>> good morning. today is wednesday, june 16, 2021. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to mute yourself if you are not speaking. the first item on the agenda is role call. president mccarthy. >> unmute yourself. >> thank you. and vice president tam? >> present. >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> here. >> commissioner bito.

>> here. >> a commissioner jacobo. >> good morning, here. >> a commissioner moss. >> here. >> commissioner sommer. >> we have a quorum and the next item is item two, president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody. everybody can hear me? >> all right. just a sound check for june 16, 2021. i am president mccarthy and joined by fellow commissioners with senior d.b.i. staff. as the city and our state begins to reopen, i want to read a note from the interim director sent to staff recently.

with all of the changes d.b.i. has made in the past year, we have a unique aunt tunt to reshape the, our goals, our process, and our future to build on the strengths and addresses the areas ripe for improvement. >> wed noo value transparency and everything we do and dedicated to providing the best service the public and i am asking each of you to join me in this service. >> this applies to each of us on the commission as well even though this was sent to staff and we are all part of this endeavor. and i want to join with the

interim director riordan to address staff and the board members raised concerns about the safety of a 70-year-old seismic program. thnd this is on the agenda for today. and as would you say pointed out i will several of the structural engineers, the soft story retrofit and with 90% compliance and the i a chooefment means fewer large apartment buildings, housing and roughly 150,000 san franciscans are likely to collapse with this achievement that means fewer larger apartment building, housing roughly 150,000 are likely to

collapse or be unavailable. the city and the housing is safer and stronger and is a direct consequence of this program. i urge everyone to keep this in mind today. finally, we all know the t.b.i. staff will strive hard to provide top quality customer service every day and get noticed by the customers. i will close this note with a message from the permit customer ashley chico. ashley was more than helpful and went above and beyond her duties and responded to numerous emails with straightforward answers that were easy to digest. she even emailed me a the property i.d. for the paper work and helped me write down the appropriate building codes for the application. i am grateful for ashley's time spent on my project. in the day-to-day routine, we often don't take time to stop

those who make a difference. and additionally the d.b.i. had to go through a total of six employees and they were all very nice and helpful. thank you, ashley and team. i find it important to recognize when they go out of the way to recognize the staff and wear your mask and keep the social distance and get vaccinated as soon as you are able to make an appointment. >> thank you, president mccarthy. is there any public comment on the president's announcements? >> there is one caller in the queue. >> okay.

>> u aam calling from d.b.i. and just want to make the only jurisdiction where they are open to the public and this is wonderful and has been going through and everything about d.b.i. i am really happy that you are joining us as with patrick and mention that from planning and

to to get things done. >> thank you. live from the studio. and the next item is item 3, general public comment that are not part of the agenda and prior taking that, i wanted to read for the record the listen to the public comment call-in number is 415-655-0001. and the access code is 187 275 6845. to raise your hand for public comment, press star 3 when prompted by the meeting

moderator. with public comment and if you raised your hand, please raise it again just to be sure. you are unmuted. >> can you hear me? the critical issue is the environment that allows corruption to flourish. the the lack of clear enforceable building code rules facilitates corruption. attempts to change d.b.i.'s environment has been sabotaged by d.b.i. leadership and commissioners. when you have a system of rules and procedures that are vague, it is impossible to successfully

implement the system like to address the culture of corruption. if we want change, there needs to be new leadership at both d.b.i. and the b.i.c. and the cultural problems at d.b.i. need to be discussed in public meetings, not privately. i would like to see a motion approved at today's meeting to begin this process. no motion means there is no commitment to change. thank you. >> there is one more caller.

>> and good morning, president maccarthy and fellow commissioners. last meeting i suggested that when d.b.i. sends out the notice of application for demolition that information about the planning staff be included. i think this is a good idea, but i sense learned that demolitions of existing housing do not always apply for a demolition from planning and apparently that is so. so in in some ways if the staff person is assigned that be included and the staff person for planning or if you don't have it at the very least the p.i.c. number could be put on there to call. i understand that the p.i.c. is

also now open. i think that would help people to have the input and a conditional use for demolition cannot be appealed to the board of appeals. it seems like from this area and so that people are clear on what the process available to them is and to have input would be good to include planning with a number for the specific project and the p.i.c.. and of course, that depends if they apply for a demolition. take care, goodbye, be well, be safe.

>> the next item is item 4, discussion for is search for a permanent director. >> i need to recuse myself on this. so we need to do a motion to recuse commissioner alexander-tut. >> i will make the motion. >> i will second. >> who made the motion initially, sorry. thank you. so there is a motion and second to recuse commissioner alexander-tut for this item. and i will do the roll call vote on that. [roll cal vote]

>> u a commissioner alexander-tut is recused from this item. and we have our presenter. >> apologies for that. and good morning, commissioners. my name is cheryl yueta is alliance resource consultings, and i will be one of the main recruiters for the director

recruitment. i have worked with president mccarthy before and i do a lot of recruitments for the city and county of that will turn it over to president mccarthy for the presentation. >> good morning, commissioners. what i wanted her to come out is to map out -- and correct me if i don't use the right terminology, but what you are proposing to start the process and you have given me the calendar if you want to walk that through and to backtrack and ask what questions we may have.

>> can you share the calendar and the timeline please? so to start out with while we get that posted, today is the introduction of the process. other next week, week and a half, i would like to schedule individual meetings to discuss the ideal candidate, areas of expertise to see in the candidate pool, and what type of organizations and individuals they want us to make sure we contact and network with. and based on all that information, i will create a

recruitment brochure to submit to an ad hoc committee of the commissioners for approval. we would like to target the recruitment brochure. an july 9, we would like to post the recruitment brochure and add the brochure on the alliance and the city and department website. and we will have a month of active outreach and networking to ensure we get a good, diverse pool of candidates. we are targeting august 13 as a resume deadline for all potential candidates to have submitted their resume. and phase three is preliminary screening interviews and news

articles and checks and that is toward the latter part of august to conduct a progress report meeting with the commission in closed session where we present the total list of applicants and highlight and report the top candidate profiles of the recruitment based on the screening to date. phase four would continue doing more in-depth candidate review to have them ready for the commissioners to conduct the first round with the follow-up interviews a week or two after. while doing that, we would finalize reference and background they cans and that will go to the the top candidate and this is a snapshot of what we anticipate to feel free to suggest the revisions to the

timeline and indorpt that into the timeline that is final. >> does that conclude, cheryl? >> yes. >> okay. so with that, commissioner, i will open it up if there is any commissioners and to go through the individual commissioner and vice chair tam please. >> thank you so much, president mcpar chi and to move along the process and this will be the most important phase to go to us for a face to face? how is that process moving forward? this is probably for you, president mccarthy.

how does that process work? >> i would lead to cheryl on that because it is an h.r. kind of a question. >> got it. >> so in the past we have had the commission conduct face to face interviews. a lot of time city and county of san francisco will have seven finalists from across the interstates and fly out for a face to face follow-up interview. last time we did this recruitment, there were a couple of panels and they got it down to the top selection. throughout the process we will see how many candidates there are and that might reflect your decision in whether to have the first group face to face or be a video. >> got it. i just want to make sure that we as a commission as a whole are very involved in this because i

think everybody's opinion and kind of -- everybody's opinion of the candidates matter. i appreciate that, cheryl. thank you. that's it for me. >> commissioner alexander- tut. sorry, she is excused. a couple of questions. one of that is that i think that the one on one is an important part of the process to understand what the different requirements and expectations and aspirations are about the candidate. my other question about that, though, is that is there going to be any attempt or is part of this to make this surveying what

the department wants to have in a candidate? >> we are making a decision that a to with the feedback from the employees and who will interface with the director is to take a survey of what the temperature or priorities are at d.b.i. for what people value. force>> a cheryl, i am hope to whatever is doable here. is that something to facilitate?

>> and that staff with k go to the department of human resources and with the town hall video session and the h.r. director and what top challenges they stay envisioned. and to do this with a survey or a town hall with staff. >> do you have anymore to add on that with what will be best. >> a great to have a narrative or something to have the

commissioners and to have to speak. and with the commissioners and with the ideas and plus is the d.b.i. and the different departments within that would be a good way to coalesce what we are looking for in the candidate and isn't just the the executive decision and where it wants to go and i think that the employees are part of that discussion. and will be a great resource to talk to cheryl there and is used to reaching out to the teams for

investigation. so if rehad agreed on the blank slate. and that would be more productive. and that is something that i know you have a few questions to put on there. and maybe we could have our wish list of questions to get to cheryl on our one on one. i think the private survey would be the best and get most ben it from from that. >> president mccarthy, when we do the one on one, i can get suggested questions for the survey. and then when i submit the draft recruitment brochure for approval, i will submit a draft survey for awe prooufl.

>> and i think that that one other suggestion so if we don't ask a question and to have other ideas that they want to present. that will be a place to add the comment that isn't a question. that would be a good spot for it. to hear how they operate that and what is the verbal or written narrative after talking to the commissioners and what is your narrative and the perspective and where it wants to go to the interpretations and

perceptions of discussions with different members of d.b.i.. >> commissioner from the same wavelength and we have the particular view of what we would like to see in a director and more broadly from leadership and i had hait to use the word synergy to allow us to move forward and my question is i do think the online survey will garner more honest truths and a

difficult questions. that is important. if there is the town hall and do the people do and is the input not that great. and the second heart is if that will alter greatly the timeline of the september 20 ending. >> and it just depends on we have had some town halls and some attended and i do feel like the information is a benefit to you and you could hear what is being said in public as well. and compare it to what is in the

report for you and how to impact the typeline in phase one that is the most important part of the process because we want to start with the clear set of expectations of what we want from our demand pool from you and other stakeholders which might be the employees and anyone else who wants to provide comment and build in one or two weeks depending on how long it takes to schedule to bump that resume deadline and the interviews and if i am looking at the timeline to possibly be in mid september and delays it by maybe two weeks. >> love to hear what other commissioners think. i don't know if it's something that will be added to what we currently have within the contract or something that can

be down in addition to. and if both can be done, i would leave it to the rest of the commissioners to think about that. >> would that be okay? >> are you good? >> no questions at this time. thank you. >> commissioner sommer please. >> can you hear me? >> thank you. i don't have any additional questions or comments. >> a we will send cheryl out to meet her calendar and the next

step will be the one on one candidate. this is just a procedural item. >> go ahead. sorry, commissioner bito, please. >> u an i have one more question as we proceed with the process to understand that we meet once a month s the commission body going to be informed? as sthing thinks progress, will we be updated on where we are with some of the things that we discussed whether those are one on one conversations or the first phase and is the commission going to be informed regularly or at least when there

is the decisions that are important for the commission to know prior to meeting? >> cheryl? >> a commissioner, you will get the updates sent to us for review. no decisions will be made without the commission. >> and phase one to phase two, and you will be getting updates from us through president mccarthy. >> obviously commissioner bito, you just reach out to me if you have questions that you want calendared and discussion at any meeting. and i can gladly do that. >> absolutely. thank you, president mccarthy.

so with that if there is no further comment from the fellow commissioners. and item four. >> there is no callers at this time. >> thank you for your presentation. >> thank you. >> a commissioners and inquiries to staff and at this time commissioners may make from the various documents and with the vice chair tam that is curious

to the progressing and that are being conducted. and christine and patrick are working very hard and some extra help there and we had just so you don't get burnt out and extra help for you guys would be great in this suspect. with a pool of candidate for both positions, the potion of the deputy director permit side of the business. and we have productly the

interviews in the the next several groups and to get the positions in place and to have the help. i hope that answers your question. with the the entire staff and the pandemic protocols and the covid safety protocols for the department? >> and commissioner, in that record we are following the health officers recommendations.

we are planning to have more and tracking to july 1 as a date to increase the number of staff we have we have working with the public and by the end of july, we will be back to the pre-pandemic type of operation. >> thank you. >> commissioner alexander-tut is back. >> an i have a few questions. thank you. i am back. >> i have a few questions, director. regarding the accusation that we are familiar with in the press

who, right, and from what i read in the press is accused of accepting a loan from a developer, what is the plan to review this inspector's projects? and including, i believe, he was a manager, so including his staff that he may have managed. >> thank you for the question, commissioner tut. as you may know, the senior inspector is no longer in city employment as of monday. and from day one and with the leadership and we have been

aggressive about performs and five people in senior positions have left in the last year and i am committed to righting the ship and cleaning up any messes left behind. and we are putting a team together to survey the work this inspector has done in the past and in regards to the work that he did was done inappropriately. >> thank you. >> i would like to see this with the next item to check if it's appropriate and if there is policy or organizational recommendations or things that we can learn and how something like this could happen and not

be caught. whether there are so many different places. >> i am so sorry. i have another question. >> this is a separate item. and i am not sure the forum for it. and i was contacted by someone who applies for a permit and they -- i am just going to read. the appointments are booked until september because expediters are taking all of them and selling the appointments. one of the permit koord naytors i work with met with a woman who has appointments every day through the end of the year and

is to help us up here to have the the appropriate response and toed see what is happening and people have the ability and for several months and they are planning to commit your areas and in conjunction with the appointments, we have a sign up and wait list and if they are ready now, they can sign up to have the the same day service and availability. we have the two two separate

facts and i have heard all those stories and rumors that are out there. but what we are making clear is people have other avenues to get in here and anyone who wants to get in here can get in here within a week or so. and if ris teen has additional information to that, and she has been working more closely on than i have. and she might be able to add her comments as well. and that is the way i see it. u awe hi, commissioners. i will cover this in the permitting update. but i would just add that as we increase capacity for july 1, and we are going to have more same-day queue openings. and so the same day queue is we have a system that means that if you sign up and get in the

virtual queue and in that route you have the various permitting stations to fwet get the permit. and the same-day queue is the same thing as dropping in here and standing in line. there will be more spots available for folks for that as we have the services to get in on the wait list and phase out appointments soon. that is a problem that is going away. >> thank you. and just as a follow-up question, are the appointments transferable? i can get an appointment and transfer it to somebody else so would eliminating transferability eliminate there is a problem? or will it phase out quickly enough that it will -- and i mean that i think commissioner tut that it's like christine said and to resume anyway.

and i don't know what people are doing which those appointments and it's troubling to me and with whatever they do and we don't have a lot of control over that. and anyone can make an appointment as well and and with this system and the efforts now are more in the direction of making sure that we can move past the appointments and have people give people the ability to come on in and have a pre-pandemic experience and we are weeks away from being there. >> u a weeks away, that gives me comfort. >> edon't like the idea of appointments being sold. >> i don't either. >> an i think that is universally felt. >> thank you. >> thank you.

thank you, commissioner tut. on that, interim director, i had four calls from four contractor who is couldn't get appointments. i will say this. i did follow two of them today and they had got -- this is about two to three weeks ago. and they had got their appointments which as commissioner tut said, it wasn't until maybe august where they were put a little over intake and over the counter. and with a combination. and they were on the list and every one of them now have been contacted and have actually completed their intake and would like to be three or four days later. so that, i think, that seems to be going well. so if there is a kind of somebody and some people and i don't know if there are people there who say we are booking up these appointments and is there a lot of people not showing up for they appointments?

and is the same cast of people who might not show up? and that is something to focus in on and make a one, two, three strike or something. you can't keep missing appointments and they are valuable. i don't know if that is something that can be looked at. >> president mccarthy p i am not sure. that is more of a legal question, can we impact people's ability for an appointment if they are not showing up? i have had some words with a few of these people who haven't been showing up for appointments and making it clear to impact their appointments and to push out their appointments for other folks. so that is what we can look and see.

and and we can look at that for sure. and commissioners,. and commissioner, with the questions for staff and this is tangential to the recruitment and at least for myself acan't interface with d.b.i. and to understand permitting and what kind of permitting is what you are discussing is over the

counter. with other types of permits that are the time to understand the culture is to serve your client. but we don't have an understanding organization operationally to bring those things together. so how do we get the commission for informed about the operations? we are not here to manage your operations but it is reason to believe say we should have an understanding to function

operationally and in a much more informed way. what are you talking about specifically? over the counter or special projects and long-term submittals and questions that i have had and working with and do you have which is what i understand a complaint perhaps is that a project comes in to respond to the applicant that the application is complete or you have comments, is there a way for all the departments that are affected -- that affect this particular project or permit or

application? >> especially with the larger projects, that would be helpful. so those are the things we hear about and i have had experience and we have had experience where you meet the people that will be a part of your project. and those are operational things and i think it is a blind spot for the commission and all of us when we are not talking about the understanding of the organization and the operation. how do we get that so that we as a commission have a better or clearer picture with what we are talking about with problems or suggestions. does that make sense?

awe a christine, do you want to answer there? there is a lot involved in that question. and so the silence here, commissioner bito, if i understand this is you are asking -- >> an i'm asking an operational question. how the different -- how d.b.i. functions and with respect to different types of permits. we have talked about the a. d.u.s and processing those things but i know that we are not talking about other types of permits or issues. we also haven't talked a lot about we understand that some of the feedback or the forums for

the public that opine on on the service, but i feel there is a blind spot between what we are trying to do in selecting leadership and really understand oally how d.b.i., and what improvement cans they make or what we're looking for in a candidate to improve this organization. >> okay. is that something that you could discuss through the recruitment process? so i am open to this and to respond to this. would that be more workable? and rather than on the fly here? >> sorry, idea. >> i'm sorry, commissioner bito. phi might chime in. i am listening closely to what you are describing in your question. and i this there is four parts

to it. as a commission, you want to understand what the organizational structure of the department is. and then you want to breakdown in regards to how we handle the in-house projects there are the larger products, vis-a-vis the in-house permits, and our collaboration with other departments in regards to the trajectory of the review of the permits that make their way through the review stations that apply to this specific project. am i understanding you directly in what you are asking? i believe it is. >> you're right. you rephrased it much more succinctly which i spent probably 5 minutes talking about. that is exactly what it is. we understand the different departments and for the in-house versus o.t.c. is a bigger

question that pacific northwest to exdespite an a lot of departments and now there is another side of that with the in-house project that the staff spent a lot more time and the applicants spend more fees to get those processed. and your last comment is probably the most salient. how did the different departments collaborate? so the bad word that i here is bureaucracy and collaboration is a way to solve that. >> to be with the with the

working group to streamline the process for getting whatever permits it might be through this permitting system we have at 49 south van ness. and that our collaboration between the departments and an understanding that as you know, we have 6,000 pages of state building code. and we have san francisco amendments on top of that. but obviously we can find better ways to collaborate between the departments and make it a better customer experience and a more streamlined process to have this more expeditious for permits to move through here. >> that's hitting at the heart of what i am trying to raise here. so thank you, interim director,

for the breakdown. >> thank you from me as well. i am glad that got answered, i was not doing a good job breaking it down for you. are you okay now? >> that is fine. we can talk offline with what is from the the the different plans for other departments and d.p.w., fire, and the challenge always is the left hand talking to the righthand? and when are all the different departments working together and the applicant has a clear

correction on what you need from them and to process that permit. >> this is regarding 2867 son bruno. there are questions that i have but i feel that the answers will be more complex and maybe the second part of the agenda will be where i should ask that. if that seems more appropriate. >> i have a lot of questions and they are probably too long for this mode. i think that a hearing or something of the sort in the future may be more appropriate and that information and

intelligent answers on what we're asking is basic stuff, but i want to give us the right medium if you will. and i will park that one for now. to go back to the commissioner is actually to maybe take it a little bit of a step further to have that sounld sound like a mote of training for new commissioners that join to get a comprehensive walk through of things. not just at 30,000 foot level but maybe an extended with the clarity to that to articulate more gently what we now. i am from the the general public

that has the same standing that i have and just going off commissioner bito's point, that would be really good for the commission. >> commissioner moss? >> sorry, vice chair tam. >> there was a comment in one of the answers to one of the commissioner's questions and interim director patrick, you mentioned that you're going to be phasing out appointments. i was just curious, when we re-open back up on a full scale, would there be enough staff to accommodate keeping appointments and accommodating the walk-ins? >> yes, that is an ongoing

conversation as well. i may have misspoke a bit there as well but keeping appointments for those people who actually want the appointment on that specific date but what i was trying to convey is people won't need to make an appointment to get their permit. >> got it. we are not phasing out appointments completely. >> apologies, yes. >> perfect. >> thank you. >> item b. >> future meetings and agenda. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine the items that could be place and the agenda and the next meeting and other future meetings of the building of inspection. the next regular meeting will be july 21. >> u a commissioner alexander-tut please.

>> i want to acknowledge that number 7 today is likely going to have follow-up. i would like to have more conversations -- i am likely to want to have more conversation and understand at a deeper level what is going on with this seismic pressure fit. although i can't anticipate what will happen today, i do want to acknowledge that i am very likely to want to have follow-up hearings and information on that item. i would like to have and maybe this is getting a little bit into what commissioner jacobo was eluding to and maybe it is separate, but the investigative

hearing on senior inspector curan skipping inspections, and if that's true, how could that be allowed to happen? we heard and received letters from the structural engineers who have raised quality control concerns. i have heard from the tenet community that they have concerns and questions. i think the purpose of this hearing could be to understand what the policies are and to recommend prospective policy. and in the spirit of what's talked about today, i do think that having an anonymous staff survey to give feedback, provide

information, would also be helpful in understanding some of the suggestions because we don't have the inside scoop. i don't know what it's like to be an inspector every day. and people have suggestions and ideas who are on the ground and the inspectors are knowledgeable and i would like to see if they also have kind of feedback that can be everything from i'm doing so many inspections, i don't have time to spend every -- whatever it is. i can't guess. but it could be a range of things to address quality control and i ham erring from the public. >> would you jot down the talks

and the bullet points you articulate there had and send them to me. >> absolutely. >> thaw will help me kind of with the hearing to be put together and balance with the city attorney and concerns as well. and i just want to make sure that we can put that together and get back to you. >> absolutely. thank you very much. >> all right. okay. >> commissioner bito please. >> i don't know if this is an agenda item to put on for future meetings and tail on to the commissioner jacobo's comments that perhaps a way to do this is to review a work flowchart of the different permits and

organizational breakdown that is the working document and with the to understand what pieces we are talking about with agenda item and issues that are coming up. and i reference the documents that have a work flow document. and with the step to take to get an approval would be great to see the breakdown for the commission to see what are the different processes of the -- i understand that d.b.i. has a multitude of permits, but i am saying the most typical ones that we would probably deal with that could be illustrated for this group and graphically and narratively and i think that would help and commissioner jacobo, in lieu of another word

than training to help us orient ourselves when we come to the meetings. and we can also talk about that with the staff at d.b.i. can present that at the future meeting. i think we help our ability to discuss this a lot more clearly. and we know we're talking about the in-house permit and this a.d.u. or bathroom remodel issue. and so many things we're dealing with that we don't need to get into the minutia but should have -- at least, not 30,000, and this needs to be more than 30,000 and 10,000 or 5,000 foot elevation and so we get a little closer to understanding and deliberating about these topics. >> commissioner jacobo, please.

>> all right. and thank you, commissioner bito. completely agree. would love to parse that out and figure out the best method to do that. i wasn't sure where to kind of land this and what i have is similar, i think, to what commissioner tut is also maybe thinking of, but if you will indulge me, i want to add context to this to the general public that may be listening. and as many now know with the attention and the property san bruno with what appears to be scaffolding as an emergency commit and 20 units obsite that should have been 10. and a stark work inspection in 2014 and rebar inspection that year seem to have been filed. 907 days late err final inspection or approval that was

given in 2017. and i must note that it's also done by an inspector who stepped down from taking a loan to not get into the minutia of that and is important to know. my question, is how did this potential massive oversight happen that is caused not just an apparent affordable housing of san francisco and skirting the amount of the affordable housing units and more importantly the life safety issue of having temporary scaffolding as elegant as it may look as an emergency exit. how does it happen? and who i a proved it and who is doing quality control and how did that not happen? and what, if anything r we doing to check properties throughout the city for similar life glaring safety issue and overall grossly incorrect plans to ensure that nothing like this

happens again with the actual system of accountability that prevents it from happening in the first place and the deputy director has an array of answers to these questions. i would like to either get, a., a presentation or hearing or schedule a special hearing on just this item alone to go into the details to how this event happened in a department like ours. and if that is not possible because of concerns of the city attorney, so then i would like a closed session with our commissioners with confidentiality in mind. but we need to be made aware of how this happened and what the answers are. and i would to know with certainly that there are systems of accountability to prevent this in the future. and for the city i will end by saying that it should go without saying and there are hard

workers within the department that are doing their job appropriately, adequately and with that sense of pride that many of us are public and both public service or work for the public do and that does not then say that there aren't people that are clearly doing things that they should not be. and then it is our responsibility as the department to ensure that we are catching that. so i am happy to send a list of success over to president mccarthy to formulate the presentation, special hearing or cloezed session with us. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. that will be perfect if you would send over and make sure i got this right and we'll add it to the list. thank you. >> commissioner moss please. >> no comments at this time. thank you. >> commission sommer, please. >> i don't have any comments at

this time either. >> madam secretary, that concludes item five. we are on to item -- sorry, public comment. >> yes, is there public comment on items 5a and 5b? >> there are no comments. >> thank you. and the next item is item 6, discussion and possible action to adopt the board of appeals, second resolution and encouraging the notice of establishment and with the residential building prior to when permits to add accessory dwelling units. and so commissioners, this item is basically all of you have received the actual resolution and it wascismly a request from ms. rosenberg at the board of permit appeal. and she just says that she respectfully requests that the commissioners and board members review and consider the second

resolution adopt bid the board of appeal on may 19, 2021 which pertains to notice given to tenants and residential buildings that will be adding accessory dwelling units. did commissioners have any questions or comments on that? >> okay. >> and sorry, this is john murray. i wanted to chime in here on this. just to let you know that south korea mandelman did introduce -- supervisor mandelman did introduce legislation last night and among other things would require landlords to notify tenants of the plans to require adding an a.d.u. to the rental building including the existing housing services. and just some context there as well. >> and thank you, john. did you have a comment? >> if i could. and it is a careful balance and

not wanting to impede the ability to produce a.d.u.s and there is a shortage of housing in san francisco and obviously this is the method being used to develop things and that is great. and i would like to express it is incredibly important that tenants are notified of these things especially if you are losing your laundry room, losing whatever closet or garage space you had and sometimes that helps form community. so i think it should have been done and i am surprised it wasn't. it is good to know that somebody is actually working on that. >> thank you. any other commissioner comments? and i just have a question. and and more details into when the notice goes out and how much notice people will get and i also believe and is vague language and there shall be a

notice and doesn't say 30-day notice or 90-day notice or something that is not actually with resource and if they need to find resources, etc. and i got the legislative language and am reviewing it and can dig into it and see if i can find it before my update. >> part of the context and to make this effective and details to it. >> at least how it is supportive. >> thank you. so if commissioners are just in general support of adopting the resolution and can someone make a motion for that? >> i have a question real quick. >> sure. >> this is just for a notice of when the permits are issued.

this is not for when an application goes right in, correct? >> i don't know. maybe that is something john can answer later on. during his legislative update if possible. >> i should clarify and with the motion and consideration of resolution is support from the legislation introduced and change the process and make new requirements and is more of a statement of where the board of appeals is and i believe they are asking for the building inspection commission so join them in making the resolution. and you would not be adopting any actual process and procedure or code to come late we are the proposed legislation that was

introduced. and reminder to the commissioners if you feel you need more information on this, we can gladly continue this and come back to feeling that i want to have something we don't have to take position on today and we can, if you want to bring this back next month and when there is more information and maybe john might have more information and detail and detail for us. and always my position and even resolutions in support and very careful and until we have all the facts. and either way, i am good here as a note. and i am in line with you, commissioner mccarthy. a little more information before we adopt the resolution is to get educated. >> fellow commissioners and does

everybody else feel the same way? >> president mccarthy and expressing things like that. and echoing commissioner jacobo's comments, i would agree. >> so look, we're in agreement and the spirit of it. and i want to make sure we've got everything in place here. and maybe we would be a little bit more detailed oriented and next month get ahead on what is the knock on the text here and how things are played out and appreciate it. >> president mccarthy, could i ask a clarifying question? >> i think agot confused and i want to unconfuse myself now. and two separate tracks to be

clear to make sure i understand this resolution expressing attention and send out the notices and that is an expression of the tension outlining that issue and which does an array of other things and includes the teeth that we would say we want it to do. this is a resolution that does not outline specifically what it is we wanted it to do. that is to my fellow commissioner vice president tam's point of $30, 40 days before. that is not this, right? this is a resolution expressing intentions of supporting the spirit. >> exactly. that is the way i understood it. >> president mccarthy and two separate items and just chiming in and as the deputy city

attorney clarified and this item and this resolution is in supporting this actual legislation. >> that is introduced by supervisor mandelman and a lot of moving parts to see the whole big picture and either way i am in support of it. i just think that to go to next moond i don't mind this

>> from a clarifying question on process. this is a resolution we are being asked to adopt or sign on to saying this is the intention. and although probably if the history gives me enough information to predict the future, and probably be a presentation by mandelman's office about the legislation asking us to endorse, recommend, and give actual recommendation on the feedback going forward. and details on work and with that conversation and the two separate things can happen to the concept and would be

assuming the legislation with the codes enforced and possibly a planning department and then it might not be something that comes back and adopting and approving and expressing interest in the board of aproufl and would be a separate item. >> okay. i think that is if we are looking to adopt this and moving this forward and then when the time comes and we get the technical terms and the permits dialled in on the actual legislation and have all the information in front of us to digest that and decide on moving forward.

i am good with moving forward with it today. >> thank you vice president, tam. >> i would like to make a motion to move it forward. >> is there a second? >> there is a motion and second to approval the board of appeals resolution and is there any public comment on this item? >> no public comment. and seeing none, i will do a roll call vote on it. [roll call vote] president mccarthy. vice president tam. >> aye. >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes. >> u a commissioner bito? >> yes. >> and commissioner jacobo. >> yes. >> u a commissioner mar? >> yes. >> u a commissioner sommer? >> yes.

>> thank you. the motion carries you unanimously. and oversight and construction from the mandatory soft fit rett retrofit program. >> in this matter with an introduction, the department will make a president on the issues and what the department is doing to address them and will join us at the bottom and if they are online is the chair of the code advisory and kevin moore, vice president of the licensed engineers and david bonnowitz and licensed engineer

and procedurally, i will go to staff and make a recommendation and which is the most productive way and we as commissioners and ask questions of staff and also the subject matter experts that we have online that are giving us their time here. and if we have any xhes of them and then go to public comment if that works for everybody and staff procedure and presentation. are you opening the presentation? >> i can. can i share my screen? >> yes.

just one moment. >> all right. >> good morning, president mccarthy and commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to raise discussion about the mandatory soft fit story program and i am the assistant director at d.b.i. and i want to start by assuring you that we are taking actions to address this issue. first, we are identifying the projects that have this condition and verifying that they have or will soon include the properties in the gas pipe replacement project. and second, we are developing clear directions for inspectors and guidelines for contractors and how to manage this

condition. and we're going to be reporting back to you and to the board of supervisors in 90 day with a result. i wanted to talk about the mandatory soft story program. this program was launched in 2013 through a collaboration of multiple agencies led by the office of resiliency. it requires the moments to have vulnerable buildings during the procedure during earthquake. and targeted residential buildings to apply for more units and other uses and churches and day cares and retail stores with the soft story structures that feature a first floor weaker and more flexible than the stories above and reinforces the first floor in the buildings to improve the overall structural integrity of the building. the work included primarily

reinforcing soft stories and the spare footings and what is an article that suggests that the soft story work and all the experts believe this is wrong. so i will go through that a bit. i think this looks like that can center around the gray beam. and what this diagram shows is not all projects included in installing a gray beam and some of them with sheer walls and included with the steel moment frame and widening the spare footings and installing the grade beam. one way to do that and in the middle of the diagram and installing the sheer walls and no gray beams would be necessary

in the project. and installing the gray beam because the gas lines run underneath buildings and would be part of the gray beam and run through that gray beam. [please stand by] .

>> pp and he has a program for older buildings and that program has been going on for decades and it continues to be implemented but above all else the gas lines running through the gratings are absolutely co-compliant and this is the subsection that allows to redirect pipes through foundations. this is the condition we are discussing. you can see the three gas lines going through the grading in the breezeway. both the gas lines from the street andthe meter are on the property . we don't have authority over

pg&e but we make sure that gas line is protected anyother lines going through their , sewer water wherelines are . as required by the code. if ddi has a protocol or building inspectors for a gas line going through a grading, the line is wrapped in some way that the inspector isinstructed to leave it , if the inspectors see something unusual with the pipe, maybe it's coded or something about doesn't look right then the inspector would notify the plumbing inspection department who would then come out and take a look at it and coordinate with pg&e if they

thought it was a condition to look at . so we want to adjust the quality assurance issue and give oversight of the structural work including the pipeline grading. it'sseven ways of oversight to this work and it starts with before construction . before construction contractor is required by state law to call 811 two do underground utility before they go there and engineer of record who their job is to do a structural read and confirm that it's up to code. a third-party special inspector is also brought in to review the work and confirm testing at the ddi building inspector will verify the testing was done the work done according to code and its there are lines going through, that he inspector with

inspect rebar and ensure the pipes are up to code. after construction the engineer of record will find a letter of compliance and dvi reviews all documentationbefore signing off on the work . this process iswell documented and we maintain records of those inspections . so we have a panelof experts to return to when questions arise about construction methods . the board of examiners is a group of code experts and they adjudicate any issues that come up for questions about code or code equivalency so we reached out to the board of examiners and asked for their opinion and the board of examiners agree that wrapping the gas line goingthrough a grading is a commonly accepted project that conforms with code .

we want to improve our processes so we identified next steps and the first is to update directions to building inspectors to clarify what they are to do when they find a gas line going through a grading and we have that issue at noon to inspectors . we are looking into whether adding other inspection documentation would help with oversight and consider making that requirements for building inspectors . we are working on an information sheet for contractors andengineers to identify the approved method for protecting gas lines going through foundations so we can further clarify the guidelines for that . you are going to formalizeour notification follow-up process with pg&e and make sure we have a well documented process for that . and five, we are going to identify soft story projects that have grade beams and confirm whether the pipes have

been upgraded by pg&e and where they haven't been upgraded we will work with pg&e to ensure that thoseprojects are safe . should we find any insufficient or inappropriate oversight occurred, i would invite ddi or others to take action to make them accountable and we will provide the commission with a progress report. i want to say again this mandatory retrofit program we believe has made the city much safer. we are safer today than we were 10 years ago because of the soft story upgrade but this issue was brought up and we're going toaddress the concerns that were raised . we have a process to resolve it and remove these concerns entirely. it will take a few months but we're partnering with pg&e and we areconfident we can move on . that concludes my presentation.

>> thank you christine and interim director,did you want to follow up with any comment before i open this up to commission ? >> i would like to say we here at dbi are committed to resolving it in a way that provides the public with the confidence it deserves and make sure these buildings are safe without displacing anyone from theirhomes . we've begun the work and will provide you with regularupdates as the work continues . that is my commitment. we own this. we hear what people are saying and we're going to follow up with determiningand wrap this in data . >> thank you interim director so with that i would like to open it up to commissioners.

vice chair trend six please if you would thank you for the presentation and thank you to your colleagues interim director patrick. i have questions but i'll hold off for a little later. >> commissioner alexander-tut class. >> injures a process i have a lot of questions . do you want me to have them all or do you want to maybe take a chunk and then we move on to the commissioners and do some rounds for the land use committee or did you want to hear them all at once because there's a lot . >> we, the case for me is that you can answer your questions so i want to leave it to you whatever you feel comfortable and what to do with them all. i'm hoping everybody is still

online i'm sure somebody is directed to staff and some of our subject matter experts remotely online so i'll let you feel comfortable. this is yourhearing as much as it is everybody else's . >> i'll cut into a topic by topic and then maybe we can do it that way area. >> i'm open towhatever works . >> i have questions but my reaction to this presentation was the last line was very concerning to me. which is holding the inspectors accountable if there's any thing wrong. because this, we will find out in the hearing today but this seems like these were instructions for there were either a process issue and if we want to get good information i don't want people to be afraid to say hey, i thought we were supposed to dothis .

this is what we were told to do and i don't want to have this on the property so i'm concerned about that being the approach. if that's people who actually do the inspections on the ones relying on the give us more information about the inspection they risk getting in trouble, if they don't bring this to light so these seem like these are policy decisions and not individuals asking appropriately. if that's the case, it's very concerning to me just as a comment. i do have a very pointed question which is my understanding of what is supposed to happen is that an inspector is supposed to get some contractor confirmation that pg&e approved with

whatever. we're talking about life goes, i know for that input gas line that goes through the foundation and connect to the meter, that is pg&e's line. my understanding is the code kicks in at the input line which is the meter that goes into the house. so do we really, my is we have to get pg&e have to sign off on what happens. do we have the authority to give the okay to the four without pg&e signing off on the trees. >> so thank you commissioner for the question. again, we are, this is the pipe

that owned by pg&e area i'm not pointing any fingers here but we go and we apply for building code to what it is we are. we require protection of the pipe. if a building is something that is notable in regards to the existing, that building inspector will reach out to a plumbing inspector and apprise them of what it is they saw when they wereconducting their inspection . and then the doctor will make a determination as to whether it's relevant to contact pg&e based on the information they have at hand area. >> what kind ofinformation might that be ? >> it might be the pipe look like it was corroded, it might look likethere was something in regards to that point that just didn't look right from the

inspectors perspective . >> so what i'm hearing and correct me if i'm wrong is that although the contractor cost, ddi is okay with issuing and okay report over a pg&e line. without a plumbing inspector inspecting the whole work but the building inspector and say okay, i can look at this and i can live a funding code to know that you are in compliance and you can point yours and mine. >> i do understand your concern commissioner and what i have to say is that obviously we are concerned about the matter at hand . we have to reply to codes that will lead to work that we are inspecting. and again, we if we see something that tells us that further review needs to be made inregards to what we are seeing , we will refer to a plumbing inspector who will contact pg&e as necessary regarding their

points. >> i'm confused. can the building inspector apply the plumbing code or not? >> building inspectors can apply the code in regards to requirements relating to protecting plumbing pipes. sewer pipes, water pipes, it could be an array of types that may be present in a foundation. >> what is the best practice i've heardfrom building inspectors , thank you for connecting, why is the best practice to get pg&e a letter if they can do it without pg&e? >> we are willing to look at allthese things and we are considering all those things right now . we have been applying the code as it's written and we've been requiring the production of these pipes and i know i'm

repeating myself. we do contact the plumbing inspector as needed and if there is a better way of doing this we will look at it forsure and i do appreciate your suggestions . >> moving on to san francisco plumbing code 12 10.1.5 four foundation walls. that was referred to in the plumbing , in thepresentation . there's a reference to leaving an approved device or method. my understanding from watching several times in the land use hearing and in the presentation today is that wrapping is considered anapproved device for method. is that correct ? >> yes, that is correct.

for the years i've been here and when i've been doing inspections and the inspectors that do inspections right now, it's not always possible to put a sleeve around the pipe that's in an existing footing so it has been the accepted practice of wrapping around provides the necessary protection for those pipes as long as sufficient wrapping is placed around the pipe in question. >> i understand this is industry standard but who approved that as a method for dbi to accept that as new compliance? >> i think it being an industry-standard and this doesn't go to the core of your question but this is a practice that we've been looking at for long beforei was here i'm sure .

and we talked multiple engineers, we've talked to our board of examiners and the consensus i've heard is as long as there is sufficient wraparound ,especially in regards to grade beams , grade beams remember the code is written for new buildings. these are existingbuildings that in some cases are 100 years old and they have this existing pipe . the buildings have settled and i'll defer to my engineers in regards to this or our engineering staff but the buildings are no longer stepping for the most part so the grade beam that ford is unlikely to deflect downward as it were. what we're talking about is the lateral motion that would be a result of an earthquake so i've asked for many engineering opinions on this and what i've heard is that lateral motion is not significant enough that the rat wouldn't constitute an

appropriate means of protecting those existing pipes in these older buildings. >> i understand this is generally accepted but it doesn't seem likeit's been approved.there's no documentation that's been approved . and i'm asking a real question . >> we have thought about this very carefully. in fact we reached out to the code authority relating to the plumbing code. and i'll let steve speak a little bit more to it but our technical services division manager or supervisor reached out and they did not according to him have any literature relating to what you're describing either. >> i guess i'm confused about why the code says other approved methods and there's kind of ... i'm a process

person. i understand there's a district standard but i don't understand why we are relying on everybody's interpretation of industry standards when we do have a process for sending something, and administrative bulletin that we can approve and it is an approved method. i guess i'm confused why we don't have that for this very important issue which is not a new issue which was raised in 2016 and probably before considering there's back and forth and emails that went out. >> i think the answer to that commissioner is that we have multiple areas of oversight. engineers themselves looked at these excavations where concrete is going to be poured and in the instances where a gas line is wrapped or sleeved,

the engineer themselves would look at this and write us a letter confirming that this is what they observed is acceptable. the special inspector which is a third partyinspector is also looking at this . we would not sign off until we get the letter from the engineer at the end of the project that states what he or she observes meetthe requirements of the code and was done appropriately . >> and yet the code remains undefined and not with written approval. >> the building code does not detail everything completely. it is meant to be interpretive so that a building inspector can look at an old building especially that has older parts

to the construction that would not necessarily comply with today's code. and if those portions of the building are not being impacted bythe new construction , then we are not going to go and tell people to take apart their buildings to make them compliant with modern codes. >> i'm uncomfortable with ... let me ask another question. are there any of the people online who are special experts who would like to weigh in on this particular question? on the question of when there's vagueness in the code, what is the right process for accepting a procedure or accepting, my

understanding was it was vagueness in the code that goes to code enforcement committee and then it comes to the board of examiners and then it comes to this so maybe somebody else can weigh in on this if i might add we did those things. we went to the board of examiners and we did go to our technical services group and that's where ... the promises i'm making are related to the answers we got from those folks. >> the subjectmatter experts is what we're calling them . is mister bosket it online? if it's okay, is mister bosket it online? >> yes he is.

>> i don't know if part of you heard the commentsthere . is there anyway you can help shed some light on to her question? >> i have a presentation but this issue was brought up a long time ago . i'm on the board of examiners maybe a decade or two and i've been on thesoft storyboard of examiners . i think with the appropriate material that doesn't degrade in the ground and has a minimum thickness, i believe one of the numbers is 40 mil but i would recommend at least one inch to take this all the way around would be acceptable to me as a member of the board of examiners and has been acceptable since this issue has beenbrought up five years ago . >> if we're completely comfortable with our process, what are we reviewing forand

what are we , can we just visit the issue? >> if you're asking me the issue is there's only that there's a small number of projects where it wasn't wrapped to the right thickness or wasn't wrapped in the right product. or wasn't wrapped at all. and in thatsmall number , what is the problem and what is the solution. and how do you identify that small number. i think it is identifiable and there is a very nonintrusive way to address it. but i think we've got very confused between putting a gap through new foundation with a new structure being built on top of it which could have two or three inches of movement and on an existing retrofit where

you installing a footing and having a gas line going through that with a steel frame above that intended to yield and you have very limited movementthere , probably in order of a half an inch. what will you do to that pipe so you have a copy with you and a 2 to 3 inch issue area i don't think you would ever recommend leaving a gas pipe through a new building. but this is a question of what you do when you retrofit the building and the amount of deformation is in the order of afifth . completely different. i half an inch of movement versus on the one inch pipe versus 2 to 3 inches of movement in a one inch pipe for different loading on thatpipe . >>. if my understanding of the

board of examiners rule to review these, could you tell us what's the board of examiners role is? >> the board of examiners is made up of some of the leading experts in the city. i've been practicing 40years . and people on this may not even be 40 years old but i've been doing this since the 70s and there's a leading expert, usually they're retired, for some reason i'm still working and when you get technical questions, there brought to this. there is also a subset of this group. which is called the soft storyboardof examiners . then in that there's another structural engineer named randy collins and on soft story questions, technical questions like this would be brought to them. maybe informally or or formally they would be asked for an

outside opinion, sometimes you may have built in prejudices of opinion within the building but the board would be able to give an outside opinion and advice to building apartmentson , that are not as straightforward as building a newbuilding . >> how do you issue those decisions for those recommendations. >> if you wanted a formal it would be submitted to the board and the board would hold the hearing. the questions would be submitted, the board would ask questions or maybe people posing the opinion, the building promise would be making their presentation and on the whole board of examiners you might get questions of the architect or induction engineer for the contractor on the soft storyboard and example of engineers for soft storyboard of examiners you have focused

questions on theappropriateness of this . >> did this question ever come before you can mark. >> not as the full board. individually and i think reasonably, i wouldn't have any problem having this to the soft storyboard of examiners as a specific form of which and get it in writing. think of reassuring the public, there's not an overarching hazard here. there are issues questions about process but the city is not going to burn down. >> thank you. so i want to go to my fellow commissioners. iq. in order to assure the public which i think is you know, the most concern right now area i

would like to make a motion to stop the approval of any form of type wrapping that resumed to be approved. until the board of examiners can issue a written bulletin on this item. which will hopefully very fast because everyone says this is the standard andeveryone knows it but until it's written , and comesto us , maybe we do have a special hearing in a week, i'm fine with that i would like to make the motion that the policies of dvi are to stop approving any wrapping until the board of examiners has issued their recommendation.

>> if it's okay with you i'm going to go to commissioner bito and come back to that motion. >> if there's no second, then ... >> can i ron kaplan, can you weigh in on this? is this a motion that our commissioncan make ? >> deputy city attorney ron kaplan, technically it's an action itemi believe . and i think you could make a motion to recommend a process where we would recommend the department keep a formal interpretation . i would question, i don't know how many permits are waiting approval for wrapping and whether this is retroactive for prospective or what impact this would have. i think that's a question for thedepartment . >> i'm in shock that we cannot make a motion at this hearing

that's not what i thought we were doing today . i'm surprised to find out it was noticed in a way the commission cannot take any action . >> ron kaplan, i think youcan make a motionto recommend . you can't make a motion to stopping work , that's a direct management prerogative you can make a motion that you recommend no further work assuming that wouldhave an effect . i'm not sure. >> can i ask a clarifying question? just off of commissioner alexander-tut. so when can we do something like that? does that have to be done in a certain way or do we not have the authority . >> i think you would need to have questions raised in the agenda item that would be discussion of comparable action

to suspend the retrofit program for something to give the public action that might take place so they would be able to come in and say perhaps i haven't heard it. that's something we need to go through this. my permit project, i wouldhave no idea . >> to follow that in closing, so with that item in number three, would this be possible toget this on next month's action agenda item ? >> i'm sorry, item number 03. >> future agenda items, item 3 . >> again, i think the commissioner can make the motion on a recommendation. i do not think you can make a motion to direct an actionto

take place or not take place . it can be the policy or intent to express the wish that this process go forward with the board of examiners.i think we may want to ask the department if there are active new permits coming but i don't knowwhat the impact would be . if this was an action it could be at another hearing. >> to clarify andthis is my last one, we would have to agenda it at next month's meeting and then come forward in august . >> it would be at the july meeting if i understand correctly . >> we could actually agenda isaac today for saturday. is that your understanding? >> if there's a specific item you'd want to take action on as the building inspection commission to make an agenda

item and make sureeveryone has noticed that's an agenda item . >> thank you. >> i kind of understand what's been asked here. is there any way we could quantify to the interim director or maybe see if inspector kennedy is online. i do understand you don't want to stop projects and to maybe help with this, can we get an understanding that maybe that universe might be small so we could get ourbusiness in place .>> i can that president and commissioners. this program is mostly for the

most part it's complete.we're at about 90 percent. if somebody files a permit for a project tomorrow, let's say. we won't know, the gas line won't be shown in that set because simply put, the design professional literally doesn't know if there's a gas line in the location where a grade b might be necessary so from what our plan is they won't know one way or another if this is constitutes one of these projects. most of these gas lines in these apartment type buildings, they actually go in the area of the tradesman to the gas meters which are located in that area so it's more unusual to see them going through a garage door location where you would expect that the grade beam would be needed.

the answer is we simply wouldn't know from a set of plans if this situation was what we werelooking at . >> it's a very small universe, right. >> if we were to make a motion that would like to send this up to the examiners and get a written determination of this going forward, our best practices and code requirements would be reckoned with. i don't think it's a huge ask. >> it's not a huge ask but what we have to bear in mind is their compliance milemarkers . we have to look at in regards to i believe september 15 is and john, maybe you can weigh in with the requirements in

relation to compliance. so i believe we have to be conscious of thattoo but if we can get a quick turnaround from the board of examiners on this , i don't think we're getting more than maybe even two or three of these per week right now because we're pretty much close to the end ofthis program. there would not be a huge impact if we could get it turned around quickly . you are correct. >> the other part of the equation 2 is i really would like the other commissioners to if that's okay just come back if there's more items we want to have in the motion. pg andy are not on the line here but i come away with the impression that they didn't want and i also come away that they want to see wrapping even though they are making it

mandatory. i don'tknow if i expressed that . but what is pg andy, it is their line so they would like to see a rat. and to be quite honest with yo . >> they need to say what happens in their lines and i'm also disappointedthey're not here . >> -hold my motion. i have a couple ideas of where wecan go with it today . and you know, i think folks know where i'm going with this. so i think i'm done with for now. i think the commissioners can circle back to. >> commissioner please. >> i have nocomment . >> commissioner jacobo please.

>> i have a lotbut it's scrambled in my mind . there's a lot that i walked away with. and i'm trying to figure out where tostart . obviously a very informative hearing. i want to thank deputy director for accreditation and folks from dvi area is obviously very straightforward. there were a lot of very intense questions and if you want to thankthe supervisors , the line of questioning which i think sheds light to something that maybe we are not fully focused on right at the moment but to kind of go with everything that's been said i believe that the retrofit program is a good idea. that's the overall benefit has been good . and that it will be. i think it will strengthen us

for the next earthquake and i think safety is huge. and that and i think supervisor peskin eloquently said that in our rush toget there , there have may have been some things that didn't get done appropriately. we have a little bit of a difference of opinion when it comes to folks that we are hearing today or within the department and then that of our colleague or the subject matter expert from palo alto. i don't know where that was brought up but inhis interpretation . to be honest, i'm not a structural engineer. i'm an architect. i am not a subject matter expert of that but what i walked away with and what i am still not clear with is sleeving from what it sounds

like sounds like a preferred method. then in the code it's a little bit obscure as to what approved method maybe. but at issue in light of going forward is because in the report from the local, there's reports of some types of these wrapping in electrical or billing . whether it's or not that's true i can't prove but what i do know is that there is not a clear definition for what approved wrapping looks like. that i've seen as of yet area so that is the question for th department . is there an administrative bulletin or something that has outlined when we say wrapping, we need that's what it should look like. does that exist and has that been out there and again, we are accepting the fact that wrapping is acceptable although

there is an expert in palo alto is saying that sleeving is acceptable if we are accepting wrapping is acceptable , is there a project standard for what wrappinglooks like . >> in my presentation i did when we moved to the next steps and outline the next steps that's one of the things that we decided to do is an information sheet that clearly provides guidelines for measurements on what that is. so we are working on that. we have our technical assistance drafting that right now. >> thank you deputy this lends itself to the other conundrum andproblem i have . the program expired in september. this is almost done why is it that in 2021, when the program

started in 2000. and again, of us were here in 2014. some of us may have been but you and i were not really my point here is that it is concerning that we are leaving things in such an obscure kind of download interpretation that we are opening the opportunity for or misinterpretation or lack of accountable kind of this is how it should go. that i think is the more salient point and the more concerningpoint . kind of taking a step from that and outlining that. i hope that from this we now learn that our definition is sure, the state has a definition. the state does alot of stuff . the federal government does a lot of stuff. city and county of san francisco i have a lot of pride in because we go a step above whatever the state says that's school, you want to do that

policy, let us one of you so i hope that we walk away from this with that same mindset of not just accepting what the state is but really drilling down into what it means to give proper interpretation and most importantly assurance to the public that safety is going to be followed through. i'm in the public, the gratings beneath my house and i have to spendmoney retrofitting, that the current electrical tape , i think i'm credibly concerned and that leads to my last point which is moving away from what was. part of this, what i'm not understanding of what we're going to do what maybe i missed it. what i understood after supervisor ronan had added my questioning. my understanding was what needs

to happen is that dvi was going to work with our partners on the call and it should be on this one. to narrow down the departments that may be impacted by this retrofit. that was one understanding. then if were going to go back and secure action that would be taken to ensure that these impacted either have assurance that the leaving was done or that the wrapping was done but also the initial point ofwhat is an appropriate standard of wrapping , and then the last piece is that there would be written guidance for what kind of thing isappropriate which we have to have before we go . idon't know that we would have the answer . how big is that universe, how

long will it take to get pg&e to double check, triple check to ensure to the general public thatthey are safe ? >> thank you commissioner jacobo. i want to say also i have a great deal of pride in what we do and i want to make sure that everything we do here assures the public of our commitment and safety. so you mentioned in regards to having, being close to the end of this program and now coming up with a written determination and how would that beuseful , it will be useful because people are replacingfoundations etc. . what i mentioned at land-use is my commitment to collaborating with pg&e. i believe christine reached out

the next day after the land-use hearing and we and christine can that a little bit but we did get their commitment to workwith us on this . so i think the big picture is how many of these projects have come before us? we look at the drawings and we determine how many of those concrete pores are needed. look at the inspection, whether there is mention of wrappingor sleeving types .we just take bites out of this apple and we've determined what that universe is and we get it down to kind of a finitenumber . we kind of plan site visits and see if the gas meters are outside the building which means that we don't have an issue if there's evidence of gas lines goinginto the abatement entrance . we don't have an issue and at some juncture i might not

mention every step in this process but we reach out to pg&e and cross reference with them the projects that they have put their gas lines in and let's see, we anticipate it will be a smallnumber . it's going to take us a few months to work through all of this effort and we will get there. i own it, we own it. we have to ensure the public that we don't have an issue here and if we do have a small issue we're going to work with pg&e and ask them to move whatever it is of these buildings to the front oftheir line . >> thank you director. 2follow-ups to that . the first is do we have as an apartment and do we know how

many of these retrofits are required or is that the endgame right now? >> i wouldn't be willing to it until i know for sure. not everyone of these projects would have an abatement and not everyone would have a gas line going through.it's a process of elimination and wewill have to work through all of those things . >> we don't know of the 4000+ when we do get that universe, we like to understand what the map was that will present to us and haveclear understanding of how we achieve that . it's transparent to the public but it's obvious so that ithink is important . another point to add is we've said it twice now and i just

want to bring clarity, we say we will then take that number that we will come up with and reconcile that with pg&e to better understand what the gas lines will mean. >> i don't want to what pg&e have upgraded already but they'veupgraded many of these buildings at this point . i think it's a matter of already relating what we have in relation to what they have upgraded and that eliminates areas of concern let's say. i might also ask steve finale our chief plumbing inspector to wait in because he's a little bit more familiar with pg&e's upgrades of these gas lines through the city if that's okay with you commissioner. >> before mister finelli jumps in, i'm just trying to

understand in layman's terms that pg&e is upgrading the line and if that would make a difference what that means. >> steve finale, chief building inspector. when we're talking about pg&e and upgrades what they do is go into the street and do the blanches to theproperties . back in the day we had properties that had pg&e gas meters inside the buildings. what they did to these properties was move the meters to the outside or to a different location where the gas lines were not running into the buildings that took care of that. some of these buildings they were unable to do that and what they did was they had two sleeves. they had two types of pipe going through on their meter that runs all the way to the building and then there's a sleeve that runs all the way down and into that foundation

where that grade would be poured out. that's the protection around that piping and it goes up and into the meter and fromthe meter there's a vent that goes out to an outside location and you see them when you look at the meter. anytime , this is what i was trying to get into is the partition of the sleeve or the rat that we have is for any kind of movement so you don't have settlement that you might have , it's not a safety factor or protection of the gas line. the gas lines already protected by having two layers of gas lines but you haveto line inside of a line . that's where we have venting just like for us after the meter we had a secondary line if somebody ran something underneath a slab of the buildingthey would have to run two types of piping. one inside of another conduit . therefore if there was a leak or some kind of movement or break it would vent to another location. so all the work that pg&e is doing and everything we do on the other side is to protecta building from any kind of a gas leak that would happen like

that . thesleeve is protection from movement so nothing has to displace . that's kind of the long and short of it. >> thank you for the clarity. 2 more questions or maybe one. so when we get the universe of whatever that is of people that we know, we have to go out and i guess survey or whatever, how are we going to determine that they were either sleeved or wrapped in whatever approved method we have which is, how are we going to know? we think of the concrete and check it out. >> from what i understand, when they replace their lines and they do that work that they di , that's already been sleeveless before. that whole linewould go where

they could possibly have any concrete would be protected so that should be something that should be protected . i don't know howyou would determine what you would have for the sleeve or wrap . that would be something you'd have to go through and see what they've done . like i said, they change their lines where they were large lines with small polylines though the actual lines are a lot smallerthan they used to be. the movement and everything, they don't have joints anymore . they're all one solid piece so the protection is pretty hard for those things tocause any issues . >> these are for the upgraded ones? >> these are upgraded and most of the cities would upgrade and their small areas that they are stilldoing . i've worked with them for over 25 years and like i say they've been doing it on time with me and even before i was there so they're trying to upgrade as much as they can as fast as they can.

>> my question was for those that have not been upgraded, how willwe determine whether they are sleeve or properly wrapped . >> we have to find out if they have raids in there to begin with . that is something we would have to find out for and then determine where they are at and if they were that would be something to see what they would be willing to do or how they would be willing to say that meter set on the outside instead of the inside and that takes away the issue and also realized some of these lines were deadlines. pg&e left their old-line in place and put up mold for new gas lines as well. we could have wrap them and protected them might not have even done that so that might not have been the issue. itdepends on what they're actually doing . >> to be clear if there is a whole that does have a grade b there is pipelining through, my question to the department is how are we willing to certify that this is either sleeved appropriately or wrapped it

where accepting the premise that wrapping is okay and we have a definition that it is wrappedappropriately how will we as a commission no that that is the case ? >> i don't have ananswer for that . >> i can answer that question commissioner. i think that we have, i have faith in our inspection protocols in regards to what our inspectors do everyday . i know there are multiple levels of oversight in regards to these gas pipes with third-party inspection, engineers and if we get down to what i believe will be a small number of buildings we will work with pg&e and ask them to move that number of buildings, whatever it might be to the front oftheir line for upgrading and to upgrade them as soon as possible . >> it sounds like to go back and actually on it and activate and look, it sounds like the solution here that was being proposed will actually find the

universe of these potential homes that have a grade beam and have not been upgraded and ask pg&e to upgrade them. that will then remove the debacle of sleeping or not sleeping. is thatwhat i'm hearing is denmark . >> exactly . >> i'm sorry i'm continuing on but this goes to the question of how will we know for certain these are thousand plus homes then have these great themes that will go through? if we don't have that data point are we just going to say shoot in the dark? >> like i said earlier commissioner we are going to review all these areas where going to look through the plans for anything that a concrete pour inspection and we are going to look at those drawings and see what of those drawings or those projects had grade beams and we are going to from

there we are going to make a determination in regards to locating the grade beam and when we get down to the smaller number that's when we will collaborate withpg&e and cross reference what they've already upgraded in relation to all this and whatever remains , i believe it's going to be a small number and we're going to ask pg&e and they have agreed to collaborate with us on this to movethose buildings to the front of the line in regards to upgrading . >> that clarifies and i feel like i have a better understanding of what is narrowing downand working meant and i want to make sure we are all clear . we're talking about the gas pipe i know. we're not talking about the rates to retrofit. should that be separate? >> could you repeat that question one more time west and

mark. >> it's a hearing with concerns about plans that match the building and how engineering might not go to the side and to get a building inspector and the plan was off. use a hearing but it was two-partand i don't know if this agenda item covers that or if it has to be a later date . >> this would be a particular project that was not done correctly or or their multiple projectsor just one ? >> if there's any project and i don't even think we have to have a hearing, if there's any project that's brought to our attention where we feel that there is not protocol on any project that needs to go to the interim director and he will do

the estimates given to him on that. i don't know if that's the policy procedure. >> we welcome those complaints and obviously we will open up a complaint right away and investigate thoroughly , get to the bottom of thisand we will have updates in regards to our findings and actions . >> i forgot we hadsubject matter experts here . mister bono with ididn't realize you were here as well . again, they may be separate and that's why i'm trying not to deviate too much but i felt there was some connection. it's just not directly to the gas pipeline. i was just speaking on the point that you elevated of the appearance of that some engineers that don't go out to the project, obviously that was very concerning in this retrofit program. i don't know if there's a light you want to shine on that.

>> there obviously is and i appreciate you recognizing the twodifferent issues but i want to go back to your question and make sure , the question for you was youcould test that separately. if you want to wait to discuss that separately we can do that . i'll defer to president mccarthy. >> it's absolutely if there's information, why not? >> it will be brief but you may want to come back to this but the point is these are two separate issues . i appreciated the supervisors recognizing that there are differentissues area i appreciate the commissioners today doing the same . however i do think the gas line issue is a subset of the larger issue in terms of how dbi handles it and i have to say with respect to president mccarthy, what they just told you is not acceptable. the idea that the one from the

public should have to find an address and bring it to the department is not going to work. that's not the way it bonds and these are cases where we accidentally go on to something so if the record and the contractor of record are making mistakes or doing things poorly whether intentional or not they're not going to bring it to your attention so the ones that iknow about who are structural engineers , those are ones that we have heard about indirectly or byaccident or by anecdote . and all we are asking is that we need a process to address that that is not reliant on us to raise those issues. we've recommended ways to do it and we have not gotten traction until it's gotten to the newspaper. >> can you give me insight as to the weight you recommended

the order? once you can call in,would you tell me what was recommended ? >> we said back in 2016. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, i'm getting feedback. >> that might be the director. sorry. >> iq. we said starting in 2015 we were becoming aware of anecdotal issues and were recommending that the quality assurance be in place that understands the nature of these projects and can explain or find it statistically that the number of egregious noncompliance that actually signed off and were approved is small and you do that just as

sampling and you do that with follow-up inspections and ride along and you do that with surveys and we would have been happy to do it at the time. we recommended it and volunteered to do it . we were told there is no problem so we're back to the same issue and the issue you raised with theproperty on san bruno which i'munaware of . sounds like the same kind of thing . we want to be able to say that this stuff is happening well but the anecdotal evidence is not there to say and all we need again, my working assumption is the problem has been very good area i'm a huge fan of it. i think it's been a great success i'm proud to have been associated with putting it together but can i tell you everything was great? i can't. my assumption is itwas but we need to do those follow-up studies. it's not a matter of cracking down on an address . it's a matter of acknowledging that our general practices did not work in some casesand now

going back to find out if there were enough of those cases that we need to revisit those things . where we can show that those extremely bad cases were so rare that we're not going to worry about it or with certain contractors or associated with certain engineers or certain building inspectors, that's the way you're going to develop this is not reliant on the verdict to say i saw a pipe or i saw a well thatwasn't on right ori saw a male . we don't want to rely on that . so i hope the number of those cases is small. i think there are ways to find out if they are small and if we had done this five years ago when we first recommended it we wouldn't have to talk about it today. we can go back now and use the same method and do it by commissiondepartment is going to do it . >> thank you mister bono it's, that washelpful . for me at least.

it sounds like the difference between defense and offense and it sounds like a offense would save math and data-gathering o different things . i think that thank you for that.hopefully we cantake that into the hearing that i talked about earlier . i don't know, we can park that for now as part of the retrofit program i think it's a different gas line issue although the overarching point is connected . >> one more quick point about the gas line, you raise a good point about the ones not upgraded, how do you go back ? i haven't heard anybody today who was on the engineers in the contract so once you get down how many of these are potential pieces for this problem i don't know why there's any problem going back in and contacting me engineers to say you have to tell us, was it on your plan? did you have a note on your plan? any records from your construction because it's their

application to have made that correctin the first place . it's true the building inspector, we've been told there are procedures in place for them to havedone that . we don't have the records of whenthey did it . we don't have anaffirmative , there was no gas line prior with it. that would be helpful but with we don't have that but once we do have is the complete possibility anopportunity to go to those engineers and contractors and say you tell us , you have to affirm that the footing you put in did not interfere with the gas line area that the obligation should be on them because if they don't do it we'veestablished all those rules are in place . so if it's still aproblem that means it's a code violation . maybe it wasn't caught or known about by the engineer or contractor but if that's a problem inplace now than that a violation . >> very good suggestion mister bono it's.

president mccarthy i'll turn it back to you. i don't know if you have a response buti definitely like that last piece . >> i do actually. i'd like to say i appreciate mister bonowitz's suggestions and we're willing to work with him and if you like to work with me and my teamwe're happy to have the conversations .i wasn't in thisposition in 2016 . i'm committed to reforms and committed to make sure these things have been done safely. that's why we're auditing and going back and looking to narrow down this universe and i think yes, we all have a part of the conversation. contract inspectors,engineers , it's a greater conversation than any one of us separately. so i appreciate mister bonowitz's comments and i love

it you would reach out to me and we can have a discussion on how we can move forward to make this better and try to put data around it and see how we can best move forward .with other things as well. >> iq, commissioner moss. commissioner sommer please. >> i don't have any questions. i am echoing. >> i just muted the other participants. >> i wanted to thank mistress derek for the presentation at the supervisors hearing. i also just want to reiterate

that on balance i think the requisite was a benefit to the city and it may improve site safety and i didn't have involvement in thecommunity but i'm definitely supportive . i don't have any further comment. >> commissioners, i need to go back to commissioner tam. >> i have some things and comments. thank you all everyone for your discussion. to touch upon david! regarding backup with the contractors and the engineers, i'm curious. are these certified engineers that can sign off on this and when they note whetherthis was a wrap ?

is that a common practice for special engineers to come back when there's special inspections, they should know how this gap line has been done . >> commissioner tam, to your point, typically the structural engineer or the engineer of record would be looking at the excavation and see , you would be looking at the rebar at the spacing and whatever is in that excavationwhether it be a gas line or not . they will write a letter at the end of the project telling us that they looked and their observation was that everything was done correctly.they will sign that letter. >> do we know what's required of them? it sounds like it doesn't say in your inspection it may have you dictate whether this was

wrapped and if it was what kind of rap and how thick was the wrap and or both, but because the departments do not require thatright now . they do not have that in place. >> i think the answer that question there might be 50 different things in that footing that we might say that well, this is something the engineer should know about in a letter related tostructural observation . the structural observation means that they looked at everything that was in that area of work and what would be sealed in theconcrete and they're saying . >> no. >> mister bonowitz. >> one of the problems with this program is that it's a structural seismic retrofit

program and often engineers are the prime and the engineer doesn't have the expertise in the plumbing code and should not bemaking a judgment about appropriate smoothing or wrapping unless there's a detailed . that's not a judgment the structural engineers should be making so the structural engineerdust structural observation and is not looking at utility lines oranything like that. and also is not making an inspection . that's why they use the term structural observation . the special inspector also is a very uniquely defined building code and i don't think it involves the gas lines or the plumbing. they're looking at the rebar and again it's the structural seismic issue is why you have a special inspector so we have something here at falling between the cracks and probably my guess is you will find all these drawings that they address the gas issue with a single general note that says the contractor is responsible for all kinds ofcompliance and applicable code .

but the structural engineer at the time, that's what we do so the obligation is then on the contractorto ignite when they have interference with the gas line .but it's nobody's specifically looking for this issue because of the nature of theproject . >> i appreciate that,thank you . i'm recognizing these cracks and kind of filling them is going to move us forward and i think as commissioner maybe we should have this discussion, maybe even as the commissioner mentioned it wrapping is accessible in the trade, what type of rap? what type of rap, and let's put it into a requirement and then second of all, with these special inspections maybe we need to adopt a policy or require that these inspectors

think it's because this is a gas line. >> you don't because as director riordan has told us i thinkhe's right and i appreciate what he said . because it's not in the structural observation scope, it's still in the building inspectorscode . when they go out to look at the rebar, they are looking for other things. so all we really need going forward is a compliance tool. a checklist and an affirmative statement that there is no gas line there it was appropriately wrapped and then we have records and we don't have that as part of our wrapping so that'swhy we have to go back and figure out exactly how many we have . the way to do that is for the inspector checklist or the field inspector who is adba , whether they have time and they

all are only given 15 minutes, that's another question but whether they are going to look at the whole site for just look at character displacements where we know that our contractors trying to do something on the cheap that's another question but it's clear that there is somebody already sees the process that gave them the tools touse with the checklist , that'skind of the way los angeles works . >> iq, i agree. i think we can maybe about a better protocol that maybethe plumbing inspector , there is a race or any foundation that's being done that does come in contact with the gas line, we need to know this, we plumbing the building inspector should look at this prior to signing off making sure that into consideration that this was wrapped work this was me. >> i don't want to sendsomebody off that need to be there . often the plumbing inspector

does not need to be there we heard from the dvi staff and building inspector is there and can recognize the problem and authorize it ifthey see . all we need is some kind of a record-keeping that is bad luck so it could be new to the site. >> thank you. >> so with respect to the interim director, how about what mistermonolith is talking about . >>. >> i still am aware that we have to talk with the guidance of what that packagelooks like . i don't know why we haven't gone back and forth. but anything you can bring to the conversation would be appreciated . the building inspector is who can contact the plumbing, it

seems doable to me. >> very much so. i appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions. but in regards to the past, all i can say is i recall what happened in the past. you're going to deal with that likei described . moving forward as cemented in her presentation we are putting together an information sheet and it can and should include what mister monolith is describing that if there is a gas line, and a foundation for in a grade b will be mentioned in the inspection history no gas line is present, that can also or should also be mentioned in the inspection history. i think that would eliminate some of these issues moving forward. so the plan is to have an

information sheet that captures this suggestions, comments and going that this is goingto make our lives easier , nobody wants to have to come back over 4000 buildings and figure out to know what the situation would befor each of those buildings but we have to do this . it's something we have to do to restore public trust and for us to ensure that the work was donesafely and if it , if there's any questions then we're going to engage with pg&e in regards to updating those pipes as soon as possible. >> christine could youput up our next steps there ? i want to see where we're going with everything i want to get an okay with mission turkey's motion on how we're going to let that go unanswered here.

the attorneys office there has a differenttake on it . so as a commission we are all satisfied here. >> presidentmccarthy, sorry to intervene . after this item with miss yes derek, we've been having public comment on thisitem and there is someone that has there and raised for a while now . >> we can come backto this if that would be better . and public comment, i don't want toleave people waiting . why don't we do this, christine, can you hear me? >> yes. >> i'm back andforth here . can we go to public comment and then come back nextthat's ?

>>. [inaudible] public comment on this item, just amoment . >> sorry, i don't have host duties. >> you should have it now. >> color, you are on muted. >> my name is francisco. and i've listened to a complaint that came before the board ofsupervisors . and now i'm listening to the inspectors from the building inspection and i know some of you . and what i see missing is that you all do not have a method of

a checklist. and if you are on church street there are several buildings that fall into the category of the data that you aretalking about so for you all , with whatever expertise you have to say that such type of issues are review, that's not right. on thursday you find about 40 buildings. but you all havenot inspected . so there are the issues. so that's literally when we open our say there's very few buildings that so on and so forth. number the most of the buildings that the rich people live, there's some inspection done. on this district 10, he had

umpteen buildings with lead pipes. with flaking and when you call pg&e for your permit to improve the, it takes over two or three years. i don't know on what planet you are living. i can tell you the numbers if somebody contactme privately . so there's a lot in the unity. building inspection of course you all happy. you've got a homeowner and you have such issues, mostly because you want a hold of previous owner who didn't do right is trinity. >> if you do your comments. >> you. >> i have somebodyfrom the

department . thank you forcalling . >> are no more colors in the two. >>. >> and talking as a member of the i was asked in the universe of how many buildings are equipped for these buildings have treatments injuries which were where the speakers are based on looking at the around 12 percent gas line in the garage. you apply the fact that not everyone will have last will and socially holly buildings that have the planning a tour.

you're talking about 142one $70 . you've been to look at how much movement you're going to get, where the soul continues are. your weight will create different hazards in different locales in the city. we're talking about a very old number today is how you get those salt. one of the things i can do is get with david about structural observations was adding after the hearing with patrick o'riordan, i believe patrick had a conversation with mister wong who was in charge of the program was chief justice doctoral engineer and structuralobservations were added . that means the engineer of record went out to look at that rebar. i agree the engineer is not supposed to measureit . but if you can't a steel plant

in about to be for, the structural observation when in fact wait here. this is not right, you can't for it. that would caught these issues if it wasdone right . but iagree there are bad actors . so when they move forward with theprogram , there's a number ofways you can look at it . you can take care of the sweet. i believe the steel pipe is a known issue. you can do permit tracking, you can look at plans. you can go out and do site visits. you can see where the meter is in the back journalist that will include that you're reall catching everything you want to do . i'm very confident that this can get resolved in general, we're talking about on small number on theprogram , i understand there are concerns about quality control this program was a huge success that

this was the question right after this meeting which is robert required structural observation. >> this ispublic: if you can wrap your comments . >> i'm wrappingup . the structural engineer went outand saw a steel plant . he haddenomination to call it out . >> thank you. isthere for public comment . >> so commissioners, if i can go back to christine and i just ask youto back up the next steps here . and particularly i want to see in your next steps if it helps commissioner to the concern about getting in writing, just looking here. getting in writing the policy

and procedure in place on the wrapping. that would have from the examiner, from the hearing, i heard all the experts agree and disagree and i also heard them agree that wrapping is good but what that looks like with that one inch wrap and sleeving is good from pg&e. so what is your game plan with those type of principles that they are up to code and inspectors are looking for that for their inspections. and they have the situations where they have a pipe integrated . >> i can that a little bit. >>. [inaudible]

>> we can try again. >> that's much better. so i think there is a couple of different processes to this. we have to work with our technical services group in determining what defines the compliance in regards to). we have to work with our coordinated examiners and get a written opinion. and i think the other part is that we have to put together an office policy and procedures for our building inspectors in regards to thefield inspections .that's what i see in this. >> board of examiners part, what can we fast-track that. in anticipation that there will be inspections happening over the next, tomorrow even might have an open condition and we're clear on this, what has to be done out there you.

>> i can speak for the board of examiners but iwill do everything in my power to fast-track it as quickly as possible . then from there, too with other resources towards getting a recent opinion on this. i think it should be more than, i should even be committing to this but it shouldn't bemore than a few weeks i would say . >> did you have an apartment therewhere they can emergencies . >>. >> is secondary to the board of examiners on this call. were you on the call mark. >> i don't thinkthat really is on the call right now . >> typically i think it takes a few weeks to get everybody together and schedule it. i think it may take two or three weeks someone raised their hand.

i can check with willy about that. about how that will work. and it's up to your discretion whether mister kanehas his hand raised . >> david kane, structural engineer. the reason we're working through these official policies and just have at least a recommendation of the building inspectors startasking for some sort of vote to be provided on the plan . we're over one inch or half inch andwhat type of phone , at least having something evaluated. >> interim director. >> i agree with mister kane's suggestion . we even have something on the

plans that will indicate if a gas line is noted at the time of inspection that there will be a requirement, whatever it is we decide in the next several days or figure out with our technical services group as regards to insulation rapport sleeving , we're going to reach out to our inspectors and at least be very conservative rightnow . and require the sleeving as has been noted as a desirable means by pg&e so we will ask for that in the interim until we get a more conclusive read from our board of examiners.

>> i would add to that knowing that the engineers have eyes on it, that's a step in the right direction rather than nobody having paid attention . >> christine, back to the next steps. so i know this is a huge volume of work that's going to be asked of thedepartment here bu i know you are committed and the team will do this .would it be possible , if you were to give us a timeline and so on, what do you expect and particularly supervisor melgar, i had promised her i would report back on when she thinks

we would be reporting back to her and i don't know if that's a fair question at this date but it's one maybe you want to get back to me on or give me someinsight . >> we did commit at the hearing last week to report back in90 days . so we're going to have to upgrade our calendars to make that date as there are almost 5000 projects for us to get through and coordinate with pg&e so we did commit to reporting back in90 days . >> commissioner alexander-tut. based on where we stand now, i don't want to ignore it but other than try to get a hearing in place as soon as possible i

will try to work with the secretary to try and get in place and reach out and let you know what's happening to deal with yourconcern or your motion, how do you feel about that ? >>. [inaudible] i think because i have not seen that in writing, i would like to have a motion to at least recommend and the same thing the director says he's already doing but i don't think it's controversial but recommend that building inspectors do not issue an okay support unless pg&e knows where a gas line is present and where a pg&e gas line is present unless pg&e has signed off on it or until the board of examiners has made a recommendation andaccepted an

alternative process . that's what i just heard so i don't think it's controversial. >> is find out. city attorney. could you give us guidance her please ? >> sorry. the building inspection commission can make a recommendation to the director, but the commissioner cannot dictate actual processes especially without proper notice but i think it could be an appropriate motion to make the recommendation that the director seek a written determination by the board of examiners as soon as possible and i would want commissioner alexander-tut to phrase this. would it be postponed or

consider postponing processing improvements wherethere's foundation pouring ? >> i don't want to go that extreme atall . i just think when you come out for that inspection to say is everything okay to pour cement right now, thank you director for filling in but the building inspector is that they look at it and they either asked the contractor for a letter from pg&e saying they've taken care of their pipes or they observed that these pipes are wrapped to be compliant or wrapped for sleeves to be compliant with some of the code and so all i am saying is that until the board of examiners has the

opportunity to weigh in and they can confirm the wrapping processthat cemented , that the building inspectors only issue that it's okay to pour cement where pg&e has signed off on the work or that it's late and we hold off on approving wrapping until we get a written determination from the board of examiners that will then come to thebuilding and say thumbs up . >> sorry robbie. >> i think it would be until the board of examiners has issued a written determination that the department received confirmation on those permits from pg&e before approving. >> i'm okay with that. >> we recommend this as an

interim process until the board of examiners approves the wrapping process . >> can i chime inquick . >> given that i think it was mister patrick's, i think mister bonowitz that made the comment that may 12 be 12 percent or 140, if that's the case then this universe arguably of the 900 that are left is probably very small and i think that we go to the public to ensure that we are taking this very serious until we have our ducks in a row, we are going to take a pause for their safety to ensure that we are doing this right area that just means issuing this wrapping determination or whatever it is. that we can all hang our heads high on the fact that it was

looked at byour experts . this is what we concluded, this is where we are and we can sign our name on the dotted line and we can say withcertainty this is the state moving forward . we only to those folks that are going to do these retrofits and i know it mayinconvenience you , not a significant amount but not that that minimizes their impact but for their safety and for our safety and for the department i think it's driving forward. >> interim director, is there anything there that causes you concern? obviously basically there are concerns with thatmotion ? >> i'm in agreement with what's been stated and i think the way we probably will approach this is that we know that a lot of the controversy surrounds wrapping so what we have

already directed our inspectors to do is to require the sleeve which is mentioned in the code. so in addition to that we're directing them to take pictures and make notes in regards to what they are seeing in those footings. and i don't think we're going to see very many of themin the next . we are nearing the end and we don't see a lot of them right now as far as inspections. >> i think we're in agreement. so commissioner alexander, if you could make your motion i think you have the votes here and articulate and make sure it's what you're trying to put in place. >> you wanted me toredo it ? >> is the status and if that's okaywith you . >> okay with that.

>> okay. just so we're clear would you mind making the motion? if it's not too much, thank yo . >> we recommend that until the board of examiners has had the opportunity to review and recommend a written policy that the department will withhold issuing supports orders unless there is pg&e sign off or the pipe is properly sleeved. >> i like to secondthat motion . >> there is a motion and a second. >> we are okay withthat motion ?

>> i believe this is a recommendation and also needs to concur with the recommendation and that is the building inspectioncommission can make that recommendation . >> looks like we havea motion . >> we have our motion and second and i'll do theroll call vote on the item . >> okay. president mccarthy.[roll call vote] >> thank you, themotion carried

unanimously . >> thank you. so i still had some questions and iunderstand i think mister perry is still on the line .i was wondering mister perry if you could just talk a little about yourhistory , the letter that you sent the subcommittee and your concerns and your understanding of what happened in that meeting andthe follow-up andif you had any existing concerns , i would invite youto address the commission . that is my question to you . >> can you hear me?>> yes. >> okay. there is an echohere, is that on my end ? >> it shouldbe taken care of . >> my extent of the meeting in general was is i had done

seismic retrofit and reached 153 parnassus where we were getting ready to pour foundation and we had a gas pipe going through the footing. pg and the inspector was on-site, i don'tknow for what reason he stopped the project . this is what took us into the subcommittee meeting . the committee was beaten but the net result was pg&e said you can sleep these pipes i came up with the basic sleeving detail with a piece of pvc, wrapped it around the existing gas line goes through the footing and then you can pour the concrete area this took three months to resolve and i don't know all the inside details howit was but it was eventually moved . one thing i did get a copy

prepared for another project, not my own was very similar to what i did. basically, pg&e now has the deed to sleeveless footing. so i believe going forward he will have no objection to un-sleeving their gas. so i think there were other concerns raised during the hearing and that was well, you have gas lines owned by pg&e going beneath these slabs, those pose risks and i think the resolution was existing conditions were not altering the safety in any way shape or formand therefore that will be allowed . that was i hang up and i believe that's all been resolved but iconcur with that . on the comments regarding wrapping, and the role of engineers there, i agree with mister moskowitz and i disagree

with mister bonowitz. this is somethingstructural engineers shouldsee . when you're getting ready to pour many things you need to pay attention to . you're looking for the right sizereplication and it's so compacted as the rebar , the list goes on and on and these are just a strange look at as an engineer. this is common sense. i think it's just so ingrained into us that engineers don't look at this or are not responsible i thinkis far too casual .the other issue is that we as professional engineers areresponsible . we can stand around saying i didn't know that or didn'tknow this but it doesn't matter . we accept an obligation to the public and if anybody gets sue , we sue the contractor and the city says community so engineers shouldtake this very very seriously . we carry professionalbuilding insurance and it's expensive .

i think the engineering profession needs to begin in some credit for notbeing casual as we look at this . i designed or managed 1400 projects and i can guarantee there is nothing casual about the process or the dbi inspection that's going on. everybody takes this seriously and from my point of view its construction that perhaps is a little tooseriously . i think the global concern here has been elevated way beyond what is real. that's all,thank you . >> thank you for your comments. commissioners, is there any more on this item? we will move to ournext item . >>. [inaudible] >> he isn't, he had to leave for another meeting at 1 pm. >> my final question is

regarding public knowledge of the report. and maybe this is for you christine or whoever, maybe it's appropriate to. i think people are wondering now if they areaffected. like, is my building affected, is it not effective ? how will people be notified and at what point will people be notified of if they are on this list of buildings we are concerned about and who will be notified in a normal process and i will probably have a follow-up if i have any questions orsuggestions based on that answer . >> commissioner, we are still designing what the follow-up looks like and what the project looks like so we haven't decided that yet. >> thank you.

and because it will probably be worked on for ournext meeting , and the only method i have is a motion, i would like to make a motion to recommend that the current occupant and usual users of any building that is put on the list of concerns which is going to be very small but the childcare centers if i couldgo in there , it would be informed and of the issues of concern and of the recommended,

if there is a recommended fix. and when the ... that's for homeowners and the usual applicant occupants. tenants, by offices there and owner. i wouldn't want people not to know. and okay, so i'll leave that there and i'll ask for a second chair if you can rollover . >> okay. when we narrowed down the universe of potential problems, what you recommended is to say you potentially might have an issue.

>> yes. and because i don't know the full scope of the program and the different determining factors i don't want to pinpoint when that is but i do want to at some point let these folks benotified . >> i understand thespirit of what you're trying to achieve . i'm just a little bit to be honest with you on a slippery slope here with what the department builds to make people aware of. so i'm going to needhelp here on this .>> it's okay if they've been put on the pg&e prioritization list. i think that's when we go this

is a very small universe of people that were highly concerned about, so concern that pg&e is prioritizing our gas line. i think that's a fair spot. i don't know if there's anything more that that would make sense but at least at that point. >> i'm just talking out loud here. i'm more to the point that i would rather see that universe before i sign on to how we do. we can take staff recommendation on how they feel wouldbe the best way i know it's an attorney question to . >> deputy cityattorney . >> i think the course of action here is for what you are considering what guidance to give the department as they

formulate this list and the department should consider a notificationprocess . i agree it's probably premature to recommend a notification process before it's scoped out. and i think it's a proper place to get a feedback on and how this goes forward there would be consideration to include notification . >>. >> i think it's a motion to recommend the staff consider a notification process in the

development of this report and of the quick action that comes out of it. >> deputy city attorney rob kaplan. i think you can approve this motion. it's probably best just to give that feedback directly and evaluate the process as it comesback . i don't know if it's right for amotion at this point . >> process question then. will we be able to look at the process before it starts to be enacted? i don't know if that's the best for you or not. >> absolutely, i would be happy to come back to the commission and say this is what we're goingback to the board of supervisors with . correct me if i'm wrong, is that your understanding? we need to be able to wait in before we send it back there .

>> yes, that would bemy understanding . >> i don't know if isaid that . >> i think the spirit of what i'mlooking for is clear . it's the next meeting, then we can do that. >> is there any other commissionerswho would like to weigh in . >> is that me? what is that? >> go ahead. >> you got some surround sound overthere . obviously this is not a motion but isecond the spirit .it's important that we figure out the best way to communicate it

and be transparent to be public and say fyi, i'm looking through at whatever that is. we can cross reference when we get there but i did want to see something like that come about when to identify these households so the individuals that on those homes understand they areokay and that whatever they've read in the newspaper , >> thank you commissioner. i dohave one more thing if i could add . mrs. shooter, she's no longer on the call that she submitted a statement, a brief statement for public comment on this item. >> go ahead. >> she said this is for item 7. this is a difficultand confusing issue . it is serious and based on what i've read it seems as if it might be have had soft story work but it's difficult to changethe site . here's my suggestion which is also a question. would there be helpful

information and a listing of materials purchased to do the upgrades for soft story requirement of the projects that have completed the work? this would be receipt showing the materials purchased and with this be confirmed by the purchaser and seller and with these documents help confirm thedirect materials would do the gas lines or would this not confirm anything ? this is from mister shooter. >> i feel like they're trying to close this item but i think one of the questions that i still have and unfortunately mister harris isn't here and it's going to be on the scope today is these committees. i understand the structural subcommittee, i don't understand the relationship to code enforcement committees an their relationship to board examiners so that's something

that maybe we can learn about more . and at a future date but i think that those questions, that are committee would like to learn more about how we interact with each other. folks have come to us with recommendations in the past but i would like to learn more aboutthat . >> thank you commissioner. >> our next item then is item , discussion regarding proposed amendments to building inspection commission rules and regulations in accordance with san francisco charter article 4 section 4.104. okay. so i will that just at the moment.

today the commission will discuss the revisions to the dic rules and bylaws and everyone has received those. i would the city attorney drafted the proposal revision to address areas of concern as identified by thecommission . remove or update outdated or redundant provisions and ensure consistency with the charter and city codes. i tried to align the bylaws with that of other boards and commissions. lastly please remember pursuant to the racial equity plan that the commission is to approve changes while using a racial equity lens.these are your rules and bylaws so i'm just here to help facilitate because there were different issues

that commissioners brought up so in general i just want to ask if the proposed changes make sense to everyone. would they prefer different language or approaches to revise any sessions and are there other areas that commissioners would like to see changed? >> commissioners, >> commissioner mccarthy, may i be excused for 10 minutes. >> i'm joking. commissioner alexander is excused. if you want to weigh in. >> i have a couple more i guess bigger things but i also want to go into the little details. we had discussed that we did

the president vote i guess 2 different ways. i have been here two different times and i had a preference for the way we did it in 2020 which was in january it was notified that candidates and then in february, there was a vote and it was clear who all attended and i thought that was a good process. we had such a small commission that i think that just there's been a lot of turnover. i think that's a good process and i'd like to see that ingrained in our rules. and then the second one is i believe that there are some new rules that planning has considered area i haven't had a chance to look at these about

just monitoring agenda items and i know there's been sonja, you do an amazing job. we all throw a lot of things out there which obviously we can't all be on the next agenda or we will havethree day meetings . but that are a way for us to try to prioritize our agenda items that i think would be helpful both probably to the secretary and the chair for all the stuff that's on the walls that we drove up there. what are the real priorities that need to be identified and i think that would be, there are some items that i heard about from the planning commission that might help that in assessing those things out. those are a few areas i'd like to see in the rules for us. >> commissioner alexander-tut,

to your point about the proces , deputy attorney kaplan and i created an agenda tracker. and that way we could in advance of each meeting i will be keeping the tracker for all the commissioners so they could look at it, review it and discuss it in the process before we are in advance of the meeting that everyone is aware of where we are around looking to which items. and then another different area is kind of related to that is the part about the agenda setting. if the commission is in agreement, i don't know if everyone saw their edits. it's in procedure 2 on page 27.

all the pages are numbered but if we follow the procedures that are listed in the rules which that just hasn't been the way it's been done is i've been on the commission. 12 years it hasn't been done that way but if we continue to follow the procedures of having the commission or secretary prepare a draft agenda on the rules after the meeting, one week to prepare a draft one president, director, deputy city attorney shall confirm draft one by the close of business on thursday to review and revise draft one read and any after the information from the president or directors that deputy attorney shall be transmitted to commission secretary by noon on friday and there's another series of steps to where it's like everyone would receive i believe you have confirmed and it would be with several other commissioners tohave that concern .you guys would have

more advance notice instead of knowing the week that theagenda is going to come out . so perhaps how we address that but i'm not sure about the process change.rob, could you chime in on that about the issue that commissioner raised about nominations in one month and doing itin february ? >> deputy city attorney rob kaplan. we can propose alternate language for that section with the next draft for the commission to vote on. >> thank you. back to you, president mccarthy area. >> commissioner bito. >> i don't have anything. i don't have anything at the moment. i will wait until the end of

this round but i believe we've circled andeverybody . >> commissioner jacobo. >> if you recall the election thing wasconfusing the second time . the first time have a separate process so i completely think more revision of nomination an coming in february to finalize it is a great idea . that should be adjusted and the other thing that i thought planning did which i'm not actually familiar or i don't actually know what detail they did was getting something on the agenda outside of the president like by a majority vote and in an instance where you have a very contentious copy that maybe the president doesn't want to look forward to have the ability to get a majority in theboard that they're going to get an item on the agenda . i think it's something like that . obviously i think having

different methods is always appropriate and it's something i think would be good to add. so the only other i think addition to its and then to procedure two, page 27 makes much more sense. it's not a rush and you have muchmore time . that would be my recess. >> commissioner moscowitz. >> no comments. >> commissioner sommer. >> no comments from me either. >> going to commissioner bito. >> the only clarification is on this next meeting. >> we will take feedback from today's meeting on areas that could potentially change the rules and bring back new

revisions and propose alternate language and we would vote on any alternate language then about an entire new set of rules at the next hearing if there'sagreement on the entire set of rules . >> we have another, ithink that's what i've heard and correct me if i'm hearing, another job filing till next meeting . >> that's with other areas or potential changes besides what was proposed. any additional areas or additional alternate language the commissionerswould like to propose , we can create draft of that language and propose comparisons for the next meeting and then we would count the full set of rules includin choices on the alternate language section . >> thank you. >> commissioner jacobo, if i

could. comments in regard to if given the commission's ability to vote for i think for members of the commission to vote or on an item that was being denied or not being put on thecalendar by the chair, is that correct in my understanding ? is that rule exist in the commission or is that the new rule or what's the background? >> commissioner jacobo. >> can you hear me? i ran out the room with my earbud but i didn't getquick enough . i'm trying to remember where i had thisconversation .

or with you but i thought it was planning. maybe that is in the revision but i don't know. the point or to get more context to it is in a hypothetical scenario where there is an impasse with the board with either getting an agenda item on or not and obviously right now there's a lot of power in determining how an agenda item would be put on the future agenda so getting a's escape method if you will if the majority of the board feels something to be on the agenda you have the ability to go there and wrangle amajority , it would say okay, that item will go on. obviously it's different than what we have now but it gives more flexibility to the majority of the commission to be able to get something on should there be something that's every contentious and thepower of the presidency is not wanted . >> sonia, i don't knowif that's in planning . >> i haven't heard of that

directly. i'm sorry to cut you guys off. i guess one potential is not addressing what you're saying directly but perhaps indirectly the fact that the commissioner is adding more input in review of all the agenda items more in advance could possibly help to resolve thatissue as well. but you can go ahead president . >> i don't think, the only thing i find is just talking it through here, the only thing i find myself is something on the calendar is when i'm interested with the city attorney's office we can have the presidency and i've been trying to think of anything and i can't remember one incident in all the years where the calendar item was stopped on the city attorney

stepped in and usually the city attorney would come to me and would address the commissioner or commissioners involved . as to why and so there's another way around that that maybe we would work that. but i'm interested to hear whethercommissions have that problem . i'm a hearing junkie and i watched hearings all the time and i very rarely if any at the board of supervisors have a calendar issue but i don't in all the years of watching it i don't think i've seen a situation where thepresident put on the calendar item .if that's new inthe planning department and if i don't know, you don't know . >> i want to air on internal businessbut there's one i can think of wheresomething has happened . in that instance .

can you hear me? >> yes, sorry. are we having a missed connection ? >> this is like a very, i'm only thinking the fact that this has notbeen updated since november 1995 . thinking of the next 20 years and if there's an instance where there is a president that does not want to do a bor c . and you have a majority of the commission that says wait a minute, we shouldn't hear that it is theauthority of the president to say a , there's really no method for commission who has also been appointedto have a counterweight to that . it's kind of like i think the number of 4, 3. a majority of the board so if majority of the board happens, should most likely happen so not suggesting that situation happened we hear with dbi but it's like i'm

thinking through what could potentially one day happen and it's a good escape for the majority of the board they want tosee something to the last point , if the city attorney would conclude it should not go on i would assume that would hold true even in this identical scenario before we vote and it should not go on. but again, last thing before you do is i can say this is a concept idea with feedback from the rest of the commission or see what they think if there's any validity to this or if there's not, whatever the case may be i want themto think it through . >> i would need to research this a little more thoroughly. i don't believe there's a specific rule within the planning commission's rule about this. i think it's apparent in the

commission and i would caution whether or not that is one of our powers that we have a motion to put an item on a future agenda area and you would not be able to put it on the current agenda but i would look into this as to whether it's necessary to face this that's already inherent and if it's not we can see what the directions are but i would look into that . >> how interesting. >> commissioner. >> that would be like theoretically if it's already applied under 3b, whatever it is. i don't know. 5b on this one? i don't know what there could be a motion underneaththeir . like just theoretically. because if it was applied, i'm

serious about the idea that thisis already implied in our authority . that's surprising to me. >> city attorney rob kaplan. i should say is prohibited in the rules that i've seen. but i would need to look into it as towhether it's an issue . if there were an item that there was refusal by or a majority consented to the president vetoed, we would need to see whether or notthere is a veto power in the rules which i don't think there is . >> okay. commissioner moscowitz. >> i don't have anyfurther comments, thank you .

>> no comments fromme . >> vice chair tam. >> vice president tam, are you present? >> not sure. hemight have stepped out . >> if there's no other commissioner comments, if everyone could be proactive in getting back to me or rob regarding when the edits go out. if everyone could say that they have their name before we have the nextone or even a meeting . >> i would like to justify the idea of limits, of commission review of the subcommittees.

i've been here with two years with no idea was on the subcommittees. there should be some kind of procedure where we look at who's on the committee, a review of who's on it and to see if it'san application or not . and i don't know enough to suggest a proposal that i didn't think that at least where these vacancies might bea good process for us to adapt . i don't know what to say. >> you for that concern commissioner alexander. there is a nomination subcommittee of the building inspections commission and that's currently consists of

commissioner moss and vice president tam.they are actively going to be meeting within the next few weeks to kind of review any vacancies that are on their access commission or board of examiners and there have been resignations so they are going to a subcommittee that doesn't meet veryoften . and it's needed both on an as-needed basis but i do understand that they're not on that subcommittee. i could speak with deputy city attorney kaplan about how do we relay that to all the commission. there could be an update of the nomination subcommittee or how that would work. >> just to even have that process, at least if there's no other way, 18 months every three years, whatever it is.

thank you. >> that concludes item 8. >> is there public comment on this item ? thank you. >> our next item will be item 9, the update regarding dvi initiatives. >> good afternoon president mccarthy. an update on permitting services so last month we expanded services and as i discussed last month customers lost their own plans around participation for plan review

and if they get that plan approved they can lock out. this is an enormous improvement or service that we had under restrictions because at that point the customers had a drop off plan that we were providing plans for the department and customers which really closed downthe process . the good news is we are continuing to further our services on july 1 you where going to open up more of the second floor of the permit center to increase capacity for intake so that's the staff working that will have our customers and also the fire department is closing their drop-off counter and the intake issues will be processed by dv again . i just want to take a moment to give a shout out to the fire department and fire marshal rich brown are stepping up to help with that. this graph shows how services

can increase the number of permits in the last several weeks. we know that the week ending june 4 is a memorial day holiday week. but as you can see permit issuance numbers over-the-counter are stepping up . and there are so many surpassing even what they werea few years ago . so we are in the same range as we were before the pandemic. and this came earlier about his system and how we welcome customers to thebuilding . so with the expanded services we are including customers and making a few changes to how we bring customers in riyadh at this point we're still doing the walk in service over-the-counter without plans.

we've been inviting between 7:39:30 a.m. on july 1 and we're going to offer those all day. we're also going to offer permits in person starting on july 1. previously we were only doing those by email or online for services and now people will be able to walk in and get those again and over-the-counter, we have continued the appointment system probably in a limited way but it's on the same day to that's similar to just walking in thedoor . you would just get in the same queue and be able to come in the same day. a few other updates. we are continuing to plan for capacity in these buildings, plan review is next week. are working with digital

services for the intake process for the plan review and we will push that out tomorrow to talk about improvements thatwe make . we are continuing to improve our director services commission and we will be introducing new webpages and over-the-counter permits and that will be launching in the next several days .and with that, any questions? >> thank you commissioners, an questions ? >> go ahead commissioner. >> can we get updates on also in the house permits? i think the focus has been in the last few months on

over-the-counter and same-day and short-term which i think dvi has addressed. probably more perhaps looking at in house permits and larger projects or medium-sized projects that take months of review and whatthose timelines are . i'm just looking for a more rounded general report on permits besides otc. i think those are some of the comments perhaps that dvi still gets as well as length of time that some of these permits get stall or you know, held up in the permitting process.>> thanks for that comment and ye , i will get more information aboutthat .

>> i think that you've done a thorough job of over-the-counter breakdown just like what we talked about i think that your work would contribute to the step where the commission bonnie would get a better understanding of the types of permits. the most frequent types of permits that you see i think that would be, i presume that would be informative for the commission if it's informative to me . but those timelines are the ones now, the over-the-counter area i assume dvi will get back to the same day turnaround and i think what you stated in the past is people are happy with that process . so things beyond that that people are not necessarily satisfied with that we want to hear about and what the approvals of that car, i think those are the bigger in-house

projects that take months to approve for permit if not years. >> yes commissioner, i will include that. >> i can hear you. >> we can hear you president mccarthy . >> i don't think we can hear you now. >> president mccarthy, could you speak? it looks like you are on unit. hello? sorry, i'm having technical difficulties . >> he looks like he is muted.

can you unmute him?>> i just did read angus, can you hear denmark you are unmute it. >> can you hear me?>> we can now. he can hear you now. you can begin talking, we can hear you . >> you just mutedyourself . president, you can speak now. hello? can you hear us? okay. not sure what's going on. >> sonia, can you hear me

denmark. >> yes, can you hear me denmar . >> i don't know if you can hear mebut my audio is not working . >> we can hear you. do you want vice president tam to take over? >> turn off your video and tha might help . >> hold up for a moment, apologies. we can hear you. can you hear us? >> it sounds like they can't hear us. maybe drop off from the call and rejoin.

>> can you hear me?>> can you hear us?sorry everyone for the delay.

... >> i'm seeingthem back. >> we can hear you, can you hear us ? hello? >> i've got you. we are all good. please continue. >> i wanted to announce that commissioner soto has to leave the meeting shortly. you can go ahead. >> i don't know what i left off their area. >> we had completed, we were on item 9 but i believe our questions were there. >> and i will for therecord

call for public comment . there don't seem tobe any public available with hands raised . next item is item 10, director report . update on dvi finances. >> can you hear me? >> we can hear you>> i'm still here, thank you . i've been having technical difficulties and trying to get this figured out . >>. [inaudible] >> just one moment. >> i'm sorry, you should have

the presenter duties. >> good afternoon commissioners, deputy director. may 21 financial report includes revenues and expenditures for 11 months for fiscal year 2021. that's july 2020 through may 2021 and it includes a brief summary on therevenue guide . our revenue continues to make improvements . right now we selected $49 million and reaches 54 million. we're steadily seeing our