>> good morning today is wednesday january 18, 2023. and this is the regular meeting of building inspection commission. the first item on the upon agenda is roll call and if you have electronic devices, silence them. >> president bito. >> here. >> violent tam. >> here. >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> present.

>> commissioner neumann. >> here. >> commissioner sommer. >> here. >> commissioner shaddix. >> here. >> and we have a quorum and next is our land acknowledgment. >> the building inspection commission acknowledges on the unseed home land of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of san francisco pep anyone slachlt as stewards and traditions the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgot their responsibilities as care takers of the place and all people who is reside in their traditional territory. as guests we recognize we benefit from living and working on their traditional home lanltd. we wish to pay respects acknowledging the ancestors and

elders of the ramaytush ohlone community and affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> thank you. >> and for members of the public upon listening or calling in the public comment call in number is 415-655-0001. then access code: 2494 504 7041 ##. there is a required webinar password 0118. to raise your handled for comment on items press star 3 when prompted by the moderator. item 2. no president announcement or remarks. >> no , i'm getting it wrong. item 2 is findings allow teleconference meetings under section 54953e discussion and

action the commission will discuss and adopt a resolution setting forth findings under bill 361 that allow the bic to hold meetings or attend when necessary remotely according to the brown act teleconferencing. is there a motion to continue to meet remote if needed. >> motion. second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed >> thank you that motion carries. >> the next is president's opening remarks. >> i wanted wish everybodyom the commission happy new year to dbi and the public. and here is to 2023. but we did not have a chance to do this at the end of this last year in december because we had some more atendsees attending

online. i'm happy to see we have the majority of commissioners in person. and i wanted to look back on 22 and some of the accomplishments of the bic as a commission. last year close to about this time but we a pointed the new being director for dbi. 20 too also served as last year we possess this authority with the new charter adopted pending adoption later this year. as a commission, we took that responsibility seriously understood the change that needed to happen. on that note, this time also service as also the new director's first year and look forward to the session to hear about his first year as dbi

director. the other thing i wanted to highlight the client services meetings focusing on dbi's effort to stream linocaine permit process and how it is implemented and received. >> the committee attention to the preplan check process helped understand the community concerns to our question and the issues we raised. other committees i was pleased to ski see have more energy the nomination committee with new commissioners good to seat acit ever and effort from the members serving that group. >> i think i can speak on behalf of my fellow commissioners we're proud of the work in 22. we discussed topics and asked tough economies that could impact the city of the building

landscape. for me january marks a year as president it is more work than i amounted. understand nothing is a new commission it takes time to have synergy and we are pleased to see how we have come along. in addition, the addition of commissioner shaddix will add to efforts to make dbi departments to help dbi a department better serve san francisco. i want to thank my fellow commissioners for commit to the civic involvement the questions i have for the commission and things we today and perhaps on going months is what do we want to focus on in 2023? both individually and as a commission? something we can talk about later in the months ahead that

ends my opening remarks. thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment on the president's opening remarks? we'll go to item 4, general public comment. bic will take comment on matters in the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of the agenda. any remote general public comment. there is no general public comment. we are on to item 5. discussion and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance file number 220878-2 amending the planning and building codes to increase fines and penalties for violations of planning and building code provisions clarify violations affecting more than one unit constitute violations for

purposes of assessing penalties adding and determining the appropriate amount of penalties in addition to other requirements. >> hello, commissioners. good morning i'm carl i'm dbi neil legislative affair's manager. great to be here with you this morning and great to be with the department. i started the end of december i'm 3 weeks in. still getting bearings but theme here i'm introducing a proposed ordinance to increase fines and pens for plan and building code violations. this sounds familiar. you heard this in october. there since has been a change to the proposed ordinance which is why it is before you today. a baptist backgrounds before i turn it over to supervisor ronen's office i don't see but on web ex. this was originally introduced on july 26 of 22.

and heard by you on october 19th of 22. as i said it was reintroduced with a change on november 29 of 22 and assigned land use. referred to building inspection commission and the ordinance was heard and recommended for approval by the committee on january 11 of 23. the next slide and 2 slides over. so, as i said, there was a substantive change to the ordinance. when it was reintroduced in november. and i will describe that change. so for 5 years from the date of unlawful demolition no per nit authorizing construction or authorization of building or structure for that site shall be issued except the construction with the structure with the same or greater number of units. the same or higher proportion of

residential to nonresidential or same or few are square feet as the building or structure that was unlawfully demolished this was included in the original ordinance that you heard. the new provision is that in cases qualify for this exception, the proposed area of all additional units must be 40% of the gross square footage of the largest unit unless all in replace am project will be sold or rented below market rates. this provision was included in the planning code portion of the ordinance and incorporated to the building code section that is why it is before you. santiago should be online if not i will do my best to answer questions you may have. >> i don't see him on the line yet.

>> okay. i'm happy to answer questions if you have any. okay. commissioners have questions on this? ordinance? commissioners sommer? >> i believe i was at the meeting this was discussed for the committee and my understands thanksgiving is a planning a planning item i think that is why this group did not talk about it at length. >> correct. >> and the language is included in the building code section but a planning code provision. >> got it. thank you. >> may i ask what it was meant to address the change sns >> that is i'm not sure. that is a great question santiago. >> with material based on the existing versus proposed, is it i'm looking at page 43, is that existing proposed the 1,000

something we talked about last. >> correct. >> that's not new. sorry i was thinking existing was like where you guys where we were in october. so. i can go overnights changes to the building code. silv penalties for all violations of the code would not be less than 200 and not exceed thousand dollars that's a change from the code currently at 500 and clarifies each real property addressed and each commercial or degreeing unit in i multiunit address side a violation of the building code. correct. if there were 2 violations.

right. who are we waiting for. >> santiago from supervisor ronen's office. she was the experience of this legislation. >> where are they? >> rung a few minutes late but should be here in 8 minutes should we could we like move on to another item we have a lot on our and come back. is this possible? i don't think we can wait for 8 minutes. well we should hear hat person from ronen's office has to say about this and then we might have more questions i don'tment to move it and forget about it i'm suggesting if she has something to add. they are sponsoring this. that we could come back after we move on to other items.

public comment on this item? no. commissioner neumann. >> did commissioner -- alexander-tut have a question? >> seems like she does. and i also.ed to make a comment ask a question the substantive change is really that it is this 40% provision and then the provision to say that it is for below market rate. >> correct. >> below market rate. >> sold or rent controlled. >> right is exempt. >> exactly. it would be exempt from the 40% provision. >> thank you.

commissioner, go ahead. >> thank you. [inaudible]. can you hear me? okay. can you hear me okay? >> yes. great. i'm on my phone and computer i'm trying to create an echo. my -- reading of this is this it looks like the attention is to try to avoid a situation where one unit gets built and small are studios get built to meet the requirement. so. i think it is that eliminate work arounds. to the intention of the ordinance. so, if this is the is that --

the intention i'm supportive of this change. and also appreciate the exception for the bmr. it is thoughtful. i'm curious to see if there is public comment. why there is. >> there is public comment upment to hold your comment sns >> i'm sorriful come forward. >> yes, thank you. >> i'm sarah from housing right's committee of san francisco. we have seen an initial situations where someone gets a permit to build one unit or 5 and suddenly builds gets community comment and then does whatever they want. and them legislation is trying to as community groups and tenant groups when we are sick of seeing developers get away

with anything. and that it is important that in a situation where they make mull pull violations that they get fined for the violations that is their building more than one extra unit they get find because upon often it is tenant his take the brunt of the bad conditions. neighbors stuck with things that there should have been a public process before and there is no consequences. and so we really support and increasing the fines. and as well as making them per unit because different units have different wagzs and if a developer or landlord or owner is in the taking care they need to be fined for the range of things. this they are doing in the different things that a 500 cap means nothing in this economy and to raise fines to what they

should be. i think the ways we believe you should you believe raising your own assessments within the building code violation process. this is i good start at taking on this issue. we are seeing more of and in different neighborhoods in san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment in person in the room? we have someone online. please, unmute yourself. >> good morning i'm sean. can you hear me? >> yes. >> with the residential builder's association. i have not had time to do a dive but have skimmed throughout legislation. my review is some of this is

good. those who do illegal activity or demolitions need to be punished severe low. i have no problem with people who do damage to historical properties and our organization supported legislation to clamp down on the will soft lutz. however my concern is does this legislation do enough to from distinguish concrackors who make makes to those who knowingly perform the illegal activities. take a look who the contractors are. most are immigrants and most don't have college degrees and many times we expose them to the most submit indicated cu process. this is setting update stage for something bad or something wrong to happen. which i take this subjected to the major fines. i feel the criteria and considering the penalties needs

to include previous track records and their history of working with the departments dbi and planning and some more better criteria to reflect the previous character. few people realize how complicated our demo process is. my understanding that the planning department has one or two people haare experts and can dig through that process and determine whether or not something is in demolition and can have one or 2 people how will wee expect contractors to get it ride every time? i do support this? yes. but a lot could be done to strengthen the difference with those who are trying to dot right thing and making honest mistakes versus someone with bad intent. thank you. >> any further comment?

commissioner alexander-tut, did you have anything else to add after following the public comment? >> okay. thank you. will president bito are we waiting or du want to vote on this? >> do we want to wait to hear from the legislative person that was or the person from ronen's office or aid? can we move on to another item. i don't understand why we would vote without hearing the rest it. >> sorry to interrupt. i got an update he is a minute away he is in the build and here in a second. >> okay.

he says he thought our meeting was at 10 o'clock. normally it is 10 but we have been up to 9 lately. member want to check about this? i will notify staff should be correct i will notify our try to make sure it is correct. okay. >> good morning commissioners my

apologies i had the wrong time on my calendar. this item i came presented to you i believe in will october or november on this item. it was passed unanimously. at the request of planning we made some change bunkham decide was more efficient to reintroduce the item. with regard to the dbi, inspection code there are no changes from hai presented to you late last year. but just as a remindser what this ordinance does is clarifies that any person who knowingly signs off on any permit will be held liable not just the primary contractor. anyone in the letter that deceives the city. other thing that it changes is

makes each individual violation i'm sorry, it clarifies that each unit within a building where there is violation that has one is an individual violation inside of now upon happy to take questions. >> i have a question. i presented the revision was really to preserve or to not limit the housing stock. i think that is through the genesis of it. go ahead. >> no. it is primarily focused on the actors i think -- the example that we use as the genesis of the ordinance was the san bruno case there were upwards of 15 violations now that are only counted as one. we wanted go after the actors. >> understood.

the exception, though. that the exception is when we are voting o. which is if you have at least is that that's had we are focussing on it is not the entire we talked about this back in october. >> okay. when you mentioned in line or the latter how far does it go, architect, special inspections does it go, how far had is the extent? >> if there is a knowingly deceiving in the web of construction who knowingly deceives the city would be liable. >> the exception is spoke to the size and quantitiesity you could questions of law foil for that. okay. >> that's when we are speaking to today. >> and to commissioners president, vice president tam's point about the bad actors.

the question to dbi, what are check pointses for that internal. like when we are signing off on permits or doing inspection? of well, the building inspector is obligated to make sure that the work is in compliance with the drawings and meets the requirements of the building code the engineering letters are provided by the engineer for the project. and something that we have done since we had a combined meeting with the planning commission and the build being inspection commission search years ago we instituted a policy where by we mandate an initial inspection for any construction that -- includes vertical or horizontal additions. when we like to do is get outer ahead of time and create a road

map for the contractor. so to the caller's point if we don't have innocent contractors who get caught up in the situation like where they dp deferral dry rot repair. we have put that those checks and balance in place already. but over all we are looking at plans and determining commriegz with the requirements of the code. making sure we have engineering reports to substantiate the work that was done. >> and a question, if they find something agregesous or misrepresented at that points an inspector issue an nov? had actions would they take? >> well. the work inspection is done before any worm is performed if the inspector guess out and they

have gone beyond the scope of that is out lined in the drawings the chances are that they would be and if it were dry rot repair. because a contractor or anyone will not see that in the walls of a building or the structure of a building prior to removing the finishes. so the correction notice issued. asked to go back to planning and dbi and get the proper permit for the increase scope of work. if they knowingly went beyond the scope of the project and did additional demolition, wield issue a notice of violation and we would stop the work until they secured the proper permits and ifs fist it rowels to very a gregeous situation then we would obviously reach out to the city attorney and do what was needed.

but i like to think we have put additional checks and balance in place the last several dwroers avoid these things happening. >> i have one more question. >> following your question commissioner neumann and alexander-tut. >> go ahead commissioner neumann. i was going to say, sort of back to i think the substantive change, it is is that if someone is found in violation we agreed on the violation piece >> there was a prosecute vision that said if you are in violation for 5 years you could in the make major alterations to your property. what this provision say system that there is an exemption to that that exemption is for affordable housing or if you are

going to add square footage that is providing more housing? is that am i understanding that clearly? >> yes, that was made at the ask of planning. >> but the 40% of the new unit catharsis in violation, 40% are part of the like the gross square footage that institute 40% you questions of law fifor this exemption. >> that's right. >> okay and my last question in this [inaudible]. in -- in -- evaluating bad offenders first time offenderers considered. i think we ask these questions on the abatement board if someone had repeated violations

of these things i presume that the optics of that and how planning or dbi look at that with more serious versus somebody who might have been done something for the first time y. definitely. in fact if somebody has -- multiple violations they will ends up on the expand compliance control list and they would be subject to many more controls in regard to what it is you know the violation describes. so, yes. obviously if we see somebody that has a history of doing these things we look at it close low. we look at everything closely. for the a gregeous cases we will be putting greater effort in making sure that we you know follow up and reach out to our city attorneys if we need to do

what is necessary. >> i don't have further questions. >> commissioner alexander-tut did you have a question? >> no. commissioner neumann asked it and it was answered, thank you. >> madam secretary can i ask a question is it possible to float commissioner neumann on our screen. we did that the left time. alexander-tut. disay neumannful sorry. i'm not sure how to. i don't think we need to. sorry. on your screenful so we can look at commissioners alexander-tut. >> i will have to figure that out. and before she talks sometimes like i don't have

other questions >> all right. thank you. if there are no further questions of commissioners red to make a motion. motion to accept the amendment to that is -- is that sufficient. motion to approve the ordinance. >> >> i second it. >> okay. a motion to approve this ordinance by commissioner neumann and second by president bito. i will do a vote on the item. >> president bito. >> yes. >> vice president tam. >> yes. >> commissioner alexander-tut.

>> yes. >> commissioner neumann. >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> commissioner shaddix. >> yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. next item 6 the discussion regarding the study for the dept. dbi, this is continued from december 14th of 22 special meeting. >> good morning alec deputy director of administration. can you bring update upon presentation >> i'm here to talk about a fee study that the department is under taking in order to right size our fees and make sure that the highest level the department is able to operate, check revenue to operate. dbi is self supported by its

fees and so it is important this we set the fees upon at the correct levels. in addition to will it operating being able to frailty is making sure that the city and the community is has a healthy construction city and don't discourage economic activity that would benefit the city. so, the structure we hired a consult analysis m bs to conduct the fee study. the last study was conduct in the 2015 when the economy was doing very well. and the results of this were across the board decrease in fees. and since then, obviously. with the major event being the pandemic, fee revenues are way down. and so it is very important that -- the department takes a new look at the fees. and -- resets them at the

correct levels. so -- the first step is to identify all existing fees and fines and what allows us to charge the fees and fines. most of the majority is in the building code itself. but there are some state codes that set certain fees and fee levels that we cannot adjust. were the next stem be to determine recovery cost centers that is scopes of work what is the department doing. haare the types of work the department december for example. there could be a boil are permit cost center. that would be all costs associated with issuing boiler permits. all the staff work for -- toward that. the share of the rent. the desks they are sitting at.

hard hat and protective equipment of all costs associated with this activity. once we have determined all of the different cost centers, then we need to determine how much each those activities cost so there are direct costs and indirect costs. director costs are the staff and materials and professional services this directly benefit this activity and indirect costs are things like the building rent or the department administration portion of my salary, patrick's salary, et cetera . so, we allocate and finds the total costs of the department and allocate all of those cost to theed upon different cost centers we identified. then the next step would be to determine which fees should

support each cost center. so we may have a permit group who does many different types of actiftds and may be many fee this is support the work they are doing that cost center. so, you need to determine what percentage of each cost center should be supported by each fee. once we know that, we and part of this will be to determine new fees and new fines for things and work or cost centers work that the department is doing this it is not currently collecting revenue for. so -- there are many legislative efforts, for example, first year free program to new program requires an amount of administrative work from management information services.

they need to change permit tracking system. change physical form and train staff on how to administer the program. refundses are due, staff needs to process those in accounting. there are no fees for those. so, this is work the department does that just guess unpaid for and the only source for such unfund mandates is the upon department's existing fund bvenls >> once we have all of of the cost centerses established, the costs of the cost centers and we determined which fees are going to support the cost centers. the last stretch before we determine the fee and fine amount system to estimate equalization. so -- we will do our best to determine how much permits and boiler permits we'll issue this year. once we know that the cost to

the cost of the boiler cost center is 100 thousand dollars if we estimate 10 permits then each permit should be 10 thousand dollars. and so that is how we final low arrive at the fee amount. also, part of the part of the cost estimation for the cost centers is in -- in -- i will get to this in the next slide. once we have the fee amounts, set. once the consultant clths the new fee amounts then we will determine hachanges need to be made to the building code. there are verse options. we can increase the change the

krnlts code to increase the dollar amount and add in new fees and amounts. one goal of the study is to add new language to the building code that would give the department flexibility to increase fees outside of these once every 5 or 7 year fee studies. the department can adapt to the big swings in the economy without cutting things as close as we are now. the final item is the goals of the fee study is to develop a reserve program. this it is largely uncharted water. we need to be careful not to limit ourselves too much and have a rigid structure that says you shall use this much fund balance in bad years or set fees

to deposit this much in good years. you want to basically use it as a guide of best practice. so estimate how long down turns usually take. and set a maximum reserve amount. at a level that would be able to support the department through the downturn without major changes and significant cantz changes upwards or down in the fees and fines. >> next slide. this is the road map. the major mile stones of the fee study. the project kickoff was in december. and we are currently in mile stone 2 and 3. working on those simultaneously. we are reviewing the structure of the department. we are scheduling meetings with

consultants and various subject matter experts so the consultance can learn the business and learn what everybody does and the work this are being done and -- link the fees to those types of work and -- be able to develop the cost upon centers. they are collecting data working with our director's office and mis teams to learn about how many and what types of permits that we are issuing. >> parallel to the fee study, we are developing our budget for the next 2 years. this will inform the cost sides of the numerator of the fees. how much it costs to do the services. we are making various changes to the budget adding positions and taking positions away and adding different costs.

moving diameters are making changes to the amount theys are charging us for various things. et cetera, et cetera . we are working with the informing the consultance about the w we are doing on the budget side show so they can calculate the fees. so the next steps will be the consult analysis, witness they have initial fee amounts clalth clalthed they will see other jurisdictions l.a., san diego around the bay area compared our fees to other building departments that operate in similar way and most comparable to make sure and that we are not charging too much or too little compared to other jurisdictions. and after that, they will -- present a series of options

since -- changing fees will likely be something that the major's office is interested in and the city at large there will be large interests i'm sure from the community and everyone wants to make sure that we are not discouraging economic activity from happening the consult analysis will present options. and then they will come before the bic or and/or the board of sproirzs to present on their fee study efforts and the results and up to -- the legislative bodies to make their decisions on what to adoptful and next slide. the time line for that final report is tentatively april.

the main budget mayor's budget is due in june when the majority of the changes happen this . should give us time to implement the results of the fee study in the budget of the next 2 years. and i will issue happy to answer questions. is there any public comment. on this item? any virtual? commissioners? commissioner shaddix. thank you for the presentation. a clarifying question. the launch date on this is i think it said april of this year or april. are we going to see the fee increase numbers before this date or an all out launch in

april and it will roll out to community to inner city departments or hintses that the increases might look like before that. i believe the -- implementation will issue in the next year beginning yell when the new fees will when the new fees will be effective. >> we'll not know the fees until july. we will see the final report in april. and we may have preliminary. final. we will likely have preliminary proposals before the final report is issued in april. so -- possible low march. we'll have a series of 3 proposals or -- for increase fee x by y amount.

some time work. you will see before the final report. at the april is the latest you will see the results of the fee study. >> may i ask one more question . so, i think the goal here is to raise sdpees revenue for the departmentful what happened if we have a turn around say storms there will be permits asked for roof repairs and other activity. i suspect there will be an up tick in permits pulled and ref now. what happens between now and then if we see an up tick revenue increase system that in consideration, too or are we still mriek we are headed toward this dollar amount to launch?

>> well, this is item we want to include this fee flexibility language in the code change. so, fees will not change until july and july is hopeful low when this fee flexibility language would go in affect. so. if the results of the fee study statesay we need it increase 10% and then between april and july we see miraculous economic recovery and a ton of permits pulled. we would have the ability to lower fees to not over collect. >> commissioner tam. gi think the language is a great idea allowing dbi to fair low maneuver. my question the option on the reserve policy. when they present the final --

presentation would they give us an option on what if we did have a reserve policy or did not. what each would look like? >> preliminary discussions with consultants they say they have not seen this in other jurisdictions this is irrelevant a policy decision for the department. so if they may be able to offer advice. but i continuing is up to the upon did the to decide. and my plan was to work with the controller's office who had similar policies at the city level they have rainy day reserves and policies for the reserves about when and how much is added to or taken away from the reserves. and so. we will have proposed language to share with you in for you to approve. >> and likely different scenario. if we think that upon the average the extra session will

be for you years and will cost 100 million dollars the reserves should be we set a max of 100 million dollars and a max use of 25 million per year x. if we are if a -- recession we assume every 10 years men in good years we increase fees above recovery level by 10 million dollars. to slowly build it become up between. so tell likely be something like that. okay. >> thank you. >> i have -- 4 questions and i feel like i have been socialized on the topic my questions are for clarity you can responded efficient low i don't think i'm not looking for at length answer or response. first are is, the fee studies for dbi are they scheduled every 3 years or 4 years? >> no they are schedule as needed. >> okay.

>> fine. >> second on your mile stones, you give a beginning and end i think it would be good to see mile stones. i see them tieed schedule. may be the inter~im dates you work toward on your flow chart 1-8. >> sure. we can work those out. andir sthap phases 2 and 3 in now will last fir a few weeks and a lot of the mile stones will over lap. there will be continuing education and refinement. the fee comparison will likely, the consultance suspect likely doing that research now what fees are for other jurisdictions. fee comparison will likely coinside with the fee options presented. and number 5. so -- i would imagine those

would come around march. and then in time between march and april the final report we refine and -- present them to you. present them to the mayor's office and board of supervisors for feedback. >> could we update this slide with the target dates. that's what i was looking for. manage in the future we look to and say, we know the next bic meeting you are approaching. that was more like a request. >> sure. i will work with the consultant to determine dates. and a pending commissioner shaddix question. when the bic would be would see these -- draft reviews. my question is would we see a draft review at mile stone 5 where you have a draft before it turns into the recommendation and perhaps here feedback from the commission before you get to

the recommendations. i know you mentioned this your presentation that perhaps it is 6 that's when you presents the 2 the bic. so. it is a request to see if you know seeing what the draft might look like and if there is any feedback from the commission on the recommendations i don't know if this is worthy of us looking at it but it is food for thought. >> sure. >> it will likely be in a march meeting. if we are to that point yet. where there are scenarios that had been developed at this point. but yes, we will attempt to show you something before the final report >> so march of 23 is when we anticipate seeing something on the fee study. great. >> at this point. >> yes. >> i think updates to that if it is significant cantz low delayed if you know understanding when

this would happen that would be great. >> last question, you out lined direct and indirect costs. direct were staff. the direct cost is that am i -- >> any costs that directly go toward the actestifies. so the staff, staff's equipment. their >> yea. i understand i. to finish my question. you parsed out the execute ever teams they are part of the indirect costs >> yes the building rent, portion of my salary, well is no administrative saul row on a permit a portion would be allocated to each cost center and recovered throughout various fees. >> so this is covered. that even though that is considered indirect cost, your. the expense that dbi -- has on their sheet to pay you.

is shared in the fee study and along with perhaps director o'riordan and other team member sns >> that is like a proover head you apply. great. >> yes. that's my questions. thank you. commissioner alexander-tut has a question. >> yes, can you hear me? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation i have am a few economy questions a points of clarification and 2 questions. i wanted clarify when we look at the fee study regardless where the money come from whether from the board of supervisors chip in or the mayor chip informs all of our expend tours continue to be

studied in the fee study and where the mony come from and allocate the fees is that correct? >> yes. if i'm understanding your question there are some sources of revenue that will ascii fee amounts fines we finds -- if we the more fine revenue we get this would reduce the need for fee revenue so is that reduces fees. if there are expend tours the department incures that are funded by a revenue transfer from the general funds that would reduce the need for fee revenues and reduce fee amounts >> okay >> thank you. i want to be to repeat.

the expenditures will be studied but another additional source of income used to ruse fees and that will come out in march and april and throughout public process. >> yes, so the halt come out in march is the universe of all sources and all uses expenditures and how much fee revenue is needed and appropriate to funds the use. second question, for the number of fee waivers, so we vanish asked to wave fees if approximate those fee waivers sunset during the life of this fee study will they then come

online in >> yes. fee waivers are a tricky issue. for example. first they are may not be the best example we are reimbursed for fees waived. the general fund pays the department the fee we would have collected. the general fund is effectively paying the fee. but yes, if there is a fee that sun sets or waiver that sun sets, sometime in the future and revenues go up. hopeful low we have the fee flex at language to recognize that and lower fees as needed to bring down recoveries or -- maintain over all recoveries at the appropriate level. my third question is you talked about i was welcome this is -- you know dbi is one department but the entire city relyos us and i welcome the major's input

and the board of supervisor's input. can you clarify the what that time pliant might look like and what the ultimate authority is. are we recommending it to the board of supervisors? and then or is does the final authority lie with the bic? >> i may be incorrect on this approximate perhaps the city attorney can weigh in. i believe the final authority rests with the bic to change the building code. >> rob kapla. we propose the fee changes presented to the bic would recommend through an ordinance for the boshd to pass and change our code. >> that's helpful. thank you. we are recommending bodies the

ultimate authority will falls on the board of supervisors. joof that's my questions. thank you very much. thank you. item 7. update on the department's launch of a pilot project using solar app flus for sing and he will 2 unit residential solar permitting.

good morning. department director of public services. here to present on this item. the solar app plus is a web application provided for developed boy the national renewable energy laboratory provided to all jurisdictions for free -- and it is main purpose to provide instant online permitting for residential roof top installations. residentialeng moo one and 2 family dwellings.

anything else, like commercial installations, grounds mount or balist mount are beyond the scope of solar app application. >> and the implementation of this web application is national. it started modest low last year in california and now being instituted national low to accelerate the proliferation of solar installations across the nation. the goal is to take our existing solar applications and -- to be able to provide them online and instantly. and it is the strategy is to provide a pilot program for this application here in san

francisco. for about 30 applications to see how its you know, hour customers do with it and how the team deal with the application. and eventual low the goal is that 100% of our installation that our applicable to the solar app get instituted online. this -- application is there as an option to our existing customers. if you did want to walk in with a plan, the traditional way you could do that. this is providing an option for customers. >> currently, the traditional way of doing this is to submit either in paper or -- electronically through our online portal or -- to walk it in the department.

as with traditional plan review, plan checker reviews the plans. give us comments, return its to the applicant, applicant row solves them and come back in a type of operation. that is done on a traditional form exactly it is walk in or it is submitted online through our e mail portal. next slide. going forward, once we institute the application. the applicant will go to the solar app website. register with the fee. each time the applicant holds the permit they will pay a modest fee. and enter their application information. the process is -- to -- answer a

series of questions about the installation and the application then insternally checkings the input and makes sure this installation is valid. if an alert or alarm is set off. the applicant has to resolve it then in invert not compatible tell tell you that is wrong. and you will have to resolve immediately. once you correct low answered the questions, the application will submit and provide a -- check list, which is sent to the department. along with a reference number and the applicant logs in to the dbi portal. pays for the inspection with dbi. up loads that documentation to our system and the applicant can

then schedule the inspection there and then. >> the inspector is alerted as to when the inspection is needed. the inspector goes out to the field. and inspects the installation with the check list. in hand. and you're validates the installation with the check list as provided. next slide. like i said, the contractor determines facility application is -- per nanlt for the solar app. and the licensed contractor will -- again, download the -- check list and then -- pay the fees on the portal. i have cover third degree.

we can go to the next slide. the eligibility criteria for installations is that the it has to be -- just a solar array roof top single or 2 family dwelling. the total power out put is 10 kilowatts or less. no existing solar arrays on site. the single phase 240 vol system and max of 2dc strings. and only plan it one solar array. i will not cover this. detail requirements. all right.

this we near final phases of user acceptance testing. we will invite the contractor community in to see a demonstration off the be application many larger contractors are familiar with this system. they have been using it in various other jurisdictions. and we will just be showing them the dbi in the san francisco dbi portion of paying for fees. i'm here to answer questions you may have. >> commissioner alexander-tut have questions? >> commissioner sommer. >> public upon comment first. is there public comment on this item? >> seeing none. commissioner alexander-tut did you have a question? >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> commissioner sommer did, sorry i didn't.

>> okay. >> commissioner sommer? i was curious how many projects a year that once this gets going will fit in this category? >> i don't have that statistic. >> okay. >> i want to thank you for the presentation. and obviously you are under the weather it appear i will keep this short. this will is a very technical presentation for a lot of commissioners and even for some of someone like myself we employ experts look at solar studies we would have been helpful and may be we do a different version of this where may be the check lists that would user interface would see and the items that you are referring to this would have visuals this deck had text and it was just hard to follow when

you don't visualize the things you speak to. so. i like to suggest we kind of may be do a do over of this presentation another time where it it is more clear. >> okay. i understand. this is know important topic and there is just so much content is this something that the other commissioners would appreciate? >> yea i see why then summary of the plan review the compatibility. i will give you an example booik like you referenced a check list when someone come to the application and may be screen shots when that app looks like on the website. >> got it. i understand. >> beens the xroesz how this is

tie nothing the requirements that the builders or applicants are meeting as part of this application. >> so -- and it was technical in process oriented. rob kapla, there is opportunity we will revisit this as our state laws requiring use of solar app and the changes and fees and time lines for approvals. as well as storage requirements on the horizon. we can when we present on how we incorporate that that would be a spot to as well additional visuals and revamp the presentation to fit in with that. >> yea. i think having screen shots of the application itself and had the process an applicant has to

responded. you know a case study or project you know we could see. >> all right we doll that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner neumann. >> i had one brief question . that was you reference third degree it is already in place and some other places could you give us a couple of examples if you of accomplices where it is already impmrementd so we can >> sure. the city of pleasant hill. i believe. >> i don't have that list immediately in minds here but they were small are jurisdictions. we were approached with this about this time left year. and one of the considerations we had was that they were few installation in california.

upon that was topmost minds as we decide. we are looking at ways to implement and instant permit online permitting. since then, however, it proliferated significantly. i will have that list for you next time, too. >> and there was a. are you done? there was a question for commissioner alexander-tut. >> unmute. >> my question is part of a hope or suggestion or a comment. which is, i think this is terrific. it is highly technical and i think it swornedful you mentioned a big players this have access i want to make sure or contractors have equal access to this. is there a plan to do public out

reach will and sensitive to the comment earlier today about contractors. and homeowners and small business owners. is there a plan the department do public education and -- out reach to the contractor community. in -- languages other than english? >> certainly there is a plan to out roach to our local contractors. and the reason why it is implemented primarily with the larger contractors now because the large are contractors do tense if not hundredses of these every day across the counts real. the application is not a restrishthed to anybody. anybody can register with solar

app and have their applications checked through the solar app plus. but to your point, yes, we will be doing public out reach and -- recording a demonstration of our san francisco dbi interface. for people to use as needed. >> thank you. happy to hear that. i don't have further questions except that i think much more simplified deck especially considering that these are targeting a single family residents and like for people that are watching or -- i think dbi is encouraging the use of this. so. >> yea. >> to sort of -- make it simpler. >> thank you. >> all right. >> thank you. next to agenda item 8. commissioners questions and

matters inquiries to staff. commissioners may make inquiries regarding documents, policies and practice and procedures of interest to the commission. and i will read item b. middle easting and gnlsd at this time the commission discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting or determine the items placed on the agenda at the next meeting and other meetings of the building inspection commission. next regular meeting is for february 15th. there are tentative dates for a special budget meeting of jan 30 and february 14 but not confirmed yet. i will confirm this with the commissioners. is there inquiries to staff? >> commissioner shaddix. >> thank you. i'm hoping for the commission

consideration that somebody near and dear is commercial corridors in san francisco. and we now have our vacancy store front text alive and well. it is in motion. and i worked the last 3 years on getting an accurate count through dbi on one corridor there is an tremendous amount of work and great clasheration with folks to get an accurate data base of vacant store fronts. one corridor i feel good about but there are also several other named corridors throughout the vacancy tax. i like for a consideration either to have a report showing the exactly what dbi shows as vaccanceys in the named commercial corridors or a

subcommittee or a general meeting on temperature not surety protocol on -- having that. what i found is that the tax collector is the one that will be doing the vacancy tax. the best advocates other residents themselves. and i would like to see a way to work with neighborhood organizations to see this same report i'm asking for. what exactly does the city whether data sf, dbi or haare we

seeing as vacant store upon fronts? and with that i am pause that. i don't know how to ask if this is a consideration for a future meeting or a report or -- >> i think you are asking that of dbi. right? so -- director? >> yea. thank you for the question, commissioner shaddix. we are happy to do a data dive on this and see what it is we have in regard to numbers and location of vacant store fronts and -- we can provide you with a report or if agendaized for the commission we can present in regard to our findings. so -- happy to assist in this and provide you with the data we have. >> i would be fine with a report. this report would be availability to other neighborhoods in the commercial corridors. than i would have access to this report as well. and is this a report we can

cross check. do as i did, walk with the list and empty. you know is this something we can amend back to dbi and say this is vacant. sorry. my question is, is that list can that listing available it a neighborhood organizations in the named corridors >> any reports we put together in the interest of full transparency are available and accessible. >> okay. >> happy to start that with a report. >> i thank you is something we agendaize and be available to the public. all of the your questions will be answered by agendizing it. >> i have one inquire tow staff. and i think just on the tail end of commissioner shaddix questions about his personal focus or interests. something and i one of the commission meetings we talked about the updates to the

website. i did go to the website to lockup the commissioners i thought would you can helpful. i noticed myself and commissioner sommer our occupation and vocation of our work place was listed but there is little no information about any of bioabout commissioners backgrounds. so the people understand you know i think they know what an architect is and engineer but the experience and back grundz this other commissioners bring to the table i happening would be helpful to have a short bio. on the website of the individual commissioners. i think there are commissions have that. so. director o'riordan? >> we are help to look in to that and get back to you president bito >> i suggest that individuals commissioners provide you don't

need want would you recall cv up but a short sum row that you put on linked in or describes work experience or something you are passionate or focused b. >> absolutely. we will absolutely willing to work with you. >> great >> how does that i wanted get mead feedback or responses from fellow commissioners. commissioner shaddix. >> i'm getting names wrong all day >> i'm fine. i thought i did submit a summary but -- i'm i agree i continuing is noise ton what everybody does out there outside this room i like it. >> something it posted the website would be helpful. and you helpful for each one of us like understanding okay what commissioner neumann's experience in housing or commissioner tam's experience work nothing real estate.

>> -- we general low knowledge what you dom the things that i think also that speak to your passion about being on the commission if there is something you think we should include or dbi should include. anyway. good i'm glad to hear the commission is supportive. i don't have other further questions. or inquiries or items. >> thank you. is there public comment on item 8a and b? >> good morning i'm jerry. i'm at the website now and what is interesting is this the planning commission website you can send an e mail directly to a commissioner. but that is not possible with the bic. so don't see where the bic commissioners can havage easy

dialogue with the citizens of sudden fran. without the ability to sends the commissioner an e mail. thank you. >> is there additional comment? upon the fyi the major of commissioners do have sfgove mills for the public this is listening. >> i think suggesting it was pested on the website under our name >> thank you. >> next item 9. director's report. 9a. director's update. >> thank you. president bito and the bic. i'm patrick o'riordan director of department of building inspection. first i want to invite you and everybody to join us at our next public forum on january 25.

3:30 on wednesday. we will presenting on the launch of the solar app you just heard and i will speak b. anyone who missed today's presentation we will be presenting this again. we will be hearing from the clothes at the prer permit center and planning and they will provide us with updates and guidelines relating to their diameters. and i noticed with the meeting information will go out shortly. i hope you can make it. so, next, i know we have been enduring rain and wind over the last few weeks. our inspectors have been busy. i want to provide you with an update on the outstanding work our inspectors performed the pedestrian 3 weeks of storms. and as you know we have a team that at our working throughout

the week and we also have at least one on call inspector who is available 24/7 for anything that might happen outside of normal hours. weekends and general low after 5 p.m. each day if we get a calls coming to the 311 portal the fire department. the police department of the they get called about things like trees falling on houses. land slides. flooding of houses. so we -- we had a lot of those calls the past 3 weeks. we -- issued 20s noise of violation. for the things i described the trees and building and winds damage. flooding. landslides. i do want to commend our inspectors especially the once who picked the short straw and had the assignment of december and january. martin and trevor burn in

particular with hernandez for their great w and commitment it our city. and wellingness to got extra mile for the community. you imagine mag there are hand hold when an inspector goes out and someone has a tree through their officer and when not. they performed limp thanks damion trevor and mar race >>. and a note the appreciation like to share a note sent boy a customer mrs. sinldzy chan to building inspector calling out a group enrique fine work i like to express gratitude and appreciation to mr. enrique for his professional work and kindness. the san francisco abe americans

with disability access requirement, compliance rekwierment, challenging for mow exit worked hard with the help of staff from the san francisco building inspection the sudden fran permit center and san francisco small business office. there were some people that were not kind or patient but a lot of wonder hard working people who fwied and explained the process of complying. hoe is among those who was wonderful. and -- in response we thank mrs. chan for her words and i thank you and enrique, thank you all for your mart work and excellent customer service. that concludes my report. >> 9 b update on major projects.

we have the slide deck. >> this is an update on our major projects for you president bito and commissioners want following slides are intended highlight the volume and evaluation of projects costing 5 million or more that are filed, issued and completed. as well as profile a few that bring high value in terms of their contribution to housing. and community assets. to start in december of upon 22, 30 permit applications with estimated value of 5 million or more were filed. the projects are participateed add 2, 654 new housing units. and they are collectively valued at over 1 billion dollars.

this -- includes an application for 829 units at 620 foalsom

street 135 units were expected to be below market rate. there was also an application filed for 101 fond street in parkmerced planned to have 471 units. we should be on slide 2 now. last month 4 high value permits a collective of 219 million dollars. one permits for 100% fordable at 730 stanion the other for 299 room hotel at 350, second street. and lastly if we have slide 4. dbi10 high vol value projects. these completed projects have construction evaluation of 161 million dollars. and have added 312 new housing units. one of the projects was a 258 unit affordability housing building at 1064 mission street. and another was for 195 room hotel at 72 elis street. that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you. next is item c update on dbi finances.

hello againful alex deputy director of administration. can you move to the next slide? this is the regular finance monthly update. that we discussed in the previous meeting. ham to expect heart attack is different about this month's update is that we now for the first time have our first real set of projected year end amounts which you will see in the following slides. so -- significant revenue, 50% lapsed and we recovered about 48% of our ref now new our projection now is to -- miss our revenue budget by 6%. this is a very conservative

estimate. you know the cost schedule was updated and that should result in higher revenues in the second helpful of the year, however they are difficult to project, calculate we will see over the next 3 monthses hat increase irrelevant translates to. so for now, we are really taking conservative prop, not build nothing any ref now increase into our projections and assuming the second half of the year will go about the same as the first. >> and there are some -- revenues that have not posted yet but that will i gallon through quickly. the first line is our major source of revenue the fees. and again you see that -- so far

through the first 2 columns are last year's budget and actuals the middle 2 are the concern budget and year to deaf actuals and the final 2 are our projected actuals. and -- resulting surplus deficit. so -- the first line is our primary fee revenue we project 4 million dollars deficit. second line the expenditure recover work we do for other departments this they pay us for this we assume now we will do all the work for, that work delayd and carry it forward and receive it in a following period. interest. do you to the use of upon funds bes we expect to recover less interest than originally thought. the license permit and franchise this is is entirely the

apartment license fee. and based on the prior year, and -- actuals to date currently we are expecting to do a bit better than was budgeted. other ref nows are minor. and -- transfers if the general fund and add back by a board of supervisors we expect to collect all of that. the resulting operating projects deficit is 3 penalty 5 million dollars. however, as you see. when we talk about expend tours, that will be entirely billionsed out by savings. next slide. on the expenditure side, they are trending below budget. to date we spent the 36% of the budget. much of the funds when we know we have condition tracts with

the businesses we will enupon company bert fund for future ouz butt dollars have not gone out of the door they are open purchase order this is are committed but not spents. so, this 36% is actually a higher percentage of funds are committed. salary and fringe we are trending exact low on budget. so we are doing well there. our vacancies remain low and -- we are not approximate -- our over head and all spending is in line with what had been planned previously. and -- based on the first 6 months and some additional adjust ams, our -- expenditure projections are 4% lower than budgeted. if you move to the next page, you see the break down again prior year.

current year, budget and year to date actuals and the end are the projections. so the most significant item is the major source of saving system nonpersonal services. this was budgeted high previously. i assume in as a hold over from when times are good that is also needed for peer review services which we are reimbursed for. so that savings is actually, we need to budget the ability to spend we will receive reimbursement. you will see the total bottom line projected amount is 3 penalty 5 savings. this cancels out on the revenue side. we are projecting to end with as originally budgeted as plan, which still on the ref now side

you see that -- the revenues about 60 something million. expenditure and 90 something million that was made up by fund balance of the fund balance is dropping significantly but we are using the amount we originally planned and in the more. things are not getting worse. >> and for context on the further context on the revenue side year to date number of permit system lower it is 10% lower but evaluation is 10% higher. you see the all of the lower evaluations are have significant cannot low nower permits. and total evaluation. then the prior year. however, the difference is almost entirely made up at the high end with the 2 largest categories the 5200 and 100

million dollars projects the total evaluations there almost double or more than double for the learningest category, second to largest category this 1 cludes the xupt help to answer questions. >> do we need to -- take this to the commissioner? if you have to talk and get public comment. we will do public comment at the end. >> we talked about budget at length the last commission meeting and -- i think i don'tment to rush my fellow commissioners but we have a closed session. i don't have any further questions but -- i think some of the things you out lined in terms of the short falls and that you have -- that are on the slide i think on one of the earlier pages when you were showing your revenue illustrates

that. i don't have further questions. do my fellow commissioners have questions? >> thank you. >> thanks. next we have -- i had one on process. >> go ahead. >> i understand we are just doing we did get in a lengthy discussion last month this . is an update but there is a budget process upcoming. any of the left over questions that will be this is for commission and the public tell be a meeting we will finalize today? is this correct or finalized. for budget meetings could someone walk through the process? >> we will have a special meeting i have to find out about the dates and whether we can meet in person or remote. that's the only thing.

>> okay. perfect. the questions we had from last month and the public has question those can be in the budget meeting? >> yes. >> thank you. >> no further questions. item d is update on proposed state or local legislation. >> president bito good morning carl legislative, fair's manager with a very brief update on state and local legislation. it is a quiet time since the left update the board of supervisors was on winter recess since january 9. we go ahead and skip this the proposed ordinance you just heard to increase fines and penalties for violations with plan and building code. thank you for hear thanksgiving item. next slide. there is a pending hearing with

dbi and planning department standards enforcement in human right's commission on potential violations at the headquarters building at 1355 market street. this is assign ed land use and transportation committee but the hearing date has not been schedule. and then on the state legislation side, as you know, the state legislator was on recess and reconvened for the start of the legislative session on january fourth. this is the first year of the legislator's 2 year session and this year legislateors have

until february 17th to introduce bills and in your next update weville a list of proposed state legislation that we will watch for you. help to answer questions. >> thank you. >> we don't have questions, thank you. >> next we have item e update on [inaudible] services. >> good morning president and commissioners i'm matthew green chief of inspection service. pleased update the activities and performance of inspection services divisions. inform december the building and plumbing division conducted 9800 inspections. 94% of thez were conducted within 2 business days. meeting our target of 90%. in the same month our service conducted 967 insmekzs with 155 routine multifamily housing. the building electric and plumbing received 378 complaint and responded today 100% within

3 business days. exceeding the targets of 85%. our code enforce am sent 39 cases to director hearing. our inspection housing inspeck services received 83 safety and heat complaints and responded 84% within a day. they received 344 other complaints and sponded 90% within 3 business days. healthy inspection service dated 343 cases with notice of violation and sent 33 to director's hearing thank you, i'm happy to answer questions. >> any questions from commissioners? >> thank you. >> thank you. is there public comment on the director's report 9 a-e? >> good morning i'm jerry.

the dbi financial presentation this month is much improved over prior bic presentations and that's appreciated. the schedules for the 2022 budget show ref now of 51 million and total expenditures of 112 million. if i read this correct low, the operating loss will be 60 million dollars. um -- i don't need to remind you that um -- db ian enterprise department and ref now is meeting expenditures. my greatest concern is if i'm reading the scheduled correct low the 60 million dollars operating loss and that will probably take most if not all of the prior year reserves.

if this is correct, what happens? thank you. any additional public comment. in person or on line. >> hello sarah [inaudible]. i think that the report make its clear your earlier conversation about increasing fees that it is actually a problem that often in years of plenty in [inaudible] and bomyears we lower fees. when we should be putting things aside in reserves because the same projects sometimes have problems down the line where as [inaudible] we go out and out roach to tenants. and are available for tenant hos call us and 5 different languages. throughout the city in horrible conditions. and we have the booms where a

lot of built but during the low points during the periods repair needs don't go downful the out of town investors who brought up buildings just disappear and refouz to answer phone calls and make basic repairs. shoty construction becomes clear 5 or 10 years later and we just see like a bunch delayed maintenance from during the pandemic and not upon only the flood we are seeing now but just basic conditions. and that -- if you don't talk about fees you talk about cutting the services this your agency needs to provide. and for some of the most vulnerable in san francisco. it is important when we talk about going forward that i don't think you should cut and boom combroers put back money, way in long-term reserve this is is an

important move. but in the pointses if we raise fees so that -- tenants don't have the ceilings collapse on them. [inaudible] we talked to tenabilities last week there are tenant in the same complex who had not had stoves for over 3 months. and this meant all the holiday and being able to feed family and in the getting take out. or grocery stores. these are crucial and that i think this it is the beginning and we have to look at when we need to do. and so -- thank you all for all of your work and looking at this today. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing upon 91. go up to item 10. review and approval of the minutes of the special meeting of december 14 of 22. >> motion to approve the

minutes. why second. is there public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none there is a motion by vice president tam and second by commissioner sommer or all commissioner in first? >> aye. >> aye. >> any opposed? jot minutes are approved. >> thank you. >> next we have item 11 the discussion and possible action regarding director o'riordan performance evaluation. continued from december 14th special meeting. 11a, public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. is there public community? in person or remotely? seeing none, next we have item 11b, possible action to convene a closed session is there a motion? >> motion. >> seconded. >> there is a motion by passport

bito and second by vice president tam. to convene a closed session. roll call vote. president bito. >> yes. >> vice president tam. >> yes. >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes >> commissioner neumann >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> commissioner shaddix. >> yes. >> the motion carry unanimously. it is 11 a.m. and we will begin convening our closed session. i would ask that all parties present and in person to leave now. anyone besides commissioner alexande

>> hello it it is again had is the regular meeting of bic january 18, 2023. we are on gone item 11d. reconvene in open session to row whether to disclose discussions held in closed session. >> motion to reconvene. and nondisclose. is this the question. >> yes. >> second. >> there is a motion to reconvocabulary in open session and not to disclose what was discussed in the closed session and i doll a roll call on this item. president bito. >> sorry. repeat the last part again when do you want to do. to yes or no. reconrobe in open session and not disclose.

>> yes. >> sorry. vice president tam. >> yes. >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes. >> commissioner neumann. >> yes. >> commissioner sommer. >> yes. where and commissioner shaddix. yes. that carries unanimously. president is there other. >> that we approved performance evaluation in closed session. thank you very much. is there anything else. >> motion to or on -- >> no , i don't think we do a motion. >> may i say something? >> thank you very much. commissioners. so -- we are now to -- throughout chair like to say manage. >> madam secretary commissioner tam would like to say something.

before we close i want to wish the dbi and public and all of you a happy lunar new year. pros perity and health. >> thank you! that was nice commissioner tam. i thought that lunar new year was february. it is next week. i got e mills. got it. happy new year, everybody. >> thank you. >> now on to adjournment a motion? >> motion. >> madam secretary can i say something i don't know if i make a disclosure i like the over kill i wanted state in case i did in the have to closed session. a couple times the out reach program came up in this meeting and i wanted to state for the record i'm a former employee of an organization funded by the

program. i maintained close friendships and reps with the people who respect service. and also provide the service. and i wanted to make that public disclosureen though i'm not sure anything rose to the level of requiring it. in an effort to -- respect the governors. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. >> we have -- motion to adjourn. and motion. >> seconded. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> we are adjourned it is 12:48 p.m. >> thank you, everyone.

>> welcome to another episode of safety on today is episode we'll show you how 0 retroactive you're home let's go inside and take a look. >> hi and patrick chief officer and director of earthquake for the city and county of san francisco welcome to another episode of stay safe in our

model home with matt we'll talk about plywood. >> great thanks. >> where are we we if you notice bare studs those are prone to failure in an earthquake we need to stabilize those they don't lean over and plywood is effective as long as you nail along every edge of the plywood for the framing we'll nail along the sides and top and on the bottom 0 immediately you'll see a problem in a typical san francisco construction because nothing to nail the bottom of the plywood we've got to wind block between the studs and we'll secure this to the mud sill with nails or surface screws something to nail the bottom of the plywood. >> i notice we have not bolted

the foundation in the previous episode thorough goes through options with different products so, now we have the blocking we'll a xoich attach the plywood. >> the third thing we'll attach the floor framing of the house above so the top of the braced walls one to have a steel angle on top of this wall and types of to the top of the wall with nails into the top plate and the nails in this direction driving a nail it difficult unless you have a specialized tool so this makes that easy this is good, good for about 5 hundred pounds of earthquake swinging before and after that mount to the face of wall it

secures the top of wall and nailed into the top plate of the with triple wall and this gives us a secure to resist the forces. >> so you now see the space is totally available to dots blocking that he bottom and bolted the foundation in corneas what the code in the next episode you'll see you apply

please stand by for the san francisco youth, young adult, and families committee meeting of january 13, 2023. >> the meeting will come to order. good morning. this is our january 13, regular meeting of the youth young adults and family committee. i'm supervisor ronen chair of the committee joined by vice chair remotely, supervisor safai and by committee members dorsey. our