[0:13] Good morning. Today is

[0:15] wednesday, DECEMBER 11th, 2024.

[0:17] This is a special meeting of the

[0:19] building inspection commission.

[0:21] I would like to remind everyone

[0:22] to please mute yourself if

[0:24] you're not speaking. The first

[0:27] item on the agenda is roll call.

[0:29] PRESIDENT Alexander. Here. Vice

[0:32] PRESIDENT Shadix. Here.

[0:34] Commissioner ming. Here.

[0:36] Commissioner williams. Here. We

[0:38] have a quorum, and commissioner

[0:40] chavez is expected. And

[0:43] commissioner newman is excused.

[0:44] Next, we have our land

[0:47] acknowledgment. The building

[0:48] inspection commission

[0:49] acknowledges that we are on the

[0:50] unceded ancestral homeland of

[0:52] the ramaytush ohlone, who are

[0:53] the original inhabitants of the

[0:56] san francisco peninsula. As the

[0:57] indigenous stewards of this

[0:59] land, and in accordance with

[1:00] their tradition, the ramaytush

[1:02] ohlone have never ceded, lost

[1:04] nor forgotten their

[1:05] responsibilities as the

[1:06] caretakers of this place, as

[1:08] well as for all peoples who

[1:10] reside in their traditional

[1:12] territory. As guests, we

[1:13] recognize that we benefit from

[1:15] living and working on the

[1:17] traditional homeland. We wish to

[1:18] pay our respects by

[1:19] acknowledging the ancestors,

[1:21] elders and relatives of the

[1:22] ramaytush ohlone community and

[1:24] by affirming their sovereign

[1:27] rights as first peoples. Thank

[1:30] you. Next, for any members of

[1:32] the public that MAY be listening

[1:34] in the public comment call in

[1:39] number is (415) 655-0001. Access

[1:51] code is. 26635399899. Okay. And

[1:53] next we have item two. President

[1:59] opening remarks. Good morning.

[2:02] Good morning commissioners.

[2:04] Director reardon, members of the

[2:08] public. Congratulations on the

[2:10] end of a big year. We've had a

[2:11] lot of accomplishments this

[2:13] year, and it can only be with

[2:16] the partnership of our staff,

[2:17] our staff leadership and our

[2:19] commission together, working

[2:22] towards common goals. And I just

[2:24] wanted to highlight some of the

[2:25] things that I think are of

[2:27] particular note. This year. And

[2:29] one of them is we accomplished

[2:31] the fee study. We have

[2:33] established the fee study to

[2:36] stabilize our finances and

[2:40] created a policy path forward to

[2:42] be able to increase those fees

[2:43] over time. And that's a very

[2:46] significant policy change that

[2:51] took both political will and

[2:52] foresight on the part of the

[2:54] department. So congratulations

[2:55] and thank you to everyone on

[2:58] that. And then of course, we

[3:02] continue to increase our

[3:04] approval rates and permits and

[3:06] streamlined the permitting

[3:09] process. And then finally we

[3:12] have. Implemented all of the

[3:14] controller's recommendations and

[3:16] got a glowing report from the

[3:19] controller's office on our

[3:21] ethical standards. And that is

[3:23] something that took an

[3:27] incredible amount of work. And

[3:29] so I just, you know, I just want

[3:31] to recognize all of that. That

[3:32] is a big accomplishment this

[3:33] year. And congratulations to

[3:35] everybody. And then as we do, we

[3:37] continue the basic work every

[3:38] day of keeping san franciscans

[3:40] safe in their houses, in their

[3:42] homes, in their apartment

[3:43] buildings and their sros and in

[3:45] their places of work and on the

[3:47] streets where they are walking

[3:49] by those buildings. So the day

[3:51] to day work continues to be

[3:52] really important, and a focus

[3:55] for the department. And I just

[3:57] want to take the time to

[3:58] recognize that at the end of the

[3:59] year. So congratulations on all

[4:01] of that, everybody. And to

[4:04] commissioners and yeah, happy

[4:09] new year. Thank you. Is there

[4:11] any public comment on the

[4:14] PRESIDENT's opening remarks?

[4:16] Seeing none, we are on item

[4:18] three. General public comment.

[4:20] The bic will take public comment

[4:21] on matters within the

[4:22] commission's jurisdiction that

[4:24] are not part of this agenda.

[4:26] Good morning. I have a handout.

[4:29] The time is set for ten minutes.

[4:30] I don't need ten minutes. I'll

[4:32] reset that. Just a moment. It

[4:36] would be nice, but

[4:40] inappropriate. If I have a

[4:49] computer presentation. Okay. I'm

[4:52] ready. Thank you. Dbi twice

[4:53] created false complaints after

[4:55] valid complaints were filed

[4:57] against susan mccormick. Taylor.

[4:59] Building permits once for a

[5:01] foundation repair permit and a

[5:03] second time for a bedroom and

[5:06] bath remodel permit. Dbi also

[5:08] improperly closed two complaints

[5:09] for submitting building permits,

[5:11] with plans that misrepresent the

[5:13] number and location of the

[5:15] existing ground floor garage

[5:18] windows. This table is from the

[5:20] building code, and it shows the

[5:22] period of time that's allowed

[5:24] for a building permit before it

[5:25] expires. Based on the value of

[5:28] the permit. A foundation repair

[5:30] permit complaint was opened 78

[5:32] days ago. It should have been

[5:34] closed. Senior inspector

[5:36] mauricio hernandez approved a

[5:39] foundation special inspection

[5:41] 404 days after the foundation

[5:43] repair permit was null and void,

[5:45] and the foundation special

[5:46] inspection was approved without

[5:48] a final affidavit from the

[5:50] architect. The complaint is

[5:53] being researched by inspector

[5:54] gilbert lamb. A second

[5:56] foundation repair complaint was

[5:58] opened one month after the first

[6:00] complaint. The second complaint

[6:02] was opened by inspector sanders,

[6:03] who received the first

[6:05] complaint. We have two open

[6:08] foundation repair complaints. An

[6:10] expired bedroom and bath remodel

[6:12] complaint was improperly closed

[6:14] by inspector sanders seven days

[6:16] after it was opened. Inspector

[6:19] sanders approved an extension of

[6:20] a building permit that had been

[6:24] null and void for 127 days.

[6:26] Inspector sanders failed to sign

[6:29] the building permit extension. A

[6:31] second bedroom and bath remodel

[6:33] complaint was opened 40 days

[6:35] after the first complaint was

[6:37] closed by inspector sanders.

[6:39] This complaint is under review

[6:41] by inspector sanders, who closed

[6:45] the first complaint. Two susan

[6:46] mccormick taylor building

[6:48] permits were submitted with

[6:50] architectural plans which

[6:52] misrepresent the number and

[6:53] location of the ground floor

[6:55] windows in the picture below. In

[6:56] the picture below, you can see

[6:59] there's a red wheelbarrow.

[7:00] There's a window behind the

[7:02] wheelbarrow. There's a window to

[7:03] the left of the wheelbarrow.

[7:05] There are only two windows. The

[7:06] window above the red wheelbarrow

[7:09] is missing from the plans. The

[7:11] window to the left of the red

[7:12] wheelbarrow is two windows in

[7:15] the plan, and a window was

[7:17] inserted in the plans on the

[7:19] wall with the electrical boxes

[7:23] that's behind the blue tub.

[7:25] here's the plans. You can see

[7:27] they're wrong. Two complaints

[7:29] for inaccurate architectural

[7:32] plans were closed. Improperly

[7:36] closed. This is not good. This

[7:45] stuff needs to end. Thank you.

[7:48] Is there any additional public

[8:12] comment? Covid. Gavin newsom.

[8:43] Oops. The little thing he fell

[8:45] off. Does that matter? Can you

[8:47] pick it up? I haven't started

[8:49] your time. Okay. I want to pause

[8:50] my time. I know I haven't

[8:52] started, I've got some stuff. I

[8:57] don't want to touch it. Thank

[9:02] you. Sonia. Where is it? Right

[9:18] there. Thank you. Sonia.

[9:20] Okay. I'd like to talk about the

[9:22] hiring process. When o'riordan

[9:23] and I were hired, I was hired

[9:25] before him, and I scored higher

[9:28] on the test. We had three

[9:30] outside people from different

[9:33] jurisdictions doing the hiring.

[9:35] Now it's all inside. It appears

[9:36] to be, you know, kind of the

[9:40] good old boys club. And this is

[9:42] the announcement. O'riordan

[9:44] talks about kevin bermingham

[9:46] keeps projects moving along. You

[9:48] never want to fail an

[9:51] inspection, even if it's not per

[9:51] code. Okay. And then we have

[9:54] mauricio hernandez here and

[9:57] another mark walls. These were

[9:59] an article was in mission local

[10:00] on this. I will be referring to

[10:03] that. And mauricio hernandez,

[10:05] who is named in a lawsuit by

[10:08] dennis richards. You could that

[10:10] online mission local dennis

[10:12] richards if you google that that

[10:17] was settled in a favor for 1.8

[10:18] million for the plaintiff,

[10:28] costing the city.

[10:31] Here's another article called

[10:36] bringing down the house. It was

[10:38] in the whatever it says up

[10:40] there, the sf weekly, I believe

[10:43] this is also by the joe. Newport,

[10:46] whatever. And this is about

[10:47] where matt green went out of his

[10:49] district, into my district, and

[10:51] missed the shoring of the

[10:52] building that was supposed to, I

[10:54] believe, have around nine

[10:57] shoring. This is a santos koran.

[11:00] Bernie and matt green were all

[11:02] on this as they were on other

[11:05] projects working together. The

[11:06] building went down the hill

[11:07] because of the failed shoring.

[11:09] Matt green went out there

[11:12] several times for his friend,

[11:14] who was helping him out in the

[11:15] little situation in golden gate

[11:18] park, which he alludes to in the

[11:21] dennis richards case. There was

[11:22] nothing left of the building.

[11:24] They were supposed to keep it

[11:26] big. Tarp was put over. It was

[11:31] completely demolished. Here's

[11:35] another one naming the city

[11:37] families okaying their own

[11:41] family jobs. Joe eskenazi,

[11:45] mission local. JANUARY 8th. This

[11:47] is how the old. This is how the

[11:50] old test worked. You could see

[11:53] o'riordan came in here at number

[11:55] 13 right in the middle. And then

[11:57] he told me before, we used to

[11:58] commute together that sweeney

[11:59] gave him the answers to the

[12:02] test, and he forgot one of them.

[12:04] And one of the answers was, or

[12:05] one of the questions was, what

[12:07] do you do with an employee who

[12:08] is not performing right? He

[12:11] said, you kind of counsel him or

[12:12] something like that. He told me

[12:14] sweeney had to write it down on

[12:16] a piece of paper and shove it

[12:18] over for him to read. He goes,

[12:19] no, you need. And it said, you

[12:21] need to document everything.

[12:22] Here's the score he got on that

[12:25] test overhead, please. You can

[12:26] wrap up your comments, sir. I'm

[12:28] wrapping it up. The timer is up

[12:30] so you can say your last. Oh

[12:32] it's up okay. Last. The

[12:35] sprinklers are all abated. On to

[12:37] russo and sso and 3030

[12:38] california by newly appointed

[12:40] permanent chief hernandez. Thank

[12:44] you. Thank you. Are there any

[12:48] additional public comment? Okay.

[12:50] Seeing none, we're on to item

[12:51] four update on the access

[12:53] appeals commission and an

[12:55] overview regarding the appeal

[13:11] process.

[13:15] Good morning everyone. I'm mary

[13:17] wilkinson, church department of

[13:20] building inspection. We do have

[13:24] a powerpoint to go along with

[13:28] this. Okay. So the access

[13:30] appeals commission was

[13:31] established by the san francisco

[13:35] building code, section 105.3.

[13:37] The access appeals commission

[13:39] hears appeals of dbi decisions

[13:41] on the enforcement of disabled

[13:43] access and the adaptability

[13:46] provisions of the code. The

[13:47] commission MAY also make

[13:49] determinations on code

[13:52] equivalences, technical and

[13:54] unreasonable hardship, as well

[13:57] as time extensions. The

[13:58] committee is comprised of five

[14:00] members, each with a four year

[14:02] term. Two members do have a

[14:04] physical disability. Two members

[14:06] are with the construction

[14:09] industry and one member is of

[14:12] the general public. So the

[14:14] background for the accessible

[14:16] business entrance program is

[14:18] that it was established by city

[14:20] ordinance in 2016, and it's

[14:22] administered by the department

[14:24] of building inspection. The

[14:27] program requires places of

[14:29] public accommodation to have all

[14:32] primary entries and passive

[14:33] travel into a building, be

[14:35] accessible by persons with

[14:39] disabilities. The ab program has

[14:41] four building categories

[14:42] indicating the barriers of

[14:46] disability access. The primary

[14:48] entry. The first category is

[14:51] that the primary entry already

[14:53] complies. The second category is

[14:55] that there are no steps to the

[14:58] primary entry, and one or more

[15:00] of elements to the entry do not

[15:03] comply with the requirements for

[15:06] accessibility. Category three.

[15:08] There is a step to the primary

[15:10] entry and one or more elements

[15:12] of the entry do not comply with

[15:14] the requirements for

[15:15] accessibility. And then of

[15:16] course, category four is that

[15:18] the building has a primary entry

[15:20] with more than one steps, and

[15:21] the elements of the injury do

[15:23] not comply with code

[15:26] requirements. So the role of the

[15:28] access appeals commission within

[15:31] the ab program building subject

[15:34] to the program, can file for

[15:38] exemptions and claiming for

[15:40] requesting equivalencies for

[15:42] facilitation, technical

[15:43] infeasibility or unreasonable

[15:49] hardship as defined in sfbc 11

[15:53] 05.1 through 11 05.3. The access

[15:55] appeals commission is involved

[15:57] in all exemption pathways,

[15:59] including setting the standards

[16:01] for equivalent facilities,

[16:03] facilitation, ratifying

[16:06] nonstructural technical and

[16:07] feasibility claims, and

[16:09] determining financial hardships.

[16:11] So the access appeals commission

[16:13] must ratify all unreasonable

[16:15] hardship requests. Approvals in

[16:19] san francisco. So what we really

[16:21] wanted to get to today, in this

[16:23] presentation for you, is the

[16:26] actual process for unreasonable

[16:28] hardship requests. This was kind

[16:30] of brought up in the last

[16:32] meeting, and additional

[16:34] information was requested by

[16:35] yourselves. And so we're here to

[16:37] talk about that today. So the

[16:39] process for unreasonable

[16:43] hardship requests is one. Hire a

[16:45] certified access appeals

[16:46] specialist, architect or

[16:48] engineer to conduct an

[16:50] evaluation and prepare the

[16:52] disabled access compliance

[16:55] checklist. Two the casp

[16:57] inspector or architect or

[16:59] engineer submits that checklist

[17:01] and an unreasonable hardship

[17:04] exemption form. They then

[17:05] prepare and submit for a

[17:07] building permit application.

[17:09] Cost estimates and construction

[17:12] plans, and to make the primary

[17:14] interest entrance accessible as

[17:16] well as affordable alternatives

[17:18] that MAY meet the spirit of the

[17:22] code. So the fourth step then,

[17:25] would be that our intake staff,

[17:27] dbi intake staff, or the permit

[17:30] center confirms the application

[17:32] and submission and verifies that

[17:33] all the materials are complete

[17:37] for the submission. Dbi accepts

[17:39] the permit application. We

[17:41] conduct a plan review and we

[17:43] provide comments pertaining to

[17:45] the review to the design

[17:47] professional. The architect,

[17:50] engineer or designer revise and

[17:52] then resubmit the application

[17:54] and plans based upon those

[17:57] comments. The permit is approved

[18:00] by each relevant permitting

[18:02] department, such as dbi

[18:04] planning, the fire department or

[18:06] any other departments that MAY

[18:08] have a part in the plan review

[18:11] based on the building type and

[18:13] occupancy. And then dbi

[18:15] evaluates the unreasonable

[18:17] hardship, supporting information

[18:19] and alternative accessibility

[18:22] methods. Or they approve or deny

[18:25] the request. They then inform

[18:28] the applicant of that decision.

[18:30] The applicant then comes back

[18:32] and submits the unreasonable

[18:34] hardship application or appeal

[18:36] and supporting documentation

[18:38] documentation to the access

[18:40] appeals commission, and then

[18:43] they pay the appeal fee. The

[18:45] access appeals commission

[18:47] secretary works with the design

[18:49] professional to verify their

[18:50] proposed accessibility

[18:52] improvements are readily

[18:53] achievable, and that the

[18:55] financial information and cost

[18:56] estimates that they've provided

[18:58] as part of their appeal are

[19:02] accurate. The item is put on the

[19:04] arc agenda, and a hearing is

[19:06] conducted where members MAY

[19:07] identify additional code

[19:09] alternatives to increase access,

[19:11] the design professional MAY need

[19:14] to revise plans to include any

[19:16] requirements to ratification.

[19:19] The access appeal commission

[19:21] members vote to ratify or deny

[19:22] the unreasonable hardship

[19:25] request or appeal, and then, if

[19:27] necessary, the plans are

[19:28] resubmitted and evaluated. In

[19:31] plan review, comments are issued

[19:33] and revisions MAY be required at

[19:35] that point based on any

[19:36] equivalencies that the access

[19:39] appeals commission found. And

[19:41] once approved, the applicant

[19:42] pays their final fees. The

[19:44] permits are issued and work MAY

[19:47] commence. So the number of

[19:50] current unreasonable hardship

[19:53] requests that we have seen come

[19:57] through. So first, there are

[19:58] 23,522 buildings that are

[20:04] actually within the ab program,

[20:06] 19,584 buildings, or 83% of

[20:08] these buildings, have started or

[20:10] completed the compliance

[20:15] process. 404 buildings. So 1.7%

[20:16] of the buildings that are in the

[20:19] program have completed the

[20:20] compliance checklist and

[20:24] indicated on that checklist that

[20:25] they would like to, that they

[20:26] are noting an unreasonable

[20:31] hardship. But of those, 137 have

[20:37] applied for a permit. So 1.7 or

[20:39] 0.6% of those buildings have

[20:42] applied for a permit and 14 have

[20:46] included unreasonable hardship

[20:48] as part of their application in

[20:50] their scope of work. So of the

[20:52] buildings that we have or the

[20:53] permits that we have seen come

[20:57] through in the program, in 14 of

[20:58] those permit applications, we

[21:01] have actually seen that someone

[21:03] has requested an unreasonable

[21:09] hardship as part of the program.

[21:11] And that's all we have. As far

[21:16] as an update. Okay. Thank you.

[21:17] Is there any public comment on

[21:19] the item that you can have a

[21:21] seat. Then we'll do the question

[21:35] and answer. Okay. Thank you.

[21:36] My name is walter park. I'm a

[21:38] member of the access appeals

[21:40] commission. I wrote the

[21:41] ordinance that created the

[21:42] access appeals commission in the

[21:45] mid 1980s, was carried by harry

[21:46] britt, and was signed at the

[21:50] board by PRESIDENT John

[21:52] molinari, was approved as to

[21:54] form by the city attorney and

[21:57] was signed by the mayor. We are

[21:58] scheduled to have two meetings a

[22:01] month because we have often

[22:02] needed to have two meetings a

[22:07] month. The building department

[22:16] I'd like to show this. This is

[22:17] the three pages of their

[22:19] powerpoint, just made into one

[22:22] list of 14 points. I think

[22:25] they're trying to make this

[22:26] sound incredibly complex and in

[22:28] fact, to make it incredibly

[22:30] complex and difficult to deal

[22:32] with. I pity the fact that the

[22:33] building department is stuck

[22:34] with such an onerous system that

[22:36] doesn't work for anybody. But

[22:37] who designed that onerous

[22:39] system? The building department

[22:41] did. This works well, perhaps

[22:43] for the bank of america, for

[22:44] millennium tower, for the

[22:46] transbay terminal. It doesn't

[22:48] work well for a nail salon

[22:50] that's got a 500 foot square

[22:53] foot space. We don't need all of

[22:55] that. We don't need all of those

[22:57] professionals. We don't need all

[22:59] of that. Review. Some of the

[23:01] people who testified before and

[23:03] I are talking with supervisor

[23:05] mandelman, and we're going to

[23:07] propose 7 or 8 changes to this.

[23:09] We want to get rid of half of

[23:11] these for sure, so that this

[23:13] system can work. Let me point

[23:18] out one other thing. And that is

[23:20] you keep hearing this 82%

[23:25] success rate. Wait a minute.

[23:31] That's based on 16,777 cases.

[23:36] But of those, 11,800 are either

[23:39] exempt or waived. So no access

[23:42] was provided there. So the real

[23:44] universe is not 23,000. It's

[23:48] half of 23,000. That changes all

[23:49] these numbers. It changes the

[23:51] success rate and it changes the

[23:52] scale of the problem. Because

[23:55] half of the cases were

[24:02] categorically. Dispensed with.

[24:04] Then if you look at the number

[24:07] of compliant cases, the total

[24:09] number instead of 16, seven,

[24:12] seven, seven then is 5120,

[24:13] because we're going to subtract

[24:16] the 11,000. So the compliant

[24:19] cases are 5120. The non

[24:23] compliant cases are 6749. Out of

[24:26] that 11 some thousand. So it's

[24:28] about 50% compliant and about

[24:33] 50% non compliant. Truly I also

[24:35] want to point out that the

[24:37] building department seems to

[24:38] have a hostility toward the

[24:39] access appeals commission, which

[24:41] I don't understand. All the

[24:43] delays happen in the staff

[24:44] section of the process which

[24:46] they've designed and they

[24:48] implement. There are no no

[24:50] delays happened because of the

[24:52] commission. And I point out the

[24:53] fact that although you're having

[24:55] a hearing on the access appeals

[24:56] commission, our secretary did

[24:58] not inform us of this hearing

[25:01] and none of you invited us, but

[25:02] we're happy to be here. Thank

[25:06] you. Thank you. Is there any

[25:13] additional public comment? Okay.

[25:15] Seeing none that the

[25:16] commissioners have any questions

[25:22] of staff? Yeah. I need a minute.

[25:25] Okay, take a minute. I have a

[25:27] question. Could for the members

[25:29] of the access appeals board,

[25:31] could you talk about what is

[25:35] your scope and what. What kind

[25:37] of some historical context for

[25:38] what has come before you, in

[25:41] addition to just this

[25:44] legislation? But what else? What

[25:47] else comes before you? We have a

[25:49] special scope. That is, we only

[25:50] deal with accessibility

[25:52] questions. Other questions go to

[25:53] board of permit appeals or to

[25:57] you. So and we have a specialty.

[25:59] So that's why we have two

[26:00] designated members or people

[26:01] with disabilities, two

[26:02] designated members who are from

[26:04] the construction industry. There

[26:05] is no other commission in the

[26:07] city that I know of that has

[26:08] designated disabled members.

[26:10] We're the only one that has to

[26:12] have disability input for

[26:15] obvious reasons. What we hear

[26:17] are appeals from any decision of

[26:19] the building department that

[26:21] relate to accessibility. So if

[26:24] an inspector decides that

[26:26] something is okay is permissible

[26:28] and a disabled person says, oh,

[26:31] I can't use it, I don't think it

[26:32] complies, they could

[26:33] theoretically appeal to us. It

[26:36] has never happened. What has

[26:37] happened is the owners and the

[26:39] tenants appealed to us over and

[26:40] over and over. And so we're

[26:41] starting with a building

[26:43] department decision and then

[26:44] trying to make something work

[26:46] that's less expensive and that

[26:49] the person can deal with as a

[26:50] reasonable accommodation, not as

[26:52] an unreasonable accommodation.

[26:56] So our scope is, is all of that.

[26:59] Why? There are 404 cases listed

[27:01] here that are where someone

[27:02] said, I want an unreasonable

[27:04] hardship determination. And

[27:05] we've only had two cases, I

[27:08] don't know. I'll also point out

[27:10] that a 404 people put that on

[27:12] the form. I'll bet there are

[27:14] another 800 who did not put it

[27:17] on the form. These forms are

[27:19] complex and difficult, and

[27:20] people have been discouraged,

[27:22] obviously, from coming to us

[27:25] because we seem to be short 402

[27:28] cases. Thank you. And then you

[27:30] talked about this process that

[27:32] you laid out for this particular

[27:34] piece of legislation being more

[27:35] cumbersome. Do you have examples

[27:43] or of other of less stringent?

[27:47] Of other what am I saying? What

[27:48] are the processes that came

[27:49] before you before that maybe

[27:53] didn't require as many

[27:54] professionals being involved?

[27:56] Are there other processes that

[27:58] you think that could be

[28:00] replicated? Well, our bylaws

[28:02] don't require any professional

[28:05] input. An owner or a tenant can

[28:08] simply appear before us and

[28:11] bring handwritten drawings and

[28:13] testify in their own behalf. And

[28:15] sometimes that's very effective,

[28:17] because a one person who owns a

[28:20] two person shop that's 500ft!S is

[28:22] pretty hard to say no to,

[28:24] whereas their lawyer or their

[28:25] architect or their casp, that's

[28:27] a professional. We like to argue

[28:32] with them a little more. So our

[28:33] requirement is not that we have

[28:35] all of this, and I'd like to see

[28:37] where we can pull that back. I

[28:38] mean, I have we have other

[28:40] suggestions too. I didn't go

[28:41] through them with you because

[28:42] you've already made your

[28:43] decision. So now we're trying to

[28:45] talk with the board about making

[28:48] changes, and I believe they will

[28:51] because we're engaged in useful

[28:59] discussions. Could you email

[29:00] your bylaws to the commission

[29:02] secretary, or do we have a copy

[29:04] of those bylaws? I believe we

[29:06] do. Could you provide those to

[29:08] the commission? Thank you. Any

[29:10] other questions? Yeah. I'm ready

[29:14] now for the gentleman. Question

[29:16] for you. So, you know, I'm on a

[29:18] particular corridor often, and

[29:20] we have a lot of those nail

[29:22] salons you refer to and those

[29:23] beauty salons that are 400,

[29:25] 500ft!S. Many of them have one

[29:27] step up. You know, when they

[29:30] built a transit line down the

[29:31] corridor, I don't know why they

[29:32] didn't level up the whole

[29:33] sidewalks. They didn't. But, you

[29:35] know, another story for another

[29:37] day. A lot of these small

[29:38] businesses, there's they're just

[29:40] not going to, you know, they're

[29:42] just hoping nobody's going to

[29:43] rat them out or nobody's going

[29:45] to be, you know, the drive bys

[29:47] and stuff. What I did and I

[29:49] worked with, I think several

[29:51] people through dbi, is to get

[29:52] information out to these small

[29:54] businesses that, you know, you

[29:56] had to get a casp inspection

[29:57] that was like everybody said,

[29:58] you had to get a casp

[29:59] inspection. That's just what we

[30:01] were told. And that's what I

[30:03] told everybody is you had to get

[30:04] a casp inspection. Many didn't

[30:06] because they saw they had to

[30:08] pay. We did have a grant program

[30:09] at one time where we covered up

[30:11] to like ten people, but there

[30:12] were still far more than ten.

[30:14] The problem or the challenge now

[30:16] that I'm hearing is that you're

[30:19] right on that casp inspection. I

[30:20] don't ever remember seeing

[30:23] anything about an opportunity to

[30:25] appeal or an opportunity to, you

[30:27] know, have your not day in

[30:29] court, if you will. I mean, who

[30:30] wants to, you know, if you've

[30:32] got two steps leading up to your

[30:34] doorway and you know that you,

[30:36] the nail salon owner and I've

[30:37] worked on some of these

[30:39] projects, I mean, they can run

[30:41] north of 25,000, up to 100,000

[30:43] to get that, you know, sidewalk

[30:44] level. They're not going to, you

[30:47] know, they're not motivated to

[30:48] try to fix the issue. The

[30:50] landlord's not going to do it

[30:52] unless, you know, they're

[30:53] compelled to do it. So I guess

[30:55] what I'm getting at is where did

[30:57] we MISS, you know, from the casp

[30:59] inspection that I was asking

[31:01] everyone to fill out? Not

[31:03] everybody did. What did we MISS?

[31:05] I'm like. I mean, you're telling

[31:07] me this is the way I'm hearing

[31:09] this is this was a much simpler

[31:11] process than what we were

[31:12] rolling out to the small

[31:14] businesses. And I feel like I

[31:15] missed something here that I

[31:17] have to go back to these, some

[31:18] of these businesses and say,

[31:20] hey, you still have and tell me

[31:22] if I'm wrong. You still have to

[31:23] get a casp inspection. No matter

[31:25] what. You have to have a cast.

[31:27] It all starts with that casp.

[31:28] And then and it goes from there.

[31:30] well, the code actually says it

[31:32] can be a licensed professional.

[31:33] It can be an architect and

[31:35] engineer or a casp or certified

[31:38] casp. I don't know which is

[31:42] cheaper or easier to do. Our

[31:44] most recent case, which is now

[31:46] many months ago, was a place

[31:49] where the appellant said, well,

[31:50] to fix the sidewalk, we'd have

[31:53] to spend $70,000. And we said,

[31:55] don't fix the sidewalk. It's

[31:58] very simple. They improved the

[31:59] doorway. They made some other

[32:02] improvements. And we just said,

[32:03] don't do that. One advantage of

[32:04] the appeals commission. The law

[32:06] is a blunt instrument. It's all

[32:07] black and white, and you can't

[32:09] change it from minute to minute.

[32:10] We're an appeals body. We hear

[32:12] individual cases and we have

[32:15] somebody say $70,000 is out of

[32:16] our range. It'll never happen.

[32:18] We said, right, don't do it, but

[32:21] do do these things. And so they

[32:22] improved the doorway, but they

[32:24] did not do the sidewalk work.

[32:26] The biggest impediment here

[32:29] probably is public works. Public

[32:31] works is pretty rigid about

[32:33] preserving the public right of

[32:36] way exactly as it exists. And

[32:38] it's very expensive to do that,

[32:39] especially if you have a if

[32:41] you're a private owner, you're

[32:42] responsible for your sidewalk,

[32:45] but you don't. It's the city has

[32:47] the right and we've had case

[32:49] after case where we have gone

[32:50] months with public works. And I

[32:52] think one of the things we're

[32:54] going to suggest is some way to

[32:57] reduce that whole sidewalk

[33:00] condition and either move the

[33:01] responsibility to the city who

[33:03] MAY choose not to fix it, or in

[33:06] some other way, reduce the role

[33:07] of public works. Because public

[33:09] works, I mean, I understand what

[33:10] they're trying to do, and it

[33:12] works great if you're the bank

[33:14] of america, but it doesn't work

[33:15] very well if you're running a

[33:17] nail salon. And that's the

[33:18] biggest change that probably we

[33:21] would have happen is to reduce

[33:23] the role of public works

[33:25] planning. Also, there are many

[33:26] steps just in the planning

[33:28] department review, and I don't

[33:29] quite understand that either. I

[33:30] think both of those could be

[33:33] collapsed somewhat. Okay, just

[33:35] my last comment is I just wish

[33:36] this could be maybe repackaged

[33:39] and reintroduced to the business

[33:41] owners that have not complied. I

[33:43] think most that haven't. I my

[33:45] opinion that most that haven't

[33:46] complied just are hoping that

[33:48] nobody notices that they, you

[33:49] know, and I don't blame them

[33:51] because I have personally seen

[33:53] that $70,000 sidewalk repair.

[33:55] And I've seen the $30,000 front

[33:57] entrance door, door, well, you

[34:00] know, expanded. And I think most

[34:01] are just hoping that they don't

[34:03] get, you know, and we've had the

[34:05] drive by, you know, we've had

[34:06] all that the drive by lawsuits.

[34:08] We've had it. So I just I just

[34:09] kind of wish there was another

[34:11] way to repackage this without

[34:13] all the, as you say, all the

[34:15] terms and all the, the, the

[34:15] conditions and the regulations

[34:16] and all the, the things you

[34:17] need, the processes that you

[34:19] need to do. Maybe there's just

[34:21] something simple as to just, you

[34:22] know, get, get the inspection

[34:24] and then go right to you. So

[34:26] I'll stop there. I appreciate

[34:29] you a lot. I thank you. There

[34:40] is. The. Go ahead. So I guess my

[34:42] question and my thinking and the

[34:44] reason that I had concerns about

[34:44] the structure of this

[34:46] legislation. And I think that

[34:48] the stats that two thirds of the

[34:50] ones who are considered

[34:52] compliant are exempt or waived

[34:55] proves kind of the point that

[34:57] this is an expensive. Well,

[35:00] let's presume that the last 15%

[35:03] 10% are exempt or waived, and

[35:06] 5%, you know, will have to come

[35:08] into some kind of compliance.

[35:10] And maybe it's a bigger

[35:11] percentage. I'm just wondering,

[35:13] like, is it better to just have

[35:15] categorical exemptions? Like, if

[35:18] you're this size, then you are

[35:20] exempt because you're probably

[35:22] going to be exempt anyways based

[35:24] on our understanding of two

[35:25] thirds of the people who have

[35:27] gone through the process are

[35:28] already exempt. It just seems

[35:30] like it's an expensive mandate

[35:32] when most a clear majority are

[35:33] are exempt. And I'm wondering if

[35:36] you have thinking based on your

[35:38] understanding of, you know, who

[35:41] who are you almost guaranteed to

[35:43] exempt? Can we put that into the

[35:45] legislation and then focus on

[35:46] the folks who really need to

[35:48] come into compliance? Because I

[35:50] do think it's an it's an

[35:51] expensive burden. If we know

[35:53] that the clear majority have to

[35:54] just come in and prove that

[35:55] they're exempt or are going to

[35:56] be waived. Well, let me point

[35:58] out that the architect, the

[35:59] female architect who testified

[36:01] before you at the last meeting,

[36:03] came up to us during the break

[36:04] and said we were never I was

[36:06] never told that I could how I

[36:08] could apply for an unreasonable

[36:10] accommodation. So she had this

[36:12] great complaint to you. And as

[36:13] soon as she heard that we

[36:15] existed and what we do, she

[36:16] said, oh, I was never informed

[36:18] of that. So right away the

[36:19] process just is broken. It just

[36:23] doesn't work at all. Coming up

[36:26] with categories that are sort of

[36:28] sub accessible is obviously a

[36:31] touchy thing to do. And I think

[36:32] that's to be discussed. You

[36:33] know, how we would handle

[36:35] sidewalks exactly is important,

[36:38] how to handle power door when

[36:40] there's no side strike

[36:43] clearance. We need to discuss if

[36:45] we simply said any business

[36:48] under 500ft!S is exempt. There

[36:49] are probably times when they

[36:51] could make it accessible by

[36:52] spending a few hundred dollars.

[36:54] And so I hate to give those up.

[36:55] I'd like to actually look at

[36:57] some cases. What we haven't done

[36:59] is see any cases and the ones

[37:01] that have been wavered, or the

[37:03] ones that have applied for

[37:04] unreasonable hardship. I'd like

[37:06] to do a little spot check of

[37:07] those and say, okay, what are

[37:09] the problems? And can we find

[37:11] some sort of categorical way to

[37:12] reduce that? The other thing is

[37:14] that the city could provide more

[37:16] help. You know, we are as as

[37:16] henry elowitz pointed out, we're

[37:18] the only city that's doing this.

[37:20] And he said, therefore, that's

[37:21] bad. And I'm saying, therefore,

[37:21] that's great because san

[37:23] francisco has always been a

[37:25] leader. We always do this stuff

[37:26] first. If we make it work, other

[37:28] cities will then make it work.

[37:31] If we let it fail, it dies. The

[37:34] city could. City is going to

[37:35] hire a casp, right? What if you

[37:37] have that casp available to

[37:40] people who need some consulting,

[37:42] who have drawings and

[37:43] photographs and they say, how

[37:46] big a job is this? Couldn't a

[37:47] city person help them to do

[37:50] that? Also, osb has this $10,000

[37:52] grant. I don't know how much was

[37:54] in the fund, but I'm reading it.

[37:56] I noticed that the grant is only

[38:00] available to. It is not

[38:02] available to owners. It's

[38:04] available to the tenant, the

[38:06] business operator. But arnie

[38:08] testified last time that of 197

[38:10] cases he's worked on, the vast

[38:12] majority were being handled by

[38:14] the owner. So your loan program

[38:16] doesn't apply to the very people

[38:17] who would benefit from it. Now,

[38:19] I understand they own a

[38:20] building, they have real

[38:21] property. And so maybe there's

[38:23] some reason to stay away from

[38:24] them. But I'd say no, that's

[38:27] wrong. Many of these are also

[38:31] small property owners. I'd love

[38:33] to give you some more details as

[38:35] it develops and see what we can

[38:39] come up with. MR. Williams. So

[38:43] earlier you stated of the steps

[38:45] in the process you would

[38:49] eliminate half of them. Identify

[38:52] which steps you'd eliminate. No,

[38:56] I don't think I said it's you

[38:58] know, a part of it is technical.

[38:59] What what how much information

[39:00] can we get? 80% of the

[39:02] information with 20% of the

[39:04] effort or with 75% of the effort

[39:07] I'd be happy with. But it's also

[39:09] very political. The public works

[39:11] is not going to want to hear us

[39:15] say, forget about sidewalks and,

[39:18] you know, so on. So that's.

[39:20] Yeah, we'll we'll write them

[39:21] down. We'll make it possible for

[39:22] everybody to discuss them. But

[39:24] right now I don't want to come

[39:29] to any conclusions about it. I'm

[39:32] curious what the relationship is

[39:34] between the determinations made

[39:36] by your board and then the

[39:39] federal ada law. If you all

[39:41] grant an unreasonable hardship,

[39:45] or you come up with some sort of

[39:47] equivalent accessibility, would

[39:50] the small business still be at

[39:52] risk to like a civil like

[39:54] federal lawsuit, though? No

[39:56] matter what we do, that's the

[39:57] case. The building department

[40:00] does not enforce the ada. The

[40:01] building department enforces the

[40:02] building code. So then, wouldn't

[40:04] small businesses be lulled into

[40:06] a sense of like, oh, we're safe,

[40:08] but they could. They're still at

[40:11] risk, right? The way the federal

[40:13] law is written, it's not really

[40:16] enforced locally by people like

[40:19] you. It relies on the right of

[40:20] private action. And so a

[40:21] disabled person can file a

[40:23] lawsuit. So then we get at some

[40:24] point somebody realizes we can

[40:26] make an industry out of this by

[40:28] driving by and just sending a

[40:29] letter and getting $10,000 cash

[40:31] with no remedy. They don't they

[40:32] don't require that it be fixed.

[40:34] They just require they get the

[40:35] 10,000 bucks. So that's

[40:37] horrendous. On the other hand, a

[40:39] disabled person who lives in the

[40:41] neighborhood probably is never

[40:43] going to try to go through the

[40:43] complaint process because they

[40:46] don't know how it would work.

[40:48] But inherent in katie's original

[40:52] law is that we cannot absolutely

[40:53] protect people from an ada

[40:55] lawsuit because we don't control

[40:58] that. What we can do is say that

[40:59] you have made good faith efforts

[41:00] to provide accessibility, and

[41:02] when you are hearing an ada

[41:04] case, the federal courts take

[41:06] into consideration good faith

[41:09] efforts. Most people make no

[41:10] efforts whatsoever, and that's

[41:12] why they get sued. In this case,

[41:14] they can say, well, I got a

[41:15] certification from the city that

[41:17] says, I'm good enough given my

[41:19] size. And should they be sued? I

[41:21] think that's a that's a defense.

[41:24] But no, there's no absolute

[41:26] defense because of this. Yeah.

[41:34] Thank you. Thank you. I'll just

[41:38] make a comment that in general,

[41:38] I'm very supportive of the idea,

[41:38] especially for folks who are

[41:40] going to get a waiver or an

[41:42] exemption, that there is some

[41:43] kind of other good faith effort.

[41:45] Right? Like, I would love to see

[41:48] an amendment or changes that

[41:51] improve accessibility in some

[41:52] way or another. And you gave

[41:54] many examples at the last

[41:55] hearing, and I those have

[41:57] definitely stuck with me. So

[42:00] thank you for those examples. I

[42:02] think that we can do I think the

[42:04] department can do a better job

[42:07] of informing people that this

[42:13] exists. It's a difficult thing

[42:15] for the for the department

[42:17] enforces black and white law

[42:20] rules. And then there's a, an

[42:23] appeals board that has much a

[42:26] larger has more discretion. But

[42:28] I think that the you know, we

[42:29] can think about, you know,

[42:32] working with the department on

[42:34] educational efforts. But I think

[42:37] the idea like the policy, I

[42:40] think can be hopefully amended

[42:42] if that's where you guys are

[42:44] going with to really kind of

[42:46] reflect the full like your, your

[42:49] team's full thinking about what

[42:53] is accessibility and build those

[42:56] things in so that folks aren't

[42:58] like small businesses, aren't

[43:00] spending tens of thousands of

[43:02] dollars just to get a waiver

[43:03] signed. Right. Like, that's I

[43:04] don't think anyone thinks that

[43:05] that's a good a good process.

[43:08] And I and I appreciate your kind

[43:10] of seeing both sides of, of

[43:12] this, of this issue and wanting

[43:15] to, to make it smoother for, for

[43:17] small business owners. Almost

[43:19] never do we tell an appellant,

[43:21] okay, just go home. We always

[43:23] get some access out of it. We

[43:24] always improve the level of

[43:26] access. And let me also remind

[43:28] you, access does not trigger

[43:29] access. So if you get a permit

[43:31] to change the bathroom you MAY

[43:33] have to do the path of travel.

[43:35] But if you get a permit to fix

[43:36] the front door, that doesn't

[43:37] trigger anything else. So what

[43:39] we agree on is what they have to

[43:40] do. They've made their good

[43:43] faith effort. And we always get

[43:44] some kind of improved access. If

[43:46] it's only a doorbell to let

[43:48] people know, okay, I can't get

[43:49] up the eight flights of the

[43:51] eight steps. And also we can't

[43:53] fix the eight steps, but we know

[43:54] you're here and we'll come to

[43:56] you. That's the simplest. There

[43:57] are other, you know, automatic

[43:58] door openers when there's no

[43:59] side strike. There are many

[44:01] other ways that people can do

[44:03] something less than the code

[44:05] would prefer. Interestingly,

[44:07] we're not bound by the code when

[44:10] we make an agreement. That's our

[44:12] agreement. So we can be a little

[44:14] bit creative. And nobody has.

[44:16] The only appeal after us is a

[44:19] court case, and nobody's ever

[44:25] challenged one of our decisions.

[44:29] Okay. Other questions. Thank

[44:32] you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank

[44:37] you. Yes. My name is arnie

[44:40] lerner. I'm also a member of the

[44:41] access appeals commission. I'm

[44:45] an architect. The one words that

[44:48] I haven't heard anybody say at

[44:52] all is. What walter was just

[44:54] referring to in terms of when

[44:55] there was steps and somebody had

[44:57] a doorbell. And the words are

[45:00] curbside service. If you go to

[45:03] the to the access to the justice

[45:06] department's website about the

[45:07] ada, you'll find that they have

[45:08] a number of publications that

[45:10] they have put together just for

[45:12] small businesses. And one of the

[45:14] things they talk about is

[45:16] something called curbside

[45:18] service, something that I've

[45:19] used a number of times. A

[45:21] restaurant's up on the second

[45:25] floor. There was a yogurt frozen

[45:27] yogurt place on on market street

[45:29] that had a step. And we weren't

[45:30] going to change all of market

[45:32] street. So we put in that

[45:34] doorbell and we put in a little

[45:35] so they could then ring somebody

[45:37] to come out and take their order

[45:38] and, and give them that, that

[45:40] ice cream on the, on the

[45:43] sidewalk. There are all kinds of

[45:46] alternatives in terms of the

[45:50] unreasonable hardship. Regina

[45:51] andrizzi, who was the director

[45:54] of the office of small business

[45:57] back in 2018, produced this

[45:59] paper about dealing with

[46:00] unreasonable hardships that I'd

[46:02] like to give to you so that

[46:03] maybe you can make copies,

[46:05] because I think some really

[46:07] smart things in here that she

[46:09] talked about that could help the

[46:11] department in terms of dealing

[46:13] with that. So anyway, I just

[46:15] wanted to throw those two things

[46:21] out there. Thank you. Yeah. Good

[46:22] morning. My name is jerry

[46:25] dratler. I'd like to talk about

[46:28] meeting disclosure. So if you go

[46:31] to the dbi and you google dbi

[46:33] meeting calendar for DECEMBER,

[46:40] it's blank. So that's not

[46:41] acceptable. Thank you. You're

[46:46] welcome. Not sure about that

[46:48] item, but just to clarify that

[46:50] our meetings are publicly

[46:53] noticed and on the website and

[46:55] available. But I'll look into

[46:57] that issue. Make sure we're in

[46:59] compliance. Thank you. Okay.

[47:01] Thank you. We're on to the next

[47:04] item. Item five update regarding

[47:06] the status of current technical

[47:08] services division, or tsd

[47:18] programs.

[47:20] Hello again, mary wilkinson

[47:22] church, department of building

[47:25] inspection. So I'm here today to

[47:27] provide a quick update on our

[47:28] compliance programs that are

[47:30] part of our tech technical

[47:33] services division. So dbi

[47:37] compliance programs, they many

[47:39] of these or they have been

[47:41] amended into the building code

[47:42] by the board of supervisors and

[47:45] the mayor. They are administered

[47:47] by permit services technical

[47:51] services division. Currently we

[47:54] have the soft story program,

[47:55] accessible business entrance

[47:57] program, facade inspection and

[48:00] maintenance program, and we also

[48:04] have the borp program.

[48:05] Additionally, in the future, we

[48:07] foresee having the concrete

[48:10] building seismic evaluation

[48:13] program. So for the soft story

[48:15] program, this requires the

[48:17] seismic retrofitting of all wood

[48:19] frame structures with five or

[48:21] more residential units having

[48:24] two or more stories over a soft

[48:26] story and permitted for

[48:28] construction prior to 1978. So

[48:30] the final deadline for this

[48:33] program is SEPTEMBER 15th of

[48:35] 2021. So, you know, we have

[48:37] surpassed the deadline. We've

[48:39] had good compliance in the

[48:42] program. We've had 4941

[48:48] buildings in this program. As

[48:50] for a total completion rate for

[48:52] the compliance process, we've

[48:55] met a completion rate of 94%,

[48:58] and that is 4648 buildings that

[49:04] have complied 293 buildings, or

[49:08] 6% of the total buildings, are

[49:10] out of compliance. So 30 of

[49:12] those have not applied for a

[49:15] permit, 44 have applied for a

[49:17] permit, but have yet to obtain

[49:21] that permit, 174 have been

[49:22] issued a permit but have not

[49:27] completed the work. That's part

[49:28] of that retrofit. And then we

[49:30] have 45 that have not completed

[49:31] their certificate, certificate

[49:33] of final completion yet. So

[49:35] they've completed the work, but

[49:36] they have not gotten to the

[49:38] point where they've been able to

[49:41] actually close the permit. So

[49:43] for the for the next program,

[49:45] the accessible business entrance

[49:46] program, we've had some

[49:48] discussion about that already

[49:50] today. The final deadline for

[49:53] that program is SEPTEMBER 29th

[49:58] of 25. In this program, we have

[50:02] 23,533 buildings, 19,596

[50:04] buildings, or 83% of the

[50:06] buildings have started or

[50:07] completed the compliance

[50:12] process. 3937 buildings, or 17%

[50:15] we have not received response,

[50:20] and then 958 buildings, or 4%

[50:23] exceptions have been requested,

[50:27] so 554 buildings, technical

[50:28] infeasibility. So there's

[50:31] actually a structural limitation

[50:34] that creates the noncompliance

[50:38] issue. 378 have requested on the

[50:40] checklist a financial hardship,

[50:42] but have not necessarily applied

[50:43] for a permit to go through the

[50:47] steps for the appeal. And then

[50:49] 26 qualified for both the

[50:52] technical and feasibility or and

[50:53] a financial hardship. And in

[50:55] that case, the technical

[50:57] infeasibility would prevent the

[51:00] need for appeal. The facade

[51:02] inspection and maintenance

[51:07] program is it requires the

[51:08] exterior of all buildings that

[51:11] are five or more storeys tall to

[51:13] be regularly inspected by a

[51:15] california licensed architect or

[51:17] engineer. The reporting

[51:20] deadlines are are staggered, and

[51:24] they are between 1231 of 21 and

[51:27] 1231 of 32, and there are

[51:29] ongoing requirements for that

[51:34] program. 1791 buildings in the

[51:37] comprehensive program of five

[51:42] stories or more, 328 started or

[51:44] completed comprehensive

[51:46] compliance process. That's an

[51:53] overall percentage of 18%, 1548

[51:54] or 82%. The deadline has not

[51:57] passed or they they are not out

[52:01] of compliance for their

[52:04] comprehensive program, 255

[52:06] buildings are also in the

[52:08] supplemental program. This

[52:09] program includes buildings that

[52:14] are 15 stories or more, 38 or

[52:18] 15% started or completed the

[52:19] supplemental compliance process,

[52:23] and then 217 or 85%. The

[52:25] deadline has not passed, or they

[52:27] are not out of compliance for

[52:31] their supplemental program. So

[52:33] for the future, what we foresee

[52:35] coming down the pike and we have

[52:40] been working as a team with the

[52:47] department of. I just lost the

[52:49] name of the department, but we

[52:53] have been working with the

[52:59] department of. Excuse me. The

[53:03] department that is working on

[53:06] the earthquake program directly.

[53:09] I will think of it, the office

[53:12] of mandelman. Correct? Yes, yes.

[53:14] Thank you so much. Sorry about

[53:15] that. So we've been working dbi

[53:17] has been working with the office

[53:21] of. Resilient resiliency through

[53:26] the earthquake program screening.

[53:28] And mayor breed has issued an

[53:31] executive director to draft

[53:33] legislation mandating screening

[53:35] of concrete buildings for

[53:38] seismic vulnerabilities and to

[53:39] publish retrofit standards in

[53:42] the san francisco building code.

[53:44] So the deadline for this was

[53:46] ten, 16, 24. Drafts are

[53:50] completed for both both the

[53:50] standards and also the draft for

[53:54] the legislation. The pending

[53:56] these two drafts are pending.

[53:58] Introduction to the board of

[54:01] supervisors. And we foresee that

[54:02] that will be introduced in the

[54:04] new year. And then the program

[54:06] will the screening portion of

[54:08] the program will go into effect,

[54:15] most likely in summer of 2025.

[54:19] Thank you. Thank you. We'll call

[54:20] for public comment. And then the

[54:21] commissioners will do their

[54:23] question and answer. Thank you.

[54:26] So is there a public comment on

[54:30] item five? Is there any any

[54:33] remotely seeing. None.

[54:35] Commissioners have any questions

[54:36] on this or comments on this

[54:41] item. Thank you. MISS MISS

[54:44] church or yes yes please. You

[54:49] can you can come back up mary. I

[54:52] was curious. So you're how does

[54:56] your your division refer out of

[54:59] compliance or buildings that are

[55:01] not are non-compliant. Do you

[55:02] refer them to code enforcement

[55:03] or how does enforcement work. Is

[55:05] that performed within your

[55:06] division or does that get

[55:08] referred out to inspectors. So

[55:09] it is referred to code

[55:14] enforcement when the when a

[55:15] building is established to be

[55:17] out of compliance. Actually,

[55:18] we've been working directly with

[55:22] code enforcement on a way to

[55:24] make some alterations to our

[55:26] existing permitting system where

[55:28] we can actually flag code

[55:30] enforcement when that happens.

[55:32] So we've been making some MISS

[55:33] Changes in our existing

[55:34] permitting system, and we've

[55:37] been working with mauricio from

[55:40] code enforcement, and we're

[55:42] getting there. And we hope to

[55:44] actually see that in place by

[55:45] JANUARY. But it's going to be

[55:47] really helpful because it will

[55:50] be rather than sort of, you

[55:53] know, a referral via an excel

[55:54] spreadsheet. It will be

[55:55] something that automatically

[55:57] flags the inspectors, and they

[55:59] can see the compliance history

[56:00] on the building before they go

[56:02] out into the field to perform

[56:03] their inspections. That's great.

[56:05] Thank you. Do you happen to know

[56:06] how many notices of violation

[56:08] have been issued on any of these

[56:10] divisions or any of these

[56:15] programs? Let me see. Let me

[56:25] have that information. If you

[56:27] don't, we can maybe get that

[56:28] through the director at a later

[56:30] time. Yeah, we can get them for

[56:32] you for sure. Yeah, I can get

[56:34] that information to you. I'm not

[56:36] sure that I did bring it with me

[56:37] today. No problem. Okay. All

[56:39] right. I have a question for you

[56:40] as well. I was wondering if

[56:43] there's some kind of balcony

[56:45] inspection and maintenance

[56:51] program. Because I feel like a

[56:53] lot of times I'm just thinking

[56:54] of the accident that happened in

[56:57] berkeley. I think it was

[56:58] semi-recently. And so because of

[56:59] that accident, I know berkeley

[57:02] started a I think they I don't

[57:04] know what the status is, but I

[57:05] think they're starting like a

[57:06] balcony maintenance program. And

[57:07] it seems like for balconies,

[57:10] these have been sort of after a

[57:11] tragedy happens. And so I'm

[57:14] wondering if maybe as part of

[57:15] the facade inspection, there

[57:17] should be an offshoot to

[57:18] balconies. I don't know if this

[57:20] is the proper forum to talk

[57:22] about this, but just hearing you

[57:23] speak about the facade

[57:24] inspection made me think about

[57:25] balconies as part of that, you

[57:28] know, can we have a new piece of

[57:30] legislation so we can have matt

[57:33] green address that one for you?

[57:35] Yeah. So there's in the san

[57:36] francisco housing code, there's

[57:37] existing requirement that every

[57:40] five years the appendages for

[57:41] residential buildings must be

[57:43] inspected. And there's submit a

[57:44] report to the department.

[57:46] There's also some state law

[57:48] requirements that we're trying

[57:50] to wrap into that housing code

[57:51] requirement. But I could prepare

[57:53] a more detailed report for that

[57:55] if you want, in a future

[58:02] meeting. All right. Thank you.

[58:03] Any further questions or

[58:06] comments? I have one more

[58:08] question. I don't know which of

[58:11] these microphones you hear. I

[58:13] okay, well, if you can hear me,

[58:15] that's all that matters. I so we

[58:17] just had this conversation about

[58:21] the appeals and how I'm curious

[58:23] about how materials get sent out

[58:24] about compliance for these

[58:25] programs. Are people aware of

[58:27] appeals processes? Is that a is

[58:29] there an appeals process for

[58:31] each of these programs? And just

[58:32] if you could speak a little bit

[58:34] to that, especially with some of

[58:35] these programs already, their

[58:37] due dates have their compliance

[58:39] dates have passed. So I'm

[58:41] wondering like have people

[58:43] appealed? How do we get those

[58:46] last that last percentage into

[58:48] compliance? Okay, so you're

[58:50] asking about all the programs,

[58:52] whether or not there's an appeal

[58:54] process for each program. Yes.

[58:57] Okay. So we do have our

[58:58] department of building

[59:01] inspection appeals that we use

[59:04] as our general format or

[59:07] platform for appeals. The access

[59:10] appeals commission is a specific

[59:12] commission that was, you know,

[59:15] developed as part of the

[59:18] development of the ab program.

[59:20] And their appeal process is

[59:22] specific to accessibility

[59:28] appeals. Thank you. Can I

[59:30] somewhat along that lines, could

[59:32] you talk about the process for

[59:34] the exemptions requested? You

[59:36] said is there an internal

[59:39] process for granting exemptions

[59:40] for technical and feasibility or

[59:42] financial hardship. And could

[59:43] you talk about that. So

[59:46] financial hardship would be the

[59:47] unreasonable hardship. And the

[59:49] building code does not really

[59:52] speak to unreasonable hardship.

[59:56] The building code has specific

[59:57] expectations for accessibility.

[1:00:00] But of course the building code

[1:00:02] requires accessibility to come

[1:00:04] along with the improvement of a

[1:00:10] building over time. So the ab

[1:00:12] program is actually sort of it's

[1:00:14] part of our san francisco

[1:00:16] building code, but it's not part

[1:00:17] of the state building code, and

[1:00:19] it's not a requirement of state

[1:00:22] building code that if a building

[1:00:24] is not being improved, that

[1:00:26] they're required to bring the

[1:00:28] building into compliance with

[1:00:31] accessibility. So the access

[1:00:33] appeals commission does hear the

[1:00:35] unreasonable hardship requests.

[1:00:38] However, there is building code

[1:00:41] criteria for establishing a

[1:00:43] technical infeasibility. So

[1:00:44] technical and feasibility are

[1:00:46] actually determined within the

[1:00:48] department as part of the plan

[1:00:51] review process. Thank you. And

[1:00:54] the we heard, do you know and if

[1:00:55] you don't have it with you

[1:00:58] that's to be that's that's fine.

[1:01:01] But we saw the public comment

[1:01:04] that approximately two thirds of

[1:01:08] the 83% that are compliant in

[1:01:10] compliance were either waived or

[1:01:12] sought to be exempt. Do you

[1:01:14] know, can you verify that or do

[1:01:17] you do you have any information

[1:01:18] to collaborate? I would have to

[1:01:20] confirm that. Take a look at the

[1:01:21] data. Yeah, that'd be that'd be

[1:01:23] helpful if we can get that to

[1:01:25] the director. Thank you. I'll be

[1:01:27] happy to do that. Thank you so

[1:01:28] much. I have no further

[1:01:29] questions. Anybody else? Thank

[1:01:30] you so much for your

[1:01:32] presentations. Thank you. Our

[1:01:34] next item is item six.

[1:01:35] Director's report six a

[1:01:41] director's update. Good morning.

[1:01:43] It's good morning, PRESIDENT

[1:01:44] Biden administration. Members of

[1:01:45] the moderna's vaccine. I'm

[1:01:47] patrick o'riordan, director of

[1:01:48] the department of building

[1:01:50] inspection. First, I'd like to

[1:01:52] thank PRESIDENT Alexander and

[1:01:54] the other commissioners who

[1:01:56] joined us this morning for our

[1:01:57] all hands, both remotely and in

[1:02:01] person. Twice a year, we get all

[1:02:03] our staff together for an hour

[1:02:04] to acknowledge new and long

[1:02:06] tenured employees, discuss

[1:02:08] changes at the department,

[1:02:10] provide updates on our strategic

[1:02:12] plan, and share data on how we

[1:02:16] are performing. So many of our

[1:02:17] employees are in the field or

[1:02:19] working directly with customers,

[1:02:20] that these meetings are really

[1:02:22] our chance to get together,

[1:02:24] learn about each other's work,

[1:02:27] and really understand the impact

[1:02:29] of the improvements that we're

[1:02:43] making.

[1:02:44] If you weren't able to make it

[1:02:47] this time, I hope you will join

[1:02:48] us for the next meeting in the

[1:02:50] spring. Last, I want to thank

[1:02:51] you, commissioners, for your

[1:02:53] support and dedication to our

[1:02:55] department and to the city. Your

[1:02:57] willingness to dedicate your

[1:02:59] time, energy and intelligence to

[1:03:03] overseeing dbi is welcome and

[1:03:04] appreciated. From your tough

[1:03:06] questions to your thoughtful

[1:03:07] discussions, to your ongoing

[1:03:09] support for our efforts to

[1:03:10] improve the department, you push

[1:03:13] us to be better. And for that,

[1:03:16] we're deeply grateful. Thank

[1:03:18] you. Happy holidays from all of

[1:03:20] us at dbi. We look forward to

[1:03:22] working with you in the new

[1:03:24] year. And that almost concludes

[1:03:27] my report, because I just wanted

[1:03:29] to mention orp is the office of

[1:03:31] resilience and capital planning.

[1:03:34] It's a cross-departmental agency

[1:03:38] that that that focuses on

[1:03:40] resilience in the both

[1:03:42] infrastructure and in housing in

[1:03:43] the city. So just I'm sure

[1:03:46] you're aware of that, but I just

[1:03:48] thought I'd mention it. So that

[1:03:52] does conclude my report. Okay.

[1:03:56] Thank you. Next is item six b

[1:04:14] update on major projects.

[1:04:19] We have the deck. It's showing

[1:04:22] here. Sfgov. Can we get that?

[1:04:24] Thank you. There there there

[1:04:25] there it is. And good morning

[1:04:26] again, commissioners. The

[1:04:28] following slides are intended to

[1:04:29] highlight the volume and

[1:04:31] valuation of projects costing 5

[1:04:33] million or more that have been

[1:04:34] filed, issued or completed in

[1:04:37] the past month. We will profile

[1:04:38] a few projects that bring

[1:04:40] especially high value in terms

[1:04:42] of their contribution to both

[1:04:47] housing and community assets. In

[1:04:50] NOVEMBER of 2024, seven permit

[1:04:51] applications with an estimated

[1:04:54] construction value of 5 million

[1:04:57] or more were filed with dbi. One

[1:04:59] application was for a new three

[1:05:01] story office building for the

[1:05:04] new southeast treatment plant at

[1:05:06] 750 phelps street that was

[1:05:09] valued at 75 million. Another

[1:05:11] was for the new carpenters union

[1:05:14] hall at 3430 three third street,

[1:05:20] that was valued at 15.6 million.

[1:05:21] Last month we issued one high

[1:05:24] value permit. It was for the

[1:05:25] conversion of the hearst

[1:05:28] building at five third street to

[1:05:30] a hotel. The valuation of that

[1:05:35] project is $53.3 million. And

[1:05:37] lastly, dbi filed two high value

[1:05:39] permits. One was for a medical

[1:05:42] office tenant improvement at

[1:05:44] 1635 divisadero street, which

[1:05:47] was valued at $8.9 million, and

[1:05:49] the other was for a new

[1:05:52] preschool facility at 333

[1:05:54] dolores street that was valued

[1:06:00] at $7.5 million. Thank you.

[1:06:03] Thank you. Thank you. Next we

[1:06:05] have item six c update on

[1:06:06] proposed or recently enacted

[1:06:22] state or local legislation.

[1:06:24] Thank you. Morning. PRESIDENT

[1:06:25] Alexander. Commission members.

[1:06:27] Ted hanna, legislative affairs

[1:06:28] manager. It should be a

[1:06:31] relatively quick update given

[1:06:32] the legislative session is

[1:06:33] wrapping up and folks are

[1:06:35] gearing up for the new year, but

[1:06:36] we can run through next slide,

[1:06:39] please. File number 241005. This

[1:06:40] is an ordinance adopting chapter

[1:06:42] six through 11 of the 2022

[1:06:44] california existing building

[1:06:45] code. We are not planning any

[1:06:47] amendments for that adoption. It

[1:06:48] is being reviewed by the code

[1:06:49] advisory committee. They've seen

[1:06:51] this twice now but are asking

[1:06:52] for additional time. And so

[1:06:53] we're willing to grant that,

[1:06:55] have it go through the

[1:06:56] subcommittees before it reaches

[1:06:58] you all for additional review.

[1:06:59] Next slide please. Next is file

[1:07:01] number 240982. This is an

[1:07:02] ordinance amending the building,

[1:07:03] administrative and public works

[1:07:05] codes to remove the local

[1:07:05] requirement for existing

[1:07:07] buildings with a place of public

[1:07:08] accommodation to have all

[1:07:08] primary entries and passive

[1:07:10] travel into the building

[1:07:11] accessible to persons with

[1:07:13] disabilities, or to receive a

[1:07:13] city. Determination of

[1:07:14] equivalent facilitation,

[1:07:15] technical infeasibility or

[1:07:17] unreasonable hardship. This is

[1:07:18] the av reform ordinance that

[1:07:20] we've been discussing that you

[1:07:21] all reviewed back on NOVEMBER

[1:07:23] 20th. Next slide please. And the

[1:07:25] last local ordinance is file

[1:07:27] number 241067. This is an

[1:07:28] ordinance allowing interim

[1:07:30] housing in hotels and motels

[1:07:32] without requiring a change of

[1:07:34] use or use classification. This

[1:07:36] is also reviewed by you all and

[1:07:38] approved unanimously on NOVEMBER

[1:07:40] 20th. Next slide please. And

[1:07:41] then the state legislative

[1:07:43] calendar on JANUARY 1st, unless

[1:07:45] otherwise indicated within a

[1:07:47] law, those statutes will take

[1:07:48] effect JANUARY 6th. The

[1:07:50] legislature will reconvene

[1:07:51] JANUARY 10th. The budget must be

[1:07:52] submitted by the governor. The

[1:07:54] first draft of his budget. And

[1:07:55] then by FEBRUARY 21st, bills

[1:07:57] will be introduced. And so we

[1:07:58] should have a good understanding

[1:07:59] of what's going to be pending

[1:08:01] before us. Obviously, bills can

[1:08:02] be cut and amended, and so we'll

[1:08:03] have new things throughout the

[1:08:05] legislative cycle, but we'll

[1:08:06] have a general understanding by

[1:08:07] FEBRUARY 21st. Happy to answer

[1:08:09] any questions. Thank you. Thank

[1:08:15] you. Thank you. Next is item six

[1:08:22] d update on inspection services.

[1:08:23] Good morning commissioners. I'm

[1:08:25] matthew green, deputy director

[1:08:26] for inspection services. I'm

[1:08:28] pleased to provide an update of

[1:08:29] the activities performance of

[1:08:32] the inspection services division

[1:08:35] for NOVEMBER. Next slide please.

[1:08:36] In NOVEMBER of 2024, the

[1:08:37] building, electrical and

[1:08:40] plumbing divisions conducted

[1:08:43] 9254 inspections. 91% of these

[1:08:44] inspections were conducted

[1:08:46] within two business days of the

[1:08:48] date requested by the customer.

[1:08:51] Meeting our target of 90%. Next

[1:08:53] slide. In the same month, our

[1:08:54] housing inspection services

[1:08:56] conducted 702 inspections, with

[1:08:58] 58 of them being the routine

[1:09:00] inspections of residential

[1:09:01] housing. Residential apartment

[1:09:06] building. Sorry. Next slide. The

[1:09:07] building, electrical and

[1:09:10] plumbing divisions received 415

[1:09:11] complaints. Additionally, our

[1:09:13] code enforcement division sent

[1:09:15] 102 cases onto directors

[1:09:19] hearings. Lastly, our housing

[1:09:22] inspection services received 333

[1:09:24] non life hazard complaints and

[1:09:26] responded to 88% of them within

[1:09:28] three business days for life

[1:09:29] hazard and heat complaints.

[1:09:31] Housing received 44 complaints

[1:09:34] and responded to 84% of those

[1:09:35] within one business day. Housing

[1:09:37] inspection services was also

[1:09:40] able to abate 266 cases with a

[1:09:42] notice of violation, and sent 22

[1:09:44] additional cases on to directors

[1:09:47] hearing. That concludes my

[1:09:48] report. I'm available for any

[1:09:50] questions you MAY have. Thank

[1:09:55] you. Thank you. Next we have six

[1:10:04] e update on dbi finances. Good

[1:10:05] morning commissioners. Alex

[1:10:07] koskinen, deputy director,

[1:10:08] administration. This month I

[1:10:11] have a regular financial update,

[1:10:13] some news about the budget and

[1:10:16] some other programmatic news to

[1:10:20] share with you. So we're five

[1:10:22] months of the way through the

[1:10:24] year. We will make projections

[1:10:28] in JANUARY for six months and

[1:10:30] then again at nine month. Next

[1:10:34] slide please. NOVEMBER was not

[1:10:36] our greatest month. Financially.

[1:10:38] It was a bit slower. Hopefully

[1:10:41] that is just slow winter time.

[1:10:43] And it picks up especially

[1:10:44] compared to last year. There was

[1:10:46] one very large project last

[1:10:48] year. So comparatively this

[1:10:49] NOVEMBER does not look great,

[1:10:52] but we're still on track to come

[1:10:54] in on budget by the end of the

[1:10:57] year. Next slide please.

[1:10:58] Expenditures. It's still early,

[1:11:02] but we're tracking at or below

[1:11:05] budget for expenditures. Next

[1:11:08] slide please. Again as as

[1:11:10] previously mentioned this

[1:11:11] NOVEMBER was not great. We're

[1:11:13] still at the same number of

[1:11:14] permits for the same time

[1:11:16] period, the first five months of

[1:11:17] the year as compared to last

[1:11:19] year. However, the valuation is

[1:11:22] now lower again due to one very

[1:11:25] large project. Next slide

[1:11:30] please. So I mentioned last

[1:11:31] meeting and I'll mention again.

[1:11:33] Now I'm very interested to hear

[1:11:35] feedback from all commissioners

[1:11:37] on what they would like to see

[1:11:38] for next month's budget

[1:11:40] presentations, what information

[1:11:44] they're hoping to see in order

[1:11:45] to make informed decisions in

[1:11:49] the upcoming vote, on whether to

[1:11:52] send the approved budget to the

[1:11:55] board and the mayor. Mayor's

[1:11:57] budget office has just released

[1:11:59] budget instructions for the next

[1:12:03] fiscal year. The. Among the main

[1:12:04] point in their presentation was

[1:12:07] that they are projecting a $1.5

[1:12:09] billion deficit over the next

[1:12:12] five years, and that is higher

[1:12:14] than I have seen in the past.

[1:12:15] They always project deficits and

[1:12:17] then lower expenditures to get

[1:12:19] that under control. But things

[1:12:22] seem a bit worse because the

[1:12:23] projection or the deficit has

[1:12:26] caused at least partially by

[1:12:27] lower revenue estimates. They're

[1:12:31] not projecting an overall

[1:12:33] deficit or a recession in the

[1:12:34] economy, but they're they're

[1:12:37] cautioning that recovery remains

[1:12:39] slow in san francisco. And so

[1:12:41] the general fund will not be

[1:12:45] there to bail programs out. So

[1:12:47] they have given instructions to

[1:12:50] all departments citywide that

[1:12:54] they want to see a 15% reduction

[1:12:56] to all general fund supported

[1:12:59] expenditures. And the cbo that

[1:13:02] applies to dbi cbo grants, which

[1:13:04] are dbi only general fund

[1:13:06] supported expenditures. So we

[1:13:10] were given the amount that will

[1:13:12] be in the department's budget

[1:13:15] submission. That's the $3.672

[1:13:19] million, down from the 4.32 as

[1:13:22] approved last year. There is a

[1:13:23] lot of uncertainty with the

[1:13:25] budget overall. We have a new

[1:13:26] mayor, a new administration

[1:13:29] coming in, so it remains to be

[1:13:31] seen what the new administration

[1:13:33] will do, what changes they will

[1:13:34] make in the mayor's budget

[1:13:36] office, what their priorities

[1:13:39] will be. So we have I think the

[1:13:41] whole city is in a general

[1:13:43] holding pattern. They've been

[1:13:44] told to make these reductions

[1:13:45] for now, and then we will have

[1:13:47] new conversations in the mayor's

[1:13:49] phase of the budget with the new

[1:13:53] administration. And also

[1:13:55] recently, after this

[1:13:57] presentation was developed, we

[1:13:58] learned some news about one of

[1:14:01] the cbos that I'd like to share,

[1:14:03] casa justa just cause one of the

[1:14:06] smaller psyop program cbos has

[1:14:09] let us know that they will close

[1:14:11] permanently and cease operations

[1:14:13] very soon, DECEMBER 20th. So

[1:14:16] we're meeting with them to

[1:14:17] determine what that means, what

[1:14:19] the impacts are. Are they

[1:14:23] shutting down all services or

[1:14:26] exactly what that means for the

[1:14:28] services they provide, and

[1:14:33] exploring options for how to how

[1:14:35] to ensure that the service

[1:14:38] continues to be provided. And

[1:14:40] that's it. I'd be happy to

[1:14:43] answer any questions. One for

[1:14:46] me. Just one. Oh, sorry. Thank

[1:14:48] you. Just one. Alex, it's the

[1:14:51] same question. I think we keep

[1:14:54] asking. We as a commission can't

[1:14:58] change the budget. So I

[1:15:00] recommend we can make we can

[1:15:02] recommend or pass it with

[1:15:03] recommendations, but we can't

[1:15:05] change any light items. We can't

[1:15:08] say alex, go back to the board

[1:15:09] and like change those numbers.

[1:15:10] Move that over there. We can't

[1:15:14] do any of that or can we? Thank

[1:15:15] you for bringing that up. And

[1:15:17] sorry, I was going to mention

[1:15:19] thank you very much, vice

[1:15:21] PRESIDENT, for your questions

[1:15:23] that you sent in. Hopefully you

[1:15:27] received the responses. Correct.

[1:15:29] The commission cannot make line

[1:15:31] item changes to the budget. The

[1:15:33] commission interacts with the

[1:15:34] department through the

[1:15:35] department heads. So the

[1:15:38] commission would send a request

[1:15:40] to director o'riordan through

[1:15:43] the commission secretary, with

[1:15:47] its priorities and wishes and

[1:15:50] potential changes to the budget,

[1:15:52] and to get into some of the

[1:15:53] other questions that you had

[1:15:56] asked. The department is one of

[1:15:57] the earlier phases of the

[1:15:59] budget. After the department

[1:16:00] submits its budget, it goes to

[1:16:02] the mayor's office. Who who

[1:16:06] makes changes? They will submit

[1:16:08] mayor's proposed budget on JUNE

[1:16:09] 1st. They can make any changes

[1:16:13] they want. After that. Then the

[1:16:15] supervisors take over and they

[1:16:17] can make limited changes. They

[1:16:19] can't change anything. They

[1:16:21] can't increase the oversight

[1:16:23] overall size of the budget. But

[1:16:25] they make their changes. And

[1:16:29] then it's passed by the full

[1:16:31] board and signed by the mayor

[1:16:32] again. So that's the order of

[1:16:34] operations. It doesn't come back

[1:16:36] to the budget, does not come

[1:16:38] back to the bic after it, after

[1:16:41] the department submission is

[1:16:45] made in FEBRUARY. Okay. Thank

[1:16:48] you. I think you actually

[1:16:49] answered my question. I was

[1:16:51] going to ask timing and phases

[1:16:53] of this, but it sounds like we

[1:16:55] make our recommendations in

[1:16:57] FEBRUARY and then it kind of

[1:16:59] goes off into other hands from

[1:17:01] there. And we don't know until

[1:17:04] after JUNE what the final

[1:17:07] decisions are. Correct. The

[1:17:09] final budget, final decisions

[1:17:14] are made in JULY, and then the

[1:17:17] mayor officially signs around

[1:17:25] AUGUST 1st. Thank you. So,

[1:17:26] commissioners, please, if you

[1:17:29] want to see things as part of

[1:17:31] alex's budget presentation,

[1:17:33] please make those requests

[1:17:35] through the secretary so that

[1:17:37] they can he can be sure to

[1:17:39] include those as part of his

[1:17:41] budget presentation and some of

[1:17:45] the background materials. Thank

[1:17:48] you. So is there any public

[1:17:49] comment on the director's

[1:17:52] report? Item six a through e?

[1:17:56] There is. I have a handout.

[1:18:12] Thank you.

[1:18:31] Wow.

[1:18:35] Okay I'm ready. Thank you for

[1:18:36] waiting. This slide is from my

[1:18:39] NOVEMBER 24th. Excuse me 2024

[1:18:41] presentation of inspector mark

[1:18:43] wahl's 95 orange alley condo

[1:18:45] project. And it deals with the

[1:18:48] 30 suppressed complaints. I sent

[1:18:51] dbi a request for copies of the

[1:18:53] 30 suppressed complaints. When I

[1:18:55] didn't get them, I filed

[1:18:56] followed up with director

[1:19:00] o'riordan, who instructed the

[1:19:03] sunshine team to deal with my

[1:19:05] request. They told me they don't

[1:19:07] have the complaints. They say

[1:19:09] the complaints are test files,

[1:19:12] but if you look at the first

[1:19:14] page, you know there they have

[1:19:15] condo numbers on them. It

[1:19:18] doesn't make any sense. Two days

[1:19:20] ago, I asked dbi to send me the

[1:19:25] 30 test file documents and they

[1:19:27] told me they were double

[1:19:29] checking yesterday. They told me

[1:19:31] they have no responsive

[1:19:34] documents in tts. But if you see

[1:19:36] on the right side of the screen,

[1:19:38] I called up one of those

[1:19:41] documents. So there are 30

[1:19:44] documents in tts complaints with

[1:19:47] complaint numbers. So that's not

[1:19:50] true. I mean, this is nonsense.

[1:19:53] This is like total freaking

[1:19:59] nonsense. And it needs to stop.

[1:20:00] I have one more thing I'd like

[1:20:13] to show you.

[1:20:21] And that is. This is the. If you

[1:20:22] could turn the computer on. This

[1:20:28] is the dbi meeting calendar for

[1:20:36] DECEMBER 2024. Very useful. Not.

[1:20:41] Thank you, thank you. Any

[1:20:43] additional public comment in

[1:20:46] person or remotely? Seeing none.

[1:20:47] Item seven. Commissioners.

[1:20:50] Questions and matters seven a

[1:20:52] inquiries to staff. At this

[1:20:53] time, commissioners MAY make

[1:20:55] inquiries to staff regarding

[1:20:56] various documents, policies,

[1:20:57] practices and procedures which

[1:20:58] are of interest to the

[1:21:00] commission and seven be future

[1:21:02] meeting and agendas. At this

[1:21:04] time, the commission MAY discuss

[1:21:06] and take action to set the date

[1:21:07] of a special meeting and or

[1:21:08] determine those items that could

[1:21:11] be placed on the agenda of the

[1:21:13] next meeting and other future

[1:21:14] meetings of the building

[1:21:17] inspection commission. The next

[1:21:19] regular meeting will be on

[1:21:22] january 15th, 2025. And are

[1:21:27] there any inquiries to staff? Or

[1:21:29] future items for the JANUARY

[1:21:38] meeting? No. JANUARY 15th okay

[1:21:40] okay okay. Thank you. Sorry. And

[1:21:42] then all of you can reach out to

[1:21:44] me if you'd like. I'm just going

[1:21:46] to make a quick comment about

[1:21:48] okay, go ahead. Go ahead and

[1:21:51] speak. Just an update. I met

[1:21:53] with matt green to talk about

[1:21:56] our backlog on arb, so just keep

[1:22:00] an eye out for 2025. We might be

[1:22:03] having a few extra arb meetings

[1:22:04] to get through that backlog.

[1:22:06] There's been a lot of other work

[1:22:07] done to address permits that are

[1:22:09] moving forward and trying to

[1:22:11] reduce the number of cases that

[1:22:14] we have to hear, but we just

[1:22:15] simply cannot get through all of

[1:22:17] them if we maintain our current

[1:22:19] cadence. So we'll have a few

[1:22:22] extra meetings next year and

[1:22:23] we'll be reaching out about time

[1:22:28] that works. Okay. Thank you.

[1:22:31] Okay. Is there any public

[1:22:34] comment on seven a and b? Seeing

[1:22:36] none? Item eight review and

[1:22:38] approval of the minutes of the

[1:22:39] regular meeting of NOVEMBER

[1:22:43] 20th, 2024. So moved. There's a

[1:22:45] motion by PRESIDENT Alexander

[1:22:48] two. Is there a second, second

[1:22:49] and a second by commissioner

[1:22:51] williams. Is there any public

[1:22:55] comment on the minutes seeing

[1:22:56] none? Are all commissioners in

[1:23:00] favor? I any opposed? And the

[1:23:02] motion carries unanimously.

[1:23:05] Thank you. Next item nine

[1:23:06] adjournment. Is there a motion

[1:23:08] to adjourn? So moved. And there

[1:23:11] a second. Second okay. All

[1:23:13] commissioners in favor. Aye,

[1:23:16] aye. We are now adjourned. It is

[1:23:17] 11:27 A.M. And happy holidays

SPECIAL Building Inspection Commission

Agenda

Transcript