they have a home and i have to park another way or walk. we have had to do this for years. and i just am disappointed but i want to carry on with meetings knowing that we do care in spite of our votes and we do care about what they want and hoping we can come to understand that. >> thank you, commissioner scott. well said. hearing no other members, madam secretary, please call next item. >> the next order of business is item 10, closed session. item 10a conference with legal counsel and litigation. initiation of litigation

pursuant to paragraph four of subdivision b of next 54956.9. one case. discussion. mr. chair. >> madam secretary, do we have any callers for this time? >> and at this time to provide comment, call 615-4054001. enter the access code and pound sign and pound sign again. enter star three and listening to us by phone to provide public comment by hitting star 3 to submit your request. there are no members of the public wishing to comment on

this item. we are going to go into closed session. i will ask fellow commissioners and participating staff members to exit this meeting and log onto the separate link emailed to you. we will retur

>> chairwoman: the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy? >> here. >> vice president moss? >> here. >> chairwoman: commissioner alexander toot?

>> chairwoman: mrs. clint? >> here. >> chairwoman: commissioner tam? >> here. >> chairwoman: the next item, is item two. >> good morning, everybody, and welcome to the big january 20th, 2021, and a new day in america. i'm so happy about that. that said, welcome, everybody, and a happy new year to everybody. i'm andrew mccarthy, president of the builds and commission. i'm joined along with interim director and senior d.b.i. staff. the city is still, unfortunately, continuing the experience of another surge in the covid cases, and hospitalizations resulting in ongoing restrictive city-wide measures. while the mayor and the public health director suggested there are some

improvements in the data that is being shared, we are still far from being in the clear regarding pandemic infections and hospitalizations. while the covid-19 remains active in our community, we are -- and we wait for a large distribution of the vaccines, i continue to urgently ask the d.b.i.consumers to support our ongoing need to support all public health protocols, which remain essential for the public health and safety. it is essential -- it is especially important for our costumers to follow protocol when it comes to the 49 south van ness dropoff plan. i thank all of our costumers for their diligence and ongoing support, and thank d.b.i. leadership and staff during these challenging times. while our new space at 49

south van ness is still open on a limited basis to the public, the department continues issue permits and conduct onsite job inspections and take code inspection steps as warranted, as director and staff continue to communicate frequently with costumers and stakeholders on the department's progress in issuing more permits and addressing costumers' needs. we will hear more about this later today in the department's update. i just relieved my video is off. perfect. okay. finally, i want to remind everyone that d.b.i. continues to achieve its building safety mission under this year's hard circumstances. on behalf of all of our commissioners, we say thank you again for our hard-working professionals and the absolute terrific

jobs they are doing and we have been doing under the enormous stress caused by this public virus. it requires constant adjustments and resilience to assist our costumers, and we're all deeply impressed with our staff's achievements to date. thank you for attending this visual commission meeting, and please continue to participate in our public process. wear your masks, keep your social distance, and get vaccines as soon as you are able to. madam secretary, that concludes my announcements today. thank you. >> chairwoman: is there any public comment on the president's announcement? none? okay. seeing none, i just wanted to remind the public that the -- for public comment the call-in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is

1465785052, and to raise your hand for a public comment on a specific agenda item, and press star three when prompted by the meeting moderator. thank you. the next item is item three, general public comment. we will take public comment on matters that are part of this agenda. >> there is nobody in the cue. >> chairwoman: okay. thank you. >> sorry, somebody just jumped on. >> chairwoman: okay. >> i need access. >> chairwoman: okay. sorry. >> caller 415-621?

>> caller: . can you hear me? >> yes. i'm from the san francisco parks alliance. i'm calling about a project that we've had in the department of building inspections since october 24th. it is for district 6, and the project involves string lights that go down half of the block. we would like to get this, with covid and everything, we have had a lot of successful community events on this street, and we would like to get this permit completed as efficiently and as fast as possible. i'm wondering if there is any update on those permits? >> chairwoman: thank you for your comment. were there any other callers? >> there is no one else in the cue. >> chairwoman: okay.

thank you. the next item is item 4, commissioners' questions and matters, inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding policies and practices and procedures with regard to the commission. there are none -- or are there? >> i see none. >> chairwoman: i believe there is ms. alexander. >> sorry. so, thank you to the caller who called in. they did contact me directly, and they already e-mailed our director. i invited them to come today, and if it is appropriate, could we have

the department report back at the next meeting if there are any issues or follow up with this person, who seems tob to beconcerned about their permit being lost or is not being addressed. >> yeah. >> help me out, president. >> no problem. yes. we'll do that. how do we do this? could we assign it to somebody on staff there to kind of reach out to you on a one-on-one basis and give you an update. would that be okay? is there anyone on staff who could take that on? >> i'm happy to speak to that. this is patrick here, the room director. if i can be provided with the information, i can assign staff to work on that and provide an update in regards to facilitating the review and issuance of

the permit. >> okay. that's great. just a point -- is this a permit filed by the city or by the park rec, or is it filed by the local community? i'm just curious on this. do you know anything about that, commissioner? >> i'm looking for the e-mail (laughing). >> no problem. >> this is christine, assistant director. i know a little bit about this project. do you want me to weigh in? >> yes, please. >> please. >> he had also e-mailed me, and i checked with our permit technicians. i believe that this permit application was dropped in the planning bin, and so we are, you know -- we have contacted the planning department and asked them, you know, for a status update on that. but i don't have one right now. >> so it is in planning.

it has gone from d.b.i. to planning? >> correct. we took it in. it went through our in-take box, and we assigned it to planning, which, because of covid, we drop it into a bin at the planning department, and so they have it. >> okay. i'd be interested to know who filed this. >> it was the parks alliance. >> the parks alliance. okay. okay. all right. so that's in planning, interesting. okay. okay. thank you. >> i'd be happy to follow up. >> i believe mark has raised his hand again. i don't know what the protocol here is. >> it is for mark, in regards to the general public's comments. mark, i do understand -- you could help us out by

getting back in with our rules of engagement for our public comment is closed. unfortunately, we can't take your comments right now. sorry about that. can we go to item "b"? >> chairwoman: the next item is 4b, future meetings an agendas. at this time the commission can discuss and take action of a special meeting and/or determine those items that can be placed on the agenda at future meetings on other meetings of the government inspection. our next regular meeting will be on february 17th, and then also e-mail the commissioner that we will also need to have a special budget meeting, which is tentatively going to be on february 10th, but i have to confirm that with everyone. >> i have a request. >> chairwoman: okay. >> i received an anonymous

complaint about that i spoke to our city attorney about. the violation number is 201171453, and the nature of the complaint is that person is filing alleging that there was -- so this is -- okay, i'm going to kind of just read some of the e-mail. this is regarding property 2207 25th street. this anonymous complainant is saying that they are a friend of the owner, and that the owner had started to make repairs and that because of his inexperience and unknown to him at the time, his

repairs and improvements were beyond the scope of his permit, in late 2011, an inspection came to his house and issued the complaint number that i already gave, stating that only the facade of the building remained. santos became part of the project, and the person is now concerned after reading the news that there is something not right about this process. soon after receiving the complaint, this person is alleging that the owner was forced to sell his home at a great loss, and it was purchased by an r.b.a. contractor at a discount. the person is asking -- i guess there has been a complaint, and they want it to be reopened, and they want to know why it was not tagged as demolition, and how the contractor was tipped off by an insider at d.b. i.s -- that's what they're

alleging, and how the contractor was permitted to buy a brand new home. i know as a commissioner, i cannot compel a case to be reopened, but i would like a report back on this complaint at a future meeting, which i understand, according to the attorney, is part of our protocol, that we can just ask for a response to the complaint, for the department to look into this, and to get back to us and their findings. we received different kinds of complaints regularly, and i want to make sure our commissioner is doing due diligence when they receive this kind of complaint. >> thank you for that. director, i believe you are aware of that e-mail.

is that correct? or no? because that was sent to most commissions, right, that e-mail? >> there was one that was received, i think, by all of us right after the last meeting. and then i got another one just for me. >> gotcha. >> and i don't know if it is the same person because it is anonymous. >> i think it is the same address, right? >> it appears to be the same issue. i don't know if it is the same person, but it seems to be the same issue. >> yeah, i did see that e-mail. and correct me if i'm wrong, director, because i know we talk a lot, and i know that i kind of group all of these anonymous e-mails together when i get them and discuss them with you -- cbn news correct me ifi'm wrong, did we s that one? >> i believe we did, president mccarthy. i believe the address is 2207 25th street --

>> it is not -- >> it is not 27th street. i believe it is 25th street. at any rate, we are happy to take a look and see if some of the processes were followed, and come back to the commission with a report on the property, and provide our findings to you on that. >> and commissioner alexander -- >> thank you. >> -- as you read the e-mails, which i, unfortunately, don't have in front of me, but i'm trying to understand where -- >> so let me read it. thank you. i hereby formerly request that the building inspection commission and the code enforcement division of d.b.i. reopen this complaint, which was suspiciously closed, and to thoroughly investigate, one, why this was not tagged as an illegal

demolition. two, how the connected contractor was tipped off by an insider at d.b.i.. and, three, how the connected contractor was then permitted to build a brand new house." >> okay. perfect. >> thank you. >> director? >> we're happy to pull up all of our records regarding the property and put together a report, like i stated, and provide the commission with an update based on our findings. so we're just going to have to go back and look into it and provide you with the update, like i mentioned. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. >> chairwoman: are there any other commissioner comments? >> hi, commissioner

jacova. sorry i'm late. thank you to the chair. is this item 4? >> yes. item 4b. >> okay. so thank you. sorry that i'm late, folks. happy to be here. this is actually connected, i think, to what commissioner alexander was talking about. something i'm trying to understand procedurally, how to (a) follow up on items that we bring to the commission, and (b) get things agendaized. i think it is imperative, in talking about 2021, where we truly try to

begin chipping away at some of these issues that are impacting some of the smaller business owners, some of the homeowners, etc. how can we best go about that to ensure if we need items on the agenda, they show up next month, or, for example, if we need like what was brought up now, that we get a formal request back. and how do we follow up on that? and what makes sense for all? >> thank you. i think it is duly noted, what you're saying there. items like item "b" is the forum to request that. and then the other way is if you have, for example -- i know commissioner alexander took had a letter to introduce to the agenda on a covid policy procedure,

and so she reached out and i put it on the agenda. that's one way of doing it as well. the key thing is if it is going to be an agenda item -- lr example, if it is a complaint like this, i think it should be run through the staff. because a lot of times, and particularly -- i have to be honest with you, when e-mails ascend anonymously and we don't know who the name is and we don't know anything, i find unless you're willing to put your name to it, i really believe there are sometimes an alternative motive here. i'd like to point out behind the scenes the facts before i could put it on the agenda. i would have that kind of criteria, because we do get a lot of complaints, and if we do investigate them, if there are two sides to the story, we're not getting the full facts and so on and so forth. so until it is really fact-checked, and it really meets the criteria to be put on the agenda, then i'm glad to put it on

there. >> okay. but that would go through you, chair? do we come back to you -- >> yeah. you can do it in the forum, like we're talking right now. or let's say it happened after a meeting, you can reach out through sonya at the office. and i'll call you, and we'll talk it through, or we put it on the calendar and there are no issues, and we can talk it through at the commission meeting. >> great. that's the reason i bring it up because i know at the last meeting -- pardon me if because i'm late it was brought up already, but try to do a serious of meetings and hearings to address some of these issues of permitting, etc. so (a) we're pushing the ball forward and keeping it on track. we really want to try to get things to move quickly. i want to make sure that we, as commissioners, know exactly how to get these

things on. so when we say it, it kind of happens, and then we're not left to feel like we've been shined on or it didn't get heard, by making sure we're able to have that line of communication and what the right approach is, is really, really important. i think given the ambitious work we want to get done for this year. >> duly noted. absolutely. >> thank you. >> okay. that's all i've got. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairwoman: thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner, do you have more comment there? >> yeah, i do. you did mention i had reached out about this idea of, like, discussing the covid vaccines, and if it was possible to have, you know, our instructors, who are in and out of people's houses and buildings, and i -- my understanding -- i was curious about where their status was in terms of being concerned about the workers, and i didn't get

the letter together, but i was -- i'm not sure, does it have to go to the commission, or is this something i can talk to the director about? i just wanted to be transparent that this was something i was concerned about. and i think it didn't make it to final version. >> and the director reached out to me and he kind of said, look, it is an important subject and so on. because we didn't get the letter, which is fine, because i know we're all busy, but we're going to wrap it into an update from the department to cover the question. >> okay. thank you. >> so that covers you that way. it is not officially calendared as an item, but it will be discussed today. but i thought it was a well-positioned topic to have right now. so we're in agreement there. >> yeah, thank you for that. >> and i probably should have reached -- somebody should have reached out to you and say, we've got it

covered. so i apologize. >> thank you. thank you. and thank you, commissioner jacova for covering with your questions. >> actually, chair, i do have something else. i'm sorry. i don't know if it is possible. >> absolutely. go right ahead. >> you'll have to excuse me. i'm kind of scrambled running over to here, so i'm catching up on my thoughts. i have a bigger agenda item for topic. and this is going back to our current interim director, who, obviously, we're very happy with the work and performance that is happening. but thinking back -- or listening to the interim director, right, is obviously dependent on (a) becameing permanent or (b) doing the search to find the person that will fit into this role. i know at the time everything happened last

year, it was obviously very -- none of us knew where things were headed, and i don't think any of us imagined we would be where we are now. i know at the onset we thought we would take three months and pick the best candidate. it has been longer than three months, and i would argue understandably so because we're dealing with a global pandemic that is causing complicated issues everywhere. but the reality is this is not going away next month. we may run out of vaccines by thursday, and that means we'll be in this holding pattern for a very long time. i think it is incumbent on us to remain true to our mission. this is not in any way to say that i am not satisfied or happy with the work our current director is doing. i don't want to even

insinuate that. but i think it is fair to all of our department of building inspections, and the to the current director, to kind of finalize this. if it is going to be we do this search, or we stay with the current director, whatever the role may be, i think we need to begin that process because we're far past the three months (a), and i think understandably so. but i think we're going to be in this item for a while, so it shouldn't preclude us from beginning that process to make sure we're doing our due diligence. >> okay. thank you for that, commissioner. i actually had it in my game plan, as it were, to update you on february about this. because i am -- i had

pre-christmas reached out to the head of h.r. so i was hoping when i would hear back on the few items, the next steps and path. what i'm proposing to do with the interim director application, and a new application for a permanent director, i was going to update you on that in february. duly noted, once again. i'm sorry that you feel -- i take that back. you're just asking the question. >> yes. >> i will have an update, as agreed, and i do agree with you it has gone on further than we had discussed. and, you know, you eloquently pointed out as to why it was delayed for me. come february, i will have an update on you, if that is acceptable to you? >> of course. thank you, sir. >> i'm just waiting on a few more phone calls back to confirm a few things, and then i feel like i could make it on the

calendar. do we discuss this in processions -- i want to make sure we have it all correct. >> of course. and the last thing -- sorry -- i think i've made two inquiries in the past, and i've had some conversations in between, but still really wanting to figure out how to best put forth the best practices we have in place, such as supervisor ronan is going to leave shortly, to ensure that some of the things that happened in the past with inpriority are harder to happen in the future. so looking for some presentation that does not divulge things we're not allowed to talk about because of ongoing investigations, etc. the very simple things, the mechanics and

mechanisms, so we better understand what we know happened and what has been accomplished. so we can work on trying to get something like that on the agenda. i'm happy to talk through the thoughts of kind of what i'm thinking in my mind. but i really want to lean on the experts and the pros that know what we're be ablet know what we're to put that forth for the general public to understand that this is what we're doing, this is how we're stopping impropriety, and if i can work with someone on that, i'd love to do that. >> perfect. >> president and commissioners, i would like to say a few words. thank you, commissioner, for your engagement on this. this is really important stuff here. i just want to say, as interim director, i will not tolerate corruption or any abuse of public trust. i will absolutely not stand for it. i believe in good government, and have always been a cue sadar crusader

public service. my values or efficiency, transparency, with an emphasis on good customer service. i have made this very clear to my staff. i cannot give you a lot of details in this forum, but i can assure you that we are actively working to root out any corrupt or bad behavior. we've been working with the city attorney's office and with the controller for many months. so we're conducting our own reviews as well. so one of my goals this year is to ensure transparency and accountability in everything that we do. so -- i mean, that's when i stand with this. i can't speak to everything that has happened in the past; i can just tell you where my mind is at right now and how i'm projecting forward. so i just wanted to say that. >> thank you for that,

director. i very much appreciate that. i know we've talked about that topic and the issues. i think all of us here on it's commission, yourself included, and our employees at d.b.i., the vast majority -- i would say all at this point -- i think all of us are here for good government, to provide services to the city and county of san francisco, and to just be very, very firm in the fact that corruption will not be tolerated at any level, so appreciate you saying that very much, director, thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> and thank you, interim director. i concur with your comments. i thank commissioner jacova on the discussion that supervisor ronan before bring up a lot of the checking of your boxes on what the department is doing and has in place. but with that said, maybe we could talk off-line and we could formulate kind of

a line item for our next meeting that you might want to talk about and start that conversation. but i do believe we have a lot of the policy procedures in place that you're going to like to see, and i think we can discuss further about that in the next item as well. >> thank you, chair. >> not at all. okay. is there anymore comments, commissioners? seeing none, so, madam secretary -- >> great. thank you. commissioner alexander, my apologies for not getting back to you as well to let you know that the department and president mccarthy have the item handled. is there public comment on item 4a and b? >> no, there is none. >> the next item is 5, discussion and possible action, file number 210015, amending the

building code to implement expanding complaints control and consumer protection provisions for projects, individuals, agents, and entities with the history of significant violations. >> chairman: thank you, madam secretary, for that discussion. to my fellow commissioners, i think this is going to hit as one of the more important pieces of legislation that we're going to work on this year. so i have -- i was up late last night working on it, so i have a lot of questions and comments i'm going to be asking the staff. i just wanted to give you a heads-up on that. so we'll take -- so, if we could -- so i have point of clarification, is it staff going forward? or andy from the supervisor's office? >> thank you, president mccarthy and commissioners. i have a few slides to introduce this item and give some background, and then i will hand it over

to amy biner from supervisor ronan's office to present the legislation. can i share my screen? >> good morning. i just wanted to spend a few moments to introduce what the department has done on this issue, and then i'm going to hand it off, as i said, to amy biner from supervisor ronan's office. last fall, d.b.i. staff developed a new policy to add another tool to the department to address repeated code violators. and especially in

situations in which the violator has been charged with serious offenses or criminal conduct. we already had a process in place, but it was kind of a more informal process, where we were doing extra plans or extra scrutiny for folks that, you know, had been repeat violators in the past. but we took the opportunity to formallize and track these folks. and then after that, we presented this expanded quality control policy to the government audit and oversight committee, and that was at supervisor ronan's request in november. and then as a followup, supervisor ronan introduced this legislation on january 5th, with the

co-sponsers supervisors ronan and haney. and it makes some modifications, which i will just quickly go over. i'm sure amy will go into more detail. a little about what this expanded quality control is: we outlined this to increase the scrutiny of folks who are associated with at least three serious notices of violation in an 18-month span. and those types of violations are misrepresenting existing conditions, structural work without or beyond the scope of a permit, overdemolition or other serious violations that the department considers egregious. and when we do identify somebody who has had repeat violations, we flag them for this expanded quality control. and we require all of that

individual's permit application to be reviewed a second time by a senior member of planned eeview services staff. so it would go to a plan-checker, and after the plan-checker signs off, it would go to another senior plan-checker to have a second look at it. it will also require a site inspection prior to permit issuance, to confirm existing conditions, so that we know that an individual can't misrepresent what the existing conditions are at the site. we would verify that ours. and we would dedicate a senior inspector to respond to complaints at these project sites. >> christine, your slide is not advancing. it is stuck on the cover sheet. >> oh, it's not advancing. thank you for letting me know. we were here, right?

yes -- sorry, we were back here. okay. sorry for the technical issue. so d.b.i. could refer the agent our licensed professional to a regulatory agency and/or to the city attorney's office for further action. if it is an engineer, we could notify a state agency that the engineer has been involved in repeated violations, or work with the city attorney's office for some sort of further action. once we get this person -- once we've identified that a person should be subject to this expanded quality control, they would be on this list for two years. if they received another complaint, the two-year clock would start over. we're implementing these new procedures to identify these early in the process so we can quickly address any issues that come up. so the legislation has proposed additions or

changes to our current policy that we want to point out. the d.b.i. would be required to maintain this list on our department website. currently it is an internal list that we are not posting. and that d.b.i. would be required to provide that list to the building inspection commission on a quarterly basis. the legislation would also require us to provide guidance and training sessions for the plan review staff on recognizing suspicious permits, and also require them to escalate any permits that indicate any potential abuse, submitted to the review staff and referred to the planning department. it would also change the -- like the time that the person would be on the list, from two years to five years. it also adds work that, quote, "endangers the health and safety of building occupants, future

occupants, workers, or adjacent workers." it gives discretion to the director to add individuals to the list. you know, associated with just one egregious violation. and ask other departments to conduct extra plan review and pre-issuance inspection for this list. that's an overview of the legislation. i will now hand it over to amy, and i will unshare my screen. amy, do you have -- do you have slides? >> i do not. >> so i'm amy biner,

assistant to supervisor ronan. thank you for hearing this item today. thank you, director, for your presentation. a little bit of background: so on january 5th, supervisor ronan, with co-sponsors supervisors peskin in haney introduced this legislation to address fraudulent abuse to the city's permit issues. [inaudible] that triggered her to hold a hearing in november 2020, to hear from d.b.i. is about permit practice, and once it has been drafted, the legislation was done. in may 2020, rodrigo santos, a structural engineer was arrested by the f.b.i. and charged with bank fraud. the city attorney already had a pending civil complaint against him.

that was amended to add a number of properties and charges. nevertheless, mr. santos remains physically involved in the neighborhood. [inaudible] after talking with his neighbor several months ago, he was visited by mr. santos, but not until he googled him did he have a clue that mr. santos had pending criminal charges, and yet remains active and financially engaged in multiple projects. in another case, well over the past year, our office has been working with neighbors, city departments and city attorneys, where city builders got 10 units and built 30. there was a mad scramble, presenting a life safety condition so dire that the

sponsors had to install a temporary fire escape while repermitting this application. and just over a year ago, a project sponsor paid the city $1.2 million to settle a suit for unpermitted work on seven properties after months of complaints from neighbors with serious and justified concerns about damage to their homes, all resulting from work being done on an adjacent property joined the scope of his permit. these staggering examples demonstrate flagrant disregard for city law, and egregious wrong-doing by some developers and contractors. this is unacceptable, and it is critical that we take action now. [inaudible] this legislation creates an expanded complaint

control. it is not just expanded control, but compliance control, with projects associated with three or more serious violations within 18 months, d.b.i. would be required to report any people to the licensing board. and any new permit application associated with the party or project on this list will be subject to specified for expanded compliance control measures. the legislation further protects the public. it is a expanded compliance control list on their website, and to supply regular reports to the building inspector. it is essential that transparency and a consumer protection element comes into play here, and that's what we're trying to perfect. lastly, the legislation

establishes standards for accountability for training and guidance. supervisors, we appreciate the staff that is devoted to working with our office to tackle this head-on. as we finally close the door today on the most corrupt national government, we need to focus on transparency and rules that we can use to trust that our local government is affectively serving and protecting the public. [inaudible] president mccarthy has reached out to me, and we know there are suggestions, and we're very much appreciative of them and would like to consider what is appropriate and affective in enhancing the program. we have not had a chance to review any of these yet with the city attorney, but i just want to say we're so respectful of

your informed expertise on the specific practices and specific challenges in the d.b.i. permit process, and we're very happy to hear your feedback and working with you individually and collectively to make this legislation affective. and with that, i'm happy to take any questions, and certainly to collect your comments and return on a later date. >> thank you. i appreciate you taking my phone call this morning on this. if it is okay with my fellow commissioners, we would go to public comment, if there is no more presentation from staff. is there any more presentation from staff? i don't believe so. is that correct? >> yes. >> we will go to public comment and circle back to commissioners for questions, if that is okay with my fellow

commissioners? okay. madam secretary, would you go to public comment. >> okay. there is public comment on item 5. please press star three if you would like to be unmuted and you have comments. john, it looks like there is one caller with their hand raised. >> caller: hello? hello? >> yes, we hear you, caller. you have two minutes. go ahead and speak. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> yes, we can hear you. >> caller: good morning. my name is sean keating with the residential builders' association, and i'm calling in the hopes of offering my support, but not just my support, but the support of the entire industry. i applaud and would like to call out the department for taking the lead and

the supervisor's lead for following this policy. unfortunately, as written, it is way too broad. it is way too easy to get caught on this list. the department issues approximately 200 notices of violations per year. as an example, let's just say, perhaps, misrepresenting the plans. if an architect does something wrong and misrepresents one portion of the plans, does the city engineer go on that list? what happens to him or her? if the contractor did relieve the demolition, do we put the architect on the list? do we put the engineer on the list? as written, we would have to. if a tenant does work without a permit, does the

owner deserve to be on the list? if this is this easy to get on, it should be much easier to get off. five years is way too long. i don't have time for a line by line item or review, but it deprives the director or the department of any discretion. all notices of violations are not the same. a one-size-fits-all approach is not advisable for this type of issue. the legislation needs some work, but with that in mind, i would like to remind the commission that the department has taken the lead, and the department has initiated through policy most of what we have in place here. the department has earned the right to continue the dialogue to get this right. i would really like to see the department, the supervisor's office, and perhaps all 11 supervisors, the building industry, all standing

together unified against the handful of bad actors. this will pass, but it is important to take our time and make sure we get it right. thank you. >> there is one more caller in the cue. caller 650678 you are in muted. >> thank you. good morning, my name is jerry. i have a couple of questions and comments on the proposed legislation. i would like to know currently how many individuals are on the compliance tracking file, and if specifically rodrigo santos' name is on the file? i would also suggest that they benchmark the current program against similar programs in san jose, los angeles, and sacramento. and, lastly, i suggest that the d.b.i. director make a quarterly presentation to the pick on compliance tracking that would include the

number of individuals, the enforcement actions taken in the quarter by d.b.i., and the bic litigation committee, like recommending cases to the city attorney or notifying state licensing boards. i understand the problem with discussing past improper acts. however, if the public does not see and hear the bic is taking corrective action, then it is not unreasonable for the public to conclude there is no real change. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, jerry, for your comments. >> if there is no further public comment -- >> there appears to be one more caller here, i believe. >> okay. >> caller 415971 you're unmuted. >> good morning. good morning commissioners

and president mccarthy. kevin o'connor calling in. i felt i was referred to in these last comments. i want to say as a homeowner, and someone who hired rodrigo santos, i want to make it clear to you guys that i am doing everything i can to right the wrong and get my permit. most of you know my names. i've reached out to all of you. the last time i heard back was from interim director o'reardon, and thank you so much, back in march. and now no one is speaking to me. the only thing i get is from mr. yow to keep waiting. i really just want my permit so i can finish my home, so i can move my family in, and i'll give anything you ask, with total transparency of new plans, and now i'm going

to the sac review. but we've been trying for over three months. and we've gotten no further. to make this meeting with five people to make this roll along shouldn't be that difficult. i feel like i'm being put aside. i want to thank you for your time. i want to apologies for being the pain i've been in these last three years, and i want to wish you all a very good new year. thank you, sonya. >> chairman: thank you, mr. o'connor. >> okay. no further comments. >> there is nobody else in the cue. >> president mccarthy, back to you. >> chairman: fellow commissioners -- thank you, andy and christine for your presentation. as my opening statement this morning, this will probably be one of our more important ordinance and legislation that we're going to work on this year. as always, and i think it was pointed out by some of

the public comment, we definitely could add more to this that would be ultimately helpful to making sure that this legislation works well. and i think it is the unintended consequences that i want to make sure we cover as we go along. with that, i do have a bit of input, but i would like to hear from my fellow commissioners first, and then maybe i would weigh in and make sure we're not all saying the same thing here. the first commissioner we'll start with is commissioner -- sorry, vice president moss. >> thank you, president mccarthy, i appreciate it. and thank you, supervisor ronan and the co-sponsors for drafting this important legislation. i don't have any specific comments to the legislation as it is. i do want to state, though, you know, for

staff (indiscernable) i think we're at a really unfortunate low in public trust overall in the process. i have personally been developing real estate in san francisco for 15 years. the reason i bring that up is because you shouldn't have to bring that up to get a slot, to get things approved, to feel like you can do things in san francisco. and i hope at the end of this, we come through in a much more transparent and productive department. i hope that, you know, that the individuals in the building inspection department do an incredibly heavy lift every day. regardless of one thing or another, resources are extremely limited in a city of this size that does this much development. and i really want to commend the building and department staff. however, i do think this is a time when we can all get better. we can look at things that happened in the past, and we can choose to make them

better. so i am looking forward to that. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. commissioner alexander took? >> thank you. and i also want to thank christina and amy and supervisor ronan for your efforts on this. i want to just state that i 100% with where this legislation is going. the public does need to know what is going on. they need to know how our policies work. i wasn't even aware of all of these policies we've taken on. and the general public needs to know. i think that is really, really important. and, you know, i think the publication of the list, people who are hiring contractors or hiring engineers need to know because most of these folks are doing it, you

know -- they're not insiders into the industry. they don't know the bad actors. they don't have access to that information until it is in the news. and then it is oftentimes too late. one of the -- i do understand there is discretion by the director. you know, so that this doesn't -- people who don't -- people shouldn't accidentally get caught up in this. it is not a prohibition. if you're on the list, you can still continue to do work as long as you meet other requirements. [please stright.

and if somebody is able to correct it within that period, does that, you know -- is the act of writing the notice of

violation stage? i have a little bit of question about that, but i am very much supportive of this effort and very -- one to make sure that we can get to a point where we are all saying, you know, a mighty, mighty yes, because you know -- there is a lot of work we have to do. and i think this is a very good first step in showing the public that we are -- that we have responded, we have internal policies and controls. it's captured in the legislation, proposed legislation, and then you know, we're giving our best feedback to the board. so thank you. >> amy, did you want to respond the commissioner or would you like to wait until all the questions are in? it's up to you.

>> i can respond to this one. agreed. we don't want folks swept up unnecessarily in too broad a net. and that is -- so there is this kind of the first list and then there is the actual compliance list, right? so there is a tracking list. and to get from that tracking list to the compliance, to the expanded compliances, a person would have to have been caught up three times within 18 months. so that is, i think, the protection there is that if you're working with someone continually, who is, you know, disregarding code in serious

ways. this isn't just like you put the light switch in the wrong spot. then, yes, you're going to be on this list and you can appeal. that's one of the parts of this that is really important. active role in review and enforcement and reporting. so, i hope that is helpful in clarifying, but obviously, we're so open to bringing in additional language that helps us make this right. >> commissioner alexander-tut: thank you so much. >> president mccarthy: so if we want to go to the commissioner clinch, please. >> commissioner clinch: at the moment i don't have questions or comments, but i might come back at the end, so i'll reserve my time if that is okay.

>> >> commissioner jacobo: good to see you again. thank you for the presentation. reading this policy and following through is fairly easy and i really did appreciate what, you know, seems to be very thought out, sound policy that has checks and balances. when i heard about it before reading it, i thought wait a minute, are we going to be capturing to the public commenter's point, that folks are just on a job or part of a tag that is not doing something incorrect. but i do feel there is three layers of checks and balances here from the deputy director to the director and then ultimately being able to hear out, i shouldn't be because a, b, c, and i think there is a lot of discretion given to the director

which is very valuable. we're trusting our people in the department of inspection for leadership, but the fact that they have to write out why this would not warrant, you know, to be added to the list, i think is also helpful in letting us know and being put on record, you know, this person has made it up to this part of the process, but they should not be on it and here's why. as we're talking through the work, we want to do this next year. as we're talking about rebuilding public trust, it is incredibly incumbent on us to have policies like this, which i believe we already have internally, but also uplift those things we're doing, so we're not constantly playing defense. there is actually a lot of good work happening by the frontline staff to the department of

building inspections and there is protocol, procedures and standard operating procedures that will be accessible to the public. i think ultimately, everybody wants to get their jobs done. i appreciate the public comment, again, where the public is incredibly important for people to have the trust in government. i know we'll -- [indiscernible] -- and walk through these things that happened in the past. thank you, guys, for putting this forward. and i look forward to making it better, but for me, it is just about there. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner. finally, commissioner tam. >> commissioner tam: thank you, mr. president. and thank you, amy and christine

for the presentation. i want to thank the cosponsors for the legislation. i, too, feel this is a tool in achieving -- providing transparency. and achieving accountability for repeat offenders. it's a step in the right direction and i appreciate that. thank you. >> president mccarthy: okay, thank you, commissioner tam. commissioner clinch, back to you? or do you want me to make comments? >> commissioner clinch: i'm still chewing on a few thoughts. if you could go ahead. >> president mccarthy: obviously, thank you for everybody's comments there. and thank you to amy for taking my call this morning and request i had was to take this morning to discuss how we can improve this and how we can make sure unintended consequences doesn't happen here. as i close my eyes and i think about this legislation, i

envision no more than four or five, maybe six people on this. that's what i would hope. and they would be the really main bad actors that seem to appear a lot. and what i don't want is to see a list that has 20 in there. i don't think that's the goal of this legislation. so -- and i had talked to john last night and i wouldn't mind getting him back on the line, but before i do that, to jerry's comments, i like the quarterly idea of report to be -- and i think commissioner jacobo touched on it, to give the full transparency to all stakeholders on the list.

i would be very interested if that could reach out, as you said, they have policy or procedure in san jose that is similar to this, if we could have that maybe as well. i think the goal here would be if we could talk through a few items with the understanding of the commission we would revisit this with our suggestions. i'm hoping we could put together a very small committee from staff. i'd be interested in seeing staff that would sit on that. i would like to sit on. if other commissioners would like to sit on, to discuss it with amy and the mayor's office and whoever else. to commissioner jacobo's point, as of right now, it doesn't come back to the commission for a vote or input, is that correct? as it's written now? >> the individual would have the opportunity to appeal to the

commission. but it wouldn't be -- you wouldn't weigh in ahead of time, right? it would be the individual would have to decide i'm going to appeal and that appeal would go to you. >> president mccarthy: so he would be on the list at this stage, right? >> yes, once he's notified of being on the list, they have the option to appeal. >> president mccarthy: is there a mechanism, say for example, somebody gets on that makes a violation and it's very egregious, right? and they have been on the list before. and there is big outcry for somebody to be put on the list immediately and not necessarily two or three violations in the 18 months. is there a mechanism in there for somebody like that? >> they would have to be put on the list and then appeal. there wouldn't be a mechanism ahead of time. my understanding of the

legislation, and, amy please correct me if i'm wrong, they have the discretion to put somebody on the list. >> president mccarthy: they wouldn't have to do the three strikes? >> yes. >> there remains the director tam immediately puts him on for one egregious or two egregious violations, whatever in his or her discretion should be on the list. and then that termination can be appealed to the b.i.c., but in the absence, there is not a way to challenge the director's decision not to put someone on for fewer than three violations. if there was egregious violation that the director determined and not warrant listing for one action, there is currently not a way to bring that to b.i.c. and

say this one action should have resulted in this. >> i have a question of clarity. >> president mccarthy: go ahead. >> so are we saying that, let's just say, john doe commits an egregious act, is put on the list. you know, they're notified they're on the list. you're saying because they skipped the three strikes, they're not able to appeal the decision to the b.i.c.? my understanding was they would be. >> they would be able to appeal. >> i see, okay. >> they would have to be put on the list first to make the appeal. >> i think what angus was asking, is it just the director's discretion, the director can say this is especially egregious and you will be put on the list, the compliance control list. and you were put on the list, you would be able to appeal. there is no step between the director making the determination and you being put

on the list. >> just to hammer home a point of clarity. that is actually an added layer of protection that the contractors have that they don't have now. because now it's not a public list. there is no appeal process, correct? so this is actually a layer of an appeal that -- appeal opportunity that is currently not afforded to contractors, is that correct? >> deputy city attorney, robb kapla, the building official retains discretion. this list is -- it's a more automatic and ministerial function, so if things meet the qualifications other than the director's discretionary one or two strikes determination to put someone on the list, the director as the building official maintains the discretion to apply the scrutiny

that he or she feels is necessary to permit going forward. there still would be the ability for any inspector to say something does not feel right about this application regardless of past actions and still scrutiny if necessary. but in terms of having an automatic list, the transparency of the automatic list and the surety of nothing is falling through the cracks is what this legislation comes through for. >> chair, if i could. >> go ahead. >> maybe this is the point that you're trying to make. if there is a person that is, you know, john doe again, is off the list, but wants to appeal, because there is a huge misunderstanding, but what is happening now, they'll automatically go on the list, but then they appeal, talk to us and we can reverse it if it's that's the case. you're getting at the in-between

period and there wasn't a wrongdoing and on the list and shouldn't have been, one caveat, one idea i would feel comfortable with, if they appeal, there is a 30-day window they have to come to us to make the final decision, where they're not on the list for 30 days would something i would be comfortable with maybe doing. but i do think it's important if there is something that egregious that we're flagging, that we give that deference to the director to make that decision. i feel comfortable where it is, but if there is enough cases that come before and fall into this category, that a 30-day window max, where you know they're not on the list for the 30 days, but after the b.i.c. hearing, the determination is what it is. >> technically, if there was, whether it's a three

determination or a single or secondary violation where the director would make this -- the director makes the ultimate determination. that would be -- that has to be appealed in 15 days to the b.i.c. and that determination once appealed is stalled. once you file your appeal, you would not be subject to those provisions until the hearing is had under the administrative code. i should note also, that as commissioner jacobo mentioned, there are several layers of consideration. first, the reports are automatic from inspection staff to the senior inspectors and chief or deputy inspector. there are also then the -- at that level, the report whether they think there is exculpatory information that warrants not listing someone. that is provided to the director

who makes the final determination and the director can ask the candidate if there is more exculpatory information. including, if the director believes that the entity should be listed, there would be the opportunity to appeal the b.i.c. while the candidacy is automatic based on three n.o.v.s, there is discretion whether or not -- it's ultimately up to the director whether or not there is information that this player was caught up through no fault of their own. >> president mccarthy: as the n.o.v., the word used serious, is that the word we use for the n.o.v.? serious violations? john, we were talking about that last night. >> yes. significant violation.

>> president mccarthy: significant. >> and then there is specifics about it, right? so it's a notice of violation -- again, they have to have -- ultimately they have to -- [indiscernible] -- keep that in mind. we're listing what types of violation, but then they have to have three of them in 18 months to move to this other list. it's misrepresentation of existing conditions, of structural work beyond the scope of the building permit or work beyond the scope of a permit dangerous to health and safety of building occupants, workers or adjacent neighbors. demolition without or beyond the scope of the building permit or other substantial noncompliance. so i think that, you know, we're not -- if this is a broad net, then we're in trouble. this doesn't seem like it should

be a net. it seems like this is what your expectation would be, that there would be compliance with permit limitations along these lines. >> president mccarthy: i'm with you. i'm playing devil's advocate here. structurely, you might not be compliant, by not having outside structural permit by putting up a fence post, which is a structural -- you know. it's trying to get down, if we don't put in -- or we don't put in a foundation bolt or something that is missing and think that. it's just the notice of violation could mean so many things. and i'm trying to figure out, are we saying like a house sliding down a hill? is that -- you know, what -- notice of violations could mean so many on these job sites, you

know. let me put it this way. what is the difference between significant and misrepresentation? right? what would be your interpretation of that? let me try and do it that way. misrepresentation and a minor misrepresentation, how about that? let's do it that way. >> yeah, i don't have an example. >> president mccarthy: yeah. i'm trying -- because -- so that's something i'd like us to work on. >> except that misrepresentation doesn't imply misintention. >> yeah. if you're going out of your way to kind of misrepresent, then fair enough, i agree. >> yeah. i mean, again, i would say, you know, these -- yes, i absolutely

respect your -- >> president mccarthy: yeah -- well, i'm doing a bad job. >> you just don't -- >> president mccarthy: i'm doing a bad job communicating. please forgive me because i'm out in the field here with my head. and i'm just thinking. john, we talked about the two to five years last night. why five years? i know one of the other -- shaun from the residential builders talked about, is the five years -- is that -- can you -- why you need to be on the -- so let's say you do approve and you are -- you had a bad couple of years and you had made bad choices and you're on the list and you haven't done anything for three years. >> are you asking me? >> president mccarthy: whoever. i don't want to put anybody on the spot. i know we talked about it.

>> i would refer to amy on the five year, because in our policy and procedure, it's a two-year. that was a change made by the supervisor's office. >> president mccarthy: originally, i saw that as two years. i'm not saying i'm against it, but why five years? >> i think we thought that was a reasonable amount of time for d.b.i. to be adding additional scrutiny. especially since projects take a long time. aside from the n.o.v.s, when we get into what actually happens once you're on the list, i think commissioner tut mentioned, it doesn't mean the person can't work. it means that d.b.i. and other departments are going to be keeping a really close eye to make sure that these kind of repeated fraudulent behaviors don't continue. and that includes things like

having planning department and d.b.i. reconvene after, you know, to ensure that continuity between the approval issued by plan, saying any approval being issued through the building permit. so, again, five years, i think projects take a long time. two years is, you know, there are a lot of projects that don't complete in two years. i think that's an appropriate length of time to just keep a careful, close eye. >> president mccarthy: and so if you've got another n.o.v., you could be on there technically for ten years? >> yeah, well, hopefully this discourages them from doing several things that get them on the list. >> president mccarthy: okay. amy, you touched on -- the review, it's all in there. it doesn't -- is that every department? so, for example, that puc as

well? is that, you know -- >> we should -- i'm happy to take another look at that. its intent is to be stations along the -- stations in the permitting process. >> president mccarthy: so you could have d.p.w., puc. >> we do have those. >> president mccarthy: so to me, planning and d.b.i., they're the main ones. so, that's something i'd like to talk a bit more about, too. just writing down notes here as we were going through it. so, rather than belaboring this,

are we in agreement, commissioners, we continue the item if it's okay with amy and staff and work through some language here over the next month or so and bring it back to the commission with what i think would help put our mind at ease that the legislation is fully vetted and talked through. i think it's very important as it goes through, for example, where is the next journey for here, you're taking it to land use? >> so we had actually planned that we would take this to land use on february 8. my understanding is that your next b.i.c. is february 17. i wouldn't want to prolong it any longer than that. we can take any -- we're happy to have any discussion suggestions -- suggestions you want. we can sit down and talk it through. we're happy to do that. have another review of this on february 17. and then our intent would be to

take it to land use as quickly as possible. this is not, um -- yeah, this doesn't seem that complicated. it's a pretty short piece of legislation and i think we should be able to resolve any issues and get it through -- february 17th is fine. >> commissioner jacobo: sorry, i thought you finished. i hate virtual meetings because i never know if you paused or are done. so, i completely agree. i mentioned i think we're just about there. it's incumbent on us to ensure we're fine-tuning the details that are important, but i do want to keep the body and spirit of what has been put forward through this legislation intact. obviously taking into account, you know, the theoretical is always different than the practical and that is understood and should be given the right

amount of thought. what i would suggest and president mccarthy you said this, subcommittee to review internally, have a debate dialogue and then just send this forward. to hopefully be enacted quickly and to your point, it's something that needs -- we don't need to pontificate and talk about it forever. just tweak it, send it out and have it on track. >> president mccarthy: perfect. i concur with commissioner jacobo. amy, i meant -- i don't think the goal here of the legislation is to have a large list here. the goal of the legislation is to really capture the really major violators. i don't think we want 50 or 60 people on this. the goal is to correct -- >> the goal on this list -- the goal on this list is to have nobody on the list. >> president mccarthy: well spoken.

thank you. >> and, unfortunately, we can't control how many people violate these kinds of specific substantial conditions, substantial violations. and hopefully this legislation will deter people from doing so in the future. >> president mccarthy: exactly. i concur with that. as i said, the detail here is so important, because i just in capturing people who shouldn't be on the list, i want to pay attention. so if it's okay, with my fellow commissioners, i'd like to continue this to the next b.i.c. meeting. i will reach out to the staff to try to put together a quick team. we could sit down and i could get this and start working on the language. if the commissioners have it, they could send it in and we could get it to staff and start

working on it. >> commissioner clinch: just quickly, i'd be interested in being a part of the discussion going forward. >> president mccarthy: that's one. and commissioner jacobo, you're number two. >> commissioner jacobo: that would be great. >> president mccarthy: then staff, director, do you have anybody in mind? would you get back to us who you think that would be? >> i think john would be my candidate and potentially christine. >> president mccarthy: yeah. and i have a request. mr. duffy, from the department of appeals who is very detailed. he will have a good insight on the n.o.v. and things like that. >> i'm more than happy to do that, president mccarthy. >> president mccarthy: thank you, mr. duffy. i didn't know you were on the

line. go ahead, amy. >> i interrupted. >> i was going to say, i believe that i am late to the game and no longer able to get on the committee, but i will submit some ideas to the committee for consideration because i -- yeah. i'm very supportive of where this legislation is going and want to see this quickly resolved. >> president mccarthy: perfect. so, amy, finish your thought. >> thank you so much. thank you very much for hearing this today. i really appreciate it. and we have been working with the staff already and both john and they've been helpful along the way. i want to ensure that we are

able to -- the group got kind of big. i want to make sure we're able to move forward on a really clear time line with the goal of us being able to make any modifications and suggestion for introductions by the 17th so we would then be able to present any changes to land use when we take it to land use. but i wanted to make sure that we're able to have a preliminary meeting, you know, perhaps next week. and i will work with john murray to make that happen if that's all right with you. >> president mccarthy: perfect. the sooner the better. i understand your dilemma about whatever amendment we make, to get it in there and so on and get it vetted. why don't we do that? john, if you want to send out an invite. i'm available and when other

commissioners are available, we'll start working on that. >> i will send out some potential dates. >> president mccarthy: okay. okay. okay. thank you so much. thank you, amy, for coming and presenting that today. >> president, we just need to make a motion to continue the item. >> president mccarthy: could somebody please? >> i'll motion to continue the item. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> and a second? >> second. >> okay, so we have a motion and a second. and are all commissioners in favor of that? okay. thank you. the item will be continued to the next meeting. next item on the agenda is item 6. discussion regarding the assessable space in any new residential development used to calculate impact fees owed to the unified school district, effective february 1, 2021.

>> hi. should i start? >> yes. >> thank you. good morning, everyone. happy inauguration day. my name is elizabeth lee. i'm the manager of the real estate employment office of the san francisco unified school district. i also have my colleague cynthia lamb. are you there? >> i am here. >> okay, great. if you would please share the slide. >> yes. >> just one moment. let me give her the duty. >> thank you. >> shaun is the host and will have to do that. >> okay.

>> so we're happy to present item number 6 of today's agenda. it's very straightforward. we will change the way that we calculate chargeable spaces for school impact fee. currently chargeable spaces include capital space only and that is space in a structure used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, bathroom, toilet, closet, hall, storage, or utility spaces are not considered inhabitable space, so those space are not being

charged. effective february 1, 2021, any new residential development used to calculate san francisco usd will be used to calculate the square footage. this will apply to addition of existing properties greater than 500 square feet. if the addition exceeds 500 square feet, then the fees will be charged fort entire addition. so the following fee will not be charged. school impact fee. any car port, cover, overhang, patio, enclosed patio, detached accessory structure, or similar

area. square footage for interior space outside individual apartment units shall be included in the calculation of school impact fees. so examples of those spaces include hallways -- i'm sorry interior hallways, stairs, storage rooms, mechanical rooms, fitness centers, lounges, and other interior common areas we've been working closely with d.b.i. staff and updated our forms to reflect the change. again, this is straightforward. everything else, including the fee schedule, the calculation of commercial space and exemptions where we made a change. we will continue to follow the governing -- this concludes our presentation. and we're happy to answer any

questions. >> president mccarthy: okay. if it's okay, i think i'd like, fellow commissioners, we go straight to public comment if there is any more testimony. is there any more testimony from staff? >> okay. is there any public comment available? if you would like to speak for public comment, please press star 3 to raise your hand. there are no speakers available for public comment. >> president mccarthy: commissioners? >> yes, i've got a question. i would love to know what the thought process was for excluding parking. can we bring -- if you don't mind, can we bring the screen shot, the description back up? or if not, no worries. i noticed that -- forgive me if i read it incorrectly, but the

legislation would exclude all car ports and garages. and i'm wondering if you could tell me what the thought process was, just for that exclusion. >> yeah. thank you for the question. so basically, this is what is authorized on that authorized for the government code. we're just following the government. just to clarify, the garages, that is within a residential area. would not be charged. but garages that are within the commercial structure, that will still be charged. >> okay. and so lots of times with new construction, especially market rate, you know there are numerous market rate developers that may be partnered with commercial spaces, the garages are shared. would someone need to parse out that square footage and, you

know, charge a little bit for the garage? i guess i just want to make sure that we are getting the school district the fees that they deserve, because certainly i think commercial parking, to be frank, more and more is going to get less. whereas residential parking will still be there. while it's building code, i appreciate that explanation. >> president mccarthy: commissioner tut? >> commissioner alexander-tut: no further questions, thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner moss spoke. commissioner jacobo? >> commissioner jacobo: no, nothing further at this time. thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner clinch? >> commissioner clinch: nothing for me, thank you >> president mccarthy: and commissioner tam?

>> commissioner tam: nothing from me at this time. >> president mccarthy: procedurally, elizabeth, if i could ask a few questions. >> sure. >> president mccarthy: you are bringing this in front of us here today even though you don't need our approval on it, it's information, correct? >> that's correct. this is purely for informational purposes, yes. >> president mccarthy: and who actually -- is it just the school district that approves this? i'm trying to figure out who is the outreach that was done to let everybody know this has been changed. >> i did. yes, we've been working with tom and rebecca. i believe they're also joining the meeting to make sure we get out to the public. my understanding is that various communications have been completed within d.b.i. as well as exterior communications,

including setting up flyers, posting notices, that d.b.i. usually do when there is a change. and i will defer to tom or rebecca on anything that i might have missed. >> president mccarthy: i would be interested to know exactly, who -- when you say postings and so on -- i because i made phone calls and nobody in the construction industry were aware of it, that i called. i'm just curious as to what is the outreach that was done. because as you look at these fees, it's quite substantial for a lot of developments that are coming down that would be built. so i'm trying to make sure that everybody is aware. so i'm curious to know who you reached out to and was there any feedback on any of the issues? was there any pushback,

discussion, anything? >> i am not aware of any pushbacks. on our end, we posted notices on our website. we don't normally send out notices to individual customers. but on the d.b.i., my understanding was that they followed procedures, that they -- >> president mccarthy: no, i understand d.b.i. are the line of collecting the fees. so they collect the fees. i'm sure if i'm a customer coming in, the questions -- if i didn't know about, what part was i notified about as a consumer, other than asking d.b.i. to collect the fees and put it on the website. i'm assuming that all that was done. i don't know of any outreach to the stakeholders. there are going to be a lot of

projects in the pipeline that are difficult to built. this would be seen as more fees they did not anticipate. i just want to make sure that everybody is aware of this and it's been weighed in. my other question is, from here, where does it go? so this is already approved at the school level, is that correct? so this is just information all the way to the supervisors. you bringing this to the supervisors? they don't vote on this. >> no. we don't need to go to the board for approval because we're doing what is authorized by the governing board. i'm sorry, by the government code. we go to the board when we change the fee structure or fee rate. we go through a whole series of hearings and procedures and notifications. however, this is what normally others are already doing. and the school district is doing what is authorized by the

government code. so my understanding from legal counsel is that we are not required to go to the board for approval and we don't have any public hearing. but i'm happy to assist if you believe that there is additional steps we need to do, to make sure we inform the community. >> president mccarthy: well, i'm just following up on what you stated in your testimony, that you did do outreach. i'm tying to say, what is the outreach? you said there is somebody else on the line that can talk to that. >> i don't know if thomas and rebecca is still here. >> tom, are you available? >> yes, i'm here. >> okay. >> so we -- yeah, we send out a release with the school fee change. you should have gotten it if you follow the department's website. not the website, but, if you

followed the -- um -- the building department. whether you would see that you have -- that the -- how they're calculating the fees has changed. it's really how that fee changed, there is -- there is a which of calculaing the fees throughout the area and the state. it's my understanding we were one of the last places that was calculating that. instead of assessable -- not assessable, but assessable in, you know, when you -- when the -- oh, heck.

when the assessor's office, that's what they're talking about, okay? so assessable space. the city assessor would calculate. and that's on there. that's the way the rest of the state is doing it, is to have a -- what do you call it -- a ruling down in southern california that how you're supposed to calculate. >> president mccarthy: yeah, okay. >> most other places, you know, we were -- again, that's -- it's the school district's fee, okay? we just calculate it and send it over to them. >> president mccarthy: yeah. no, thomas, i'm just trying to get my head -- because, i mean,

it's just -- we're living in a time where -- you know, i'm -- my seat at the contractor seat, and this fee is collected through the development. and when permits are issued and so on and finalized. we're in a very difficult time right now, so i'm just kind of questioning why now? i mean, you said it was implemented in other districts. do you know when it was implemented in other districts? how long was that? did it happen last year? that all the other districts jumped on? i'm just trying to get my head around why now? because we're living in a time as we have to promote as much jobs and development as possible. on average, you're looking at 20-25% increase in fees there. that is kind of the space that you're talking about in these buildings that you're adding

back into the fee. that's a back of the envelope assumption, it's not exactly. but it's 20% more. so i'm just wondering, is there time frame that you have to put this forward? is this something that could be maybe put through and when the economic times are better? just questions. just putting it through right now for no other reason than districts are doing it, i'm just a little bit trying to figure it out. >> i would like to add that it's not just now we're thinking about doing it. we actually -- we've been trying to work with d.b.i. staff, various different staff, for almost two years now to implement this change. and there were a lot of obstacles in terms of identifying the correct person and so forth. and so i just want to clarify,

we're not just thinking of doing it now. we

>> as i mentioned earlier, we are not required to go to the school board. i can go back and check. we only go to the school board when we increase the fee structure. so every time we want to increase a fee rate, we have to conduct a study. a justification study, right. and go through all the hearings and the proper notifications. however, in this case, we're changing the method of calculation of calculating the square footage as authorized by the government code. >> president mccarthy: by the government. >> therefore, we're not -- >> president mccarthy: my apologies, i thought this would have to go on some forum.

forgive me. so i'm clear, it's not open to any public forum. it's just done within your division, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> president mccarthy: and that division, the name of that division would be, sorry? >> we're with the san francisco unified school district facility department and we're a subdivision called real estate employment office and authorities department in the san francisco unified school district. >> president mccarthy: who would have made the decision, who would have signed off, implemented this? is it you, elizabeth? >> i'm in charge of the department. i report to my chief facilities officer. >> president mccarthy: sorry last name? >> kamalanathan. and the first name is dawn.

it's a she. >> president mccarthy: sorry, my apologies, once again. that was an executive decision made by this person, right? >> that's correct, yes. >> president mccarthy: is this person answerable to the school board? >> yes. >> president mccarthy: okay. okay. listen, i appreciate you answering all my questions. but i am concerned about the timing of this right now. i am concerned -- you know, just so you understand, i spent many months sitting on the mayor's office task force to work hard on trying to come up with creative ideas. my particular concern, building and coming up with and there was all types of discussions with the fees, which is an option still there. but definitely, i have to tell you, the timing is really,

really difficult because i think you'll see a large decrease in your fee coming in more so because a lot of developments are going to have trouble getting out of the ground here, because banks are pulling in and so on. i'm a little bit concerned that this might be a part of a bigger problem that we're having right now in getting development going here. i have to express my concern on that. obviously, it's a decision that is made. i am curious, i would love to know if the mayor's office weighed in on this. did they have a say on this? >> my understanding is not. but i can go back and check. my understanding this would be a decision that would be made within the school district. we're not required to get the mayor's approval for that. >> president mccarthy: okay. all right.

but they are aware of this, right? >> um, i am not sure. but what i can -- sorry. what i can do is, i can reach out to our liaison in the mayor's office. >> president mccarthy: please. >> so communicate this. >> president mccarthy: and just please get them. i'm really surprised. i'm not saying it shouldn't happen, but i find it difficult at this time right now. that's my comments. i thank you for coming today and bringing this forward. any other questions for commissioners? no? okay. thank you. >> great, thank you. >> our next item is item 7. discussion and possible action regarding revisions to administrative bulletin 112, establishing regulations for permits for mixed fuel,

construction and technical feasibility. >> president mccarthy: madame secretary, are you waiting on me? >> so, john, is staff going to present anything? >> barry hooper from the department of environment will be presenting. >> sorry fort delay. didn't want to speak until i was recognized. this is barry hooper. department of the environment. thank you, commissioner and members of the commission. i'll try to keep it brief. at your august meeting you reviewed an ordinance. at your september meeting you supported the ordinance and how to address physical and technical feasibility.

the legislation was passed ultimately in november and signed into law by the mayor on november 25. the item before you just proposes to update the regulation adopted by this commission to reflect some revisions that the board of supervisors made to the ordinance. those revisions are summarized in a document in your supporting materials. i'll just highlight three of them briefly. the date of applicability to the ordinance was revised to submit their initial application for site permits on or after june 1, 2021. the supervisors added exceptions for limit -- limited exceptions for commercial cooking, commercial food service establishments, where that is necessary. and there was a clarification out of the ordinance that in the event there is a pre-existing contract where project sponsor would believe that contract

would be in conflict with the provisions of the ordinance, the matter will be referred to the city attorney and the city will honor its existing contracts. so the bulletin is proposed to be amended to reflect those issues. i'm happy to take questions or discuss any item in greater detail. >> president mccarthy: thank you, barry. this will be short. commissioners, any questions? i don't see. barry, one quick. thank you for that and reaching out during the week and giving me the bullet points. so i'm good with everything. one thing would point out, barry, and i don't know if you're aware of this. and the director and i have been talking about it. pg&e sent out a statement, i believe it's statewide, not

necessarily san francisco. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> san francisco's particular public works administers the public right-of-way. and so those remain outstapping- outstanding issues. in the event conflict between installing a transformer and constructing small building, does address that and provide the exception. >> president mccarthy: would you, if you had a chance, i know you've got an awful lot going on, if you're able to pull the exception and send it to me. >> sure. >> president mccarthy: thank you for clarifying that. because, you know, we have our exception in there for that hardship situation that we might have, because of one size doesn't fit all. i appreciate it, barry. okay. thank you for coming back and giving us the update. we don't need to vote on this, do we? >> it is a discussion and possible action item. >> president mccarthy: yes. >> clerk: is there any public comment on in item? >> there are for callers if the

queue. >> clerk: no callers. >> president mccarthy: knowing barry, he'd like a vote on this. he wants to make sure everybody -- if somebody could call, i'd appreciate it. for approval. >> clerk: is there a motion to approve? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> clerk: thanks. i got the motion -- the second was by vice president moss? thank you. i'll do a roll call vote on this item. president mccarthy. >> president mccarthy: yes. >> clerk: vice president moss. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner jacobo. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner tam. >> yes. >> clerk: the motion passes number. item 8, upregard d.b.i.'s initiatives to accelerate permit processing during the health crisis. >> good morning, commission president mccarthy and members

of the commission. i'm the chief officer for permitting services, including plan and the permit processing. and i'll be giving you a brief update on our progress and our status for various improvements and various conditions that we have in terms of permit processing. if i could share a power point, can i get permission to share a power point? okay. great. is my power point visible? >> yes. >> okay. great. thank you. so in terms of our processing decisions, a quick status update

on this slide. nothing has really changed on here. we continue to provide over-the-counter permits, if the permit does not require plans. it's processed on a walk-in basis between 7:30 and 9:30. if requires plan checks and the process is more involved in terms of the plan check review, we will take in and drop it off between 9:30 and 3:30. we continue to offer permits online for trades. we continue to offer expedited permits. and the electronic plan review, we will do it for prop h projects for affordable housing and we're looking to expand the a.p.r. as well to other types of permits. the current challenges that we have in terms of addressing them, we are in the process of

continuing to implement the technologies and our process. i'll detail that over the next few slides and over this slide as well. so we are expanding the number of review permits available online. we are working on kitchen and bath remodels, so it's available online. we hired more staff. so we hired permit technicians and we did some reorganization in terms of our permit processing. we have combined it under one entity. we used to have the o.t.c. division, we used to have the c.b.d. division. we combined it under one. this allows us for more fluidity in terms of allocating resources and checking resources under a new manager. over time we're offering overtime for permit processing staff, that had been ongoing.

the good news, too, is we are offering overtime to plan review staff and that's started of as of last week. we're already seeing a drop in our backlog. and we have been -- this is the last item is not a new item, but we have just for the sake of completeness. we have worked with other agencies to process on our behalf, especially the permits that pertain to their operations, such as the fire department and planning as well. so in terms of appointments, again nothing has changed. this is just a recap we're offering six appointments for customers. 24 that are scheduled online. and we take 12 from the wait-list for requests or special requests. we offer the appointments within the next few days and we

proactively work with each customers to offer them appointments, if we see an open slot. and we advise a customer that can benefit from the help. in terms of addressing the -- just more detail on the couple of slides ago. in terms of processing the permits and plan checks in a timely manner, as i mentioned, we did a reorganization, but it will be quite beneficial. and if we have also -- have been using multiple sources of basically looking up -- [indiscernible] in terms of an excel preed sheets, outlook emails. so we have consolidated all of the requests in one central database that we are working from, for more accurate processing and more timely processing. it also help the efficiency in terms of processing those permits instead of looking for them in multiple lists. it also will reduce the

automation in terms of processing. so again the next few items just relate to what i just mentioned in terms of staff assignment and shifting staff to basically reduce our backlog and take what we have for in-house, projects that we have right now. we are looking at targeting all of the projects in the queue. should be done by the end of february. after that the target is to do all incoming permits and plan checks, intakes within zero to one working day. one day at the moment. the plan review process, we also made some changes in the last few weeks. one of those changes pertains to mostly smaller projects, additions and remodels. the previous process was if a

project comes in, we see an addition, it gets reviewed for building aspects, then it gets forwarded to a mechanic plan checker, that reviews the energy and the basic mechanic requirements such as water heaters, for example. this puts necessary overhead over our process for simple things like this. for example, even plan check involves a number of steps that has to be done in terms of logging, in terms of fetching the plans, in terms of opening the plans and getting oriented with the plans and then logging out the plans and taking the plans back out. where this process -- this overhead is actually more than it takes to actually review those items. so and the plan check of the building, plan checker, as of two weeks ago, will be reviewing

other basic mechanical, plumbing, electrical requirements for single-family dwelling, additions and remodels as well as -- [indiscernible] requirements. this also reduces the unnecessary routing and unnecessary waiting in another line to be processed for additional requirements. we have trained staff on this process and we will continue to provide support and training for staff, since it is a little bit of a shift for the normal process that we used to. one plan checker now is responsible and accountable for the project and one plan checker will answer to the customer instead of transferring the customer to a different stations to get their question answered. the next few steps we're just going to continue with our technology and processing improvements. we have the public advisory forum on january 27th.

we will be continuing with speeding up the intake of permits and plan checks and reducing the plan check volume, just as a recap and defining the process for prop h to meet our timelines. just a snapshot of our volume. in terms of the permit processing, the intake and the issuance of the personals in the week from january 4th to januarn and logged 441 plan checks -- i'm sorry, permits. some of them require plan checks, some of them do not. we have issued 378 permits. this is it for my presentation. if any of the members of the commission have any questions, i would be happy to address them. >> president mccarthy: thank you, sam.

very informative. very helpful. thank you. commissioner moss. >> no questions at this time. thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner alexander-tut. >> thank you so much for your presentation. i was wondering if you could. -- you said the next goals are around technology and process improvements. is there anything in addition to what -- anything additional about that -- >> technology-wise? >> yes. particularly technology-wise. >> we are exploring a number of alternatives to our process and also to augment our process. one of the things that we have been looking at and considering is a virtual content. if we -- it's still in the evaluation process. if we do it, we may do it on a day-to-day basis nourishmently and then roll it out, --

initially and then roll it out if it works to all members of the board. >> thank you. >> president mccarthy: commissioner alexander-tut, if staff is ready here, i know one of them can talk. this is a good time to ask about your covid concerns, in regard to inspections. >> perfect. thank you. >> president mccarthy: yes. >> so i had -- i had been -- someone asked me this question. i didn't have the answer. it seems to make a lot of sense about the inspectors -- and many of our staff being considered essential workers, in the terms of the -- i don't know how to -- forgive my lack of proficiency in talking about the vaccine queue. it's my world. you know, certain

classifications, certain jobs are being prioritized for the vaccine. and i'm wondering if any of our workers are on that list? and if not, if there could be -- if -- i understand the decisions are being made at the state level. and there will be communication and interest -- interest of the committee to reach out to the state to, you know, if we are not on that accelerated timeline, in order to be able to put that on an accelerated timeline, because our workers are in the field, in and out of buildings, as i described before and noted we're an essential service. i want to make sure that's reflected in the safety for our staff. >> it is. i believe we are -- it's something we're looking at in terms of the vaccination for

staff. administrative aspect of the department can probably speak more intelligently to this than i would. but protecting the life and safety of our staff is one of or top priorities. and at the earliest possible opportunity, absolutely, we will get -- make vaccines available to them. >> through the chair. >> commissioners, if i might mention that we really appreciate, especially your comments commissioner alexander-tut, in regards to the exposure that our staff has, insofar as they're going out to the job sites every day. and they're -- obviously there is some degree of risk. and any support that we can get from you as a commission or others is obviously greatly appreciated. so maybe if, joe duffy, can i ask you to speak a little bit about our efforts right now and

what we're doing in regards to doing inspections and that also includes looking at safety -- covid safety protocols at these job sites. >> sure, no problem. we were going to do a couple of slides on that. or do you want to put those on? >> yeah. i just need hosting. sonya, can you give me the power? >> sorry. >> clerk: okay, jon. you should have it. >> okay. does everybody see that? >> yes.

>> clerk: yes. >> great. >> sorry, commissioners. just like jon, i got called. this came up a little bit earlier. i really -- just want to echo what patrick mentioned and, commissioner, tut, thank you so much for bringing up this issue. the inspectors, indeed, are dealing with the covid every day. we've got remote -- in and out of buildings. at the minute we are, however, very heavily involved in the covid compliance with regard to construction sites working with the city administrator's office and the health department and weekly calls with getting numbers, ensuring information on case outbreaks and stuff. there's been a lot of good work done. and just our -- just go through the slide here.

the construction industry, 131 cases have been reported at construction sites since the start of january, just this year. the b.i.d. alone conducted 4,000 inspections in december. several projects have voluntarily suspended through to the covid outbreaks among workers. inspectors have had to cancel scheduled inspections due to covid outbreaks on-site or noncompliance with the health order protocols. we are documenting -- if you want to do the next slide, jon. we are doing checklists on sites where we are documenting any protocols that are aren't being met. and, you know, as the slide says, there are goals to ensure the safety of the contractors, workers, public and our d.b.i. employees. we are ensuring that the contractors are complying with the health order.

we're distributing information. we're documenting the known compliance, like i said, on a checklist. we're keeping that information. inspectors are sending that in us. we have addresses with known coronavirus. and for repeat offenders and for all of the information, the city attorney feels they need to get that information, which they do review, we can share that with them as well. and the inspectors are also leaving the checklist with the site to let them know of any deficiencies that the inspector came across. we're not going there in as health inspectors. really information and to get the word spread that construction sites and people on them need to be very careful in these times. as you did see, there's quite a disturbing number. and when you hear the weekly calls and updates, where we are at the minute is not good.

and, as a matter of fact, a couple of sites that we're probably going to do some visits on with the health department staff. let them take the lead. there's huge sites that have had 29, 30 cases of covid outbreaks on that. are they putting too many people in one area. one of the things we found out last week was that the -- when they get the buildings enclosed most of the cases are coming between drywall workers and electricians, as a matter of fact. so that means that obviously when they get the building walls, closed -- the outbreaks are becoming higher and easier to catch. jon, you can do the next slide. i think the slides speak for themselves on some of the protocols. jon, that's the last one? >> yeah.

i want to thank d.b.i. >> yeah. as you can see, we're checking for screening protocols, social distancing, posting of sign and, providing the hand-washing stations, facilities and outlined in the health order. we are finding that the outbreaks that we're getting told about, by the health department, are in the large construction sites, not so much on the smaller ones. but each inspect is -- has a package of checklists and we're asking for weekly turn-ins, as i said. i'd be available for any questions if anyone has any. >> president mccarthy: thank you, mr. duffy. commissioner tut, back to you. i'm sure you want to close out. >> yeah. i'm seeing -- thank you so much for all of this information. i understand, from reading in the press, the construction industry is the most impacted

industries. this presentation really brought it to light. thank you so much for your leadership and putting this together. 4,000 inspections in december. that kind of, you know, really rush it will shocked me. so i -- yeah, i'd love to hear from the other commissioners. i do not have any further questions at this time. but i don't know what the appropriate -- i don't know if i can make a motion, i'm not quite sure. i'm looking to you, mr. city attorney, in terms of how to -- how can i move to -- is it just encouraging at this point, because -- can i make a motion to support the movement of the inspectors to a higher, you know, level. >> thank you, mr. president.

>> president mccarthy: let me just hitchhike off you. i'm in agreement with you. i guess -- i would like to see what the other commissioners say. i'm just thinking in terms of -- i mean, is there a resolution that we could put together or a letter we could put together that would send to the health director, you know, outlining the front-line workers that we have and how important and imperative it is for the city and we're not being looked at that way. i was just wondering if -- yeah. i'm just thinking of those. we can go to the other commissioners and then we can go back to you, city attorney. i don't want to be jumping ahead of everybody. any other commissioners? yeah. yeah. yeah, please, yep. >> yeah. so, commissioner alexander-tut, thank you so much for this. and also mr. duffy. thank you so much for putting this together and putting it into context. you know, outside of the commissioner and outside the work that i do, we have been

kind of the front line for covid testing. you know, we've done a little bit of over 30,000 tests in communities since the pandemic has started. and now today coming from south of market site that we launched for the community. and so i think it would be remiss for me not to bring up a couple of points here related to that. number one, i just want to second that absolutely if our inspectors are doing 4,000 inspections in the field during the month, not to mention the nearly 300 in-home inspections being done, they are absolutely on the front line to doing this work. i think that we need to be very up front that they need to be included in one of the new phases, phase 1a 1b, whatever that is, what are the conditions are. can be very vocal that they need to have the level of priority

for early vaccination. as we all know, right, the mayor has said that by thursday, we may be out of vaccines. and this is obviously a supply and demand issue from the state and the feds. with that being said, i think of parallel track and the question i have maybe to staff here is how many inspectors do we have and is there testing for -- covid testing that's provided now and what is the -- [indiscernible] i will follow that up with mentioning the buy now rapid tests, results in 15 to 30 minutes and happy to talk about that as well. those are two questions. >> commissioner jacobo, the testing is readily available to us with the at the test program. i took one this afternoon myself. we are taking advantage of that. we are encouraging inspectors to regularly get tested. even staff like in the office. i must say that being an employee of the city and county

of san francisco with the at the test -- with the city test program, it's working really, really well. there are occasions -- sometimes it's actually even too dangerous to be doing the inspections at the minute. just in the building a lot of things going on and other way to investigate the complaints, without having to to get into the building. there are some chances where we've not gone into the building because of the danger. just add that as well. this is a really good conversation for us. i'm delighted to have it. and any help we can -- we all know the vaccine is hard to get at the minute. we know that. we really refresh -- appreciate the support. and i know everyone at d.b.i. will as well. >> how many 234-5079ers do we have -- inspectors do we have in total? >> sorry, i missed that part. you're probably talking in the region of 60 inspectors,

plumbing and electric. i don't have the exact number. but i didn't research it for you. but i would say we're talking in the region of 60. >> beautiful. if you're looking at resolutions, obviously asking for the state priority. i don't think that we would be alone as the only county. and only, you know, the department of -- [indiscernible] that we should be thinking through this. obviously i think making the calls to our local d.p.h., obviously the mayor and also just trying to ensure that there's availability of testing. so the staff, you know, has the ability to get tested. i just want to quickly just say that rapid testing that is available, we're currently doing it at 24th and mission. we have supplies. and the state gives you your results within literally 30 minutes. there's some kind of program that could be set up for inspectors to ensure they're safe, keeping others safe and

current status, you know, kind of more realtime, if you will. something to talk about in the future. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner. thank you for all of your work that you're doing out there in the community. commissioner -- i'll just go through the other commissioners and try to close this out with some form of abc. commissioner -- who did i miss? commissioner tam. >> i just wanted to state that i want to thank the d.b.i. staff. you know, joe duffy and the staff and everything that they do. the commitment to their duties and also just to commend jon on what he does outside of this commission. i think it's amazing work that you're doing out there. >> president mccarthy: thank you, commissioner tam. commissioner clinch, please. >> i don't have anything. thanks. thank you. >> president mccarthy: good. obviously we've had a lot there to discuss.

obviously thanks to sam for his presentation. and that i hope that -- that would be shared in some newsletter, the latest information to the industries and to the general world. so next -- so to the city attorney, on regards to a request that we would have from d.b.i., i'm mindful to -- i don't know where the interim director would feel on this and the fellow staff members, but also some of the -- obviously the intake people at our desks and d.b.i. you know, they're front line there as well. is there a policy that we could get where -- i don't know, a letter that we could ask, is there a percentage of people that could be vaccinated, can't get them all. get some form of commitment. could we do it in the resolution. i'm all ears, guys. i don't know. >> president mccarthy, if i might speak to that.

i think that primarily we have to be very concerned about all of our staff. the inspectors in particular that are going out to these job sites, where we know that we have these high number of infections, but in addition to that, we have staff here every day that are interacting with customers. so, you know, there is a concern there also, because as we all know, not everybody has the same exposure that d.b.i. staff does. and we are -- obviously we're an essential service. and we also have to be thinking about, you know, we want to keep everyone healthy. so we can continue to provide that essential service. we'll eventually be farther of facilitating an economic recovery. because construction, as we know, is an engine that will help drive the economic recovery. i think it's a fairly broad conversation. i'm putting my hand up and

stating that we want to keep our staff safe and everyone that comes into this building safe and folks that perform inspections for ourself. that's what's paramount in my mind. >> president mccarthy: yeah. okay. city attorney, is there any leadership you can give us on that? >> deputy city attorney robb kapla. i think that while the building inspection commission can enter -- ask questions or give feedback to the department, we shouldn't pontificate on what other departments should do. i would restrict the conversation to the building inspection commission giving guidance to the department as to setting what testing or vaccination goals or protocols that you would like to see the department report on or pursue.

this is not an action item. we can't really take an actual action here, although the commission can express its desire a future action item. i'm not sure if that gets to the gist of your question. >> commissioner jacobo, you had mentioned different tiers of vaccination. >> yeah. >> president mccarthy: can you walk me through that. tier #, tier 2. >> it's also dependent on county, right. >> president mccarthy: right. >> for example, at the state level where you have the 1a right now where it's really targeting the scheduled -- sorry, these nursing homes, specializzize -- specialized nursing homes. there's also the 75-plus group, right, people over 75.

the governor said, oh, we'll low that are to 65. the mayor in l.a. is saying you know what, we're going to state our health care workers, what we're going to do. so, yes, the state is saying this, we're going to do that. so what i'm trying to get at is in these tiers, that the state has given, i think it's obviously important for us to play within those specific parameters. but i think there is flexibility to give kind of some definition to those terms, who falls into those categories. so my suggestion, you know, obviously for the staff to take and to think through, what is it that the department of public -- is currently playing with, what parameters. what is the earliest that our most front-line workers, right, thank you for being clear and, president mccarthy, you know, we have folks in the building every day, right. folks that are doing face-to-face service. what is the tier that makes the most sense to be able to lump this group into, because it is

different than other departments that can't just work from home, right. we're not -- we don't have that privilege. you have to be in the building and dot face-to-face work. coupled with that what would be great if the department creates its own internal tiers. some that can work from home and have the privilege, versus others pretty exposed to 4,000 inspections a month. so i think it's kind of in tandem, right. one is doing the internal, you know, who would be on this priority list, so to speak, right. and then coupled with where can you get within the prioritization of the phasing, the state level and the local level. and so that would -- that would kind of be my approach. i think it would be great for us to do that. we're also saying just on the community side, specific rolling out, just because we don't have the vaccine, doesn't mean we can't develop a structure and a plan to wait for them when they ramp up.

because they inevitably will. so those would be my thoughts. >> president mccarthy: thank you. very helpful. christine. hello, christine. >> sorry. i had my mute button on. >> president mccarthy: i know. poor christine. you know i'm going to ask something big of you here. and obviously with the permission of the interim director, is that something that we could let's say set a goal to create our own tier system? i like that idea. so we could send it up the line to say, look, can we be included? can we be looked at this way? >> yes. >> president mccarthy: and i -- i don't know what's going to happen in other departments. i'm hearing from other department front-line workers are being vaccinated.

i'm not sure. i'm not going to say who. i know that it exists. so what did they do, you know? >> okay. we can look into that. >> president mccarthy: yeah. and then the idea would be let's say at the next meeting that we would have some form of system that we feel, a tiered system based on commissioner jacobo's and commissioner tut's concernser that we could send up to -- put in the form of resolution. i would go back to the city attorney what's the best format and get it up to the director of health mr. coal plaques. any other input you want to put there, commissioners? >> yeah. i would just -- this is a research point. but if it's -- should it be colfax and whoever it is at the state level and it's more of a research -- >> public health for the state.

the doctor, i don't know. i was going to say. former health director. >> that's a decision maker, right. that's actually a decision maker. >> president mccarthy: if i understand that right, we can do it from a local level, right, commissioner jacobo? we could -- you said another mayor -- the mayor could -- >> okay. >> president mccarthy: we can take the state's recommendation, but we can rewrite that script a little bit if we wanted to be our own criteria, right? >> well, definitely what it seems to be. and i'm just using a very recent case of mayor bresedi who isn't interested in lowering to 65 at the moment, he's focused on health care workers. i think he's playing within the tiers, but utilizing his own prerogative and local at this point, making the decision what he wants to do at that moment. i think that we -- if they're doing it, we also have the ability to do something of the same. but obviously either the city

attorney or d.p.h., that's for them to kind of answer i guess. but it is happening in other places. >> president mccarthy: okay. >> deputy city attorney robb kapla. i think essentially a couple of options here for the commission to consider. i would think -- i would suggest the proper course is to update this item for the next big hearing, so that it is an action item, update and possible action on not only status of permit review during the shelter-in-place or the health crisis, but also testing and vaccination protocols. and i think the request or the feedback to the department, from the commission, which is your jurisdiction essentially, is to evaluate other department's plans, other city's plans on this. try and come up with a formula to how we prioritize testing and vaccination within the department, within these tiers, assuming the state does change or the city changes the tiering

or prioritization. and also to request either that the department present this plan with a request along the lines of commissioner jacobo has discussed to the city officer, the mayor and/or the state or conversely b.i.c. could write a letter on its behalf, u.v. taken a noticed hearing item and moved in that way. i think it would be best probably to have staff mr. a report in the priorization program and the department forward the information along to city and state officials. >> president mccarthy: that's our direction. as father brendan told me, quiet priest never got their parish. so we need to get our say in here. >> amen.

>> very good. thank you, everyone. >> president mccarthy: okay. so i will -- christine, you and i will talk about it offline again. we'll start working toward that. interim director, are you okay with everything discussed so far? >> absolutely. and i'm very grateful to the commissioner's interest in, because we are primarily focused on trying to keep everyone safe. >> president mccarthy: okay. once again thank you, sam, for his presentation. very detailed and very helpful. and that will come out in some form of a newsletter, information letter to everybody, like you've been doing? >> sure. absolutely. it's my pleasure to present it. and we'll be happy to do that as well. >> president mccarthy: thank you. very helpful. okay. madam secretary, next item, please. public comment, i'm sorry. >> clerk: no. there's no callers if the queue. thank you.

for number 9, the item is update on occupancy or s.r.o. program regarding covid-19 actions. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i appreciate the discussion we just had. and i want to quickly review a couple of things that we do in housing things. if you're not interested, please just stop me. we check out, we get some information from the department of public health regarding s.r.o.s and cases in s.r.o.s. and we cross-reference the list where people are going out to on inspections. there's an active case, we can go into the buildings. we have -- also there are, of course, active cases in other residential buildings. and we don't have information on

that. we ask the same three questions we have to answer every day, before someone comes into the office, regarding what the person has been out of the county, whether they've been tested or have symptoms before they agree to do an inspection. we've been in contact with local 21, who is very supportive of housing inspectors getting vaccinated. we've talked to our personnel office and talked to them about inquiring with the department of human resources as to vaccination for front-line workers such as housing inspectors. there are 20,000 tenants in s.r.o.s. our staff is frankly kind of stressed out. and stretched very thin. we do appreciate the support from the commission we've gotten in our work to slow the spread

of the virus in s.r.o.s. what we're doing in the office is that we have one supervisor and two clerks report to the office each day and everyone else works remotely. and we've been doing that for a very long time. and, you know, it's been a long meeting this morning. today is inauguration day. so i'm going to keep this really short. and if there's any questions, i'd be happy to take them. >> president mccarthy: thank you. commissioners, any questions for james? >> no. >> president mccarthy: i see none. to your point, we will have to look at including housing in our game plan for vaccinations. >> thank you. >> president mccarthy: okay. >> clerk: thank you. and there's no -- no public callers in the queue for public comment. our next item is item 10,

discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the department of building inspection for the fis aquittal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. >> good morning, everyone. i'd like to share my screen. okay. so, good morning, commissioners. the deputy director for the department of building inspection. and before the fiscal year 20-21-2022 and fiscal year 2022-2023 proposed budget. so basically the mayor's office

is projecting a deficit and ongoing covid expenses. and to address that deficit, general fund departments have to submit a 7.5% general fund reduction and another 2.5% contingency reduction. since d.b.i. is a special fund department and we're fully funded by department fees, these reductions don't apply to d.b.i. so the mayor's office budget priorities are supporting small businesses and economic recovery, prioritizing programs with demonstrated outcomes centered on equity, implementing homelessness and mental health programming and also continuing to respond to covid. and so basically similar to prior years, our budget funds to meet the strategic plan goals. of course, that's review plans, issuing permits, performing inspections, deliver high customer service, administrative

practices, as well as proactively educating the media contractors and stack hold -- stakeholders and customers. our budget goals in general, our strategic goals address the core services, this year, just like any other year, we have funding priorities. our funding priorities align with the mayor's priorities, and basically -- our two funding priorities are on equity and technology improvements. and so as you're all aware at the last december meeting, we went over our phase 1 racial equity plan, that focused on internal programs, primarily internal staffing issues. and so our budget will focus on implementing that plan over the next two years, particularly working with certain things suchs a training. we have reduced training, because we can't to go through the organizational culture. we're also continuing to

partnership with our community-based organizations, through the house and inspection division. that's with our s.r.o. outreach program and our other programs. and basic outreach. we do a lot of outreach into the community. we make sure that we have our information published in different languages. we actually have staff who are on call to actually assist customers in different languages and so we want to make sure that all of those things continue in the world of technology improvements, what we're focusing on over the next year or two increasing the online capabilities, increasing and improving our forms and reports. and also doing some website enhancements. so all of that pretty much is what we'll be -- our funding priorities. so let's start off with our revenue. so as i stated earlier, we don't have to meet a general fund reduction, because we don't

actually hit any general fund. so we have to use all of our fees to cover. but similar to what's going on with the general fund, we've been talking about this over the past few months, too. we see the same thing with our revenues the revenues have gone down drastically. the revenue details here and in the current year, we've budgeted $47.4 million in revenues. the goodyears -- the good news is for next year, we're bumping that up a little bit. so we're seeing our revenues go up a little bit. once again the 47.4 was based on where we were in june. so, you know, we took wherever we were in june and used for our budget. over the last six months, we've seen slight improvements in some of our revenues. that's why we're bumping up our revenues for the next two years, to about $51 million. so that's really -- that's some good news that we have. just so you can see our revenues, this shows you pretty

much the types of revenues that we get. so we always talk about our building permits and plan check revenues. so those two revenues alone make up now about 50% of our revenues. now in prior years, it was closer to 60% we can really see what's going on with the pandemic and how things are happening. and the impact it has on our two largest revenues. the second chart shows our revenue over time, right. and so while the pandemic has been drastic for us, right. we had a huge reduction in revenues since april of last year, what this shows is actually our revenues have been decreasing since fiscal year '15-'16. it's become a little bit more drastic. we have been seeing a reduction over the past five years or so of the revenues and just that -- the pandemic actually sped that up a little bit. so that's on the revenue side. so let's go to expenditures. one thing i will say about the

revenues is that, as i said before, before i move on, this is based on our closest revenues throughout this budget period, until the budget is actually adopted, we'll be reviewing the revenues and making adjustments. and so this may go up and down, it may fluctuate for -- actually include in the budget. also although it's better than where we were in the current year and going up to $51 million. when we go back to this, you see before we were at 60, 70, 80. once again although we're seeing slight improvements, the revenues really are a lot lower than what we're accustomed to. so we'll go to major expenses now. so on the expenditure side. basically we have the buckets of expenses. and these expenses primarily like most departments are salary and fringes or largest expenses at about 58% of our budget.

the second largest expense will be serviced by the departments and we'll have smaller expense like materials and supplies, grants to our community-based organizations and our non-personnel services. so here are the details on our expenditures. and so currently you see our budget is $89.5 million. next year it's going down to about $88.7 million. we have made reductions in a variety of things. you'll see, for instance, a huge reduction in materials and supplies. the reason that this number was so high in 2021, because we had to do a lot of gearing up to get ready for online capabilities, we're able to bring the number back down to something more reasonable. you see travel is going down, because we don't think we're going to be doing any travel. as i said before, we are maintaining our training dollars, to make sure -- we're

doing some online training on a variety of things and maintain those dollars. this year we will not be purchasing any replacement vehicles. normally we have a replacement schedule, do maybe five, six, up to ten vehicles a year. because of what's going on right now, we've decided -- our fleet is in pretty good shape. we've gotten a lot of our gas -- most of our gas vehicles. and we're just not going to do any replacements this year that way. one reduction we have in our second largest services, the work orders. you see a huge $2.5 million reduction. and this reduction is primarily due to, for instance, we worked with the city attorney. we're reducing the work order. we've reduced -- we have some rental leases that are no longer applicable, since we moved to the new building. so that's a reduction there. and then some although we're at 89.5, we're at 88.6. it's just a reduction of

$815,000. so let's -- i'll go to here. so the increases that you see in salaries, so if you go to salaries, are focused on the decrease. increases. this really has nothing to do with us adding anything. this is cola and a lot in health and also in retiree costs. that's where you see the increase in salaries. and i already went over with the reductions are and work orders, similar to revenues. we will be working with our city partners to go over all of our work orders to make sure they're the ride size and make sure there's agreement on both sides. because we have to look at work orders, because as i showed here, it's really the second largest expenditure. no matter how much we cut training or all of those other things, you look numbers and see very, very low. if we want to make an impact on bringing our costs down, we have to look here and look at services of other departments. that's just the way it works.

okay. so the next tier is just the services of other departments detail. this is the details of all of the -- where all of the work orders that we give to other departments. so, for instance, as you can see we've reduced, you know, this lease here it's been reduced. we've reduced the city attorney work order so about $500,000. working with them. giving a projection of what they think they'll need for the next fiscal year. so that's everything that we have planned for today. just to give you a little background. there was some legislation passed by the board. and there are two meetings that are required for every department. and we've always had our meetings, because we have a commission. but it's for budget transparency and to make sure that there's participation. so at the first budget meeting, it's to talk about -- your funding priorities, kind of go over high level what things are going on and be able to get

input from the public on what they think should be included in the budget. as sonya mentioned, we'll have a second meeting. i think that's going to be on february 10th. and then i'll have more details, primarily the details that i'll include are this information that you have now, but the information will be at the division level, if you're interested in seeing exactly wherethis money being spent. you know, which divisions have which type of budget there. i would anticipate that possibly some of the work orders may change, too. i'll be in communications with the -- actually some of the other city departments that we're reviewing their work orders. there may be some changes there. and so that's where we'll go from there. my last slide i'll show here is just basically it shows, for instance, our org chart. as i said before, next week when we go over the budget, we'll be able to give you more details and you'll see the actual budgets for each of these -- for

each of these divisions. and with that i'm happy to answer any questions or comments or if there are any addition or anyone needs to talk about with the budget. i'm happy to do that. >> president mccarthy: thank you, deputy director. commissioners, i should go through. vice chair moss. >> no comments at this time. thank you very much. >> president mccarthy: commissioner alexander-tut. >> thank you for your presentation. are there -- i guess -- are there any measures that we have in place right now with the holdover to the budget process, such as, i don't know, like things -- things that we're holding that we were planning on purchasing, or hiring freezes or anything inactive right now?

>> yes. so -- i'm sorry. by now you mean in the current fiscal year? or that we were proposing next year? >> yeah. i apologize. anything currently. like any of the current policies. >> yes. so in our actual budget, we actually reduced our attrition last -- in the current year 2021. we didn't cut any positions, we cut the attrition. because we knew some other positions probably would be vacant a little bit longer, because you can't do things -- [indiscernible] the salaries were a little bit lower just by attrition. we had already reduced travel and training and so the numbers

that you see are lower than our prior years. we reduced that. and i think we may have -- i think those are the big ones, reducing our training, travel. we didn't -- we haven't actually purchased some of our vehicles yet. so although the budget is there, we haven't purchased those yet. that normally happens at the end of the fiscal year. because we know that we can. and so those are the things that we've done. now once again -- although we're only at $89 million in expenditures, right now. revenues are a lot lower than. we've been fortunate that prior to the other years, we've been able to build up and have existing revenues to help balance the budget. so that's why right now we're balancing the budget. even next year we'll be able to have existing revenues that help us balance the budget. but what we do know is that if

an $84 million ongoing budget, with only 50 or $60 million of revenues would not be sustainable. and so while right now we have that cushion to help us balance the budget, we are trying to be frugal with the money as we've always been frugal with our funds, so we don't eat up all of our reserves and at the same time we want -- we don't want to go to feast to famine in two years and have to make drastic cuts. >> that's right. >> so we are looking at those things, too. so for the most part our salaries we haven't included any new salaries. we have maintained our salaries the way they are. the reason the salaries are going up because of colas. but it gives us the flexibility if we look -- so let's say we're being extremely -- six months we're great and while we're at

$51 million and i'll have to go back and maybe we'll have to go back and look at this and maybe we won't bring in $50 million or $47 million or something. i'm hoping that isn't the case. we just will see. we have enough flexibility in our expenditures where we can hold positions -- we can hold positions vacant, if we need be. you know, i don't -- is anyone really traveling over the next year? probably not. really $9,000 isn't really going to do anything. i mean, if we need to go from an $89 million budget to a $70 million or $60 million budget, we're going to have to look at more. we'll have to make some harder choices. lucky for us right now, we don't have to make those choices. we're hoping that just being frugal now, spending only what we need to spend and keeping a look on our actual revenue will get us over these next two years and hopefully things will be a

little bit better. i want to say on the revenues, too, i didn't mention is that one thing that's also happening with our revenues that in 2015, we had a huge reduction in our fees -- in our fee structure. and i think now we're just starting to see that over the past two years or so, because it didn't take place. if you were already a large project and you were grandfathered in before 2015, even if the project came in after 2015, you were grandfathered with the fees. now anything that's been going forward, after october of 2015, the projects are coming in, and some of those fees are, you know, have been reduced by almost 60% for some projects. all of those things are happening at the same time. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> president mccarthy: commissioner clinch. >> thanks. >> president mccarthy: commissioner jacobo, please. >> nothing from me, thanks. >> president mccarthy: commissioner tam.

>> nothing from me. thank you, chair. >> president mccarthy: deputy, i will not keep you much longer. when is our meeting? when our budget meeting,. >> clerk: i believe it's on february 10th, if everyone is available. i'm going to send out the official invite. >> president mccarthy: yeah. february 10th. good. and obviously i'll kind of save all of my comments there. i will give you a heads-up on where i'll be kind of diving into, deputy director, and asking questions on. as i, you know, and i -- i'm really losing sleep over this budget stuff. i really am. i feel this is another big concern of mine for the upcome years, the next couple of years because as i read the tea leaves, we've got a tough recovery ahead of us here. and so i'm concerned about -- you know, you are pointing it out to us that, you know, this

sustainability of this is not there if this continues for -- would it be safe to say three, four years, we're in trouble, right? >> right. i also want to point out, as i read it i think we are extremely efficient as far as a department. i think, you know, it's going to be shocking probably for a lot of people. i don't think we spend that much money on ourselves. we're quite efficient. i don't know, would you agree with that as far as you look at numbers? >> yes. i think for the most part we -- you know, we're very frugal with our money. >> president mccarthy: yeah. >> revenues have been really good. but also we have been good at not trying to spend all of our revenues and we use that expenditure savings. we've been frugal over the years. >> president mccarthy: yeah. we're not going to run like drunken sailors. we've had quite a boon for the

last few years. >> correct. >> president mccarthy: i'm kind of with you. and you hinted at that. a lot of our budgets are based on incredible years, that i don't think we'll ever see again personally for a long time. i think we'll see what is our realistic budget to work off going forward. i think it's a real question that i think nobody really has the answers. right now we're kind of assuming. it could be -- it could be as low as $60 million, right. we don't know for sure. what's the new norm here for permitting, right. >> yeah. >> president mccarthy: so i'm kind of -- i'm in the camp that we are in for a new correction on what, you know, our intake permits will be in the years. i am -- i do want to delve in our budget meeting, taris, if it's okay with you, on our -- in regards to the work orders,

okay. and the questions i'll have are kind of a lot like, you know, what's the term of these work orders, how long is the lifespan of these work orders, that kind of stuff. why are they still in place. and what exactly do we get back. i'll be asking a few questions in regards to those. yeah. >> okay. >> president mccarthy: and particularly why do -- why do these work orders not reduce based on our intake as well. i mean, everything else in our department shrinks. but the work orders don't shrink, would i be correct in saying that >> well, a few of them have reduced, we talked to them. but some of them have not reduced. because a lot of them fund staff. and just as our budget is going up by $2.3 million, primarily not because of new staff, but because we have colas and then

also you have retiree and other -- i'm assuming that's why sometimes those are not being reduced, too. but we'll have to go back and look at the terms of those that we thought were going to be long-term versus those that we thought would be short-term. >> president mccarthy: yeah. >> those types of things. >> president mccarthy: for years and years i have worked with the work orders. but, you know, we were -- it was happy days. we were making -- you know, a lot of revenue coming in. so i'm just -- i really would like to have a good understanding on that. so that's giving you a heads-up on that. >> okay. >> president mccarthy: all right. so that's it unless there's any questions from my commissioners? seeing none, is there public comment on this, madam secretary? >> clerk: yes. there's public comment. we'll call for public comment. there are no >> caller: -- callers in the queue. >> thank you, deputy director. we'll talk to you end of february. >> okay. okay. >> can i ask one question.

>> president mccarthy: yes. >> because the structure is different from the new budget legislation, traditionally we normally have two votes on the budget. i think we may still have to vote on the budget. and if the changes, we'll have a second vote at the february 10th one, too. >> president mccarthy: all right. thank you for that. >> clerk: i think that's correct. robb, can you let us know, is that correct, should we vote today? >> sorry, deputy city attorney robb kapla. yeah, you need to have two hearings. i meant to possibly make that correction. the next meeting isn't the dedicated budget meeting, happens to be a special meeting. this is also the budget item. so you'll see it twice but not twice. >> clerk: okay. thank you, robb. thanks. thank you both. so is there a motion to approve the proposed budget? >> move to approve.

>> clerk: is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: the second by vice president moss? yes. okay. >> sam. >> clerk: i'll do a roll call vote on the motion. president mccarthy. >> yes. >> clerk: vice president moss. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner jacobo. >> yes. >> clerk: commissioner tam. >> yes. >> clerk: okay. thank you. the motion carries unanimously. our next item is 11, director's report. update on d.b.i.'s finances. i will share again. okay.

okay. good afternoon, commissioners. taris madison. deputy director for the deputy of building inspection. before you is the december 10th monthly report, the financial report. it shows our operating revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the fiscal year. and so i'll give you the summary here. basically we are -- we are projected to be budgeted $47.3 million when we did our june budget. and that was based on just three months of covid revenues. and we are actually projecting that we'll be at $51.3 million. very similar to the numbers that we're putting in our budget, too. we're basically using the same numbers for projections. that's about $4 million over. and that's actually very good

news on the revenue side. sorry to be debby downer, it's good news on the revenue side that we're better than budget, if you go to the second page, you'll see that ordinarily we would have collected about $46 million by this time. so we have a long way to go. for the expenditures, these are very preliminary and -- let me go back to the expenditures. we are projecting about $4 million in expenditure savings. these salaries is actually based on where we are now. i expect for this to go down a little bit, just because we are doing some hiring right now. and we are being able to back fill positions that we really need. this may go down a little bit. but for the most part, we will expect to have some expenditure

savings, too. and that happens every year. so as i said before, we do well in revenues and pretty frugal and we normally have expenditure savings. and then just something to put a little context to the revenues. once again you'll see these are permits issued. and so you'll see that, you know, we're down by about 8600 permits, compared to the same time last year. that's a 45% change. and then we also see that we're really down in valuation. so earlier at the budget, i talked about building permit and our plan check being our largest revenues. and those are the two revenues that are actually based on valuations. so you can see how not on the number of permits are going down, but also the valuation and that has an impact on our revenues. and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president mccarthy: thank you, taras. commissioners, any questions? >> no. >> president mccarthy: thank

you, debbie downer, deputy director. [laughter] is there public comment? item b. >> good afternoon, commissioners. d.b.i. legislative affairs. i apologize. my camera is not working. but you are not missing much. [laughter] we've already discussed the expanded compliance control ordinance. so i can skip that. supervisor mar introduced a fee waiver on january 12th. it would apply to a.d.u. in single family homes. it's a scaled-down version of the fee waiver that expired last

summer. it would be boyed for by the general fund as well. so we don't anticipate a big effect on d.b.i. operations or budget or anything. not a lot of money regardless. but it would be coming from fee payers. there will be a reporting requirement, similar to what was required for the affordable housing and fee waiver previously and the unit legalization fee waiver. and then the proposition h the save our small business measure is now going into effect. the zoning changes -- if you'll recall, this was meant to streamline permitting for small businesses, particularly those in neighborhood commercial districts. so it involved a lot of zoning changes and some requirements that we review permit applications within 30 days. those zoning changes are already in effect, while the streamline permit process will go live next

week. because of the nature of the ordinance -- or the measure, planning is actually taking the plead, they can identify whether or not these projects are eligible. so it's going to be done through electronic plan review and that will be going live next week with all of the departments sort of coordinating on that. so we'll see how it works. it's pretty small world. it's probably only five projects a week. five permit applications a week. so we will try to provide some ontos as it goes -- information as it goes forward. transporters of construction and demolition debris to obtain permits is still at land use. we anticipate it coming back up for a vote i believe in february was the last i heard. but it's not on the agenda just

yet. with that i'm happy to answer any questions. >> president mccarthy: thank you, john. is there any questions from the commissioners? seeing none, next item, please. >> clerk: our next item is c, update on major projects. >> good afternoon, commissioners. this is an update on the major projects, documenting the changes from december, as compared to november of july 2020. there has been a slight decrease in construction evaluation from december to november. a drop of .24%, which represents $49.7 million until construction valuation. and, in addition to that, there's been a decrease of 1.03% or 482 dwelling units as compared to november of 2020. i'm available for any questions

you may have. >> president mccarthy: commissioners, is there any questions? >> no. >> president mccarthy: thank you. debby downer, interim director. >> okay. >> clerk: our next item is d, update on code enforcement. >> good afternoon. joe duffy, acting deputy director. here just real briefly. complaints received, 366. inspected 366 within 24 hours. and the i.d. referred to 12 cases last month to code enforcement for hearings. and the number of inspections, 3,966 within 48 hours, 3,824. that's all i have on that. thank you.

>> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any commissioner comments? okay. and there's no public comment for the 11 a-d. item 12. review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of october 21, 2020. >> a motion to approve the minutes. >> second. >> clerk: okay. okay. thank you for the motion and a second. public comment. there are no public available. all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> clerk: any opposed? thank you. the minutes are approved expect next item is 13, adjournment. >> motion to adjourn. >> clerk: is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: we are now adjourned. thank you, everyone. it is 1:17 p.m. >> president mccarthy: thank

you. >> have a great day, guys. i'll see you later. >> good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the wednesday, january 20, special meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i'm supervisor gordon mar, the chair of the committee.

we are also joined by our colleagues. i would like to note that the agenda has included notification that we could have a quorum of the board of supervisors. however, this meeting will in all respects be conducted as a committee meeting. i would like to thank this committee's clerk john carroll and sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes, i have. thank you, mr. chair. in order to protect the public, board members and city employees during the covid-19 health emergency, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. this precaution is taken pursuant to various local, state, and federal order, declarations and directives. committee member wills attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present in the chamber. public comment will be available for each item on the agenda. san francisco cable channel 26 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public l