>> good morning. today is wednesday april 19, 2023. this is regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i like to remind everyone to please mute if you are not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have quorum. commissioner alexander tut is

expected and commissioner bito is excused. next is acknowledgment. >> 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.

>> any members of the public who are listening in-there is a echo. the public comment call in number is 415-655-0001. the access code is 24921040778. to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item press star 3 when prompted by the meeting moderator. next we have item 2, president opening remarks. >> let's move to agenda item 3. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next we have item 3, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission jurisdiction not part of this

agenda. any general public comment? any remotely? seeing none, next we have item 4, discussion and possible action on time allowed for remote public comment. commissioners, basically this item is i guess one of our new directives is to have an allotted amount of time for remote public comment, and the standard is 20 minutes just to give a start or give a idea, but the time can remain the same if you guys are okay with that or it can be extended. >> so, you said the standard is 20 minutes? >> that's a number that they came up with. so, say for each item it is 20 minutes allowed for remote public comment. unless the board or commission opts to change that. >> i prefer to keep it

the way it is now. >> okay. >> do any of the other commissioners have comment? >> is that the way it is now? or we are changing it? >> that is where it is now. >> i believe we are 2 minutes now. >> each person still has 3 minutes for public comment, and then if there is a lot of people sometimes we can adjust to 2, so each person has the same amount of time, this is a total amount of time allowed for public comment for one item. >> remotely, not in person? >> just remote. for in-person those rules don't apply. >> what is the thinking behind making a distinction between those allowed to speak remotely and those speaking in person? i am hesitant to limit people's ability to make public comment and i know that perhaps we want to encourage people to

show up in person, but it is difficult for a lot of people and if there's a important issue i want to be sure that we are hearing what everyone has to say on that. >> i cant say what is behind it, we just received the direction. >> we have to set a allotted time limit? >> you don't--because we have to put it on the agenda now. (indiscernible) >> which means maximum 10 people if we reduce down to 2 minutes per person that 10 people can make a comment remotely on any given issue? >> correct. >> great. >> did we choose to-if we see there is a influx of people can we choose to extend at another

date? >> i think so. >> the time of public comment we can make the decision to extend the comment? >> yes, deputy city attorney, the next meeting if you expect a large number of public comments on a particular item you are permitted to extend the time for remote public comment. >> i still think that 20 minutes seems a little short. at least double that, but it also seems like we are creating a cap and then it-leaving it so it is at our discretion or allow more or less public comment. that is hard for me to-that isn't sitting well with me. >> if you to make a motion to add more time you can do that and if you get a second then we would increase the time. >> should we discuss maybe what people think is a

appropriate amount of time? >> just to be clear, this group has not ever had to cap anything? >> right. >> this is just a new policy that came into effect since we-since the city has gone back to having all boards and commissions meet in person and the only really remote option is for public comment. >> perhaps we find a middle ground , 30 minutes and if we see there is influx of calls we can adjust it accordingly. >> how do other folks feel about this? >> as long as it is flexible. if we are saying 20 minutes or 30 minutes, but--if we have a large influx of calls i assume that is the president of the commission would ask for an extension of the time and i would be fine with that. >> right, but it is at that moment it is at our

discretion whether or not we want to continue to hear something, right? there is-we are limiting people's ability and i'm thinking how we had the sro folks come in and speak and that was over an hour of people making public comment and if we didn't feel we wanted to keep listening to it we could say, hey- >> would you like to make a motion to extend the time? >> sure. i'm just trying to get a better feel for what is a appropriate amount of time. >> seeing we never capped or encountered that situation, i can't put a gauge on that, so if you feel that 40 minutes is more sufficient--i'm good with that as well.

>> you can make a motion to extend it to- >> now that commissioner tut is here, if this is something she is interested in commenting on as well. >> for the record, commissioner alexander tut is present and we are on the item regarding remote public comment. currently there is a standard presented that boards and commissions will allow 20 minutes for remote public comment. there isn't a restriction for in-person public comment, but the commission each board and commission has a option of determining whether they want to extend that time, so that's what the discussion is now. >> i was discussing with the group extending the time and what seems appropriate, because at 20 minutes that means maximum of 10 people can speak remotely. we have the option in the moment to extend the

time, but i don't want that to sort of-i don't want it to necessarily be discretionary how many people get to speak publicly. remotely. >> deputy city attorney, just from a public policy and good government perspective, i suggest the commission would not want to contemplate revising the allowable amount of public comment for a particular agenda item at a future meeting. that decision could be taken more broadly for public comment at the beginning of the future meeting for all items, but to avoid any appearance of inpropriety oaf bias, i recommend that decision be made for a particular item. if your concern there isn't enough time then you could simply allow for a more-larger amount of standard time of public comment as commissioner neumann is suggesting

and contemplate revising it downward if it is unworkable for the commission at future meetings. >> did you have anything to add to that? >> thank you. we get such few public comment. when it is a hot topic what once in the last 30 years, i am not inclined to put any limitation on that. i don't think if we have a-once every 18 months if we have a hour and a half of public comment it means people really really care. i understand that in person there is no limitation, but you know, as a mom, as someone who also works full time, i know how difficult it is to show up in person and i don't think that that burden should be a

requirement in order to give feedback and inclined not to-i don't think-there may be other instances where commissions make the decision because they have-they are not able to get business done because of that. i don't think that applies to us. i don't think that is the situation so inclined not to have this apply to us at all, if that's a option, just because it is so so extremely rare, and the circumstance i can see-when we have a lot of public comment it is on stuff that is probably really really important, because this is not a place where people are just constantly coming and giving feedback, so inclined not to-i don't feel this is necessary for our commission. >> you implying we remove the time allowed in general? >> is that a option not to have 20 minutes? do we have to have-is that a option?

>> (indiscernible) >> deputy city attorney, you can choose not to have a time limit for remote public comment. our agenda notices do include the standard 20minute time limit now so we would revise that and not include the language on future agendas if you choose not to limit remote public comment. >> is that the motion that someone wants to make? >> i don't know where we are in the process. >> i'm not quite there. like we uncap it because we do have to-i don't see it being a issue either, but i feel like we should maybe-an hour and a half or- >> an hour. like to make a motion to cap this at

60 minutes for remote public discussion. or public comment. >> is there a second? >> second. >> we can always adjust this as we go along. >> there is a motion and second to extend that time to 60 minutes or 1 hour for remote public comment. is there any public comment on the motion? >> good morning, jerry dratler. frequently i'm the only person who makes public comment, so i think we are talking about a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. the only time in the last 10 years i have seen that be a problem with the sro issue. the planning commission has a lot more participation, and what they do is when there is a lot of people who want to speak in person or remotely

they reduce the speakers time. i believe 60 minutes is a limit we'll never experience, but think we are talking about a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, i'll do a roll call vote on the motion. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. next we have item 5, discussion and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance file number 230373. amending the existing building code to require buildings with 15 or more stories constructed after 1998 to conduct and submit facade inspection reports in addition to other requirements.

>> good morning vice chair tam, commissioners, legislative affairs manager here to introduce item 5. chief of staff to board president aaron peskin who is the sponsor of the legislation wanted to be here today but caught up in another meeting. she might make it, but for now you have me. if i can have the slides, please. the next slide. so, this is review and approval of an ordinance to require facade inspection reports for building constructed after 1998, with 15 or more stories. the way it is now in chapter 5f of the existing building code, owners of buildings that are 5 stories or taller have to submit inspection report documenting the safety of their facade of

the buildings. buildings that received a permit after 1998 are exempt so this legislation proposes an amendment to 5f to revise the exemption for buildings built after 1998 from that blanket exemption to buildings that are more than 14 stories and require initial-15 stories or taller by november 1, 2023 or 6 months of notification from d berks i, which ever is sooner. to intend is respond to the windows failures that occurred in recent storms. this gives dbi the ability to require building owners to inspect the facades to make sure they are safe. next slide, please. one slide. sorry. so, the cac as

they normally do did consider this ordinance at their meeting last week, and they had recommendations for the bic included in the packet in a letter but i like to highlight those briefly. the cac recommended dbi commission a study of recent window failures during winter storms by a qualified engineering firm to determine if there is a common design flaw in the glazing attachment methods or calculating wind loads and they essentially recommended focusing specifically on the glazing system of the building instead of the complete facade. the cac suggested that that study by a qualified engineering firm inform the requirements for future facade inspections of the glazing system, which could cause failures in future wind storms and the cac also recommended requiring the glazing

specific facade inspections be for all buildings 15 stories or more. if i can have the next slide. dbi staff suggests that the bic make a recommendation of approval of this ordinance, file 230373 to the board of supervisors but with the following conditions: in light of the cac recommendation, procure a study of recent window failures by a qualified engineering firm to establish criteria for glazing systems specific facade inspections. and that criteria would be used for those glazing specific facade inspections under this proposed ordinance. dbi staff also suggest requiring buildings with 15 storsies or more and built after 1998 to submit the inspection reports as the ordinance proposes. that is before you for consideration today and happy to answer any questions. >> open up to any

fellow commissioners. >> is there any public comment first? any public comment on the item? >> good morning, jerry dratler. 15 stories appears to be a arbitrary limit. there are many shorter buildings with glass curtain wall issues that would be exempt from the proposed legislation. 555 fulton is a example of a curtain wall problem and i believe the problem is due to the developer policy of importing foreign building products that may not be compliant with u.s. building product standards. so, i think there is a area of concern for public safety that the proposed legislation does not address, and that would be the use of imported building products that dont meet u.s. standards. thank you. >> any additional

public comment? seeing none, commissioners. >> commissioner shaddocks. >> question for you. the cac recommended the study on the failures of the glazing. the study itself, do you have a timeframe on that, like how soon would that happen and how long would a report take to provide and just kind of commenting-that was scary reading all the glass falling out of the skyscrapers so i think it needs attention. i just want to see the timeframe on this? >> currently we are working internally within dbi to take advantage of the mayor's emergency declaration as a result of these winter storms, which reduces the contracting requirements to allow us to quickly get a engineering firm on-board to do the study. so, assuming that timeline

works, we like to have an engineering firm on bord within a month and study by the end of august so that then we have the criteria in place to inform the building owners about what these facade inspections would require. >> if that study came back in august, then we for repairs that might need to be done we are talking end of the year, maybe beginning of next year before any-especially if there was a structural or glazing failure, that wouldn't be remedied or required to be remedied till next year? >> correct. the intent is to get ahead of the next rainy season, but whether or not timeline works i think is too determined. >> i think we just got our first limit on our comments. i heard the bell. [laughter] >> sorry about that. that was

my accident. >> thank you carl. >> commissioner alexander tut. >> yes, thank you. i had a question for the department. for the history of code violations, are they all over 15? does that seem-can you give us information about the history of obviously what is happening right now and some history about violations of this type? >> thank you for that question commissioner tut. yes, all of the failures that occurred during the recent storms are 15 or more stories. it is true that we had glazing failures in the past over many years, and typically what we do when we have a incident where there is anything that becomes

detached for a building is we write a notice of violation and we ask for the area to be made safe and that engineering evaluation be provided to us regarding the adjacent areas and the other facades of the building. >> i have follow-up question around notice of violation. so, sometimes these things drag out for a very long time, and my question is, do we have mechanisms-let's say someone gets a notice of violation and they are not getting their permit, this is-seems to be a heightened concerned around public safety on this. do we have other tools in our tool box besides just the current notice of violation, then there is a director's hearing and this can drag out for a very long time, do we have

tools to expedite the process? >> yeah, what we do in those cases commissioner is work with the city attorney to exert a little more pressure on the building owner in regards to achieving compliance. >> is there-i guess i would be curious to find out if it is something we can write into the legislation that would give us more enforcement power then we currently have in our-could we have shorter timelines for fixing these things? can we have stronger penalties for failing to meet the timelines? we have violations that sit and sit and sit and i don't think the commission would be in agreement we dont want to see that happen here. >> and then to that, we understand that this is a grave concern to the

community, and anyone who is pedestrian and happens to be walking by these buildings, so we would obviously reach out to the city attorney if we realized that our normal enforcement process was going to be such that we might have an additional problem in the meantime. >> that would be my feedback to president peskin's office is to consider enforcement timelines and strengthening language around giving us more tools and the city more tools to make sure the appropriate timelines are met. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner summer. >> dbi recommendation is to recommend approving the legislation with three recommended amendments or updates or however you are phrasing it, right? >> correct. >> what does that mean then if

something is approved with-we are not approving, we dont make legislation here, but what does it mean if they receive that back? does it mean they would rework it necessarily or not necessarily? >> not necessarily. they can consider any proposed modifications or amendments. they can-the land use committee can disregard those suggested amendments. they can adopt them. they can make additional amendments if they are substantive, i think they have to come back to the bic if outside what we are discusing here and what you recommend today, but you can recommend approval, you could recommend disapproval and any number of modifications. >> in your view, recommending approval with modifications suggests that you support overall the effort,

but that there are some things that you would prefer be updated? >> we definitely think these recommendations are additive to what president peskin has proposed. some of these things like i said, we might be able to do administratively if we use the mayor's emergency order, but we think these are pieces to the puzzle that would present good policy for the department. in addition to what president peskin has proposed. >> my thought-reading the code advisory committee advice, i agreed with their proposal to investigate a little further and let that inform better the legislation that is being developed. my question was, and i think i'm in favor of approve-or recommend approving with the recommendations noted. i was curious, the

legislation indicates that the building owners for these buildings need to submit a facade-now it is facade study, maybe change that to be a glazing study, is that immediately or within some certain time period or periodically and forgive me- >> within the legislation it says within 6 months of dbi notifying them or november 1, 2023, which ever is sooner. >> yep. is that a one off then? >> i think it would be standard. i think we would notify all these buildings at the same time, and expect those reports back. >> i'm saying is there a reoccurring evaluation period like you do for balconies? >> it is every 10 years. i might need to rely on help for that one. >> i see a nod. >> okay, great. after the initial inspection every 10 years. >> got it. okay. the ordinance is basically bringing in a group of

buildings that was exempt before into this and starting the cycle now and every 10 years- >> exactly. >> hopefully address issues that come up. makes sense. >> do they feel 10 years is sufficient given the elements and things that wear and tear of this? it is still a life safety issue, in 10 years a lot can happen with the winds we had lately. is that sufficient? or the studies will dictate that? >> i think the study would inform that. also we rely on complaints and building engineers who are familiar with their properties hopefully keeping tabs on the condition of it already, but the totality of all that i think 10 years would be sufficient, but happy to consider a shorter timeframe if that is what the commission suggests. >> the design life of a building is 50 years. it is supposed to be good to

go. >> supposed to be. >> supposed to be. [laughter] >> do you foresee other amendments coming up from the supervisor? >> not in particular. i do think we discussed with the supervisor's office and they agree with what staff is recommending, so i do think that any amendments will be within this realm. >> like to make a motion to recommend approval. >> with the amendments- >>b with the amendments. >> i believe with added amendments. >> conditions. modifications. >> modifications. to approve the legislation in addition to the modifications. >> like to recommend to approve the amendments with the recommended modifications. >> second. >> there is a motion and second. is there any

public comment? did i do public comment already? okay, we did public comment. do a roll call vote on the item. [roll call] >> motion carries unanimously. next is item 6. discussion and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance file number 230212-2. amending the planning building and fire codes to codify the annual waver of awning replacement fees and awning assigned fees applied for during the month of may to annually wave fees for awning instillation applied for in the month of may in addition to other requirements. >> thank you. just here to introduce tita bell chief of staff to supervisor engardio the sponsor of the

legislation rchlt you did hear this ordinance last time. what you are considering today is a substitute ordinance that did have clarifying edits to the building code which is why you are considering again today. i like to introduce tita bell. >> good morning commissioners, good morning director. i'm tita bell from supervisor engardio's office. this substitute legislation-first rof all, thank you for recommending approval of the original version of this. there are essentially two changes that our office has made to this piece of legislation. the key one is to add references to the fire code, because the intent of this program was to also wave fees related to the instillation of new awnings, replacing existing awnings, pedestrian level lighting that were required under

the fire code, so you will see language referencing the fire code, and the waver language is on page 2. and the other thing that is substituted version does is it removes the requirement for the planning department and the department of building inspection to certify that the applicant is a small business. we believe that that would have been too onerous and unnecessarily complicated and we are hoping that there could be self--certification process that would allow the reviewers of the permit applications to be satisfied that the applicant qualifies for this waver. if there are any questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> thank you. >> thank you. have a question on this self-certification. i'm involved in a lot of these

type programs and there is a online portal, isn't the ban all you need the business account number, doesn't that make the application go forward? basically if you have a ban you are certified? >> i am hoping that is how it works. there was some question about there being two different definitions of what is a small business. one used by the treasurer having to do with gross receipts and another one that appears in these code sections tied to the number of full time employees that a business has. we are relying on the latter definition, and i'm trying to work out these details with the planning department to see what the easiest way would be, but this is the definition that has been applied for the past few years of this program, awning month program has been in

place. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, is there any pub lic comment and are then we'll have additional questions from commissioners if there are any. any public comment? any remote public comment? seeing none, any further commissioner questions? >> motion to recommend. >> seconded. >> there is a motion commissioner alexander tut and second by vice president tam. roll call vote on the motion. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. next we have item 7, update on unpermitted awning complaint and community

outreach. >> good morning, patrick hanen the communication director for department of building inspection. i think we have a presentation to share with you. what we want to share is the new process that we developed to help people legalize unpermitted awnings. just to give background information, since november dbi received 182 complaints about unpermanented awnings throughout san francisco. they were everywhere, but primarily focused in four neighborhoods, china town, richmond, haight, and the tenderloin. we issued 61 notice of violation. during the same period of time the previous year, we received 44 complaints for unpermitted awnings. we did hear concern from the community

about awnings were long-standing and we want to make sure we find a way to help them legalize and get permitted and safe awnings without putting them through undue process for something that happened for a long long period of time. the first thing we did is we did a investigation on each awning complaint. we went and made sure there is no immediate life safety concerns. then we said now that we know there isn't a life safety concern, we suspended further enforcement pending development of this new process. next slide. yesterday mayor breed and supervisor peskin introduced a ordinance that creates a temporary amnesty program and temporary permitting program that runs throughout the end of the eryoo. year. this is to help property owners obtain a permit for a existing awning. significantly lower the cost, barriers and timeline

to legalize these awnings. we also the process will help them abate notice of violation for those 61 property owners that received that enforcement action. next slide, please. just walk through what the program looks like. first of all, it applies to all existing unpermitted awning. even if someone didn't get a complaint or have a nov, we want to make sure if somebody has a awning not permitted we want to give a opportunity to legalize and get it square. the second thing is we are waiving all the fees and penalties in order to make sure to lower the barriers and give people the chance to get the awnings permitted without additional financial burden. we definitely heard from businesses that they are just now coming out of covid recovery and still trying to get their foot hold and getting back in a good place and we didn't want to create a additional financial strain on them. new uninstalled awnings

are not elg frbl eligible for program. this is awnings in place. if you plan on installing a new awning we have a existing process for that and you also note you have to use a licensed contractor or awning installer for a new awning which is the requirement currently for new awnings. the other thing we are doing is conduct substantial community outreach to make sure the community members that received these complaints and concerned about their unpermitted awning have a understanding what the new process is and we can help them get through the process to make sure they are able to take care of this, again with the least burden as possible. next slide, please. so, this is a website. it isn't up yet. we will wait till the ordinance is passed and this is the process in place but i like to walk through briefly to understand what we have done in order to make it as easy as possible. the first thing is we are describing exactly what a property owner would

need to do in order to get their awning permit. then we describe what the forms they need to provide. they need to provide documentation that they own the property or licensed contractor. they would need to provide a dimension photo and this is the cornerstone of what we are trying to do. the excellent front counter staff in the permit center what they decided is they can take a lot of information on a form and actually have them the property owner provide the dimension photograph that is labeled with all the same critical information but easier for the property owner to identify and provide rather then having to go through the forms which sometimes can be confusing for someone not acustomed to doing that kind of work. the dimension photo includes the size of the awning, the height above the ground, the way it is attached to the wall and the building and what the building structure is made up of to make sure it is sound and safe and we can put eyes on

that before we say yes in deed this is a permit that can move forward and be processed. we also actually have them fill out a form. we need a signed permit to have a vehicle to assign a permit number so this person we have a record that this person has a permitted awning to make sure that we have that record, they have that record, and should somebody file complaint gaens them in the future, our team can look and say this is a awning that has gone through the process and code compliant. if somebody has received notice of violation, the code requires them to fill out what is called a form 38, a alteration permit for your building. in that case they have to fill out the form. what we talked to the permit center and office of small business is if a property owner needs assistance in filling out these forms determining how to measure the awning and estimate the weight and make sure the

type of screws i'm using are the right screws for the type of building i have, we have staff available to actually help them both in the permit center as well as by reaching out to office of small business. at the end of that they come to the permit center and apply and go through over the counter process whereby they get the plan and the dimension photo reviewed by staff and taken around to each of the appropriate permitting stations and at the end of that they would go and then call and have the awning inspected. we will send out a inspector to go put eyes on the actual awning, make sure from their expert view that it is safe and code compliant and that it aligns with the plans provided with the permit application. after that we make a note within the permit tracking system that yes this awning is code compliant, and we would remove any notice of violation that had been applied to that property for this purpose. next

slide, please. i want to call out our partner katie tang and staff at the office of small business have been excellent partners throughout the process, both helping engage with the community as well as serving as thought partners as we figure the right path forward as well as the mayor office and supervisor peskin's office. it is a collaborative effort and just want to take a moment to recognize that. the first thing we are doing is we will put the step by step website up once the ordinance is live. later today we will have an example of that dimension photo as well as outline of the process i just walked you through, so property owners who want to get a headstart and gather the information can start the work in advance of the ordinance reviewed discussed and passed hopefully by the board of supervisors. we will create online videos for you tube and we chat which is heavily used within the chinese american community so people see and get a description from somebody how to walk through and do

this process. we will have a community meeting, similar to the one a month ago where we explain to people what the new process is, alleviate concerns whether further enforcement is coming and tell about the days they can come to open houses at the permit center where we have staff available to again help people walk through, identify what information is on the form, figure what they can get and if they need to go and come back and really get them to a place that it is easy as possible for these property owners to legalize these permits and make sure for us to make sure they are code compliant. the office of small business is also committed to doing walks, direct outreach to some communities to let them know what is going on, let them know about the new process and encourage them to come down and take advantage of the support we are providing. finally, weal do media outreach try to spread as wide as possible and everybody impacted by this is aware of the change happening, the temporary nature

of the change and the support we are prepared to provide. with that, happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time. >> i want to thank you patrick and really thank the mayor's office and supervisor peskin's office and the community spoke and everybody listened and i think this is a great compromise to getting this issue resolved. these 61 notice of violation that was reported, you did say you did a life safety check. that is documented? whatever is up of the 61 they are all safe? >> all 182 complaints we took a look at them. the 61 were earlier in the process and we did issue the notice of violation but not conducting further enforcement actionpeneding while the new process goes through. >> as long as they comply by the end of the year and go through the process, no fees or penalties? >> correct. >> wonderful. thank you. any other comments from

commissioners? wonderful. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? any further commissioner comments? thank you. next we have item 8, commissioner questions and matters. 8a, inquiries to staff. commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents policies practice and procedures which are of interest to the commission. also read 8b, future meetings and agendas. at this time the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other fuper meetings of the building inspection commission. double check the date of the next meeting. may 17. may 17 is the next expected meeting. >> we have a joint- >> yeah, prior to that there will be a joint commission hearing of the building and

planning commission may 11. i pleev believe the time is 1 p.m. >> may 11? >> uh-huh. >> did commissioners have inquiries or any future agenda items to propose? >> thank you so much. i do want to revisit the vacancy tax that i suggested. i think it was three months ago and we had at that time thought about a timeline around may, but thinking if we are having this joint meeting in may, maybe that's a bit too much for that, and push to june, but hoping that perhaps june agenda we can take a look where the vacancy tax stands. again, that is a tax collector issue, but as far as what vacancies are on the dbi website-only in the named commercial corridor, very specific, narrow ask.

i would love to see if we could get a report and see where we are at with what dbi shows as vacant store fronts in these named commercial districts. thank you. >> thank you. other commissioners? >> i have a question to staff. or who ever can answer. maybe the city attorney. this is about the-little like (indiscernible) 60 minute time limit for remote. how will that apply -do we know how that will apply to the joint meeting like if the planning commission has a different set of rules for public comment and we have different set of rules, which rules will apply or will we come up with our own rules for joint communication for the joint meet ing?

>> presuming we will probably use whatever the planning commission has, because-i'm not sure. >> deputy city attorney, i am also not sure of the answer to your question. i need to confer can planning commission counsel and get back to you with information on the allowable remote public comment at the joint hearing. >> thank you. related to that is how does that apply for translation? so many of our public comment requires translation and we allow them to double their comment time. does that-when we have a limit if we have a 20 minute limit, does that mean-does that include translation time or not include the translation time? >> that's a little different, because for members of the public who require translation or persons with disabilities, they are automatically allowed more time. typically

for translation we double the time, but in a special circumstance i think we do have to make changes as allowed especially for persons with disabilities. >> i just want to contemplate before we are in the meeting. >> okay. that is a different set of rules then just regular public comment. >> perfect. thank you. >> any other commissioner comments? questions? >> any other time if there are any items for the regular may meeting you can reach out to me. next we have item 9, director's report. 9a, director's update. >> thank you vice president tam and members of the building inspection commission. patrick o'riordan, director at dbi. i want to start with appreciation we received from a

customer last week. charles architect in the city, e-mailed me to say and i quote "i was so impressed by the service to the technical services division with my last two experiences with joanna chang and matthew armor. they work in our technical service division and they respond to code questions from our customers. charles went on to say "i e-mailed them the technical questions and got an answer back from them on the same day". that service actually helps us to do the job better at the beginning to understand the building code, and design buildings safer. great work matthew and joanna. just moving on, this afternoon dbi and the permit center and city planning are hosting a stakeholder feedback

session on the site permit process, and these are the improvements we have been working on clab itively well over a year now. you may recall the core of our plan is the bifurcation of the site permit process, with planning overseeing the entitlement phase and dbi focus will be more on the building permit review itself and the issuance of the permits. we believe this plan can substantially reduce the timeline for developing new housing. in some cases by potentially more then a year. we are eager to hear our stakeholders perspective on this bold plan, and hope you can join us. the meeting is from 4 to 5:30 at 49 south van ness. the meeting will be held in room 132 through

136. we will report back obviously to you on the commission and provide you more detailed proposal at the joint meeting that we just spoke to, which will be held on may 11. and after we get input from the stakeholders, we'll introduce legislation to be considered by the board of supervisors and ultimately mayor breed. we look forward to hearing feedback on this exciting proposal that will fundamentally change how we take in and review and process the site permits and that concludes my director's report. thank you. available for any questions. the stakeholder outreach meeting is today at 4 :30. 4 o'clock, pardon me. 4 to 5:30. >> i also sent

commissioners an e-mail reminder about that. thank you, director. next we have 9b, update on major projects. >> thank you again commissioners. this is a update on major projects where permits have either been filed, issued or completed in the last month. major project is considered a project that has valuation of $5 million or more. valuation is essentially the cost of the work. the next slide we have here--so, in march of 2023, one permit application was

estimated valuation of 5 $5 million or more filed with dbi. this application was for 126 unit affordable housing development at 3485 cesar chavez street and the estimated valuation on the project is $51.4 million. and last month we issued one high value permit with valuation of $23.5 million. this permit was for a significant expansion of university high school at 3150 california street. next slide, please. and lastly, dbi finaled four high value projects. these completed projects have a construction valuation over $78 million and they added 108 new housing units. one of the

projects was a 108 unit affordable housing development unit at 500 turk. another is office tenant improvement splaning 7 floors at 1 maritime plaza. thank you. that's my-- >> thank you. commissioners have any questions on that? next is 9c, update on dbi finances. >> good morning commissioners. alex, deputy director of administration. can you please pull up the presentation? thank you, next slide, please. what have for you here is the monthly finance update. the main difference this month is that year end projections have been updated for our biannual 9

month budget status update for the controller's office and mayor office. we are currently 75 percent of the way through the year. 71 percent for labor, i wanted to make this distinction. labor only posts every 2 weeks on tuesday so effective this only has half of march's labor cost in it. and our revenue or main revenue source are charges for services are only 68 percent collected. our interest investment income, that is a significant source shows-does not show the full amount, but that is posted by the controller's office, so if you see a shortfall there that would be posted by the end of the year. based on our revised projections as of the first 9 monthss of the year we

project to receive $52.8 million of revenue by the end of the year, which is $5.4 million or 9 percent below what was budgeted. next slide, please. so, these are the amounts that reflect the narrative thon previous page. again, the major stories here are that revenue has slowed in quarter 3 of this year. so far this year we have been-i believe some large projects that came in towards the end of 22, made us optimistic that our revenue projections would be better in the second half of the year, but we have not kept up that momentum and quarter 3 of this year is slower then quarter 3 of last year and also slower then quarter 2 of this year. next slide, please.

on the expenditure side, we are 59 percent spent year to date, so this we continue to show significant expenditure savings . our salaries and benefits will be slightly over spent. we are projected to be $660 thousand over budget on labor, however that's more then made up for with other expenditure savings. based on our updated projections, we expect to spend at year end total of $87.5 million, which is $3.2 million or 4 percent below budget. next slide, please. and you'll notice too, one very important thing to focus on is it difference between slide 2, or

page 3 and page 5 here. the total difference between revenue and expenditure is projected to be negative $2 million net, so we are projected to expend $2.2 million more then revenue, which will of course need to come out of fund balance at 6 months so in january. we had projected that our revenue deficit would be covered by our expenditure savings, however since our revenue deficit has worsened, our expenditure deficit has remained relatively the same. we will need to utilize additional fund balance this year to cover. the only significant change to our expenditure projection from 6 month is, some additional cost for item 5 that you

heard previously, that engineering review. dbi will need to pay for the contractors to review those facade engineering reports that we receive, and that will be fairly significant cost. we project at least $300 thousand, so if there are no additional funds or support for those services, there is no other fee or general fund support we can utilize, that just has to come out of our budget, so that is really the only change to our expenditure projections. next slide, please. the number of permits in the following slide will reflect the worsening revenue picture that i have already discussed. our number of permits throughout the year, this year, has steadily shown 10 percent less then year to date in the prior year, so each

month we received about 10 percent fewer permits, however earlier this year valuation of 23 permits total had been higher. year to date 23, compared to year to date 22, however that is finally starting to change now in quarter 3 and we are showing that last year is catching up to where this year is. again, i think that was primarily due to very large projects that we received in-at the end of calendar year 22. next slide, please. and this shows-i think last year we had gotten in the final 2 tiers the 5 large projects we had gotten those earlier in the year then the 5 large projects in 22, but now we are starting to see 22 valuations have caught

up and exceeded 23 valuation, same time year to date. i also want to give a quick update on the fee study. at this point, we believe more work is needed to refine some of the underlying estimates of the fee study. two of the major components, three major components i say, determining costs, doing the time study to allocate those costs to each fee, seeing how much time it takes to process each type of fee, and then the third piece is estimating the volume of number of permits for each type of permit, so we can estimate the total revenue we'll receive. we have completed the first part. we have developed a rate for admin services, permit services, inspection services, and now we

are working to refine our time study really going fee by fee, department by department to determine how much time does it really take to process a permit fee for 50 to $200 million valuation project and each type of fee we are going through and doing that. our revised estimate for-and also, the volume estimated volume is very critical piece. if we estimate a volume that is too high, if we think we'll get 500 of these permits next year and we only get 400, then we will under -collect revenues so it is very important that we get that right or as close to right as we can. it is very difficult estimate to make. who knows how much work and which types of permits will come in next year. we plan to meet with the office of economic analysis at the controller's office to just do our best to really

come up with the best estimate we can. so, we think timeframe, one to two month tuesday to have a final report, and because of the looming budget deadlines we have, the plan for now is to propose some sort of across the board increase. say let's increase all fees by 10 percent or some amount, add those amounts to the budget and then when the fee study is complete, come back and change the building code with-update based on the results of the completed fee study. and that is the report for this month. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> is there a draft right now of the-i guess you are still drafting the fee

study, right? >> we have some preliminary amounts, but there are significant problems or there is significant issues we have concerns again that the volume data and some of the time study underlying assumptions need to be changed to give realistic amounts, so we do have a completed model, and we are now just refining the inputs to that model to give output that we think is reasonable. >> when do you think a final copy will be ready for our review? >> what we are current estimate is 1 to 2 months. >> okay. >> and so, the more work also needs to be done about the timing of legislation. if we do complete the fee study, i do not think it will be possible to change the budget at that point, but can we

change-if the change to the building code is done through budget trailing legislation, could we possibly change that before the mayor signs it august 1? there is some questions that need to be answered there, so we'll speak with city attorney and work with carl and christine to resolve those issues and figure out the timing of everything. and also, one last thing to present is, the timeline of the effectiveness of fees, we think that the earliest that new fees could be effective is october 1. there is-so, legislation is unlikely to be signed before august 1 when the mayor signs the full budget for next year, and there is a 60 day waiting period, i believe that is state mandated that requires another 60 day waiting period

on top of that, so for fiscal year 23/24, we will only be able to collect 3 quarters of a year of these new hopefully higher revenues. and lastly, of course we are working very closely with the mayor's office to align any increases with the mayor's policy goals and insure that any changes we make to fees will not harm any economic recovery and will help maintain and increase any future economic activity. >> thank you. any other comments from fellow commissioners? thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next we have item 9d, update on proposed or roontly enacted state or local legislation. >> vice chair tam, commissioners, carl,

legislative affairs manager. the presentation comes up. i'll start with recently passed legislation, including an amendment to the building and police codes for the labor compliance bond requirement. that ordinance passed april 12 at the board of supervisors and is now awaiting the mayor's signature. next slide. there was also the ordinance to amend the planning building codes to increase fines and penaltiess for violations of the planning building code. that ordinance passed march 21 and the mayor signed march 28 so it will go into effect the end of this month. next slide. moving to some proposed legislation, you heard the ordinance to amend the existing building code for the facade inspections. thank you for considering that one. next slide. you also heard the ordinance for the awning fee waver program. thanks again. and that one will go on to the land use committee for

their review. next slide. an ordinance to amend the building code to outline the site permit application process introduced recently. we'll bring that one to a future bic meeting and go to the land use committee. next slide. there was also a ordinance to a-mind the campaign government code to create a permit prioritization task force with dbi, planning, public works, rb and other permitting agencies to create guidelines for permit prioritization. that ordinance is awaiting the rules committee hearing. next slide. i don't have a slide for the ordinance to amend the planning building codes to achieve policy outcomes for residential use in the downtown area to economically revisalize downtown, including facilitating adaptive reuse of office buildings to residential. that ordinance

was introduced last week and we'll bring it to you for your review at your next regular bic meeting. on this slide there was a hearing held april 3 to discuss the budget legislative analyst policy report on adaptive reuse. president bito asked about that last time. that hearing was held april 3 and included a presentation from spur, ginsler (indiscernible) dbi and economic of workforce development. hearing mostly focused on the financial aspect of adaptive reuse like streamline permitting adjusted impact fees, (indiscernible) tax and financial incentive to encourage adaptive reuse. couple more hearings coming down the way both of which have not been scheduled yet. a hearing on the high rise window

failures and also a hearing to monitor tenants and owners development corporation, and supervisor stefani asked dbi to report at that hearing as well. and next slide. there is a summary of the state legislative session so far. there has been 2844 bills introduced. f as you know, it is first year of two year session. our california-forget the acronym but the building official organization we are a part of have 22 high priority bills they are tracking and hundred other bills they are tracking. committee meetings at the capital are happening between march and may and other deadlines coming up. in the last day for fiscal committees to hear and report on bills that would have a fiscal impact is may 19 this year. happy to answer any questions.

>> questions? thank you carl. >> thank you. >> our next item is 9e, update on inspection services. >> good morning commissioners, matthew green, chief building inspector of inspection service, pleased to provide a update on activities and performance of inspection service division. march the building electrical and plumbing division conducted 11.382 inspections. 96 percent of those inspections conducted within 2 business days of the date requested by the customer, meetding our target of 90 percent. in the same month our housing inspection service conducted 1164 inspections. with 236 of them being routine inspection of multifamily housing. the building electrical and plumbing

division received 511 complaints and responded to 99 percent within three business days. well exceeding the target of 85 percent. code enforcement sent 85 cases to director hearing. housing inspection received 77 safety and heat complaints and responded to 88 percent of them one business day. they received 440 other complaints and responded to 90 percent within three business days. housing inspection service abated 460 cases with notice of violation and sent 47 new cases to director hearings. thank you. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on the director's report items 9a through e? >> good morning, jerry dratler and have three questions on the expenditure table. on

page 5. the first question is the city grant program that was budgeted $5.7 million that is currentsly projected to be $4.9 million. i like to know what programs were not funded. the second question is service other department. the budget for 2022 is $26 million, the current projected is $21 million. i like to know how we were able to achieve $5 million reduction. that is pretty significant. the third question is non operating which is budgeted for 2022 at $20 million. it is budgeted for 2023 at $25 million, and the year to date actuals for 9 months are slightly less then $2 million, so what's the projected total for 2023? thank you very much.

>> any additional public comment? seeing none, we'll go to item 10, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of march 15, 2023. >> move to approve. >> seconded. >> there is a motion and a second to approve the minutes. is there any public comment? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. thank you. next we have item 11, adjournmentf. motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> we are now adjourned at 10:24 a.m. [meeting adjourned]

dev mission's goal is aiming to train young adults, youth so we can be a wealth and disparity in underserved communities like where we are

today. my name is leo sosa. i'm the founder and executive director for devmission. we're sitting inside a computer lab where residents come and get support when they give help about how to set up an e-mail account. how to order prescriptions online. create a résumé. we are also now paying attention to provide tech support. we have collaborated with the san francisco mayor's office and the department of technology to implement a broad band network for the residents here so they can have free internet access. we have partnered with community technology networks to provide computer classes to the seniors and the residents. so this computer lab becomes a hub for the community to learn how to use technology, but that's the parents and the adults. we have been able to identify what we call a stem date.

the acronym is science technology engineering and math. kids should be exposed no matter what type of background or ethnicity or income status. that's where we actually create magic. >> something that the kids are really excited about is science and so the way that we execute that is through making slime. and as fun as it is, it's still a chemical reaction and you start to understand that with the materials that you need to make the slime. >> they love adding their little twists to everything. it's just a place for them to experiment and that's really what we want. >> i see. >> really what the excitement behind that is that you're making something. >> logs, legos, sumo box, art, drawing, computers, mine craft, and really it's just awaking

opportunity. >> keeping their attention is like one of the biggest challenges that we do have because, you know, they're kids. they always want to be doing something, be helping with something. so we just let them be themselves. we have our set of rules in place that we have that we want them to follow and live up to. and we also have our set of expectations that we want them to achieve. this is like my first year officially working with kids. and definitely i've had moments where they're not getting something. they don't really understand it and you're trying to just talk to them in a way that they can make it work teaching them in different ways how they can get the light bulb to go off and i've seen it first-hand and it makes me so happy when it does go off because it's like, wow, i helped them understand this concept. >> i love playing games and i love having fun with my friends

playing dodge ball and a lot of things that i like. it's really cool. >> they don't give you a lot of cheese to put on there, do they? you've got like a little bit left. >> we learn programming to make them work. we do computers and programming. at the bottom here, we talk to them and we press these buttons to make it go. and this is to turn it off. and this is to make it control on its own. if you press this twice, it can do any type of tricks. like you can move it like this and it moves.

it actually can go like this. >> like, wow, they're just absorbing everything. so it definitely is a wholehearted moment that i love experiencing. >> the realities right now, 5.3 latinos working in tech and about 6.7 african americans working in tech. and, of course, those tech companies are funders. so i continue to work really hard with them to close that gap and work with the san francisco unified school district so juniors and seniors come to our program, so kids come to our stem hub and be exposed to all those things. it's a big challenge. >> we have a couple of other providers here on site, but we've all just been trying to work together and let the kids move around from each department. some kids are comfortable with

their admission, but if they want to jump in with city of dreams or hunter's point, we just try to collaborate to provide the best opportunity in the community. >> devmission has provided services on westbrook. they teach you how to code. how to build their own mini robot to providing access for the youth to partnerships with adobe and sony and google and twitter. and so devmission has definitely brought access for our families to resources that our residents may or may not have been able to access in the past. >> the san francisco house and development corporation gave us the grant to implement this program. it hasn't been easy, but we have been able to see now some of the success stories of some of those kids that have been able to take the opportunity and continue to grow within their education and eventually

become a very successful citizen. >> so the computer lab, they're doing the backpacks. i don't know if you're going to be able to do the class. you still want to try? . yeah. go for it. >> we have a young man by the name of ivan mello. he came here two and a half years ago to be part of our digital arts music lab. graduating with natural, fruity loops, rhymes. all of our music lyrics are clean. he came as an intern, and now he's running the program. that just tells you, we are only creating opportunities and there's a young man by the name of eduardo ramirez. he tells the barber, what's that flyer? and he says it's a program that

teaches you computers and art. and i still remember the day he walked in there with a baseball cap, full of tattoos. nice clean hair cut. i want to learn how to use computers. graduated from the program and he wanted to work in i.t.. well, eduardo is a dreamer. right. so trying to find him a job in the tech industry was very challenging, but that didn't stop him. through the effort of the office of economic work force and the grant i reached out to a few folks i know. post mates decided to bring him on board regardless of his legal status. he ended his internship at post mates and now is at hudacity. that is the power of what technology does for young people that want to become part of the tech industry. what we've been doing, it's

very innovative. helping kids k-12, transitional age youth, families, parents, communities, understand and to be exposed to stem subjects. imagine if that mission one day can be in every affordable housing community. the opportunities that we would create and that's what i'm trying to do with this the tenderloin is home to families, immigrants, seniors, merchants, workers and the housed and unhoused who all deserve a thriving neighborhood

to call home. the tenderloin initiative was launched to improve safety, reduce crime, connect people to services and increase investments in the neighborhood. as city and community-based partners, we work daily to make these changes a reality. we invite you to the tenderloin history, inclusivity make this neighborhood special. >> we're all citizens of san francisco and we deserve food, water, shelter, all of those things that any system would. >> what i find the most fulfilling about being in the tenderloin is that it's really basically a big family here and i love working and living here. >> [speaking foreign language]

>> my hopes and dreams for the tenderloin are what any other community organizer would want for their community, safe, clean streets for everyone and good operating conditions for small businesses. >> everything in the tenderloin is very good. the food is very good. if you go to any restaurant in san francisco, you will feel like oh, wow, the food is great. the people are nice. >> it is a place where it embraces all walks of life and different cultures. so this is the soul of the tenderloin. it's really welcoming. the. >> the tenderloin is so full of color and so full of people. so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there.

>> welcome to to the 42 annual san francisco government awards. i'm-the san francisco director for sure spur i and i want to thank you all for being here tonight to honor excellence in public service. at spur, we strive to a bay area where all people thrive. we know accomplishing this takes partnership, (indiscernible) particularly are local government and we are really proud to support the good government awards, because we truly believe that government can make a positive difference in the lives of san francisco residents so really excited to take a moment to acknowledge and thank all of