excuse me. interim director expects the monthly permit numbers to keep going up thanks to the changes that the department has met, new staff hired, staff overtime, and working through the backlog. we will hear more about it during the director's report and updates on the task. we are all deeply impressed with our staff's achievements to date. thank you for attending our virtual commission meeting today, and please continue to

participate in our public process. that concludes my announcements today, madam secretary. >> clerk: okay. thank you, president mccarthy. is there any public comment on the president's announcement? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you. our next item on the agenda is item 3, certificate of appreciation and acknowledgement for inspector christina dang-moy for commitment to her duties and compassion for the community. >> president mccarthy: so commissioner tam, please take it from here. thank you.

>> thank you, mr. president, and thank you, sonya. i'd like to thank my fellow commissioners for their support in the department of building inspection. being a san francisco native [inaudible] as a city, where we're currently hoping to make a positive impact on where we're heading. having said that, never have i set foot into a san francisco s.r.o. so i'd accompanied inspector dang-moy on a few building inspections. during the inspections, i witnessed the commitment to community, the compassion for

tenants, and the services that they provide. inspector dang-moy serves as a voice for those who can't speak for themselves, and i for myself saw the living conditions for s.r.o. tenants. i want to thank director o'riordan for his efforts during this time to that d.b.i. can serve in a role in the city's continuing recovery efforts. his staff has done an amazing job and is not only ensuring life safety but in handling permit approvals and issue

weawea -- issuance. so without further adieu, on behalf of the building inspections commission, i'd like to virtually present a certificate of acknowledgement and appreciation to housing inspector christina dang-moy. i'm sure she'll share this acknowledgement with her fellow employees. thank you for the work that everybody does, and thank you for the work that our housing inspectors do in the community and, you know, the compassion that they show and provide. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. thank you so much, commissioner tam, coming with me and going

through the building. i'm humbled, and this building certificate is for all building inspectors, not just in my division, but the department, so thank you again. >> president mccarthy: and thank you for all your work. as commissioner tam, i actually got schooled myself many years ago when i sat on the s.r.o. housing stock and saw how important it is to so many people in the city, and how challenging it is to live in these homes, but also how important it is for so many people. so appreciate your work there, and it takes a certain person to do that job and do it with

compassion on behalf of the commission. >> clerk: thank you. are there any public callers on this item? >> operator: there are no public callers in the queue? >> clerk: then our next item is item 3, general public comment. the b.i.c. will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> operator: i'm not seeing anyone. >> thank you, everyone. take care. >> clerk: it looks like there's one -- one hand raised. >> i don't have a -- unmute them. >> clerk: oh, okay. just one moment.

sorry. hello, caller. you are now unmuted. hello, caller? >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. you have two minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is paul wormer. i wanted to talk to an issue that relates very much to the combination of the covid crisis and the recent fires. this is a very specific request that's happened in my neighborhood to legalize a ground floor retail. and because of the location of that space -- and excellent idea. it's not a good space for retail. however, it's a ground floor

unit. the only ventilation required by code is an opening window at the sidewalk level, and that, to me, poses a number of problems when you think about the issues of shelter in place and your only ventilation is an opening work. from gas heaters in the unit to cooking to other problems are significant without ventilation. we have not been able to open our windows in our much larger building for several days. last night, finally, we could, and it was wonderful. but on a small unit, that's

problematic. when you factor in the ground-floor unit at the sidewalk, many occupants will not be comfortable relying on an open window. i think it's a problem, and i would like to ask that perhaps that is something that the building inspection department consider for the san francisco specific amendment. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. there don't seem to be any other callers in the queue, so the next matter is item 5, commissioners' questions and matters. inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may

make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedure which are of interest to the commission. >> president mccarthy: commissioner alexander-tut? >> i have a question, and it's similar to what the previous caller mentioned, and thank you for standing in. i understand many of the ventilation requirements in building code do rely on fresh-air circulation as much for bathrooms, etc., in hallways, air vent. and fire prevention is becoming a thing in san francisco. as the fire season gets longer, those kind of ventilation

systems are not able to provide the ventilation that are required and actually become a fire hazard. i understand that construction has to be in compliance with the year that it was constructed, and maybe the wood frame windows are leaky, but they're still in compliance. what are options that we have in terms of addressing the code -- i understand new construction, but for constructed buildings that are currently meeting code that are not meeting the indoor air quality or the ventilation systems, they're relying on fresh air. when we don't have reliable fresh air, what are our options for updating code, and is that even within d.b.i.s purview or is that planning? >> so i can speak to that a

little bit, commissioner. who is, as we all know, is not currently enforced for existing buildings. what you might be talking about is legislative changes, and i understand we've been experiencing this for several weeks, unprecedented air quality, and we don't anywknowt the future holds. especially for existing buildings, ventilation is provided by open windows. we don't have the ability to look at an existing building and say the ventilation provided by those operable windows is noncompliant. it would be legislation.

>> thank you. that was my understanding, and i've gotten several calls and texts about indoor air quality, and it was also my understanding that that was not -- that was not within the commission's purview, supposedly, that that would take a more legislative change and involve the department. >> would you want -- where would you like me to take this, commissioner alexander-tut, to -- afterwards? the thing is that we're such a land locked property, with the enforcement codes and so on. >> at this point, i think i'm okay with the answer. i know there are community

organizations who are engaging in some studies on this, and, you know, if there's a report that comes out as a result of those studies, that's maybe something we can look at. but i think at this point, that's a good question to start, and i think it's something to think about, but no further action at this time. >> okay. deputy city attorney rob kapla. i just want to clarify the issue just to make sure we're on the same page, and perhaps director o'riordan can correct me if i am wrong, but if there's a change of a space from retail to residential space, the building has to come into compliance with the current residential building code; that the change of use makes it almost as if it were new construction. so i think the concern here is whether we want to amend not necessarily these changed spaces, because they will have

to comply with our modern codes. that is a concern, and that is a larger legislative research project; certainly, something to look into. >> yeah. and not to get too complicated about it, i did sit on the economic task force recovery, and the last time [inaudible] there was a big discussion about, you know, retail that is no longer available, converting it to residential. and that was a conversation about how doable that was in reference to a lot of the processes. so i -- to rob's point there, i think a lot of that would be captured in the legislation if we do change that, so i think we should be good. but as duly noted, it is something that's going to definitely be seen in a lot of

corridors there just the fact that the retail that's gone is not coming back, you know? next -- so commissioner -- sorry. commissioner clinch? >> commissioner clinch: nothing from me, thank you. >> president mccarthy: and then, commissioner tam. >> nothing from me, thank you. >> president mccarthy: okay. madam secretary? >> clerk: next item, future meetings and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine these items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. the next item is currently scheduled for october 21.

is there any public comment for this item? >> operator: there are no callers in the queue. >> clerk: okay. item 6, discussion regarding an emergency ordinance, board of supervisors file number 200914, to impose temporary limits on construction noise inside apartment buildings during the covid-19 pandemic, in addition to other requirements. deputy chief [inaudible] i'm sorry. chief, did you have any items to present? >> excuse me. i'm a little confused. >> clerk: this is just the update, the update for the -- the -- actually, i'm sorry.

i probably -- i'm on the wrong item. i'm sorry. i apologize. >> president mccarthy: was there somebody -- >> clerk: so this was a different -- this is the board of supervisors item, right. >> president mccarthy: correct, and i believe there's somebody from the supervisors' -- >> clerk: yes. >> president mccarthy: office to present. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you. thank you to president mccarthy, and thank you to the commission for allowing me to present, and thanks to john murray, who i've been working with for a couple of weeks now. if it's all right, i'll take this in an order that's best for the commissioners. i'll give an opening about the

legislation and sort of where it sits from a legislative status voice. my name is andy mullen. i'm a legislative aide to district 2 supervisor, catherine stefani. i'm here to speak on the emergency legislative ordinance that my supervisor spoke to a couple of weeks ago at the board of supervisors. this ordinance came when a group of tenants, a group of organized tenants were having real issues of the peaceful habitability of their apartments in what had become ongoing construction not in their building, but in nearby

units. as you all know, we're sheltering in place, which means we're all living, working, and educating our children inside our living spaces, and our living spaces are more important than ever. and so the origin of this emergency ordinance was to begin a conversation to help remedy that issue. these are tenants, right, who pay an awful lot of money to live in these apartments, and who really feel like they are not receiving sort of what they're contractual leoecontra given what's happening around them. [please stand by]

we don't have a date for that yet. i would like, you know, and there are a number of amendments that have been suggested by all sorts of groups that i can go through sort of conceptually

that i think will probably incorporate most of in some form or fashion before we get to scheduling, and i'm happy to come speak at the commission again when there is a more finalized version of this legislation. so, with that, i'm happy to take any questions and hear any input from any commissioner what they would like to see or hope for or what concerns they have. >> madam secretary, probably go to public comment. >> any public comment on this item? >> i am not seeing any callers in the queue, double check that, nope. no caller in the queue. >> ok. thank you, apologies, got the

order wrong. >> i was hoping -- i really like that. >> apologize. >> i was very miss. your public commenter today was, the previous item, paul warmer, a fabulous district 2 constituent and for air quality in san francisco, i have not seen him since shelter-in-place began, but great to see him again. sight for sore ears. i would love to hear from you all. >> once again, thanks for coming on such short notice, i just true legislative aide, john murray, was getting briefed on this. if i may before i get into it, and reach out to my fellow commissioners to see if they have any commissioner. commissioner alexander-tut, please. >> i guess my question is, so the legislation is to be able to keep construction going but

provide a reasonable accommodation to a tenant or all tenants affected. is there -- are there any kind of guidelines, reasonable accommodation is often, you know, in the world we call the dance of like there's no guaranteed outcome of what a reasonable accommodation is? so, will you be defining reasonable accommodation for tenants and is there also a mandate that there will be some kind of accommodation? >> so, that's a fantastic question commissioner, and i -- the original draft of the legislation, which will probably not be the final version of the legislation, creates a space for, and i shouldn't say -- this legislation obviously did begin with tenants but it's not entirely restricted to tenancy,

right, to all occupants. so it could be adjacent condo owner, you know, type people or a tenant -- anyway, the -- it created a space for the parties in dispute to come to whatever agreement was amenable to the parties, right? it said this legislation was not intended to prescribe any outcome, right? it was intended to force parties to come together and come to an agreement that was mutually beneficial. since that time, i've heard a lot of concern about the wide ranging uncertainty that that creates, and so we are in discussions about amendments to create the parameters around what acceptable, sort of, you

know, guideposts for what a reasonable accommodation would be, and that includes sort of no more than 10% of base rent per month is one of the suggestions, we have not accepted that as a particular, another is offering, you know, tenant another quieter space to operate. other forms of reasonable accommodation include mandatory communication plan with hours of disruption and limiting the hours, you can go about this in would ways, right? continuous hours of disruption or sort of duration during the day, like how many hours per day and how many consecutive days can it occur, both are numbers you can permit a certain amount and when you go over that cap you trigger some sort of higher level of accommodation, right? there are projects that take,

and one thing i have asked john, and i know he's working on for me, to understand sort of if you were to take all the projects in san francisco and plot them on a bell curve, right, what, and how long, what duration they take for completion, i imagine it would be a hump where there are lots and lots and lots of projects would take less than a week, you know, or some -- less than two weeks, right? much smaller things and then it, the tail gets rather long on the projects at the end that are ongoing, long-term ongoing in nature are the ones where the tenants feel most aggrieved, rightfully, because there is no end in sight. and so putting parameters around those, more definitional, right, has been something that has been recommended to us by a number of

different parties and we are actively considering and i would love commissioners feedback and input on that. was that a helpful answer, commissioner alexander-tut? >> thank you for that. and landlords of all sizes or a size limit for, you know, to be able to qualify for this kind of mandate and negotiation in? >> so, right now the legislation is for buildings of over four units of any kind. >> thank you. >> ties to most other regulations related to -- >> that law. >> uh-huh. >> that does answer my questions for now, thank you. >> of course. >> and thank you andy for your enthusiast enthusiastic informative --

>> thank you, commissioner. commissioner clinch, please. >> thank you, thank you for your coming today. i am struggling to understand how you said you provided a qualifier that this does not just apply to tenants, you refer to the occupant as a tenant. would you please clarify? >> that's just -- yeah, happy to. that's probably me just being sloppy linguistically, issue came to us through tenants and i imagine most are in tenants with dispute with the landlords but it could apply to all occupants or residents. like i live in an condo, if my neighbors were doing something next door that, and my building is over four units, my neighbors next door were doing something that violated the code, it would apply to them as well. >> so it's not just a tenant/landlord issue, it's a

neighbor to neighbor issue? >> in buildings of more than four units, yeah. that's the definition as it currently stands. >> ok. thank you. >> that does not just for clarification, like h.o.a.s have pretty strong internal governing structures. i know that i already, right, have to get approval from the h.o.a., so homeowners already have additional condo owners in this situation have additional protections, so talking about the applicability or the cases in which this would occur would probably be a landlord/tenant relationship, 99.9% of the time, but not, you know, hypothetical extension could be further. >> thank you. >> but i'm happy to also discuss that further if you would prefer to, you know, the commissioners have any suggestions about that, i would be open to hearing their

thoughts on changing those parameters as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you, commissioner. commissioner. >> thank you, thank you for joining us, andy. sounds like you guys are in the early phase of drafting this legislation. just a couple of things that come to my mind. i think one, we already have in place of hours of when construction can take place at this time. i think just thinking out loud here, if there was some scope of work that is larger than others, you know, as a homeowner you should have the right to do home, especially during this time, people have time on their hands, looking to improve their home and quality of life. but at the same time as a homeowner you need to be mindful of what type of impact your construction will cause to your neighbors. i think, you know, out loud, if

something was to exceed a certain amount of work, if it's a major construction, minor construction, you know, that that might, you might want to have something that addresses, major construction maybe work out and have some kind of dialogue with your neighbors prior to operation or doing your construction. these are just things that are running through my mind right now. i do understand -- and i've been on sites where there is major construction going on, but it's for seismic improvements, now a safety thing. so i mean the neighbors have to accept that, and my scope on this, something to do with safety here and you know, seismic, you know, construction can be noisy and making construction going on. these are just things i know you are early in the legislation there, but you know, things of

that nature should be taken into consideration from what i can see. >> thank you, commissioner tam. yes. we are actively considering all of those things, right? and i just want to -- your initial comment about property owners should be able to do what they want with their property, like in general we are in agreement with that as a governing principle, right? you paid for it, it's yours, you should be able to do what you want. the issue at hand has always been when you would then deprive some other property owner or tenant of the right to use something that they paid for, right? which is what disproportionate noise impact can sometimes lead to. one extreme example, precipitated this, a sledgehammer came through somebody's roof, which is not noise, but right like it's a direct impact, someone doing

fine and good construction to their own unit, right, destroyed the property of the person just below them. and that was obviously a mistake and extreme example and are not going to legislate -- the one thing that became clear to me, early phases, yes, we are in the early phases and it's because, you know, this issue came to us rightly from a large group of tenants, and then we really put our foot in it, we are in a new paradigm. inserted ourselves into the middle of an issue that's germane to how san franciscans live today and the stresses they are all facing and the balance between job creation and job retention, right, what all construction does, and these are good jobs and we want to see them happen and people's ability to live, work and educate their

children in the safest way possible, especially when they have paid for the right to use that, those spaces in a way that's conducive to their life. so that's -- but i agree with you. otherwise i agree with you. like there's two competing principles, you know what i mean, that -- the ability to do construction and we live in a city and the cities are noisy, versus like well, i paid and this is san francisco, it's expensive, right? i paid really good money for the ability to live peacefully in this place and we are now on week seven of, you know, sawing, sledgehammering, and you know, problem -- and the hours of permissible construction noise are quite long at this point, like it's -- i wish i had written it down before i joined, something like 8:00 a.m., right, to 8:00 p.m. or some version.

so, 12 hours of that can turn what used to be a peaceful apartment building into an edgar allen poe tale, you know. that's what we are hoping to create framework everyone knows what the rules are and everyone knows, you know, what is fair and what's not fair that people feel a little bit more comfortable and a big part of that that the legislation does not address and needs to, is around expectation what the construction project will be. so right now you don't really have to tell your neighbors about what they should expect, hours of operation, and communication plan probably has to be inserted, and giving your ability for the neighbors to rearrange their life around something with some notice would go a long ways to taking care of

instances we see. >> i love that, communication is key. so -- thank you. >> thank you, mr. tam. and mr. mullen, thank you for coming here today. short notice. my seat here is the contractor's seat, so i always have my radar up for resignation with regards to that i feel will impact the industry. i have a long laundry list of questions but i think it's unfair for me to get into questions because based on what you updated on the legislation that you are now rethinking a lot based on the input that you are getting, and the principle and fairness issue you brought up is very important to me. i just worked with, i didn't, but the organization that i belong to, residential builders association worked closely with

supervisor peskin and has to do with water put-off, and you know, i have to understand the guiding principles achieved by the legislation. his office, woulded very closely for a fair and balance to the outcome that would be both for the tenant and the contractor or the property owner trying to achieve what they were trying to do and might be just simple as replace a water heater that might last 4 or 5 hours and change, you know, that said -- give my best to your boss, i have not seen her in a while. >> it's so true for all of us these days, right? >> yeah, yeah. but that said, so rather than getting into more detail here what my questions will be, procedurally-wise, is this an emergency legislation and if so, what's the time frame or is it not? a little confused.

>> it is an emergency ordinance. we did not ask for a 30-day waiver and have not scheduled a committee, we are in control of the time frame from that perspective. emergency aspect of it means if it were to be passed it would only be in effect for 60 days but it would take effect immediately and passage requires eight votes from the board of supervisors. did that make sense? i'm -- >> i'm sorry to do this to you. no, it didn't because you were freezing there. >> oh, you were freezing -- we were both freezing, ok. so, it is an emergency ordinance as it currently is drafted. perhaps that's not the best way to do it anymore. but what it means, what, we did not ask for a waiver of the 30-day sitting period which often times you do with emergency ordinances.

that means we in our office are sort of in control of the timing and the timeline that lays in front of us. the emergency aspect of it means that if it were to be passed, first of all, it would require eight votes to pass. if it were to be passed, it would take effect immediately, and but it would only be in effect for 60 days. but none of those are on the horizon at this moment. so -- >> ok. so, right now if i put it in layman's terms, you are talking to the stakeholders, working through the issues of both sides, and trying to create legislation fair and balanced for everybody, correct? >> yes, yes. i'll be honest with you, we pursued other avenues to remedy specific tenant issues and were

not getting the level of receptiveness we had hoped for, and a population of impacted tenants larger than you could handle in one-off constituent management issues, right? and so we felt it was necessary to introduce something to -- it's a fruitful and important conversation. >> yeah, and i get it. you know, we cannot avoid the fact a lot of people are working from home right now, that work has changed dramatically. and probably going to remain as we know in a lot of cases. obviously the association, you said you are reaching out to them. one thing, and i'll finish my thought, we hear a lot at the commission level involvement of

organizations and outreach and when i investigate i find out a lot of people not involved in the process, and i don't know whose fault that is, but for example, you said list of contractors there and rarely outreach, residential builders a part of one of those, they would have a lot to say in that, and i don't believe i heard they were invited to any meeting. >> so, i -- just to be fair, and honest to myself, i have not met wet residential builders association. i have met with several residential builders. >> ok. organizations is what i'm talking about, ok. so -- >> i'm happy to meet with anybody who is interested. >> well, the reason we have at d.b.i. a list of outreach that we recommend that if you are doing legislation they should be a part of it, particularly if it impacts them, and across the

board, not just builders, and when you have stuff to share the stakeholders are brought, so the time frame of this, one more time, now it's on hold, is that correct, and you are going back to the drawing board and the second question is, do you have to come in front of us for our approval or this is just something that goes to the board of supervisors, you don't actually need our approval on this legislation, is that correct? >> i don't believe so but i, my boss believes very much in collaborative. i anticipated i would come before the d.b.i. commission and i would do it again, i guess, if -- >> ok. ok. >> only if you are interested, obviously. i would you want force myself on you. >> oh, yeah. unintended consequences, the world we live in now legislation

to come down and what that means for the different, we all have different seats here but the nonprofits, apartment association, renters, so on, so it impacts us all, it's very important. but i am cognizant -- so it's not on a 50-day pace, it's going back and you want to reintroduce it to the board of supervisors, is that correct? >> no, i don't think that well reintroduce it. we just have not scheduled it at committee while -- and we won't until we have amendments, but we feel comfortable with, you know. and that involves a lot of getting broad stakeholder support. >> ok. ok. well, ok. no further question. appreciate you coming here this morning, like i said, on short notice and updating. thank you. >> can i ask, make an ask of you president mccarthy, you said you have a long laundry list of

questions, i don't want to exhaust the commission's time, i know that you are busy. would be willing to share those with me so i have those in mind as we continue to draft them? >> i'll send them in bullet points, and they are like what-if kind of questions that help you get there when you are thinking the legislation through. >> wonderful. appreciate that, thank you. >> ok, bye. madam secretary, best to your boss, by the way. >> thank you all for all that you do. any other commission have questions for me? >> ok, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. ok. so our next item is item 7, discussion and possible action regarding administrative bulletin 112, establishing

regulations for permits for mixed fuel, new construction and exceptional cases, physical or technical feasibility, continued from the august 19, 2020, meeting. >> secretary, i have been working closely with people, everybody on this one. there you go, you are there. i didn't know if you were there. if you want to kind of wrap this up, we don't really have to go into it too much. public comment on this that has to be taken, madam secretary? >> i believe so, yes, public comment on each item on the agenda. does not look like a lot of public is in attendance. >> cindy, once again. >> good morning, commissioners. thank you for having me back again. we have been here a couple times and we are here to ask your support on ab112, ab112, all

electric new construction ordinance and all electric new construction ordinance is the ordinance to eliminate natural gas from new construction. and just quickly recap, our, in august d.b.i. passed a resolution or sorry, sent a letter of support to the board of supervisors on that ordinance and today we are here to just wrap up the administrative bulletin 112 on some of the changes that we made since the last meeting. and what i'll do, i'll quickly recap what those changes, the objective of the bulletin, recap the changes, if there are any detailed questions i have a slide, but since we have gone through it a couple times i want to spare you the long presentation right now if that's ok. so just to -- ab112 is really the implementation guide for the

all electric new construction ordinance, detailed procedures and standards. and hopefully everyone has had an opportunity to read the document. last time we came and gave a pretty lengthy presentation on the document and there were a couple of questions around the implementation for the exemption process. our exemption process focusses on having a very narrow exemption process and some of the changes that we have made since last time refer to code conflict with small development, this is any time there is a 75 foot total frontage and spanning and public works determines a sidewalk vault is not feasible and so then we would allow a mixed fuel building to be permit. changed since last time, we have the narrow definition of that exemption, we don't need as much verification from a third party so we have decided to allow the

project team to contribute to that, and then also really narrowing down what the reviewers are. either be electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, or a certified 24 analyst. one of the changes made since august, we have also added some key questions around the review for all electric feasibility and updated from the terms. this is really to help d.b.i., just have some clarifying context really to help filling out the exemption process. for the reviewer qualifications, we have made them more consistent with abo93, the green building administrative bulletin and again, just applying the details, and our last change that we made was around the design guide for electric-ready buildings. tried to simplify the language and added more explicit requirement for load calculation. those are changes since last time. i'm happy to go back and show

any slides or go in more detail or answer questions, but i know we have been here a couple times so i want to turn it back to you, president mccarthy, and see if you have any additional questions. >> thank you, cindy. if it's ok, we can go to public comment and then close it out, please. >> ok. public comment on this item. >> one caller, oh, two callers in the queue. three now. ok. >> now we have callers. just one moment. >> hello. my name is paul wormer, thank you for the opportunity to speak, commissioners. i have first of all editorial question or comment. on page four, item c, physical constraints in small infield sites, in that last section i believe the or should be an and.

so i think that that -- otherwise you are saying and the only feasible option is to locate the transformer sub surface vault, then you don't have to do it. [please stand by]

>> and to that end, i'm concerned on the term maximum extent feasible. it may appear if construction projects cannot function as designed if fuels like liquid propane are banned, which is a very good possibility -- >> clerk: caller, if you could

conclude your comments. >> certainly. the risk of significant liability without disclosure. building systems are not as maintained as they should be, so as built as opposed to as maintained, so that might not be enough to ensure. it's nice fundamentally -- >> clerk: thank you, caller. we have to allow time for other callers. thank you so much. next caller, please. >> hi. my name is daniel tejara, and i'm here with san francisco emergency legislation coalition. i have similar concerns as the previous caller other than

around feasibility. the and should be an or, otherwise, the second half of that clause doesn't make sense. sort of getting a little bit more personal, with the recent fires, asthma was something i had to adjust my life around, sort of when i go running or something, and so i actually went out and bought a portable induction stove to use instead of a gas stove, and when i buy a home, i would like to have an all electric home instead of gas because of how it impacts the environment.

this is ultimately about health and safety, and if it's basically prohibitively cost effective for me to make that kind of change, then we haven't upheld the intent of the ordinance. so i really implore the commission to remove the as feasible language from all aspects of the requirement. many municipalities of the bay area and california have a pure electric radio requirement with no [inaudible] it should just be a fallback stop. otherwise, echo previous comments and i'm sure what will be a lot of future comments, as well. thanks for taking your time. >> hi, can you hear me?

>> clerk: yes, caller, we can hear you. >> hi. this is chris, a resident of san francisco. thanks so much for considering this administrative bulletin. however, i am a little concerned the electric ready says as electric ready as feasible. this is out of line with other jurisdictions in the state of californi california. i think we all realize, with the fires and everything, half measures are not going to get us to where we need to be. i notice this bulletin does not ban natural gas and industrial uses. again, this is a half measure,

and unfortunately, we're going to have to be back at the table hopefully sooner rather than later to fix this loophole? and then finally, i think i heard earlier in cindy's comments that the project team is going to be able to apply for the exemption and actually provide some of the -- it. given all the allegations of corruption in the city, i don't know if that's the best way to go forward. thank you. >> clerk: next caller? >> hi. my name is helena becky, and i live in district 5, and i want

to echo the previous comments for the need for emergency action to make all buildings at least completely electric ready so if somebody has asthma, they can go ahead and swap out their gas appliances without doing a major renovation. i echo the previous comments. i also want to mention that on march 16, 2020, the governor issued executive order n-2820, which found that local jurisdictions must take measures to preserve and increase housing security and any measures that may be necessary to protect public health and to mitigate the economic effects of covid-19. we know that the smoke and air pollution, if you have covid-19, it makes you more likely to have more severe symptoms and die, need more health care. if you don't have covid-19, it

makes it more likely that you're going to get asthma and lung cancer. and we know if we don't get to net-zero emissions, the fires that we're seeing now are just a foreshadowing of the devastation that comes. there is no possible path to a zero future without complete electrification, and it is upon the building inspection commission to make sure that at least in san francisco, the administrative bulletin leaves no loopholes for people to wiggle out of making, at the very least, completely electric ready new construction. if we don't do that, we'll never get to the receipt otrof. do you really want to look at your kids or nieces or nephews or kids that you know and say

you did not do all you should? i hope that you will, like, move forward and make this all electric administration or all electric bulletin to implement the legislation even better. thank you very much for your time, thank you very much for your work. please do all you can. >> clerk: take the next caller, please. que . >> operator: there are no more callers in the queue. >> president mccarthy: before i go to the commissioners' questions, could you address a few that stood out for them? maybe what's going to happen in the future. >> great. so first, i just want to say that we put a lot of work into this organizing this administrative bulletin, and we don't think this is a half measure. this gets us 98, 99% of the way

there. we need to continue to work on this. this isn't the end, but what we think is a really great start to solving our climate crisis. so first, it is an or, so the caller that wanted to know what is in the bulletin is correct. the other thing around electric ready is a really important question. and in the ordinance and in the administrative bulletin, in the rare case that a building is going to be granted a waiver and is mixed fuel, it has to be electric ready. just like we don't know if all buildings could be all electric, we don't know where electric ready is going to work. so we think it works, again, 99% of the time, but we want to have that flexibility to work

with our reviewers to make sure that electric is feasible. we took a lot of time to talk to other municipalities who really felt like it was something that was forced in their legislation and not discussed with technical experts. and we spent a lot of time discussing that with our technical experts and also with our city attorney. so those are a couple of questions. are there any other questions that you would like me to answer, president mccarthy? >> no, i think you answered it very well there. so as somebody who's worked on it, i, too, would like to echo your comments that this is probably as good of a piece of legislation that you can get at this particular time. this is better than nothing, and we'll evolve, and as time

goes by, we'll catch up. i would like to commend you and barry on the other end of the line. senior inspector zhang, who's worked really hard with you on this. commissioners, if there's any comments you'd like to make, but after that, i'd like to call the question. thank you. commissioner alexander-tut? >> thank you. i want to recognize the amount of work that has gone into this and the department. this is not an easy lift to get so many people on board, and i think you have moved the

discussion. as the mother of a toddler, and s see -- as a renter and someone who has dealt with indoor air quality during these times, i'm extremely concerned for any possibility for this -- exemptions being widespread. i do think that this is -- that this is the smart approach and do support the legislation as is if there is a motion or will be making a motion. i am extremely sensitive and align aligned myself with the callers and also urge this legislation move forward. >> president mccarthy: thank you. commissioner clinch, please? >> commissioner clinch: no comment, but agree with commissioner alexander-tut that this should go forward, too.

>> president mccarthy: commissioner tam, please. >> i'm also in alignment with my fellow commissioners, and thank you for all the work in the right direction as far as -- thank you. moving in the right direction, ensuring a proper future here for air quality and for quality of life. >> president mccarthy: thank you. and one other person that i'd like to thank for his work through the whole process is supervisor raphael mandelman, who worked really closely with us throughout this process. so with that, madam secretary, would you please call the motion? >> clerk: so is there a motion and a second to approve the

administrative y administrative bulletin? is there a motion? someone needs to make the motion. >> so moved. >> clerk: and a second? >> second. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion and a second. we'll do the roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. the motion carries unanimously. >> president mccarthy: next item. >> clerk: president mccarthy, we had a request regarding the order of certain items. i was trying to see if you would like to hear or -- item number 9 first, then 10 and 8, if that was okay -- if that's okay with the commission.

>> president mccarthy: yes. so if there's no objection from the commission -- so item 9 was asked to go in front of -- requested to go in front of item 8. >> clerk: we'd like to do item 10 first, which is the d.b.i. presentation and then after that, item 8, the fire department presentation. but before that, the maher ordinance or do you want to do this presentation first? >> president mccarthy: hang on. i'm a little confused. it was explained to me, but now -- director, the request that you were having was -- interim director o'riordan, was it item 11 first -- or no, excuse me, item 10 first? >> so what the request was that we do item 10 before item 8, but ahead, if we can hear from

the health department and then have the item 10 and 8 after item 9. so we clear the decks by hearing item 9, and then 10 and 8, in that order. >> president mccarthy: thank you. madam secretary, so if there's no objection from my fellow commissioners, we'll go to item 9. >> clerk: the item that we'll be calling is item 9. >> president mccarthy: correct. >> clerk: recording san francisco health code article 22a, the maher ordinance, and i believe there's something from health department present. >> president mccarthy: and who is that? >> clerk: which staff person was that? would you know which staff person that was, john?

>> it may be patrick [inaudible]. i can unmute him and find out. patrick, are you --? >> yeah. it's actually ryan casey and mabdu awad. >> clerk: okay. let me add mr. casey to the meeting. >> operator: you can make him a panelist if you want. >> this is ryan casey. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. yes, we can. >> okay. great. i'd like to share my screen if possible. i have a little slide deck. >> clerk: sure. >> i don't have that option at the moment. >> clerk: okay. sure. just one moment. john, did you want to give me the host duties -- oh, you did.

all right. you can share your screen now, mr. casey. >> okay. my name is ryan casey, and i'm here with mabdu awad, and we're here with the assessment division with the department of environmental review and have a quick review before we take questions. so the san francisco health code article 22-a has a statement in part, provides an important city process for investigating, analyzing, and, when deemed necessary, remediating or eliminating hazardous substances within areas of the city. hazardous substances is defined in the code as any hazardous substance as defined by cerqa, united states code right now, and petroleum products and by-products.

specified area is otherwise known as the maher map. staff in the site mitigation program include myself and mamdu, also aimee brownell and joseph asai. so on the map is a recent left of what we'll call the maher map, and there's several triggers to begin the program and also several qualifiers for being in the maher map. so generally, if you're applying for a building or grading permit which involves the disturbance of at least 50 cubic yards of soil, and you either fall within 100 feet of a current or former underground storage tank, you're within 150 feet of a current or elevated roadway or the director has authority to require slow or groundwater analysis. so if you see on this map, we

have former bayshore line, all of these little dots, most of them tend to be former u.s.t.s or cleanup sites. you can see here, and also down here, this is where the freeways are. so if you fall within this area, and you're disturbing at least 50 cubic yards of soil, the maher program most likely will be triggered. so typical parcels found maher map are former and current industrial sites, sites near freeways, cortini list sites, sites on bay hill, also sites within the state water resources control board and d.c.a.s database. so here's sort of a 20,000-foot level overview of the maher process. so when the maher program is

triggered and there's a potential for hazardous substances, we move to subservice investigations. if there's a potential for hazardous substances, then the required site mitigation plan that has to be implemented prior to or during development activities, once that's all done, we receive a final report. there may be a deed restriction, and then after, we review and approve those, we issue an n.f.a. letter. there's a link here. i can share this later with a flow chart. it's also available on-line on the maher website. here's a little more detail. so typical submittals involving the maher program involve a fee, site assessment report, plan and technical report, plan and elevation drawings, phase

two, substance service investigation report, final implementation report, and potentially a land use caveat. so these are typical submittals that we receive on projects. in sequential order, question may receive more, but this is what we typically city. we usually have a maher suite of things that we request when we do investigations. this include title 22 metals, v.o.c.s, p.c.b.s, t.h. cyanides, petroleums, semi volatile compounds, and then also hazardous substances designated by the director pursuant to san francisco health code 22-a, and also any hazardous substance that the director, after an examination of the site history, has reason

to conclude may be present on the property. some analyze that upon reviewing a phase one in the site history, we may think may be present on the site, we may require additional analyses. typical examples might be asbestos, p.a.h.s, herbicides, pesticides. >> depending on where it was located at, we ask for those analyses, too. >> thanks, mamdu. some considerations in the maher review process, we have this six-question submittal. try to get these going no later than 30 days. that's the minimum amount of

time that we usually tell applicants that we can review the documents. if we have comments, we'll be in touch with the applicants. there may be resubmitals. project focus complaints -- when we submit a letter, it's on the applicant to return us the report. we're not going to check in to make sure they're on time for them to give us their report back. usually, the summer is the busy season, and with covid and telecommuting, there's just delays associated with that for all the departments. all right. so thank you, and i will cancel my screen share.

if you have any questions, we can answer those. >> president mccarthy: great. thank you. that was a great preparation, particularly for some of my new commissioners. that was very helpful. before we get into questions, i'm wondering if we could go to public comment, madam secretary, and see what's available out there, if there's anybody on the line. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> operator: there is nobody in the queue. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> president mccarthy: okay. nobody in the queue. >> clerk: no. >> president mccarthy: okay. i'm surprised at that because i did get a lot of phone calls. first of all, guys, thank you so much for, on such short notice. i got quite a few phone calls last week from stakeholders,

concerns about the time period for the issuance of maher. and obviously, when we first started this journey back in the day, that was one of my primary concerns because we had kind of expanded this, the map, as to where maher boundaries are. and then, the next question was the ability for staff, with the new requirements, to, you know, process the paperwork. and i understand, precovid, i did not get any complaints, and i thought that talked to how you guys are handling this. >> i started in june, during covid. >> during covid.

>> very interesting start. >> yeah. and who -- who did you replace there? who was -- who was -- >> hi. this is mamdu awad. ryan was an addition to our team. we always had a full staff. stephanie [inaudible] was working with us [inaudible] therefore, we were short for a while. joseph aguirre joined us about a year and a half, two years ago. i've been with the program for about 28 years. >> we've worked together as this program evolved over the years, so we have -- >> yeah. >> president mccarthy: but we point is, i'm -- precovid, i

was not getting from the stakeholders -- and i would check in from time to time -- things are moving on. i think you gave it within the 30 days kind of turnaround program, giving everything you needed. is that correct? >> it depends on what we have in our files. a lot of [inaudible] are proactive, and they need you what you need. i mean, i started, i would say about 2.5 years -- we used to have a minimum of six months' backlog. now we only have one month backlog, and it's probably about six applications. i think the majority of the time-consuming is between those phases -- phase one, phase two, site mitigation, implementation reports, and most of the time, it doesn't really -- it's not

us because the plans get held up because they didn't have a site mitigation plans. in our case, we have to have a [inaudible] in place before we issue the compliance letters. i think that's the majority of the not understanding because right now, we only have about five, six, seven projects that are backlogged. >> president mccarthy: so right now, you only have five or six projects -- so i can -- most projects, 50 cubic yards is very little amount that triggers the law. even a simple seismic job would

trigger the ordinance. most projects are captured in the maher ordinance. so right now, if you have a simple project and just -- it exceeds the 50 cubic yards or 100 cubic yards, and you're given everything you need, your timeline is still in the area of 30 days, correct? >> yes. >> president mccarthy: that's good to know. >> the high-rise and things like that, it takes them 30 days because they're putting their process like vapor mitigation or air ventilation systems, those are the ones that are taking a while, and that usually takes more than 30 days because we're waiting on

them to finalize their plan or their mitigation plan. >> president mccarthy: so right now, with your backlog, with your five or six or seven projects, they're how far out? they could be five months out? two months out? three months out? how far out? >> as of now, i would think we have -- because it's a continuous cycle -- those projects are continuous until they're done. as you can imagine, how many projects are up in the air right now. so as of now, i think ryan is working about five, six of them. we do, even the ballpark,

[inaudible] is going. so i have at least 20 i'm working on right now. joseph has probably about 20, too. so we all have projects that are continuous. it's not 30-days stop and go. >> this is ryan. if there's a project that you're getting a timing complaint on, please e-mail me, and i can -- i've been kind of helping out where i can to take caseloads off of mamdu and joseph and things that may have -- become delayed. i've been taking projects off their -- off their load and helping them get back on track. so if you have specific projects, feel free to reach out to me. >> president mccarthy: no specific projects, no. >> okay. >> president mccarthy: i guess

what concerned me was the smaller projects because if they're not going like they were precovid, i think we need to talk about it and see. but if you're saying the smaller ones -- i'm just trying to put them in a separate bucket because they're ongoing every day that you see. they are not the larger projects, right? they are not being held up. they are being issued on a basis almost parallel to precovid. on the projects, there's a lot of unrest on the issue, so i'd like to know what we can tell the stakeholders right now. so i'd like to put the smaller projects in another bucket to say that they're progressing and not being delayed, is that correct? >> yeah. the smaller projects are usually priorities. we need to know their time frame, and we've been doing

that all along. we issue waivers for single, you know, residents, so we always do that. depends on the proponent. they come to us and say, we need this to be done yesterday, then we'll do it. >> president mccarthy: yeah, because that was one of the things -- >> the smaller ones have more priority than the larger ones. >> president mccarthy: that was one of the things that we'd worked out in our negotiated. you did mention 20, both said

about 20 projects each. when you say 20 projects, are they small projects or are they large projects? >> three vary from small projects to large projects, whether it's a high-rise or a renovation -- a house renovation, maybe that to, you know, you know, chase projects -- chase arena to the former ballpark, those kind of projects are huge, so we don't compare those to the smaller ones. the majority of those, they probably dig the foundation up to 40 feet or so. so they're continuous because

they have to facilitate mitigations until the building is done. >> president mccarthy: yeah. so -- at least it's nice to get an update and make sure if there's anything that you see in the future that you could do with some help from us as a commission or, please, would you get back to us because you guys are an important part of the process here, and i want to make sure that particularly, we're working hard to get the permits out. thank you for the opportunity. commissioners, i'm sorry. i should have gone to you first. commissioner alexander-tut? commissioner alexander-tut? >> yes, thank you so much for the presentation. i learned a tremendous amount,

including how much of our city is in the maher area, and i -- my question was when the -- when you have the report -- i'm sorry. my toddler wanted me to watch choo-choo trains. when it comes to the report, are there also mitigating measures that the conductor has -- contractor has to report on, and d.p.h. -- excuse me. there's a chair that you can direct -- appropriate person to answer. is that something that d.p.h. continues to monitor throughout the life of the project or is that something that's then taken over by a different agency? just a question. >> yeah, hi. this is ryan casey. if we do find that our residual

comtamnants at the site won't be removed during redevelopment, may require some remedial technology to be installed during retrofit activities. and there is some system like that, we do require a land use covenant at site with some maintenance plans. it may require monthly inspection, quarterly inspection, and monitoring. so at some sites, we are getting updates, you know, for the life of the project. >> yeah. and that's why we put a deed restriction on the property, so

no one can dig around it, and they protect the land and the users. and then, it's recorded, and nobody can, you know, remove that recording until we say so. >> thank you. and if there are -- i sit in the tenancy, so i always have a tenant-related question. if there are tenants in a resident tenant situation, are they also made aware of what was in the report? >> thorntit's public report. we don't generate the report. it's done by the contractors or the regulators. we're the general's, making sure that whatever is level in the ground is safe for everybody. and all the documents that is provided to us is public

records, and we keep it in here in a database. so if anybody wants to see it, they're welcome to send us an e-mail and we'll give them the information they need. should be -- the proponents or responsible party should provide that to the tenant. >> and, you know, generally, when we issue a no further action letter, we do provide a summary that describes the history of the site, the investigation, any remedial activities that occurs, and any residual contamination. that's public record. if someone could review that, we could provide a summary. that's helpful for what happened at the site. >> thank you. i think most tenants would have

no idea to even ask for something like that, so there are dangers to, you know, to anyone who's living on the property during the construction, i would help that would be helpful. thank you for the presentation. >> clerk: sorry to interrupt. why don't we call for public comment. it looks like there may be a person in the queue, but i don't know if they're here for that or not. >> president mccarthy: okay. while you're figuring that out, why don't we go to other commissioners' comments. >> clerk: sure. >> president mccarthy: commissioner clinch? >> commissioner clinch: no, no comment. thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner tam, please. >> thank you for the presentation. i have no further comment. >> president mccarthy: madam

secretary, let me go back to public comment if there's anybody on here. >> clerk: john, would you be able to check? >> so commissioners, my name is francisco decosta, and i have been paying attention -- >> clerk: hello, sir -- >> -- during this presentation. >> clerk: hello, sir. we'll allow you your full-time, but do you have your t.v. and your phone on because you're echoing? we just want to make sure we can hear you clearly. >> i don't think so. i don't know. maybe it's something on your side. >> clerk: okay. no problem. you can go ahead and proceed. >> okay. thank you. so i've been paying attention to your presentation, and i

have a large map in my office linked to the mayor ordinance, land prone to severe flooding and liquefaction, but we also have it, especially in the bayview area, a lot of back yards that are very contaminated. and i know that when the projects come, some of the contaminants, like p.c.b.s and all, but i heard there are many locations where they have radio active elements in the video,

and how is that incorporated into your san francisco health code article? now i'm saying that right now because i have two doctors from my office who are doing biomonitoring work, and i think it's time that you all contact these two doctors so that you all incorporate their work because testing the people who have been exposed and are being exposed to radio active elements. that's the end of my comments. >> clerk: okay. thank you for your comments. >> president mccarthy: thank you, mr. decosta. good to hear from you. >> clerk: doesn't look like

there are any additional callers, yeah. >> president mccarthy: okay. unless staff has anymore input there, we can go onto the next item. thank you for the update, and if you see any issues, please come forward, particularly on the smaller permits being issued. >> clerk: okay. our next item is item 10, update regarding d.b.i. permit processing during shelter in place and relocation of d.b.i. operations to 49 south vanness avenue. >> hi. good morning, president mccarthy and commissioners. christine [inaudible], department of building inspection. sonia, can i share my screen so i can share my slides?

>> christine, you should have presenter. >> okay. okay. you can see my screen? >> operator: yes. >> okay. great. so to start with, i'll start again with a quick recap of the shelter in place. from now march 16, we're exactly six months after shelter in place was announced in march. as you'll recall, march and april, d.b.i. was shutdown for permitting for almost a month. we reopened our permit processes in april and launched a permit plan review for all

projects. we found there were a lot of challenges with electronic plan review, with volume workload, administrative -- extra administrative work. so as soon as the restrictions were eased a bit, we launched our curbside services on june 24, which helped us get more permits out the door, get more permits issued, and then, a month later, we packed up and moved to 49 south vanness. and then, a month ago, we limited the on-line applications that we were accepting so we could retool the electronic system, make some improvements to it. so at that point, we started accepting most of our permit applications in paper. [inaudible] we stopped calling it curbside, and now we call it in-person services because

we're pretty far from the curb. so just to look at the numbers again, before shelter in place, we issued about 110 permits a day. while we were accepting only electronic plan review, most of those were down to 50, with no over the counter permits. we're now ifshissuing 150 a da plus the electrical, mechanical [inaudible] so starting about a month ago, we announced that -- the new process that i referred to. we converted all the over-the-counter permits to paper, and then, any new in-house review permits were also taken on paper. we still do the auto generated on-line facebook permits, as i mentioned, and we have a

process on-line for initiating any emergency permits, and we're also taking in new permit applications for 100% affordable housing and development agreements as electronic plan review projects. so for our limited in-person over-the-counter services, from 7:30 to 9:30, we have the drop-in service for the over-the-counter without plan. and about a month ago, we had added the fire department only to the over-the-counter-without-plan service. we were offering 40 eventbrite tickets a day. formerly, when it was involved in that plan, people could get a ticket pretty easily, and once we added the fire only

permit drop box, it became a lot harder to get the tickets. so starting on september 28, we're going to separate the fire only permit drop offs to 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., and there will be a separate eventbrite for those permit applications. so again, 7:30 to 9:30, we will have the over-the-counter decide without-plan drop off service. 9:30 to 11308 time, people can bring in plans that will only require fire department review, and then, we'll have the same 7:30 to 9:30 plans via appointment only, and people can come in and pick up permits once they're really fore issuance. as -- ready for issuance. as you know, when we were taking in most permit applications on-line, people would apply for a permit

through the sfgov.org website, and those digital permit applications were going to the permit center. we have now eliminated the permit center from that work flow. again, we curtailed that to a very small number, but the -- but we've essentially removed the permit center from our permit processing work flow? the permit center customer service representatives are still working with us to facilitate the in-person services, so they greet the customers when they come, they help monitor the number of people who are in the building because we have a limit to how many customers we can have in the building based on our health and safety plan, and they take the plans, and they drop them in the boxes and move them around and just help facilitate moving the plan review services. so this slide addressing the

permit challenges, this is what we talked about a month ago. so a month ago, we talked about some of the initiatives that we were implementing to speed up the permit issuance process and streamline and help us get more permits out the door. so we talked about the technology improvements that will help us retool the permit process, streamline the process so we can get more permits issued. we are now expanding the number of permits that are available on-line, so similar to the trades permits that are auto generated, with the no review permits, we are rerouting the roofing and [inaudible] that's mid-october. we were talking about hiring a

middle level permit administrat administrator and extended that listing to october 25. we're looking for a superstar to come in and kind of help us with our overall permit services, and we're hiring two other people to come and work with us. we have made offers to three new permit technicians who will be coming on board in the next couple of weeks. and then, our permit services staff are still working overtime. we have a lot of folks coming in on saturdays and even sundays to, you know, get through the backlog and speed up the permit issuance. i want to talk about some new

initiatives that we're adding to the list. we're partnering with the fire department, and the next item, the fire marshal will be giving more details about that. they have graciously offered to temporarily handle intake and issuance for the fire-only permits, and so taking those perm permits, that's about -- i looked at our historical data, and historically, that's about 11% of the permits that we issued. that takes that 11% off of our permit list so we can be working on our backlogs. and we can increase the number of appointments available for the over-the-counter permit applications. we have about a three-month wait time for that, and if we can add some more appointments, we can cut the wait time for our customers. something that came up at the coadvisory committee, was to

have a day event where we would come in on a saturday and process as many permits, so again, another way to catch up on the backlog. so for the next steps, over the next month, we're going to be planning and implementing the saturday event for that. we're recruiting staff members and people for that. all the permit applications that came in through the sfgov.org website, they went to the permit center, and the permit center were holding all of those fore several weeks. all of those have been transferred to d.b.i., and that was a large number of permit applications that our permit technicians are entering into

the computers, and assigned to our checkers. the fire only permit processing, assistant fire marshal brown is going to continue to discuss shortly, and continuing to work on our other permits. thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you, christina. that was a lot of information there. so i don't know, interim director, if you would like to talk or if you would like to go to public comment and then come back. there's a lot of information there. >> would it be okay, president and commissioners, if we can hear from rich brown first, and then, we can put everything together, and then, you can ask your questions, if that's okay?

>> president mccarthy: we can do that, that's right. okay. that's exactly what you requested earlier. if there's no objection to fellow commissioners, that's okay. >> clerk: i just have a quick question. rob, is that okay that we put the two together and then have public comment after both presentations? okay. i'm thinking that would be okay, so we are going to go onto item 8, update regarding fire department permit operations at 49 south vanness avenue. >> good morning, commissioners. it's almost high noon right now. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you great. >> good morning or almost afternoon here, president mccarthy and commissioners. thank you for allowing us to

speak on the process of what we do here at 49 south vanness. my name is rich brown, and i'm an assistant chief for the south vanness fire division. i'm here today to provide you, the b.i.c., with a little bit of insight on the role that the fire department plays at d.b.i. i am in my 30th year, and the last 11 years have been spent with d.b.i. here at 49 south vanness, we have 48 members that are separated and tasked for plan

review for situational use permits. what do we actually do here? the fire department is mandated by the state to enforce the fire code. along with d.b.i., we are an enforcing agent, with the ultimate responsibility for the review, approval, acceptance, and inspection of life safety systems. we also enforce the life safety coat requirements of the california state fire marshal regulated occupancies. d.b.i. and fire are dual authorities having jurisdiction on many of those occupancies. for example, apartment buildings, assembly spaces, schools, and high-rises. so d.b.i. and fire have been working collaboratively on permits and projects for a very long time. we have a good working relationship with our fellow city workers and code enforcers. part of our duties include plan

review of fire only scopes of works, and christine, if you could pop that out on the screens right now, we could show the commissioners what the fire-only scopes entail. >> i do have it up, but i think i lost my sharing privileges. can i get those back? sonya? >> clerk: it should be happening now. just a moment. >> clerk. >> you should have it now. sorry. i was muted. >> okay. sorry for the delay, yes. so here are the list of fire-only permits, and the reason why we call them fire

only is, obviously, we're the only injujurisdiction that rev these. no other city agency has to be involved in it. these fire-only permits makeup approximately 11% of d.b.i. issuance. as you are aware, the last six months have been extremely challenging. i have been engaged -- i have been engaged in all the changes to the shelter in place, covid protocols, d.b.i. permitting and services and in-person drop off, etc. our staff has partnered with d.b.i. and all the other city agencies to match the

challenging issues that we're faced with -- or we were faced, we are today, too. not to mentioned we moved halfway through the shelter in place to 49 south vanness, which we love our new building. thank you. with customer service in mind, i and my fellow d.b.i. have taken on a new process of approval fire-only permits. we intend to roll out this change on september 28. we are working out the details and will have a public announcement prepared for -- in advance. i would like to thank my immediate supervisor, dan

dicoscio and fire chief jean nicholson. -- jeanine nicholson. thank you, and i'm available for questions at this time. >> president mccarthy: thank you, rich. there will be questions for you. good to see you. okay. next? >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comments on agenda items 8 and 10? >> operator: there does not appear to be anybody in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. >> president mccarthy: and if that changes, john, we'll come back to public comment. just let us know -- let sonya know that there's people that's waiting, and we'll go back and catch public comment at the end there. so commissioner alexander-tut there, do you have any comment? >> thank you, everyone. this is a tremendous amount of work for the presentation and

does represent how much work is going on behind the scenes. i appreciate your flexibility and creativity, and i'm always impressed with how you come back and say [inaudible] and try to address it, and i just want to recognize that. i do have one question from -- how about the perspective with the switch from the -- to the fire department? is there any -- is there any kind of pick up in the user experience there or is it -- is it seamless from a user experience perspective? >> so if you want, i can address that, commissioner. this is all happening

internally. it moves to a different desk, but i don't think end users should see any change on the part of the applicant. hopefully it gets better quicker. >> thank you. that's the end of my questions, but i look forward to hearing from my fellow commissioners. >> president mccarthy: commissioner clinch? >> commissioner clinch: your list is very helpful, i'm glad you produced the list. it's interesting to see 11% of the total permit volume. the other thing i wanted to say was, it's sort of off topic a little bit, but i had my tour of the facility last week, and incredibly impressed by the amount of material that passed through d.b.i. given the circumstances that we're in, we don't have the

customer shepherding through, some of the staff on disaster response duties, it's pretty remarkable how much is getting done. thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner. commissioner tam, please? >> start that over. i actually want to commend everybody that's been working on this, rich brown, and the fire department, and d.b.i., for collaborating on this and improving the efficiency for our customers, and, you know, i think that's a -- a huge ( plus f -- huge plus in getting things done. i also want to thank all of our

firefighters battling wildfires up and down all of california. whether you're here or out there, it all matters, so thank you. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner. so once again, christine, thank you for that presentation. you have so much information in there, and it's kind of -- as i'm trying to tell all the stakeholders, rome wasn't built in a day here if you take what has to be done here in terms of covid, moving office, and basically the health department rules and regulations and closing everything down and what you guys are dealing with. you're working with the capacity with one hand tied behind your back. i just want to make highlight and clarification on some of the new changes coming down the line. one is you had mentioned the

on-line reroofing, and i stress it's existing roofing permits, not new roofing permits. when would that be coming up again? did you say midof next month? >> yes, mid-october. our r.i.f. staff thinks they can have it ready in mid-october. >> ( and once again, that works towards our backlog issues and helps us on our journey, correct? >> yes, they're generated automatically, so the staff doesn't have to tough -- touch them, and they can work on other issues. >> it is almost 11% of the

fire-only permits that are issues. once again, that kind of ultimately works towards your end gauge of your backlog and getting through this, right? >> right, right. because of the gracious offer from the fire department to take those on, our permit teches at d.b.i. can then use their time for other things, so we'll be able to up our production. >> president mccarthy: yeah. the other thing that jumped out at me, which is pretty revolutionary in the sense that we've never done this before, i'm mindful of the fact of how hard the staff is working. you' you're working at a lower capacity than what would normally be because of the covid. can you clarify what the saturday would be, the openings, and overall, what the end game would be in getting the backlog and getting everything more precovid time frame? >> yeah. so i was up for the code

advisory committee last week, and that was an idea that was generated by the members of the code advisory committee. wouldn't it be great if you could bring everybody in on a saturday and just try to have that extra day where you're trying to get through a big stack of permits and giving people, customers, another opportunity to come in and submit permit applications. so we love that idea, and, you know, it's -- as you know, it's hard because our staff is already working overtime. everybody is, you know, really putting in, you know -- sorry for the expression, but 110%. everybody is working hard, so it's a lot to ask our staff to put in yet another day, so we understand that it's hard for people. you know, people are waiting a long time to get their permits right now, so it's another, we

hope, goodwill gesture towards our customers that we're going the extra mile to try to shorten those wait times. >> two-part question. when you say other departments, we also have other departments that have to sign off, as well. could we just give some of the complications that could arise, as well? >> yeah, thank you for mentioning that. we can't do it without our fire department partners, planning, public works, p.u.c., all our -- you know, department of public health who were also here talking. we have to have everyone on board and everybody agreeing to do this to make this work. that's why it's still in the planning phase, you know, just trying to get everybody on board. we can't do it without the rest of our partners, and we are grateful for the partnerships

that we have. >> president mccarthy: and the time frame on that, not trying to box you in on that, but that seems a very big part, as well, looking at the big picture. when do you have that, and if you don't, i understand >> we're looking at a weekend in october. >> october. okay. and finally, i know you said some time back, you had sent out a newsletter, and i got a lot of positive feedback from the stakeholders on that. it was a great format to educate everybody on what happens at the commission because not everybody listens to the commission here, and to take the information that you put together so eloquently on the slide show. how do we get everything together after that? is there a meeting place for that? >> well, i am finalizing a newsletter that we'll try to

send out in the next week or two. we do have a newsletter out on the way. >> president mccarthy: okay. so that will kind of -- and then, my last is to both the interim director and rich brown. i can't thank you, the fire department, for stepping up here and coming up with a really good solution that's going to help the fire department, as well. i've been doing this for a long time on the commission, and i haven't seen that kind of out-of-the-box thinking for a long time. i want to recognize this because it's not an easy task, even though you make it sound very simple. i know what it takes for you and d.b.i. to put those people in place. if i understand, rich, if i'm going down with those fire-only permits, it's 11%, a lot of permits, i'm bypassing all of the other departments. once it's established that it

is only a fire only, nothing else, it's going straight to you. the time frame you're thinking if you, in the land of milk and honey, have everything on that drawing that you need, which never happens. but if you did, it kwould be a soon as the same day. if not, how long? and also, the payment, are you handing the payment on this, collecting the fees on that? >> today was the first day that we got trained on the fee collection. i haven't been briefed on that, angus. maybe the director can speak to that. i don't know, but yes, we intend to facilitate that fee acceptance and issuance of the permit. when the fire only permit comes through the front door, we're going to have it regulated a little bit, probably 20 to 30

appointments per day, couple hours. we don't want to have them rush, come in, you know, and we can't -- we can't -- i don't want the customer expectation to be greater than what we can provide, right? so i'm expecting over-the-counter and intake projects, fire only, coming into us. obviously, over-the-counters are about 80% of our work. what's the expectation right now? is it reasonable. what -- during this covid time, 72 hours to be notified. do we want to get down to same day? yes. those are goals we're going to stri strive to reach at the moment. >> president mccarthy: thank you, rich. big thank you to your boss, fire marshal dan dicoscio, for

getting that in place. interim director, do you have any comments on that? >> yes. first of all, i'd like to thank rich for the collaboration on this, and i think it will streamline the issuance of fire permits through our system. i have to say that sometimes even the most difficult things that we have to deal with, rich brown and i can sit down and have a conversation, and we'll find a way, and i appreciate that. obviously, we have great relationships with planning and the other city departments, and that will manifest itself in this saturday opening. so i'd also like to make it very clear that our staff are working very hard right now. just so you know, their productivity has expanded by

about 15% over precovid, so i think that we all under that they're doing -- the process has bifurcated into two processes right now. so they're dealing with the electronic plan review documents that have been submitted, along with our submittals that we're taking in based on our in-person review. so again, big thank you to staff. i'm really proud of them. they come in here every day consistently with a smile on their face, willing to roll up their sleeves and get it done. they do all of this overtime, they come in on saturdays, they catch up on all of the intake materials that happened that week, and they facilitate issuance of permits, and it's a heavy lift at this time, and everyone is concerned about all of what's going on, but i just

can't say how much i appreciate that. that is really, really -- i'm really grateful for what they do. >> president mccarthy: thank you, interim director. we're grateful for our leadership during these times. madam secretary, i would reach out to see if there's any public comment at this time. if not, we'll move onto the next item. >> clerk: there does not seem to be any callers in the queue, and commissioner jacobo has joined the meeting. >> hello. sorry i'm late. >> president mccarthy: welcome, commissioner jacobo. madam secretary, can we move

onto item 11? >> clerk: item 11, update on the single room occupancy s.r.o. program regarding covid-19 actions. >> hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> [inaudible] and you heard from commissioner tam earlier about the tour that i took with inspector moi, christina, and there's a [inaudible] of folks that work down at the covid command center. and one of them, victor lim, from the mayor's office [inaudible] other agencies and the board of supervisors, and they've seen christina put her

hazmat suit on every day and deal with the public out there. [inaudible] the educational news stories and working closely with the community, so this is the larger -- christina's working is part of a larger effort that includes her supervisor, seniors, and her [inaudible], inspector [inaudible] including chief

electrical inspector and the district attorney. we had a great meeting yesterday with the ceop, code enforcement outreach groups, and we had about 20 people from the groups, including ten new staff people. it was interpreted in spanish over zoom, which is a techno zls logical feat in and of itself, and we went over the basics of housing and housing inspection process, d.b.i. process for adding tenants complaints and concerns regardi regardingability and complaints

by -- regarding capability and complaints by the landlords. we are sharing equipment with the c.c.c. we also have a clerk on loan to help with permitting here in the department. so it's -- we're still full speed ahead in all these different fronts on covid safety in the hotels. are there questions? >> president mccarthy: thank you, deputy director. before we go to public comment -- should we go to public comment and then come back to commission questions, please. >> operator: there's one caller in the queue. caller 415-467?

>> yes, i've been listening to some of the deliberations, virtual meetings on s.r.o.s. i strongly feel -- and i've been attending building inspection meetings for a long time. some of you may remember a great man, joe o'donaghue. i sat on one side, and he sat on the other while we went over the building inspections.

the s.r.o.s, it's time for the s.r.o.s to be demolished. you heard me right. the s.r.o.s are used by our health department charge less and get more money from the federal government. human beings shouldn't be living in s.r.o.s share bathrooms, and a like number use the kitchen. this is not a third-world country. so the building department has to phase out the s.r.o.s because you do not abide by quality of life issues. now, some of you all know me

pretty well. i speak truth to power, and when you speak truth to power, some people don't care for it, but i don't give a rat's ass. >> clerk: you have to watch your language, sir. >> rat's ass is not bad language. i've seen them call for ambulance, and they take two hours to come. people should not be leaving in the s.r.o.s. don't treat poor people with disdain. they are frustrated. >> clerk: if you could "bohemian rhapsodwrap up your comments, please, sir. >> i'll take my sweet time. so i'm frustrated, and so are many advocates.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> president mccarthy: thank you for your comments. okay. >> clerk: thank you. there don't appear to be anymore callers in the queue. >> president mccarthy: okay. so with that, back to my commissioners. commissioner alexander-tut, please. >> yeah. so i just want to, again, thank senior housing inspector sue for your leadership. i started out in the [inaudible] and it was great to see folks again and the tenant organizers who are deeply embedded in the community, and i -- you know, i applaud your team's efforts, and

[inaudible]. >> president mccarthy: we all hear the same thing. >> and then, i really want to applaud folks and say that it's the -- it cannot be overstated the importance of having culturally and linguistic competence in partnership with the technical implementation of the job that you guys do, and i think that you -- you need to achieve that balance and that holistic approach, and yeah, just applause, and thank you to everybody for your work. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner. commissioner clinch, please? >> commissioner clinch: thank you for the presentation. no further comments. >> president mccarthy: commissioner -- commissioner

tam, please. >> yes, thank you, mr. president. thank you, james, for your leadership. i really -- you know, again, being there in person and, you know, seeing for myself the first time, it's just an eye opening and humbling experience. and without the work that the housing inspection team, without what they do, some of these people won't have a voice. and so, you know, thank you for providing a voice and a bridge so that they can get the resources and the help that they need to improve the quality of life, so thank you so much for that. >> thank you, commissioner. >> president mccarthy: and then thank you, deputy director. i echo my fellow commissioners' comments. and in regards to the public comment, i do understand the difficulties in the s.r.o. environment and how difficult

it is to manage, but they are essential housing for a lot of people in this city and have been for many years, and as i said, you know, when i sat on the soma p.a.c., that's what i learned. i got a schooling and education, and there's a lot of happy people in s.r.o.s, and they do find them affordable, and when the buildings are maintained well and rented well, they're nice to live in. so i think we're -- we're a unique city in many ways to have such kind of housing, and there's a lot of people that feel very strongly about that. so thank you for your comments, and i do understand the difficulties in maintaining and keeping this housing in place and protecting that housing stock. [please stand by]

>> so we have a better idea what the impact of covid-19 is placing on our revenues. so i will share a quick summary of those revenues. okay. so here we have the rev new comparison. i'm comparing march 20 through

august 20 and then prior march 19 through august 19. so the six months of covid and the six months last year of this time. we have our major revenues here. inspection services is building permits, plumbing permits and lick -- electrical permits. you can see march 20th through august 20th, our total amount of major inspection revenues equaled $6.4 million with an average monthly collection of about $1 million for those revenue sources and then for permit services, the total has been 5 pn.2 million of the $5.3 million. so, when you compare that to the same time last year, march 19 to

august 2019, you see a huge difference. so we're going from $14.5 million for six months of inspection revenues down to 6.4 million. so here's the 14.4. and now we're at 6.4. now in permit services, about $18 million and now we're down $5.3 million. so basically we're seeing about a 56% drop in inspection service reven revenues. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> commissioners, are there any questions? >> no questions at this time. thank you for the presentation. >> commissioner. >> thank you.

do you expect to a marked increase in september. july and august went down a little bit and september with the event bright and all that, do you think it will come up? >> i'm not really sure at this time because one of the reasons that it's down is because we aren't seeing as many large projects. typically you have permit services. although it's really business, it's a lot of o.t.c. busy and lot of new things coming in and what drives the plan checking revenues and the building permits is basically based on the valuation. so i do expect we are expecting, although i was surprised it went down a little bit. we are inspecting that we're able to process more permits that it won't go up. i don't know what the percentage would be at this time. >> that's interesting, very

interesting, thanks. >> reporter: you're welcome. >> thank you. commissioner -- >> thank you as always. i have no further questions. >> commissioner. >> thank you for the presentation, no further questions. >> also thank you deputy director and thank you for the presentation. public comment? >> we'll do the directors report items and then public comment at the end. >> thank you. >> so next item 12.b, update proposed state or local legislation. >> good afternoon commissioners. the legislative affairs, supervisor mandelman's deadline extension passed the first reading at the board last night. supervisor peskin shelter in

peace ordinance is legislation prohibits non-emergency construction in residential buildings, resulting in utility shut offs. tenants are provided with alternative utilities. it was passed by the board on august 18th and signed by the mayor on the 28th. it was an emergency ordinance so it took effect immediately. it will begin effect for 60 days, unless it is renewed. supervisors stefani's legislation that would place restrictions on construction in occupied residential buildings, which we just discussed, is so currently in land use as andy mentioned. supervisor mandelman's building as well. with that, i am here to answer any questions. >> thank you and commissioners?

>> thanks no further questions. >> no questions thanks. >> no further questions thank you. >> no further questions. >> thank you. our next item is 12.c, update on major projects. >> good afternoon again president and commissioners. this is patrick, the interim director and i'm providing you with a major projects report summary. this details construction activity of august versus july 2020. there has been a .83% increase

in construction costs, comparing august to july. there has been a .4% increase in the total number of units compared to july of this year. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, our next item is 12.d. >> good afternoon commissioners, dan lowry permit services. for the code enforcement and monthly update for building inspection division, performed for the month of august. 4,001 complaints received were 541. complaints response within 24 to 72 hours is 526. complaints for the first order

of violation was 78. complaints without notice of violations was 354. notice of violations were 29 and second notices of violations for code enforcement was 7. so the housing inspection services, housing inspections performed was 111. complaints received 192. complaints response within 24 to 72 hours is 124. complaints and violations issued is 15. the date of complaint and notice of violation is 120. number of cases was 9. we seen inspections at 3. the code enforcement services, number of cases since the director's hearing was 51. abatements issued was 33. number of cases