Department of Building Inspection

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 416
Aired Live on SFGTV Channel 78
ADOPTED December 17, 2008

MINUTES

3.   Director’s Report.

a.   Introduction of Acting Manager, Permit Services - Laurence Kornfield.

Acting Director Vivian Day announced that Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield would be adding Permit Services to his duties; his new title will be Acting Manager of Permit Services and Technical Services.

Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager of Permit Services, said that he appreciated the confidence and would do his best to help Ms. Day in her efforts to keep the Department moving forward.

Commissioner Walker said that she was really happy about Mr. Kornfield’s appointment and said that this is a good step forward.

President Lee congratulated Mr. Kornfield and noted that Mr. Kornfield has been with the Department for many years and does a great job reaching out to the public and many organizations.

b.   Status of MIS and update on the computer process.  

Acting Director Vivian Day stated that the Department updated the new fee schedule and was successful in getting all the programming completed, however the Online Permit System is not yet up and running due to outside contractor problems. Ms. Day said that she expects the problem to be fixed shortly.  Ms. Day stated that DBI is continuing to enhance the Inspection Scheduling Program and working with the Planning Department to improve the work flow to allow customers to search for the status of their permits online.

Commissioner Walker asked if the Department was working directly with Planning on incorporating the computer systems into a better system that works together, since currently the systems are basically separate.  Ms. Day said that right now both Departments are working on putting together an MOU so that both computer systems can work together.  Commissioner Walker stated that this could be one of the agenda items for the Joint Planning and Building Inspection Commission meeting. 

Commissioner Romero asked Ms. Day what type of contractor problems the Department was having. Ms. Day said that the problem is not with DBI’s contractors but with the Department of Technology’s outside contractor that actually does the online program. 

Commissioner Hechanova asked Ms. Day if she could provide a quick point of what is being enhanced for Inspection Services.  Ms. Day stated that inspection scheduling is being enhanced and there is a Request for Proposal (RFP) out for a vendor to provide Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems so that people can call on the phone and do interactive scheduling and online web scheduling.  Ms. Day said that DBI is looking at having a contract ready in about the middle of October.  Ms. Day stated that she is in hopes the whole system will be implemented by the first of January. 

Commissioner Hechanova  asked if this would have anything to do with the relationship to some of the issues or problems that the Department is having with the contractor providing the scheduling.  Ms. Day said that it would not be a problem at this time because that is a separate system.  Ms. Day stated that the provider the Department is looking at to provide the IVR system has a web permitting system, but it would take a lot more programming to implement that than to fix what DBI has with the contractor through the City’s system right now.  Ms. Day said that hopefully the Department should have that program up and running before January.

Commissioner Sattary questioned in the absence of online permitting, if there was another alternative such as phone services or issuing contractor permits by calling on the phone.  Commissioner Sattary stated that he has heard from several small contractors for small jobs, including water heaters or small miscellaneous building permits, that for them to make a trip to the Building Department and spend a couple of hours is really taking a great deal out of their operational time.  Ms. Day said that all of the forms are available online, and customers can actually mail in the forms to DBI and staff will mail the permits the next day, but the Department does not have the ability to take credit card numbers over the phone due to restrictions set by the Controllers Office.

Commissioner Sattary asked if the web page for online permitting guides customers to download the forms and print them out.  Ms. Day stated that she believed the web page refers customers to DBI’s website for the forms and the current fee schedules.

Commissioner Walker said that the building industry recently went through the BPR and the Department is in the process of figuring out how to follow through with it, considering the financial constraints.  Commissioner Walker stated that DBI has new leadership with the same existing staff and said that there may be some different ideas about how the BPR is going to move forward.  Commissioner Walker said that this may tie into the computerized MIS and front end process, so maybe the Commission could have an update of all of that at a future meeting. 

Acting Director Day said that there could be a BPR update at the next meeting.  Ms. Day stated that the Department is in the process of updating all of the BPR items and marking them as either completed or stating their progress.

c.   Financial Report.

Acting Director Day stated that Item 3c would be combined with Item 8 instead of presenting the information twice.

d.   Performance Statistics.

Acting Director Day said that the Department put together some basic charts showing a three year comparison of the inspections performed by field staff, and in fiscal year 2007-2008 there were a couple of thousand more inspections than the prior year, so DBI’s inspection numbers are not down at all. Ms. Day stated that as that statistics include high-rise inspections that might only show one inspection for several floors.  Ms. Day said that she the statistics for the permits issued shows that the Department issued 66,000 permits last year with a breakdown of all the permits and their categories.  Ms. Day stated that she would answer any other questions.

Commissioner Sattary asked about the plan check process, and said that in the future he would like to see information on tracking the time that is required to complete permit tracking and how that has changed over the years.  Commissioner Sattary stated that when the economy changes the types of products may change as well, with smaller projects increasing and larger projects decreasing.  Commissioner Sattary asked if there is a possibility of subdividing to track and see which “class of products “are changing with the economy.  Ms. Day said that she would include more detailed information at the next meeting and could chart projects by valuation.

Commissioner Walker said that she thinks qualitative as well as quantitative statistics are important though she does not want to add more to already burdened staff time.  Commissioner Walker stated that she knows everybody is already working hard, but said that since the computer system is being maybe a reporting element that captures the type of building structure could be created. 

Ms. Day stated that there is certainly a way to do that since there is such a thing as E-Commerce Codes that would tell if a project is residential or commercial remodeling, and what valuation was in that category along with how many permits were issued for a certain time period.  Ms. Day said that this process change will hopefully be implemented by January.  Ms. Day stated that probably beginning in February the Department would have its first report based on the Nationwide Commerce Code Report.  Commissioner Walker stated that it is important to say that the number of permits issued is going up even though the Department was anticipating a decrease.  Commissioner Walker said that it may well be a shift in the type of projects and it would be interesting to see if the dollar value goes up.

Ms. Day said that most of the projects that are coming in are for the smaller residential projects, and people are remodeling their homes, and using existing resources to improve their current property rather than building a new one.  

e.   CAPSS Update.

Acting Director Day stated that next month there will be a full presentation on CAPSS and a report on the status and what has been happening at the meetings.  Ms. Day stated that the Committee has been meeting and are currently on schedule to meet the January 31st deadline the Mayor has set for having a project in place.

f.   Update on the overall plan for the reconfiguration of DBI

Acting Director Day said that DBI is continuing to meet with the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the final floor plans will be available at the next Commission meeting for the fourth and fifth floor reconfiguration.  Ms. Day said that the Department is trying to reorganize and be more efficient, and that is affecting the fourth floor reconfiguration.  Ms. Day stated that the fifth floor where the over-the-counter permitting will be is complete except for some ADA issues that are being addressed.

g.   Update on the earthquake relief effort for China.

Acting Director Day stated that the Department has not had any further communication from the Mayor’s Office regarding the earthquake relief effort for China.   

President Lee called for public comment on the Director’s Report items.

There was no public comment on the Director’s Report items.

4.    Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

There was no public comment.

5.   Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed Slope Protection Ordinance to add Section 106A.4.1.4 and to amend Section 1701A.5 of the San Francisco Building Code to require heightened review and special inspection requirements for certain construction in steeply sloped areas of the City.

Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager of Permit Services and Technical Services, stated that this ordinance was proposed by Supervisor Peskin and said that someone from the Supervisor’s office was present to speak on the issue.  Mr. Kornfield said that this ordinance basically responds to issues raised by the Code Advisory Committee and Supervisor Peskin’s concerns to look citywide at all areas of the City that should have special slope stability issues.  Mr. Kornfield stated that in the past there have been special soils areas in the Edgehill Slope Area and the Northwest Mt. Sutro Slope Protection area.  Mr. Kornfield said that as a result of these two pieces of legislation the Building Code now requires special soils analysis just for these areas, so the gist of the legislation proposed by Supervisor Peskin is to look at citywide slide and slope issues.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the legislation before the Commission is supported by both the Code Advisory Committee and the Department of Building Inspection that sets certain criteria for what that should include.  Mr. Kornfield also discussed the following items:

• It includes overall areas that are within a map that was prepared by the John Blume Engineering Firm in 1974 for the Planning Department.
• The geology of the City has not changed much since then but the map has not been updated since then.
• CAC proposed to take this map and digitize all the slope areas and require additional studies in those areas.
• Mr. Kornfield asked the BIC to approve the legislation with a change stating where it says a slope greater than three horizontal to one vertical.
• Mr. Kornfield proposed that the BIC and Supervisor Peskin include the blue map prepared by the State along with the earthquake induced landslide areas.
• A digitized collection of addresses determine if a property is in one of the slope areas.

Mr. David Owens from Supervisor Peskin’s office thanked Laurence Kornfield for all of his hard work and said he would answer any questions that the Commission had. 

Commissioner Levitt asked if these regulations would apply to a lot in these areas that is flat, and not sloped.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Blume Report notes that not all landslide hazards occur on the steepest slopes, and many of the landslide hazards in San Francisco appear to have a relatively low slope but because of the geology and surface conditions there may be slumping and sliding occurring.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the Blume Report is not a theoretical report at all, but it looks at the known history of landslides in San Francisco even on the low slope areas and maps them. 

Commissioner Walker stated that was a very good question, but it seems this requires a geotechnical person or geologist to look at it. Mr. Kornfield said yes it requires a geotechnical person and a geologist, but if there are concerns it goes to the higher level of a Structural Advisory Committee.

Commissioner Walker stated that this legislation is really overdue, and some members were on the Commission as the North Beach Slide happened so anything that can be done to remediate the potential of a landslide before it occurs is a good idea.  Commissioner Walker thanked Supervisor Peskin for putting the legislation forward.

Commissioner Hechanova asked if the report contained information which would give a hierarchy of which areas would have the greatest loss of both life and property in the event of a slide, because in some areas there is not the population that would be concentrated in the Downtown area.  Mr. Kornfield said that the intent is simply on a project by project basis.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the Department is not doing a city-wide analysis of slide hazards and potential impacts at this time.

Commissioner Sattary stated that he supports the legislation as it is very timely, but his concern was that the Blume Report is based on the history of landslides yet there have been additional cases and other information since then.  Commissioner Sattary said that this is a reasonable time to consider updating this report, and asked when the legislation calls for the structural advisory meeting for a potential applicant.

Mr. Kornfield said that there are two levels and the first could simply be the report and PEER Review which is asking someone else whose professional opinion the Department values to look at the reports, and give an opinion as to whether or not they are comprehensive.  Mr. Kornfield stated that from the PEER Review there are substantial reasons for DBI to convene a Structural Advisory Committee panel that is a much bigger deal and what is currently required in the Edgehill and Mt. Sutro areas.  Mr. Kornfield said that a panel of three experts convenes for a public meeting and it becomes a very big deal, but the goal is to try and do this at the lowest reasonable level to address the slide area concerns. 

President Lee stated that he had two questions:  The first one is if the same process would be extended to areas within the boundaries of the map and lots that are steeper than 3 to 1. Mr. Kornfield said no, areas in the boundaries of the Blume Report map and areas that are within the State map’s earthquake landslide area, include any portion of that area parcel that touches; it is outside the boundaries but deeper than 3 to 1.

President Lee said that his second question is about how properties in the boundaries have to deal with this in terms of small additions to their homes.

Mr. Kornfield stated that the recommendation from the Code Advisory Committee and the Department is to limit the requirements to additions to buildings that are a thousand square feet or more in their projected roof area that it is looking down, at a “bird’s eye” view or other changes that might substantially impact retaining walls to affect that wall or property.  Mr. Kornfield said that it is the Department’s discretion or up to the Director to say that this might have a substantial impact, but basically it says a thousand square feet or more.

President Lee asked if the Department could keep track of any permits that may be attached, like serial permits so it does not grow bigger than a thousand square feet.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department did not include any cumulative provision in this legislation, but some pieces of the Code already have that.

Commissioner Walker said that she agreed with Commissioner Sattary about updating the maps, and supports his concerns but said that she would like to follow up on getting the maps updated by the engineering community or the geology industry but in the interim she thinks the BIC should go on record saying they support this legislation but urge that they are updated more frequently. 

Mr. Kornfield said that the Planning Department is currently working on their community safety element of the general plan of the City, and said he would convey any concerns of the BIC.  Mr. Kornfield stated that Planning looks at their map and considers what the community wide effects would be. 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sattary to approve the Slope Protection Ordinance, with the change recommended by Laurence Kornfield and a side note of updating the maps and looking at the serial permitting issue to have some cumulative inclusion.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 049-08

6.   Updates on legislation under consideration by the Code Advisory Committee:

a.   Finding a compelling public policy basis for expediting the processing and review of permits for seismic retrofit upgrades of soft-story, wood-frame buildings amending the Planning Code, Building Code, Fire Code, and Public Works Code to waive permit processing fees for the proportionate share of work related to such seismic retrofit upgrades.

President Frank Lee stated that he is a Department of Public Works employee, so although this legislation affects the Public Works Code the City Attorney assured him that there was no conflict in his participation.

Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager of Permit Services and Technical Services said that he was giving the Commission an update on some legislation that they would be seeing some time in the future, and these were informational items only.  The following issues were discussed regarding soft-story, wood-frame buildings:

• There is a proposal by the Mayor’s Office to waive permit fees for the share of work that is voluntary soft story seismic upgrade & to expedite the processing of such permits.
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the legislation with the provision that DBI looked at a couple of issues.
• Mr. Kornfield said CAPSS Project is specifically looking at tenant issues & the possible impacts.
• Code Enforcement Outreach Programs such as HRC & St. Peter’s are looking into issue of inconvenience of seismic strengthening for owners & tenants.
• Issue of who pays for seismic upgrade & a mention that the UMB fund has $280 - $300 M.
• Soft story issue important & impacts a lot of buildings.  Requires financial commitment from the community & there should be incentives for the public to do this work.
• Legislation applies to existing buildings & strictly seismic upgrading the existing envelope of the building & does not include interior remodel.

b.   Amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 106A.1.14 to require a permit for construction or reconstruction of a driveway unless the driveway construction or reconstruction work is approved under a building or site permit; by amending Table 1A-F to add a permit fee for construction of a permeable driveway surface, and by adding Chapter 13E to require new driveways to have a permeable surface. 

• The issue of storm water management is driving this legislation & most of S.F. has a combined sewer system.
• Trying to figure out how peak loads can be decreased that occur during storms where there are run offs from roofs and yards.
• The CAC supported the concept of permeable paving but looking for alternative way to address bigger City problem.
• The CAC had problems with narrowly focused legislation stating if a person installs or replaces a driveway they have to get a permit that has to be regulated.
• Legislation is a big deal for DBI because it encroaches on an area entirely unregulated, no permits are typically required, and it increases fees.
• CAC will hear legislation at their administrative and general design subcommittee meeting next month, so it may not be sent back to the BIC very soon. 
• President Lee stated that anything within the property lines is DBI’s jurisdiction, and anything outside of the property line is DPW’s jurisdiction.
• Requiring people to have a permit is kind of a disincentive.
• Have not heard of a jurisdiction that requires a permit for a driveway replacement other than a Planning issue.
• If there is a driveway issue that needs a curb cut it will be heard from the Department of Public Works.
• Question:  What are the inspectors going to inspect?

c.   Amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding a third paragraph to Section 1203.5 and amending the San Francisco Mechanical Code by adding new Section 419 to require special ventilation systems for certain urban infill residential developments.

The following issues were discussed regarding special ventilation systems for certain urban infill residential developments:

• Perhaps this legislation could be tied into the whole “green” development process.
• A number of area mechanical and ventilation experts said they did not know how the Department would define this legislation or enforce it.
• The EPA regulates exhaust management, air quality, and particulate matter.
• Mention of living in a building and being more concerned about the air quality on the inside of the building than the outside, so if ventilation system prevents air from coming in it could cause mold, and so on.
• Concern about buildings that have a close proximity to freeways such as Rincon Center.
• Intent of legislation is to improve health, but by putting the burden on the building & design industry the regulation is missing the point.

Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that he would give the BIC the context that would help in their further discussions, but his understanding is this legislation stems from an environmental impact report that was identified in the Eastern Neighborhood zoning plan.  Mr. Malamut stated that it was determined that this dealt with residential uses in a certain proximity to high volume roadways, primarily the highways, but there are some surface streets.  Mr. Malamut said that this exposes the residents to these kinds of pollutants that the Department of Public Health is concerned about in the Eastern Neighborhoods.  Mr. Malamut stated said that there should be a mitigation issue to address that and a process where the property owner would submit various resources to the Planning Department and Public Health in terms of treating this exposure issue.  Mr. Malamut stated that he thought that the intent is to create a regulatory program City-wide in order to avoid addressing this every time there is a particular project in one of these zones going through this entire environmental impact process.  Mr. Malamut said that it is similar to the dust suppression issue the BIC dealt with recently where if a regulatory program is created to address an issue, they can be referred to the process rather than having to do an extensive environmental analysis case-by-case.

Commissioner Walker asked if Mr. Malamut has looked at this, and asked if he could advise the Commission as to how many projects this would affect.

Mr. Malamut stated that he thought this is generated through the Department of Public Health and they could probably develop a map that would identify specific zones where these regulations would apply. 

d.   Amending Chapter 26 of the San Francisco Fire Code to prohibit the installation of torch-applied roof systems on combustible roof systems on combustible roofs, and possible repercussions to Chapter 15 of the San Francisco Building Code regarding allowable roof system materials and installations.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Technical Services Manager, said that Fire Marshall Barbara Schulteis attended the recent committee meeting and after some discussion everyone agreed to look at the issue not of flames with respect to torch applied roofs but rather the whole issue of open flames and construction.  Mr. Kornfield stated that there are many kinds of open flame hazards and in some cases there are already regulations on the books and in some cases there needs to be more.  Mr. Kornfield said that there was a fire in the dome at City Hall which he recalls was caused by welding that was left unattended, and the Fire Marshall asked if this legislation could be broadened to include all open flames and construction.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this legislation would be further discussed at a joint meeting between the Fire Department and the Code Advisory Committee.

Commissioner Walker stated that in reading this she thought that it made sense on some level but she appreciates that the Fire Marshall’s office is involved as well. 

Mr. Tom Harvey introduced himself as Captain of Fire Prevention for San Francisco and said that he did not think that the Fire Department has a position on this issue at this time. Captain Harvey said that there have been a few fires with the torch down roofs.  Captain Harvey stated that a lot of times it is because the roofer does not follow the safety regulations.  Captain Harvey said that there was a similar prohibition for burning paint off buildings but not as much legislation.  Captain Harvey stated that this used to be done commonly for wood buildings and a lot of times it would just be whoever they would put on the scaffold would burn the paint off.  Captain Harvey stated that there were a few fires in his time at the fire house caused by burning off paint and it was fairly common, but the reason that stopped was because of the lead paint in buildings built before 1975.  Captain Harvey said that contractors had to get certification that there was no lead paint in the buildings.  Captain Harvey stated that there are a few things in the Fire Code that address this issue:  One is when a hot work or welding is part of a construction site, there is a construction permit and it is inside a building, the Fire Department has regulation authority for certain things but not to issue a permit for construction.  Captain Harvey said that again he believes the Fire Department does not have a position on the legislation at this time, and he agrees with Chief Building Inspector Kornfield that more discussion needs to go into this issue.

President Lee asked Mr. Kornfield if he was speaking with roofers that use this method and getting them on board to have this discussion at the CAC level.  President Lee said that if the Fire Marshall says there are some problems with the roofers not abiding by safety standards he would like that discussion to start there, and perhaps they can work something out.  President Lee stated that it would be better if the roofers were informed at the Code Advisory Committee instead of the BIC level so that there are not any surprises.  President Lee said that he wants the roofers included in the discussion.

e.   Amending the San Francisco Housing Code to add Section 605 prohibiting wooden fixed utility ladders in R-1, R-2, and R-3 Occupancies, and making findings under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Chief Housing Inspector, Rosemary Bosque, stated that this particular legislation is going before the Code Advisory Committee after being heard at the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors (BOS), because the BOS realized that it should be reviewed and approved by the Building Inspection Commission.  Ms. Bosque said that this legislation proposes to remove for the R-1, R-2, and R-3 occupancies all fixed wooden utility ladders that are essentially convenience ladders attached to buildings such as apartment buildings, hotels, and some one and two family dwellings.  Ms. Bosque stated that there are CAL/OSHA requirements that a structure be attached to the building per a building permit.  Ms. Bosque said that the genesis behind this legislation sponsored by Supervisor McGoldrick was because there was a fatality in a building where a young man fell as a result of using one of these ladders.  Ms. Bosque stated that the legislation talks about the enforcement procedures and since no additional resources are being proposed for DBI to implement this, it would be part of our current inspection process.  Ms. Bosque said that it would be part of the Housing Inspectors routine inspections of apartment buildings, hotels, or when addressing complaints. Ms. Bosque stated that DBI does not have the staff to go out and look for the ladders independent of the other duties in the Housing Code, but the Department sends out mailers to all of the property owners of the apartment buildings, hotels, condos, and one and two family dwellings.  Ms. Bosque said that she has a handout from the property owner that is requesting the building inspection and doing research with the S.F. Apartment Association, and this information is on DBI’s website.

The following issues were discussed regarding prohibiting wooden fixed utility ladders:

• The Commission received a packet from Supervisor McGoldrick’s office that was from the person that lost a family member in this tragic incident.
• When there is a ladder attached to a building people assume that it can be used so this needs to be included in the regular inspection process.
• The ladder inspections could add a lot of staff time, so at times the Department may have to ask the property owners to self define whether or not they have a ladder.  Also a statement could possibly be included in their tax bill.
• DBI sends property owners annual mailers and they have to return specific information, so the ladder information could be added to this.
• The BIC is interested in hearing the Code Advisory Committee’s opinion about how this would affect the Building Code.
• Housing Inspectors need to have access to all parts of the building in order to inspect the ladders.
• Explicit legislation is needed in the Code regarding these ladders because it is not currently addressed.
• As Housing Inspectors do routine inspections and drive through the district they are looking for the ladders, and the Department is using all its resources to get the information out to the public and get the ladders removed.
• It was stated at the Land Use Committee meeting that the HIS division had done a routine inspection at the building 4 years before which is within the five year period required by the San Francisco Housing Code.
• Issue rose about whether or not all wooden ladders should be prohibited, particularly if it is made of sound construction.
• When HIS receives complaints about dilapidated ladders or do routine inspections staff sees various hazardous conditions and writes a Notice of Violation.

Captain Tom Harvey of the San Francisco Fire Department said that it is important to note that generally people using ladders are not professionals and should not be up on the roof to begin with.  Captain Harvey stated that if it was a fire fighter up on one of the roofs, unless the alternative was jumping they would never use one of these wooden ladders.  Captain Harvey said that he does not know how any inspector would be able to judge how well the ladder is going to function without getting up there and standing or climbing on it.  Captain Harvey stated that his concern is more that people are even going on the roof using these types of ladders.

The Commission continued discussing the issue of wooden fixed utility ladders:

• Some wooden ladders are not strongly bolted to buildings, so risk of someone being killed.
• Issue of whether replacing wooden ladders with metal ladders will work, because not sure if the structure they would be attached to is sound enough.
• Legislation will either have to allow ladders to make sure they are safe or disallow it.
• If wooden fixed utility ladders are removed there is a possibility that people may use unattached ladders and that could possibly cause injury.
• Legislation needs to be specific about types of ladders because the public may get these ladders confused with fire escape ladders.
• Commissioner requested an estimate of approximately how many wooden ladders are in the City, to try to determine how bad the problem is.

7.   Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed Administrative Bulletin regarding the regulations and implementation procedures of the Green Building Ordinance (San Francisco Building Code Chapter 13C). 

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said that the Department was bringing this legislation to the BIC as a way to implement the Green Building Ordinance that was passed and adopted some time ago which the BIC heard and directed to the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Kornfield stated that the Green Building Ordinance goes into effect on November 3, 2008 and that is pending the approval of the California Energy Commission which is required to approve because this amended the California Code and that is supposed to happen today at the California Energy Consent agenda.  Mr. Kornfield said that this is a heroic effort to implement this great ground-breaking ordinance and on behalf of DBI and the City as a whole he wanted to thank Rich Chin and Barry Hooper from the Department of the Environment for their direction and tremendous help for being able to put this bulletin together. 

President Frank Lee thanked Laurence Kornfield and everyone that worked on the Green Building Ordinance, and said it is a very good thing to move the City to become greener, it is good for the environment, and resources, and said he hoped this would mean a lot more green projects for San Francisco.

Commissioner Walker thanked Mr. Kornfield and the Department of the Environment for their work on the Green Building Ordinance.

Commissioner Levitt thanked everyone for their work on the Green Building Ordinance and said that it is a great thing for the City to be green, but said that he thought that the greatest greenhouse problem is the automobile.  Commissioner Levitt stated that anything that can be done to reduce dependence on automobiles really helps with the problem, and one of the best things that could be done is to build better access to transit.  Commissioner Levitt said that he hoped that when the ordinance is administered it would not add another layer of bureaucracy that will make it even harder to build in San Francisco.  Commissioner Levitt stated that the Department should encourage people to build high density housing in the City because that is the way to make the biggest contribution to reducing greenhouse gases.

Mr. Kornfield said that Commissioner Levitt would be pleased to hear that in attachment three there is a statement that says increasing density gives extra bonus points, so it is actually encouraging urban and field development and maybe encouraging construction of buildings without parking provisions. 

Commissioner Walker stated that one of the things being discussed in the Eastern Neighborhoods is displacement of the work force and the impact that has on transit.  Commissioner Walker said it is important to build affordable, to keep the workforce in the City, and keep people on bikes and walking in order to use public transit system. 

Commissioner Hechanova made a motion seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the Administrative Bulletin regarding the regulations and implementation procedures of the Green Building Ordinance.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 050-08

8.   Presentation and update regarding the financial conditions of DBI’s Special fund and update on the budget.

Pamela Levin, Supervisor of the Administration & Support Services Division, gave a power point presentation and update regarding the financial conditions of DBI’s Special fund and an update    on the budget.  Ms. Levin discussed the fiscal year 2007/2008 year end financials, as well as the history of the fund balance since fiscal year 2003/2004.  Some of the highlights were:

• Fiscal Year 2007-08 Year End Financials (Revenue & Expenditures)
• Fiscal Year 2007-08 Budgeted Fund Balance (Operating & Strong Motion Budgets)
• Fund Balance Operating Fund for 2007-08
• Fund Balance - All Funds (Operating Fund & Restricted Funds)
• Restricted Funds include: 
  Repair & Demolition Fund and Hotel Preservation Fund
  Code Enforcement/Rehabilitation Fund
  Strong Motion Administration Fund

• Projects
• Fund Balance History beginning Fiscal Year 03/04 through Fiscal Year 07/08

The Commissioners raised the following questions and concerns:

• Make sure that staff is not cut in a way that cuts service to the public.
• Was the fee increase incorporated into this year’s budget?  Answer:  No because the fee increase did not occur until 09/02/08.
• Is some of the money in the Strong Motion Fund used for CAPSS?  Answer:  Yes the majority of it is for programs such as CAPSS.
• Does money for a certain project like the DBI Tenant Improvement, need to be in a restricted fund that can not be used for any other purpose?  Answer:  The way projects work is with the appropriation authority that the Department is given at the B.O.S. – Specific funds are used for specific projects.
• Issue discussed about approximately $10M that is missing from DBI’s accounts:  Commissioners thought there was $13M in account & $6M was appropriated for various things.  BIC would like research done on this issue.
• Commissioner was told that staff was reduced because permitting was down, but this budget report states that permitting is up so this is conflicting information.  Response:  Staff reductions were done at the Mayor’s & Board of Supervisor’s direction, not basically based on DBI’s workload. 

9.   Update on current status of projects as a result of inquiries by members of the public at a previous BIC meeting.

a.   1519 – 1529 O’Farrell Street

Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque said that Mr. Trotman came to the Commission previously to discuss his issue at 1519 – 1529 O’Farrell Street, which is a six unit apartment building that is condominium owned.  Ms. Bosque stated that in January there was an inspection note written regarding the rear stairs as a second means of egress, and there was also a complaint by Mr. Trotman in March and another violation was issued regarding the rear stairs, leaking, and other items.  Ms. Bosque said that this case went to a Director’s Hearing and the Homeowner’s Association was directed to:  1) Acquire a building permit to repair the stairs or replace them, 2) Begin the work and complete it as soon as possible, and 3) Hire a contractor to get the work done. Ms. Bosque stated that there was an inspection at the site yesterday and Mr. Trotman and the President of the Homeowner’s Association were present.  Ms. Bosque stated that a building permit was issued in August, but the work has not commenced and the contractor has not been hired.  The Homeowner’s Association was asked to attend today to answer questions the Commission may have, but they are not present.

Some of the Commissioners asked questions about when the permit was issued and when the work was to begin.  Ms. Bosque said that the permit was issued on August 14^th, and work was supposed to begin 60 days from the date of the hearing on July 31, 2008.

Mr. David Trotman stated that the problem at 1519 O’Farrell Street is that there has been a leak since he moved into the building in 1992, and said he has made several efforts to locate the source of it.  Mr. Trotman said that there has been a hole in the building and a problem with the rear exit for over six months, and he does not feel that the Homeowner’s Association has made reasonable progress to alleviate that condition.  Mr. Trotman stated that the rainy season is coming, and he was hoping the work would be done but there has only been about a half days work on the staircase and there is still an open hole in the side of the building.

Commissioner Walker asked if this issue is not resolved by Monday, could the BIC vote to refer the case to the City Attorney.  Ms. Bosque said that the Order of Abatement would be issued on Monday and then there is a 10-day period which someone could appeal.  Commissioner Walker stated that the Homeowner’s Association has had a lot of time to fix the problem but they have not moved.  Commissioner Sattary asked if someone could use the stairs.  Ms. Bosque said that they have done some emergency shoring and the stairs can be used, but as time goes on there will be more problems.  Ms. Bosque stated that the Order of Abatement needs to be issued in order to get the work done, and said that she could let the Homeowner’s Association know that the BIC felt strongly about this issue.  Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that this is not an action item so the BIC could not make a motion or decision to refer the case to the Litigation Committee, but they could give Acting Director Day direction to do so. 

b.   1675 – 11^th Avenue

Ed Sweeney, Deputy Director of Permit Services, reported on 1675-11^th Avenue and said that permits were issued for a horizontal and vertical addition on February 1, 2007.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the project description was to take a single family dwelling and convert one unit to two units, and two stories to three stories.  Mr. Sweeney said that there were six complaints filed and all were abated by various DBI staff, and the complainant met with the current and former DBI Directors as well as Senior Planning Department staff to air their complaints.  Mr. Sweeney stated that during the complaint appeals process he, along with Senior Building Inspector Joe Duffy met with the complainant and the permit holder on site to go over any concerns the complainant had about 1675 – 11^th Avenue.  Mr. Sweeney said that at this meeting staff measured the building for the approved height, the overall length, and to see whether or not the permit holder had exceeded the allowed demolition.  Mr. Sweeney stated that he and staff did a thorough examination of the plans, and the project was reviewed to the approved drawings and found to be in compliance.  Mr. Sweeney said that all work was found to be according to the approved plans, and he informed the complainant and their consultant of the Department’s findings.  

The Commissioners asked a few questions and discussed what happens with complaints that appear to be frivolous. Mr. Sweeney said that after their meeting the complainant appeared to be satisfied with the results, but later came to the Department again to complain about something else.  Commissioner Hechanova asked Deputy City Attorney, Judy Boyajian if there were any ordinances in place or if there was any way to deter or reduce these types of complaints.  Ms. Boyajian said that the Department needs to respond to all complaints that come in from the public, even though there may be some squeaky wheels.

10.   Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

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.

There were no inquiries to staff.

b.  Future Meetings/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.

President Lee said that the next Building Inspection Commission meeting would be on October 15, 2008, and he also mentioned that the Code Advisory Committee agendas are posted on DBI’s website in case anyone is interested in attending those meetings.

Commissioner Walker discussed setting a date for the Joint Building Inspection Commission & Planning Commission meeting.  Commissioner Walker said that it would be good for the Commissioners to come up with agenda items for the Joint Meeting, such as:  311 Notices, Demolition Notices, and the Eastern Neighborhood Plan.

11.   Adjournment.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 051-08