>> good morning. today is wednesday march 15, 2023. this is regular meeting of building inspection commission. i like to remind everyone please mute yourself if you are not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call]

>> we have quorum. next is our land acknowledgment. >> the building inspection commission we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. >> thank you. next,

any members of the public listening, the public comment in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is 24848096303. to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item press star 3 when prompted by the meeting moderator. next is item 2, president's opening remarks. >> good morning to my fellow commissioners, leadership at dbi and public at large present and also listening on the meeting. we have a lot on our plate today. one of which is nominating and voting for the president and vice president along with our other subcommittee members who served on those committees as well. i still consider myself a new commissioner when i compare to others who have committed decades to public or

civic service and i'm still learning. that said, i hope during this past year i served this commission well. my priority serving the architecture seat is understanding how dbi can serve development design and community at large. my focus during the past two years as commissioner and president is understanding dbi permitting process and how the commission can serve the community interest best. we have a joint commission meeting with planning and bic on may 18 and looking forward to a focus meetings on streamlining the site permit process, by which bifurcating planning and building create a path forward for applicants. that concludes the president comments for today. thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on president's opening remarks? seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the

bic will take public comment on matters not part of this agenda. >> i need the computer, please. >> go ahead. >> pay roll and benefits for

the-excuse me. permit plan check revenue is down $20 million from 2018. $14 million of the decrease is lower plan check and premium plan check review. there are about 326 full-time equivalent employee. total payroll and are benefit is $52 million or $160 thousand per employee. 45 percent of dbi employees are inspection service. how do we justify 93 employees in permit services with lower plan check revenue? 45 percent of dbi employees generate (indiscernible)

revenue. total payroll benefits for 146 employees and inspection services which is about $23 million. this ignores the cost of the transportation and other direct expenses. they generate 5 to $7 million in fees. permit and plan check fees would need to $5 to $7 million in fees. permit and plan check fees would need to increase over 20million to cover this short-fall. (indiscernible) close the $30 million revenue gap? only plan check over the counter plans. reduce permit services by outsourcing the non-otc plans to licensed professionals, loss eliminate the permit back-log. charge inspections to building permits. that inspections-why should inspections cost be buried in plan check

and permit fees. project that require reinspection should pay for reinspection or missed appointments. we deuce charges from other city departments. which fee lines do you see increased $20 million? a 10 percent fee hike would only raise $4 million. raising fees is not going to fix the problem and dbi and enterprise department will have spent all of prior year-reserves by the end of 2024. thank you for the time. >> thank you. any additional public comment? seeing none, next we have item 4 election of the bic president and vice president. we'll take nominations for the election of bic president first, but before we do, is there any

public comment on this item? none in person and none remote. are there any nominations for the position of bic president? >> are we going in-- >> we can accept as many nominations as come forward and vote on them in that order. >> i guess- (indiscernible) >> commissioner sommer put her hand up to speak first. >> okay, go ahead. >> hello. i would like to nominate raquel bito. >> thank you. is there another nomination? it will require a second.

>> commissioner tam is second on the roster to speak. >> right. i too like to nominate commissioner bito to continue the traction we are on as commission president. >> commissioner shaddix is next. >> also going to nominate president bito to continue. >> i think you are moderating madam secretary, but that is all on the speaker roster. >> okay. are there any other comments or nominations? one at a time, yes. there is a motion-if someone would like to state the motion for electing commissions bito. >> a motion to elect commissioner bito for president of the commission. >> and second? >> second. >> okay. thank you. i'll do a

roll call vote. [roll call] >> motion carries 5-1, congratulations. >> thank you. >> next we have the item of election of vice president. any nominations? >> i would like to speak first and nominate commissioner tam for vice president. next on the speaker roster is commissioner sommer. >> i had the same nomination. >> okay. next on the speaker

roster is commissioner tut. >> i have a question about process. if we have a speaker list are we supposed to go by the speaker list or can somebody cut in front of the speaker list? >> i believe you are supposed to go by the speaker list like press the button to speak. >> just curious about the process. i also support commissioner tam for vice president. >> commissioner shaddix is next. >> same, i like to support vice president tam. >> thank you. are there any other nominations? seeing none, we will do a motion. >> motion to elect commissioner tam for vice president. >> is there a second? we have a motion and second to elect commissioner tam as vice president. we'll do a roll call vote.

[roll call] >> thank you. congratulations to you both. >> thank you. >> next we have discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the litigation committee. >> i would like to nominate commissioner tam to be president of the-is this- >> litigation. >> are we just- >> we are just doing the-so, we currently have two members on the litigation committee and we need a second member. currently the members of the litigation committee are your is self and commissioner tut and there is is a vacancy for a

person. anybody can nominate themselves. >> i would like to nominate myself on the litigation committee. >> okay. >> that is the only nomination i can make? >> yeah. you can ask if someone else wants to join, but they have to accept. >> okay. i would like to ask commissioner tam to join the litigation committee then. >> i'll accept the nomination. >> does anyone else--? >> i would like commissioner tut to stay on as well on the litigation committee. >> okay. are you interested in remaining? okay. thanks. then there would be a motion to nominate commissioners bito, alexander tut and tam as members of the litigation committee. that is

motion. is there a second? >> second. >> is there public comment on this item? any remote? seeing none, i'll do a roll call vote on that item. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. congratulations to all the members. next we have item 6, discussion and possible action to appoint commissioners to serve on the nominations subcommittee. currently the members are commissioner sommer and commissioner tam and commissioner neumann. if all of you are still willing to continue to serve, that could

be the nomination- >> i like to nominate all three again to serve on that subcommittee. i think they have done a great job. >> okay. thank you. you all accept? >> yes. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. we have a motion by president bito and then is there a second? >> second. >> okay. i'll do a roll call vote on the motion. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. thank you. congratulations all of you. next we have item 7, discussion and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance file number 230134. a-minding the police and building code to require owners of certain residential construction

projects to maintain a labor compliance bond at the time of issuance of the first construction document and clarifying that the bonding requirement applies to projects that submitted an application for a building permit in addition to other requirements. >> thank you. good morning president bito. congratulations and commissioners. carl legislative affairs manager here to give a brief introduction on this item which is to review and approval an ordinance to require project sponsor creates 10 or more units of housing to post a wage theft bond prior to issuance of the first construction document as the term is defined rather then the first building permit issued as the law is now. just want to underline the wage theft bond requirement already exists in the san francisco police code not the building code, and this legislation is intended to help dbi and the controller's office and the office of labor standard enforcement implement that requirement. we

really appreciate supervisor mandelman for hearing about our concerns and working with dbi on this legislation, and now i will turn it over to adam who is legislative aid to supervisor mandelman. >> can we change what is on the screen if you don't mind? >> i'm sorry. just a moment. sorry, i was going on the agenda. i forgot. >> great. good morning president bito and members of the commission. adam legislative aid to supervisor mandelman. here to present a piece of legislation for your consideration and ask you make a recommendation to land use transportation committee for further action. the proposed ordinance amend the police building code to requirement owners of residential construction projectss to create 10 or more units of housing to maintain a

labor compliance bond at the time of issuance of the first construction document. as background, as of may 2022 the board of supervisors passed legislation requiring labor compliance bond for certain projects. this proposed ordinance amends that requirement by adding the definition of first construction document in the first permit issued for a project or in the case of a site permit the first building permit addendum issued. this reduces the time the developers must carry the bond which can be a significant while protecting workers for wage theft. the project sponsors can secure the bond when they are issued a permit to begin construction rather then at the site permit stage when no construction is underway. i think that is really important part of our proposed amendment. the proposed ordinance also clarifies that all

projects with a completed application submitted by june 6 of 2022 are exempt from the bond requirement. this is to comply with sb330, which prohibits a local agency adding requirements that project sponsors must comply with after submitting completed applications. as carl mentioned, this ordinance is intended to resolve operational challenges for dbi for the controller's office, for the office of labor standard enforcement and implementing this current labor compliance requirement. i ask for your recommendation to land use committee, and carl and i are happy to take any questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, is there commissioner discussion? >> do you have a question? >> yes, thank you. has san francisco labor

counsel or building trades counsel weighed in? >> they have. we have engaged rudey gonzalez with labor counsel, local 6 throughout the process. we wanted to make sure that the changes in this ordinance were acceptable and made sure that they again protected workers at all phases of construction and made sure they were a partner in this legislation. >> and are they supportive of the legislation? >> yes. >> thank you. wanted to clarify. >> commissioner neumann. >> i don't have a question, i have a comment. it isn't a question, it is more a comment. i think it is great we are aligning these various policies, so thank you for taking that action, and it is-i just want to say it is something that is a cost savings for developers not to have to hold that for longer period of time. >> correct. >> it really does make

a difference and i'm speaking as affordable housing developer. they chunk of time can really impact projects. >> thank you commissioner neumann. i appreciate that. >> i have one question about terminology, because you put in quotations first construction document. what you are delaying is first issuance of building permit but that is any building permit, right? >> so, maybe i can provide a little background as i understand it. dbi is not my department of expertise and i will differ to carl and the director, but my understanding is, there are two main routes. when someone tries to build a residential construction project, there are two main routes, the site permit route, which is conceptual where no construction is happening or two, the full permit route which a project sponsor can come forward and are

provide all construction documents and have that reviewed at the same time. my understanding is the vast majority, all most hundred percent of project sponsors go to site permit route, but the challenge is, because the way the ordinance is currently written as of last year, those project sponsors have to carry the expensive labor bond whenio construction is happening so we are saying, let's have the labor bond go into compliance when there is actual construction happening. >> i'm not debating that- >> got it. i misunderstood the question. >> i debate the term first construction document and to me that is building permit. the building permit could-pat you can probably weigh in on this. sometimes-this is in some developers, they have-they look at building permits as a demolition permit. is a permit

a grading permit-i understand you don't want to hold that in a-a developer doesn't want to hold that bond in advance for a time period they are not building, so the question is, when you say first issuance, is it-what issuance of which building permit are you specifically speaking to? any building permit? pat, if you could clarify that. >> yeah, as with these things, the devil is in the details so just looking at the legislation here. to what was just spoken to, obviously the site permit doesn't allow for work-physical work to take place, so at the issuance of the first construction document, which would be the first addendum, that is when the bond needs to be in place. i'm just looking at the legislation here. what it says, first construction document means the first building permit issued for a project in the case of

a site permit. the first building permit addendum issued or other documents that authorize construction of the project. construction documents shall include, permits or addenda for demolition, grading and site preparation work. >> okay. then even like perhaps (indiscernible) would be part of that too if they are doing utility work (indiscernible) >> i think the intent is to make sure that the workers are covered under bond. >> that's not my-not what i'm debating. i just want to be clear people are not confused at what point they are required to-when this is initiated because a building permit is a lot of different things. >> well, the document does state site preparation work. in my opinion, that includes utilities and

infrastructure. >> okay, great. >> deputy city attorney rob, the construction document does not include permits or addenda for demolition grading shoring or site preparation so believe you would not get the bond before site preparation, just to be clear. >> you are agreeing with director- >> i thought i heard-there was confusion whether it includes and-it includes language that says it does not include the permits for need of a bond. >> okay. it is also on page 2 of the document if you have your -i also pass it down, but it is in the definition on page 2 of the proposed legislation. >> is there any other

commissioner comments or you are reviewing it? >> shall not include, okay. so it does not. okay. thank you. that's good clarification. >> thank you. no further commissioner comments, is there a motion to approve file number 230134? >> motion to move this to land use. >> second. >> there is a motion and second. i'll do roll call vote. [roll call] thank you. the motion

carries unanimously. next we have item 8, update on unpermitted awning complaints and community outreach. >> good morning commissioners. sonia, i believe we have a presentation. >> yes, it is loading. >> great. next slide. patrick hanen communication director for department of building inspection. since november 1, department of building inspection received 182 anonymous complaints about illegally installed awnings in san francisco. these have been spread throughout the entire city but concentrated

in four naerbd said. the richmond. the tenderloin, the haight and china town. of those 182 complaints, 61 notice of violations had been issued. by comparison, during the same period last year we received just 5 awning complaints, so the numberwe received this year is extraordinarily high. next slide, please. installing a awning frame on a building requires a construction drawings with permit application. awning construction drawings could be drafted by a contractor, oner installer, architect or engineer. the cost vary but usually run 2 to $3 thousand. on the left here we have kind of a layout with different requirement. if you are just replacing the fabric you only need a sign permit. if you are installing a awning or replacing the frame and sign, the fabric then you need the building permit and a sign permit and if you are just installing a frame

which doesn't happen but you would only need a building permit. next slide, please. given the volume of complaints received, we also heard from the community concerns about the complaints and concerns about some of the awnings have been in place a long time. so, we work with the mayor office, work with supervisor peskin office and planning department and office of small business to hold a community meeting in china town march 6 attended by more then a hundred people which we shared what the process was and received feedback from the community what they feld was a difficult process spurred by these complaints. next slide, please. we also been working on this and at the meeting articulated 7 things we were doing to make the process work better and work with them. the first thing is,

deprioritize the enforcement of the awnings. the initial notice of violations we found not one of them had found there was a unsafe building condition and actually on the nov there is a box you check if the inspector finds and says wow, this is unsafe condition related to the building and that simply hadn't been found. what we had found is there were a number of these that hadn't had permits, about my own review found at least a dozen did have permits and some didn't have awnings so the complainant who ever they were didn't necessarily always find a property that had an awning when they filed complaints. another thing we were doing is extending the deadlines. usually we give 60 days to resolve the issue and in this case extended to 180 days to give everybody enough time to work through this. also supporting legislation to wave the nov fee penalties for these awning complaints. also supported legislation

you will hear about in a minute to extend may awning fee waver month, which sure is on all your calendars to allow a greater number of people to participate. working to develop a self-certification for the awning instillations, by which a awning installer can come out and confirm it was installed properly. finally, we clarified on our website the process the step by step guide how you get a awning and sign permit to make it as easy and clear as possible. next slide. it is hard to read, but that is the update to the website we made. as with all the sfgov website is translated into chinese, spanish and filipino and here is the chinese translation. next slide, please. so, there are a number potential scenarios,

but we want to highlight a couple so you understand what some of the options were. under the first scenario, if a oner company hired but permit not obtained can have the awning installer come out and certify it was done to code, apply for building code and get the awning inspected and complete the process. another scenario is if just the awning fabric relaced on unpermitted awning instillation they can hire to prepare drawings, apply for building permit and get the awning inspected to make sure it is safely attach today the side of the building. we continue with work with the mayor office and city attorney to identify and figure how to balance these two needs. the code requirement, which is a safety requirement, which says if you fix something to the side of the building the code requires there is documentation shows it is affixed safely while balancing the

community needs. some of the awnings have been in place a long time and we don't have a great-long history seeing the awnings blow off. we are trying to balance the community needs and wanting to make sure we support small businesses while making sure that code compliance is achieved so everybody remains safe. we wanted to give the update because a, we engaged with the community and we are in-working with them in order to find that right balance, and also this isn't over. we continue to work on this and will continue to work on it until we find the right resolution. with that, i want to say thank you for the opportunity and let me know if you have any questions. >> commissioner tam. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation. just a couple questions. >> i'll call public comment. any public comment on this item? >> good morning, my name is

jerry dratler. why not have awning input? why is dbi using 30 year old business processes? business process reengineering at dbi is the solution to a $30 million operating budget problem. thank you. >> any additional public comment? seeing none go ahead vice president tam. >> thank you and thank you for the presentation. a few questions. with the community outreach, majority of the feedback, what was said? >> i think people are mostly surprised. most cases the awnings have been in place a long time and there was uncertainly why this was a issue and 182 anonymous complaints, comparison to 5 the previous year, it was a substantially larger scope. we are required to respond to

complaints but we want to find the right balance so as soon as we understood this is happening at scale we move to start to manage the situation so can achieve the right balance. >> i do applaud. i know that applaud dbi for working with the nov recipients and giving them time. is there talk about extending the 180 days because there is a language barriers, small businesses is a part of the lifeline of san francisco and they have been through a lot with the pandemic and financial-suffered financial losses throughout the pandemic and with this, definitely is huge on the small business community and so, have there been talks extending the 180 days? there is legislation in place and they are working on that and i applaud peskin's office and the mayor's office for working on that, but is there additional timeframe that they are given? >> i think of things are still oen the table but we want to provide immediate relief so

people don't have to worry if they don't get something done in the first 60 days to resolve this that there would be enforcement action. took action to extend that out to give people sense of mind that this wasn't something that is enforced upon right away but as we go through the process if we need to make adjustments we women. >> thank you. thank you. >> commissioner neumann. >> thank you for the presentation. as you were going through, it seemed obvious in the solutions put forward that a self-certification makes a lot of sense for this issue. how far out do you think you are from able to implement something like that? >> i would say we continue to have discussions and talking about it later on this week. the real question, you have to bear in mind that when you put-when you affix something to the side of the building that is a structural element and if it reaches out over the right of way you don't want it to fall on someone's head. what is the requirement for

the code making sure that is safely affixed and what we are trying to figure out. i don't have a exact answer, but i tell you we are working on it actively. >> are you considering maybe having certified installers or something to that effect? >> awning installers are licensed installers so to get this permit you can be a owner but if you are a contractor now need this type of license because it is a structural element that is affixed to the outside of the building and we all want to make sure that is safe. >> thank you. >> commissioner tut. >> yes, i are have a few questions. thank you for the presentation. it is really great to hear how proactive the department has been reaching outto the community and language access so i want to recognize and thank you for that. i have two questions that are somewhat related, and one is, in scenario one, if the

original awning company perhaps wasn't licensed or they can't find them, does that mean they have to-what is the scenario then? and, is there a alternative? can anybody who has a license inspect it and then self--certify? and then somewhat related in scenario 2 is, is there any guidance around who is qualified to do these kinds of drawings? what is the qualification so people dont pay for something, get down the road and realize i have to go start over and already paid a couple thousand dollars for these drawings? >> those are great questions and let me note that we did research. how long have you been required to get a building permit for a awning and we know since 1919 this has been a requirement of the building code. it is long been in place. but those two questions you are asking are the exact questions we are trying to

figure out. what level of self-certification is appropriate. who can actually do that. on the one hand you want to make as easy as possible and say this is safe is qualified to make that determination and so that is exactly the line we are trying to figure out now. >> great. is office of small business engaged at all? >> they are. they were the first people we engaged and have been wonderful partners and very supportive and leading efforts with the legislation. >> great. i would just emphasize that this making sure the business owners know who they are supposed to hire and qualifications they should look for that is not universally known and i know we are in a position to recommend anybody, but just to make sure they have the information of who is qualified to help them get to the next position. >> absolutely. that was a reason we wanted to update the step by step to make it crystal clear who can do this and how you go each step of the way. >> commissioner shaddix.

>> thank you. thank you patrick and thank you all for being super proactive. shocking once again to see 150nov out of no where. the four neighborhoods, what about the other four? are they included in the fee wavers or permit assistance or just the four neighborhoods? >> those 4 neighborhoods are where the complains are concentrated. it was (indiscernible) this applies to awning complaints filed within a period of time regardless of the sunset or haight or china town. >> fantastic. last question, you are a new business and had a awning. i have seen many times where a awning is spray painted over and the sign is stenciled on. do you

self-report? what if you are not sure if your awning was permitted and took over a store front that has been there 20 year jz a awning as long as we have been around, do you ask-come down to dbi and ask is my awning permitted or do you just stay silent until somebody notices or how do you suggest that work? >> you can always take a look online going back to 1986 we have the permit tracking system will identify and have online the permits in place. you make a great point, if a new building is constructed you wouldn't have gotten a permit because that was have been part of the overall structure. they can always contact us and ask and we are happy to help them figure if they have a legally permitted awning and if not how they can go back bringing it into compliance. >> commissioner tam. >> i dont think you might not have the answer. i know the office of economic

development small business grants, is this something that would qualify for the grant? >> we are exploring opportunities and also in a conversation with them around the issue and looking to figure out-everything is on the table as we try to thread the needle and find the balance between public safety and supporting small businesses. >> thank you so much. >> i don't have any questions, but i think the rest of the commission, i think dbi has been addressing this very proactively so don't have a lot of concerns. i think the outreach they prioritize is circumspect why you have 182 complaints and only 5 the previous year. i don'ts think it is hard to look at a silver lining when 2 to $3 thousand is a lot for a small business and even things commissioner shaddix brought up like, spray painting a logo or signage is

just a added cost they didn't intend to occur so i applaud dbi reaction and proactive approach to this issue. i have been following it, but i think i have less concerns about it because dbi has been so on top of this issue. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioners. >> next we have item 9, disscugz and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance number 230212 amending the planning building code to codify the waver of awning replacement fees and awning sign fees applied for during the month of may to annually wave fees for new awning instillations applied for during the month of may in addition to other requirements. >> thank you very much. just a couple slides. here to give a brief introduction to the item

to review and approve an ordinance to amend the building code to add permit fee waver for new awning instillations each may during small business month. essentially expanding the existing fee waver which currently applies only to awning replacements. my only note about this ordinance is that it is different then the one that mayor london breed and board of supervisors president aaron peskin announced that vice president tam also just mentioned, that is expected to create an amnesty program for existing but not non compliant awnings. that ordinance is drafted and not introduced yet at the board of supervisors and we'll keep you updated on the progress of that ordinance. with that, happy to turn it over to (indiscernible) chief of staff to supervisor engardio and supervisor engardio is the sponsor of the awning fee waver ordinance.

>> good morning commissioners. he is the sponsor of this legislation. the proposed ordinance relates to the awning fee waver program that is in place since 2014. it is part of small business and building safety month. the current program allows small businesses to apply for a waver during the month of may for any replacement awnings, signs on replacement awnings and any instillations of pedestrian level lighting. the proposed ordinance is amendsing the planning and building code to do two things. first, it expands the program to cover new instillation of awnings and second, clarifies thee wavers are tie today the time applications are

submitted, versus the time permits are issued. there was ambiguity in the existing law. specifically, the building code provision being amended is section 110a. there is a table of various fees and the rules around them, and as you can see, if you are looking at the language,er it is basically in section f clarifying that it is the time of application that is relevant. there is some language that also says if there is a any conflict in the language this provision trumps any conflicting provision. and yes, it also states that we are hoping to cover new instillations. so, as you know, awnings have been on the news and a cause of concern for a lot of small businesses and

we are hoping this is one step that business owners can take to come within compliance and provide relief for them at the same time. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answer them but i believe the proposed ordinance is fairly straight forward. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners. >> i don't have any questions. do other commissioners have any questions? >> i do. what is the fiscal impact and then what has an analysis been done on impact of staffing because i imagine that means there is much more focus on this area during may? >> i am not aware of any analysis being done. i would differ to director orearden, since we have been

encouraged by the office of small business to advance this. it is an existing program, but whether-what the impact will be if we expand this to new instillations, i believe it would be difficult to predict, because it depends how many people take advantage of the program and of course, what the size of their project is, because the fees are keyed to the project amount. >> just to add to that, the permits do not require much review from the dbi perspective, but they will be routed through planning and public works, so these permits over the years have gone through over the e counter permits. they are fairly straight forward. the resource impact on staff should be fairly limited. >> thank you. >> i also wanted to mention, there is a retroactivity clause

in the proposed ordinance because it is unlikely this ordinance will be passed and signed into law before may 1, but the intention is to have this ordinance be in effect starting may 1 this year. >> i don't have further questions and i don't see other commissioners that do, so- >> do we need a motion? >> yes, we need a motion to approve file number 230212. >> i like to make a motion to prove. -approve. >> there is a motion and second and i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] >> thank you, the motion carries unanimously. item 10, discussion and possible action regarding updated administrative

bulletin 093 implementation of green building regulations. >> good morning. director orearden, i have a very brief presentation. (indiscernible) environment department. if you can move to the next slide, please. administrative bulletin 93 summarizes green building requirements in san francisco and as the commission is aware, the green building code was updated to incorporate california 2022 standards. next slide, please. included modficonditions to electric vehicle charges and better support in the energy code for electrification which is mandatory in new construction in san francisco. next slide.

therefore, the administrative bulletin summarizing those regulations for implementing those requirements are straight forward updates. they included updating dates in reference to the relevant codes, some type graphical improvalment and clarifications and no changes to requirements or the meaning or procedures of the department of building inspection. i would be happy to answer questions about it, but seeking your support for these updates to the bulletin. >> thank you. any public comment on item 10? any remote? seeing none, is there commissioner discussion or questions? >> i just have a question on the ev parking spaces. install e rks have charges in 5 percent of the spaces. is that additional 5 percent? >> that is one of the biggest

changes, so previously the state did not require actual chargers to be installed, it just required various types of wiring for spaces in san francisco also had requirements that expanded on that. for the first time there is additional 5 percent of spaces that need chargers installed. >> ifia you have hundred spaces you add 5 percent on top to meet ev charging or 5 percent of the hundred? >> the latter. the number of parking spaces to be constructed is a determination made by the planning process and entitlement process and just once that output of what is approved of the number of parking spaces to be constructed, then the math of what ev charging infrastructure applies. >> that would be not in addition or in addition? >> i think i misunderstood your question at first, so it is not in addition to what is entitled by the planning department, just a change from the prior code. >> okay. >> proportion changed. >> the only experience i had with that is the reach code and other jurisdictions

where in the past and that had changed, but it was fairly onerous the first time i think it was adopted but the ev parking was in addition to the required and that blew up your garage, especially if you are dealing with something that has 300 or 500 parking spaces and you got a garage below grade, so it was relief to see it was a pro rata of the required, meaning it was not in addition but a part of your required parking. >> sorry, misunderstood your question. >> that is okay. that is just a clarification. i don't have other questions about the green code. fellow commissioners, i just wanted to-- >> if no further questions or discussion, is there a motion to approve the administrative bulletin 093? >> so moved. >> second. >> there is a motion is and second. eel polk -i'll do a roll call vote.

[roll call] >> thank you. the motion carries unanimously. next we have item 11. update regarding the nomination subcommittee. a. code advisory committee (cac) seats that are vacant: • code advisory committee “member-at-large” • code advisory committee “a person qualified in the area of historical preservation” b. board of examiners (boe) seat that is vacant: • tenant licensed or registered as an architect, civil or structural engineer seat. commissioners sommer. >> yes, through the chair. >> yes. >> this subcommittee has not met since the last building inspection commission meeting,

however we have posted a updated advertisement for the vacant position sonia just read. it is posted on the website and since the agenda for this meeting was released, another seat for the board of examiners opened up and that is a person licensed as a general contractor, so that was included in the advertisement-not included in the advertisement but we will update to include this. we will do some outreach to fill these four vacant positions, and i think that is the update. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner sommer. is there any other comments on this item? seeing none, we will move to item 12, update regarding the cleent service subcommittee.

>> good morning president bito, members of the commission. i'm neval deputy director for permit services division in dbi. if we can get that--so, i will be updating you on the client service committee meeting we had last week or the week before and this was primarily related to the site permit reform process. go to the next slide. we will present a overview of slides you are probably familiar with. you will remember it from the last big meeting. we will talk about process policy and fees in relation to the planning and building and the technical review technology comparison between planning and building. i want to add a note that all

of the changes we are talking about today or potential changes, they are currently in draft form and so they are not final recommendations. next slide, please. on the top you will see that process flow diagram that you saw the previous bic meeting which essentially looks at the proposed process that is different from what we currently have. what it does-what it takes the planning process and extricates out of the building permit process where it is currently embedded in and makes it a separate process that is identified there by the gap between the two. throughout the presentation today i'm going to be comparing the planning process and the building process side by side so you can see the differences there. the next slide. sorry, go back to that previous one.

there we go. okay, as far as process and policy goes, the difference between planning and building and planning process is entirely discretionary. it is open to subjective review, input from the public, whereas the building permit process is essentially what it is today, ministerial process where if you comply with the regulations put borf before you in the building code, you essentially get approval for your permit. going down on the planning side, this will be entirely a planning department process. it will include a limited scope referral from other departments during its review so that when the project is going through discretionary review they have the input of the departments on a limited basis as opposed to a full scale review. the plans during the process are

usually rudimentary. they develop primarily the architectural elements, the scale, the massing, architecture details of the building, high level review and historical and environmental concerns are looked at there, so we don't get into it building too much from a building perspective or any other department. the building side of things, once you file for the building permit application, you will have full construction drawings ready. architectural, structural as well as mechanical and green building standards will be establishing clear timelines for the reviews here whereas discretionary process on the planning side may involve multiple reviews historical review planning commission meeting and so on and so forth. establish clear timelines on the building side of things as well as hopefully reduce the number of

review cycles as we currently have today. moving to fees, the only change from the planning perspective is that the planning department will now be able to recoup hundred percent of fees up front, whereas with the current process the site permit process, they collect 25 percent of their fees at the beginning of the process and depending on whether the permit goes through fruition with construction or not, may or may not get their fees back. some projects decide not to forward after planning review eve n after the site permit so the planning department is usually out of their fees to recoup their cost so that will be the change on the planning side. on the building side, because wecurrently allow for site permits and what we call full permits, the full

building permit submitted at once, there is no change in the fee structure on building side, however we will have to create a way to recoup our review during the planning process. that may be on a time and material basis or maybe just a flat fee, depending on how we figure that out. next slide. as far as technical review, i'm going to call it a planning permit for now for-that is still up for discussion. the planning permit is exclusively a planning review. depending on the scope of the project, they may or may not invite the building department, fire department or public works department in to comment on. it may be small scale review for a relatively small project. obviously on the larger or mid-size projects, they will ask for referral,

conditions of approval from other departments. during this process, if the department if the building department gets invited to comment on the project, our review during the planning process will be very limited. currently, we not only look at the site evaluation of the project, we also get into the building and look at exiting and detailed as well as accessibility in the detailed fashion. so, want to be clear that during the planning process, it will be limited to these items that are itemized here. the location of the building and fire separation distance, the allowable height and area of the building including the type of construction exterior wall and openings on the exterior walls, site accessibility only opposed to what it is

currently, interior accessibility review and just gross egressing, making sure every floor has exit path all the way down to the ground and to disperse out to the public way. during the building permit process, there will be no changes to the current detail review of construction documents. next slide. from a technology perspective, there is going to be some changes there. currently there exists two permit tracking systems. one in the planning department and one in the building department. the planning department uses (indiscernible) on a limited basis, so when they take on this review and the planning permit process they actually will be enhancing the project-the system pretty substantially to allow for

workflow and being able to take fees in and be able to track the various reviews through the planning permit process. and they will also need to create a entitlement certificate, whatever the report is created at the end of the process to essentially let the applicant know that they have gone through the review, paid the fees and they have approvals. on the building side of things, the permit tracking system requires no change. we are ready for this change, again because we have already built in the ability to track workflows, collect fee s as well as create reports for full permits. whereas, the planning department will be tracking projects by what they call the prj number. we will be tracking by building permit application number with now a reference if there was any change in the permit tracking system, we would just have the

reference number now to the planning project. the last three items are bullet items on the slide actually are meant to be shared between two systems and both the systems will-the first bullet item shows the plan review comments will be issued in unison for the planning process. when it comes to building permit application, we'll continue to do it the way we currently do. the automatic notifications will now be included in both systems, whereas we don't have the ability to automatically notify the applicant today to let them know that their application is expiring and don't have the ability to auto expire. we will be turning that on in both systems and of course allow for website access

so the applicant knows where the process is in the system. and with that, that concludes my presentation. >> thank you deputy director. is there any public comment on this item? >> good morning, my name is jerry dratler. which plans require the seal of license professional? how do the proposed changes compare to best practices in other similar size cities? are there any proposed changes weaken existing earthquake standards? will the proposed planning department changes or enhancements to accela allow dbi finally to get on the accela system? thank you.

>> any additional public comment? any remotely? seeing none, is there commissioner discussion or questions? >> do we have questions from the commission? oh, commissioner sommer. >> thank you. my question was, this is just a update, what we are discussing in further detail at the may meeting, right? okay. because, is there or will there be legislation tied to these changes? is that how that will go, or is this a internal process discussion? or both? >> so, currently it is

internal process discussion. they will likely be some changes needed legislatively to amend the planning code and building code, just because the site permit process itself is embedded in both codes and we need to make those amendments. >> commissioner sommer any ort questions? commissioner neumann. >> i would just say this seems like a step in the right direction, especially speaking as a developer and i know president bito has commented on this before. most places, the planning process is separate from the permitting process and those are very clear lines and i think this will do a lot to clarify processes. much more difficult and murky in san francisco then it is in other municipalities surrounding us. >> commissioner tut.

>> the reform revision of this is pretty monumental to san francisco because the site permit process is part of the dbi process and planning permit process for i don't know how many years, decades but don't know how many, 5 decades? pat if you can speak to that? >> it pre-dates me. that goes back a ways, so probably 40 years i say at least mpts >> those are the rumors i heard. this is a pretty monumental change and the mayorsent out a press release to this effect that we will have a may 18 joint commission meeting with planning on this, and president tanner and i have you know, have tracked the status of this in terms of where dbi and planning are respectively on their

processes just to understand like, some of our questions about the site permit reform process and the questions i have about it are the big questions i think coming from the community are the fees. some fees like on your slides that might appear to be duplicates are really not. planning has to be paid their fee to do their work and i think being paid up front makes sense because if you are getting a entitlement whether you actually build on the entitlement or put it on hold, you still have the project reviewed. having some-especially for even for single family home, but from a single family home all the way to high-rise, the planning process allows them to have some cursory or preliminary review of the building department and gives them some indication what is at risk when they move into the building permit. so, what you outlined

there if you can bring up your slide was a baseline of some of those items, and those baseline items are just sort of the minimum, but it also allows for- >> slide 4. >> allows an applicant to also work with building on some issues that are coming up so they anticipate might be issues that they could address or questions they may have, so i think that you know, the fees that building needs-the building department needs for that is commensurate with the level of effort, but i think the concern i heard from the community is that they are paying double the fees. i don't think that is the case. the review at the building permit level is very different then what you are doing at a planning level. >> that's correct. yes. and limiting to these items from a global massing and exterior fire review as far as height

and area is really i believe what the original site permit was inteneded to be back 40 years or whatever, it just morphed into something. >> the other slide i wanted to speak to was on your first slide. i'm bringing that up. sorry. the first slide when you talked about the review cycle. in the review cycle, we do review cycles for all permitting departments. that is aspirational statement to make. it is objective but aspirational and it is really in the details so the question is that continued to be a sequential process or going to be a parallel review? but not just parallel review in the building department where you are looking at the technical for mep, structural and-did i capture all that? i think you also have housing. i think-but it is also looking at

fire, public works and other departments that you would review this in parallel with. >> correct. we are actually making end roads today prior to the whole process being completed to insure that not only we internally, but the public as well move towards electronic plan review. that is the standard out there for many years. this department or the city continues to work in paper and the paper process is a sequential review, so we will be moving to the strictly electronic plan review, hopefully sooner rather then later, and once that is the case, we are working in unison with other departments, primarily through the permit center to make sure that we establish the requirements up front for the applicants to make sure that they

have examples of ideal submittals, the required documentation that is required to be submitted with the application package, as well as check lists that we are internally looking at. the comments-the generic check list we are looking at, those will be published and once we equip the public with this information, hopefully we'll get a quality set and complete set of plans in. you heard before dbi is working this angle today with our pre-plan check process. we won't allow people to submit until we is a complete and quality set of plans. we just have to make sure the other departments are rolled into that as well so hopefully we'll be able to get a complete quality set of plans that we'll be able to do a quality complete set of first

round comments and not have-reduce the number of cycles that way. >> did you have a question? i have more questions, but i didn't want to- >> (indiscernible) [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker] starting points. >> absolutely. >> i would echo commissioner neumann's points. this is not to suggest that other municipalities are doing it perfectly, because you go to another municipality

and their constituents or applicants complain how long it is taking stow it is subjective, but san francisco does have its own issues and reputation, but to commissioner neumann's point, my only question and i think it would be a concern with the design community or development community is that, when you talk about receiving a quality set of plans, that can be very subjective, but i would say that the things that commissioner neumann is speaking to that a set of plans that complete with requisite information and sheets and drawings that is in the check list should be at the very minimum included as part of the submittal and presume that would be part of your pre-plan check. that is sort of the first gate. everything on the check list is included in the drawing set. >> correct. >> well, there are two different things, because this is the building department. the thing you are talking about is the planning

department, but the deem complete now is more of a i believe more a planning decision that you want towards the end of the cycle. with the building permit, the same thing should still apply that you are asking for certain plans and that list gets longer and more complicated the bigger project gets and more complex. i think being clear what you expect from a applicant for any given type of project and you have different project types you outlined in prior meetings, whether a subcommittee meeting or here, where you had different categories of what is over the counter and those things that we are speaking to are in-house permits that require much more in depth review. i note that was category 2, 3 or 4 but between category-2-4 those are

all intake projects correct? >> that is correct. >> those are ones that-from what i have seen and heard and through dbi initiatives to start a pre-plan check process, but over the counter doesn't have the same issues as these intake reviews that we are really focusing on. would that be a correct thing to say? >> well, the over the counter process has plan check comments and that stuff, but it is generally on a smaller scale. >> mouch more immediate too? >> yeah. >> and you can work those in real time. i feel that has become less a issue because that was a big issue during the pandemic and less so now. >> director orearden. >> what is important about the over the counter process that you have the in person engagement and things can be dealt with right there and then

as opposed to in-house where you have the separation from the customer. that is my understanding. >> okay. my next question is to city attorney rob capla on legislation and appeal because the other big question the community has is, having a bifurcated process would potentially lead to two permit exposures, where somebody who was dissatisfied with-that is more common at the discretionary level, but less so at the building permit, which is hopefully moving towards ministerial. what is it going to take to change that so that we only limit an applicant exposure to appeals to one permit? >> deputy city attorney rob kapla. the currents structure we use for site permit is the

applicant comes in and receive the site permit and that is the chance to have your appeal and the construction documents as discussed in the other item, they are usually issued addenda and not appealable because they are alterations to a permit that is already pulled. we are looking to mirror if not keep that same structure in this case where the initial planning entitlement will also be issued by or cosign gned by the department of building inspection, such that we have done internal review to say the permit at least has access issues resolved. the building shell is ready for construction document review. it would be essentially the first document that planning permit that neval is discussing, would also be the first building permit. it is also a site permit would not allow construction. it comes back in for addenda or building permit issued pursuant and those do not have

appeal period and that is what we are working under the current structure which is parent permit and then addenda or alterations for construction. the chance to appeal is that parent permit. the development permit, entitlement, site permit, whatever we want to call it but the full planning review by the planning department and then issuance by planning with the stamp or a approval of readiness for construction document review by the building department and that would be the only appeal point. >> so, i guess the question to you when you describe that, it sounds similar to the system we have now. that is the only thing. you have a parent permit which is what the site permit is doing, are we still looking at a bifurcated system? >> it is bifurcated system in we put the entitlement review up front as clearly as possible and minimizing the building department's back and forth and fire and other departments until we get to the construction document phase. that review should be more ministerial and

objective and not as-qualitative or subjective as planning review can be so we are putting that up front and making the planning department the driver of the entitlement process after which we certify or building official certifies this is ready and live permit. the permit is pulled and you can pull the construction documents pursuant to that permit. that relationship is the way in which we do not have multiple appeals on the construction documents post entitlement. >> so, the parent permit that is going to be issued is going to be a permit? it is still a site permit, right? is that a planning permit or still a building permit? >> it would be a building permit that incapsulates the entitlement process. with you pull a permit for most projects it is authorization to do the work. in this case, when we pull that initial planning permit whether we call it planning permit, development permit, site permit,

it would also say the building department reviewed this and ready for construction document review. it is a additional building permit, it just does not allow construction. similar to a site permit in terms of nomenclature. >> that doesn't feel like it is changing a whole lot though. >> it is not--specifically not changing that so we don't have serial appeals. if you change everything is another permit it can be appealed. that's why we want one permit issuance and then revise it with further review by the departments. >> so, to call something a planning permit versus building permit, what changes would require-would be required of that-it is planning permit-in other jurisdictions and commissioner neumann you can weigh in if you want to-a planning permit or

approval gives you by right to build that-to build to that design envelope, whatever it is, right? so, you is a planning permit, which most developers rely on, they have gone through the appeals through ceqa, done the full review, done the community outreach, which is what the planning department requires them to do as part of that, so at that point when they get planning approval and planning permit it isn't a building permit, it is a planning permit. the developers have some sense of reliability and speak to me as a developer, when you get a planning permit you are good to go to a building permit. >> but this seems more like semantics to me then anything, because it-you typically get your entitlement and your entitlement would enable you to take that next step and do design development and get to your construction documents that you would then submit to the planning

department. in this case rather then calling it is a planning entitlement, they are calling it a permit and then the permit, which cannot be appealed, it is just amended if i understand correctly,ic to get you to the ddcd-to the cd phase. >> deputy city attorney, we are using a lot of- >> construction documents. >> using a lot of acronyms and discussions here. the key is we want to set up the appeal point for whether or not a project should proceed at the entitlement stage. >> there is no more appeal after- >> after that, no. currently with the current process once the site permit is issued that is the chance to appeal the site permit. currently the site permit mostly incapsulates planning department entitlement with initial building department review. after that the addenda, the specific construction documents issued pursuant to the site permit, they are not appealable. and

that is the process-we want to insure we are not setting up a new process where every time a new construction document issued there is another appeal as to the public interest of that project because it is already weighed in on the initial permit stage so we want to keep the relationship between once you are entitleed that is the chance for appeal period. the subs quent reviews are more ministerial and not appealable at each stage. when you ask what would it take to call it a planning permit and issue building permit pursuant to the planning permit, that is our charter essentially allows each new permit to have an appeal and that's the concern would be each time we issue something that is a new permit that is a new appeal point. >> it requires changing the charter? >> yes. 2/3 vote. >> could you provide the commission the language of the charter that would have to be

changed in order for this to-provide us the language so we can review it and what would have to change for this to be a two part process and then a process that could only be appealable at one stage which would be at the planning. >> depy city attorney, the process we are proposing would be a single appeal point. if we are worried about the semantics of calling these permits each subsequent permit or keeping a parent permit unappealable nesting permits to the initial permit, if-there are couple ways in which we get around the charter provisions and one of which and seeing it now are state laws that would essentially mandate permits become ministerial. they have to make findings to override the provisions. if the city were to do it, i can discuss and provide guidance how the charter changed and

what a proposal would look like. >> i appreciate that. i don't have time to go to the city charter myself to look for it. that one and then the appeals process, the language that allows somebody to just you know, so we focus on that and i apologize i haven't been able to do that myself, but that is something that is on my-reading through that to understand the steps to that. i don't necessarily-i guess it is a question with commissioner neumann on the semantics, because i think semantics in this particular case are important, because what you stated early on is something that is very wildly known around the bay area. you understand this is a planning permit or planning process and this is a building permit, building process. you submit for a building permit. i still-i'm not trying to talk us out of or talk into anything, but the thing that is always confusing to me is

that a planning permit is still a building permit here in san francisco. a planning permit should be a planning permit that stands alone that gives by right to build that project or at least submit documents to build that project, right? that-i guess my question to ddi is, what kind of feedback have you gotten from-i know we are still doing outreach, but i think that would be a important part is creating clarity in the process. i know issues we heard like the appeals, the fees, those are some big things, but director orearden. >> i think we haven't gotten to a point where we have had enough conversations with the stakeholders to really get meaningful feedback as yet. there is a lot of uncertainty about what this is and

i think it is probably reflected in the conversations we are having here today. >> yeah. >> there is just-we need to have a more vetted process in place before we can go to the community with it i think. there are too many unknowns right now. >> i guess this is just-it is in the news all the time, because the mayor has an objective. she just adopted the 82 thousand unit housing element and how are we going to build that so it a big question mark for all of us, so--commissioner neumann. or commissioner tut, sorry. >> yes, i think these questions are fantastic and think the appeals process and understanding the appeals process and how this changes and how this doesn't. i do want to make sure everyone is aware, when you-there is one

stakeholder group perhaps for the changes we are suggesting, there is a much bigger and broader community that is going to be involved in a much longer process. i suspect if we are talking about changing opportunities for appeal, and i just want us to be cautious if we have short term goals in may that those could-there could be a lot of confusion that is created if we are not very specific about what it is we are requesting in the appeals process. because we have seen how there are certain buzz words in san francisco that you know, will make these chairs very very full and possibly on a misunderstanding so i want to make sure we are very very cautious in any kind of-one of

those is limiting appeals, so i want to make sure that we don't get side-tracked from what we are trying to do. but maybe those are two problems we are trying to solve and maybe they have different timelines. >> thank you commissioner tut, but i don't agree that this is-i think the appeals is linked to the process and i dont think what we will talk about in may is short order discussion, i think it is long-term discussion. this is a huge change for dbi and nobody is taking it lightly, so-but it requires more then three slides on the screen to really understand the issue. >> deputy city attorney, i should clarify because it does sound we are changing structures. the goal is to not eliminate or create a new appeal point, it is keep the current structure where you have a chance to appeal a permit for a project. that is the way the current

site permit prosworks and building works. we don't want to create a new structure that add or remove an appeal opponent -point that is granted to anyone that has issue with a permit. >> to clarify my point, i think that if we are clear about what we are doing and what you just said deputy city attorney makes a lot of sense, but these are i just caution us not being intentional when we talk about changing the appeals or looking at the charter for appeals. these are great things to do and look forward reviewing the language myself, but there is-i think the question of who the stakeholders become just expands so i wanted the commission to be cautious of that. >> if i may underscore what deputy city attorney just said, we are not changing

anything from the existing process, even though we issue subsequent ministerial permits, those permits are still appealable under the codes that they promulgate. >> if i may, i think the effort is in streamlining and creating efficiencies and in eliminating duplication and cycles of review. >> yeah, that's the objective is streamlining. commissioner neumann, you have been patiently waiting. >> i think this is first step in the right direction to getting to a much more clearly bifurcated process, without making a charter amendment or anything like that. we are using the process we have to sort of bifurcate those things and make it a much more clear and distinct process for builders so i really commend and appreciate the thought that has gone into this so far and i

look forward seeing it evolve further. >> any other commissioners? thank you deputy director for your presentation. i know you put a lot of thought into this. there is still much work to do. i think we have gone beyond the first step, but there is still many many steps ahead of us. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next we are on item 13, commissioner's questions and matters. 13a inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest

to the commission. b. future meetings/agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. the next regular meeting is scheduled for april 19. do commissioners have any inquiries or comments? >> commissioner tut. >> i read both so you can do either one. >> yes, thank you. i would like to see the secretary staff review or performance review be on a future agenda item, and i also like-could we-i have one question, because we discussed that was a closed session. >> it would be closed session but i ask for the item to be on the agenda. >> i was going to request it as well because we had a follow-up. we were supposed to have a follow-up but it wasn't scheduled. >> that's all. thank you. >> commissioner neumann. >> i would like to make a suggestion that for future

reports regarding programmatic changes that we include the fiscal impact and the staffing and resources impact. >> commissioner tam. >> that is a good one. i just wanted-assuming we will get continued updates on the awning issue as it progresss so next meeting if there is a progress or development we like to have that on the agenda as well. >> yes, vice president tam, that is correct. we will provide ongoing update said. >> thank you. >> i like to suggest an agenda item also for april that we in preparation for the joint meeting start preparing what that meeting might look like and not sure if that should be done in this meeting or in another meeting, but i feel like we need to do

preparation for the joint meeting. whether it is a update to the site permit or to the joint meeting. >> thank you. are there any other items? seeing none, is there public comment on item 13a or b? seeing none, item 14. director's report. 14a, director update. >> thank you president and members of the building inspection commission. patrick oriordan director of dbi. i like to apologize for misspeak relating to item 7 regarding the labor bond. thank you deputy city attorney rob kapla keeping me straight. i appreciate it. and the topic of the day i guess is site permit improvement process. as

we know, yesterday dbi along with mayor breed and city administrator carmen chu and planning department announced the plan to make significant improvements to -we call site permit process for now. at the core of the plan is the bifurcation of the site permit process. with planning completely overseeing the entitlement phase and dbi focusing on the building permit review and issuance. we believe this plan can substantially reduce the timeline for developing new housing, and in some cases potentially by as much as two years and that is looking from a dbi lens. this is really a big deal. it is a good conversation that we are having,ering i very much believe it will improve our permitting system in the city,

especially in relation to providing housing. we are starting to work on legislation to codify the changes and we have a community and stakeholder meeting scheduled for april 19 before bringing a plan for your consideration to a joint meeting with the planning commission on may 18. so, we look forward to sharing more details about this important proposal in the coming weeks and months. and just moving on, last week i attended a california building officials meeting in san diego where i gave a presentation on how dbi managed the transition to remote work beginning of covid crisis through today. i spoke to the challenges presented to us. the principles and details behind dbi remote work operations, and the value we use to

guide this and in deed all our work. it sparked great dialogue. i was presenting along with the director of building and safety from san diego as well as the building official from los angeles. i mean, personally what i realized is we had a lot more in common then we had in relation to differences. we were all dealing with the same issues with staff and everything else, so--and at the end of the day, what we realized is the technology that we had we were able to start using and where we landed today is that now we have the advantage of using that technology every day and streamlining our work and creating efficiencies. fewer people have to come into dbi and try to find parking when

you have to drive down there, because we have a lot of our services available online to the customers. that's where we landed and it is one good thing that came out of all of the misery we went through over the past few years. so, also i like to add, assistant director christine-also attendeded a meeting and she was recognized for her participation in a building official leadership academy. she graduated at the meeting in san diego from attending that course, so great work, christine. and just moving on then to-this was presented earlier. today is the roll-out of the new program for the residential

building projects in relation to construction waste management requirements. it involves submitting a plan through a piece of software known as green halo, and it relates to residential additions and alterations that increase the condition the areas within a building. to insure compliance a final inspection cannot be scheduled until the department of environment approves the project-what we call mmrp, which means material reduction and recovery plans. that starts today with anything that is submitted as of now. and that's all i have for you in my report. >> thank you. item b, update on major projects. do

we have a slide deck? good morning again commissioners. the following slides are intended to highlight the volm i and valuation of projects with vallation of $5 million or more that are filed issued or completed as well as profile for new projects that bring essentially high value in terms of the construction-contributi on to housing community assets. so, in february of 2023, two permit

applications with a estimated valuation of $5 million or more were filed with dbi. one application was for a $30 million renovation of a office building into a life sciences building at 550 terry a francois boulevard. the other is new manufacturing and retail building 2330 lane street in bayview and that valuation came in at $5.5 million. last month we issued two high value permits with collective valuation of $19.5 million. one of these permits was for renovation and expansion of the mission library. the other was for an office tenant improvement at 345 spear street. next slide,

please. and lastly, dbi finaled three high valued projects with a construction valuation over $37 million and added 37 new housing units. one project was a renovation and expansion of a building at the hamlen school which is located at 2120 broadway. another was for 37 unit condo building at 1663 mission street that has 4 below market rate units. thank you. available for any questions. >> no questions for commissioners. go to item c, update on dbi finances.

>> hello commissioners. alex deputy director administration. i have the regular monthly update. it should be pretty standard. next month we will have an update for our 9 month projections and depending on timing, possibly a update on the results of the fee study as well, but it will likely be too early for that so that will come in may, but we'll see. so, for the revenue update, we are 67 percent through the year, and we have received 58 percent of our revenue so far. the rate of revenue collection in february was slower then the prior year and slower then earlier in this year. hoping it was due to weather and delays and all that. from what i heard, the beginning of march has been a bit better, but we will continue to

monitor that. hope foal hopefully that does not continue. next month, we will update our projections, but so far to remeend you the projections from the 6 month update was-that we would recover 6 percent lower then budget at year end. and we have yet to receive our interest and our interest income is posted by controller year end. here are the amounts that reflect the narrative from the previous page. next month we'll see updates to the right most two columns. we will revise our year end projections and that will be more significant update. next slide, please. on the expenditure side, we continue to spend below budget. we are very conscious about saving what we can and delaying what

we can. our salaries and fringes are about the same as last month. slightly above budget, but we are expecting separation, so we'll review and update next month. next slide, please. so, again here are the numbers not too much different from the prior month. the only update is the 2023 year to date actuals column that will be slightly greater then next month, but the right most two columns will be updated next month when we update our year end projections. next slide. so, on the permit side, the number of permits year to date has been pretty steady throughout the year. year to date compared it last year's year to date. it is 10 percent lower all year, however the valuation last year valuation has caught up to this

year's, so again february did not see a lot of revenue come in, and the permit valuations were lower then year to date last year. next slide, please. and so again, the main story here is really the largest category, the 100 to $200 million. those two large projects are really what is carrying us this year and keeping things comparable to last year. every other category is less in both number of permits and valuation. so, we'll continue to monitor and to address some of the public comment, i think a lot of those questions and issues will definitely be addressed when the results of the fee study are in and when we start looking into the

specifics of which fees we update by how much, how much things cost, and are there operational changes we can make to save even more money. that concludes my presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner tut. >> i just have clarifications in the report. we are 67 percent through the year, that's correct? okay. so, when we say year to date salary and fringe are trending at 64 percent so above budget. does that mean 67 percent? can you tell what that means? >> salary benefits are unique in that they are posted every 2 weeks so all other revenue and actuals are through the end of february, but labor is only through the middle of february,

because the last-2-28-the last pay period or last half of february has not posted yet so the actuals are not reflected here, so it would be fair to say that 63, 62 percent of the year has elapsed from a labor perspective, because there is the timing issue with payroll posting. >> okay. and then in the year to date for fiscal year, fiscal year 21-22 and 22-23, is that what this means or the first two quarters of 22-23 and first- >> the first two are fiscal year 21-22 and the next two are 22-23. >> that is what i thought but wanted to clarify. thank you. >> i have a question. with respect to all the discussions we had about the site permit and some things that

deputy director neval proposed, if the lion share of-i guess i want to understand from a operational and financial standpoint, if dbi will spend less time when something is coming in, like how that effects, like your efficiencies, fees that are coming in with respect to that. that sort-i am not-probably not characterizing this very clearly, but how does that change in the permit process effect our financial outlook? the other thing that crossed my mind when you were talking about projections and the biggest outlay is labor for dbi, some of that is constant and doesn't change either way, but things like you know, epr. does that help

efficiency of dbi operations and-i think it is more then fees then labor because labor is pretty much constant i would presume. >> my thought is that when ever you create efficiencies, especially in relation to enabling concurrent review through epr, that is obviously that should lead to less staff resources in relation to- >> exactly. >> review. >> yeah, and i don't think that-it is not on the table, but when your-when the actuals fall below the projected fee and revenue as the prior year, people's concerns are going to be at some point that has to be balanced at every-for every budget and the concern

will be people's jobs. i think some of the efficiencies has a positive silver lining on it. i don't know how to characterize that from a data perspective, a financial perspective, but there should be some analysis on how the permit process will effect-it will effect dbi operational but how will it effect financially and how will it effect how you need to hire less perhaps to your point. i think that needs--speaking for myself, i would want to understand the impact of that on the finances of dbi. >> certainly. i'm sure it would be our hope we could increase efficiency to a point where we could increase our attrition and save on labor costs. >> it isn't attrition, it is more like the people

that are doing-currently have their jobs can do them more efficiency and requiring fewer people you need to bring on so less about letting go of people. that might lead to that discussion if the budget doesn't get resolved in some way, but it is more about the efficiency-giving dbi staff more feeling more resolute that being more efficient gives them job security, but also does it mean you have to keep hiring to keep up the promises dbi makes to offer better services? >> sure. when i say attrition, i mean the technical budget term. it would be-we wouldn't want to give up our hiring authority because it is so difficult to get. it just means we would leave positions unfilled, so as people naturally retire and promote and leave the department, then we back-fill less or

back-fillmore slowly. >> i didn't ask the question clearly but-it is a change how the change in permit process effects dbi financially. >> sure. >> if no further discussion? >> commissioner tut. >> so, i think somewhat parallel and a little different is, when we are ready to institute the changes that we-that the process is leading to, i actually like to also look at a organizational chart and see perhaps if there needs to be-because of changes, maybe there needs to be a change in the structure, maybe staff needs to be moved around that maybe there are-as we create efficiencies we also need people in different places and so, i think an org chart discussion may be warranted at that point. >> sure. there is a pretty good org chart on the

website. it doesn't reflect some of the changes we are making in the budget, but we can get started on working-showing what that will look like next year. >> i think my question is more about when the permit comes in and i think that currently the review of a site permit is much greater then it might be or will be when we adopt a new process that planning is going to do a full review and paid to do that, thusly, building will only have a cursory review and that cursory review means less time on each of those projects or applications coming in. hopefully that is part of the efficiency built in as part of the overall review of any one project. it will take less time.

>> with what you are asking, but it seems like with the updated process there will be a delay in when dbi is collecting more of its fee, and so i think we need to understand what that fee impact is going to be in that delayed collection, and then additionally, what that means in the shift to staffing. how much staffing are we using now up front during that process that will be also delayed to the latter part of that process, or what will the savings in that staff timing be? >> i don't think the will be delayed. if a planning-application is coming in it going to planning and presumably if parallel review coming to building too. it is just their purview isn't as in depth it would be if it was a building permit so the

building permit is coming later anyway, but i think now-correct if i'm wrong director orearden, but with you review a permit, i think sometimes the review is higher then the depth of review-or intensity of the review is higher then it needs to be for a planning permit going forward. >> yeah, i think that is right. i also think that in regards to creating efficiencies, what that means to me is we have to be nimble and we have to be able to reassign resources based on any new process we would have, and if a new process means that we have less duplication and review cycles, then you know, we can reassign the resources based on where we are with that. >> okay. i don't have any other questions. >> thank you.

>> thank you. next 14d, update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation. >> carl legislative affairs with update on state and local legislation effecting the department. get the next slide. we can go through this quickly. this is the ordinance you heard this morning to amend the police and building codes for the labor compliance bond requirement. thank you for advancing to the land use committee. we expect that to be at land use committee monday may 20 so i'll update you at the next meeting on this ordinance. next slide, please. this is the other ordinance that you heard this morning regarding the awning fee waver program. thank you also for your consideration of this one. next slide. this ordinance would amend the planning building code to

increase fines and penalties for violation of theen plaing building code. you heard about this since summer last year i believe and this was approved by the board of supervisors first reading at yesterday's meeting. there will be another vote next week. next slide. this is ordinance-i don't believe i covered in the last update last month. it is ordinance to amend the campaign and government code to create a permit prioritization task force with dbi, public works, and dpw, and that task force would be charged with creating permit prioritization guidelines for these departments and the ordinance would require those guidelines for dbi have to be approved by the bic. and that ordinance is still on 30 day hold and would be referred to the rules committee. next slide. there was a resolution urging the planning department to locate potential candidates for office conversions in the downtown core and are urging

planning and dbi to make some public facing critearier for stakeholders to know what to expect with those projects. that resolution passed by the board of supervisors last month. next slide. and there is a pending hearing to discuss the budget and legislative analyst report on commercial real estate to residential conversions. that hearing still has not been scheduled and know president bito you have interest in that one so we'll keep you updated when that is scheduled. next slide. actually, sorry i was--go back. i was ahead of the slides. now i'll turn to state legislation. very active time at the state legislature. bills were due to be proposed by february 17. believe the amount of bills that were proposed on february 16 doubled by february 17, so on this

slide cover ab1114 proposed by matt haney from san francisco. this is relevant to your conversation about site permitting earlier. this bill would modify the definition of post entitlement permits to include permits without regard whether they are non discretionary so remove the discretionary aspect for post entitlement permits including building permits and make those a ministerial duty of the local agency, in this case dbi. it would also apply time limits for the review times dbi would have for the permit applications. a1352 also from assembly member haney would make office to supportive housing conversions by right, regardless of zoning and define use by right to mean that city or county could not or review

of office conversions could not require a conditional permit or other discretionary review. again, building permits would be ministerial. next slide. ab932 proposed my assembly member ting from san francisco would amend an existing requirement for junior adu, the slide doesn't say junior adu but junior adu to redice review time local agencies from 60 days to 45 days. the last one on the slide, ab1505 would appropriate $250 million to from the general fund to the california residential mitigation program for implementing the seismic retrofitting program for soft story multifamily housing. the governor proposed budget there was $250 million allocated but then defunded, so this

assembly bill would allocate again $250 million from the general fund for this program. i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> i have a question. for the two bills that haney is supporting, the post entitlement of the permit-of the phase permits, these are really targeted for housing development. >> exactly right. exactly right. and it is fairly san francisco specific bill. there was ab2234 approved by the legislator last year that san francisco did not apply to san francisco and this would expand that to apply to san francisco. >> the question on this that it would regardless of

whether-this is for housing and wondering for other projects like the impact-i think once you do this even though it is specific for housing it would have a impact for other projects that are non residential too, which is--i think part of the city's focus on recovering from the pandemic, but do you want to speak to that director? >> the way i see it, it would mean that all permits along with housing would be impacted the same way by this legislation. it would make those permits ministerial in nature. >> okay. and then on 1532, the conversion-the housing conversion project, has the city-i know that some firms are

really focused on this, like office to residential conversion. there is some design firms very focused on this. how many of those are in san francisco? because there is sort of a unique condition that a commercial building is really suited for residential. have you identified how many of the high-rises would be a candidate (indiscernible) the poster child of that, but what other sites has the city looked at this for this that would benefit from this bill? >> the planning department is reviewing potential candidates. there was a ginsler report that identified in the downtown core 30 buildings that could be potential candidates and ginsler determined a third of those were actually qualified for potential conversions. i believe the planning

department list is similar to ginsler list. perhaps a letal bigger and they are continuing to work on that and we are working hand in hand with the planning department on legislation to address both in the planning and building code office conversions. >> i reviewed it on a cursory level, but it would be interesting to know what are the-what qualified the 30 buildings, the conditions that widdled the list down and haven't had a chance to read that in full but if that is something you can present next time that is good information to know. >> sure. >> just in terms of san francisco landscape for office to residential and what are some of the-there is a lot of-it is looking at the building itself if it is a candidate for that, but also looking at

contextually. what are the conditions that make more or less ideal is good to know. >> okay. yeah. >> no, i didn't. >> (indiscernible) >> there was a times article this weekday and they had 25 set building footpresent -footprint types and how they do or do not work for conversion for housing. it was very interesting piece. >> i have fallowed more on the business platforms. the blogs that have come through that, but if you want to send that to me, i would love to read it. yeah. maybe send to (indiscernible) so we don't get in trouble. [laughter] thank you for that. alright. i don't have any other questions. commissioner tut. >> i just want to clarify, the use by right is for ab1532, is

limited to supportive housing or it's for the conversion to housing? >> that would be limited to supportive housing. >> okay. thank you. >> any further questions? thank you. >> nob (indiscernible) >> next is 14e update on inspection services. >> yfs i was going to get slapped for that question. she is probably going to hit me over the head with that one. >> joe duffy, deputy director of inspection service. pleased to provide update on activities and performance of inspection service division. the next slide, please. in february the building and are plumbing divisions conducted over 9800 inspections. 97 percent of those inspections were conducted within 2 business days of the date requested by our customers. meeting the target of 90 percent.

next slide. the housing inspection service conducted 1075 inspections with 189 routine of multifamily housing. building electrical and plumbing division received 483 complaints and responded to 99 percent within 3 business days. well exceeding the target of 85 percent. housing inspection services received 86 safety and heat complaints and responded to 85 percent of them within one business day. they received 370 other complaints and responded to over 90 percent of them within 3 business days. on the housing inspection services also abated 427 cases with notice of violation and sent 41 cases to a director hearing. that concludes my report and available for any questions

follow-up questions. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the director's report item 14 a-e? seeing none, next we have item 15, review and approval of the minutes of special meeting of january 30, 2023. >> like to make a motion to approve the minutes. january 30, 2023. >> second. >> there is a motion and second to approve the minutes. is there any public comment? seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you. the minutes are approved. next we have item 16, review and approval of the minutes of special meeting of february 14, 2023. >> motion to approve the minutes february 14, 2023.

>> second. >> there is motion and second. is there any public comment regarding this item? seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you for those minutes are approved as well. next is item 17, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> before we adjourn i want to wish everybody a happy saint patty's day and motion to adjourn. >> okay. >> seconded. >> thank you. we are now adjourned. it is 11:25 a.m. [meeting adjourned]

[♪♪♪] >> i just don't know that you can find a neighborhood in the city where you can hear music stands and take a ride on the low rider down the street. it is an experience that you can't have anywhere else in san francisco. [♪♪♪]

[♪♪♪] >> district nine is a in the southeast portion of the city. we have four neighborhoods that i represent. st. mary's park has a completely unique architecture. very distinct feel, and it is a very close to holly park which is another beautiful park in san francisco. the bernal heights district is unique in that we have the hell which has one of the best views in all of san francisco. there is a swinging hanging from a tree at the top. it is as if you are swinging over the entire city. there are two unique aspects. it is considered the fourth chinatown in san francisco. sixty% of the residents are of chinese ancestry. the second unique, and fun aspect about this area is it is the garden district. there is a lot of urban agriculture and it was where the city grew the majority of the flowers. not only for san francisco but for the region. and of course, it is the

location in mclaren park which is the city's second biggest park after golden gate. many people don't know the neighborhood in the first place if they haven't been there. we call it the best neighborhood nobody has ever heard our. every neighborhood in district nine has a very special aspect. where we are right now is the mission district. the mission district is a very special part of our city. you smell the tacos at the [speaking spanish] and they have the best latin pastries. they have these shortbread cookies with caramel in the middle. and then you walk further down and you have sunrise café. it is a place that you come for the incredible food, but also to learn about what is happening in the neighborhood and how you can help and support your community. >> twenty-fourth street is the birthplace of the movement. we have over 620 murals.

it is the largest outdoor public gallery in the country and possibly the world. >> you can find so much political engagement park next to so much incredible art. it's another reason why we think this is a cultural district that we must preserve. [♪♪♪] >> it was formed in 2014. we had been an organization that had been around for over 20 years. we worked a lot in the neighborhood around life issues. most recently, in 2012, there were issues around gentrification in the neighborhood. so the idea of forming the cultural district was to help preserve the history and the culture that is in this neighborhood for the future of families and generations. >> in the past decade, 8,000 latino residents in the mission district have been displaced from their community. we all know that the rising cost of living in san francisco has

led to many people being displaced. lower and middle income all over the city. because it there is richness in this neighborhood that i also mentioned the fact it is flat and so accessible by trip public transportation, has, has made it very popular. >> it's a struggle for us right now, you know, when you get a lot of development coming to an area, a lot of new people coming to the area with different sets of values and different culture. there is a lot of struggle between the existing community and the newness coming in. there are some things that we do to try to slow it down so it doesn't completely erase the communities. we try to have developments that is more in tune with the community and more equitable development in the area. >> you need to meet with and gain the support and find out the needs of the neighborhoods. the people on the businesses that came before you. you need to dialogue and show respect. and then figure out how to bring

in the new, without displacing the old. [♪♪♪] >> i hope we can reset a lot of the mission that we have lost in the last 20 years. so we will be bringing in a lot of folks into the neighborhoods pick when we do that, there is a demand or, you know, certain types of services that pertain more to the local community and working-class. >> back in the day, we looked at mission street, and now it does not look and feel anything like mission street. this is the last stand of the latino concentrated arts, culture and cuisine and people. we created a cultural district to do our best to conserve that feeling. that is what makes our city so cosmopolitan and diverse and makes us the envy of the world. we have these unique neighborhoods with so much cultural presence and learnings, that we want to preserve. [♪♪♪] television.

>> in 1948 swensen's ice cream used to make ice cream in the navy and decided to open up an ice cream shop it it takes time for the parent to put money down and diane one of the managers at zen citizen in arena hills open and serve old-fashioned ice cream. >> over 20 years. >> yeah. >> had my own business i was a

firefighter and came in- in 1969 her dad had ice cream and left here still the owner but shortly after um, in here became the inc. maker the manager and lead and branded the store from day to day and in the late 90s- was obvious choice he sold it to him and he called us up one night and said i'm going to sell the ice cream store what you you talking about diane came and looked at the store and something we want to do and had a history of her dad here and

growing up here at the ice cream store we decided to take that business on. >> and have it in the family i didn't want to sell it. >> to keep it here in san francisco. >> and (unintelligible). >> share worked there and worked with all the people and a lot of customers come in. >> a round hill in the adjoining areas loved neither ice cream shop in this area and support russia hills and have clean up day and give them free ice cream because that is those are the people that keep us the opportunity to stick around here four so many years next generations have been coming her 20 er thirty or 40 years and we

have the ingredients something it sold and, you know, her dad said to treat the customers right and people will keep on coming back and 75 or 74 years, you know, that is quite an accomplishment i think of it as our first 75 years and like to see that, you know, going into the future um, that ice cream shop will be around used to be 4 hundred in the united states and all gone equipment for that one that is the first and last we're proud of that we're still standing and people people are you tell people it's been around in 50 years and don't plan on

>> good afternoon, and welcome to the march 21, 2023, board of supervisors. please call the roll. >> clerk: supervisor engado? >> mandelman.