it's where the city is going. and i do believe in this. and the power issues. with that, madam secretary, if's no more public comment from my commissioners, this is not an action item. we'll see you in august hopefully. and we'll get more updates. >> clerk: yes.

thank you, president mccarthy. just before i read the next agenda item, i wanted to remind the public. if you are trying to call in on another item during public comment, the number is (408)418-9388. the access code is 146 632 7982. and to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item, press star three when prompted by the meeting moderator. okay. our next item is item 6, update regarding d.b.i.'s curbside over-the-counter permit process and status of d.b.i.'s upcoming move. >> hi, good morning, president mccarthy and commissioners. i'm christine, assistant director of the department of building inspection. i am going to share my screen. >> clerk: just one moment. john, can you please transfer the presenter duties to either

-- either to myself or to christine. >> christine, should have those duties now. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> it's still grayed out, jon. got it now. okay. can you see the power point? >> clerk: not yet. did you do the share screen option? >> yeah. okay. now i have it. okay. how's that? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. great. good morning. so in my preparation this

morning, i'm going to report on d.b.i.'s launch of curbside services for over-the-counter permits. and, first, i'm going to affirm that -- here at d.b.i. we are committed to electronic plan review in the long-term. we believe there are many benefits for our customers to these changes. and launching the curbside services is really complementing what we're doing electronically. so just to recap some of the challenges we've had since shelter-in-place in mid-march and issuing permits. we have been closed for the public until partially reopening on june 24th. we began taking electronic permit applications on april 9th. and at that time we needed to train staff on the new system. we had a number of resource constraints. we had staff that were on -- that were disaster service workers. and so unavailable to process permits or on leave. we had some work flow and process issues, because really

prior to shelter-in-place and covid-19, the intention was to launch the electronic planned review very gradually, as a pilot project for affordable housing projects. and not make it available for all projects. and so that led to a growing backlog of permit applications. and so we're addressing those by launching the curbside services, which began on june 24th. and i'll go over a little bit how that works. so for the over-the-counter, without plans, we are inviting customers in from 7:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. we ask people to sign up ahead of time on an eventbrite site, so we can limit the number of people coming every day to something that we can manage. and so that's about 30 tickets available daily. we send out a weekly communication with customers to the links to sign up to the event brite and there are appointments available all week.

we only accept -- we're doing about 30 to 35 permits issued per day and we are not doing the trades and street space permits during our curbside service, because we tried to do that for a while and it really -- it kind of overloaded the system. so we are keeping those online. and then the over-the-counter with plans service, that's from 9:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. and we have people drop off. and the way it works, customers come in through the side yard. they remain outside and there's a plan checker outside checking to make sure that their project qualifies for over-the-counter. and then where he carry the plans upstairs to the fifth floor, where we have plan checkers on the fifth floor and some of our partner departments are there and other areas of the

building. and so whereas the customer used to walk the plans around themselves, we now walk -- we have support from the permit center staff, who help walk the plans around and really approximates what was done pre-covid. we're average being 30 permits issued per day with that service. and then to pick pup permit, -- up permits, once the permits are reviewed and ready for issuance, we contact the applicants to pay. they pay online. and then the next day they can come back and pick up their permits. and i didn't mention in the o.t.c. without plans, people walk out of the building with their permits the same day. but for o.t.c. with plans, those are issued, you know, as early as the next day or sometimes one or two days after.

as a requirement from the department of health, we put together a safety plan to really make sure that we're balancing the health and safety of both customers and our staff, while offering this service. we keep people outside as much as possible. during the over-the-counter, without plan service, people are allowed to go through, kind of cycle through the ground floor. there's a one-way track. they are required to wear masks and we have plexiglass installed to separate staff and customers. and so they come in through the side yard. and they go out the front door, to try to minimize any contact between the customers. we also have a limited number of customers that are allowed into the building. and so how are we doing? we launched this service, you know, recently. so we only have limited data, but so far it's validating the

theory that we could get more permits issued than through electronic plan review only. so in june, for two weeks in june when we were only using electronic plan review, we issued about approximately 50 permits a day. that's through the electronic plan review, plus the trades permit, as i said are only online. that's about 58 permits a day. so before we launched this curbside service, we were doing approximately 108 permits a day. and since the curbside service launched, we've been able to bump that number up to 142 permits a day. but, of course, on top of everything else we're moving. we're moving to 49 south van ness starting on july 23rd. next week. and duration the move, the move is going to happen over two

weekends. and staff is not allowed in the building starting the thursday and friday, so the movers can come in and help pack things up. so the days that we'll be close ready july -- thursday and friday, july 23rd and 24th. thursday and friday, july 30th and 31st, where we'll have the second phase of the move. and then august 3rd, the monday august 3rd we'll be closed, so that our staff can set up if their new space and get ready for curbside to come back on the next tuesday. while we're closed, we're going to continue to serve our customers by electronic plan review, answering customer emails and calls and continuing to conduct inspections. people will be working from home. and we'll provide more information about that. director o'riordan is going to hold a customer update and q&a on friday, july 1s -- july 1st 0

a.m. the curbside services will look very much the same as we have now, as we adjust to the new building and our new workspace. we're proposing for the o.t.c. without plans, the customers who were outside getting their projects checked in, will now go into the ground floor. and then be directed up to the second floor, where there's a very large space and a lot of opportunity for social distancing, for the review processing and the payment. for the over-the-counter with plans, customers will just remain on the first floor and drop off and pick up there. and i want to say thanks to the many members of our staff who pitched in to get this off the ground. it was truly a team effort. and our department has worked together in a really collaborative way with our partners to get this off the ground. thank you.

>> thank you, christine. >> clerk: thank you, deputy director madison be doing the next part? >> i think so. i wonder if the director wants to -- we can check that. >> i believe terrace is going to talk a little bit more about the move. >> clerk: okay. >> you can go ahead and speak. >> can i share my screen now? >> clerk: yes, jon, if you can pass the presenter duties to tarek. >> doing it right now. >> clerk: thank you.

all right. you're able to share your screen now. share screen button. >> okay. >> good morning, everyone. deputy director for the department of building inspection. and i'll just take a couple of minutes to go over our move. i think most of the -- a lot of information was already included in the earlier presentation. but just to give some details on the move. so we will move over two weekends. we're about a week away. the first move will be the weekend of july 23rd. and basically on that move date, inspection services, record management, housing and code enforcement and as well as m.i.s. then the director and b.i.c. and finance will move on that weekend. we'll be moving from several floors to either 49 south van ness on either floors four and five.

then the following move will be move two. the second weekend. and that will include the first floor, info desk and c.p.b., the fifth floor i.p.r., to the second floor the permit center. then the first floor will have technical services, plan use services and human resources and they'll all be moving to the fifth floor. basically in the new building, d.b.i. will be actually on three floors. the permit center, which is on the second floor, the fourth and the fifth floors. so d.b.i. services is, as christine edges mentioned earlier, we'll be closed july 23rd and 24th and 30th and 31st at 1616 mission. building staff will report to job sites and the office staff will coordinate tel -- telework. ors then at 49 south van ness, curbside services will begin on

august 4th. so we've been preparing for this move for a while. but we're really in the thick of things now, since we're down to about a week or two before both of the moves. so basically we've been coordinating with the city's new vendor, several departments are moving to 49 south van ness, so the city has a mover working with us. staff has been working on recycling, scanning, packing and purging. just last week we had received some packing training, so staff will be working on that. and then in addition to that, we're continuing to notify our stacks about what's going on with the new move, as christine mentioned just a moment ago. we've been sending out newsletters and actual reports and actual other updates. we'll continue to do that. and then for health and safety, we do have a health and safety plan here at 1660 mission and we'll have one for 49 south van ness. the plan will include all of the basics -- the requirements

including requiring face coverings, maintaining social distancing and frequent hand washing, informing staff and customers to stay home when they're sick, as well as continuing to require health screenings for d.b.i. employees and customers. currently every day before an employee can enter the building, they're required to do an online health screening, the same -- we also require the same for any customers that are coming to the building. and we'll continue to do that. in addition, we will also continue to limit the number of staff and customers also in 49 south van ness. the way that we've been limiting the number 6 staff, people have been teleworking, as i mentioned earlier, the field inspections staff they don't come into the building. they go directly on site. we've been also limiting customers with the curbside, limiting them to the first floor. that will continue in the other building. limiting not only the access to the floorser but also limiting the number of customers that are actually be in the building. and i think that's all i have

for the 49 south van ness move. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment available? >> there is no one in the queue. >> clerk: is there commissioner discussion? >> so commissioner vice president moss, please. vice president moss, are you there? you can go to the next one. commissioner alexander-tut, please. >> yes. thank you so much for the presentation. so i have a few questions. and mostly around the covid-19

precautions we're taking in the moving process. and also with the new operations. in the new building. and one -- i guess one of my questions is -- i didn't actually realize that the permit center is going to be changing from the ground floor to the 2nd floor. that sounds like kind of a different kind of scenario that we had been working in, with the public being able to come into the second floor. in general, is that the only place that the public is going to be coming? or because we're sharing now with other city departments, will the public be in and out of other floors as well? and can you talk about what are the precautions that we are taking to make sure that both the public and our workers remain safe.

>> do you want to take it or do you want me to take it? >> i can answer some of the information on the general precautions. more on the specifics about what's going to happen with the ground floor and the first floor. maybe that could be something that you can handle. but i can talk about the general precautions that we're taking. >> sure. sure. >> as i said before, we have standard procedures that everyone must follow, social distancing, wearing the masks. and that's not procedures just for d.b.i., but that will be for everyone that actually goes to the building. so there are other city departments that will be in that building with us. and they'll all be following the same. what we've done here at 1616 mission, particularly as it relates to seeing the public along with the plexiglass, is also making sure there's more cleaning of those -- hike high-touch public areas. we've also -- if for some reason

there has to be shared -- anything that's shared, those things are also cleaned, too. one of the things that we've tried to do over here and we hope to be able to implement it, for the most part there aren't any shared spaces. everyone is sitting at their own space. the phone is really something that should not be shared. so in this building, we've taken out all of the phones that would have been shared phones. and we will do the same over there. we will not allow people to share phones, even without any type of clean. those are the kinds of things that we're doing. the move consultants -- we're backing. we have boxes to pack our personal things. but actually the move consultants are the ones that are actually moving out all of our supplies and all of the things that have to go to the new building. that's one of the reasons why we're actually going to be closed on those dates, because we don't want to be near anyone while moving. and we don't want to have so many people in the building at the same time. those are the precautions we're

taking on both moving and also just keeping those safety precautions in for supplies, phones, wearing your mask. everyone has been given hand sanitizer. because, of course, washing your hands frequently is very important. if you're working with the public or you're working at your desk, you're not getting up all the time. we've given personal han sanitizer to every single employee. we'll have distribution of p.p.e.s, masks, gloves, those sorts of things available. and we have someone that distributes those. we worked closely with the city's e.o.c. operations to make sure that we have all of those things on hand. >> yeah. and i can speak to the set-up with the ground floor and the floor above it. the second floor. and how the initial plan has been set up for how all that would work. so what we're planning right now is that customers will cue on

11th street. they will be let into the building for our over-the-counter no-plans process, very similar to what we have here at 1660. and it will be greeted a triage on the ground floor. they will then go to the 2nd floor, where we will have our intake and cashiers, of course, socially distanced. all of this will be contingent upon a safety plan that has been developed and drafted by the permit center team, being approved by the health officer. so it's very important to understand that we will be simulating exactly what we have at 1660. there is a lot more space in the building at 49 south van ness. and the reason that we are using the second floor is the second

floor is primarily where we can facilitate separation of our staff, in such a way that we can be sure that everybody is being socially distanced from everyone else. there is a very wide staircase, accessing the second floor. we're going to have the circulation path of travel, so that it will be one way. and this again is only going to happen with the approval of the department of public health, based on the health and safety plan that will be submitted. by the permit center. i hope that answers your question, commissioner. >> yes. very thorough. one of the questions i do have is around enforcement of these rules. one of the feedback i have heard from different stakeholders that i have spoken to, not regarding d.b.i., but just in general of, you know, how they're

implementing their safety plan, the challenging pieces is the enforcement of it. how will this be enforced? like if a client or customer tries to get too close to a staff member or vice versa, how are these -- what is the culture that we're building for enforcement? how does enforcement happen in realtime? and is there someone that like specifies of handling complaints and how do complaints get filed? could you speak a little bit about like how -- like after the perfect plan is made, how are we enforcing that plan. >> as we all know enforcement can sometimes be challenging. right now what we have is we have deputy directors, actually deputy director lowry and sweeny have been at the ground floor since we instituted the curbside. and there is absolutely zero tolerance for anyone not wearing a mask or socially distancing or

posing any unsafe situation, in relation to themselves or staff or other stakeholders. and they're being asked to ask to leave the building or wear a mask. there is a sign-in sheet at the entry point from the street that they sign in. and posters are in place documenting what's necessary. yes, we have staff who have come to us with some concerns in regards to different things. and we have addressed those concerns immediately, such as wiping the surfaces, et cetera. so is that an answer to your question, commissioner? >> yes. that's very helpful. my final question, and this might be something that you don't know the answer to, that's fine. how long do we expect -- my understanding is that inspectors

-- general inspectors are not coming in. is there a plan to bring inspectors or work from home and go directly to the construction site model going to continue? >> it's going to continue until there is sop improvement in the area of the health concerns or the pandemic. right now it's going to continue until we have some improvement. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner jacobo, please. >> yeah. thank you to my commissioner for raising a lot of the questions i think i had in general. for the most part answered. i guess the one thing that's still for me to be clear is the path of travel. now that this is moving up to the 2nd floor and we'll be

having people in and out, you know, something that we're finding, through some of the work that i do on the community side, through the covid-19, you know, the task force is the common areas and places of travel for people within buildings tend to be problematic. and so just really want to better understand that. i think i heard there was a wider stairwell. is that the only way up? is it limited? are people waiting in line outside. just to get a little more clarity on that. >> the plan is being developed right now, the safety plan. but what we know is we will have a limited number of people in the building, primarily between 7:30 and 9:30 each day. the stairs is a lot wider. and if we think about -- right now we have four people from the public in the building at any one time, maximum in the morning. so this is a very wide stairway. and i don't -- i can't imagine

that there would be any more than two people on that stair at any one time. so again the plan will have to be approved by the department of public health. and regarding the path of circulation of travel, we're trying to ensure that it's one way. and we have directional markings on the ground, and also identifying the 6-foot spacing, the minimum of 6-foot spacing. so we do have the plexiglass shields in front of every staff member that separates them from the customer. we have -- with our move to 49 south van ness, we're going to have higher shields and they will have side wings to them. and they will have a little window that can be closed or opened or adjusted to a

particular height. so we're constantly thinking about these things. and trying to improve on them. and it's foremost in all of our minds the safety of our staff and stakeholders that have to come in the building to facilitate our curbside operation. and again it's just the two hours in the morning really that's of issue. and for right now in regards to the discussion. >> of course. then the last question, i try to do one of the virtual tours on youtube, that shows the new building. it's kind of helpful. i will say i miss the actual tour being able to see it. just because i haven't, is the space big enough for the workstations to also be separated and the physical distance needed. and is the common break room area, i'm sure this is all assessed by d.p.h. these are things that we have thought of. and to make sure that everybody has the appropriate distance and they feel safe and they feel

good about it. >> yes. big picture on that. the 2nd floor, for that matter the 1st floor, are customer interfaced with a few customers that will be coming in. what we have done there, we have skipped workstations. a staff member is in one workstation, then we have a blank and then we ensure the 6-foot spacing by doing that. and we have, you know, separated people out so that the social distancing will be maintained. on the 4th and 5th floors, where d.b.i. are also located, our 4th floor is our inspection staff. for the most part, with the exception of some of the administrative side of that operation, they are going to be going directly to the field, as you've heard before. so they won't even be coming into the office for right now. then we we get to the 5th floor,

which is our planning review staff, what we have right now is many of our plan review staff have been set up to work remotely from home, by virtue of having been assigned computers with v.p.n. access. we're just going to be able to spread out. so i think it will be -- it will work. but again it's based on safety plan approval by d.p.h. does that answer your question, commissioner? >> yeah, that does. that does, direc director. that's the big important piece. it's top of mind for you, and top of mind for the leadership at d.b.i. but just making sure that we're making our employees safety top of list, which i know it is. and that they feel comfortable and confident in doing their job and serve the public. so thank you. >> you're welcome. >> commissioner, just to give heads-up here, i'm coming in and out. if you lose with me, i'm trying

to get back on. commissioner tam, please. >> thank you. thank you, patrick and actually i thank you and the entire staff for your continued efforts during these -- the pandemic times. i know that you set up the curbside permit, curbside option now. and, you know, they say you're issuing about 30, 35 permits a day? >> well, we're issuing 30 or 35 over-the-counter, without plans permits. those are the simple kitchen, bath remodel type permits that don't need plans, because people are not moving walls or, you know, something else. things along the lines of that. and then we're also issuing somewhere in the low 30s of over-the-counter type permits that have plans. so we're up to 60 there. so there are also some -- i'm not looking at the numbers right now. but a lot of what's being issued

through d.p.r., ta comes up -- it comes up to about -- 84. we have the trades permits which are another 58. so over-the-counter -- curbside is essentially it's 84 permits per day. >> with regards to our last hearing, i know there was a backup in applications coming through electronically. has that -- you know, that number kind of decreased and kind of echoed that? >> well, you know, i won't sugar coat any of that, commissioner. because we still have a large backup. and i think really why are we here? we're here with the onset of covid and the shelter-in-place, that followed that. hello?

>> so we were literally closed for taking permits in that six weeks. that's what created the backlog. so when you think about the second half of march, and all of april, we weren't in a position where we could take in permits. so, of course, there's going to be a backlog, a pause. our option at the time was to work to getting our electronic review process off the ground, which was scheduled to be a two-year project. so we start the working with training staff, providing them with the equipment. we were obviously dealing with d.s.w. call-up, disaster service worker. so, you know, that was -- that was six weeks that was lost. so in my mind, that's where the backlog came from. and then, you know, we had electronic plan review up and

running. and what we realized, with that system, is that it worked really well for the larger projects, that were typically intake projects. and in the past they would have been projects that would have been reviewed in house and would have taken several weeks or months to review. it was working well, those kind of projects. but what we came to understand, it wasn't really working well fofor the over-the-counter type permits that we were issuing here on the 5th floor at d.b.i. pre-covid. some would be like in a couple of days, the issuance of those permits. so what electronic plan review meant was that these applications were being filed online. there was a lot more work

involved from an administrative perspective, in processing those permits, because the customers were coming in pre-covid. and they were walking their plans around between the different plan reviewers on the 5th floor and the different disciplines. but now when we started getting these electronic submittals, there was no more customer interaction and our staff was going to have to -- we're having to take the customer and walk these things between the different review agencies. and that was just simply taking a lot more time. they couldn't interact with the customers and the address was wrong or something was wrong with the application. so emails back and forth. and a lot more staff time. so that didn't help with the backlog. so it actually made it a little bit worse. so we realize this and we decided we had to think a little

bit outside of the box and find a way to deal with that issue regarding the over-the-counter permit that was -- that was our bread and butter pre-covid. that was 93% of everything that went out the door here at d.b.i. so we engaged with our colleagues and the permit center and we worked with the health department and the city administrator's office to set up a curbside process, which christine has spoken to in her very good presentation. thank you, christine. and what that has done is it has given us the ability to once again start moving those over-the-counter type permits. and especially the over-the-counter with plans. obviously we're making appointments for customers to come in. and another example of something additional we're doing there is

we have set up a liaison, staff member who is a liaison between the customer and the plan checker, in order to facilitate revisions. because the customer for over-the-counter with plans cannot come in the building. so we have somebody there who can liase between the customer and the plan review person. again we are challenged by the safety protocols that we have to abide by. and i think when we move to 49 south van ness, and i encourage all of you commissioners to come visit and you will see that there is a lot of space over there. and hopefully once we get settled over there, we will be able to ramp up the service and put a little bit more of a dent into this backlog. again we are impacted by the move and i'm not -- my intention

is not to be defensive here. i'm just stating out the facts. what i do really feel like the need to say, how proud i am and how proud we all are in management of our staff here. there has been energy around this curbside process. and they've all, you know, wanted to be part of it, roll up their sleeves. but, you know, through all of the challenges, they're still, you know, just going the extra mile. because i think everybody understands how important it is to get permits issued. they see friends and neighbors and folks who are impacted by not being able to work. so getting permits issued is a big deal for us. it not only gets people back to work, but it facilitates the economic recovery. it's an engine that thrives the -- drives the recovery. again we're very focused on that. i mean, so, you know, we live and breathe this stuff every

day. just from this morning, i thought today was going to be a great day. i'm walking down getting to the building department. and i hear the generator running, just right in the side yard, where everyone comes in to sign up to get their permits. i'm like, oh, no. it was really loud, spewing out diesel fumes. the gate was locked, nobody could get in. so we just happened to have a power outage, just at that one special time that we issued the permits for the two hours in the morning. the power goes out. so it shuts down our point of "thsale, cashiering. we have to leave the customers on the street queuing. so my point is at 8:00 when the power kim back -- came back on, staff were running out with their binders to get the gate open to be with the customers who were waiting. so, you know, to me -- i mean, i can't say it enough how proud we

all should be of these folks who are -- everyone is stressed about what's going on right now with covid and everything else. but to see the effort is just very, very commendable. again the new building we talked about a little bit. we hope -- we hope and pray that we're going to have the ability to open up a little bit more, based on an improvement in the health scenario. so inspectors are aware of the challenges in regards to permits being issued. and they are working with contractors, too, to help out in relation to them being able to continue, knowing that a permit is in the pipeline. and is potentially going to be issued soon. so they will tell the contractor in most cases, just move ahead, don't cover stuff up until this permit is issued.

we don't want to see you having to stop your project. and that is -- that is -- we're thinking about all of these things. so it's really important to understand that we know we have a backlog. there's no sugar coating here. these are the facts. there's probably about 2,000 permits backlogged. a lot of it came from when we weren't able to take submittals back in march and april. and then again we embarked on this electronic plan review process, which worked out for some permits, but not for the small ones. just to be clear, in 2020 electronic plan review is not dead. we're going to make it work. it was a two-year project. it was -- it was a pretty -- something sudden that was sprung upon us. so we will have the q&a. we'll talk to customers.

and we've been doing that. we've had as many as 900 people on these q&as. so people are very engaged and interested. we do send out customer updates regularly. so it's just important to know, too, that we're giving people the option of whether or not they want to convert from their digital submittals to paper. and for the o.t.c., the over-the-counter, with planned permits, that's an emphatic yes from just about every single commerce. and we're taking those customers out of the electronic plan review portal, in in order of which they're submitted. so that's how that is working. so i hope that answers -- i know that was really long answer. but i hope that kind of goes to your question, commissioner. >> so, commissioners, i was

actually off the air -- >> thank you for your staff's commitment. >> clerk: hello? >> just saying that -- can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. hello. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> yes. okay. okay. i was saying that, you know, i really appreciate and i'm sure everybody, you know, we all appreciate the commitment to efficiency and everybody's health at this time. and, you know, thank you. that was a very elaborate answer. thank you. >> and, madam secretary, my internet went down here in the house while commissioner tam was asking earlier on the questions. i just got in at the end of it there. >> clerk: yeah. >> i'm not going to put everybody through that again. i do -- commissioner moss, did he come back on, do you know?

vice president moss? >> clerk: vice president moss, are you present? did you have a comment or question? >> no comment or question. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. all commissioners, can remind you, please mute yourself when you're not speaking, because it develops background noise. >> president mccarthy. >> a quick question. if it's possible now. >> absolutely. go ahead, commissioner jacobo. >> director, i'd like to take up the offer. maybe schedule a time for us to do a socially distant walk-through and just kind of collectively see it. i would like to. if that's possible within the next week or two. i extend that to fellow commissioners, without violating the ability to do so. >> absolutely. i'm more than happy to facilitate that. we can discuss the timing after the meeting. >> clerk: thank you.

any more commissioner comments? seeing none, we will -- >> sorry. >> clerk: okay. >> i was curious about the timeline for the d.p.h. plan that was referenced several times. when does that have to be finalized? >> it has to be finalized before we start our operation at the building. so i think the plan has been drafted. and it's -- it's in the final stages of drafting. and it will be submitted to city administrator's office and will be reviewed by the department of public health. and we will need approval before we can conduct business at 49 south van ness. >> that's helpful.

and all of the socially distanced plans, workspaces and everything will all be in that plan, correct? >> correct. >> thank you very much. >> clerk: is there any additional commissioner comments? >> yes. i'm having a lot of internet trouble here right now. so i'm in and out of this meeting here. so i'm not quite sure i'm going to make it through here. i'm in and out here. i just want to close out there, madam secretary, if i may, please. so, pat, hang on one second. i have just got one thing. sorry, guys. i'm moving to the other part of the house. seeing if i can get better service. pat, i missed the last -- the

conversation you were having with commissioner tam. and i'm sure you went through a lot of the questions i probably would have. forgive me if this is repeating. i got inundated in the last couple of weeks from a lot of the callers. and there was a bit of confusion with regard to moves that particularly jumped out at me. we were doing particularly well on the curbside, if you had an application without a plan. if you had an o.t.c. plan, that had -- if you had an o.t.c. application that had a plan, that was kind of going into as one stakeholder said a down hole. and what would take normally a couple of days to go through normal time, and i respec respel understand you would be out in a couple of days. but particularly the ones that have gone to be filed with

paper, with plans, are getting lost for weeks and even months before there's any response back to the stakeholder, when they submit it. i don't know if you talked to anybody -- if you talked to the commission about that already. because i was offline. please forgive me if you have. just quickly, please. >> we didn't go to exactly your point. but i can go to it now. where we're at right now, which is dealing with a large backlog, simply because of our stay-at-home order and our health orders. we couldn't take in the personals like we had taken them in before. we didn't have our over-the-counter process for these -- and you're referring to over-the-counter with plans. we didn't have that process. because customers simply

wouldn't be able to come in the building. all we had was electronic plan review, which was really in its infancy. we had not -- we didn't think that would be anything that we object using for maybe two years. so covid -- we closed our doors. we had to embark upon bringing this electronic plan review process live. so it involved staff training, it involved getting equipment up to date and a lot of other things that i won't go into the details with. but that kind of led to initial part of the backlog. like i said, i won't sugar coat. we have probably at least 2,000 permits in a backlog, that are over-the-counter wit plans perm. right now everything that was filed through the electronic process, that is youth with

plans, will be handled curbside. we are taking people in order while they submitted. we are setting up this process and a lot of it involves out-of-the-box thinking here. setting up curbside -- this is no easy job, because we had to set up our safety plan and had to be reviewed. similar to what it was when we started curbside.

we're going to simulate the same process in the new building at least initially. but we do know we have a lot of space over there. so with the approval of the health officer, we think we may be able to expand our service over there to include more access and more of our 5th floor experience at 1660. so that's the whole after the move that we'll be able to expand that. what i also mentioned, in trying to figure out how we deal with a lot of these situations, we have also created a liaison person for going between the customer and the plan checker. essentially if people have a revision or if they want to slip pages into a plan, this person is there to meet with them. they're put in contact with this

staff member to do exactly that, knowing that people can come in the building. so we're trying to think through all of these things. and inspectors are working with contractors. they're understanding that these permits are a little bit more challenging, as somebody is waiting to get a revision. it will certainly work with the contractors. and the effort is being made to make sure that the work can continue, just knowing where we are with this health pandemic. i hope that goes to a little bit of what you're asking there, president. >> yes. >> can you put me on mute, i won't hear myself back this. and the backlog i think seems to be a real problem for you. and i think you mentioned it there earlier. i'm trying to get my head around

this. roughly when do you see the backlog being dealt with? and when do you feel that you'll get control of that back? what do you think we will have some sort of clarity as to submittal, if you are an o.t.c. with a plan, it will back to where you'll be able to get it back to the 24, 72 hours, that we're used to in the past, versus what's going on now. because that's important. that's the big one, interim director, that i'm getting a lot of complaints on. and i totally understand how you and your staff are doing everything within your power, thinking outside the box to help us out. i'm just trying to reinforce to everybody that we are doing everything we possibly can. that you are well aware of it and you're on it, you know what i mean. that's my big goal here. >> i'm living and breathing this stuff. i'm very much aware of it. and again no sugar coating. i mean, it is a big number.

we're getting the calls. we're helping out as best we can. and there's a lot of outside of the box thinking going on here. and i've said that before. we're thinking that, you know, the move doesn't -- the move is great and it's nice to go -- nice to be in a new building and everything else. that takes five days away from us, that we desperately need to keep issuing permits. so that doesn't help in the interim. but to your question, more directly to your question, i see that we're going to be dealing with this backlog for probably until the end of september, you know. that's assuming that everything stays like it is now from the health perspective. so a lot of what we do is contingent upon where we are with the pandemic. and what safety plans we have in

place. and, you know, knowing that whatever we're proposing will be approved by the health officer and the department of public health. i don't want to be iffy about it. but those are just simply unknowns. i think we're projecting out at least the end of september with this backlog, because it's a big number. just as you know, they can only have a very limited number of customers in here at any one time. the number right now is four. so when you're only taking four people into a building, because of safety protocols that have to be in place, when we had literally hundreds of people in this building pre-covid, again that's a challenge. and i don't mean to be defensive about any of this. i mean, these are just the fac

facts. hopefully after settling into the new building, we can open up our services a little bit, so that we can get more of these permits moving at a faster clip. >> yeah. and i say we as a commission, we as a department know how important to the common permit processing is to the city. and morning, noon and night breathe, think how do i get permits out. that's your end all, and be all of your day. i know that. and i know you're kind of using the analogy, you have one hand tied behind your back, dealing with this, maybe two hands. >> yeah. >> i appreciate that. i understand that. so and i would just stress, if there was -- if we could at minimum try to close that gap on communicating back to the stakeholder, where their application is, i think that would go a long way.

i think i would understand that what's going on, that this is going to be a different time. and i do understand that the permit processing center is kind of doing everything they can as well. but, you know, you depend on each other so much in that arena. there's some way that we can close that gap, that would be a big help, particularly for a lot of stakeholders i talk to. >> yeah. again as i mentioned in my previous conversation with the commissioner, you know, we -- we obviously -- we're very concerned about not being able to you know, close the gap on this backlog. and i think part of it is we understand, and our staff understand, i'm very grateful to our staff for their efforts here. they do understand permits and issuing permits and putting

people to work and construction is really -- it's an engine that drives the economic recovery. it's a very important part of getting back on our feet as a city. and everyone knows that here. that's why there's such energy around this curbside. people were literally down there the first day saying what can i do, what can i do, what can i do. that energy is still there. i just can't say enough how staff have engaged in this process. an they're all thinking like we all are. let's figure out a way to issue more comments. >> i really thank my fellow commissioners for bearing with me. this is important topic for me. and one of the things i remember looking back in the past, interim director, was the b.p.r.? they call this?

the committee that was put together that helps policies and stakeholders, if it's met up with the right group. is that something that you would consider for the future? >> absolutely. i think you're referring to the business process reengineering document that was drafted back when a previous director was here at d.b.i. and i have reviewed it. and it's 320-something pages. and it's a lot. but it has a lot of good stuff in it. and it's a good framework i think for thinking about some of the stuff we do now. a lot of what's in there, you know, is out of date. so i think it would be -- i would be very amenable to, you know, engaging with stakeholders and working on documents such as that for the future, for moving forward.

and for enhancing our -- improving our processes that we have right now. >> yes. appreciate you considering that. maybe that's something that we could set as a goal, as a business plan, for the new building. that's it. and thank you, commissioners, for bearing with me. i have no more questions. madam secretary, back to you, there. >> clerk: okay. thank you. our next item is item 7, update on the single room occupancy s.r.o. program, regarding covid-19 actions. and it's deputy -- i'm sorry, chief -- [indiscernible] >> good afternoon, commissione commissioners.

our inspectorses have been visiting hotels throughout the last four months. and just going to make a quick -- show a quick video to you guys. so you guys can see what we've been doing. do people -- does anyone know what channel 26 is? >> it's the chinese-language channel here in san francisco. it's very popular. our -- one of our clerks watches it religiously. actually many -- the fellow who helped me set up my computer, andy, saw this clip on the news. so they have a lot of people watching it. it's a large station in northern california. so can i get the shared content? >> clerk: yes, it's transferring now. sorry for the delay. >> all right.

getting the message about into chinatown was really, really important. we have people that live in hotels that are very small and they live there with their families, with their grandparents, with their children. [speaking chinese]

>> this is the inspector christine moore. she's showing her badge. wearing her hazmat suit. and she's been going out on hundreds of these expectations to make sure that the residents are safe. like the chief enforcement and the s.r.o.s. here she's pointing out what the rules are. this is the cleaning loft. people are sharing these bathrooms. a dozen people sharing a single shower. so if you think about it, yourself taking a shower, imagine you went in there after six or seven other people. they're being required to clean those showers three times a day. christine is demonstrating what she does on her inspection. they also have community kitch

kitchens. so they have to provide soap and hand sanitizer at every sink. we did have to fight with some of the hotels to make sure they were doing this. but we've been getting a much better way of compliance. we've resurrected our director's hearings with the help of chief electrical inspector ken burke. we've issued more abat abatemen. christine has been doing just a great job here. you can see that this one looks pretty clean. you can't really tell it's her because of her costume. but she's been at this every single day down at the e.o.c., since the second or third week of march. this report aired on april 14th. and if you think about the message that's gone out from the department of building

inspection to the chinese community in san francisco, and also throughout the city and the bay area. of what's important to control the virus and this is such an important message. if you look at the countermessages out there, that they shouldn't wear a message, that are controlled by a russian bot, this is a very powerful statement by our department, to hammer the point home on what you need to do to remain virus-free and to be safe. so christine had a lot of support from our senior inspection staff, because she can't go here and come into our office, she takes a picture of the notice of violations she writes and we had to reinvent our whole process. she texted to her senior inspector jim lowry. he writes every single one of her criation tas up -- citations up and all of his other duties.

and we get these hotels to do the right thing and clean up and make sure that everybody is safe. we've also had senior housing inspector be the chief person working with the other agencies at the e.o.c., with the health department, with the controller's office, six, seven different agencies. there was a daily phone call with for two hours that went on for three months, that myself and louise worked on. and it was a great collaboration with the other city agencies. and we also had another senior housing inspector who went out at the request of supervisor walton and commissioner jacobo. and senior inspector matt luten was able to -- went out to very scary hotel, on the very

first days of the virus. we knew it was a hot spot and there was going to be an outbreak, that was going to be the place. and he showed a lot of courage going into that building he went there the couple of times, the dark days. i'm very proud of his effort. and his commitment to keeping people safe here in the city. so that's the s.r.o. update for this time. i'd be happy to answer any questions people might have. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> i don't see any. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there commissioner comment? vice president moss, would you like to speak? >> i'm good, thank you.

>> clerk: okay. commissioner jacobo. >> yes. thank you for sharing this video. and kind of the importance of the work that is happening in the field and the level and the degree that folks are doing it. i mean, it is of real concern the conditions of the s.r.o.s in general with the backdrop of covid. so highlighting this and the challenges that we're facing as a city, in terms of just getting information, proper information regarding covid-19 to our folks who are santa rosas -- s.r.o.s. it happens in all communities. i gist want to appreciate you guys for doing the work that you're doing and for responding to the request of supervisor walton in the early days. so thank you. >> commissioner -- that's okay. sonya, back online again here. >> clerk: okay. great. >> thank you.

there was no comment. commissioner alexander-tut. >> yeah. i want to echo gratitude to you and your team. and, you know, just again say -- i think this is an example of, you know, kind of the -- the best connection that we have when we work hand-in-hand with our community, when we work hand-in-hand with our department. when we're responsive, when we're culturally appropriate. when we have the language and the skills that -- to meet, you know, our residents where they're at. and the education process was very smooth. i have heard from many of the collaboratives as well that, you know, the widespread education as a first layer, then came the enforcement, all of the information.

it really was i think -- i think a very commendable response to this crisis. and it's good to see that it's still going. and, you know, please pass on my appreciation to your staff members as well. >> thank you, commissioner. and i echo my fellow commissioners' comments there. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we'll go on to our next item, item number 8. discuss around racial justice and equity at d.b.i., including implicit bias training for d.b.i. staff. i believe deputy director madison will be presenting on this item. >> yes. can i share my screen now? >> clerk: just one moment.

should be ready now. >> okay. thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director for d.b.i. and i will just take a couple of minutes to give you an update on what's going on at d.b.i. with racial justice and equity. basically we've started our process of working with the office of racial -- of racial equity. and basically the guidance has been to focus on both internal racial justice and equity, as well as external. i'll start with the internal. so currently the department of building inspectioner of course, follows all of our policies and procedures, selection and recruitment and executive directors and all of those other things on diversity. in addition, what we're currently doing is all of d.b.i. managers and supervisors are

required to complete annual harassment prevention training. they're also beginning in december of last year. all of our d.b.i. interview panelists must complete a fairness and hiring training, before they can serve on the interview panel. then, of course, we always work to make sure that our panels are diverse. so basically at this point in time, we have two racial equity co-leaders, my chef and michelle who -- myself and michelle who is the h.r. director. we'll be working to create a racial equity plan. so our kickoff meeting, the os of racial equity had their kickoff meeting just on friday. and that was on july 10th. and so we will be completing the plan in two phases, first on internal. i talked a little bit about what we're currently doing. we'll also have to work on some other things and the office of

racial equity will be working with that. i know that they will probably be providing us with an employee server that will go to all city departments. to actually get to start off with actually surveying our employees and then we'll work from there. but the goal is to actually implement, to currently do what we're doing with those things that i mentioned. but also working with the board and commission. that's on the internal side. on the external side, we currently work with a number of communities, organizations, you just heard a presentation talking about what we actually are doing with s.r.o.s and we work collaboratively with a lot of other community-based organizations. we work with community-based organizations on the safety

program. we do a lot of things with language access, we print almost all of our information in different languages. and we're doing that. and what we will do in the phase two is actually working once again with the office of racial equity, to expand and do a little bit more. ultimately both phase one and phase two of the plan will be due to the office equity december 31 activist, 2020. and i'm -- 31st, 2020. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? not seeing any.

is there commissioner discussion? >> sure. commissioner alexander-tut, do you want to weigh in? are you okay? >> clerk: commissioner alexander-tut, did you have any comment? >> oh, yes. sorry. i didn't know my hand was still raised. yes. i put it on the agenda. i want to say thank you for the very thorough presentation. and i think that this is -- it gives us an idea where the department is going, the department is thinking. you talked about a staff survey. is there going to be an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the external portion? or is, you know, is there any thinking about how we might -- how -- in a different -- will there be opportunities for the public to weigh in?

>> clerk: deputy director madison. >> yes. i'm here. so the reason that i mentioned the staff survey is because -- we're divided into phase one. that's the first rollout to focus on the internal portions of it. for external, i'm sure there will be ways to also reach out to the -- actually to our commissioners to our stakeholders. i know we had a few years ago, it's been more than a few years ago, we have actually worked with doing an actual customer survey. we only a had focus groups. that will come down the line. the reason i specifically mentioned the staff survey, it's a survey develop the by the office of racial equity. and they want departments to implement that survey and that's something that's coming along down the pike. >> thank you. thank you for your very thorough presentation. i look forward to hearing more as this gets rolled out. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, commissioner.

commissioner moss. >> no comment at this time. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner jacobo, please. >> thank you so much for the presentation. and i'm actually really, really excited that we are doing this. i had made comments at our last meeting, kind of around the commission resolution that was done through planning, that we're still working on here going into the month of august. i thank you, my fellow commissioners, for being onboard with that. seeing we're taking the phase one, phase two step into it, it's really important. there's obviously been a huge move through the country to recognize a lot of structural injustices that, you know, create and continue to exude the unfortunate downfalls of structural racism. so this is a step in that right direction. and i think that as a department, as a, you know, as a

city, we should set the example for the rest of the cities throughout the country and how we should model. i'm very excited to see us move in this direction. let me how i can help be involved. can't wait to see what we come up with. >> again, that definitely is a move in the right direction. thank you for that. no other comments. >> thank you, commissioner. we look forward to having that resolution. thank you for your work on that. >> thank you. >> our next item is 9 a. director's report. update on d.b.i. finances.

>> hello. ordinarily, basically, fiscal year 19-20 ended june 30, 2020. we don't normally get a report until two or three months later. city-wide everything is closing. we have to do reconciliation and closure. because of covid and what we have seen over the past three or four months with revenues, i i did not want to wait.

we have a preliminary revenue report here for you. basically, what it shows is that although we are still really low. especially compared to where we were before covid in the coming fiscal year and prior year. june is looking better than we anticipated and better than we expected. i will show you. i will go to the highlights. we have spoken about major revenues and building permits. we usually get over $1 million. if you look at april and may, particularly we were at $200,000 each month. now we have jumped up to 592. that is a lot lower than we had before, but when i came to you in may and gave our projections, we stated we wanted to be very conservative. we projected no more than 200,000. we are doing better. that is good news.

the same with plumbing permit issuance. it is almost as if we are back to where we normally are. that is a good thing. electrical we have increased quite a bit in the electrical. look at the difference between march, april and may and go to june. we see something picking up again. that has a lot to do with, once again, as director stated earlier. we are issuing a few more permits. if we go to plan check. you will see the same thing over $2 million every month. we are at 986. that is better. we were at 412 in may. we will continue to be very conservative with these revenue estimates. now we are starting to see something go up a little bit. that is some good news.

now if we want to do an actual comparison. in the memo you see building permit data. if you compare year-over-year we are really down in a number of permits issued annual down by the number and valuation. you can see is valuation has gone down quite a lot. we will monitor revenues. we will have year end close by september for fiscal year 19-20. once again we will start looking at july. sometimes that is not the best. now we will keep an eye on what is going on. because of the uncertainty we will make sure if we don't have full reports, we will always report on revenues. i am happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner do you have

questions? >> no, i am good. thank you. >> no questions, thank you. commissioner alexander. >> no, thank you. >> no other comments. >> i have one comment. that 22% decline, right? >> right. when we started what percentages were you thinking? when you look at that to map out are you thinking to 40% decline or is that a fair question? >> you know, ordinarily we just give the building permit data to kind of give an instance of what is going on with the building permit data.

initially when we started we thought we were going to be on the revenue was going to be down 30%. now the actual revenues would be down more than that, but as we discussed earlier, because we did so well the first nine months of the fiscal year we made up for that. 22% year-over-year is actually not a bad number because we started off january through december still high. i think starting in july we will give us a better sense what covid the impact. when we started off with a new fiscal year. it is hard to make a balance. really it was the last thre thre months in the fiscal year where covid came into play. these numbers are skewed better than they could be simply because year-over-year we had

such a good first nine months of the fiscal year. if we go back to look at missourily data and if you -- look at the monthly data and $592,000 for building permit then we talk about a huge, huge decline. >> thank you for that. >> you are welcome. 8 9b update on legislation. >> first off i have a couple items that did not make it to the written update you received with your meeting packet. first is supervisor mandelman announced he is introducing legislation to extend the final deadline for the software retrofit program by a year. this is completion of work for the tier 4 projects, and it

would go from september 15 this year to september 15, 2021. the goal to allow building owners more flexibility in starting projects given the impacts during shelter-in-place. supervisor peskin is introducing legislation to prohibit nonemergency construction in residential buildings that result in utility shut offs unless the tenants are provided with alternative sources of water and power. if there is going to be work done on a building with tenants in place and utilities need to be shut off they would need bottled water or generator. the proposed ordinance is expected to go to land use committee on july 27th. i got the language yesterday. hopefully we will provide more

information for you on that at a later date. you have heard about supervisor mandelman's ordinance updating the city flood plain management program to reflect updated fema flood map criteria heard at land use on tuesday and continued to the call of the chair. i don't have information when it will be heard again. i suspect relatively soon. the fee waiver renewal was signed on june 26th. it should be in legal effect at the end of this month. i am happy to answer any questions. >> on the legislation there on the floor, what is the name of that? on the legislation? >> to probability nonemergency -- regarding utility shutoffs?

>> yes. what is the name of that? >> no name or file no. yet. >> okay. >> any other commissioner comments? next item is 9c update on major projects. >> hello, commissioners. just from may to june there has been an increase of .61% or $130 million in total construction, and a additional 119 dwelling units added. that is an increase .26%. >> thank you. >> 9b update on code

enforcement. >> good afternoon, commissioners. deputy director here to report on the d.b.i. monthly update. building inspections performed for the month of june 4548. that is a major increase in ap2733. that was 1800 more inspections than in april. it is good to see that up swing. complaints received 605. response within 24 to 72 hours 588. that is good to see, too, because during the pandemic construction they had 1300 complaints to deal with there. it is getting down to a more reasonable number that they

could investigate there because in april it was very difficult to investigate 1300 complaints due to the conditions of the pandemic. violations 70. complaints without notice of violations 470. abated complaints with notice violations 20. second notice violations 31. inspections division 218p. complaints received 173. complaints response in 24 to 72 hours 134. complaints of notice of violations issued 44. abated complaints of notice of violations 137. routine inspections 11.

code enforcement. cases sent to director's hearing 41. order abatements issued 13. cases under advisement 9. number of cases abated 19. code enforcement performed 143. code enforcement outreach programs people reached out to 27,675. counseling cases 411. community program 6193. cases resolved 73. that is the report for the code enforcement monthly update. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the director's report 9a through d? >> nothing in the queue. >> thank you. seeing number. next item is 10. review and approval of minutes

of the special meeting of february 13, 2020. is there any motion? >> motion to approve minutes. >> second. >> motion and second. any public comment? seeing none. are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? minutes are approved. next item is 11. adjournment. motion to adjourn. >> motion. >> second. there is a motion and second. are all commissioners in favor? aye. >> thank you. >> thank you everyone.

>> hi, i'm chris manus is sfgov tv and you're watching "coping with covid-19." today i'm going to the gas station. [music playing] now, these are just my stories. i'm not a medical professional of any kind. i'm a video guy. and the reason i'm getting gas so we can go to the doctors. if you want to get the most up-to-date and definitive information about the coronavirus pandemic, i highly recommend the f.a.q. that is available at sfgov. there's great info there.

today i'm taking two plastic bags and a hair tie and following the new bay area guidelines and i'm wearing a mask. i'm taking the smallest number of items with me. just my car key, credit card, i.d., the bags and the hair tie. i don't want too many items to wipe down later. as aleave, i put on the outside shoes i've left on the porch. can i track the virus inside with my shoes? i honestly don't know. but my floors are cleaner now. when i get to the gas station, i get out of the car, remove the gas cap and put the big plastic bag on my right hand and secure it with a hair tie. there are three main share surfaces here i'm concerned about touching. the p.i.n. pad, the pump handle and the button to select my gas. after i use my card, i put it into the smaller bag and stash it. most gas stations have a paper towel dispenser or maybe there is a piece of paper already in your car that you can use.

once i fill my tank and replace the pump, i walk to the trash can, roll the hair tie up my arm and let the plastic bag fall into the can. on my drive home, i'm careful not to touch my face. i leave my outside shoes on the porch and as soon as i get through the door, i wash my hands for at least 20 seconds. next i wipe down my credit card, i.d. and my car key and, as an extra precaution, i wipe down the front door nob and clean the sink taps. finally, wash my hands again. that's it for this episode, i hope you found it helpful. thank you for watching. >> hi. i'm chris mathers with channel 19, and you're watching coping with covid-19. today, i'm going to be talking about exercising during the

pandemic. first, i'm going to tell you what i've been doing, and then i'm going to be checking in with some friends and family. i've been riding my bike. all i take is a pair of gloves and a mask if i come into contact with anyone. i try to ride my bike during the time i'm sheltering in place. i try to ride for at least 30 minutes. surfing is my other regular outdoor activity. california state guidelines recommend you don't drive more than ten minutes for a spot to exercise, and although i'm close to ocean beach, i'm a bit wary to go there, so i'm using the time to do some

maintenance. filling in gouges and dings, and sanding it down. i'm also repairing holes in my suit. fellow sfgovtv producer chris took his first yoga lesson a couple of years ago and used to go to a class regularly before the lockdown. he and his wife set up a space in their garage for exercising. this routine is from an on-line class by power yoga. deann and andy have been using the ping pong table that they bought off craigslist and set it up in their back yard. ellie has been using this home

gym to stay fit. it has everything she needed. and lastly, if the weather is bad outside, you can exercise your mind by doing a puzzle, sudoku, or just by reading a good book. here's a quick recap. since i started this episode, the guidelines have changed. for instance, jack may be able to go golfing with some restrictions. go to sf.gov to get the most up-to-date >> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates

the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art.

those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population. therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's place in the world. he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment