>> see you. >> this holiday season, shop and dine in union square! and don't miss the world premier of, a why good morning. today is wednesday, december 11th, 2024. this is a special meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please mute yourself if you're not speaking. the first

item on the agenda is roll call. president alexander. here. vice president shadix. here. commissioner ming. here. commissioner williams. here. we have a quorum, and commissioner chavez is expected. and commissioner newman is excused. next, we have our land acknowledgment. the building inspection commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their tradition, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on the traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and

by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. thank you. next, for any members of the public that may be listening in the public comment call in number is (415) 655-0001. access code is. 26635399899. okay. and next we have item two. president opening remarks. good morning. good morning commissioners. director reardon, members of the public. congratulations on the end of a big year. we've had a lot of accomplishments this year, and it can only be with the partnership of our staff, our staff leadership and our commission together, working towards common goals. and i just wanted to highlight some of the

things that i think are of particular note. this year. and one of them is we accomplished the fee study. we have established the fee study to stabilize our finances and created a policy path forward to be able to increase those fees over time. and that's a very significant policy change that took both political will and foresight on the part of the department. so congratulations and thank you to everyone on that. and then of course, we continue to increase our approval rates and permits and streamlined the permitting process. and then finally we have. implemented all of the controller's recommendations and got a glowing report from the controller's office on our ethical standards. and that is something that took an

incredible amount of work. and so i just, you know, i just want to recognize all of that. that is a big accomplishment this year. and congratulations to everybody. and then as we do, we continue the basic work every day of keeping san franciscans safe in their houses, in their homes, in their apartment buildings and their sros and in their places of work and on the streets where they are walking by those buildings. so the day to day work continues to be really important, and a focus for the department. and i just want to take the time to recognize that at the end of the year. so congratulations on all of that, everybody. and to commissioners and yeah, happy new year. thank you. is there any public comment on the president's opening remarks? seeing none, we are on item three. general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

good morning. i have a handout. the time is set for ten minutes. i don't need ten minutes. i'll reset that. just a moment. it would be nice, but inappropriate. if i have a computer presentation. okay. i'm ready. thank you. dbi twice created false complaints after valid complaints were filed against susan mccormick. taylor. building permits once for a foundation repair permit and a second time for a bedroom and bath remodel permit. dbi also improperly closed two complaints for submitting building permits, with plans that misrepresent the number and location of the existing ground floor garage windows. this table is from the building code, and it shows the period of time that's allowed for a building permit before it

expires. based on the value of the permit. a foundation repair permit complaint was opened 78 days ago. it should have been closed. senior inspector mauricio hernandez approved a foundation special inspection 404 days after the foundation repair permit was null and void, and the foundation special inspection was approved without a final affidavit from the architect. the complaint is being researched by inspector gilbert lamb. a second foundation repair complaint was opened one month after the first complaint. the second complaint was opened by inspector sanders, who received the first complaint. we have two open foundation repair complaints. an expired bedroom and bath remodel complaint was improperly closed by inspector sanders seven days after it was opened. inspector sanders approved an extension of a building permit that had been null and void for 127 days.

inspector sanders failed to sign the building permit extension. a second bedroom and bath remodel complaint was opened 40 days after the first complaint was closed by inspector sanders. this complaint is under review by inspector sanders, who closed the first complaint. two susan mccormick taylor building permits were submitted with architectural plans which misrepresent the number and location of the ground floor windows in the picture below. in the picture below, you can see there's a red wheelbarrow. there's a window behind the wheelbarrow. there's a window to the left of the wheelbarrow. there are only two windows. the window above the red wheelbarrow is missing from the plans. the window to the left of the red wheelbarrow is two windows in the plan, and a window was inserted in the plans on the wall with the electrical boxes that's behind the blue tub.

here's the plans. you can see they're wrong. two complaints for inaccurate architectural plans were closed. improperly closed. this is not good. this stuff needs to end. thank you. is there any additional public comment? covid. gavin newsom.

oops. the little thing he fell off. does that matter? can you pick it up? i haven't started your time. okay. i want to pause my time. i know i haven't started, i've got some stuff. i don't want to touch it. thank you. sonia. where is it? right there. thank you. sonia. okay. i'd like to talk about the hiring process. when o'riordan and i were hired, i was hired

before him, and i scored higher on the test. we had three outside people from different jurisdictions doing the hiring. now it's all inside. it appears to be, you know, kind of the good old boys club. and this is the announcement. o'riordan talks about kevin bermingham keeps projects moving along. you never want to fail an inspection, even if it's not per code. okay. and then we have mauricio hernandez here and another mark walls. these were an article was in mission local on this. i will be referring to that. and mauricio hernandez, who is named in a lawsuit by dennis richards. you could that online mission local dennis richards if you google that that was settled in a favor for 1.8 million for the plaintiff, costing the city.

here's another article called bringing down the house. it was in the whatever it says up there, the sf weekly, i believe this is also by the joe. newpor, whatever. and this is about where matt green went out of his district, into my district, and missed the shoring of the building that was supposed to, i believe, have around nine shoring. this is a santos koran. bernie and matt green were all on this as they were on other projects working together. the building went down the hill because of the failed shoring. matt green went out there several times for his friend, who was helping him out in the little situation in golden gate park, which he alludes to in the dennis richards case. there was nothing left of the building.

they were supposed to keep it big. tarp was put over. it was completely demolished. here's another one naming the city families okaying their own family jobs. joe eskenazi, mission local. january 8th. this is how the old. this is how the old test worked. you could see o'riordan came in here at number 13 right in the middle. and then he told me before, we used to commute together that sweeney gave him the answers to the test, and he forgot one of them. and one of the answers was, or one of the questions was, what do you do with an employee who is not performing right? he said, you kind of counsel him or something like that. he told me sweeney had to write it down on a piece of paper and shove it over for him to read. he goes, no, you need. and it said, you need to document everything. here's the score he got on that

test overhead, please. you can wrap up your comments, sir. i'm wrapping it up. the timer is up so you can say your last. oh it's up okay. last. the sprinklers are all abated. on to russo and six russo and 3030 california by newly appointed permanent chief hernandez. thank you. thank you. are there any additional public comment? okay. seeing none, we're on to item four update on the access appeals commission and an overview regarding the appeal process. good morning everyone. i'm mary wilkinson, church department of building inspection. we do have a powerpoint to go along with

this. okay. so the access appeals commission was established by the san francisco building code, section 105.3. the access appeals commission hears appeals of dbi decisions on the enforcement of disabled access and the adaptability provisions of the code. the commission may also make determinations on code equivalences, technical and unreasonable hardship, as well as time extensions. the committee is comprised of five members, each with a four year term. two members do have a physical disability. two members are with the construction industry and one member is of the general public. so the background for the accessible business entrance program is that it was established by city ordinance in 2016, and it's administered by the department of building inspection. the

program requires places of public accommodation to have all primary entries and passive travel into a building, be accessible by persons with disabilities. the ab program has four building categories indicating the barriers of disability access. the primary entry. the first category is that the primary entry already complies. the second category is that there are no steps to the primary entry, and one or more of elements to the entry do not comply with the requirements for accessibility. category three. there is a step to the primary entry and one or more elements of the entry do not comply with the requirements for accessibility. and then of course, category four is that the building has a primary entry with more than one steps, and the elements of the injury do not comply with code

requirements. so the role of the access appeals commission within the ab program building subject to the program, can file for exemptions and claiming for requesting equivalencies for facilitation, technical infeasibility or unreasonable hardship as defined in sfbc 11 05.1 through 11 05.3. the access appeals commission is involved in all exemption pathways, including setting the standards for equivalent facilities, facilitation, ratifying nonstructural technical and feasibility claims, and determining financial hardships. so the access appeals commission must ratify all unreasonable hardship requests. approvals in san francisco. so what we really wanted to get to today, in this presentation for you, is the

actual process for unreasonable hardship requests. this was kind of brought up in the last meeting, and additional information was requested by yourselves. and so we're here to talk about that today. so the process for unreasonable hardship requests is one. hire a certified access appeals specialist, architect or engineer to conduct an evaluation and prepare the disabled access compliance checklist. two the casp inspector or architect or engineer submits that checklist and an unreasonable hardship exemption form. they then prepare and submit for a building permit application. cost estimates and construction plans, and to make the primary interest entrance accessible as well as affordable alternatives that may meet the spirit of the code. so the fourth step then,

would be that our intake staff, dbi intake staff, or the permit center confirms the application and submission and verifies that all the materials are complete for the submission. dbi accepts the permit application. we conduct a plan review and we provide comments pertaining to the review to the design professional. the architect, engineer or designer revise and then resubmit the application and plans based upon those comments. the permit is approved by each relevant permitting department, such as dbi planning, the fire department or any other departments that may have a part in the plan review based on the building type and occupancy. and then dbi evaluates the unreasonable hardship, supporting information and alternative accessibility methods. or they approve or deny the request. they then inform

the applicant of that decision. the applicant then comes back and submits the unreasonable hardship application or appeal and supporting documentation documentation to the access appeals commission, and then they pay the appeal fee. the access appeals commission secretary works with the design professional to verify their proposed accessibility improvements are readily achievable, and that the financial information and cost estimates that they've provided as part of their appeal are accurate. the item is put on the arc agenda, and a hearing is conducted where members may identify additional code alternatives to increase access, the design professional may need to revise plans to include any requirements to ratification. the access appeal commission members vote to ratify or deny the unreasonable hardship

request or appeal, and then, if necessary, the plans are resubmitted and evaluated. in plan review, comments are issued and revisions may be required at that point based on any equivalencies that the access appeals commission found. and once approved, the applicant pays their final fees. the permits are issued and work may commence. so the number of current unreasonable hardship requests that we have seen come through. so first, there are 23,522 buildings that are actually within the ab program, 19,584 buildings, or 83% of these buildings, have started or completed the compliance process. 404 buildings. so 1.7% of the buildings that are in the program have completed the compliance checklist and indicated on that checklist that they would like to, that they

are noting an unreasonable hardship. but of those, 137 have applied for a permit. so 1.7 or 0.6% of those buildings have applied for a permit and 14 have included unreasonable hardship as part of their application in their scope of work. so of the buildings that we have or the permits that we have seen come through in the program, in 14 of those permit applications, we have actually seen that someone has requested an unreasonable hardship as part of the program. and that's all we have. as far as an update. okay. thank you. is there any public comment on the item that you can have a seat. then we'll do the question and answer. okay. thank you.

my name is walter park. i'm a member of the access appeals commission. i wrote the ordinance that created the access appeals commission in the mid 1980s, was carried by harry britt, and was signed at the board by president john molinari, was approved as to form by the city attorney and was signed by the mayor. we are scheduled to have two meetings a month because we have often needed to have two meetings a month. the building department i'd like to show this. this is the three pages of their powerpoint, just made into one list of 14 points. i think they're trying to make this

sound incredibly complex and in fact, to make it incredibly complex and difficult to deal with. i pity the fact that the building department is stuck with such an onerous system that doesn't work for anybody. but who designed that onerous system? the building department did. this works well, perhaps for the bank of america, for millennium tower, for the transbay terminal. it doesn't work well for a nail salon that's got a 500 foot square foot space. we don't need all of that. we don't need all of those professionals. we don't need all of that. review. some of the people who testified before and i are talking with supervisor mandelman, and we're going to propose 7 or 8 changes to this. we want to get rid of half of these for sure, so that this system can work. let me point out one other thing. and that is you keep hearing this 82% success rate. wait a minute.

that's based on 16,777 cases. but of those, 11,800 are either exempt or waived. so no access was provided there. so the real universe is not 23,000. it's half of 23,000. that changes all these numbers. it changes the success rate and it changes the scale of the problem. because half of the cases were categorically. dispensed with. then if you look at the number of compliant cases, the total number instead of 16, seven, seven, seven then is 5120, because we're going to subtract the 11,000. so the compliant cases are 5120. the non compliant cases are 6749. out of

that 11 some thousand. so it's about 50% compliant and about 50% non compliant. truly i also want to point out that the building department seems to have a hostility toward the access appeals commission, which i don't understand. all the delays happen in the staff section of the process which they've designed and they implement. there are no no delays happened because of the commission. and i point out the fact that although you're having a hearing on the access appeals commission, our secretary did not inform us of this hearing and none of you invited us, but we're happy to be here. thank you. thank you. is there any additional public comment? okay. seeing none that the commissioners have any questions of staff? yeah. i need a minute. okay, take a minute. i have a

question. could for the members of the access appeals board, could you talk about what is your scope and what. what kind of some historical context for what has come before you, in addition to just this legislation? but what else? what else comes before you? we have a special scope. that is, we only deal with accessibility questions. other questions go to board of permit appeals or to you. so and we have a specialty. so that's why we have two designated members or people with disabilities, two designated members who are from the construction industry. there is no other commission in the city that i know of that has designated disabled members. we're the only one that has to have disability input for obvious reasons. what we hear are appeals from any decision of the building department that relate to accessibility. so if an inspector decides that

something is okay is permissible and a disabled person says, oh, i can't use it, i don't think it complies, they could theoretically appeal to us. it has never happened. what has happened is the owners and the tenants appealed to us over and over and over. and so we're starting with a building department decision and then trying to make something work that's less expensive and that the person can deal with as a reasonable accommodation, not as an unreasonable accommodation. so our scope is, is all of that. why? there are 404 cases listed here that are where someone said, i want an unreasonable hardship determination. and we've only had two cases, i don't know. i'll also point out that a 404 people put that on the form. i'll bet there are another 800 who did not put it on the form. these forms are complex and difficult, and people have been discouraged, obviously, from coming to us because we seem to be short 402

cases. thank you. and then you talked about this process that you laid out for this particular piece of legislation being more cumbersome. do you have examples or of other of less stringent? of other what am i saying? what are the processes that came before you before that maybe didn't require as many professionals being involved? are there other processes that you think that could be replicated? well, our bylaws don't require any professional input. an owner or a tenant can simply appear before us and bring handwritten drawings and testify in their own behalf. and sometimes that's very effective, because a one person who owns a two person shop that's 500ft!s s pretty hard to say no to,

whereas their lawyer or their architect or their casp, that's a professional. we like to argue with them a little more. so our requirement is not that we have all of this, and i'd like to see where we can pull that back. i mean, i have we have other suggestions too. i didn't go through them with you because you've already made your decision. so now we're trying to talk with the board about making changes, and i believe they will because we're engaged in useful discussions. could you email your bylaws to the commission secretary, or do we have a copy of those bylaws? i believe we do. could you provide those to the commission? thank you. any other questions? yeah. i'm ready now for the gentleman. question for you. so, you know, i'm on a particular corridor often, and we have a lot of those nail salons you refer to and those beauty salons that are 400,

500ft!s. many of them have one step up. you know, when they built a transit line down the corridor, i don't know why they didn't level up the whole sidewalks. they didn't. but, you know, another story for another day. a lot of these small businesses, there's they're just not going to, you know, they're just hoping nobody's going to rat them out or nobody's going to be, you know, the drive bys and stuff. what i did and i worked with, i think several people through dbi, is to get information out to these small businesses that, you know, you had to get a casp inspection that was like everybody said, you had to get a casp inspection. that's just what we were told. and that's what i told everybody is you had to get a casp inspection. many didn't because they saw they had to pay. we did have a grant program at one time where we covered up to like ten people, but there were still far more than ten. the problem or the challenge now that i'm hearing is that you're right on that casp inspection. i don't ever remember seeing anything about an opportunity to

appeal or an opportunity to, you know, have your not day in court, if you will. i mean, who wants to, you know, if you've got two steps leading up to your doorway and you know that you, the nail salon owner and i've worked on some of these projects, i mean, they can run north of 25,000, up to 100,000 to get that, you know, sidewalk level. they're not going to, you know, they're not motivated to try to fix the issue. the landlord's not going to do it unless, you know, they're compelled to do it. so i guess what i'm getting at is where did we miss, you know, from the casp inspection that i was asking everyone to fill out? not everybody did. what did we miss? i'm like. i mean, you're telling me this is the way i'm hearing this is this was a much simpler process than what we were rolling out to the small businesses. and i feel like i missed something here that i have to go back to these, some of these businesses and say, hey, you still have and tell me if i'm wrong. you still have to get a casp inspection. no matter

what. you have to have a cast. it all starts with that casp. and then and it goes from there. well, the code actually says it can be a licensed professional. it can be an architect and engineer or a casp or certified casp. i don't know which is cheaper or easier to do. our most recent case, which is now many months ago, was a place where the appellant said, well, to fix the sidewalk, we'd have to spend $70,000. and we said, don't fix the sidewalk. it's very simple. they improved the doorway. they made some other improvements. and we just said, don't do that. one advantage of the appeals commission. the law is a blunt instrument. it's all black and white, and you can't change it from minute to minute. we're an appeals body. we hear individual cases and we have somebody say $70,000 is out of our range. it'll never happen. we said, right, don't do it, but do do these things. and so they improved the doorway, but they did not do the sidewalk work.

the biggest impediment here probably is public works. public works is pretty rigid about preserving the public right of way exactly as it exists. and it's very expensive to do that, especially if you have a if you're a private owner, you're responsible for your sidewalk, but you don't. it's the city has the right and we've had case after case where we have gone months with public works. and i think one of the things we're going to suggest is some way to reduce that whole sidewalk condition and either move the responsibility to the city who may choose not to fix it, or in some other way, reduce the role of public works. because public works, i mean, i understand what they're trying to do, and it works great if you're the bank of america, but it doesn't work very well if you're running a nail salon. and that's the biggest change that probably we would have happen is to reduce the role of public works

planning. also, there are many steps just in the planning department review, and i don't quite understand that either. i think both of those could be collapsed somewhat. okay, just my last comment is i just wish this could be maybe repackaged and reintroduced to the business owners that have not complied. i think most that haven't. i my opinion that most that haven't complied just are hoping that nobody notices that they, you know, and i don't blame them because i have personally seen that $70,000 sidewalk repair. and i've seen the $30,000 front entrance door, door, well, you know, expanded. and i think most are just hoping that they don't get, you know, and we've had the drive by, you know, we've had all that the drive by lawsuits. we've had it. so i just i just kind of wish there was another way to repackage this without all the, as you say, all the terms and all the, the, the conditions and the regulations and all the, the things you need, the processes that you need to do. maybe there's just something simple as to just, you know, get, get the inspection

and then go right to you. so i'll stop there. i appreciate you a lot. i thank you. there is. the. go ahead. so i guess my question and my thinking and the reason that i had concerns about the structure of this legislation. and i think that the stats that two thirds of the ones who are considered compliant are exempt or waived proves kind of the point that this is an expensive. well, let's presume that the last 15% 10% are exempt or waived, and 5%, you know, will have to come into some kind of compliance. and maybe it's a bigger percentage. i'm just wondering, like, is it better to just have categorical exemptions? like, if you're this size, then you are exempt because you're probably going to be exempt anyways based on our understanding of two

thirds of the people who have gone through the process are already exempt. it just seems like it's an expensive mandate when most a clear majority are are exempt. and i'm wondering if you have thinking based on your understanding of, you know, who who are you almost guaranteed to exempt? can we put that into the legislation and then focus on the folks who really need to come into compliance? because i do think it's an it's an expensive burden. if we know that the clear majority have to just come in and prove that they're exempt or are going to be waived. well, let me point out that the architect, the female architect who testified before you at the last meeting, came up to us during the break and said we were never i was never told that i could how i could apply for an unreasonable accommodation. so she had this great complaint to you. and as soon as she heard that we existed and what we do, she said, oh, i was never informed of that. so right away the process just is broken. it just doesn't work at all. coming up

with categories that are sort of sub accessible is obviously a touchy thing to do. and i think that's to be discussed. you know, how we would handle sidewalks exactly is important, how to handle power door when there's no side strike clearance. we need to discuss if we simply said any business under 500ft!s is exempt. there are probably times when they could make it accessible by spending a few hundred dollars. and so i hate to give those up. i'd like to actually look at some cases. what we haven't done is see any cases and the ones that have been wavered, or the ones that have applied for unreasonable hardship. i'd like to do a little spot check of those and say, okay, what are the problems? and can we find some sort of categorical way to reduce that? the other thing is that the city could provide more help. you know, we are as as henry elowitz pointed out, we're the only city that's doing this. and he said, therefore, that's bad. and i'm saying, therefore, that's great because san francisco has always been a

leader. we always do this stuff first. if we make it work, other cities will then make it work. if we let it fail, it dies. the city could. city is going to hire a casp, right? what if you have that casp available to people who need some consulting, who have drawings and photographs and they say, how big a job is this? couldn't a city person help them to do that? also, osb has this $10,000 grant. i don't know how much was in the fund, but i'm reading it. i noticed that the grant is only available to. it is not available to owners. it's available to the tenant, the business operator. but arnie testified last time that of 197 cases he's worked on, the vast majority were being handled by the owner. so your loan program doesn't apply to the very people who would benefit from it. now, i understand they own a building, they have real property. and so maybe there's some reason to stay away from

them. but i'd say no, that's wrong. many of these are also small property owners. i'd love to give you some more details as it develops and see what we can come up with. mr. williams. so earlier you stated of the steps in the process you would eliminate half of them. identify which steps you'd eliminate. no, i don't think i said it's you know, a part of it is technical. what what how much information can we get? 80% of the information with 20% of the effort or with 75% of the effort i'd be happy with. but it's also very political. the public works is not going to want to hear us say, forget about sidewalks and, you know, so on. so that's. yeah, we'll we'll write them down. we'll make it possible for everybody to discuss them. but right now i don't want to come

to any conclusions about it. i'm curious what the relationship is between the determinations made by your board and then the federal ada law. if you all grant an unreasonable hardship, or you come up with some sort of equivalent accessibility, would the small business still be at risk to like a civil like federal lawsuit, though? no matter what we do, that's the case. the building department does not enforce the ada. the building department enforces the building code. so then, wouldn't small businesses be lulled into a sense of like, oh, we're safe, but they could. they're still at risk, right? the way the federal law is written, it's not really enforced locally by people like you. it relies on the right of private action. and so a disabled person can file a lawsuit. so then we get at some

point somebody realizes we can make an industry out of this by driving by and just sending a letter and getting $10,000 cash with no remedy. they don't they don't require that it be fixed. they just require they get the 10,000 bucks. so that's horrendous. on the other hand, a disabled person who lives in the neighborhood probably is never going to try to go through the complaint process because they don't know how it would work. but inherent in katie's original law is that we cannot absolutely protect people from an ada lawsuit because we don't control that. what we can do is say that you have made good faith efforts to provide accessibility, and when you are hearing an ada case, the federal courts take into consideration good faith efforts. most people make no efforts whatsoever, and that's why they get sued. in this case, they can say, well, i got a certification from the city that says, i'm good enough given my size. and should they be sued? i think that's a that's a defense. but no, there's no absolute

defense because of this. yeah. thank you. thank you. i'll just make a comment that in general, i'm very supportive of the idea, especially for folks who are going to get a waiver or an exemption, that there is some kind of other good faith effort. right? like, i would love to see an amendment or changes that improve accessibility in some way or another. and you gave many examples at the last hearing, and i those have definitely stuck with me. so thank you for those examples. i think that we can do i think the department can do a better job of informing people that this exists. it's a difficult thing for the for the department enforces black and white law rules. and then there's a, an appeals board that has much a

larger has more discretion. but i think that the you know, we can think about, you know, working with the department on educational efforts. but i think the idea like the policy, i think can be hopefully amended if that's where you guys are going with to really kind of reflect the full like your, your team's full thinking about what is accessibility and build those things in so that folks aren't like small businesses, aren't spending tens of thousands of dollars just to get a waiver signed. right. like, that's i don't think anyone thinks that that's a good a good process. and i and i appreciate your kind of seeing both sides of, of this, of this issue and wanting to, to make it smoother for, for small business owners. almost never do we tell an appellant, okay, just go home. we always get some access out of it. we

always improve the level of access. and let me also remind you, access does not trigger access. so if you get a permit to change the bathroom you may have to do the path of travel. but if you get a permit to fix the front door, that doesn't trigger anything else. so what we agree on is what they have to do. they've made their good faith effort. and we always get some kind of improved access. if it's only a doorbell to let people know, okay, i can't get up the eight flights of the eight steps. and also we can't fix the eight steps, but we know you're here and we'll come to you. that's the simplest. there are other, you know, automatic door openers when there's no side strike. there are many other ways that people can do something less than the code would prefer. interestingly, we're not bound by the code when we make an agreement. that's our agreement. so we can be a little bit creative. and nobody has. the only appeal after us is a court case, and nobody's ever challenged one of our decisions.

okay. other questions. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. yes. my name is arnie lerner. i'm also a member of the access appeals commission. i'm an architect. the one words that i haven't heard anybody say at all is. what walter was just referring to in terms of when there was steps and somebody had a doorbell. and the words are curbside service. if you go to the to the access to the justice department's website about the ada, you'll find that they have a number of publications that they have put together just for small businesses. and one of the things they talk about is something called curbside service, something that i've used a number of times. a restaurant's up on the second floor. there was a yogurt frozen

yogurt place on on market street that had a step. and we weren't going to change all of market street. so we put in that doorbell and we put in a little so they could then ring somebody to come out and take their order and, and give them that, that ice cream on the, on the sidewalk. there are all kinds of alternatives in terms of the unreasonable hardship. regina andrizzi, who was the director of the office of small business back in 2018, produced this paper about dealing with unreasonable hardships that i'd like to give to you so that maybe you can make copies, because i think some really smart things in here that she talked about that could help the department in terms of dealing with that. so anyway, i just wanted to throw those two things out there. thank you. yeah. good morning. my name is jerry

dratler. i'd like to talk about meeting disclosure. so if you go to the dbi and you google dbi meeting calendar for december, it's blank. so that's not acceptable. thank you. you're welcome. not sure about that item, but just to clarify that our meetings are publicly noticed and on the website and available. but i'll look into that issue. make sure we're in compliance. thank you. okay. thank you. we're on to the next item. item five update regarding the status of current technical services division, or tsd programs. hello again, mary wilkinson church, department of building inspection. so i'm here today to

provide a quick update on our compliance programs that are part of our tech technical services division. so dbi compliance programs, they many of these or they have been amended into the building code by the board of supervisors and the mayor. they are administered by permit services technical services division. currently we have the soft story program, accessible business entrance program, facade inspection and maintenance program, and we also have the borp program. additionally, in the future, we foresee having the concrete building seismic evaluation program. so for the soft story program, this requires the seismic retrofitting of all wood frame structures with five or more residential units having two or more stories over a soft

story and permitted for construction prior to 1978. so the final deadline for this program is september 15th of 2021. so, you know, we have surpassed the deadline. we've had good compliance in the program. we've had 4941 buildings in this program. as for a total completion rate for the compliance process, we've met a completion rate of 94%, and that is 4648 buildings that have complied 293 buildings, or 6% of the total buildings, are out of compliance. so 30 of those have not applied for a permit, 44 have applied for a permit, but have yet to obtain that permit, 174 have been issued a permit but have not

completed the work. that's part of that retrofit. and then we have 45 that have not completed their certificate, certificate of final completion yet. so they've completed the work, but they have not gotten to the point where they've been able to actually close the permit. so for the for the next program, the accessible business entrance program, we've had some discussion about that already today. the final deadline for that program is september 29th of 25. in this program, we have 23,533 buildings, 19,596 buildings, or 83% of the buildings have started or completed the compliance process. 3937 buildings, or 17% we have not received response, and then 958 buildings, or 4% exceptions have been requested,

so 554 buildings, technical infeasibility. so there's actually a structural limitation that creates the noncompliance issue. 378 have requested on the checklist a financial hardship, but have not necessarily applied for a permit to go through the steps for the appeal. and then 26 qualified for both the technical and feasibility or and a financial hardship. and in that case, the technical infeasibility would prevent the need for appeal. the facade inspection and maintenance program is it requires the exterior of all buildings that are five or more storeys tall to be regularly inspected by a california licensed architect or engineer. the reporting deadlines are are staggered, and they are between 1231 of 21 and

1231 of 32, and there are ongoing requirements for that program. 1791 buildings in the comprehensive program of five stories or more, 328 started or completed comprehensive compliance process. that's an overall percentage of 18%, 1548 or 82%. the deadline has not passed or they they are not out of compliance for their comprehensive program, 255 buildings are also in the supplemental program. this program includes buildings that are 15 stories or more, 38 or 15% started or completed the supplemental compliance process, and then 217 or 85%. the

deadline has not passed, or they are not out of compliance for their supplemental program. so for the future, what we foresee coming down the pike and we have been working as a team with the department of. i just lost the name of the department, but we have been working with the department of. excuse me. the department that is working on the earthquake program directly. i will think of it, the office of mandelman. correct? yes, yes. thank you so much. sorry about that. so we've been working dbi has been working with the office of. resilient resiliency through the earthquake program screenin.

and mayor breed has issued an executive director to draft legislation mandating screening of concrete buildings for seismic vulnerabilities and to publish retrofit standards in the san francisco building code. so the deadline for this was ten, 16, 24. drafts are completed for both both the standards and also the draft for the legislation. the pending these two drafts are pending. introduction to the board of supervisors. and we foresee that that will be introduced in the new year. and then the program will the screening portion of the program will go into effect, most likely in summer of 2025. thank you. thank you. we'll call for public comment. and then the commissioners will do their question and answer. thank you.

so is there a public comment on item five? is there any any remotely seeing. none. commissioners have any questions on this or comments on this item. thank you. miss miss church or yes yes please. you can you can come back up mary. i was curious. so you're how does your your division refer out of compliance or buildings that are not are non-compliant. do you refer them to code enforcement or how does enforcement work. is that performed within your division or does that get referred out to inspectors. so it is referred to code enforcement when the when a building is established to be out of compliance. actually, we've been working directly with code enforcement on a way to

make some alterations to our existing permitting system where we can actually flag code enforcement when that happens. so we've been making some miss changes in our existing permitting system, and we've been working with mauricio from code enforcement, and we're getting there. and we hope to actually see that in place by january. but it's going to be really helpful because it will be rather than sort of, you know, a referral via an excel spreadsheet. it will be something that automatically flags the inspectors, and they can see the compliance history on the building before they go out into the field to perform their inspections. that's great. thank you. do you happen to know how many notices of violation have been issued on any of these divisions or any of these programs? let me see. let me have that information. if you

don't, we can maybe get that through the director at a later time. yeah, we can get them for you for sure. yeah, i can get that information to you. i'm not sure that i did bring it with me today. no problem. okay. all right. i have a question for you as well. i was wondering if there's some kind of balcony inspection and maintenance program. because i feel like a lot of times i'm just thinking of the accident that happened in berkeley. i think it was semi-recently. and so because of that accident, i know berkeley started a i think they i don't know what the status is, but i think they're starting like a balcony maintenance program. and it seems like for balconies, these have been sort of after a tragedy happens. and so i'm wondering if maybe as part of the facade inspection, there should be an offshoot to balconies. i don't know if this is the proper forum to talk about this, but just hearing you speak about the facade

inspection made me think about balconies as part of that, you know, can we have a new piece of legislation so we can have matt green address that one for you? yeah. so there's in the san francisco housing code, there's existing requirement that every five years the appendages for residential buildings must be inspected. and there's submit a report to the department. there's also some state law requirements that we're trying to wrap into that housing code requirement. but i could prepare a more detailed report for that if you want, in a future meeting. all right. thank you. any further questions or comments? i have one more question. i don't know which of these microphones you hear. i okay, well, if you can hear me, that's all that matters. i so we just had this conversation about the appeals and how i'm curious about how materials get sent out

about compliance for these programs. are people aware of appeals processes? is that a is there an appeals process for each of these programs? and just if you could speak a little bit to that, especially with some of these programs already, their due dates have their compliance dates have passed. so i'm wondering like have people appealed? how do we get those last that last percentage into compliance? okay, so you're asking about all the programs, whether or not there's an appeal process for each program. yes. okay. so we do have our department of building inspection appeals that we use as our general format or platform for appeals. the access appeals commission is a specific commission that was, you know, developed as part of the development of the ab program. and their appeal process is specific to accessibility appeals. thank you. can i

somewhat along that lines, could you talk about the process for the exemptions requested? you said is there an internal process for granting exemptions for technical and feasibility or financial hardship. and could you talk about that. so financial hardship would be the unreasonable hardship. and the building code does not really speak to unreasonable hardship. the building code has specific expectations for accessibility. but of course the building code requires accessibility to come along with the improvement of a building over time. so the ab program is actually sort of it's part of our san francisco building code, but it's not part of the state building code, and it's not a requirement of state building code that if a building is not being improved, that

they're required to bring the building into compliance with accessibility. so the access appeals commission does hear the unreasonable hardship requests. however, there is building code criteria for establishing a technical infeasibility. so technical and feasibility are actually determined within the department as part of the plan review process. thank you. and the we heard, do you know and if you don't have it with you that's to be that's that's fine. but we saw the public comment that approximately two thirds of the 83% that are compliant in compliance were either waived or sought to be exempt. do you know, can you verify that or do you do you have any information to collaborate? i would have to confirm that. take a look at the data. yeah, that'd be that'd be helpful if we can get that to

the director. thank you. i'll be happy to do that. thank you so much. i have no further questions. anybody else? thank you so much for your presentations. thank you. our next item is item six. director's report six a director's update. good morning. it's good morning, president biden administration. members of the moderna's vaccine. i'm patrick o'riordan, director of the department of building inspection. first, i'd like to thank president alexander and the other commissioners who joined us this morning for our all hands, both remotely and in person. twice a year, we get all our staff together for an hour to acknowledge new and long tenured employees, discuss changes at the department, provide updates on our strategic plan, and share data on how we are performing. so many of our employees are in the field or working directly with customers, that these meetings are really our chance to get together, learn about each other's work,

and really understand the impact of the improvements that we're making. if you weren't able to make it this time, i hope you will join us for the next meeting in the spring. last, i want to thank you, commissioners, for your support and dedication to our department and to the city. your willingness to dedicate your time, energy and intelligence to overseeing dbi is welcome and appreciated. from your tough questions to your thoughtful discussions, to your ongoing support for our efforts to improve the department, you push us to be better. and for that, we're deeply grateful. thank you. happy holidays from all of us at dbi. we look forward to working with you in the new year. and that almost concludes

my report, because i just wanted to mention orp is the office of resilience and capital planning. it's a cross-departmental agency that that that focuses on resilience in the both infrastructure and in housing in the city. so just i'm sure you're aware of that, but i just thought i'd mention it. so that does conclude my report. okay. thank you. next is item six b update on major projects. we have the deck. it's showing here. sfgov. can we get that?

thank you. there there there there it is. and good morning again, commissioners. the following slides are intended to highlight the volume and valuation of projects costing 5 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 both housing and community assets. in november of 2024, seven permit applications with an estimated construction value of 5 million or more were filed with dbi. one application was for a new three story office building for the new southeast treatment plant at 750 phelps street that was valued at 75 million. another was for the new carpenters union hall at 3430 three third street, that was valued at 15.6 million. last month we issued one high value permit. it was for the

conversion of the hearst building at five third street to a hotel. the valuation of that project is $53.3 million. and lastly, dbi filed two high value permits. one was for a medical office tenant improvement at 1635 divisadero street, which was valued at $8.9 million, and the other was for a new preschool facility at 333 dolores street that was valued at $7.5 million. thank you. thank you. thank you. next we have item six c update on proposed or recently enacted state or local legislation.

thank you. morning. president alexander. commission members. ted hanna, legislative affairs manager. it should be a relatively quick update given the legislative session is wrapping up and folks are gearing up for the new year, but we can run through next slide, please. file number 241005. this is an ordinance adopting chapter six through 11 of the 2022 california existing building code. we are not planning any amendments for that adoption. it is being reviewed by the code advisory committee. they've seen this twice now but are asking for additional time. and so we're willing to grant that, have it go through the subcommittees before it reaches you all for additional review. next slide please. next is file number 240982. this is an ordinance amending the building, administrative and public works codes to remove the local requirement for existing buildings with a place of public accommodation to have all primary entries and passive travel into the building accessible to persons with disabilities, or to receive a city. determination of equivalent facilitation, technical infeasibility or unreasonable hardship. this is the av reform ordinance that we've been discussing that you all reviewed back on november 20th. next slide please. and the

last local ordinance is file number 241067. this is an ordinance allowing interim housing in hotels and motels without requiring a change of use or use classification. this is also reviewed by you all and approved unanimously on november 20th. next slide please. and then the state legislative calendar on january 1st, unless otherwise indicated within a law, those statutes will take effect january 6th. the legislature will reconvene january 10th. the budget must be submitted by the governor. the first draft of his budget. and then by february 21st, bills will be introduced. and so we should have a good understanding of what's going to be pending before us. obviously, bills can be cut and amended, and so we'll have new things throughout the legislative cycle, but we'll have a general understanding by february 21st. happy to answer any questions. thank you. thank you. thank you. next is item six d update on inspection services. good morning commissioners. i'm

matthew green, deputy director for inspection services. i'm pleased to provide an update of the activities performance of the inspection services division for november. next slide please. in november of 2024, the building, electrical and plumbing divisions conducted 9254 inspections. 91% of these inspections were conducted within two business days of the date requested by the customer. meeting our target of 90%. next slide. in the same month, our housing inspection services conducted 702 inspections, with 58 of them being the routine inspections of residential housing. residential apartment building. sorry. next slide. the building, electrical and plumbing divisions received 415 complaints. additionally, our code enforcement division sent 102 cases onto directors hearings. lastly, our housing inspection services received 333 non life hazard complaints and

responded to 88% of them within three business days for life hazard and heat complaints. housing received 44 complaints and responded to 84% of those within one business day. housing inspection services was also able to abate 266 cases with a notice of violation, and sent 22 additional cases on to directors hearing. that concludes my report. i'm available for any questions you may have. thank you. thank you. next we have six e update on dbi finances. good morning commissioners. alex koskinen, deputy director, administration. this month i have a regular financial update, some news about the budget and some other programmatic news to share with you. so we're five months of the way through the year. we will make projections

in january for six months and then again at nine month. next slide please. november was not our greatest month. financially. it was a bit slower. hopefully that is just slow winter time. and it picks up especially compared to last year. there was one very large project last year. so comparatively this november does not look great, but we're still on track to come in on budget by the end of the year. next slide please. expenditures. it's still early, but we're tracking at or below budget for expenditures. next slide please. again as as previously mentioned this november was not great. we're still at the same number of permits for the same time period, the first five months of the year as compared to last year. however, the valuation is now lower again due to one very large project. next slide

please. so i mentioned last meeting and i'll mention again. now i'm very interested to hear feedback from all commissioners on what they would like to see for next month's budget presentations, what information they're hoping to see in order to make informed decisions in the upcoming vote, on whether to send the approved budget to the board and the mayor. mayor's budget office has just released budget instructions for the next fiscal year. the. among the main point in their presentation was that they are projecting a $1.5 billion deficit over the next five years, and that is higher than i have seen in the past. they always project deficits and then lower expenditures to get that under control. but things seem a bit worse because the projection or the deficit has

caused at least partially by lower revenue estimates. they're not projecting an overall deficit or a recession in the economy, but they're they're cautioning that recovery remains slow in san francisco. and so the general fund will not be there to bail programs out. so they have given instructions to all departments citywide that they want to see a 15% reduction to all general fund supported expenditures. and the cbo that applies to dbi cbo grants, which are dbi only general fund supported expenditures. so we were given the amount that will be in the department's budget submission. that's the $3.672 million, down from the 4.32 as approved last year. there is a lot of uncertainty with the

budget overall. we have a new mayor, a new administration coming in, so it remains to be seen what the new administration will do, what changes they will make in the mayor's budget office, what their priorities will be. so we have i think the whole city is in a general holding pattern. they've been told to make these reductions for now, and then we will have new conversations in the mayor's phase of the budget with the new administration. and also recently, after this presentation was developed, we learned some news about one of the cbos that i'd like to share, casa justa just cause one of the smaller psyop program cbos has let us know that they will close permanently and cease operations very soon, december 20th. so we're meeting with them to determine what that means, what the impacts are. are they shutting down all services or

exactly what that means for the services they provide, and exploring options for how to how to ensure that the service continues to be provided. and that's it. i'd be happy to answer any questions. one for me. just one. oh, sorry. thank you. just one. alex, it's the same question. i think we keep asking. we as a commission can't change the budget. so i recommend we can make we can recommend or pass it with recommendations, but we can't change any light items. we can't say alex, go back to the board and like change those numbers. move that over there. we can't do any of that or can we? thank you for bringing that up. and sorry, i was going to mention thank you very much, vice president, for your questions that you sent in. hopefully you

received the responses. correct. the commission cannot make line item changes to the budget. the commission interacts with the department through the department heads. so the commission would send a request to director o'riordan through the commission secretary, with its priorities and wishes and potential changes to the budget, and to get into some of the other questions that you had asked. the department is one of the earlier phases of the budget. after the department submits its budget, it goes to the mayor's office. who who makes changes? they will submit mayor's proposed budget on june 1st. they can make any changes they want. after that. then the supervisors take over and they can make limited changes. they can't change anything. they can't increase the oversight overall size of the budget. but

they make their changes. and then it's passed by the full board and signed by the mayor again. so that's the order of operations. it doesn't come back to the budget, does not come back to the bic after it, after the department submission is made in february. okay. thank you. i think you actually answered my question. i was going to ask timing and phases of this, but it sounds like we make our recommendations in february and then it kind of goes off into other hands from there. and we don't know until after june what the final decisions are. correct. the final budget, final decisions are made in july, and then the mayor officially signs around august 1st. thank you. so,

commissioners, please, if you want to see things as part of alex's budget presentation, please make those requests through the secretary so that they can he can be sure to include those as part of his budget presentation and some of the background materials. thank you. so is there any public comment on the director's report? item six a through e? there is. i have a handout. thank you. wow.

okay i'm ready. thank you for waiting. this slide is from my november 24th. excuse me 2024 presentation of inspector mark wahl's 95 orange alley condo project. and it deals with the 30 suppressed complaints. i sent dbi a request for copies of the 30 suppressed complaints. when i didn't get them, i filed followed up with director o'riordan, who instructed the sunshine team to deal with my request. they told me they don't have the complaints. they say the complaints are test files, but if you look at the first page, you know there they have condo numbers on them. it doesn't make any sense. two days ago, i asked dbi to send me the 30 test file documents and they

told me they were double checking yesterday. they told me they have no responsive documents in tts. but if you see on the right side of the screen, i called up one of those documents. so there are 30 documents in tts complaints with complaint numbers. so that's not true. i mean, this is nonsense. this is like total freaking nonsense. and it needs to stop. i have one more thing i'd like to show you. and that is. this is the. if you could turn the computer on. this

is the dbi meeting calendar for december 2024. very useful. not. thank you, thank you. any additional public comment in person or remotely? seeing none. item seven. commissioners. questions and matters seven a inquiries to staff. at this time, commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the commission and seven be future meeting and agendas. at this time, the commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a special meeting and or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. the next regular meeting will be on january 15th, 2025. and are there any inquiries to staff? or

future items for the january meeting? no. january 15th okay okay okay. thank you. sorry. and then all of you can reach out to me if you'd like. i'm just going to make a quick comment about okay, go ahead. go ahead and speak. just an update. i met with matt green to talk about our backlog on arb, so just keep an eye out for 2025. we might be having a few extra arb meetings to get through that backlog. there's been a lot of other work done to address permits that are moving forward and trying to reduce the number of cases that we have to hear, but we just simply cannot get through all of them if we maintain our current cadence. so we'll have a few extra meetings next year and

we'll be reaching out about time that works. okay. thank you. okay. is there any public comment on seven a and b? seeing none? item eight review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of november 20th, 2024. so moved. there's a motion by president alexander two. is there a second, second and a second by commissioner williams. is there any public comment on the minutes seeing none? are all commissioners in favor? i any opposed? and the motion carries unanimously. thank you. next item nine adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? so moved. and there a second. second okay. all commissioners in favor. aye, aye. we are now adjourned. it is 11:27 a.m. and happy holidays everyone. happy holidays.

>> there is a lot of unique characteristics about visitation valley. it is a unique part of the city. >> we are off in a corner of the city against the san francisco county line 101 on one side. vis station valley is still one of the last blue color neighborhoods in san francisco. a lot of working class families out here. it is unusual. not a lot of apartment

buildings. a lot of single family homes. >> great business corridor. so much traffic coming through here and stopping off to grab coffee or sandwich or pick up food before going home. >> a lot of customers are from the neighborhood. they are painters or mechanics. they are like blue color workers, a lot of them. >> the community is lovely. multi-racial and hopefully we can look out for each other. >> there is a variety of businesses on the block. you think of buffalo kitchen, chinese food, pork buns, sandwich. library, bank of america with a parking lot. the market where you can grab anything. amazing food choices, nail salons. basically everything you need is here. >> a lot of these businesses up and down leland are family

owned. people running them are family. when you come here and you have an uncle and nephew and go across the street and have the guy and his dad. lisa and her daughter in the dog parlor and pam. it is very cool. >> is small businesses make the neighborhood unique. >> new businesses coming. in mission blue, gourmet chocolate manufacturing. the corridor has changed and is continuing to change. we hope to see more businesses coming in the near future. >> this is what is needed. first, stay home. unless it is absoluteliness scary. social distancing is the most important step right now to

limit spread of virus. cancel all nonessential gather everythings. >> when the pandemic litly land avenue suffered like other corridors. a few nail salons couldn't operate. they shut down. restaurants that had to adapt to more of a take out model. they haven't totally brought back indoor seating. >> it is heartbreaking to see the businesses that have closed down and shut because of the pandemic. >> when the pandemic first hit it got really slow. we had to change our hours. we never had to close, which is a blessing. thank god. we stayed open the whole time. >> we were kind of nervous and anxious to see what was going to come next hoping we will not have to close down. >> during covid we would go outside and look on both sides of the street. it looked like old western town.

nobody on the street. no cars. >> it was a hard eight or nine months. when they opened up half the people couldn't afford a haircut. >> during that time we kept saying the coffee shop was the living room of the valley. people would come to make sure they were okay. >> we checked on each other and patronized each other. i would get a cup of coffee, shirt, they would get a haircut. >> this is a generous and kind community. people would be like i am getting the toffee for the guy behind me and some days it went on and on. it was amazing to watch. we saw a perfect picture of community. we are all in this together. >> since we began to reopen one year later, we will emerge

stronger. we will emerge better as a city because we are still here and we stand in solidarity with one another. >> when we opened up august 1st. i will not say it was all good. we are still struggling due to covid. it affected a lot of people. >> we are still in the pandemic right now. things are opening up a little bit. it is great to have space to come together. i did a three painting series of visitation valley and the businesses on leland. it felt good to drop off the paintings and hung them. >> my business is picking up. the city is opening up. we have mask requirements. i check temperatures. i ask for vaccination card and/or recent test. the older folks they want to feel safe here. >> i feel like there is a sense of unity happening. >> what got us through the

pandemic was our customers. their dogs needed groomed, we have to cut their nails so they don't over grow. >> this is only going to push us forward. i sense a spirit of community and just belief in one another. >> we are trying to see if we can help all small businesses around here. there is a cannabis club lounge next to the dog parlor to bring foot traffic. my business is not going to work if the business across the street is not getting help. >> in hit us hard. i see a bright future to get the storefronts full. >> once people come here i think they really like it. >> if you are from san francisco visit visitation valley to see how this side of the city is the same but different. .

>> (music).

>> the ferry building one of san francisco most famous that as many of 15 thousand commuters pass through that each gay. >> one of the things that one has to keep in mind regarding san francisco is how young the city we are. and nothing is really happening here before the gold rush. there was a small spanish in the presiding and were couriers and fisherman that will come in to rest and repair

their ships but at any given time three hundred people in san francisco. and then the gold rush happened. by 182948 individuals we are here to start a new life. >> by 1850 roughly 16 thousand ships in the bay and left town in search of gold leaving their ships behind so they scraped and had the ships in the bay and corinne woods. with sand the way that san francisco was and when you look at a map of san francisco have a unique street grid and one of the thing is those streets started off in extremely long piers. but by

1875 they know they needed more so the ferry building was built and it was a long affair and the first cars turned around at the ferry building and picking up people and goods and then last night the street light cars the trams came to that area also. but by the late 1880s we needed something better than the ferry building. a bond issue was passed for $600,000. to build a new ferry building i would say 800 thousand for a studio apartment in san francisco they thought that was a grand ferry building had a competition to hire an architecture and choose a young aspiring architect and

in the long paris and san francisco had grand plans for this transit station. so he proposed the beautiful new building i wanted it wider, there is none tonight. than that actually is but the price of concrete quitclaim two how and was not completed and killed. but it opened a greater claim and became fully operational before 1898 and first carriages and horses for the primary mode of transportation but market street was built up for serve tram lines and streetcars could go up to the door to embarcadero to hospitals and mission street up to nob hill and the fisherman's

area. and then the earthquake hit in 190 six the ferry building collapsed the only thing had to be corrected once the facade of the tower. and 80 percent of the city would not survive the buildings collapsed the streets budges and the trams were running and buildings had to highland during the fire after the actuate tried to stop the mask fire in the city so think of a dennis herrera devastation of a cable car they were a mess the streets were torn up and really, really wanted to have a popular sense they were on top of that but two weeks after the earthquake kind of rigged a way getting a

streetcar to run not on the cable track ran electrical wires to get the streetcars to run and 2 was pretty controversial tram system wanted electrical cars but the earthquake gave them to chance to show how electrical cars and we're going to get on top this. >> take 10 years for the city to rebuild. side ferry use was increasing for a international exhibition in 1950 and people didn't realize how much of a community center the ferry building was. it was the center for celebration. the upper level of ferry building was a gathering place. also whenever there was a war like the

filipino war or world war two had a parade on market street and the ferry building would have banners and to give you an idea how central to the citywide that is what page brown wanted to to be a gathering place in that ferry building hay day the busiest translation place in the world how people got around transit and the city is dependent on that in 1915 of an important year that was the year of our international exposition 18 million living in san francisco and that was supposedly to celebrate the open of panama differential but back in business after the earthquake and 22 different ferry boats to

alamed and one had the and 80 trips a day a way of life and in 1918 san francisco was hit hard by the flu pandemic and city had mask mandates and anyone caught without a doubt a mask had a risk ever being arrested and san francisco was hit hard by the pandemic like other places and rules about masks wearing and what we're supposed to be more than two people without our masks on i read was that on the ferry those guys wanted to smoke their pipes and taking off their masks and getting from trouble so two would be hauled away. >> the way the ferry building was originally built the lower

level with the natural light was used for take it off lunge storage. the second floor was where passengers offloaded and all those people would spill out and central stairway of the building that is interesting point to talk about because such a large building one major stairway and we're talking about over 40 thousand people one of the cost measures was not building a pedestrian bridge with the ferry building and the embarcadero on market street was actually added in and in 1918 but within 20 years to have san francisco bay the later shipbuilding port in the world and the pacific we need the iron

that. as the ferry system was at the peak two bridges to reach san francisco. and automobiles were a popular item that people wanted to drive themselves around instead of the ferry as a result marin and other roots varnished. the dramatic draw in ferry usage was staggering who was using the ferry that was a novelty rather than a transportation but the ferry line stopped one by one because everyone was getting cars and wanted to drive and cars were a big deal. take the care ferry and to san francisco and spend the day or for a saturday drive but really, really changed having the car ferry. >> when the bay bridge was

built had a train that went along the lower level so that was a major stay and end up where our sales force transit center is now another way of getting into the city little by little the ferry stopped having a purpose. >> what happened in the 40 and 50's because of this downturn we were trying to find a purpose a number of proposals for a world trade center and wanted to build it own the philly in a terrible idea objective never gotten down including one that had too tall towers a trade center in new york but a tower in between that

was a part of ferry building and completely impractical. after the cars the tower administration wanted to keep americans deployed and have the infrastructure for the united states. so they had an intrastate free plan the plan for major freeway systems to go throughout san francisco. and so the developers came up with the bay bridge and worked their way along embarcadero. the plans were to be very, very efficient for that through town he once the san francisco saw had human services agency happening 200 though people figure out city hall offender that the embarcadero free was dropped and we had the great free to no

where. which cut us off from the ferry building and our store line and created in 1989 and gave us the opportunity to tear down the free. and that was the renaissance of ferry building. >> that land was developed for a new ferry building and whom new embarcadero how to handle travel and needed a concept for the building didn't want- that was when a plan was developed for the liquor store. >> the san francisco ferry building has many that ups and

downs and had a huge hay day dribbled adopt to almost nothing and after the earthquake had a shove of adrenaline to revise the waterfront and it moved around the bay and plans for more so think investment in the future and feel that by making a reliable ferry system once the ferry building will be there to surface. >> (music).

>> today wire he emergency operations center for england with one activation so oversight board that one of the many activations have locations which

probably has between to one hundred people at this time 340r7b 25 different city departments and hundreds of partner local partners and straight and fell partners we're in the echg a critical consultant of emergency center and surcharged with the single voice communicating with media about all issues with the apec and go a lot of preparation went into stemming up this e oc and little actuated managing things as they come up and the people in the room and making sure that everyone is in the next step and doing count work of a single set of objectives with a single idealogy in mind many is having an apec that runs smoothly. >> i basically organ the agency

projects and um, whatever this is in-person, transmissions have (unintelligible) to we're never (unintelligible) i will get a response right now and (unintelligible). >> please check in. >> my role here in the agency to help the cooperation and the way to do that is by sharing information corresponding activities and some cases requesting additional resources when the cfo steady the property of the departments working at the moment and one of the first agencies that was called the energy planning for the agency that we do streets and pipes and

others involving a to point b. >> and this activation there are parts of the city cut off limited access points and information is sometimes confusing and so the information that not necessarily always refined for their knowledge and this activation is different from the activation we're waiting for something to happen if or if we don't have the resources available we we have to piecemeal it because 6 departments we are able to make things happen and from my department is the 9-1-1 features and be able services which runs the emergency operation center where we are right now. >> by insuring the rights of people to exposure the first amendment rights our job we don't want people to think that

because the federal government was coming into town that for federal government will be cracking detain on protesters looking to demonstrate and also the law enforcement partners insures that people could do that while keeping everyone safe and something we are doing. >> the jet has responder to over two had the and advising people of the impacts and plan for delays and plan their travel of entertainment commission and wounding to do that without people. >> what is happening on event like this people love individually and because they find integrity in themselves that didn't go know was there and have to rise to occasion they didn't know they'd have to

and really across the board for us and the city to make us a better city. >> and really a good learning experience xrefrns city augment but amazing departments across the city working together or working together in the same room and part of this in a meaningful way it everyone is united truly everyone. >> what we do matters a lot of i can't take credit. >> when i'm done with that all we can tie the bow on that and send it off. >> i'm he getting an opportunity to find it exciting that's what we're here to do to serve the city we love and wanting really great learning experience. >> extremely rewarding and the great relationships with the

people >> when i in height in addiction i did not see my future. i question if this is all i was minute to be. i was inspired to quit using when i was going to be a father. >> we will have this and she will [indiscernible] need to take the help now. since i stopped using, our life is night and day. i'm able to withstand cravings, i don't are body acs. >> anyone can do it. >> we are living proof that >> my name is andrew england the owner

and collector at real old paper. i'm a native to the bay areaismt grew up in oakland, spent high school years here and lived in hawaii about 10 years. moved back shortly. been in san francisco proper now for about 8 years. when i realized i wasn't a dealer anymore in san francisco, i found openings and decided to opening my own store in north beach in 2016. north beach was a great place to start. i got a neighborhood feel from it. i got involved in the community, but as far as business turnover, fisherman's wharf is 2 fold, 3 fold because there are so many more people here. we have been here going on 3 and a half years. i started as a hobbyist. i started collecting movie posters in high school. not originals. just favorite. when i mouved to hawaii there was a gallery that specialized in

viptage posters and that taught me about the variables beyond movies and that is where this is my career path and what iment to do. i with irked for them for 8 years, took a portion of pay in store credit so i built a collection basically and turned it into a brz. business. hobby turns business and forch int. i got bitten by the poster bug it spiraled out of control and i needed to a store to outlet my collection. san francisco has always had a viptage poster dating with 1970 with chicago new york and paris san francisco is a city with a area to buy vintage posters so people appreciate the time capsule and history. all are vintage. most in the store is at least 40 plus years old, some back to the 1800s so we have some 140 years old.

they are advertisement,b war propaganda from world war 1 and 2. movie and with travel posters and alcohol and tobaccos. thin pieces of paper meant to last maybe a mujt or 6 weeks. the lowest point was the pandemic. having to close the gallery so i didsant have a web store biltd or outlet and barely a instagram and told all the customers don't buy on line. can't be sure they are authentic or true colors or size or condition. it was very frustrating. it was a struggle until this opportunity presented itself and when i moved into this location on the wharf, there was still nobody here yet. we hadn't officially reopened but i rolled the dice, spent everything i had left to build this place out, and give it one last shot. it worked out very well. it worked out very well. >> here we have the 1971 for

the fight. ali and frazier first meeting. the one first professional loss. there is a lot that appreciate the story and understand the esthetic and message and nuances within the graphic. the champagne [indiscernible] wonderful piece. it carries both styles. it has the [indiscernible] in his garb. he has shoes and fits the earlier periods, but done in the style of art deco and that is what we offer and part of the experience knhing into the store. we will walk through the purchase and explain how we preserved it, what are the imperfections and what does the imagery mean. you have the older story and the newer story, pasted over the top. we will give you all that information. about everything. it may not be your favorite piece until you heard the story. i are think i always had in the back of my mind a second location outside the state.

i dream is tokyo, but i do a lot of consulting in las vegas with pon stars group so thought about opening a shop in las vegas. we like to branch out at some point. we are from here and where the company started and where we'll stay, we may just also open another store. i love being here. this is where my family is, this is where i was raised and not ready to leave that behind cht yes, people are looking for this store and there are fewer and fewer store fronts, brick and mortar like ours that outlet this thing. we offer the experience. i think it is very desirable collective subject matter because we are less and less acustoms. you can pick it while looking at it. examining the flaws and scale and color. you know what you are getting because you get that exact one. poster art is my area of expertise and i have affinity for. poster art especially they are not meant to last are under appreciateated.

real paper, the vintage gallery is 777 beach street, tuesday-saturday 11-5 and monday 12-5. good afternoon and welcome to the december 11th, 2024 treasure island development authority board meeting. item number one call to order. director. send here. director dunlap here. director richardson here. director. howard, here. director. azeem. here. director.