anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing. good morning. today is wednesday may 17th 2023. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please news yourself if you're not speaking, the first item on the agenda is roll call. president veto commissioner newman. um commissioners commissioner shattuck's commissioner summer here. um, commissioners alexander, toot and tam are excused and we have a quorum. and also just wanted

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 i'm 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 presidents 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 it's 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, i'm 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? i'm saying that item three general public comment. the b i c will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. um, seeing none. is there any public comment remotely? next we have item four nomination subcommittee. i'll, 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 paul's 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 i'll 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 we'll 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. he's had a long career in real estate and finance that's involved. oversight and acquisition and remodeling of many single family homes as well as a variety of other things. he's 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 paul's 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. there's 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 paul's daily to the code advisory commission. second. so there's a motion and a second and i'll do the roll call vote. president veto. yes, commissioner newman. commissioner shattuck's 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 i'm about to enter the duties upon which i'm 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. that's 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 don't make it easy for applicants in san francisco. yet there are issues with our planning code requirements, and sometimes it's with public works, or pg and e. um i think everyone knows the problems and hurdles with pg and e and it's 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 . that's almost exactly what's asked for in in the building addendums, so it's redundant. it's unnecessary. and it doesn't improve performance. or public confidence. and it doesn't help to address our housing crisis, which i think we all agree is extreme in our city. um so i've been working on this process for over two years. we've engaged with the department. we've 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 what's 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. i'd still be the lead agency that issues the site permit and routes into different departments. and we believe that the experience and expertise that'd 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 don't 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 don't want to increase the opportunity for more appeals. and that's 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 they've 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 it's not in the code. then there's always room for interpretation, and that happens often in the field. you hear it over and over again. if it's not in the code, there's a lot of leeway and a lot of interpretation. so we believe that putting it in the code is an important step. and that's 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 he's 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 he's 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. elgar's office will be making and proposing a friendly amendment. about digital permit , so we accept that and think that's a good review. i think mike farrell will be here today if he's not already here. but anyway, thank you. i'm happy to i know the department is going to present. um and i'm 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 don't know if i should turn it back over to the department, okay? and then i'll be right here. christina's 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, we're 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. they're also outlined in a memo that director o'riordan 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 reardon's 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 any required authorizations, approvals or certifications required under the planning code. and this amendment would conform with the goals of the of the interdepartmental site permitting reform projects. uh that proposal will bifurcate the current site permit review process to substantially reduce the overall development timeline by standardizing the process and eliminating redundant stages during project and permit review. um, and so this is uh, where the other effort is tracking right now. we are not

finished with that, as you know, we're still in the middle of that process, but this is currently what we're planning to do in our own legislation. and so we are recommending this amendment for this legislation. next slide. uh our second proposed amendment is to remove section one. oh 683.4 point 2.1 and section one. oh 68.3 point 4.2 point two as i discussed earlier, the contents of a site permanent application exists in administrative bulletin 32. the scope of say permit review is detailed in the memo from director over here into staff. um and the legislation has proposed would codify that existing criteria into the building code, which we feel could impede dvds, ongoing streamlining efforts, because if we were, if we need to change it at any time, then we need to go through a lengthy legislative process to amend that, um, when we operationalize are in department interdepartmental site permit reform. we may find

that we need to make changes to those guidelines and putting those guidelines in the building code would then require a months long process to, uh, fix that and to streamline that review. on the other hand, if we leave it in an administrative bulletin there's still a public process to amend the administrative bulletin. it takes just a few weeks it goes the code advisory committee and then it goes to the building inspection commission, so there's opportunity for public input and public comment. you will still see it as a transparent and public process. but you know that's a weeks long process versus a months long process, so thank you for your consideration. this concludes my presentation. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? good morning, commissioner henry

carnell awaits eyes set on a co advisor committee and the site permit has been a bit of a disaster at the beginnings of quite a while ago when you can get aside permit issued within a matter of a month or two, and he has been taken 67 months, if not longer, and we've been bringing in it. ask questions were asked on this side permit process. plan check also include, like p u. c and dpw another stations that really shouldn't go to. so i'm hoping this is going to really help and move it along, because otherwise there are some architecture saying no, we don't want to do a site permit wonderful permit taking the risk of maybe having a permit the work actually being creased because of changes from planning and so forth, so i'm hoping this sort work out really well and thank you supervised providers. and now olga and one other thing about doing to mention by the way about the website, the dpr

users have been bunch of talk about that. and let me tell you, i think is one of the best websites. in most jurisdictions that i am involved in the perma track system system is fantastic . it really is. if you want to find a way to permit is you can go into permit track the system when you will find out who's on it. what's being done? you get all that information out there, so i think it's fantastic and also even a pin on the planning department website is really good to one that isn't so good and fortune is dpw. and that's what we're having a huge problem right now. dpw is taking months and you're lucky to get a response will get a response. and yes, so we'll have somebody under within a matter of a day or two or like next week doesn't happen. you try to contact him. nothing happens, eventually have to contact somebody else who's above them, and they came back. oh don't worry. next week, we'll

get back to you and nothing happens. i understand. it's supposed to be short of people. but things like minus sidewalk encroachments. that should be over counter permit most of the time it should be able to go into on this on the second floor dpw and get a point issued right away. everything is they telling you well know you could apply with those online. a lot of folks don't know even how to do this. it gets really complicated to an online especially dpw. um street speech, street space parking. you can get over the counter right away. thank you. good morning commissioners. my name is mike farah. i'm a legislative aide for supervisor myrna. mel. gar i want to thank you today for your deliberations and thank you, um, to supervisor saffy for his leadership on this legislation. um one of the things that the supervisor wanted you to consider as an

amendment that she is considering to this legislation , and we didn't want to get into a situation of re referral. if it's amended at the board of supervisors. i don't think we're in that territory, but um because of the supervisors previous work on the commission. um i think she wanted everything to be submitted electronically, and, um, i think it's a process your continuing to work with. i watched your meeting last week at the planning commission, and i was very impressed with the deliberations you had so in sexual paragraph line, 21 on page two. and being submitted electronically after the words the playing department is just something you should consider your deliberations today as you're considering this, um, coordinates. thank you very much. morning commissioners. my name is ned fenny. i'm the chair that could advisory committee and i wanted to just state for

the record that unfortunately, the code advisory committee hasn't had a chance to review this ordinance. and i know that all the members are welcoming. having some document actually react to but we haven't had a chance to deliberate on it. so we're not prepared to give your comments on this legislation. um i think there's an effort to actually scheduled meeting for tomorrow where this is the subject of choice and will be able to report soon after what our deliberations are. so thank you. the person. color, you can go ahead. good morning, commissioners cyrus and algae here with presidio of adventures. i just wanted to call into both think supervisors set by an al gore for proposing this legislation to reiterate the significance of the

improvements that that will this legislation will bring it about as it relates to housing reform and production site permit process has evolved into something that is absolutely unmanageable at this point and a single handedly help back thousands of units in the pipeline that we ourselves are involvement. we have to specific projects that have experienced site permit delays due to inter department of fighting that it's dragged on for over two years on both in one instance due to sfm t a another junior p, you see the extent of which these agencies have gotten involved and imposed their code review on what should be a purely simplify. memorialization of planning is beyond the acceptable norm. and this reform and this legislation will will address that substantially and help streamline the process, which in light of the fact that we have to deliver 83,000 homes

units excuse me over the next eight years under the new arena goals. is absolutely so. thank you for your consideration. okay thank you. is there any additional public comment? okay um, saying that and commissioners. can we bring up this slide deck that had the um d v. i s recommendations so we can refer to them. i don't think it's in my packet. was it a separate power? no it but it was emailed. it was emailed separately yesterday afternoon. um i just wanted to open this up to fellow commissioners if they

had any comments questions. none. oh, you do. okay. sorry. go ahead. go ahead. commissioner summer i think i was curious. so i know. i mean, we had this has been discussed. we had we had the meeting last week to talk about sort of a similar process. that's been another group has been going through to reform the site process site permit process altogether. i'm curious how this integrates with that it seems like i suppose it it's sort of separate is there. is there efforts to sort of marry those two together? or is it just to separate things happening. i don't. i don't know, i suppose sorry. i'm happy to respond. i mean from our work and our conversations with folks in the building, architect engineer

larger community. we've been having this conversation for two years. and this is the evolution of that that process that's that's arising that's happening with the last couple of months. i'm not familiar integrated into that conversation. we know that from the conversation that we have people have said we trust db i we want things to remain in db. i and we believe that simplifying the site permits processes the right way to go. so that's the path that we have gone down based on the work that we've done. again with sir roger melgar. others support. i mean, we feel like this is the right path. if there's something that follows in the coming months that could be integrated. what we'll see what happens. and it seems like everybody agrees along those lines. i'm i'm curious, and i don't know if maybe this is a question for miscast. barrick is we have this a b 32? do we feel that? it is a co and honestly, i would thank

you, ned for coming up. i would like to hear what the code advisory committee i personally would like to hear what they i have to say about it, but, um do we feel like putting changing the code to mention this is, does it change what happens? um to the users. to our customers. as compared to just having a b 32 available. i don't think it does. um i don't think that this you know, from my reading of this, uh i don't think it conflicts with the larger reform effort that we're working on with the other departments. um i don't think there's a conflict for us. it's just, you know, we once we uh, implement the bigger reform effort. um and we operationalize that were concerned that some of the things that are being codified here we may need to change, you know, because once you operationalize something, and we found this with other ordinances , you find things that aren't

working very well and that you want to change. um, and we just went through this recently with another ordinance, where we had to go through a months long legislative process to fix something that we discovered once we were operationalize ng it, so our concern in is that we implement our larger reform. and that what's codified here is then. um then we have to go back and change it, and that's another lengthy legislative process. yeah. commissioner statics and then commissioner newman. thank you and thank you, supervisor. um question, i guess to the code advisory committee. maybe this is just an out loud question is, um, we typically get a statement, um, recommendation from you all and i didn't see one unless i missed it in the documents here, but it's sounding like you all did not have a chance to review this yet. um i fully support

everything i've heard, especially from the supervisor. um but i'd feel a little better if i got a recommended or if we got the recommendation from the advisory. um, folks, but. i guess that's just a comment on necessarily questions, so i'm gonna just leave it there. i appreciate the comment. yeah the process, uh, from our committee is usually quite a robust conversation typically, uh, proposed changes go to a subcommittee in this case would be the design and administrative subcommittee where it's a smaller group. they hash out. any of the details are adjustments and then it comes to the full committee, so it's usually a two step process for us. but considering the speed at which we want to get this passed, or at least heard, um this special meeting is scheduled for tomorrow with the full c a c and typically when

there's a new ordinance, we invite representatives sponsoring the ordinance to come and introduce it to the committee so that we can focus on the issues quickly. so that's our normal process. and we hope to, um, you know, perform that here in the next week or so. thank you. commissioner noon um, i. i typically agree that, um codifying makes a lot of sense as far as like accountability, but i'm interested in hearing from staff. um how long do you think you need as far as implementation to fill comfortable with making that next step? thank you for the question, commissioner. um we expect to implement the larger, um, say permit reform around november. i think if i if i recall the timeline and so you know what happened recently with

another ordinance that we implement? i think we, you know, we got maybe three or four months in and then you know, we started to find like the issues that we had to fix that then required legislation to go back and amend it. um so i would guess you know, sometime next year we could say whether or not , you know, we think that this belongs in the code. okay and just along with that i'm sort of concerned with be holding responsibility. for planning process at the end of the day, the site permit processes a planning process and they have an oversight group that is responsible for overseeing the things that they are responsible for, and i would like to see. i mean, i think we're moving in the right direction. but it would be really great to see um this be much more, um, clear cut. ah process like we have. and so many other jurisdictions throughout the state where

planet you know there's a planning process and you're kind of getting to your, you know, schematic design level and then you're going into your permit and building process. but i in general, i think we're you know, moving in the right direction. i am really excited about this. thanks, commissioner, and i will just um, say again that we the larger site permit reform process. we're working on that legislation now and so you'll have another chance to hear the you know to hear that proposal and to deliberate on that legislation, probably in the you know the next couple of months. ah, deputy, darker spark. could you stay up if you don't mind? do you? i think that in the outreach and also in the joint commission meeting, um last week , we anticipate that that legislation is going to surface in the summer. is that correct? correct? um. my only question about one of your

recommendations if you just could explain the second one amendment number two in a little bit more detailed that you're removing these sections from the content of the site permit application. could you explain that in a little bit more? yes so this would codify in the building code right? the guidelines for site permit review that we already have in administrative bulletin 32 that we already have in the memo to staff. um and so are suggested members to remove these and keep them in the administrative bulletin so that if we do need to change any of these guidelines, because once we operationalize it, we may find really should be asking this question or we don't need to look at this. you know any of these little tweaks to make the process more streamlined and faster for the applicant. uh if this goes on the building code now we have to go back through a legislative process. um you know , to the board of supervisors to

fix it. um and if we keep it in administrative bulletin, we can . you know, we have a much more streamlined process for fixing anything that you know that isn't working really well. so you're stating that if this is section one oh 683.4 point 2.1, which outlines the basically the site permit process and its review if that was codified in the building code, that's though it would have to be processed. yes, okay. um. i've spent a lot of time on this particular issue . probably more so than anything else. um and i think that this one section um, i think is the one thing that, uh is one of the strongest points db i makes about, um, their recommendation to, uh the ordinance that suffer is proposing and milligrams proposing. there's a lot of things in their ordinance that i do support in terms of

streamlining the process, but, um, it's been a it's been quite an effort between planning and building. to move us needle and to get concurrence on how this process is going to, um you know, be really a different and clear path for applicants and something that's more predictable in terms of the timeline that they, you know, committed themselves to, um i don't think we want to necessarily keep things the way they are, and there's a lot of things that will stay the same meaning i think you know the concerns about the appeal process will remain the same. um, but i think the i think this would i think this particular recommendation or, uh, would help least um, provide the site permit reform process the ability to implement that, um, it's and the things that we've been addressing her very high

level at the moment, it hasn't really gotten into a lot of the details that really need to be addressed at the operational level. um so i may i support the amendments that db has proposed to, uh, the ordinance. there's a lot of things in the ordinance. i've you know, spoken to, um saffy and, um jeff buckley is legislative aide which we can talk about in the but there's a couple of things in there that i think also would, um. you know, to me the purpose of the site permit reform process is streamlining, um what most other jurisdictions do for large scale complex projects? um in in a in a much, uh. in a much less detailed review that has been done and the intent of it is really to look at a project and

its conformity to existing surroundings. there's some other things that san francisco does, but i think those are some of the things that you know d b i and planning are still working through at the moment. i don't have any other questions. wd director. thank you. okay? is there any other commissioner questions or any other comment? i think based on what my fellow commissioners have sort of spoken to the fact that we haven't gotten, um ah, the c a c deliberation on this and their recommendations and i have you know my own that i would like to contribute at that meeting tomorrow. uh that i've, you know , spent time going through this ordinance line line by line. um i have some questions about. so, um i guess. question to, uh,

city attorney rob kaplow. what's what are our alternatives here? the bcg attorney rob kaplan. the requirement under the code is that the csc provided input to the big before the big makes recommendation unless the ordinance is unless that requirement is waived by the director and the president, um and on the determination that the ordinance is non technical errors, non technical in nature. and administrative only. um. if you feel that you cannot make that waiver and need to hear from the c a c. the options would be to continue the item to the c a. c that is, do we have the dates scheduled for this year that there is a date scheduled for tomorrow that we there is not a confirmed quorum yet we would continue the item until the code advisory committee can hear it. and if

they have any input, determine whether we want to set a special meeting of the big to incorporate that. input into your decision or if you would prefer to waive hearing from in advance and proposed recommending the ordinance. um subject to s input going directly to board supervisors. that's another option they would have to be. you have to make that waiver on the record that the big can hear it now without getting the input directly from so the option is we can continue pending reviews. what will continue it to the c a. c s meeting special meeting. um madam president. let me just state for the record. we were very clear. quite some time ago about scheduling this meeting, and just for the commissioner's question. um, i guess staff was not able to notify or get it recorded to schedule a meeting some staff side they did not

schedule the meeting. so we specifically asked to be here today, knowing and asking for a special, uh meeting of the c a. c we definitely want their input and their advice, but we also don't want to keep delaying this process. there's been something we've been working on for two years. and we met for over an hour with the president got her feedback. was gotten assurance that we would be scheduled for this meeting today. um and so then found out after the fact that it needed to go to the first and that never happened. so we've asked for a special meeting. we're trying to get quorum for tomorrow. so i would ask you to actually make your recommendations pending the csc's input. otherwise we're waiting for another 30 days or whenever your next meeting is we're going to be in the throes of budget. we have budget month next month for the entire month. your budget will be coming along with every other departments budget. we have to spend hours going over that. and i'm i happen to be on that committee. so i ask you to make that

consideration. um based on all the time, effort and energy we put into and work with with your team, thank you. uh supervisor stuff? i can i ask you a question about your budget meeting. how is this ordinance affecting your budget meeting? it does not. it affects my ability to work with you because we literally meat from early in the morning till late at night. we go through multiple departments every single day, so the mayor gets. a tremendous amount of time to propose her budget board of supervisors gets less than 30 days to comment on that, so we are literally working around the clock. so that's why we wanted to get this done. you asked for special, considerate, you know, i wasn't gonna be here. we didn't have that meeting last time. so here we are. at 60 days. you obviously have 90 days. we certainly want the input of the c a. c that's why we're trying to get a special meeting on for tomorrow and get that input.

sir options and continuing it is that supervisor staff i would have to come back and july. debbie sued attorney rob capital . i believe the options would be to the big can make its recommendation now affirmatively saying, we can make recommendation without hearing from the c a. c but we direct the cia to have a special meeting and provide their feedback directly to the board of supervisors. i believe that's uh what i think supervisor is suggesting. um. the other recommendation is you would say we're not making our recommendation on the ordinance today. we want to hear and meet after this year meets to incorporate any feedback and then we will have that recommendation to pass it forward after the meats either at a special meeting of the bic or at the next regular meeting of the back.

um super bars or stuffy. i mean , as much as i'd like to recommend for it to go directly to the supervisor, i think this commission has worked on this site permit reform just as probably as much as you know. any other entity has, um, would would it representative be able to attend june's meeting? i will say it out loud. i would like i would like to hear what the city has to say before. providing a recommendation. and

if we need to do it, i mean, i'm open to a special meeting. if that's what is necessary. i am not trying to hold up a process. i think we're all on the same page. it sounds like every everybody has similar concerns and his wanting to move things forward in a similar direction. um you appreciate that. i think that's a good solution. i mean, we could have this c a c tomorrow and then call for a special meeting. and then you all could hear this item after the recommendations certainly don't want to wait and into june . i mean, it would be great to get you all back together as quickly as possible. i think that seems like a happy compromise. hmm so that the big is able to hear directly the deliberation and also for us to deliberate about it, and you have a meeting prior to. i think it's more of a schedule conflict , not really an agenda conflict. it sounds like i mean, it's tremendously i mean, it's hard to get things scheduled at the board of supervisors in june. so that's why we're trying to push

with its may 17th. if you all have a special meeting tomorrow and for the c a c will be great. if you all could have a special meeting of the big maybe next week or something, and get this over with so that we could then schedule it at the at the board supervisors land use committee. okay okay. city turning about bob kaplan attorney rob kapila, um, i would suggest, especially if there would be a special meeting or another meeting with the big where the supervisor or his staff may not be able to attend that if you have substantive questions now, um, to exhaust your deliberations now as much as possible in case the comes back with pretty standard recommendation or up or down vote. then you would not have the chance to have the discussion with sponsors. we should deliberate it now, because why just believe if you have the opportunity to ask questions of the supervisor now

, in case it was surprise will not be able to make the next pick. i mean, if you were to call a special meeting next week, we can make it. we'll find time to make it. that's fine. have a question. yes amendments proposed by db i what are your reflections on media reaction to the to the first one regarding planning, but doing as much as they can to review definitely take that under consideration seems pretty standard. the second one. you've heard my reaction in terms of putting it in the code. i mean, this is something that could have maybe should have been done years ago . now it's being proposed. we don't have as much confidence and administrative bulletin as we do. codifying the information and so we think that that brings more a surety brings more light to the process, and it's much more of a public process, although there is a process for administrative bulletins, it's much more um. widely accepted and publicize to go through

legislation. you know. unfortunately there's something that's been building for years and we feel like this is a lot of build up. um so putting it in the code, i think is, is we feel pretty strongly about that. but we're happy to review the recommendations further. thank you. the only thing codifying this is a pretty serious step. um and to some degree, i think the commission and myself supports something that, um you know, would. ensure a process but i think as long as that that process isn't working against, um the department operations and their flexibility, i think is the message that we heard between you know yourself and then db i and you know, my only hesitation alone is one. i have some detailed questions about the ordinance that i'm personally, i prefer to, um feel those at the because we have a number of, um, experts on that on that committee. um but

there's just a lot of details that planning and building i think are still working through and don't necessarily have, um um. they don't think they've necessarily coordinated all those details, and a lot of this is on planning. but um, i think the only thing that i would have to say is i don't you know, i think that i think nobody would disagrees that you know, things have to change. so um, i would like to make a motion that we, um continue this the c a c and schedule a special meeting. okay there's a makers. is there a second? second. and who? who made the second commissioner newman. thank you. and so there's a motion on the second to, um to continue this item until the c a c meeting and to conduct a special meeting of the building inspection commission. president veto yes. commissioner

newman. yes. commissioner shattuck's. and commissioner summer. yes the motion carries unanimously. thank you. thank you. um next, we have item six. i'm sorry i didn't do public comment is their public comment on that motion? i'm sorry, public. not in person any remotely. there. there's no public comment. okay item. six discussion and possible action regarding border supervisors ordinance file number 230371-2. amending the planning code 21 facilitate residential uses downtown by authorizing the conversion of non residential uses to residential use in c commercial zoning districts and exempting such projects from requirements for rear yard open space streetscape improvements. dwelling unit exposure, bike parking dwelling you didn't mix

and intermediate length occupancy controls permitting live work units in such projects, streamlining administrative approvals for projects in the c three zoning district and modifying the dimensional limits on exemptions to height restrictions from mechanical equipment, elevators there and mechanical penthouses in addition to other requirements, can i just interrupt real quickly? i need to take a quick break. um with me leaving does we won't have a quorum is that we can take up like a five minute recess. is that okay? it could be l this is a building inspection commission meeting. we are on agenda item number six. christine ginsburg, assistant director, i am going to again defer to, um, our partners here to, uh, provide kind of the big picture overview. what this

ordinance does, and then i'll come back up and talk about, um, the specific language so i will introduce jacob it live from the office of economic and workforce development. good morning, president veto commissioners director o'riordan jacob bent left with the office of economic and workforce development. speaking here on behalf of the mayor's office, one of the legislative sponsors of the ordinance before you and i wanted to provide a little bit of context before handing it back to christine to go into some of the nuts and bolts of this, so this ordinance is a part of the mayor's roadmap to the future of downtown san francisco that she laid out in her state of the city in february, which is talking about all of the strategies that we need to implement, including your department and other departments. the mayor's office etcetera to help our downtown, and by doing so, the entire city recover from the economic impacts of covid 19 pandemic. it's not news to anybody that our office attendance is down. this is having all kinds of effects on our small business

ecosystem. downtown and there's a lot that we need to do to make sure the downtown can remain a active and vibrant economic engine for the city, which is what it has been. so where does this fit in one of the nine strategies that in that road map is around, facilitating more flexibility and uses in our existing building stock. so this ordinance is actually speaking to two pieces of that one is around general flexibility in the downtown area in terms of the planning code in terms of zoning, so just to give you a few examples of that for your for your context, this is not directly germane to the building code but in union square, allowing for much greater flexibility of what uses can happen on the upper floors of buildings right now, you pretty much have to do. you know, department store style multi floor retail, which is not a model, that is that is that people are interested in doing a lot of these buildings, so it causes a lot of issues. it's allowing for more large format retail, allowing for formula retail on portions of market

where that currently requires a conditional use, pop up activations, allowing for flexible workspace models where you can have designed professional services on the ground floor with a retail component. making sure life science and labs are allowed as a used all throughout downtown and also allowing for more housing and certain portions of downtown in most of downtown housing is allowed without limitations in the areas kind of going from broadway and up along the northern waterfront. there are some limitations on density. those would be changed so that housing is now formed based throughout downtown, also allowing senior housing residential care facilities, other types of housing and also providing some streamlining for the planning department. the planning commission review process for housing developments and others, including some moving some of the historic preservation tasks to administrative approval, rather than from the historic preservation commission and waving a series of requirements for new new housing construction projects so that they don't need to go to the planning commission as regularly as they do now in

the downtown. so that's flexibility in terms of zoning and process downtown. the other half of the ordinance is what brings us here today, which is to establish a commercial to residential adaptive reuse program. that's established in the planning code. that's the term it's in the planning code. here's what the eligibility is in the planning code, which, by the way was this. this language was recommended by the planning commission a couple of weeks ago on may 4th with a couple of modifications that i will mention so the criteria and the planning code for eligibility in this adaptive reuse program or you need to be in a c zoning district downtown. and if i can get the overhead just for a moment. just so we're all clear about what? where we're talking about geographically. so all of the red on here are different flavors of c zoning downtown. basically everything. um i think that's blow broadway right there. that c three. and to the north of that along the waterfront is c two. so this is for in all those areas. that's

where the adaptive reuse program applies. it does not apply anywhere else in the city. so i just want to be clear when i'm talking about the c zoning districts. this is the geography that we're talking about. so that's the first criteria. also, the projects to be adapted for use that cannot be seeking any additional height or waivers are exceptions under the state density bonus program or under our local density bonus program . so you're sticking with the height and zoning and bulk the requirements that are in our code. if you're going to use this program, um and also there is a recommendation from both staff and the commission that you can remain eligible as an adaptive reuse project. with up to a 33% increase in the mass of the building. that could be horizontal. that could be vertical. obviously that's one thing to talk about that in the planning context, it's another thing to talk about that in the building context, so i want to be clear that what we're doing in the building code in this ordinance is established is basically enabling language. for your staff and your c a. c and

you all as the commission to adopt an adaptive reuse manual. it can take the form of an administrative bulletin that spells out the appropriate equivalent seeds and standards and existing exceptions or alternatives that already exist in the code for adaptive reuse projects in terms of building code compliance. you know if there's a case where a project is adding a certain amount of mass, that's okay from planning perspective, they'll say, yeah, sure you can use our procedure as an adaptive reuse project even though you're adding maybe a floor or maybe some some amount of square footage, you know, horizontally, um, it will still be up to the d b i and the big in the in the contents of this manual to determine when there may be triggers for adding anything beyond the existing envelope that will then determine what the appropriate standard is in terms of the building code. so i'm just trying to make clear that just because the planning code is saying you can be adaptive reuse up to 33% it doesn't mean that every single project that could potentially use all that envelope and of course, the you know what was anticipated this

would cover you know, maybe it's just a penthouse on the top or something like that. um, that that doesn't necessarily mean that the building department has to treat every building that's a current existing shell with 33% expansion, the same as it would treat an alternative and adaptive reuse projects just within the shell. so i wanted to and we can certainly talk more about that. but that was an important piece of what's it. what happened to planning commission? um yeah, and so the meat of the building code language, which christine will go over it again, it's establishing a process that stab building staff fire staff will come up with these alternative standards. he's equivalency is that will then ultimately need to go through the and big approval before they would be adopted. and they would live. isn't it administrative bulletin that could be changed by staff. over time as needed. so what we're asking for it today with this ordinance is for that enabling language that that process can really move forward to continue. a lot of good preliminary work has happened and i really want to thank your staff. christine disbarred. neville pereira. a lot of folks that'd be folks at the fire

department who have been putting a lot of time already into helping us identify what we can put in this manual. to help some of the underutilized office buildings be able to convert as easily as possible into housing so that we can contribute more mixed use and vibrancy into into the downtown. i want to also mention that the building code language highlights the california historic building code. which is existing law that already is applicable in san francisco and other jurisdictions. the language proposed before even the building code would simply specify clarify that that is available. it will be implemented as it is required to by state law by building and fire when a building is an eligible historic resource, and that that determination will be made by the planning department as to what buildings are ineligible historic resource. so buildings would have the option if they qualify to use the california historic building code, which lays out its own set of adaptive reuse standards or if they're not eligible for that they would be using this administrative bulletin that would be enabled by the language

in this legislation. so to conclude i want to be sure and thank our legislative co sponsor board president peskin. we're very pleased to be working together on this as a key piece of what we think we need to do to keep downtown on track as a foundation of our economic recovery. and of course, i mentioned this went to the planning commission on may 4th. we're here with you today after the your commission has concluded your deliberations. this would next go onto the land use committee. the full board of supervisors and then in parallel , the development of the actual administrative bulletin would be going on. um, as as directed by your staff. and i'm here for any questions and also joined by folks from the planning department. if you have more questions on the planning side as well, so thank you. thank you, jacob. can we pull up the slides for design them? ah so

again, this proposed ordinance is will amend the planning code and building code to support more residential uses downtown by facilitating the adaptive re use of commercial buildings. next slide. how it is currently , building official and fire code official are authorized to consider alternative building standards. um consistent with section 17 1951 and 19 9 57 of the california health and safety code next slide. so this ordinance would create section 1 11 a of the building code entitled adaptive reuse, and it would direct us to work with the fire official to develop an alternative building standards manual, which would provide the building standards applicable to commercial residential adaptive reuse projects. this could either be in the form of a manual or in an administrative bulletin. next slide. um and that would include technical

information and implementation, parameters and standards, as well as other rules and requirements. uh for implementing the intent of section 1 11 a slide um and i want to note that the code advisory committee heard this and recommended approval at its may 10th committee meeting. and the department also recommends approval of this ordinance. and if you have any technical questions we also have with us. jenny chan, who's our technical services manager who could come up and answer any technical questions or also talk about the , um how we're going to develop the manual. thank you. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? there any any remote public comment there is public. commissioners and ed finney chair that could advisory committee. christina wanted to

make a correction. i don't think there was a motion to approve the ordinance, there were other motions. there were a total of five and your packet had a letter of four those motions and i think thomas forgot the fifth motion. um if you'd like me to go through those, i'd be happy to go through through all of them. so this was heard at the structural subcommittee, the administrative and design subcommittee as well as the full committee and, um we, uh there was quite a bit of discussion about this. this is actually new territory for the code advisory committee. and so there were a lot more questions and concerns about how this was actually going to get implemented, but the four motions that were made at the structural subcommittee and also reiterated by the code advisory committee arts follows the first one was that they, um the c a. c and s a c do not support relaxing the seismic triggers for structural

improvements on renovations of buildings have two thirds of the floors are affected. so um, uh, the. the idea being and this has been a code requirement for better part of 40 years in san francisco that when a major alteration happens to building that the building shouldn't be put back into service with a seismically deficient system. so the idea is that the when you do a major renovation you fix the structure at the same time, so we get the seismic safety built in into the bones. um the second one was to use essentially the san francisco existing building code and the process and not have a separate document. uh separate set of rules but actually incorporate any changes that need to be made into the administrative bulletin or to the existing building code. um the third one was, um i was

actually kind of down in the weeds on the seismic. um but to reiterate the sce 41 process for calculations of the structural systems and their capacities, and right now that's a document that not many structural engineers are using. and uh, there are many alternative methods for calculating non structural items in that in that document, and that we'd like to see your support in sort of getting that message. out to the structural engineering community. and in that effort, the fourth motion was to organize a series of training workshops through the department and with siok to help smaller engineering shops that probably aren't using as a c e 41 to implement the provisions there and to see projects that have used that document to get the structural systems to calculate correctly. and the fifth motion was that the committee at large did not support relaxation of

any building code requirements in this effort, and that equivalency is could be worked out. but yet, um uh, not rolling back the code just for these just for these particular projects in these particular zones. i think that the. a couple other comments that came out they weren't motions per se , but there was a lot of concern about the resources and the effort to create a new model code. we don't have we have a process where we react to the state building code. we also write a few san francisco amendments but generally their reactions to the state code, and we're frankly, we can't actually relax the state codes in any ways we can actually make them more restrictive, but we can't relax them so our hands are tied on the steak code. and if you look at the code books, san francisco's code book is about half an inch thick state

building codes about six inches thick. so there's quite a few regulations that that are essentially state requirements in that we don't have the authority to roll those back. um there was also some discussion about other jurisdictions, having a, um having a document that essentially was a roadmap for applicants to follow. and i think that there was generally no resistance to that. in other words, if someone put together a manual that uh, that extracted certain provisions from all the different code documents, administrative bulletins. uh different, you know, different model codes. a c 41 so forth that that information could be assembled into a manual or document or brochure so that it would help applicants sort of shortcut to the to the meat of the matter in terms of renovations that i think there was generally support on our committee for that, but there was no formal motion to that effect. that's all i have for

today. but if you have questions , happy to answer them, could you stay up for a moment? um i know that and i have not. due to my schedule, but he wanted tend a lot of the meetings, but i know that commissioner summer has been very consistent about this and this is really kind of in um, i just wanted to defer right first to commissioner summer as a structural engineer. i have my own comments. thanks. um. i did attend the structural subcommittee meeting and heard and talked a little bit about the items that were recommended here and i just wanted to clarify and i wasn't able to attend the code advisory committee to hear the larger discussion, unfortunately, but um i realized and i actually read the whole ordinance after attending that meeting, so now i'm like, oh, um, come things coming into play here, um, the

first recommendation that you guys the advisory committee had regarding, not supporting, relaxing the two thirds seismic trigger. i agree with that. it is a little in the weeds, meaning there's nothing proposed right now that is saying that right? that's correct. that's correct trying to note as we go through this process. we don't think we should ever be doing this. exactly yeah, and that was just wanted to make sure i understood that and i agree with that, and i think some of the discussion at the at the subcommittee meeting structural subcommittee meeting was you know, obviously you're going to get into discussions of how do you make this economically feasible for people to do it? okay you know, while still making it attractive, and, you know, um basically make these projects be able to pencil out and you know, so obviously there's a lot to this ordinance on the planning side that frankly, is just like, you know. a little overwhelming for me structural. so you know, i'm

focusing on the structural items. um and seeing. you know you will. i think this is where you guys were getting too. these will trigger seismic. um you know upgrades if it's a if it's a full building upgrade, where it's vacated, and you're completely changing the captaincy and removing all the walls and so forth. it's going to trigger the two third grade. so i mean, there's once again the two thirds upgrade to a model code that calculates to 75% of forces for a new building. so it's a it's a diminished standard for renovation from a calculation standpoint. right but still, i mean, there's seismic discussions, i guess, and instead i just as the structural engineer on projects like this. i know that as soon as we start to have these discussions, you know, obviously there's cost implications anyway. um, now i'm in the weeds. the other item i wanted to mention was oh, yes. i

mean, i think you guys were basically providing some thoughts on. it sounded like their support was there. let's move forward in this process. i agree with that, because the process as you had mentioned is this is asking to say, can we go forward here is the or, you know. do we recommend going forward and, um creating some sort of we're calling it a manual. but i know the group and i was also struggling with that word. a little bit manual. you know, we have administrative boat bulletins. we have codes. i don't i don't know if we have president for manual, but maybe i just don't know. um whatever, some sort of guidance to people wanting to do this that describes the process and talks through what is appropriate and with the department deems appropriate for these types of conversions. i support that. and i think the recommendations that you all provided are sort of getting ahead of um you know where that manual or a b or

whatever might go and saying we think we should go in this direction. people should be probably encouraged or start talking about s e 41. not everybody knows about sc 41, so we might want to do some training or some outreach or some other discussion about that. so i thought all these made sense to me. obviously this is not the last time we're going to be talking about this. um so maybe i will just leave it there and say, i thought the discussion was good, and i'm i'm on board. i mean, i think listening to the discussions or motions that the c a c made i, um i support. i mean, i think i said i support those. not that i think, but i do support them. i have some questions, though, about, um the thing that's a struggle with and this is relaxing is not the right word. but um, the seismic requirements and i'm not a structural engineering and architect. those are usually the most cost prohibitive on some of these

buildings, so i don't know how that's going to be weighed against or how that how that sort of calculated in and how you look at these because you know, uh, as um licensed engineers and licensed architects like yourself and myself. we use the code as you know, it's not necessarily black and white. but it's not. it's not. it's not a document. that we necessarily have the opportunity or the right to relax. it has to be processed so in terms of cost implications. what what did you get? did you talk about some of those discussions and some alternatives to the seismic requirements? i mean, i think that is pretty to me in the weeds, and we're going to start talking about specific buildings and you know i don't. there's a lot that goes into that discussion. and i think that will be one of the probably crux is of the discussion as whatever manual. maybe whatever is formed

. and what that what the implications of that mean, but i think i guess what the code advisory committee was saying, and i agree. we're gonna have a hard time or we're probably not going to want to justify changing major seismic requirements for these particular projects. we hold this standard for all other projects, and i mean, and that was the discussion as it stood at that time. yeah the general feeling was that would be a huge step backwards in safety implementation in san francisco , and i don't think we would disagree with that. my question. and this is really to the presenter. and now you can stay up there if you'd like. but um, a couple of things that would have helped this presentation and, um commissioner newman broach this new york times article, which i had a chance to review is a great article because it had um, really good visuals on, um, what types of buildings were best suited for these types of conversions? um i think would have helped. the

presentation is, um, there are firms like, um architectural firms that have done studies and depth of this in major cities, and i know they've done some in in san francisco. i think it would have been helpful as part of the presentation and instead of talking to us about areas of san francisco is to have that mapped out and maybe proposed, um, whether that's um, a property owner that's particularly interested or use. you know a handful of case studies where the viability of these conversions would be, um ah, you know, a good candidate for this program. um so i support the motions of csc makes the only question that i have having gone through this and one of the things i think the guideline is helpful just from any and i don't necessarily support another code for another type of a building type. but i think that um, because it's a new type. it's actually not.

it's not necessarily new, but this is a new ordinance. um having some guidelines that an applicant can can use to help them process some of the issues that, uh, the c a c anticipates, and i we consider that guideline of working document that you would update as these projects come through, um and some of the things about i think that we're part of the presentation where alternate means and methods for, um uh, you know these these conversions in terms of the building codes. i think some of those things would be also good. one of the things i think is an architect. that's sometimes frustrating is that, um you'll work with an agency on a alternate means and methods. where the assumption this has been approved before because it has and for some reason on your project. it hasn't so, um, and for whatever reason, so it becomes very subjective, but you

know, there's some examples of those types of now and i don't know that that does get into the weeds and can put sometimes a building department. you know, in a precarious position, saying that we have approved something like this, but i don't know how you would address that with a conversion. or maybe that's something that director reardon you can speak to, but you know, with some of our. yes absolutely . i think it's important to maybe create a visual representation of what's what the discussion is here. so we can, you know, have a better understanding as a group, speaking more to some of the consistency and memoirs. well you know, i think to, um to the to what the way my way of understanding it is. there are a lot of differences in these buildings and, um you know we're going to be looking at a plethora of different scenarios

, so i think we want to approach it like from high level as much as possible and not get into the details that might surround these differences in these buildings because they are all different. so we offer something. absolutely one comment. i heard it in our discussions with that was that the state was actually contemplating creating a document that is a what alternative means and methods. document for converting to residential buildings. and when i heard that my imagination immediately went to the state historic building code, because that's the one firm document we have from the state that said you can do equivalency is and it puts the burden on the applicant to demonstrate that is truly an equivalency. so to director written point. that helps an applicant just for their particular project and then meets to confirm that the department is in agreement with

that, but there are a number of documents. a lot of it is in a bs that could be pulled forward into an informational document that says hey, if you're going to convert it, uh, multi story high rise level building. and these are things that consider here's the sprinkler ordinance. here's the and here are all the different documents you can point to and give them essentially a roadmap. i heard several people comment about that at our meeting that that would be a useful document to have so, um, in that regard the term manual being not a not a necessarily illegal document, but a roadmap document. i think there was general support for that idea. maybe not a manual but a guideline. director yeah, i think it's ah. ah it's the when you think about how we named this thing. is it a manual guidelines? is it a checklist? i mean it. it's probably a combination of all those things. yeah just concerned about what

it's called and more that it helps the applicants so that they can understand. what are some of the bulletins to your point would be relevant to their project and also some of the land mines that other applicants might have had to face when, in a similar project before they sort of delve into the design of the project. yeah one comes to mind in the separation of stairs . a lot of these office buildings have historically not had the separation of the stair towers. and there is a document to say here are the equivalency is how you do it for office. but there's no documented to my understanding for residential buildings or conversion to residential buildings, but that kind of language could be brought forward and say, hey, yes, city believes even in a residential project of your stair towers are not separated, and you provide these other layers, sprinklers and alarms and so forth that has been deemed an equivalency and there shouldn't be any reason why we shouldn't be telling applicants that ahead of time instead of saying here. it's buried in one of these 70 a bs to go pull

forward and try to figure out how to do your project, especially for out of town architects who don't know about the process totally agree. yeah and you know a lot of these buildings. they are what they are. you don't have that separation. you have these, uh restrictions in regard to how you might normally comply with code. so you know there are, you know ways of with sprinklers and fire walls and different other ways of finding. um compliance is an equivalency to the general requirement. and that that information has been accumulated over the years with lots of vetting and discussion and actual real world cases but to create a brand new document from scratch without the sort of r and d, um i think there was generally not a lot of support for that within san francisco. commissioner lehman generally. support uh, providing more

flexibility to make these changes. the reality is not every commercial building is suitable for, um being three used for residential um, and there are some that are more usable than others. and i think that the flexibility here is really important so that we can fully explore those things and we can sort of see the change that we really need in those areas of the city to really revitalize them. i think to that point just like we've seen from other architectural studies. there are some cat there's sort of they've mapped out the best candidates for those conversions , so i don't think that's a i don't think that's a hard lift for this particular ordinance. i do i do agree with, um mr phineas recommendation about pulling together a certain bulletins, or, uh, you know, policy pieces if that's what you call him so that an applicant

can understand these might be this might relate to you. i do understand that, you know, architects. every building generally that we work on is a case study. it's a new project, but there's certain things that, um you know, i've faced in an alternate when you're you're basically defending it. you're defending it. an mmr or ahmad? where the situation might be similar and equivalent might be similar. but the interpretation of that is just different. so that's where i think, um, you know, they just circles back to all of our discussions about having consistency and review. they're also the pre permit approval process, which is particular in san francisco, which addresses adaptive reuse directly that also could be brought forward and said here this is how you do that when you have something where you you're scratching your head and say, well, how do i fix this? coming into the city with your plans and say this is our proposed equivalency. those conversations

usually generate a lot of well and another building recently, we added a fire pump. oh, okay. now we're equivalent or we edited better alarm system than was required by the code minimum that that is that's approved as well. so i think there is a methodology. i think for people who are new to san francisco would absolutely get lost in the process of trying to find where is that information. and we've been working in the code advisory committee to move as much of that information into hard written abe's in order to make it more visible, more transparent more out there, and if there's another document was created to even make it easier to get to that, um, i think that the would have support that. are you doing? so are you working in coordination with db on this? like how they i mean, is this something that you would post on the website? how mean? but we haven't seen the we haven't seen a definition of the process of

how it's actually going to get written. that hasn't been discussed. when you're pulling together administrative bulletins that are germane to a particular project type. um the technical services department actually creates a draft and says to the r subcommittees here here are all the german sections of the code. and here's the draft interpretation and so forth. and then we reviewed that and sometimes it's three or four rounds of revision until we get it, but for a new applicant coming into san francisco if they want to do a conversion is that something that technical services provides them? i'm sorry, i don't i don't process, referring to creating a document . and maybe that explains how to get an equivalency for a certain condition. oh i was talking about. i thought you were also talking about a way to compile, you know, a series of bulletins or documents that might be german to a conversion. no i

just how do you create that? exactly so the creating of that document might end up in an abbey that says, hey, if you're converting office residential and you're in this district for this ordinance here are all the a b s. you might want to take a look at about how you address exiting how you address firewalls. how you address i see . okay and so forth. i don't think i misunderstood. doctor ruden. thank you. i think preplanned check is a big part of this conversation, too, because in pre plan check, we have two engineers sitting at the counter and if the applicant comes in with a proposal, i mean, they will be able to see if it likely will will will work and i mean that should be considered in any manual or any guidelines. we have our we put out there, too and many times fire is also invited to that meeting so that the fire issues can also be addressed. yes. yeah i mean, i totally understand and

agree with commissioner newman's point about flexibility, but sometimes that word concerns me because that flexibility also means that that might work against the applicant. if the plan checker has so much flexibility and interpreting something and they don't have any guidelines or they are. they're not using precedents in a consistent way. then it becomes more difficult than and the thing about. this is it's like i said, the next time we hear about this, this should be really mapped out in san francisco and maybe understand a number of buildings that are the best candidates for these yeah, the words relaxing and waving or scary words for me, um i mean, i would be more thinking about creating equivalency is in a roadmap or whatever we want to call it manual and giving giving folks the ability to kind of try to understand what they need to do to make these buildings work

for the adaptive reuse. there was also, um uh, some discussion about, um, having the technical services group, go through the code and look at san francisco ordinances and pitching regular and pull out things that no longer are applicable. it's sort of a weeding of the process. so, for instance of fire mentioned that they wouldn't be needing gurney sized elevators, right? and um, and when we finally got into the discussion, it turns out well, the technology is because they're gurneys that now sit up and don't have a big footprint of an elevator. well when you're, um but that's still in the code that you need the gurney size elevators, so things like that that could be pulled back out of the code that actually might, you know, benefit significantly, the renovations and reuse of these buildings. it's a great example, commissioner summer i don't want to stay for the conversation,

but it seems like a lot of it now is talking about it a process that is sort of down the road do we want to? and my conclusion here is it sounds like we support moving this forward. do we should we would support moving it forward with six recommendations. i agree. any further questions. no, thank you. thank you, bianca. so there is that. what is that your motion commissioner newman had a question or comment. i just had a comment. it seems like more the streamlining is really more on the front end for planning so that you can actually, um i understand that you possibly have a project here that you can convert and that, um, there's a lot of technicalities that we have to work out on the planning side, so it's really getting an understanding of those equivalency is um um, one of one other comment just came to mind that was discussed. um a lot of the economic viability of these projects is the ability to

expand the building and, um and chickens point earlier about the planning code allowing for these expansions. there's probably not as much but written in terms of abe's about what do you do with the new part versus the old part and the economic viability is you can spread those renovation costs over much larger square footage and it becomes more viable. so i think that it might be useful to have maybe a small working group come up with ideas of like, okay, well, if you add five stories to this six story building, i don't know if you can go that far. but if you significantly added or demolished a significant portion of the building, built it back and then added, you're 33. what would what would the equivalency is be in that type of project? and maybe there are a couple of projects that are model projects that that group could study so that we could then form perhaps an a b? that says, hey, if you're expanding for this

legislation, 33% these are some different equivalency is that we haven't considered before. so that was discussed, but there was no motion or actual direction on it. yeah i mean, i agree with commissioner newman that the planning level just like we've been talking on this site permit reform or the development review permit. they want to take a much more take a higher level approach the project so that they can process them with more expediency. i think in this particular case, you don't necessarily want to add more requirements. but on a conversion like this, it would require an architect and developer. it would be up to the developer to really pursue the economic viability of this, whether it was seismically um, you know any number? i would i just think structural gonna be one of the big cost, uh, prohibit ear's, but that would just leave it. you know some responsibility on the applicant that it's really you know on your shoulders to understand this and in depth, and i don't

think that the planning process would preclude that, or the building department would so that was where we went to a sc 41 because the seismic there are ways to actually calculate building and get benefits for some of the existing things like foundation work that's not crystal clear its way in the weeds on that document, and that's where we think that supporting. um some training about that about how you actually calculate the building that it actually might make some of these projects more feasible than they are right now. using a prescriptive method of calculation. great. um director ngo, something you wanted to say? it looks like you do thinking as we were going along here, but i think the conversation hinges a lot around the financial cost of the seismic work and the structural work. these are the, uh, you know, um you know everything

else because that's that's really where it's at as far as i can see and what the expectation will be then in regards to what will be necessary and i mean there is a c c document is probably instrumental in that your point. so, um yeah, and we can. you know, put all those documents together in one place to create. you know, uh, a roadmap for the stakeholder to be able to figure out if these projects are going to pencil for their buildings. yes, some buildings have good bones, and some buildings don't for residential. so the happening a developer? get to that answer before they spend a lot of money is first step in that so that they're not down, you know, and step number 10 when they figure out it doesn't really work. thank you. i was just gonna say you know, i'm an affordable housing developer. but, you know, i'm looking at viability of builds all the time and the

seismic stuff. you know there's trade offs because there's insurance requirements and it's whether or not you know you're looking at whether or not you can get a building insured like those. those things also play a vital role in this and so, um, you know, maybe there are some developers that would like to take shortcuts, but i think generally, um, you're looking to, you know, protect your asset. yeah. thank you. thank you. insurance and financing. thanks so there was so did you? you had a you made emotion commissioner summer and there's more comment. go ahead lily language with the planning department. i just wanted to mention that, um spurring guns or did an analysis of about 40 buildings downtown kind of looking at the qualities that's sort of the level of information that we have right now. right now. within the planning department. we have one application for a conversion project at 9 88 market street. and i think the hope is that through passing this legislation, we will have more applicants come forward, so have

a better idea of what the landscape is and kind of what the changes need to be made to help accommodate these projects. thank you. um do we need to make a motion? is it? yes. how do we need to do public comments? did we already do public comments so do you want me to make those? i would like to make the motion to, um. are we? what what's the motion that to just support the legislation? okay probably with the along with the code advisory committee didn't know that we're just supporting it. but there's no it's going to be a vote supporting the legislation is voting on it. okay so i'd like to make a motion to support. um the ordinance with the recommendations from the cdc. their 2nd 2nd. so there's the motion in a second, um, the roll call vote. president veto commissioner newman. yes.

commissioner shattuck's yes, commissioner. summer motion carried unanimously. thank you. and next we're on item seven. update on unpermitted on in complaints and community outreach. good morning commissioners on patrick hannon, the communications director for the department of building inspection. thank you for the opportunity to present to you on the awnings, compliance outreach. you bring up the slides. we're gonna talk today about a general update. and then your next agenda item is actually about the legislation that is being proposed for you to consider. i'm gonna walk through a little bit about the legislation right now, um, the advisory committee has voted to approve. uh the legislation with the recommendation around the fees that we'll talk about in a moment. and the board of supervisors and mayor would be

expected to approve it this summer, and we would actually start implementing the program in august or september. there have been a couple revisions to the legislation. they're good. smart changes. the first one is that extends the deadline. the window for the program from december 31st to june. 1st just give applicants a longer period of time in order to take advantage of the program. the second one is that it allows for the waiver of fees permit fees related to corrective work that's required to bring an awning into compliance. we don't want to make people go away and go through and then having to come back, so while they have to go through the same process, they have to use a have to present plans. they have to use a licensed contractor. we're gonna waive those fees and we'll try to do it as part of the same conversation rather than telling them to go away and come back separately. next slide, please. and one other thing i want to note is that most of the fees are waived. under this legislation. there are a few fees that we couldn't wave. um they are related to the board of

appeals surcharges. these are the fees that are charged for support the board of appeals. operations these are appealable permits. so the three fees are four department of building inspection department of public works and for the planning department. and there's two other fees that would continue to be assessed. one is the state strong motion instrumentation fee. this is precise, make monitoring, and another one is the state building standards administration's special revolving fund, which is really around green building standards and outreach. these are the same fees that we currently assessed during the awning fee waiver month of may for small business month. um and they generally total just under $100. so the applicants are still getting a significant savings. these are just fees that would require code changes, either at the state level or in a completely different, um, part of the city's code in order to make that change and what impact operations of another city department excellent. and one of

the things that we're doing. we're in the process of sending out a letter. the letter is to go to all property owners who received a notice of violation or a complaint for the property for having an unpermitted existing awning. the letters will go out in four languages. english, chinese, spanish and filipino. the letters really make four key points. the first one is that enforcement is on hold. we want to let people know that it's okay and that we will be circling back. but for right now, they don't have to worry about further enforcement occurring. the second one is that it highlights the legislation that we just spoke about, which is sponsored by mayor breed supervisor peskin and now supervisor stephany has also signed on saying that simplifies the permitting process. it removes the requirement for contractor engineer drawings and also waves , permit fees and penalties states that the program will be open through june 1st as we just discussed and that we will get back in touch with them when the legislation is in effect, and they can take advantage of it. excellent. we've walked you through a website that will go live when the legislation is

enacted. but for right now, we've actually put up a new website to give owners the opportunity. prepare the documentation they'll need in advance if they so choose, though it's up on the website right now, and just provides a little bit more information about what we just talked about, as well as the details for how they were able to get a permit for their existing awning once the program goes into effect. that concludes the first this agenda item. so i'd like to pause and just see if you have any questions before we move on to the next. um i just want to say i don't particularly have any questions because i think that d b i is propped, donna, um an exceptional job of addressing this and unfortunate situation. so, um but all. commissioner summer you had a question. i just wanted to ask. i recall and i don't i don't think you reiterated today this this was this all started because there were a number a large number and inordinate number of anonymous complaints regarding awnings throughout the city this year. is that true? correct it started

in november and it ran through about the middle of march. we had a much higher number of complaints around awnings, anonymous complaints that were seen as impacting the business community that was really still trying to recover from covid and a lot of the issues that you discussed earlier today. because this and maybe this is more of a question for the next item regarding the actual ordinance. how does this affect people? you want to get a new awning? i'm a new but i just bought something or whatever. and i'm going to install a new warning. this does not affect it doesn't appear to differentiate or does it. it's this is really about existing on okay, that had the complaints and then notices of violation applied to their properties. we do have may fee awning waiver month of small business month where you can come in and you can get your fees waived for a new awning. or replacement awning. and if it and i think for the people that this is serving, which are small businesses, i think this is this program is really beneficial to them. so thank you. thank you.

thank you for your presentation. is there any public comment? item seven. high commissioner henry cannula wits the majority complaints for by the way in chinatown, so there's a big, huge meeting about this, and people are very, very upset. the other area that we've got a lot of complaints was tenderloin of all places. you wouldn't think so. and the other one was right out there on ocean avenue. maurice strange lord anonymous. we didn't know without coming from we really appreciate it from small business about these kidneys and permitted or, uh on, he said, do not meet current codes. the only question that we sort of have is like quite now says even owning does not meet applicable building code provisions to property only must pull us standard building permit to perform any corrective work

to remove. replace your warning. the only thing is how do we find out which ones and what's the process for? that we don't know about that, i guess is going to come down later on down the road. what the post is going to be for doing that, because that's the only thing we don't know. do we had a meeting with, uh, supervisor peskin? zaid about this, and he said, well, as long as we've got that one form, we can just take a photo and that would that would do it. but i don't know if that's what is going to happen, so that would be the only question i would have about, but otherwise i think it's great that this has been done. thank you. thank you. certainly remote public comment. okay thing, then we will, uh then go tell gender item eight. um discussion and possible action regarding border supervisors ordinance file number 230447 amending their building and planning codes to create a temporary amnesty program. for unpermitted awnings

that streamlines the application process to legalize awnings, waves applicable fees and confers legal nonconforming status. for awnings that do not comply with the planning code. in addition to other requirements, thank you, commissioner patrick hannon with the department of building inspection. the building code regulates the installation of awnings. they're struck. they are attached to structures. um and so we will need to make sure that they are fastened properly and that they're properly strong , um, in artist withstand both, um wind, another another impacts gravity, frankly, and other things that could impact something that is sitting above people's heads as they walk by on the sidewalk. the planning department also has a role in reviewing, uh, awnings as part of compliance with planning code section 136.1, as well as various different zoning requirements in the city. so as mentioned before this would create a temporary amnesty program that would have waved

the enforcement of inspection application and fees under the both the planning and the building codes, um and so to allow people to legalize existing awnings during the program's duration, but also streamline the process. right but it would not waive any compliance. um, so anything that is required to make sure that the awning is safe. you still have to do to answer mr carney lewitt's question. um the way it's set up is that under the streamlined program if somebody would come in and we have online, we have what's called a dimension photo, where they have to provide certain information within the photo. that would allow our staff to review along with building a signed application that would allow us to get the key information so that we can make a determination whether it's safe and going to be meets the building code standards during that actual desk review if the staff member identified that there was something that wasn't code compliant, they were using little wood screws instead of the required size screw for the fastening of the awning to the structure that would actually be

identified at that moment, and that would be the time when they could come back through and say, okay, hold on a second. you need to go get this fixed, but because they would have started the process. those fees would be waived when they came back through. similarly if the if the nine code compliance element was identified when the inspector went out there and conducted site inspection again, they were able to get those those fees are waived, but they would have to go through the standard process of filling out a building permit and getting a licensed contractor architect to help them with the plans and install any additional work that was required. the. the next slide. the advisory committee did review this item and they made a terrific recommendation, which would be that we would waive the fees related to dpw and fire as well. you know, we took a look at the, um the legislation and we confirm that the dpw and fire with these would be waived because they are permit fees and that the only fees that would continue to apply would be those

surcharges that we talked about earlier as well as the state fees that we talked about earlier as well. and that concludes our presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions, but we'd really appreciate if you'd be willing to support this legislation. okay. thank you there, um, first any public comment on this item? any remote public comment, mr. okay, go ahead. just a quick one. the advisory committee was actually quite pleased at the department's response and coming up with a very, very creative solution for this very nasty situation where someone's sort of got a vendetta out and a lot of small business owners. so we really appreciate all the efforts that christine and patrick and, uh, director reardon has done. it's a model for what can happen when everybody wants to work together , so hopefully on a lot of these other processes. if we can be as creative with those as we were with the amnesty program, we got really good things coming. so thank you. i just want to find

matthew words. i just want to echo exactly what they just said. to really appreciate db i working on this to get this resolved. we really pleased if it thank you. commissioner summer we closed public on any remote public comment. i'm saying nine then. yes, commissioner discussion. commissioner somewhere. have perhaps an unkind question. this is. for existing on things that are found non compliant. i fully support all of the things that have been said, and i think we should support this. is there. something in and i know it's adding it to the code to talk to talk about what to do, and fees being waved and whatnot. if you are in now, pursuant to my question from the last item. if you're installing a new awning,

does it behoove you to now install it with no permit and then come back and do this process. there are always going to be people. i don't good intentions, but the fact is that we want to solve for the people that feel really negatively impacted and if there are people that decide to take advantage of that, then we're going to take that hit and the effort to support the people and help the people who need our help. the city attorney rob kaplan. there are also provisions in the amnesty. ah that relate to the planning code, which would because there are content restrictions or size restrictions in the planning code for certain signs, and the newly installed sign would not get those grandfathering provisions so it would still be out of complaints with the planning code, so there are reasons not to try and go out and install an awning to comply with amnesty. um i'd like to make a motion to support this

ordinance. to amend the building code and planning code to create this temporary amnesty program for unpermitted dominance. their second. how second. there's a motion and a second and i'll do a roll call vote. president veto . country statics. did you have something you wanted to add? my was sitting the wrong button. that was okay. thought so. okay uh yes. um commissioner newman? yes commissioner. shattuck's yes and commissioner summer. yes that motion carried unanimously. hmm um, and again, as announced in the beginning of the agenda, um, item nine is stricken from the agenda. we're onto item 10 discussion and possible action regarding recommendations on the site permit reform process. um i think that the only thing that one of the things that came out of that meeting from, uh, last

thursday which was a really positive meeting on a lot of different fronts is um, with the new, uh, with the legislation, potentially, uh, surfacing this summer. um i think one of the things that would help ah, applicants and the public really? understand the changes that are happening in d b, i is that we start tracking those metrics. um and personally i'd like to see those metrics start at the point of the fees being paid and or the submit als and i understand that there's a lot of , um, time that spent, you know, prior to this planning, but that should be part of the calculus because that is one of the things about bifurcating. this process that planning is taking the permit first and then doing a concurrent review. so i think understanding what the

differences are between what before november when this is actually adopted, but but d b i slowly you know, implementing changes as as the months continue. agreed we've already started working on, uh figuring out what the date is and showing the change from before to know so happy to work with the commission and provide you with that information at an upcoming meeting. okay um, i know we're not at the agenda for the next meeting, but that would be potentially one of the things that we would want to add to that. um i wanted to open that up to other commissioners for discussion or suggestions and other ideas that coming out of that thursday meeting, which was you know? um it was my first joint commission meeting and i thought it was great to hear from the planning commission and also from from all of you. any

any other comments from fellow commissioners commissioners. shattuck's recognize you? um it was a great meeting, and it was great to hear from planning. um and thank you. to all who put that coordinated that the two things that jumped out from there that i'm curious, um where it's going to land is there was a lot of discussion about pg knee and a lot of discussion on dph. and, uh, so is that following is this tracking along with us? as we move this process forward legislatively. and are we going to hear from those? um either at one of those agencies, are they going to come here and talk about that? or um, but i do support everything that you know. we, uh we had talked about last week. but i'm just curious where where they're at because there was certainly that was the common yeah, we're working very closely with dpw in regard to the public works conversations and they are in communication with pg and e more than we are.

so we're we're, you know, focusing the conversation on those those particular challenges that were identified at the joint meeting. so i think to your point commissioner shadows. that's actually one of the things i wanted to talk about on the next agenda item for the client services needing. so, um you know your point. well taken in terms of there was a lot of um. concerns are frustrations from architects that have to deal with these issues that spoke up that day. so i think it's something that we want to continue to try, but d b i in, you know, separate meetings that you know i've had with commissioner tanner. we had, um i'm not sure it wasn't a client services meeting that we had that i think they came to a client services meeting some of the most recent client services meeting public public works, fire and other agencies here in san francisco were very much on board with that process. um i

don't remember that meeting to be honest, but it was in the 49 venice recently when we invited fire, and, um he cnp w and health department. oh yes, yes, that. yeah that's right. i think it was that a client services. we've been in so many meetings. i've lost track, but it was a client services thursday afternoon meeting. i think i'm starting to get meeting out. ok but we did have. they did come to the table and it was a really good discussion. they were all on board now. you know, at these meetings, we generally have to keep things that high level but you know, i'm guilty as an architect that we do get into the details, and it's really in the details that things are solved. so um, i don't mind hearing the platitudes about you know, we're working on this were supportive of it. but the question now is how you're going to do it so, but i think you know, db is sort of these are

different agencies that the db i isn't responsible for their work necessarily. but i think that db i certainly could provide leadership as you know the main point or the nexus of all this of the building permit. yeah i mean, i see our role as a coordination role, and in so far that we can be collaborators and ensure that you know we can create a defined process. okay i don't have a particular action, but what i would like to see from d b i r the real metrics of , uh, submittal times from the date of submittal. the date of payment to permit. commissioner even did you have a question? just going to say completely agree with that? and i think anything we can do to, um, publicly hold people accountable. um being our partners, and all of that is

going to just help improve this process, because, um they don't clients don't often see what's happening behind the curtain. and so anything we can do to sort of open that up and hold those accountable who are holding up the process is really important. and it also facilitates ensuring transparency. well hopefully that will make the leadership the job of the leadership at b. i also to some degree user because numbers don't lie. right so things aren't moving in the direction that you'd expect in a time frame that you expected in meeting the goals, whether that's 30 or 60 days to get a letter out, that's that's that's within the same cycle of review that that's something that you know, would make dbs job easier in terms of tracking. agreed. i don't have any further comments

to that. but i, um i don't know if we have to make a motion on that to see that on the next agenda. uh, mr. were you talking about the just getting this just getting the data in the stats on the permitting times. deputy city attorney rob kaplan. i think to make a motion for that just feedback to the department for next time, there's an update to include metrics, okay? um. i know it's we're not in public comment, but but then funnier, raised his hand. is he allowed to speak? ah are you are you are you guys done with a discussion then he can come up for public comment because there's probably coming on every item. oh, okay. that's right. is there any other comments? comments from the commissioner's okay? okay. it's a public comment for adam 10. um the site permit reform process, um, has been going on. sort of

in parallel to the ordinance that is going to be discussed at tomorrow's meeting. and i think it would be, uh, a good idea to have someone from the department talk about the reform process at our meeting at the same time tomorrow because it might influence how they react to the ordinance. that's on the table. so you might want to consider having a representative. discuss the progress in the process on the site reform process, in addition to the ordinance and being considered and hopefully we have enough time to get it actually on the agenda. before that, well, it's sort of it's part of. it's part of that discussion, so i don't know if it necessarily needs an agenda item because it, you know, does it city attorney kapila. deputy city attorney rob kaplan. um it's part of the context here, and certainly the. the two

ordinances of the two efforts are not mutually exclusive. it's not as if you have to adapt one versus the other. they would dovetail and not create a conflict so you can discuss the legislation in the context of other efforts. but you would not be able to agendas and item that hasn't yet been, um, introduced by the board so we couldn't make a motion on the reform process. but we could make a motion on the ordinance. yeah okay. and i don't think we necessarily want to make the reform project of another agenda or elsewhere. it's part of it's part of the discussion, but i think people might want to know what's going on because that will influence how they react to that one question is director ruben, are you available tomorrow for this meeting? i'm not sure if i have availability on my calendar, but if i can, i will have somebody attend. either you or neville would be good to talk about that process of one of us can be there. okay? that would be great. thank you. good suggestion. thank you. sarah any

further public comment. and not remotely. and we're on to item 11 discussion and possible action regarding future agenda items for the client services subcommittee. um i have a suggestion for the client services committee. um the joint meeting last thursday. it was the last few slides that talked about and two ministers. shattuck's question about the other departmental reviews. i'd like to speak like to root. i'd like to discuss put in the agenda how we're coordinating with other departments. um, just on a you know, monthly update at the client services because plenty has their own. um scope of work and purview of the site permit. um and at the at the

joint commission meeting, a lot of it rested on planning process and even in the outrage, a lot of it focused on planning, but i think um, here at the big for obvious reasons, and also at the client services. we can focus on how d b. i is working with other departments to, um, coordinate their efforts to change how they review these projects for a site permit. you know, i think that's a good conversation to have, and i'd be happy to engage in that. and i think that would be great to have, you know, updates. they don't necessarily have to attend every meeting, but it was great to have them at the last meeting to hear from them directly, but i think, uh, just as i mentioned earlier maybe maybe more specific specificity on the types of things that they would do, um, from whether it's a policy standpoint or operational , and mostly, i'm concerned with operational. so any any other

comments from other commissioners or questions that you would like to add to that or any other, um thoughts from the thursday meeting. okay that's my suggestion for the client services agenda. okay. did i state that correctly? ah, yes. is there any public comment on item 11? seeing then that remotely. okay then we are onto adam 12 commissioner's questions that matters. will be 12 a and b 12. uh, commissioner's questions and matters 12 acre inquiries to staff at this time commissioners may make increases staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures, which are of interest to the commission and item b is future meetings and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take

action to set the date of a special meeting and are determined those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings that are building inspection commission that next regular, um b i c meeting is on june 21st. i'd like to make. uh ah, suggestion on the next big meeting is to which i stated before. as to agenda eyes data on the permitting permitting times and then the second agenda item is to, uh, discuss the takeaways from our discussion of the client services with respect to other departments or review. commissioners have any other items. uh deputy city attorney, robert capital. i think we should also memorialize that we plan to set a special meeting on the item five. oh, yes. do we have to pick a date? now can we

do that later? would be ideal if we could at least pick the if it's going to be next week. does it have to be next week? it depends on on when we would like to hear it. i think at the csc's gonna here before the end of the week. if we know, um to set a placeholder for wednesday or next week or the week after, but we should at least inform the public that we intend to set a special meeting between now and the june. do we need to do i need to agendas that or i think we need to take a vote. in addition to these discussion items that you proposed for the regular meeting that biggs intent is to hold a special meeting between now and at least the june regular meeting. we do have two commissioners in attendance just in terms of actual scheduling. yes so i would like we can make. um can we make a motion that we have a special meeting, but not saturday so that sonia can coordinate schedules? yeah i think so. i mean, ideally, we would say today, but we at least need to make a motion that we intend to have a special meeting between now and the june regular

meeting. so do i need to make that motion? so i'd like to make a motion to have a special meeting between now and the next regular scheduled big meeting, um, and also include the two other agenda do i have to motion the other agenda items? i stated no, no, those would be for the regular meeting. didn't think so. is there a second for that? motion post second and our commissioners in favor of this motion. any opposed? you know, then that that motion carries. is there? um because the commissioners have any other items for the regular agenda. you can reach out to me at any time you do. is there any public comment than on items 12 a. or b? gave saying none item 13 directors report 13, a director's update. patrick o.

reardon director of db, um, i want to start by going back to the site permit conversation, and i want to thank you for your you're the productive meeting we had last week and i just want to applaud your thoughtful deliberation and what is very important conversation. so thank you for that. over the past three years. we've made a lot of improvements at the department, and i can honestly say that it's a different organization. no with better better customer service, better permitting and inspection processes and probably what's just as important as better morale amongst the staff. um. but i truly believe the re argument that we organizing the side permit process is going to have a major impact on how we do business. how we measure our progress and how we serve the public. this is a key reform that will help us meet the mayor's charge to cut the permit

department processing times for housing by 50% um, as you know, the side permit process. reforms will come back to you for a vote this summer. in the meantime, please let me and my team know if you have any questions or additional feedback. again big shoutout team db for all their work and efforts. uh, you guys are amazing. um so moving on next topic is, uh, as you know, probably. maybe not. everyone knows it, but may is building safety month. and i want to call your attention to the fact that mayor breed will be issuing a proclamation this month for building it for building and safety month. a time when building officials around the nation reflect on the nature of our work and our role in providing public safety in the built environment. deputy

director neville pereira, who is not with us today. he's attending training, um, hosted a small celebration for staff last week. and like to, uh, thank and acknowledge his staffs work. um we worked with mayor breeds team and a proclamation reorganizing the importance of our work and how it helps protect our residents and support our city. i want to thank all of you on the commission for your commitment to building safety and helping us to uphold these values every day that concludes my director's report. okay thank you. um next is item. 13 b update on major projects. can we have the slides, please? thank you. so. um the following slides are intended to highlight the

volume and valuation of projects costing uh, five million or more that have been filed issued or completed in the past month. we will profile a few projects that bring especially high value in terms of their contribution to the housing to housing and community assets. can i have slides to please? there we go. in april 2023 we issued to high value permits with evaluation of 26.6 million.01 permit was rent office tenant improvement at 600 battery street. the other was for the renovation of the six by six miles at 9 45 market street by inca centers, which will in fact, how's the new ikea? um. and um, lastly, um. d b i there

we go. lastly db final for high valued projects. uh these completed projects have accustomed uh, construction valuation combined of $149 million and have added 417 new housing units. um one of the projects was 141 units. supportive housing development at 4, 10, china basin street and another was for 130 units of affordable housing development at 6 81. florida street. thank you. and i'm available for any questions. i won't question these major project report. can we in the future? incorporate some of the data you know we're talking about, especially when it comes to like, um office tenant improvements in housing just to understand some things we're talking about, or we're trying to pursue and the timelines for a lot of these major projects. is that possible

? we can we can look at doing that. thank you. okay um, next is item. 13 c update on dbs finances. hello commissioners. alex koskinen, deputy director administrative services. i have the monthly financial update. uh next month, we'll have a more significant update june 1st is when the mayor releases her proposed budget. and then as you heard from, uh, supervisor staff i in june the supervisor's review the mayor's proposed budget and make their make their changes. so june and july will be significant updates on budget, but for now, um, i have the regular update. so we are 83% of the way through the year 80% for labor because it only labor only posts every two weeks and, um, are charges for

services are major revenue source is 76% collected so behind where we would like it to be where we expected at the beginning of the year, and the story remains the same from february march, april we had seen a spike in december. we were hopeful that that would continue, but it looks like that was just people trying to file things before ahead of the code change. so next slide, please. these are the. numbers that reflect the narrative on the previous page, and we're expecting to end the year about 10% below budget for revenue overall. this is still we believe a conservative estimate and we are hoping that, um that no, no further. ah! revenue declines will will happen. next slide, please. on the

expenditure side. we continue to understand and manage our spending to the degree possible . uh we're projecting significant savings and fortunately not enough to offset the revenue shortfalls. but we're doing what we can to manage. and we believe that will end the year about 4% below budget, so about $3.2 million savings. this is we believe a very conservative estimate and we are very hopeful, too. realize additional savings on charges, uh, service charges from other departments. we're seeing less workers comp expenditure than um, we had budgeted, so there's various savings, light heat and power is usually consistently over budgeted, so we're hoping for some savings there. ah but we do think that we will end the year

on an overall deficit. next slide, please. so here are the numbers that reflect the narrative on the previous page. and um, one thing to note is that this buffer that is helping balance our revenue shortfall. we in our department budget submission, we made significant reductions to our expenditure budget to reflect future our ability to save and so this this cushion will not be there next year. so we have reduced our revenue budget to hopefully reflect what we believe reality will be. but we will have less less flexibility. the flexibility we have this year we will not have next year. next slide, please. so on the. the permit front, which is a good proxy for revenue. overall we've

shown all year that permits have been 10% lower than the same time last year, however, valuation earlier in the year had been the same or higher than last year. and now we've kind of last year has caught up to this year and we're about the same so 10% lower and almost 10% lower valuation. next slide, please. so really, what had helped out this year was some large projects in december, um. the you can, you can see the light of the highest to tears, especially the highest 11 or two big projects can really make a big difference. um but everywhere else every other category. the valuation last year is at the same time, um, through may is higher than this year. and very notably the 5 to $50 million. range um 5 $45 million same same time last year

versus 3 21 this year. um. so again budget we do not. next year next month will be a more significant update. the mayor releases her budget on june 1st. we don't know what will be contained in that budget until they make it public. we're out of the budget system. they don't share that with with us or other departments, and so we will update you then. and but they have told us that um they are. the few study is not complete. but they are they have their implementing a solution for next year's budget. they will not leave revenues. as they have been, they will make some change to fears and they will let us know what that change will be on junior. they will confirm what that change will be on june 1st and we will update you then. but they have told us that the fee study should continue and that the time pressure is now off and

we can take our time and really make sure that all of the underlying assumptions are are correct and. we have the time to do it properly and make sure all the details are correct. that is my presentation. next side. thank you. i'd be happy to answer any questions. do you mind felt to fellow commissioners have any questions? i don't have any questions necessarily, but i think it's demoralizing that you're below budget, but you're still in a deficit, so i think that's a tough pill to swallow. yeah we're saving what we can, but we're labor heavy department . the majority of our expenditures is on the labor side. so those costs are what they are. people's salaries are what they are. and, um we were again hopeful through the first half of the year that ah, this

small deficit that we have been projecting would be covered by expenditure savings, but that that deficit grew after december and just revenues have slowed so that that's out of our control and it is what it is. but in the next budget, we have significantly reduced our revenue estimates to account for that, so we won't be in the same place next year. does does your department study operationally? how db i if they change their practice like if this site permit reform, you know, creates . more efficient process and people are spending less time. getting through projects. i mean , i understand salaries or salaries, but that's sort of like a sunk cost. but i think that overall um. ah message or, um. objective the mayor has is

trying to make san francisco much friendlier place to build, so i don't know how that from an operational standpoint or analytical standpoint in terms of you know, cost of that would help at all. that's a very, very difficult question. answer we've reached out to the comptroller's office of economic analysis to try to figure out is there some way to project uh, the effect on mm. the willingness to build or if projects pencil out. of the site permanent reform process. i think you all would know better better than us or our experts would be neville pereira. he would probably have the most insight into what projects are coming and but you all have hopefully have your air to the ground. and do you have any sense of revenue impact will people will site permit. reform cause more permits to come in.

um well, we well, we've been asking many people what their opinions are reaching out to builders. but it's very difficult to project people say oh, i don't know. we'll see what the process what happens with the process. and timing is important, too. so people say yeah, it will. it will make projects more likely to happen. but will they happen next year and five years and it's very difficult. i understand. announcing that the you know, market forces aren't in dbs control. um and we're saying indications in the market, especially in the office, like where, at least, presumably the floor might be, but i think that this is a time when things are potentially not as busy to start working on how to make the processes more efficient, so that we don't hear any more as a standard. commentary from

applicants that d v. i s like the worst place to process a building permit. so you know in the time that that things you know, are slow and your revenues are down that this is the time to sort of re bit. revamp your processes. sure and there's a lot of work that's happening. patrick cannon is doing a lot of work on the website where digitizing paper forms and we're reexamining workflows, so there's a lot of work that's happening between us planning the permit center. and we are. we are taking that the time to do other things. but i'm just saying something. you probably are now all the things that we've been working on having impact to your bottom line at some point. yes and i'd like to point out a lot of the ordinances that come before you that you hear they haven't administrative costs, but they often don't have, uh, provide funding for them stuff like first year free, accessible building and, uh, program or

entrance program facade. the windows. the analysis that we had to do these all involved administrative costs that the that the department needs to bear. and i just hope everybody can keep that in mind and advocate for. um revenue sources to be added to those types of legislation going forward. okay thank you. i don't have any other comments. thank you. thank you nexus, um, item 13, d update on proposal recently enacted state or local legislation. good morning again. president veto and commissioners. christine ginsburg, assistant director. go ahead to the to the page two. i'll go over with a lot of legislative activity in the last couple of months. um and i'll just do a quick overview of the

ordinances that we're working on . um the ordinance to amend the building code to require an expanded facade inspection for buildings constructed after 1998 with 15 or more stories. that past the board of supervisors yesterday on the second reading and will go to the mayor or consideration. also yesterday, the ordinance to create a permit prioritization task force, um that was also heard yesterday on the second reading. i didn't get an update on the outcome of that , so we can update you on that the next meeting. three. ah, the ordinance that you heard earlier today to create temporary amnesty program for awnings that you approved will go to land use and transportation. um, next. and sage. and then this is the

adaptive reuse ordinance that you heard this morning. and that will also, uh, go to land use. um, now that you've made an approval, uh, now that you've taken action on it. the ordinance amending the codes to this is the small business month annual waiver of honoring replacement fees. um do you recommended approval of this at the april meeting and that's been assigned to land use. and i believe that was heard earlier this week, and it was approved and is now on onto the board of supervisors. and then the ordinance for the site permit application process sponsored by supervisor staff. i e that you heard this morning. i don't need to give an update on that. um, uh, next slide. so this is a

hearing to review monitoring and oversight of city and county contracts with the taco inc um and the d v. i um, aspect of this is we were asked to report on the number of historical complaints. housing complaints filed against todd co buildings . um, we had prepared to, um speak at that hearing tomorrow, but that's been continued. we believe until july. so um, will give an update on that when that happens. and then finally, supervisor or president peskin had called for a hearing on the emergency safety response for high rise window breaks. he has since, um filed that hearing requests is not going to move forward because we worked with him on the legislation that was passed to the board yesterday. on the state legislation front,

just a reminder of the legislative deadlines. april 28th was the last day for committees to report fiscal bills to appropriations may 5th the last day for committees to report non fiscal bills to the floor, and this friday is the last day for fiscal communities to here and report bills to the floor. and finally, a couple of state bills of interest. a b 15 32 by by assembly member haiti, making officer residential conversion projects by right um , that didn't make the deadline and so that could be resurrected in january, 2024 um and then a b 11 14. this would be this would make permits. post entitlement permits nondiscretionary, um and that passed in the assembly and will next be heard in the senate. i'm available for questions. no question escape. thank you. thank you. next we

have out of 13 e update on inspection services. uh good morning commissioner. bdo commissioners and matthew green, acting deputy director for inspection services. i'm pleased to provide an update on our activities and performance. um, your first video in april. the building, electrical and plumbing divisions conducted 9965 inspections. 97% of those inspections were conducted within two business days. of the date requested by the customer meeting our target of 9 90. um. video in the same month. our housing inspection services conducted 1123 inspections with 229 of them being routine inspections of multi family housing. the building and electrical and plumbing divisions, received 446 complaints and responded to 99% of them within three business days, well, exceeding their

target of 85% are code enforcement division sent 65 cases to directors hearing. our housing inspection services, received 24 safety and heat complaints and responded to 88% of them with one business day they received 325 other complaints and responded to 90% of them within three business days. housing inspection services also abated. 377 cases with notices of violation and sent 39 more cases to directors hearings. thank you. i'm available for any questions you may have. i don't have any questions. okay. thank you. thank you. is there any public comment on directors? report items? 13 a through e. i hate seeing none. next item is 14 review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of april 19 2023. motion to approve. is there a second?

yeah, there's a motion and a second. is there any public comment? um seeing none are all commissioners in favor of approving the minutes post? thank you. minister approved. next item is 15 adjournment motion to his journey motion to adjourn. okay and it the time is 11 46 am we are now adjourned second. anybody seconded second most in the second. we're adjourned. thank you. month.

>> pacific palisades heritage month is about celebrating the cultural and heritage of our community. >> affirming the asian american pacific islanders. it about register and honoring the path for future generations about celebrating culture. >> may is asian american & pacific islander heritage month empowering the leaders up in the administrator's office and about my daughter if helps the future of the apa heritage and friends and family. >> about family. >> we're honoring the irldz that came before us and findings

your roots and about culture insuring about the asian-american journey and all we're achieved and celebrate asian-american it means embarrassing the differences. it is about imaging. >> it is about representing as public servant in san francisco. >> about recommending the philippine generations and about how memory came for us less celebrate may is asian american & pacific islander heritage month and writing our own history for the future. >> may is asian american & pacific islander heritage >> who doesn't love cable cars? charging emissions and we're free which we're proud of you know, it's not much free left in the world anymore so we managed

to do that through donations and through our gift shops. you got a real look and real appreciation of what early transit systems are like. this was the transit of the day from about 1875 to about 1893 or later, you know. cable car museum is free, come on in. take a day. come down. rediscover the city. you can spend as time you want and you don't have to make reservations and it's important to be free because we want them to develop a love for cable cars so they do continue to support whether they live here or other places and people come in and say, yes, i have passed by and heard of this and never come in and they always enjoy themselves. people love cable cars and there's none left in the world so if you want to ride a cable car, you've got to come to san francisco. that what makes the city. without the cable cars, you lose part of that, you know, because people who come here and they love it and they love the history ask they can ride a cable car that has been running since 1888 or

1889. wow! that's something. can't do that with other historical museums. rarely, have i run into anybody from outside who didn't come in and didn't feel better from knowing something about the city. it's a true experience you'll remember. i hope they walk away with a greater appreciation for the history, with the mechanics with people are fascinated by the winding machine and i hope the appreciation, which is a part of our mission and these young kids will appreciate cable cars and the ones who live here and other places, they can make sure there will always be cable cars in san francisco because once they are gone, they are gone. it's the heartbeat of san francisco that founded the cable and the slot and without the cable cars, yeah, we would lose something in san francisco. we would lose part of its heart and soul. it wouldn't be san francisco without cable cars. [bell ringing]

>> i am iris long. we are a family business that

started in san francisco chinatown by my parents who started the business in the mid 1980s. today we follow the same footsteps of my parents. we source the teas by the harvest season and style of crafting and the specific variety. we specialize in premium tea. today i still visit many of the farms we work with multigenerational farms that produce premium teas with its own natural flavors. it is very much like grapes for wine. what we do is more specialized, but it is more natural. growing up in san francisco i used to come and help my parents after school whether in middle school or high school and throughout college. i went to san francisco state university. i did stay home and i helped my

parents work throughout the summers to learn what it is that makes our community so special. after graduating i worked for an investment bank in hong kong for a few years before returning when my dad said he was retiring. he passed away a few years ago. after taking over the business we made this a little more accessible for visitors as well as residents of san francisco to visit. many of our teas were traditionally labeled only in chinese for the older generation. today of our tea drinkkers are quite young. it is easy to look on the website to view all of our products and fun to come in and look at the different varieties.

they are able to explore what we source, premium teas from the providence and the delicious flavors. san francisco is a beautiful city to me as well as many of the residents and businesses here in chinatown. it is great for tourists to visit apsee how our community thrived through the years. this retail location is open daily. we have minimal hours because of our small team during covid. we do welcome visitors to come in and browse through our products. also, visit us online. we have minimal hours. it is nice to set up viewings of these products here.

>> you're watching san francisco rising with chris manors. today's special guest is mary chu. >> hi. i'm chris manors, and you're rising on san francisco rising. the show that's focused on rebuilding, reimagining, and restarting our city. our guest today is mary chu, and she's here to talk with us about art and the san francisco art commission. well come, miss chu. >> thanks for having me. >> it's great to have you. let's talk about art in the city and how art installations are funded. >> the arts committee was

funded in 1932 and support civic review, design investments and art galleries. projects we have are funded by the city's art enrichment ordinance which provides 2% of construction costs for public art. >> so art is tied to construction. there's been a great deal in the southwest of the city. can you talk about some of the projects there? >> sure. our city has some exciting projected in the bayview-hunters point coming up. one artist created a photo

collage. in the picture pavilion, one artist formed a collage of her one-year residency coming together with residents, and anchoring the new center is a landmark bronze sculpture, inspired by traditional ivory coast currency which the artists significantly enlarges to mark that it's a predominantly african american community in bayview hunters point. >> are there any art installations around town that uses light as a medium? >> yes. the first is on van ness

between o'farrell and geary. it's funded with the m.t.a.s van ness geary street project. another project is for the central subway. it is one of ten artworks commissioned for the new line. it's over 650 feet long, consists of 550 l.e.d. panels between the powell street station and the union street station. it's called lucy in the sky, and the lights are patterned with unique sequences so that commuters can experience a unique pattern each time they pass through. >> perfect. what about the early day sculpture that was removed from the civic center? >> this is a question that

cities have been grappling with nationwide. following the removal of early days in 2018, there was a toppling of statues in golden gate park as well as the removal of the christopher columbus statue. we are partnering with the parks department as well as the community to engage with the public to develop guidelines to evaluate the existing monuments and memorials in the civic arts collection and evaluate the removal of a monument or statue but also installing new ones. >> finally, it seems like the weather might be nice this weekend. if i fancy taking a walk and

seeing some outdoor art, where would you suggest i go? >> well, i would suggest the embarcadero. this work was commissioned with funds from the fire station 35. this suggests the bow of a boat and the glass panel surrounding the structure depict the history of fireboats in the bay area. >> and where can i go from there? >> then, i would walk up to the justin herman plaza to check out the work of the art vendors. then check out the monuments like the mechanics monument. also, be sure to check out the poster series, installed in bus kiosks along market street, which features four artists

each year. >> well, thank you. i appreciate you coming on the show, miss chu. thank you for your time today. >> thank you, chris. >> that's it for this episode. we'll be back with another show shortly. for san francisco t.v., i'm chris manors. thanks for watching.

>> i'm connie chan district one supervisor and welcome to the richmond. >> i'm an immigrant and came to san francisco china town when i was 13 years old with my mom and brother. my first job is at the community organizer for public safety with san francisco state. and land in the city hall and became a legislative aid to sophie maxwell. went through city departments when kamala harris was our district attorney i'm proud to represent the richmondad district supervisor.

[music] we have great neighborhood commercial corridors that need to be protected. the reason why we launched the neighborhood business for supporting the [inaudible] for 15 years special more. we have the legacy business program the business around for 30 years or more and thought, you know, we gotta make sure the next generation contains for generations to come. am i'm ruth the owner of hamburger haven we came back on july 11. we were opened in 1968 at that time i believe one of the owners of mestart today went through a guy named andy in the early 70s and my father took it mid 70s.

>> originally was just a burger joint. open late nights. then it changed over the years and became the breakfast staple. we specialize in breakfast, brunch come lunch now. i love this neighborhood. i grew up here. and it feels like home. i walk down the block and recognize people of people say hello. you say hello you talk and joke. has that familiar environment that is enjoyable and i have not experienced anywhere else. there are many things i would like to see improve ams the things we might see are making sure that our tenants stay housed our small business in tact and those are the solutions that will contain to push to make sure that you know our communities can take root, stay

and thrive. >> i'm proud of you know, welcoming folks to the richmond. everyone loch its we got farmer's market every sunday there. the you see really business at the noaa. ice cream at toy folks and going to chop for book like green apple. and that's when you like the deal is pizza place haall families love. you will see a lot of great chinese shops that is readily available for everyone. >> and that is just thein are richmond there is more to do in the richmond. what is love is the theatre. >> i mean adam and with my wife jamie, own little company called cinema sf we operate the balboa theatre. the vocabularying theatre on

sacramento and soon the 4 star on clement. >> balboa theatre opened in 1926 and servicing this outer richmond neighborhood since then. and close on the heels the 4 star opens since 1913. >> when you come in to a movie theatre, the rest of the world has to be left behind. but you get e mersed in the world that is film makers made for you. that is a special experience to very much we can all think of the movies that we saw in the big screen of with everybody screaming or laughing or crying. it is a shared human experience that you get when you go in to places that are gatherings and artist presented to you. >> a shared experience is the most precious. and the popcorn. [laughter]. at the balboa especially, we

stroif to have movies for people of every generation from the pop corn palace movies on the weekend mornings, for families and kids. this is for everybody of all ages. >> what is great about the richmond is it is a neighborhood of the immigrants. belongs to immigrants not ap i immigrants you will see that there are also a huge population of rush wrans and ukrainian immigrants they stay united you am see that the support they lend to each other as a community. and cinderella bakery is another legacy business. if you go on the website it is known as a russian bakery. the first thing you see their pledge to support the ukrainian community. you will see the unity in the richmond i'm so proud of our

immigrant community in the rich monthed. >> my dad immigrate friday iran the reason he stayed was because of the restaurant. has more centamential value it is the reasonable we are in this country. when he had an opportunity to take over the instruct he stayed that is why we are here part of our legacy and san francisco history and like to keep it going for years to come. >> another moment i'm proud to be supporting the richmond and the only asian american woman elect in the office and as an immigrant that is not happen nothing 3 decades. you see it is my ability to represent especially the asian-american community. in my case the chinese speaking elders in our community that really can allow me to

communicate with them directly. i'm program director of adult day centers. i have been here for 7 years i love to help the communities and help and the people with disability. i foal a connection with them. i am anim grant i love helping our community and new immigrants and improvements. >> if you want nature, richmond is the neighborhood to go we are between ocean beach heights and golden gate park. >> i love the outer richmond. for me this is the single best neighborhood in san francisco. everybody knows each other. people have been living here forever. it is young and old. the ocean is really near by.

and so there is that out doors ocean vibe to it. there are places to seat golden gate bridge it is amazing. businesses are all small mom and pop businesses. houses get passed down generation to generation. it has a small town feel but you know you are in a big city at the same time. it's got a unique flavor i don't see in other neighborhoods j. it is about being inclusive we are inclusive and welcome the communities, anybody should feel welcome and belong here and shop local, eat local. we believe that with that support and that network it come in full circle. it is passing on kinds knows. that's when richmond is about that we are together at once. welcome to the richmond. [music]