To make a note that there is a correction to the agenda. Um and item. Nine should be deleted. It was separated into two items, items 10 and 11. For members of the public who are calling or listening in the webex web webinar. The password is 05 17, and the access code is 2598901. Numbers for 156550001. And im next. We have our land acknowledgment. Oh, just one moment. The Building Inspection Commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the remotest aloni, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions. The re matich aloni have never seated, lost or forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place , as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guests. We recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the remote official learning community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Thank you. Um next. We have item, two president s opening remarks. Um good morning, everybody. Good morning to the department of building inspection, the public and fellow commissioners. Um last thursday, we had a pretty lengthy Meeting Joint Commission meeting and i wanted to thank um db i Michael Christiansen permits center and the Planning Department for all their work tours that joint meeting. Um its something that, um president tanner and i had spoken about last summer when he first discussed, you know, putting, uh, organizing a meeting with both building and planning and having that come to for russian last thursday was, um, you know, something to marcus is, um, significant for this commission and also the department. I also want to thank the ai and its members who spoke last thursday and their support and also with their suggestions on how to improve the permit process, um, moving towards legislation this summer. Now is a good time to start. Um looking at how we track our metrics between between to compare the before and after ah for the site permit reform, uh, based on how things are being streamlined and a timeline, it takes two to, uh uh, approved a project. Um anyway, im looking forward to the continued discussions and advancements on that. Um and with that that concludes my comments as president. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on item two . Im saying that item three general Public Comment. The b i c will take Public Comment on matters within the commissions jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. Um, seeing none. Is there any Public Comment remotely . Next we have item four nomination subcommittee. Ill, uh read read both a and b at the same time for a is update from the nomination subcommittee and four b is discussion and possible action to appoint a member to the Code Advisory Committee. Um term to expire august. Santa 1025 and the members seeking appointment is pauls daily for the member at large seat. The Nominations Committee met earlier this month to discuss two applications that we had received for the Code Advisory Committee. We have one appointment, which ill talk about in one second one appointment to recommend i should say. The vacancies that remain, um in our. On our radar here are for the Code Advisory Committee. We have a person qualified in Historic Preservation. Um and for which we actually do have an applicant that we will meet again, um, soon to discuss and hopefully recommend someone to fill that position. We also have two vacancies for the board of examiners attendant who is licensed or registered as an architect, civil or Structural Engineer. And also a licensed general contractors. Two seats for board of examiners. We will be sending out, um. Email or contacting the organizations that we generally do to solicit interest to see if we can fill those positions. Which we did late last year, and well be doing that outreach again. Um and then item for b. We had to applicants for the. Member at large seat for the Code Advisory Committee and our group. Both were qualified and would have been good fits for this position. Our committee has selected paul or selected to recommend paul staley, who is joining us today. Thank you. Um paul steely , has lived in San Francisco for 45 years. Hes had a long career in real estate and finance thats involved. Oversight and acquisition and remodeling of many Single Family homes as well as a variety of other things. Hes now retired, and he serves on the board of multiple nonprofit or has recently served on the board of multiple nonprofit organizations. Um and we felt that his experience and qualifications would be a good addition to the Code Advisory Committee in the member at large seat. So our groups recommendation was to appoint him for that seat. Okay . And did you were there any additional comments from the commissioners . I want to personally thank paul staley for volunteering. I do know pauls daily personally, um , and one of the things about being on the commission is seeing old friends but making new ones on, um, here at city hall and with fill the commissioners, but i commend the year desire to serve on this, um , code advisory commission. Thank you for your for your time and effort into that. Thank you. Theres um are there no other commissioner comments . Is there a motion to recommend, mr staley . Brought motion to recommend to appoint him to the seat, the Code Advisory Committee seat member at large motion to appoint pauls daily to the code advisory commission. Second. So theres a motion and a second and ill do the roll call vote. President veto. Yes, commissioner newman. Commissioner shattucks yes, commissioner. Summer . Yes. Um that motion carries unanimously. My apologies. Forgot. Is there any Public Comment on the motion . Um saying none. Then the motion carries. And congratulations, mr staley. If you would like to come forward, please. To the party. But i have a little administer the oath of office. And so you could just repeat after me. I paul staley. I paul staley. Do solemnly swear or affirm, do solemnly swear and affirm that i will support and defend the constitution of the United States that i will support and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of california and the constitution of the state of california against all enemies against all enemies, foreign and domestic, foreign and domestic. That i will bear true faith and allegiance will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the United States to the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of california and the constitution of the state of california that i take this obligation freely. Did i take this obligation freely without any mental reservation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion or purpose of evasion . And that i will well and faithfully discharge that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which im about to enter the duties upon which im about to enter and during such time and during such time as i hold the office as i hold the office of a member of the Code Advisory Committee. Other than hold the office of a member of the Code Advisory Committee member at large seat member at large seat of the city and county of San Francisco, the city and county of San Francisco. Thank you. Congratulations thank you. I just want to thank the nominating committee for the nomination and thank the commission for the approval of that, and i look forward to working with you all so thanks. Thank you. Thank you. So um, next, we have item, five discussion and possible action regarding board of supervisors ordinance file number 230374 many of the Building Code to outline the site permit application process, define and limit the scope of building an official review of side permits and requires simultaneous interdepartmental review of site permits. In addition to other requirements. Hi president. Veto commissioners usually the department, uh, presents first on legislative item. But considering that supervisor staff i e is here. I defer my time to him to present first. Sounds like a plan to me. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. Good morning, director. Um those in the tenants. Thank you for hearing this item and thank you for working with me to schedule it. I know there was some scheduling issues to try and get this on. And so i appreciate the flexibility. As you know, creating housing and opening a Small Business and getting a permanent San Francisco is not easy. We have a lot of different layers a lot of different requirements. Um, that have built over the years. And according to most recent review of the San Francisco chronicle, the typical applicant currently weighs a staggering 627 calendar days before obtaining a full Building Permit from the city to construct a multi Family Housing project. And 861 days before gaining the same approval for a Single Family residence. Thats not counting the time that some applicants take off in a year longer declare the early stages of planning approval. Before applying for the Building Permit. Again in the most recent chronicle article investigation citywide, the medium approval time for permits has increased 83. Since 2012. So we have to recognize in the face of all this. We dont make it easy for applicants in San Francisco. Yet there are issues with our planning code requirements, and sometimes its with public works, or pg and e. Um i think everyone knows the problems and hurdles with pg and e and its a constant struggle. But time and again when i when we talked to home owners in my district, small builders, um Small Business owners, anyone involved architects, others on how we can improve the process. It keeps coming back to the site permit, and i believe San Francisco is one of the only counties in this in this state of california. That actually has that, um many other counties almost all do not they talk about how they would hmm. I have to go through a detailed review process twice, not just once. And how over time the requirements that have been added onto the site premise process have continued to get more and more and more detailed. Thats almost exactly whats asked for in in the building addendums, so its redundant. Its unnecessary. And it doesnt improve performance. Or public confidence. And it doesnt help to address our housing crisis, which i think we all agree is extreme in our city. Um so ive been working on this process for over two years. Weve engaged with the department. Weve been in many conversations about how we can improve that process. In fact, in last year we asked during the budget process to have a joint position created that would be shared between the Planning Department and the Building Department to review streamlining and look at how we can improve the process. Um and also gotten a lot of input from architects, builders, Small Business owners as we crafted this legislation. So whats before you today essentially reiterates the scope of the site permit is to be limited. For only preliminary review and instructional and Schematic Design for proposed construction. It specifies in the code exactly what is required to be submitted for a site permit. It requires it to be reviewed simultaneously by departments. Not concurrently. Um and it prevents the department from withholding a site permit in order conducted detailed review, which often has happened, um and as you know, we keep the process the same. We asked for db. Id still be the lead agency that issues the site permit and routes into different departments. And we believe that the experience and expertise thatd be holds is important for it to be retained within this department. And we do that, for a lot of reasons you have the existing staff. The existing expertise, the existing infrastructure, so we want to build on that. We dont want to shift it over to an entirely new department. We want to retain the existing fee levels that people are accustomed to and used to interacting with. For Small Business owners, homeowners, small builders, builders and others. And we dont want to increase the opportunity for more appeals. And thats also something that often as you know, slows the process down. I want to thank director of reardon and his team , um, for the work theyve done with us. We understand that he issued a memorandum on site permit criteria to begin to explicitly explain what is requested of applicants. But i think the important point here is that regardless of the bulletin. To put it in the code gives it an extreme level of a surety. And from my experience over the last 20 years of working in this city and working with builders and others you hear over and over again if its not in the code. Then theres always room for interpretation, and that happens often in the field. You hear it over and over again. If its not in the code, theres a lot of leeway and a lot of interpretation. So we believe that putting it in the code is an important step. And thats why we took the process of crafting this legislation. Um want to thank also my co sponsor , supervisor, melgar former building and Planning Commissioner who absolutely is extremely experience and understanding. Want to thank president veto for spending the time with us. We spent a considerable amount of time going line by line over legislation. And so it really appreciate her input and really appreciate the time that she gave want to thank Vice President tam. We understand hes under the weather, so definitely appreciate his input as well. And we work with him and then also our deputy City Attorney, rob capitola, for his hard work on on this and all the advice hes given us. Thank you all. Of you who have participated in this process and all the builders, um architects and others that we got input from that having that have given extreme real world experience on how to improve this process. And then finally, i just want to make one small note of tourism. Elgars office will be making and proposing a friendly amendment. About digital permit , so we accept that and think thats a good review. I think mike farrell will be here today if hes not already here. But anyway, thank you. Im happy to i know the department is going to present. Um and im happy to answer any questions and get feedback. I saw an email this morning that had some of your proposed idea so happy to discuss that i dont know if i should turn it back over to the department, okay . And then ill be right here. Christinas berg , assistant director, or d, b, i and thank you, supervisor staff i e. For coming to present your legislation and for your interest in working with us to improve the site permit process. Um we have our slides. And as you all know, well, uh, were working with you, uh, and our partners and planning and the permit center with input from stakeholders to reform the site permit process to make it to clarify the process for applicants and to make it a streamlined and faster process. Ah we have developed our proposed changes to reform the site permit process. And as you know, we held stakeholder meetings and a joint Commission Meeting last week and we are working on our own legislation to codify that reform. So, um the ordinance er, considering today, in a nutshell, would amend the Building Code to add limits to the site permit application and review process. Next slide, please. And as supervisor suffice, said at a high level these are our own guidelines that would be added to the Building Code. These guidelines are included in dvds. Administrative bulletin, maybe 32. Theyre also outlined in a memo that director oriordan issued to staff in march. Um and the purpose of the site permit is really to review preliminary , conceptual and Schematic Designs and identify any major issues. Um and as you know, the detailed plan review then comes in later stages when applicants submit their construction documents. Next slide. So uh, there was a lot of lot of words on this slide. But again, this ordinance would take director of reardons memo to staff and the guidelines that already exists in. Maybe 32 put them into the Building Code. Next slide, so db staff recommends approval of the ordinance with the following amendments. The First Amendment would be in section one. Oh 683. 4 point two would require concurrent review the site permit application while Planning Department completes its review and concurrent issuance when playing Department Issues<