[roll call] commissioner tam will be with us shortly. >> can you hear me. >> is that commissioner tam?

>> yes. >> great and he is present. thank you. our next item is item 2, president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: -- president mccarthy, you have your announcements? >> president mccarthy: sorry. ok. keep forgotten the mask. good morning and welcome to the building inspection commission meeting for august 2020. i'm angus mccarthy, president of the building commissioner and i'm joined by fellow commissioner members along with interim director reardon and dbi staff. as you will hear in detail from our agenda items today, we're continuing to cope with the circumstances caused by covid-19 pandemic. along with just completing the department's move into our new

perm a center at 49 south venice, on behalf of the commissioner, i want to thank dbi staff for their hard work for the move including boxing up hundreds and hundreds of plans thanks to the deputy director madison for leading move and (inaudible) to everyone who did their part. if you would like to mute, sonia. appreciate it. along with the commissioners, we're pleased to tour the new dbi work that's recently to see firsthand dramatic improvement for staff and customers. i'm certain and my fellow commissioners will add their own comments about the new existing space in a few minutes. while we certainly still work through many issues, the department is continuing to do an outstanding job of keeping both customers and staff safe by

observing the public-health protocols that have been put in place and fine tuning of the regular basis over the past month. we have remained vigilant about covid and as everyone must give its -- as everyone must, given it's known risk to the public-health and safety. and even though this public-health protocol means our new space at 49 south ven he is, they will schedule job inspections and take code enforcement steps as warranted. starting this week, the department announced that it will temporarily limit the types of permits submitted online as a proactive measure to address our backlog and improve efficiency and workload that we will hear about in greater detail later from our interim director. the department offers in-person

services and these in-person services are resulting in faster reviews and more permits being issued. in short we are fulfilling the mission and i want to say thank you for their terrific jobs they're doing and have been doing under enormous stresses caused by this virus. this continues to require adjustments on the life-threatening conditions and we are all deeply impressed with our staff's achievements to date. the city, as you know, is keeping a very close eye on the deadly virus. we would continue to keep you posted as changes occurred and as the department has actions, steps, designed to keep everyone safe and ensure the building safety standards are maintained and enhanced. thank you for attending this commission meeting this morning and please, continuing operating in our public process.

madam secretary, that concludes my comments. >> thank you president mccarthy. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? >> there's no public comment. >> there's one. >> i have to ask her if that's for the president's announcements. >> you need to give me -- you can unmute her. >> clerk: ok. >> >> caller: i think the building inspection committee and the president for taking such great care with covid. there's smoke from the wildfires and i hope that the building inspection committee will take

the reason, the extreme heat and the terrible conditions we are experiencing right now that are also life threat eping to heart in all their building inspection decisions. >> it was helena. >> yes. >> ok. thank you for your comment. >> see no further public comment. my next item is item 3, general public comment. the vic will take public comment on matters and.

>> i have one comment and i will sign up for the two minutes. just one moment. >> this public comment is requested to be anonymous and if dbi has jurisdiction to enforce the health code order for large construction and safety protocol, appendix b2, this is regarding bay side village and we understand that thus far all parties have been respectful of the code and usually a warning resolved any issues. however, we have been reaching out for over a month to d bye. please do something to enforce the health code over at bay side village in san francisco and we are over 800 units that have been exposed to renovations without the health order being

followed. no on site compliance officer, no healthy plan submit and other issues. we had of unmasked workers and why won't dbi suspend permits until the health order is complied with. 500 bill street bay side village place. if the construction noise limits during shelter in place and legislation passes, how will you plan to enforce this we've had so many issues with this since march the residents will reach out and why are they issued on a saturday 8/16/20 when they are monday to flew and why are they being used and permit complaint that has the record hearing notices issued 160 brandon street. that is the end of that public comment. >> thank you madam secretary.

next item, please. >> the next item is 4, commissioners questions that matter. they make inquiries to staff during various documents and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> vice-chair moss please. >> no, i don't have anything to speak about. >> thank you. >> commissioner, alexander-tut please. >> no questions at this time, please. thank you. >> commissioner. >> nothing, thank you. >> good morning president. actually, quick question is where to park and to provide an update and the interim director has been doing a great job and i appreciate it. i do recall we would look at this in three months and we're living through a pandemic and things are very different and i just wanted provide an update as to what that is looking like for

the director. >> thank you. >> commissioner tam, please. >> yes, hello. just the echo with what commissioner jacobo said. the interim director is doing an amazing job. thank you to the d bye staff foray com dating with the tour of the new facility. at the top of my list, my main concern and we'll address this coming down within the the hearing here. we are the economic engine here to recovery and so i want to see what hance we have in place to get the ball rolling here. >> thank you, commissioner.

>> madam secretary -- >> >> future meeting and agenda at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that can be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings as the building inspection commission. our next regular meeting wor wod be scheduled for september 16th at 10:00 a.m. >> vice president moss. >> nothing at this time. >> so is there any published comment on item 4a and 4b? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> we want to see if any

commissioners have comments? >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> are we on future meetings and agendas. >> thank you. as i was reviewing the march notes, minutes, i was reminded we had actually tabled the discussion on ethical policies, procedures and training requirements for the dbi and vip and so i would like to see us reschedule that by the end of the year. so in september and it seems like it needs some prep work but i would like to see us reschedule that before the end of the year. i do have a question, is it just a question, are we going to convene the litigation committee or the abatement and appeals committee? has those been canceled because we don't have items to come before or are they being canceled because of covid-19. that's just a question? >> >> we are planning to resume the immediatings and i'll discuss it with you off line.

>> thank you. >> commissioner clinch and commissioner jacobo. >> nothing for me. >> commissioner tam again. >> i'm good, thank you. >> do we have to did public comment. we're good there. >> we actually have one caller. >> president mccarthy: go ahead, caller, please. >> sonia. you have to unmute them. sonia, can you unmute. >> thank you, very much. so, i was trying to make a comment in the general public

comment issue and i think it might be covered in 4a. specifically regarding the permitting backlog of what has been happening on the park. my understanding is representing ivp local 6 and the electrical contractors association through the san francisco electrical construct industry and we've been getting a lot of reports that the backlog is really happening right at beginning of the (inaudible) and it's havoc for our customers and contractors and for our members. if we take a look at where some of these problem are happening, it appears that the bulk of the problem on the intake park is because there's too much coming in and we don't have enough people to send it off. we're in a triage situation and it's really imperative for the building inspection department to treat it as much. we've got probably 60% of our

commercial permits and tenant improvement permits are in the downtown area and they're being held up by deck expansion and when to replace. it's really i am par importanta look at the type of work that's being done and where it's being done so we can make sure at least what remains of our downtown economic district doesn't collapse because we're unable to serve those folks. i look forward to adhering how staff is going to address this. >> thank you. >> no more callers in the queue. >> president mccarthy: next item, madam secretary, please.

adam i do not see it. >> that's the end of item 4a and 4b. i was reminded i need to read into the record that information on at again da regarding the remote hearing and public comment. for the public number call in is (408)418-9388 access towed 146 to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item, please star 3 when prompted by the meeting moderator and due to the covid-19 health emergency, dbi staff and members of the public the building is meeting room 416 is closed. and so that was just a reminder. thank you. the next item is item 5. discussion regarding commissioner's tour of new dbi

offices. >> thank you, madam secretary. did you want to make comments on that, please? >> no, i haven't been able to tour yet i'm rescheduling it. i have heard great things and i would love to hear from other commissioners about it. >> thank you. commissioner alexander-tut, please. >> thank you. i appreciate all the work has gone into both allowing us to get a very full tour and walk through all the process and not just look at this and that but really walk us how the processes are working and i really want to thank the staff for all the preparation that went in and thinking that went into how to bring us through and really understand the process so, thank you to everyone. there was also the move, smoother than anybody and there

was a lot of anxiety before regarding the move and so i just want to thank all of the leadership who and and and and the social distancing and and thinking have gone into how we keep operations going while and and we have to maintain and social distancing at all times. is keeping the culture of not having a culture of compliance when it comes to the majority of

people getting the virus are people who are going to work and it's very easy to be compliant and it's very easy to take the masks off and for the general members are people who are coming in and to have masks that are not being worn correctly and just one to support the staff and support the leadership in enforcing the strict rules around shelter in place and covid-19 and all the the healthcare plans because this is the way we're going to continue to keep people safe. and just there's a lot to balance and thank you to everyone and you have my support in continuing to have the

strictest adherence to the health rules, thank you. >> commissioner clinch. >> i have nothing to say other than like commissioner moss, i had to cancel last minute tour and i will try and reschedule because i'm interested to see what the facility looks like and how it operates. that's it, thanks. >> good morning. what a wonderful tour that was if you haven't been there and you will feel like you are walking into terminal 2 of sfo and it's interesting tun you will i can't imagine what this move and staffing has been like through a pandemic so kudos to the team for adhering to the safety standards. it was clear in our tour that folks were definitely spaced out and that they were able to do that and again, we're living through a pandemic, which is an

interesting thing to live through. what it looks like it's a great job and to move all those plans when you get a fans to go we awe all those big plans to kudos to the team for doing that. go check it out soon. >> commissioner tam, please. >> like everybody that did take the tour and i was lucky to get personal treatment because of the cancellation from the other commissioners. it was nice to get catered to those and shown behind the scenes at what happens at dbi. huge, you know, kudos, like, commissioner jacobo said to the senior staff and everybody. it was a swift -- i couldn't imagine a more swift move. i think, you know, for me, the

facility is beautiful but it's, the core and what it houses is what really matters to me and the staff, i think is really kind of the foundation here and they keep driving this department. i think if there's anything that we can do as a commission, i'm sure everybody agrees that we're here and we're all open ears and you guys have our support. >> also echo my fellow commissioners it's the awesomeness of the space. >> president mccarthy: as commissioner jacobo said it's like walking into terminal one airport. it's inspiring. you know, and city has really put their best foot forward creating a home for the department of planing and for the whole family of different departments. i could certainly see the proudness and the real bounce in

the step of the people working there and really looking at a new kind of industry. they were really excited to be in their new spaces and there's so much openness and they have their little catering areas and it looks like a really nice place to come to work. i think it's really going to pay dividends for us as soon as we get through these next period of time with this covid and i really am looking for, even the conference room spaces and the lower level, i mean there's just so much from the benefits from the industry that can get from this building. the different industries that depend on us and the stakeholders. really proud of us. really sorry that some of the past commissioners are not there to see it and commissioner walker, because i know she's been proud of that and interim director we must set a special tour for her when we get a chance. if you haven't done it already,

i know you might have but so some of our past commissioners who were very involved in that i really appreciate if we can do that because it's really incredible and so, with that, could i go on and on but i'm looking forward to the future with this building and i really think it's a fantastic job and the who kept them this whole move and incredible. as someone who spent a weekend moving my son into a storm and material and just moving him i can't imagine what it was to move the department like that and all the different departments and hats off to sonia who kept us in the loop and who did an amazing job letting us know and i know it wasn't easy for you and you don't like you have a beautiful office there. and i'm hear you are not talking about it because people are

jealous. [laughter] well done to all the team players and to the staff and looking forward to the future, guys, thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> there are no callers in the cue. >> thank you. >> so our next item is item 6. update on the single room occupancy sro program regarding covid-19 action. and our chief -- >> good morning. james and housing inspector and i have given these updates on sro residential hotels and safety during the pandemic of covid-19 and the housing inspection team has been hard at

work all the way since the middle of march enforcing the health order regarding the cleanliness of shared bathrooms, showers and shared community kitchens and in the past i have asked people to see themselves taking a shower in the hall down the hall with six other people have taken a shower right before you. and put yourself in the shoes of the people living in the hotels. there are about 20,000 of them and one of our housing inspectors, christina moy, started her deployment at the eoc which is now the ccc, the covid command center, in march, and was responsible for really making sure that the sro hotel

owners in chinatown followed the cleaning standard. so, christina was due to have her deployment ended at the end of july and she volunteered to stay on until the end of the year and it's just tremendous commitment to her job and our commission of keeping people safe in sros. we had a case with realty who owns several hotels in chinatown and the mission and the d.a. is following up on that case. we have orders of a basement that we recently issued at one of the hotel in powell street and the director process will resume that and all remotely and it's been challenging to -- you

have the new face and schedule these hearings by certified letter and have people call in and members of the public landlords and tenants. we are managing to continue to do these hearings and both in the tenderloin and south market we've had inspector joe barber and robert wallers with sro hotel inspections and we have some of those hotels to director hearings and clients and the chinatown com ployance has been excellent and for the most part due to our team's work. now there was some emergency legislation on sros and several months ago they called for the health department to test people that live in sros

and they're putting together a summary of that that will be available at the end of the month and they performed 550 tests and they say surprising lilo level of positive tests but depending on who you talk to they want to see all the data and we have our sro collaboratives in china town in the central city and the mission working and some are doing remote work and their office is open everyday rotating staff and not going into hotels but serving people who walk in and sro residents who need help and have concerns. you know, i'm available for questions thaw might have, commissioners.

>> no questions. i want to express my thanks and gratitude for the work. so thank you. >> commissioner alexander-tut. again, an echo commissioner sentiment of gratitude for your teams' leadership and your consistency in this project and on this program. thank you for the inspectors who are going in who have proposed and who are doing this work with. >> thank you for the update. >> commissioner tam.

thank you james, for your commitment and your compassion and to your duties and jury job. when i was taking a tour i got to meet some of the inspectors and the topic came of a ride along and i want to see if it's possible or my commissioners who want me to get out there on a inspection and you call when you get out there to the field.

public comment. >> yes. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. >> so your president, if i could just -- i didn't get a chance to comment. >> president mccarthy: if i passed, sorry. [laughter] my apologies. >> no worries, the only reason i'm jumping up because this idea of a tour of a ride along sounds cool. again, gratitude to you guys. thank you. but yes, please put me down for that ride along. that would be great. >> ok. will do, commissioner. >> president mccarthy: apologies again. madam secretary. >> clerk: thank you. no public comment. we'll move on to item 6. update on the -- item #, discussion of action and

regarding board of supervisors and 200701 amending the building code to require new construction to utilize all the electric power adopting findings of local conditions under the california health and safety code and other requirement and presenters before you begin this, i had an incorrect access code for our members that are calling in the correct code is 146 224 1063 and the phone number is correct it's just the access code 146 244 1063. thank you. >> point of order, madam secretary, item 7 and 8, are they related to each other. do you think we could join these together? it's just a point of order, i don't know if we can. >> deputy city attorney, definitely related the db112

which is item 8 would be the implementing procedures for the (inaudible) that would pass which would be by the sponsor. so you can see them together although there's a caveat. >> we will begin a presentation. >> thank you, sonia.

could you make me the presenter and i'll get the slides ready? >> clerk: sure. >> thank you. so, i'll start off real quick as we're getting our technical set up together. good afternoon, commissioners, my name is cindy and i'm the climate program manager at the and also jake off from supervisor mandelman's office. and i was here with you last time at your july meeting when you heard an informational presentation on this ordinance and there's a lot of people

going by my window as well. since the meeting of july. the department of environmental staff have worked with city agency and stakeholders to iron out a few of the remaining questions about how the ordinance would apply. you will hear questions around the exceptions and three updates to that and he is just heard about which would be i want to thank the staff and your team here and dbi and for their great work and i think you will also be pleased with where we are today. i also just wanted to note since your last meeting we have support for this effort encloud interesting over two dozen and including and 350.org as well as an increasing number of design and construction professionalses including the california of the

american institute of architects and david baker and several other local firms as well as the residential builders association. i hope you will be supportive as well. with that, thank you again for hearing this item today commissioners, i'll turn it back over to cindy and the department of environment and dbi staff and i lock forward to discussing this forward with you all and answering any questions that you have. thank you so much. >> thank you, jacob. and we want to thank supervisor mandelman for his support on this work. so, last month in july i gave a fairly long presentation on the all-electric new construction ordinance and so today i'm going to give a very brief presentation. i'm happy to go back and answer any questions and we're hoping to do a quick review of the material and the committee members feel comfortable we can move forward with a vote. and just to reiterate what our city attorney said earlier, i just want to highlight that

we'll be presenting on the administrative bulletin after the ordinance and as said the administrative bulletin can trail the ordinance and we don't need to have it finalized to closer to operations date of the ordinance but we have made every effort to do both to support transparency and implementation. so, this slide detickets what i'll be covering today in our presentation. i will discuss the context of the ordinance and our stakeholder outreach will review the core tenants of the ordinance. then i'm going to talk about some of the feedback that we've received over the last month, and our responses and have a discussion. so, let's start off with the context of the legislation. this is a update to the san francisco building code which is making an amendment under the purview of the california health and safety code. the objectives of this proposed legislation is really to

recognize the health, safety, equity, resilience and climate impacts of buildings and these are buildings with natural gas. and we want to make sure that new construction does not worsen this. we touched on this last meeting but just to take a couple minutes to remind the public and our committee members about the impacts of natural gas. natural gas is a combustible material and we continue to we see safety risks most recently on august 10th and it leveled three hourses and there were seven injuries and two fatalities. we know that natural gas is bad for our health. the air pollutants in natural gas are linked to acute and various -- acute and chronic health impacts from respiratory illnesses so asthma and premature death. we also know for low income

communities and communities of color, that are more likely to spend more money on utilities and suffer from asthma due to poor indoor air quality, zero emissions homes ar homes are imo deliver social equity benefits. resilience lastly. we know that natural gas impact resilience and the city's lifeline council has estimated to restore utility service, after a 7.9 earthquake, it's about a week for electricity and about six months for natural gas. and i want to just quickly continue this conversation about resilience. wwe had an excellent public comment in the beginning of the meeting about the wildfires and we need to talk about resiliency. we've had some very unusual and crazy weather had past weekend into monday. it was associated with

blackouts. and i know a question that is top of mind, is it really a good time to move towards all electric given we have increased power shutoffs, resiliency concerns and the recent blackouts. and the question is yes. now is the time for us to move to all electric. reducing climate pollution from buildings will eventually decrease the need for plan safety power outages and increase the greatest capacity and resiliency in the face of these emergencies. if you have an opportunity to read the chronicle it morning, you can see the wildfires that are just devastating northern california. these wildfires are climate induced. the dryness, the increased fuel and we have to stop digging a hole and using fossil fuels. it's super important. we know that 44% of our greenhouse gas emissions coming from buildings and this represents an opportunity to reverse that course. so, in addition, most people

don't know this, but i know people that building communities are already aware that infrastructure and appliances are not immune to power shutoffs nor do they offer safety operations during emergencies or blackouts. modern gas appliances such as hot water heaters, are now actually equipped with electric ignitions and instead of pilot lights and so they won't even work when the power goes off regardless of their fuel source. and lastly it's just important to note that last week's recent blackouts were not caused by the use of renewable energy and these blackouts were really a cause of mistakes by regulators. just to look at the chart on the right, that's showing our state-wide electricity peaks and that green dot is what it was over the weekend. there was no increase in utility

use. the power was lower to similar heat waves. i want to make sure that we recognize the facts about what happened and still commit to moving forward and also our governor has also committed to moving forward with renewable energy and making sure that we don't back off this commitment. so, moving on, the next section i want to talk about stakeholder outreach, our last presentation i went into a lot of detail about our zero mission task force, which i'm not going to talk about this time. we've had a lot of meetings starting from december and as i its rateiterated last time, it't just centered on getting this in ordinance done but establishing the long-term partnership and building trust with stakeholders to carry this ordinance over the finish line, but also around implementation. [please stand by]

. . . . the ordinance will amend section 106a and 202 of the building code. there are five key components

and for projects that apply for initial building permits after january 1, 2021, heating, cooling, water, sorry, water and close drying must be electric. once we have all electric buildings, no permit will be issued to convert to mixed fuel. for projects that have a commercial food service establishment, mixed fuel building permits will continue to be accepted to generate first 2022. and provided this gas piping is exclusively for cooking equipment. also mixed fuel fuel buildings if determined that it is technically infeasible and this eludes to the exemption process. the next presentation on ab112,

we will talk about the guidance for these assumptions. and lastly, mixed fuel buildings must be electric ready so that means that they will have infrastructure and to convert and from mixed fuel to all electric again in that rare case of an exemption. and so the next thing i'm going to go on to some of the -- we have had lots of great discussion, a lot of comments from industry and stake holders and i want to talk a little bit about some of the comments we heard and how we're addressing them. so one comment that we have heard from stakeholders is that they want to iterate that this ordinance has no financial infringements. i want to confirm that the ordinance does not include a financial exemption.

another comment we have heard a lot is we want to require electric ready and as i just said t ordinance mandates that in the rare case of an exception that the system or area is as electric ready as feasible and it does require electrical infrastructure for future conversion to electric. another comment we have heard a lot is there have been a desire to create a new public hearing to determine feasibility, and the department of building inspections along with the department of environment and supervisor mandelman's office are committed to using the existing dbi process where the building official is responsible for the determination of compliance. and then there is an appeal process from the board of appeals. so in addressing any specific issues with the building code. the department of environment and planning are working to see

how we can enhance transparency and notification to the existing processes in our own comments. and one is adding to the process and to support this amendment and plying to gaslighting and exterior gas heating. and president mccarthy f we do move forward with the vote, i would like to request there be a motion to encourage the board of supervisors to amend the ordinance to include outdoor gas heating and decorative gaslighting. and that is the brief presentation and i am happy to have a discussion and answer any questions and answer any

questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> there are three commenters. >> just one moment. just a moment. sorry, this thing is not --

a call-in user, you are unmuted. or you are not. >> caller: can you hear me? >> yes i can now. >> an i am steve gutman and i would like to commend supervisor mandelman for making this discussion about all-electric buildings possible. and to from the consulting engineers and is faithful and a proud san franciscan.

and san francisco has the opportunities to join with other buildings and create rules to realize the promise the state made when committing to 100% renewable energy on the grid and the goal combined with the strategy without natural gas use is the only realistic way and a carbon neutral future to guarantee that our lives can continue without changes and disasters. the grid won't be renewable until 2045 and why act now. and the city continues to add thousands of permits and every one of the new projects we build from the day forward is ready to be part of the carbon neutral future and a painful retrofit and make no mistake is a far uglier path than the first time.

to ask whether there could be users and to make the right and necessary changes that bring about a carbon neutral future. change may not be easy, but it is in the human d.n.a. to resist change and adapt to it. please believe in our ability to adapt to the change and the city of san francisco remains uncherished and please enforce the ordinance. and call-in user 415-48. you are unmuted. >> hi, commissioners. this is jody eisman. and i am calling you to and i am quite concerned about the world we are leaving for our children

to inhabit. and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 30 to 60% and compared to mixed fuel buildings. and to reach 100% greenhouse free and improvement will be greater and the heat wave now makes me really appreciate our portable, cool induction cook top. more people should be made aware of the existence of the easy, efficient, safe, and fun thing. in passing this legislation, this is a good way to help that happen especially if the legislation includes the city and county of san francisco and creating a clean energy building hub and benefits from electric new construction. please make sure this is included in the ordinance and the passage of the ordinance and

the exceptions and with as few exceptions as possible. thank you so much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker. >> caller 415-587. awe hello. my name jennifer and the methane leaks, air pollution and explosion daningers of natural gas are no longer necessary for the function of the homes and businesses. and san francisco can lead the state and the country in building a better future. i am a resident of an area where a huge development is expected with the balboa reservoir and the region around it is full of families and education institutions and the development is being marketed as a family friendly residential area. this legislation is very important for the children growing up in buildings like

this because we know house holds with gas stoves are significantly more likely to have asthma than those with electric stoves. air pollution from natural gas also increases lung cancer, deaths from most respiratory and diseases including a marked increase in risk from covid-19. we know that the future is electric allowing any building to be built that will require massive retrofits in the future is unacceptable. we with full electric readiness, we minimize that retrofit cost. thank you for your consideration of the legislation. >> thank you, caller. next speaker, please. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> yes. >> caller: great, thank you. i echo all the previous callers and support electrifying all new

buildings in san francisco without exception except perhaps in extreme public interest cases. i thank so much the department and supervisor mandelman's office for getting the legislation to this point and for taking the commentary and fervent wishes of the public seriously. and i just really want to emphasize what we're looking at. a building that applies for a permit sometime in 2021 is not going to be built for several years. if you think about putting food service workers in a kitchen with multiple gas stoves, newly

built kitchen doesn't have to be built this way. with the heat that we have experienced in the past few days with the already bad air quality we are experiencing right now, that does not seem right. and we really have to do this fully in order to have a chance at a livable future. i strongly recommend passing the ordinance without exception. and i want to emphasize that any economic is having a livable future does not represent the beliefs and values of san franciscans. it is neither logical to ignore the severity and the imminence of the climate crisis.

thank you very much to everybody working on solutions. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: good morning, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. i am a resident in san francisco and have been -- i want to acknowledge the efforts and good communication with the department of the environment and supervisor mandelman's office. i echo the comments of the previous callers and it is important this be passed. and one item of concern and hope you note in your report back to the board of supervisors. and in terms of the electric ready language and as noted

earlier, that really, i don't believe should be in there but i recognize there may be significant insistence and i am concerned it is not requiring of public interest determination but that is beyond the scope here. what is in the scope is the ordinance includes the language as feasible as possible or words to that effect. and in other words, it needs to be as electrically as ready as feasible. electrically ready as feasible is not the same thing as electric ready. that is a weakness and i believe it would be in everyone's interest if you were to point out that electric ready leaves open the possibility that there willing significant and disruptive retrofits needed in the future, whereas if it is

built electric ready, the building will be more able to adapt to electric when the power supply becomes available without major disruption and cost on the occupants and property owner. >> next speaker please. >> caller: hello. we hear you. i'm barbara, a san francisco resident. i am expressing my support for banning natural gas and new construction. the use is dangerous and relies on property. i worry about gas leaks and especially in earthquake zones like ours and having witnessed the fires from loma in 1989. on average the natural gas and oil pipeline catches fire every

four days and results in an injury every five days. explodes every 11 days and leads to a fatality every 26 days. it is a fact that electrifycation reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 60% compared to mixed fuel construction. it was also result in lower utility bills, something we all want. finally, eliminating natural gas installations will be safer for families reducing instances of leaks, fires and associated health problems from the pollution it causes. i have children and grandchildren here. i want to insure that they and two generations have a safe and healthy community. san francisco can be a leader in driving construction that is all electric across the state, something to be proud of. i am also asking you to consider the following changes to the ordinance as laid outside the climate emergency coalition,

sierra club, earth justice and others and the commission and the board. one, eliminate the feasibility exception and make fully electric ready construction a baseline requirement for new construction. two, change the definition of mixed fuel buildings to include commercial and industrial uses of natural gas because gas shouldn't be allowed for upscale decorative uses. it is a risk no matter what the use. thank you for your consideration and for taking up this vital issue for our communities, health, safety and environment. >> we hear you, caller. >> i am here as part of the san francisco emergency climate commission and the letter to the

commission and the board supporting this ordinance and detailing ways and want to echo the previous callers' comments and get more specific into what language we would like to see changed in the ordinance along with the recommendation to the board. first, the list of heating, cooling, cooking, clothe drying and this will prevent the whack-a-mole around needing to add an amendment of decorative and prohibiting decorative gas uses and laboratory and industrial uses and makes it far more clear and explicit. and makes clear in the reporting process and reporting is great but after the fact. and without that you can't have transparency and accountability. on the point they brought up and states that electric ready should be a fee that is possible

and opens the room for reductions in net requirement and as you see in the administrative bulletin, up next, there is a line that is all physically and technically feasible and must be adapted or reduced. both of those clauses from the bulletin from the ordinance need to be stricken because otherwise we're imposing massive retrofit costs and understood mining the integrity of the ordinance. i would like to create the emergency of the building hub through the city and county to eliminate and maximize opportunity to benefit climate and equity. what sf does matters. this ordinance will be a major input and the energy code in 2022 and is a health and safety one. and we desire the health and comfort and send a massive signal that this is the future. thank you for taking up this

issue and considered the evidence laid out. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: i am erica, a resident of san francisco. i am the mom of a two-year-old who is not allowed outside due to air quality from the fires that are around us, which is one of the many results from climate change that we should at this rate expect to continue and only get worse. unfortunately, gas in our homes has a huge impact on health as well. children and homes with gas and 42% increase likelihood of getting asthma and unfortunately that same two-year-old is now in that system because we did not know that when he was a baby and with this book and these issues are obviously very intertwined by allowing us to continue

polluting and further health and safety risks. so i strongly encourage you to support this amendment and get natural gas out of our homes as soon as possible. in order to do so, it is vital to pass the legislation and a few ways that can be made stronger. as is already brought up, it is great to see the progress on gas heating -- exterior gas heating and gaslighting to no longer be allowed under the ordinance. however, there should be no usage of any natural gas in the building that is allowed unless it explicitly passes the strong public review. and i am happy to see that improvement and still allowing a lot of industrial uses without any oversight. not only is that bad for the climate and bad for the health of residents of the buildings and also bad for the overall economic state and which you all know needs as much help as it can get right now. every time we extend the natural

gas pipeline which is what we are talking about when we talk about any sort of gas and new construction, we're putting lots of money literally into the ground for the pipes that not only are leaking methane and potent, natural gas but also has really high installation and investment cost. >> please conclude your comments, caller. >> other than being borne out by society and increase the utility rate which most directly impact the utility and the large portion of the income. strongly encourage you to not only pass this legislation but produce any remaining loopholes. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> caller: is that me? can you hear me?

>> we can hear you. >> my name is stewart collins. i am a resident of san francisco in district five. so i am a couple of things. i am a homeowner who's also had to be put in to look at the home and new homes and father of a three-year-old. and one thing that is on my mind is electric and put in electric appliances and like to not have a gas stove now they've heard about all these things that happen when you have a pilot light or a gas stove burning all the time around a young child. so it's something that i guess i want to express and from the perspective of the homeowner. i would love for new construction to have this. i am attracted to homes with all electric. and so yay, let's do this and the diligent work and the process has been going through and the diligent work it represents. thank you for it all. and echo everything that's been said before. i love a lot of things to make

legislation stronger and meaningfully difficult to circumvent. that is important for really upholding our values of san francisco and the future we really want. with that, i want to say thank you for the work on this ordinance passing through and that is it. have a great day. >> next caller. >> caller: hi there. this is chris and i am a resident of district three and i totally support this ordinance. however, i think there could be a couple of edits to make it stronger and write a letter to make the following changes. we really appreciate that sfe has added language to the administrative bulletin to state the physical and feasibility and

technical feasibility that did not include financial infiezability. however, the ordinance does not have a definition for physical and technical infeasibility. we are asking the supervisor and the building inspection commission to amend the ordinance to state that all electric building will be determined without regard to financial or amenity related loss and also this ordinance totally exempts laboratory and industrial use of natural gas and this is unacceptable in the climate emergency and i would really press the commission to inquire with sfe and the supervisor as to why we are allowing industrial and laboratories to continue on to build with gas. this is not to say that labs and industrial buildings can't use gas, but they should have to prove why the usage is in the public interest as opposed to the current language which gives a blanket exemption. i want to echo the comments that

we need to make the electric requirement 100% mandatory without exception. scores of jurisdictions across the state have mandatory electric ready requirements and should be a minimum backstop. why is san francisco proposing to roll back electric ready requirements. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> mr. cooper. >> i am cooper marcus, a resident and native of san francisco. i'm raising two children here in the public schools and i'm calling to express my support of the prohibition for gas in new construction. i think a lot about the effects of gas health and children and health all over the city. and really everybody and older folks as well. i am getting started on the

project to electrify my existing home and projects like that that many conscientious residents will be understood taking will be greatly facilitated by the existence of the proposed prohibition. the prohibition will bring about skills and suppliers, especially if it's coupled with the clean energy building hub that will make retrofit of existing homes that much more likely. i know that retrofit of existing homes is not an explicit goal here in this action but i just want to call out that if this prohibition already existed and the clean energy building has existed and my retrofit project and those like me and deliver on the commitment to the neighbors, our fellow californians, and those living on planet earth to do better for future

generations. thank you, all, and i will end my comments now. >> next speaker. >> caller: thank you, commissioners. i am melissa and i am a member of the sierra club and san francisco resident and calling to state the support and stop for the building gas infrastructure in the buildings and especially as you all know and have the comment mentioned and we're in wildfire season. and happening in the strong counties and right now there are current to three cities that we have adopted building codes to reduce there and rely on gas and that san francisco is also joining the cities and gas free

buildings and economically advantageous and i like many of the other callers am not going to repeat and the comments i am here to ask that this ordinance be strengthened and i appreciate the community to speak. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hello. >> we can hear you, caller. you can begin. >> caller: good morning, commissioners. i am john o'connor. i participated in the new construction force and i would like to thank the new department and cindy perry and jacob from supervisor mandelman's office and supervisor mandelman. and i was a little skeptical at the beginning of the process. through the task force we were introduced to new technology and developed for all electric and

more technology developed as we speak. however, there is still challenging that persist. and over the last numbers of vehicles and chargeers and legislation and charters that require a large electric load and coupled with the electrical will increase the electrical load significantly and the main switch size which may require pg&e transformer. pg&e standards are not created in san francisco which may create a technical infeasibility due to strict pg&e codes and department of works requirement and pg&e and planning requirements. and the project gets the exemption and should be electric ready and which will be minimum for future owners. and maximized without triggering a transformer.

and the technology i would approve for the future and the policies and solar and heat pumps are very noisy. they will be intermittent throughout the night. i would hope there could be an electrical water designed in the near future. take care of that issue. i would ask commissioners to prove the legislation that is proposed. thank you.

>> caller: i have a couple of letters that were sent regarding the item for public comment. there was one from organization

of ehdd.com and the senders or the last names were as listed. and there was another letter and both of these were in support of the ordinance and the other letter was from the companies methune and the letter and signed by two recipients. and lastly requested that i read this one public comment into the record. this is from shawn keygrain pertaining to the all-electric item. and traveling this week won't be able to call in for the hearing and the testimony record and concerned about the concept of electric buildings and the concerns fell into two categories and the cost of already expensive housing gets

our attention to the finding and health and industry of all as a technology to support dramatic change. the cost of this is a factor and it will add to our regional problem of the high cost of housing and the projects that we believe this additional cost has been considered and weighed against the environmental benefits of cleaner energy. this will be a necessary means to a greater good for our community and long-term sustainability. the one area where the cost creates a severe hardship appears to be addressed. and this small universe of projects will need to shoulder the impact of the legislation and the additional cost of the transformer and the economic lifeline and an allowance has been made for the project to be built initially using gas and electric. but at the same time put the electrical infrastructure in place for a foo future transition and with the smooth and inexpensive to evolve and

criticized for the loopholes and if it doesn't make sense. and this is the easy position to take and not discouraged as leaders and we have a duty and obligation to balance worthy and competing goals and objectives and this amendment achieves that balance as it allows the small universe of projects to move san francisco forward toward the elimination of gas and the resident and builders association. >> thank you. >> and commissioners and there is one more public comment. >> okay. >> commenter, 301-641, you are

unmuted. >> thank you so much, commissioners. the resident of san francisco district six and a senior medical student at ucsf. and the climate of health representing over 350 doctors, nurses and health professionals throughout california with many in the bay area. and as health professionals, we strongly support the adoption of this all-electric building ordinance along with the recommendation by the sierra club and to strengthen the emergency ordinance. and it poses many risk to health with natural gas and as a future pediatrician, i want to highlight the risk to children. asthma with children in homes with gas stoves have a 42%

higher risk of experiencing asthma symptoms. the use of natural gas in buildings releases nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants in the air that are noun trigers and no known safe threshold about nitrogen exposure. and crucially important to limit exposure and this is especially true when our communities and front line workers and health care resources are strained during the pandemic and when air pollution exposure and wildfires and becoming more severe and more frequent driven by climate change and blocking in more natural gas infrastructure is not combatable and healthy and just climate future and we have the obligation to lower the carbon footprint to protect californians and most vulnerable and low income communities of color and every child born today.

so i thank the commission on work for this and urge you to support the ordinance. thank you. >> there are no more callers. >> take care. back to commissioner discussion. >> thank you. thank you, everybody. thanks for everybody's comments. and if i may, i would just go to the commissioners and close out commissioner and vice chair. >> and i said it before and supporting the ordinance. just from the affordable housing standpoint it is all electric is something we have been focused on for a very long time. and i am excited for the cities to start catching up to us. especially from a resilience standpoint. and thanks to supporting

everyone for this and thank you, commissioner moss. and thank you, commissioner. >> thank you to all the staff who worked on this. i was pleased to hear the public comment that there are certain individuals who express as good amount of concern at the last meeting who are now supporting the legislation. i appreciate and reconcile the work that went into that and the conversation and the listening sessions and late on the agenda we will be considering a resolution to racial injustice and inequity and important to talk with natural gas and what it uses and in particular to the last speaker and on children and children of color. and i want to lift up that the effects of natural gas are not just in the houses but also in

the drilling process. and the way that the hydrofracturing and drilling or fracking impacts the surrounding communities were primarily black and latino and the populations and the infection sites and the natural gas power plants and many of us have had to regulate our own water intake and fracking takes an incredible amount of water in order to perform and also with that water very polluted and can be a threat to healthy drinking water. and i want to also recognize the impacts and i am completely supportive of the legislation. >> commissioner finch. >> and i want to say i support the ordinance as described with

the additional amendment but otherwise i am in support of -- and just like to echo what fellow commissioners have put out there. and also supportive of this and appreciate the name of the presentation and hearing from the public comment and everybody that called in and very appreciative of it. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner tam please. >> thank you to everybody that spoke in favor of this. i, too, am in favor of legislation. definitely a right move in the of the environment and keeping it green and future generation and being a parent myself and definitely something that i would like to see happen.

>> thank you, commissioner tam. and finally myself, i i, too, would like a big shout out to the steering committee and involved in this from the very start and big thank you to cindy and barry and jacob and supervisor mandelman. and supervisor mandelman as well for putting this legislation together. and coming from the industry, these are really meaningful changes that we understand with the industry and particularly in the small builders understand that these -- this is what's happening and this is the future. so what's important to us and i think that is why the steering committee and cindy and barry and the supervisor's office was very meaningful. and they sat down and worked through issues and language in there that gives us as called out in one of the letters and economic lifeline and is what we need and we will build buildings

and the buildings will be built and there will be electric ready. so i really think as really good work and perfect example of what can be done and what can be achieved when with transparency and bring the stakeholders to the table to have a fair and even -- and the department on their hands and i want to comment for the excellent work they have done to date. cindy requested the amendments and articulate that and make that amendment to the legislation. >> and president mccarthy, i think what we're requesting if

we could add lighting and outdoor heating to the all electric system line within the ordinance and maybe help us define how to do that. and the ordinance provision that would be in search from the mixed use building and to include the mixed use and decorative and other outdoor -- and the premise and could be considered the amendment and supportive or not and in the approval recommendation. and the physical recommendation to the board of supervisors. and with that legislation and

with the concept. >> and we are aware and is that correct around here. >> i am happy to make the suggestion of adding the lightning and outdoor heating to the all-electric system. >> that works for me. >> we're making a motion here, yes. we're back online there.

and one more time, would you read that. to support to ordinance and recommend adding lighting and outdoor heating to under the deaf mission of mixed fuel building. >> and i heard rod say mixed-fuel building. can you clarify in the definition of all-electric system or other building? >> i would clarify the need to ban the use of outdoor gas and outdoor and lying between page

six of the ordinance and natural gas and propane for spacing and cooling and water heating and can insert outdoor or decorative use in one of the lines. >> thank you for the clarification. and with how is the other two? >> consecutive months. okay. >> and that thereby the first. is there a second? a roll call vote on the motion. are we okay with that language?

>> yes, absolutely. as stated last time, no deliberate contention to carve out the decorative fireplaces and gaslighting. there is simply to make sure it is among the list of systems that are prohibited. this is completely copasetic from our viewpoint. >> let's do the roll call. [roll call vote] >> the motion carries unanimously. thank you. for the next item is item 8. the possible action regarding

discussion and possible reaction regarding administrative bill tin 112 establishing regulation for permits for mixed fuel new construction is exceptional case of physical or technical infeasibility. >> hold it there. >> we decided to take them separate, right? so this is a separate item. the amendment is the language we were voting on. now do we have to vote on 7? just to check. >> i believe they were inclusive. is that correct, rob? >> deputy city attorney, i believe the motion as stated to recommend the ordinance as amended. >> i want to make sure we're right there. >> thank you. >> who will be giving the

presentation for item eight? >> i am going to turn off the data and having a little bit of a bandwidth issue. once i get the presentation up, i will turn the video back on if there are questions. i am nervous about the bandwidth quality i am having. so i am cindy rutherford, the finance manager for the department of environment and will present on administrative bulletin 112 that provides guidance on the implementation of the all electric to the building instruction subcommittee and the code

advisory committee. to present a summarized version of the content. and as i said earlier and we are presenting the administrative bulletin concurrently with the ordinance and does not need to be finalized to closer to operation of the ordinance. and made every effort and with the transparency of the limitation. and so this slide just shows what we'll be covering and the key characteristics of the great process. and talk about guidance to implementation procedures and have a special guest from department of public works and

to talk about electrical transformers and conclude with the frequently heard comments and discussion and turn it over to the commission for questions and happy to take a possible vote on supporting this administrative bulletin today. so let's start off with the overview of the process. so for this new ordinance the department of building inspections, d.b.i., will be the implementing agency. starting in january 2021, all new initial applications to d.b.i. for all-electric buildings will go through the regular building process and in the rare case of the project sponsor that has a physical or technical feasibility issue with building all electric and would like to request a waiver, it will need to submit a waiver request accompanied by a third

party verification. so this third party review system in the d.b.i. world is also known as a special inspection. it is something that d.b.i. uses for systems and situations that require special analysis and systems and seismic energy and green buildings. this is something the staff has practical experience envisioning. we are envisioning this to be a team rather than a single entity that would have experience and the electrical compliance. and we would use the existing format that is defined and ab405. the process would be to the

physical or technical constraint and make sure there is no other feese cal alternative for approval. the planned review and approve or reject the waiver. and that is half the process is kind of set up to work right now. that is what's documented in the administrative hold. there are key characteristics of the exemption process and that is what i would like to talk about next. the key issues and heard this over and over again. and i apologize and the exceptions are limited to technical or infeasibilities and needer to extraordinary. the onus to demonstrate that infeasibility is on the project sponsor. and there is no alternative

through the special inspection process. and in that case where the waiver is granted with the system or mixed fuel must be electrical ready. and to issue feasibility and the case by case example and will be limited to the specific area or system and need to be electric ready. and so next i want to talk about the guidance to implement the procedures. and again, i apologize and could have done this earlier in the presentation and i want to thank barry cooper who has been spending an incredible job and drafting this administrative bulletin and very detail oriented and i think in addition to working with d.b.i. staff and the commissioners and consultant

and the range of experts and was a really heavy lift to get this together and i want to thank him. and the d.b.i. best guidance about the exception process. and like i said, we have worked hand in hand with d.b.i. and to have a draft of this. and so i will go through the guidance that was prepared in this document nation around infeasibility. so the first thing we look at is around utility infrastructure. there is an exemption if a utility confirms in writing that it cannot serve the peak load request for all electric. and it can serve the peak load for mixed fuel. and this would require the third party to find that no all-electric technology or design can reduce peak load to the level that utility will

serve. and we have confirmed that utilities say they are able to provide the electricity, and we want to make sure that this is not an impediment. next is around the energy code and there is a possible exemption for a specific system if there is no option for our prescription option with the the compliance and i want to make a clarification that there was some comment that we are getting exemption for title 24 and that we were prioritizing emergency efficiency over health and safety. i want to say that is not true. there are certain codes sent by the state and we have to make sure that we can meet them. we have been working with the california emergency commission to iron out any conflicts as we said in the earlier presentation, this is a big

transformation for the building code. we just want to make sure that this is not a barrier. and normally this would be the last exception, but i am going to go out of order right now around if there is any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance and there could be a waiver granted, so again, if all-electric is infeasible and a third party review confirms that a mixed-fuel area system will resolve the infeasibility. and we have seen all types of buildings being built all electric and very confident the ordinance and different psychologies and is a new ordinance and we want to make sure in that rare case that we are able to work with project sponsor. last but not least, i want to talk about code conflict. and this is my favorite topic and is around electrical

transformer and many members of the commission and dealing with it for several years. and happy to say we have made some progress. and as of this morning and all of the commissioners should have gotten a revised copy of ab112 with amended language around electrical transformers. [please stand by]

>> it may or may not increase peak electrical load and electrical service to the building depends on the peak electrical load, no. that's an important concept. when you look at peak use, there's various ways to manage it by design and equipment and so the design of an all electric building is truly important and we can look at the design to help minimize electricity use and this really includes low diversity calculations, low management, the appliance efficiency and so, the department of environment is committed to developing tools and resources to designing good electric buildings and good design may eliminate the need for an electrical transformer and i think that is something that would make everybody happy, but in the case that one is still needed, i'll turn this

presentation over to dbw to discuss their approach to electrical transformer placement. >> and, and i'll allow you to share your screen. >> this is use zhan and then jeremy will share the screen. >> ok, undermoment. >> can everyone see the slide show? >> great. this is suzanne and good afternoon. it's just barely afternoon and thank you for inviting me here

today. i am the acting deputy for infrastructure with public works and i'm going to give a little bit of an overview and context on the righ right-of-way and electrical transformers and thee have the jurisdiction to permit what happens in the right-of-way which is basically anything dedicated to the cities with alleys and streets and roadways, we're responsible to manage what goes there. and the next slide. so there's a really high demand for the limited space that we have on the sidewalks and in particular the parking strips. this is a list of things that

came to mind of the requests that we have to manage and i won't read them all. first and foremost, for pedestrians to have safe and accessible travel. we need our fire hydrants and water supply for fire suppression, street lighting, transit stops, each property needs to have a utility service condition fofor stormwater, drih cans and and i'll talk about that more in a minute and our shared space's program, which we have, which is quite robust when mitigation features often need to go in the right-of-way, the stormwater management is also very important from an environmental perspective. and so, as you can see, we have a lot of stuff that people want to go in the right-of-way and it's a real challenge to manage it. there's not generally room for all of it.

and if we can go to the next slide and so, how we make these decisions web follow the city policy and guidance and it starts with the streets, the city's better street's policy which is the administrative code, chapter 98, a quotation from that and it's quite a bit longer and covers a lot. it says the design of the right-of-way, including the maintenance and removal of street trees and other landscaping allowing curb cuts, placement of utilities have significant impact and decision regarding street design must consider and prioritize pedestrian safety enjoyment and comfort. a couple of policies that are relevant are these two and the first is policy 2.8, which is to

maintain a strong presumption against the giving up of street areas for private ownership or use and i believe it's policy 2.9, review proposals in terms all of the public values. and next slide. and we get to our san francisco better street's plan which came out in 2010. i won't read the full quotations, but you can see that the plan tries to balance the knees of everyone that uses the trees. streets. they serve a multitude of ecological needs. and another statement, sort of a guiding principle is that trees should be the primary, organizing element of our streetscapes. the next slide.

we have the forest plan completed in 2014 and this is quite a comprehensive document about the benefits, the history and importance of trees and where we want to go with trees throughout the city, just one small quote. that trees work hard every day cleaning the air and providing habitat. the plan recognises maximizing the benefits most relevant to the city and these include improving our air quality, enhancing public health, creating bio diversity and habitat creaks and they support the local economy. next slide. so we also have an ordinance, a san francisco urban forestry ordinance which is a part of the public works and one in small quotations, to ensure that landscape against sidewalk areas is constructed and maintained to maximize benefits, protect public safety and limit conflicts with infrastructure.

that's our focus landscaping. and so to our policies, how do we manage all of though repeating things, specifically with transform, public works has had a policy in place since 1994 and we have an order and states it is the policy of public works to require that all electrical transformer bulbs be located on private property. they're a private use and so, we work hard to keep them from competing with the other public benefits of the right-of-way. the order does contemplate inceptions and there are exceptions granted -- excuse me, i'm in the wrong century. [ laughter ] in 2019, we signed an mou with

the planning department to better balance some of the other priorities of the city and so, in particular, there's 75-foot criteria that was mentioned that is in our mou and that was to focus on if a transformer goes in the front of the building, then that prohibits that part of the building from being activated and there's an interest in having a better connection between the building frontage and the public street for lots of reasons and so that mou looks at that, whether if we get better activation, perhaps assuming all other things make it possible to have a transformer in streets and there are other competing issues there already. and that might be a place where you could have a transformer and the other one was to try to maximize housing use knits unit, particularly that have the low

market rate units in them. and so that's where we are with how we handle transformers in the right-of-way. ani have one more slide. if you want go to the next one. going forward, i would like to say that we look forward to working with our sister agencies with environment and dbi and planning and trying to work and support the all-electric ordinance and work where we can and also to try and be as clear and direct in terms of, you know, what is the right use of the right-of-way and in what situations and where there would be exceptions. and now, i think i want to turn it back to cindy. thank you. >> sonya, can you make me the

presenter again, please. >> you should be the presenter now. thank you. >> thank you so much, suzanne. can you see my slide right now. >> no. >> hold on one second, please.

you've temporarily assigned yourself and reassign it back, too. >> ok.

>> one was before allowing a mixture building and i want to confirm that ab112 does create a verifiable process to create options to comply prior to a determination of physical and technical freeze annual. feasibility.

we wanted to clarify the physical oral technical feasibility. physical feasibility is what it is, it's limited to that and there was a line added that financiafinancial considerationt technical feasibility. the last thing is the language around physical constraint in the small infill sites.

so the amendment under that section would now say that a joint review by the planning department and public work's department determines there's no feasible option to locate an electrical transformer in the building or elsewhere on the property. and the only fit physical optios to locate the training transfore public right-of-way or that the sidewalk is less than ten feet and such that this infeasible. and those were the four big issues that we've worked through with the subcommittees and code advisory commission and i know this was a very detailed presentation and i flie tried io take any questions at this time.

>> so we should go to public comment. is that correct. >> yes, to public comment first. >> thank you. >> we have one caller in the queue and seaso sonya, you needo un-mute them. is that mr. tahara? >> 415999. you want to give me hosting, i can do it.

i don't have hosting. >> i'm, i'i'm sorry. wrong john.

>> this is steve guteman and i applaud the commission on the unanimous discuss vote on the ordinance. in terms of this discussion item, i wanted to bring to everybody's attention that giving manufacturers strong signals about what market needs are is essential for making all electric buildings cost effective and a highly feasible strategy and limiting exceptions is essential to getting manufacturers to develop load switching devices that reduce the electrical demand in buildings. so you don't have to satisfy the simultaneous demand of heat pump water heaters and electric vehicle charging stations, as well as getting manufacturers to develop more robust systems that operate on standard residential voltages. the building decarbonization coalition which i'm sure many of you are aware of is leading the

effort in california to get manufacturers to develop products for this market. tremendous change is happening and it's happening very fast, but manufacturers rely on market demand and so, what you will be doing is giving a clear signal to manufacturers that the market is there for them to invest in research governmen development d bringing to products to market quickly. i highly encourage you not to sweat the details too much about the ways out of the meeting the all-electric ordinance and instead focus on giving that clear signal to the construction industry that this demand needs to be met. with that, i'll close my comments. >> there's a caller in the queue. >> speaker: hi, i was pretty excited to hear that it sounds

like we're all in agreement and electric ready in principal. we should be building electric-ready in the case of exception. that is what i've heard and if that's the case, then the cause and attachment one on page nine that reads electric ready desi design, if all electric design is physically or technically feasible, then electric-ready exceptions must be adapted. this does not align with the commentary we heard from commissioners as well as members of the public and members of the environment didn' and the second sentence that bullet should be removed and the maximum percent possible and other parts of the bulletin, like the compliance form and attachment should be removed. and that's the biggest change we would like to see. again, it sounds like we're all

in agreement, it should be exception ready. i'll bring up again the need for public notice in order to ensure transparency. there's no real notice process unless someone is, like, sitting at home just tracking all proceedings by hand. and so without that transparency, it's really limited. and lastly, i'm a little bit concerned about the blanket acceptance of exceptions for the industrial lab as part of an all electrical building. this is a part of the building. the administrative buildings, that is accepted under that clause and they're all considered electric for the purpose of compliance with the green building code which undermines the intent of the green building code and that doesn't seem like it has a place in that bulletin. and so, please, make these set of changes and again, really

excited. >> are there any additional callers? >> i see no more callers in the queue. >> ok, thank you. i have a couple of items to read. there were several letters that were sent. but first, i would like to acknowledge that the letter from the code advisory committee, which was submitted, and it says honorable members of the commission, on august 12th, 2020, the code advisory committee reviewed the presentation by barry hooper with the san francisco department of the environment and ab112, implementation of all electric construction regulations. after discussion of the proposed ab112, the committee members requested minor changes to the bulletin and once made, the code advisory recommended ab112 by

the building inspection commission and respectfully submitted tom sessler, the secretary of the advisory committee. and all of the committeers have received all of the core spons correspondence via email. all had some of our content and i will read one into the record and they were all in support of ab112 and the commissioners are writing to for new construction ordinance introduced on june 30, 2020 by supervisor mandelman. i'm a native san francisco and i reside in san francisco and i am a design professional in the industry. the department of environment has put forward a solid case for adopting this new ordinance. i agree this ordinance is critical to fulfill the city's commitment to strengthen our

city's ability to get back to business quickly after an earthquake as demonstrated by the supervisor resilience of an electrical grid compared to the natural gas infrastructure, as well as the fires in is sonomo county, reduce risk and firesesn a day-to-day basis. we should seek innovative and meaningful ways to support. please be forward-thinking and taking the necessary actions to place the health and make this ordinance the law in san

francisco. and some of the other submittals were mr. goodman, collar, b. jacobson. and that concludes the public comment that i have. sure, there's one more caller. >> yes. good afternoon, commissioners. again, i'm paul warmer. i wanted to endorse the prior comments, especially the first caller that's a significant point on sending a strong market signal. and daniel testimony ahara's comments. i did want to make a comment about public notice.

the board of examiners is the point of appeal and this is great and the project sponsor, if their proposal is denied, they will know they have a right-of-way peel to the board of examiners. but if there's no public notice that a mixed fuel exception is considered, members of the public who may have an interest and knowledge will not know that a ruling has been issued and will not know when in a timely manner they need to appeal. and so, the fact that you do not have notice means an effective notice process, the book notation that plans uses.

it means there's no effective right-of-way peel fo appeal ando transparency. i believe that is a weakness and in 112 that could be addressed. thank you. >> there are no more public commenters. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody, for your public comments and thank you, cindy. >> no comments at this time. >> commissioner alexander. >> no comments at this time, thank you. >> commissioner clinch. >> no comment, thank you. >> commissioner jacobo. >> no comment, thank you. >> commissioner tam. >> no comment at this time, thank you. >> and thank you all. cindy and even jacob, if i may and even if barry wants in, on the ab crowd, does this have to

run parallel with the legislation? >> typically, the administrative bulletins do trail administration. do we have had them try to run concurrently in transparency but there's no requirement for that to happen. >> i'm not interested in slowing it down in my way. i'm always weary of the bulletins when they're not -- we've had a chance -- for example, these special exceptions is a new ad to the bulletin? would that be correct. >> no, that has been in the

original. >> the certificate of occupancy, sorry. >> this is something we added per the advice of the subcommittee. >> so i haven't had a chance to really study that language and, you know, in the construction industry, the certificate of occupieoccupance is the holy gr. how would you feel if we were to come back in september to have the commission support and look through the language and make sure there aren't any consequences that do the previous work. i'm cognitive to the fact i wouldn't want to put you in a

difficulty and move this along >> you would have more time to be comfortable. >> ok. and so that is -- if that were possible, i would like to go back to my fellow commissioners and ask if there was enough support to continue this to the september hearing so we get a chance to make sure it's ready for nfl and prime-time, you know. commissioner moss? >> i think that's fine. >> i certainly support that. >> commissioner alexander. >> that's fine. >> ok, commissioner jacobo. i would like to see the secretary, if there's no more comments, to see if we could continue this to the september hearing. if i have no objection. >> rob, do we need to make a

motion. is that ok. >> through the citthis is the cd yes, i would make a motion to continue the item. >> so moved. >> so mathe motion by vice prest moss. is there a second? >> second. >> a role call vote on the motion to continue the item. (role call). >> the motion carries unanimously. >> thank you, next item, madam secretary. >> the sex ite next item is ite.

board of supervisors 200785 amending the existing building code to extend dates of completion for the seismic retrofitting to september 15t september 15th, 2021. mr. comprano? >> i've never used webex before. so many platforms but never webex and thank you for having me and amending the building code to extend the date for completion of work for the seismic ret to retrofitting to september 15, 2021. this legislation will allow additional time for property owners to complete retrofit construction on a timeline that

disrupts disruption to the already beleaguered small businesses. the program requires the old multifamily buildings for the soft story condition. tier four buildings, the final tier have ground-floor commercial space with residential units above. the current deadline for completion of work is september 15th, 2020. the 1,014 tier four is estimated to hold, according to the office of small business approximately 2028 businesses. of these 415 or 41% still need to complete the retrofit work. even prior to covid-19, small businesses in district eight had reached out to the supervisor's office concerned that a city

mandated closure of three to six months could effectively force them to permanently close. baca study looked at 120 tier fr spaces in 2005 that had been retrofitted to the end of 2019. twenty-four spaces saw a turn-over through the course of the retrofit work and now as businesses have begun to reopen following periods of mandatory covid-19 closure, many are being asked to shut down yet again to allow seismic retrofit work, just as they are trying to reestablish desperate needed sales. many businesses cannot come back from a second closure. seismic retrofit work, i'm sure they agree is urgent but the businesses and property owners alike have asked for is need for time. but extending the deadline to complete soft-story retrofit work to september 15, 2021, we

are allowing additional time for the work to be completed in the hope such work can be completed at time that is least disrupted and costly for the business. for some businesses that are still shuttered due to our public health orders, that time could be now and work could proceed over the next few months. for others, that could mean work could occur at a later date when they have had whenthey have hado generate revenue. i would like to acknowledge the work of john murray for working with us closely on this legislation and i would also like to thank the office of small business and director regina who worked on this, as well. and thank you for your consideration of this item and i know john is here to answer questions and i'm available for questions, as well. >> thank you very much. john, are you up next? or are we going to public

comment? >> you took all my talking points. >> so madam secretary, if we can go to public comment and circle back. >> did you have any comments? >> i do not have any additional comments, but i'm here if there are any questions. >> ok, thank you. >> are there any, any public comments? >> i don't see any in the queue. >> just as a reminder, evacuee correctewe'vecorrected this andt access code to call in (146)244-1063. and there's no public comment for the item thus far and is there any discussion? >> i'm sorry, i forgot to mention the small business

commission did hear this item and is recommending its support to move it forward. >> thank you. >> if there's no public comment, i'll go to my commissioners. vice chair moss. >> thank you to the supervisor's office and tom and the presenters. i think this is a good idea, the retrofit laws with created were made for safety and, you know, they should never have commented that to our san francisco citizens and so i think that extending the timeline makes a lot of sense. thank you. >> commissioner. >> can i get a clarification. is this for all of the buildings or just for commercial spaces or commercial? >> this is for tier four, our

buildings for commercial first floor, generally speaking. >> i'm in support of this, thank you. >> commissioner clinch, please. >> yeah, i'm in support of the extension. >> commissioner tam, please. >> i am, also, so call the question. >> i'll make the motion that we approve the extension of time for the tier four structures. >> i'll second. >> ok, thank you. >> do we have a motion and a

second? i'll do the role call votes. (role call). >> the next item is item ten regarding a proposed resolution stating a building i inspection and department of building inspection to racial justice and equity. i believe commissioner jacobo will speak to this. >> as you may recall, two months ago now, we talked about a resolution --

(lost audio). >> this paper has shown up how fed up or country is with how things have been. recogniseing that dark moments come with glimmers of hope can

show us that this moment is also an opportunity for the most transformative change our nation and our city can see. now and so we must all take a moment to reflect individually, which i think we've done, but we have to act collectively. here in san francisco, various city agencies have taken the correct steps to acknowledge and say black lives matter and to stand against structural racism and acknowledging it has to be undone and rectified. it's a difficult fight requiring constant work but one that we must all carry forth. today our commissioners are presenting a resolution committing to social justice standing with black lives matter and recognizing the unjust matters by sfpd of black, brown men and women in the city and we are taking a position that says we will be forward-thinking in how we conduct business and that we are committed to working towards eliminating structural

racism and the barriers that exist. so i would like to thank, actually, planning commissioner ch archan and johnson and the community advocates with the race and social equity coalition, madam secretary, sonya harris and all others for your work in doing this. if i could hand this over to my fellow commissioner, alexander toot. >> thank you, commissioner, for your leadership and excellent framing of why we felt compelled to bring this resolution for the

building commission.

>> so i am curious and excited to hear from the rest of the commissioners and i hope that you will pass this on today. >> thank you, commissioners. and so, commissioner clinch, please. >> i'm in support of this and i appreciate commissioner jacabo's efforts on this. you were very eloquent and well said and i think it's an encouraging thing to hear and i think it would be great if we do this. >> commissioner tam, please. >> yes, i really want to applaud my fellow commissioners, john jacobo and alexander tute in putting this forth and bringing this to our dbi. california in support of it and so, thank you, guys.

>> i know this isn't an easy document to put together and make sure it's framed correctly. and so, i really appreciate this and the commission to pass this and thank you for your leadership on this. so madam secretary, if you would please, would you call the question? thank you. >> is there a motion to adopt this resolution? >> there is one public commenter. >> oh, ok.

>> speaker: i'm proud of you for to having this conversation and, actually, my conversation, alexander tute addressed my comment which in the agenda it says stating your commitment and commitments are not enough right now. actions. it's all about actions. easy things, easy statements to put up on a website or be proud of are not good enough. and so, i'm very glad to hear commissioner tute mention that this resolution has specific actions that are hopefully required with timelines and i would encourage you not to stop, necessarily, with whatever is in this resolution and continue to look at what the department of building inspection can and should do to promote greater equity and social justice within san francisco and within the surrounding communities. and so thank you.

>> there's no other public comment. >> thank you. >> is there a motion to adopt the resolution? >> i would like to make a motion to adopt a resolution. >> ok. >> thank you, and is there a second? >> i'll second it. >> hopefully there's a association and a second and i will do the role call vote. (role call). >> that motion carries unanimously and thank you all for adopting this resolution. and our next item is item 11, updates regarding the dbi

permitting.

>> everyone can see my screen? >> yes. >> great. >> so as i was saying, in my presentation this morning, i'm going to provide an update on dbi's permit services and recent changes we made that will help us to address our permit backlogs. a quick recap of what we discussed in previous commission meetings of the effective shelter-in-place and health crisis on the department and so

how we got where we are. from mid-march when shelter-in place went into effect, dbi was fully closed to the public and during that time, we transitioned to a digital system. and some of the challenges that we faced in switching to electronic plan review included training staff on the new system, managing our resource constraints as we had them on leave or called out the disaster service work and implementing a service that really wasn't ready to go. the intention before the crisis was that we would launch this as a pilot more affordable housing projects and test the system and work through the issues. so when we rushed to put it online so that we could still issue permits, that just meant we within abl weren't able to te system before it launched.

we have approximately 3,000 permit applications in our backlog and some those, we've been able to address some of the issues by launching curbside service on june 24th, and there was a couple of months that no permits or very few were being issued has really set us back. and just to give you a sense of what those numbers look like, prior to the shelter-in-place, we issued about 110 permits a day and then, when we were using just the electronic plan review only, that number was around 50 permits a day and that was really the majority of those were the no plans over the counter permits that we're now issuing in the first two hours of the morning and once we laurenelaunch the curbside, we e able to get that up to 75

permits a day and we issue 60 trade permits, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, everyday through an automated system. during the last two weeks of july, we packed up our offices and moved to 49 south vanesse. and our staff had to pack up you hundreds of plans to move to the new office and, of course, during that period of time, that affected our ability to issue permits and contributed to our backlog. so one of the things that is causing the backlog or one of the issues that we need to address is the challenge with accepting permits online. so the way the system works, the permit applications that are submitted online, they're done through the sfgov.org city

website and then those go to the permit center and the permit center holds those permit applications and then they send them to dbi. and the way that the data is collected, it doesn't exactly match the way that we collect our data and how we entered it into the tracking system. and so, that means that all of those permit applications that are sent over to dbi, those all have to be inputted manually by our permit text and those applications that we receive, each one is about a dozen pages long and so the amount of work for each member of our administrative staff has multiplied and that lag time between the time a customer submits their application online and their permit application entered into the system, that lag time means there's no customer transparency because they don't have a permit

application number yet. so they don't know it's there in the system. and so that's why you're hearing from our customers, this frustration with not knowing if their permit has been received and how long it's going to take for us to be able to get back to them. and so in order for us to fix that, we need to retool the digital system and reintegrate it so that the data we're taking in matches the data that we put into our tracking system and how we manage our data here internally. and then, we also need to make workflow process improvements to increase the efficiency because this workstream is a whole new workstream and hasn't been fully thought out, how that would work. and so, the way we'll address this is we are temporarily limiting the types of permits that may be submitted online so that we can fix those issues and those types of permits are being

limited to 100% affordable housing projects, new permit applications for development agreement projects and the adenda and revisions that are already reviewed in the digital system. and so we're converting all of our over-the-counter and new-in-house review products to paper for the time being and then we're not touching the trade permits system tor now. that automated system will continue. and so, i'll first talk about the over-the-counter permit. as i said, this will be paper only and the no-plan permit, we already have the system set up for customers to come in monday through friday from 7:30 to 9:30 and they go online and get a ticket right to drop in. we have 40 spots a day and they're routed through the first and second floor for intake

issuance and walk out with a permit in hand. and then for the over-the-counter whip plan, there's appointments every 15 minutes from nine 30:00 to thre. this week, we are sending an email who has submitted this plan permit electronically. they're all getting a link to the system where they can go online and make an appointment and then they'll be able to come to the building, drop off their plan, have the plan checker look over their plans and drop them off. and for the over-the-counter

permit, the turn-around time is within a week unless we have comment for customers and they have to give us revised plans. there are no comments or changes necessary, those can usually be issued within a week. starting monday, the 24th, we'll post a link for custom

we have a number of in-house permits and so the first part is, really, to consider the

paper as much as possible and that's the system puert pre-covd the second part is to improve the new workstream, electronic review workstream that we just recently launched. so limiting the number of perm permits we take in will help us focus as well as the no-review permits and back to the trace permits and we're working on roof grouping permits and looking at other opportunities to automate that so that we can take that burden off of our staff and focus on other things.

so next steps, the focus is on the technology and workflow improvements. and we will be able to report back on our progress in september at the commission request and we ar will be holdia webinar to plan the changes to the process and answer questions from customers. we know that some of this may be confusing for some of our customers. before i close, i wanted to thank the many members of our staff who are facing huge workloads, they're working overtime and they went through this big move and people have a good attitude and are working hard. we know how critical the work is, the economic recovery in the city and everyone is working full speed to get the issues as

quickly as possible. so thank you to the commissioners for all of your support as we work through these challenges. >> thank you, kristine for that presentation. the interim director speak. >> i'm here and i would like to -- again, i would like to thank kristine for the wonderful presentation in outlining what it is that is going on here and just giving you the numbers. there's no sugar coating any of this and we're always going to go to you as a commission with the facts and so, i would like to kind of -- first of all, i would like to go back and thank the commissioners who came to visit us at 49 south vanesse and we're sending out an invite to commissioner moss and

commissioner clinch and hopefully, they can join us in our new home.

our stakeholders were unable to go in and see what's going on. we have to take care of a backlog, which we have a curbside operation right now and now that we've moved and settled in our new home here, it is, we find is working very well and i think that the over--counter-no

plans permits, it will work substantial there. there are appointments from 923:03:30 an9:30to 3:30 and i bd of three months, that backlog will be almost gone, hopefully, but it will certainly be a lot less than what it is right now with the fact that we're throttling back to fix the epr system and don't forget, we need this epr system and this is 2020 and this is the wave of the future and we'll have an electrical review system anyway and it just wasn't ready for prime-time. it hadn't been vetted and covid happened and we had nothing else. it was the only show in town at the time, but now, since we instituted curbside, which we didn't have an opportunity to do

until the end of june -- i mean, now we have a chance to work on the electronic system so we can bring it back and bring it back in a way that it's actually going to work for everybody. and so, the plan -- kristine mentioned the plan we have and i think this is a plan that will work because some of the elements of that plan include moving -- this whole process is very administratively heavy and our focus is on getting more particulamorepermatech staff one at a faster clip. what are we doing? we're moving from other departments and hiring more administrative staff and we are exploring the no-review permits and we have very carefully reviewed l.a.'s express permit

process and we understand that if we can take these permits, we are issuing a lot of trade's permits online right now and most of the trade permits are issued online, as a matter of fact. but if we can issue more of the new review type of permits online, like reroofing, which we'll working with our technology folks on that and that's well on its way to being put in place. this is not like a switch. there are technology changes to facilitate this happening and i think we'll have this online in a couple of months by what i'm hearing from our folks at mis. and a big thank you to them, too, because they're taking this on as a priority, knowing that we need to create a little bit of relief as much as possible for our permatech staff and they

can work on the backlog and the ongoing issues of having to work without the building being opened up to the public like we had. you know, those of you, commissioners, who were here, you can see that we can have a lot of people from the public in the building. we have to maintain the social distancing requirements and, you know, i'm on an economic recovery task force and i can tell you that i understand the importance of getting permits out the door, making sure people are able to continue to work. and we know that construction is an engine that drives recovery. and so that's formost in everyone's mind here and that's why we have everyone with their sleeves roll up, trying to make this happen.

we're trying to help the stakeholders out there and we will be having a q & a on friday. i can tell you how important it is to all of us to get these permits issued at a faster pace. there's a backlog and get back to, you know, not having a backlog and to as close as we can to where we were before. i'm available for my questions you may have. thank you. pair operato(indiscernible).

>> i wanted to support ii thinke 360 permits issues and 49 building permits have been for bayside village and not including the holding permit and these are nonessential renovations and we're just a little frustrated how they keep getting these permits through the site with three notice of violations for not having permits for the past five months. we're doing this construction pre-covid, they started march second and they've had one director's hearing issued last friday for an expired boiler permit, but then the next day, they got a whole bunch of permits to go through for that

same address. and so, that leads to our second question, there's still open complaints for all of the nonessential renovation going on around here. and we want to -- you have the power to suspend permits until they at least comply with the large health order, appendix b2. just at least have an -- tell them to have an on-site covid complaint's officer. we're 800 units so with that and all of the work, this will be a covid hot spot any day now. we have not been in compliance and from what we understand, is that there's not a way to enforce the health order. they've never had to enforce it. so we are pleading with you. and one positive thing i want to say, thank you. your tracking system is amazing by keeping the public informed. it's been incredibly useful. so we're please asking for your

help. >> can you state your name, please. >> bayside village. >> and your name. >> elizabeth. >> thank you, liz bend. bend. elizabeth next speaker. >> speaker: good afternoon. this is linda beady. i have been obtaining permits for over 30 years in san francisco and i've seen a lot. a lot. i think the permit center idea has been a bad idea. i am asking for you to give dbi their power back. i don't believe the permit center understands the process and how upon it is to the city's livelihood. there are people paying double rents, mortgages and can't get projects completed because of the permit center. workers are not only being affected and homeowners by the

covid, but also being affected by the new permit process. the permit center has created a disastrous backlog for all of us and i would like to thank all dbi staff. they have been wonderful. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> thank you for your presentation. i know you are giving it your heart and soul. i go to vice chair moss. >> i have no comments. thank you.

>> i appreciate all that the department is trying to do. this is a difficult situation they're in and i appreciate a lot of what both kristine and patrick said about their acknowledging the difficulty the homeowners are facing. it's obvious they're not dismissing anything. i just want to say how much i appreciate that. and and hope things work out going forward. >> thank you, commissioner, jacobo, please. >> i'll echo that. i appreciate the acknowledgement and the frustration and i got an elizabeth maemail and a couple n

folks being frustrated by the process in where things are and not a lot of clarity and i think it's important for all of us to remember we're living through a pandemic, something nobody has a playbook for. whatever position you're playing in society, and, you know, i know it may not be perfect at this point, but i'm putting my faith in the team to be able to make the adjustments as needed, to have it be a better process and more expedient for the customers and people of san francisco. so i look forward to updates and to having this work out in the near future and thank you for that. >> thank you, commissioner. and commissioner tam. >> yes, and i think my fellow commissioner hit it over the head. nobody expected this and given the circumstances, i do applaud the department that patrick and the entire staff are doing for dealing with it and kind of just stepping up to the plate here.

with that said, i know that there is the curbside from 7:30 to 9:30 and i think that going away from the online permitting and taking a step back from that is the right move. i do agree with that. and going back to paper. is there any plans to kind of extend these curbside hours? i mean two hours during the morning, i feel, it helps but i think there's more that we should be doing as far as opening up the curbside and allowing them to get their tickets throughout the day. and refusing some of the staff to kind of just address all of the of these over-the-counter and walk-its. >> i can speak to that and thank you for the question, commissioner ta mentioner. yom.the 7:30 to 9:30 is not reay

the issue. we are making 40 tickets available everyday and they're not all picked up. so what that tells us that the demand is not out there. we don't have a backlog in the over-the-counter without plans arena. so what we have been thinking is if there isn't -- if we can see a trend where there isn't that huge demand for over-the-counter without plans, then we'll allow time from that to be put toward the over-the-counter where we know we have a backlog. there's a balance and we're monitoring, but i think we may be able to accept more online using it to our time frame in the morning where we maybe don't

need it quite as much. so it's monitoring, it's a balance and there's a lot outside of the box thinking here to facilitate moving these things along.

>> sometimes it takes time before we realize this is working well. in fairness, in all of the years, the fire department, rich brownhouse and coming up with solutions on fire and on processing the trends and i commend him. so everybody seems to have a real strong understanding that this is a team effort here to get this done. it's a massive protection to all essential workers right across the board there and how they've embraced this difficult job and

difficult time and not complaining. so i look forward on a monthly basis, you may give us an update and to commissioner tam's point, if there are areas to increase the hours because we have more help somewhere else and it's just a process that i know you'll do anyhow, but if you could keep this involvement, it would be greatly appreciated and once again, thank you to the director for, you know, with all due respect having the courage to stand up here. it's not a popular decision you're making here today and i know a lot of the industry were problem upset but i everybody has their hearts in the right place and they just want to see that department back to its puertpre-spacepre- covid.

>> i would like to say thank you to all of the other review departments that are involved in working with us to have permits issued. we have planning and dpw and puc and for whoever i'm forgetting here, i'm sorry. but a big thank you to everyone who is a part of this permitting process that we have and it is very appreciated. again, thank you, president mccarthy, for mentioning that g aboumentioning aboutopening ford all consistors are looked at. so thank you. >> presiden >> it looks like we have one

more caller for this item. i'll leave it up to you to accept it because we had the wrong access code posted. >> please. >> john, go ahead. >> speaker: hello, commissioners. i'm an architect local in san francisco and i just wanted to also thank everyone that's been involved with reorganizing the permitting system, and i appreciate all of the effort and it's obvious there's been a lot of work put into it. but i just wanted to also convey some of my frustration with the process in addition to a lo. there were particular requirements in formatting and software and so there has been a bit of an investment on our part to serve our clients and make

sure -- and go through -- jump through hoops on our side to make it work under this new system. and now to backtrack is a bit frustrating, also. in the email that went out, it was very ambiguous whether, you know, whether the permits that we already submitted, the applications we submitted, the online ones, whether they'll be dealt with as is or if we have to resubmit on paper and so that particular ambiguity was frustrating. but again, i just wanted to reiterate that i understand it's a tremendous effort. it was unexpected and so i appreciate all of the efforts. thank you. >> and appreciate your comments. and actually, the director and i have talked about that and do you want to have a quick chat about that? i know about that upfront cost with the new system and you and i have talked about that and i

know kristine has talked about it. and maybe you go over the backlog of the electronic ones and how you're handling that. either you or kristine. because i know that's been answered. >> sure. i'm happy to speak to that president mccarthy. and so so anything submitted online already will continue through the electronic's and review process and any associated revisions are addended and will continue on the same electronic track. please remember that we're not moving away from epr. we're fixing epr.

(please stand by). it would have been

implemented over a period of two years. >> it is a really important point. it was something that was piloted for a portable housing projects. we had to close doors. we had nothing else because we were a customer interacting department. there was a customer on the other side of the counter. the doors were locked shut and we didn't have that experience any more. the epr was all we had. unfortunately, it didn't work out for the smaller permits. a lot of staff training went into the effort. i mean if you think about from march 17th shelter-in-place where we started taking in electronically, it was close to

six weeks. another month before we were able to get the curb side up and running because we had to go through a lot of safety plan approval processes in order to get the limited number of people in the building at our previous location which was only four people at any one time. now we are as one of the commissioners said we are in terminal 2 here to get more people in the building. we are getting 10 people in the building now, but we are not getting the hundreds of people in the building that we were pre-covid. everything is a little bit heavier lift. it was going to be two years. we had to hit the switch on it.

we just had to do that. >> any more public comment out there, just to be sure? >> there is no more public comment. >> i just want to swing back with the commissioners. are we all good? so this is fought an action item. >> once again, thanks for the update. a going look at the new game plan. thank you. >> next item is item 12. discussion and possible action regarding as-needed consultant services for structural design angieio technical review prequalified list. >> i need to be reaccused from this vote. i believe that requires a formal procedure. >> i do believe it does. you have to give us reasons why

you want to be recused. >> i work for the regulating body that oversees this contract and that has assessed it prior to advertisement and continues to monitor and assess it throughout the lifetime of all of the contracts that come out of the pool. it would be a conflict for me to participate. >> normally i will tell you to leave the room. i can't do that right now. i don't know what you do. >> do you have a comment? >> deputy attorney. we should have a motion to recuse and roll call vote if it is seconded. yes, the commissioners should mute the line and not participate in any discussion on the item.

>> so moved. >> is there a second. >> we will do the roll call vote to recuse commissioner alexander tut from this item. [roll call] >> to clarify elizabeth is not to participate in this vote. >> deputy attorney, yes, that's correct. >> the motion carries unanimously. deputy director madison. >> i am here. i will need to share my screen.

john, do you want to allow sharing the screen. >> sorry.

good afternoon, deputy director for the department of building inspection. before usa list of consultant services for structural design, the prequalified list. we recently completed the r.f.q. process. basically it identified these consultants as prequalified to assist our plan reviewers with as needed peer review services. basically this will allow us to whenever there is a project that

requires peer review we have this list to use and can do as needed contract for the r.f.q. they should not exceed $100,000 with a two year term not to extend two years. what is important about the list. because you are qualified to be on the list does not mean you will have an award or contract to perform services. we need the list so we have this available when this comes up and we need peer review. it is important to note. although the contracts are held by d.b.i. and we will contact with them. we do get reimbursed for the services. the project sponsor will invoice them for the services. i am happy to answer any questions.

>> we don't have any public comment at this time. president mccarthy, is there discussion? >> no. commissioners does anybody want to weigh in on this? >> this is commissioner clinch. who selects the firm or engineer? the developer, sponsor or the building department? >> d.b.i. does. >> okay. >> from my experience, i think san francisco is lucky to have such a wealth of incredible

engineering in this area. that is true for pr professionas and academics. these are leaders in the field. we are lucky in that regard. i want to just congratulate the department for the selection. >> thank you. >> then are you requesting the commissioners vote to approve this? >> yes, we are. >> we would need a motion on the item. >> move to approve. >> is there a second? >> second. >> we have a motion and second. i will do the roll call vote. president mccarthy. >> yes. >> vice president moss. >> yes.

>> commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> commissioner jocobo. >> yes. >> it carries unanimously. item 13 director's report. update on the dba finances. item a. >> good afternoon. i have just an update on the budget. the last time we discussed the vote it is approved in february. as i discussed during that time there will be changes over the next few months. the mayor recently submitted the budget to the board on august 1st. what i would like to do is give you an update on the highlights of the changes from when you initially voted to let you know the next steps. we will start on revenues. as you are aware because of

covid-19 we saw reduction in revenues. the highlighted areas are the places for the checking we're were budgeted 28.5. based on what happened over the past three or four months we reduced the revenues for checking premium plan review and electrical and plumbing permit on the revenue side. for expenditures we made some changes. some had to do with covid-19. for instance, we did increase attrition recognizing that we knew hiring with slowdown. we increased attrition knowing what we believed would happen in housing. we decreased travel and training. that can't go on because of covid-19. we also decreased the

entertainment and promotion budget. we bought items at fairs and we had our own fairs. we would president do that any time soon and we have those things left over. one thing that increased because of covid-1of covid-19 covid-19 o see what we need to get more people teleworking and include the memory and increase the fare. finally the largest increase is the final one services of other departments. those are work orders. you can see a $3.6 million increase. that is due to increases in the work order, permit center work order and digital services work order. they were the three largest. we made reductions.

overall the increase is only $979,000 because every deductions and increases. i am happy to answer any questions about this. >> is there any questions from commissioners on this? >> thank you. >> we will do public comment at the end of a through d. 13b update on propose or recently enacted steat or local legislation. >> legislative affairs. a couple of items today. supervisor peskin's shelter in peace emergency ordinance was approved by the full board yesterday. the legislation prohibits nonemergency construction to residential buildings that would result in utility shutoffs of

more than two hours unless the tenants are provided with alternative sources of water and power. water bottles or generator or battery pack or something on those lines or reach an agreement with the building owner before happened. it also required advance notice of the utility shutoff and requires building owners to take steps to mitigate noise for construction and at buildings. it will go into effect when mayor signs it. likely this friday. we will get to work on implementation quickly. last week supervisor stefani introduced legislation regarding construction noise in occupied residential buildings. this would place strict limits on the level of noise that could be generated by construction.

i think it is 5 de decibels over the night noise threshold. it is on 30-day calendar in land use. we will reach out to discuss this. you have heard about the ordinance and the extension, with that i am happy to answer any questions you will have. >> supervisor peskin's legislation. i know a lot of stakeholders and we worked closely with them to find the language in that. it was a good outcome. we appreciate that. let the office know that, that would be appreciated. the second piece of legislation. that one automatically triggers a bunch of concerns in my head here. how far down the road is this

legislation? >> it was introduced last tuesday it is on the 30-day calendar on the land-use committee. there is plenty of time to address concerns. >> if there is any stakeholder meetings that you know of, please let me know. that one could be slippery slope. i do get the spirit of it, but the unintended consequences again. >> thanks. 13c. update on major projects. >> major projects. june to july. there was a decrease in total

construction compared to june. 3% increase in the total number of units in july over june. that is my report. thank you. 13d. update on code enforcement. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am deputy director see sweene. the numbers are building inspections 4547. complaints received 494. complaint response within 24 to 72 hours 485. complaints with first notice of violation sent 80. complaints received and abated

218. date complaints notice of violations 24. second violation referred to code enforcement 9. house inspections performed 55. complaints 170. 170. complaints nov108. to director's 3. routine inspections 8. code enforcement number of cases to director 10. order of abatements 0. advisement 0. beta 23. code inspection performed 32. biv through the litigation 0. referred to city attorney 0. code enforcement outreach i believe we will get new numbers quarterly numbers next month.

total people reached out to 99,968. counseling cases 590. 590 cases reinvolved 303. that concludes my report. open for any questions. >> comment we don't see any callers in the queue. >> next item 14. review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of march 18, 2020. i don't see any public comment on this item. any motion to approve? >> motion to approve. >> second? >> i will second. >> thank you. are all commissioners in favor or any comments.

>> aye. any opposed? no. >> minutes approved. 15 adjournment. motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> thank you everyone. thank you.