[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