2.

a.

Discussion and possible action to create a Task Force to study the potential revamping of the current Demolition and Alteration Guidelines for Residential Buildings.

President Santos said that he would like to address this issue, which has become the greatest source of difficulty confronting this Department and that is the confusion between a project that is merely an addition and a new construction or a construction that might risk becoming an unlawful demolition.  President Santos stated that he sincerely believed that most applicants that apply for additions or remodeling have no intention of deceiving the public, the neighbors or the Building Department in regards to the scope of the work, but what seems to be occurring is that during construction Project Sponsors discover conditions within the existing building that need to be altered or redefined.  President Santos said that at that point they have some confusing choices to make; one, whether to apply for a new permit that will define this new scope of work or continue with the scope of work in hopes that the demolition is not substantial enough to alter the type of permit they applied for.  President Santos stated that no one is satisfied with the gray town that has been created by the demolition guidelines; Project Sponsors, Architects and even Inspectors often find themselves navigating through a minefield of inadequate clauses when trying to make these decisions.  President Santos said that while neighborhood groups are ever mindful of their rights and property values they keep bringing more and more unlawful demolition cases in front of the Commission.  President Santos said that the BIC is spending a great deal of time on properties such as Junipero Serra, 27^th Avenue and Irving Street so the time has come to revamp these guidelines.  President Santos said that he would have to admit that he and Commissioner Hood were part of a Committee that attempted to solve this issue, but unfortunately they failed after spending a great deal of time in meetings and studying different options.  President Santos said that he knew that Supervisor McGoldrick made an attempt to revamp these demolition guidelines and said he was not sure why the Supervisor did not come to any conclusion.  President Santos said that Patrick Buscovich was very informed and actively involved in this process.  President Santos said that he was now proposing the creation of a new taskforce to study and evaluate the residential demolition process in the hopes of formulating new and clearer Departmental guidelines.

President Santos said that he would like to nominate Commissioner Roy Guinnane because of his unique combination of hardnosed determination and in depth knowledge of construction, engineering and architecture he could think of no one better skilled in trying to come up with a series of guidelines that would once and for all solve this issue that has become so divisive.

President Santos asked for comments from the Commissioners and some public comment.  Commissioner Marks said that she thought this would be a wonderful idea to have Commissioner Guinnane be the Chair and stated that she would like to participate in the Committee.  Commissioner Marks said that she thought that it would be better to be a Committee structure with opportunities for input from the public because she still had all of the documents from previously.  Commissioner Marks said that she did not want to waste people’s time by going over everything again because the basic factual information existed, but it was a matter of coming up with recommendations that are practical and could be put in place quickly.  Commissioner Marks said that there should be a time limit on this because last time it went on for over two years.  President Santos said that there were boxes of information, but he felt that the Committee lacked the ability to see what the final product should look like and the ability to reach a consensus that would satisfy most of the people involved in this process.  President Santos said that this was a monumental task and said that he could think of no one better than Commissioner Guinnane to tackle it because he would take the time and a personal interest in it. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he appreciated the appointment and said that if he took it he would put the time into it.  Commissioner Guinnane said that his initial conversation with President Santos was about this issue and the other part was regarding the backlog in the Department.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that the backlog actually is in the Planning Department, but as part of this what he thought about doing was either through a Charter change or through the Mayor’s Office was to set up a Committee of four individuals, two from the BIC and two from the Planning Commission to look at all of the DRs that are being filed with the Planning Department.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this Committee could approve or disapprove DRs without going through the full Planning process because the whole problem right now is that people are upset with the time it takes; they don’t mind spending the money, but it is the time.  Commissioner Guinnane said that if somebody files for something today that has to go to the Planning Commission they won’t get on the calendar or get in front of the Commission until March or April of next year which is very, very unfair.  President Santos asked if Commissioner Guinnane was referring to the automatic DR for a residential demolition.  Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct and said that when the DR was initially put in place it was put in place for extraordinary projects and now it looks like everything is going to DR.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that this Committee would have the authority to either declare it for DR or not and said this would help with the backlog.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would be happy to head up the Unlawful Demolition Committee to put some guidelines in place very quickly.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would work with Commissioner Marks to go back and look at the information to see where the breakdown was and what the positive steps were. 

Commissioner Fillon said that he thought that it was great that Commissioner Guinnane was willing to do this as he thought he was the right person for the job.  Commissioner Fillon said that he thought that there was a lot of work done on this already so rather than reinvent the wheel the Committee should take advantage of all of the work and input that was received.  Commissioner Fillon said that this process was extended because it became politicized and said that he thought that a lot of by in had been done already. 

Mr. Randy Shaw, Director of Tenderloin Housing, said that he appreciated President Santos’ recommendation and said that he wanted to talk about one point that is one of the biggest problems in resolving the demolition issue.  Mr. Shaw stated that there were two Commissioners on the Board of Permit Appeals, Commissioner Harrington and Commissioner Chin who when these demolitions come before them look for ways to give a pass to the offenders.  Mr. Shaw said that these are both Mayoral appointees and is something that Mayor Newsom could certainly address, but no matter what DBI does if there are people on the Board of Appeals that encouraging wrongdoing then people say that they can illegal demolish things because they have these people on the Board who will let them get away with it.  Mr. Shaw said that DBI has had these cases go before the Board of Appeals three, four and five times when it is an open and shut illegal demolition and then there are these two Commissioners acting as lawyers for the offenders.  Mr. Shaw stated that this has to be part of it because no matter what guidelines this Committee comes up with it is appealable to the Board and if the Board of Appeals is going to green light wrongdoing this Department is going to be back where it started.  Mr. Shaw thanked the Commission.

Mr. Pat Buscovich, a Structural Engineer, said that first of all he wanted to say what happened with the last version of this.  Mr. Buscovich stated that it went through the Building and Planning Commissions and got in front of one of the Committees of the Board of Supervisors and it stalled because Supervisor Peskin’s Office had three pages of concerns so that pretty much stalled it because people who were volunteering stepped back for a period of time.  Mr. Buscovich said this would be a good kickoff point for Commissioner Guinnane because all of that information is available.  Mr. Buscovich stated that he talked to a number of people who were in the group that was advising Supervisor McGoldrick and they said they would be willing to make themselves available to Commissioner Guinnane, including Architect John Schlesinger.  Mr. Buscovich said that he agreed that this unlawful demolition of alterations should be part and parcel to the demolition issues as they are all global issues.  Mr. Buscovich said that he did not know if all of the issues could be solved at the same time, but the Committee has to be talking to Building and Planning at the same time. 

President Santos asked Mr. Buscovich if he knew what Supervisor Peskin’s general concern was with this issue.  Mr. Buscovich said that he read through Supervisor Peskin’s concerns and said that he thought that Supervisor Peskin’s office was not involved in the beginning of the process and said that he did not think that Supervisor Peskin was up to speed with all of the issues because some of the things that were brought up had been discussed for months, if not years and they had a different point of view.  President Santos said that perhaps Commissioner Guinnane should get Supervisor Peskin engaged in this issue. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that he hoped President Santos did not give him the Heimlich when he critiques some of his remarks, which he disagrees with.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is no confusion on the Demolition Ordinance it has totally clarity in its intent and consequence, and said that he thought the taskforce was a good idea, but said that what has happened is that there have been scofflaws who have violated the Ordinance on purpose and that needs to be separated from the obfuscation that has been occurring with some of the law abiding Contractors who abide by the rules.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that what has happened is that within the Department, and said that he warned this Commission about this some months ago when the issue came up, is that there are collaborators within the Department and some of the Inspectors are now putting a rigid interpretation on the intention and the implementation of the Ordinance in the field.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is bringing good people into the scofflaw net and staff is able to justify that this Ordinance needs to be totally changed.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not disagree that this policy needs to be changed because it is bad policy, but it is the law so the Commission has to be very careful that the cases which are now before the BIC where serial permitting is being done by these scofflaws who are really well coached on how to obviate the law don’t get confused with legitimate cases.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the field the staff is now refusing to demolish any building even if it is endangering the public and this is exposing the City insurance liability.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that staff is now refusing through rigidity to demolish what should be demolished and it is a tactic on their part.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commissioners working on this should be aware and separate out what is now happening because there are a number of cases recently for demolition that should have been approved, but from the Director on down everyone now is either covering their toucases and putting everyone good and bad into the scofflaw net.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he would address this later in the meeting and stated that the Commission still needs this taskforce to start going after these scofflaws and also to give relief to those who are being punished unjustly.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

The motion to create a taskforce carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 028-004

b.

Update on meeting with Mayor Gavin Newsom.

President Santos reported that on Tuesday, May 25^th Commissioner Guinnane and himself met with Mayor Gavin Newsom to discuss the state of the Department of Building Inspection with respect to the City’s current fiscal shortfall.  President Santos said that during this meeting they were both sure to remind the Mayor that DBI was the only Department that generated revenue in the last fiscal year and also that this Department had substantially funded the Department of City Planning.  Commissioner Marks reminded President Santos that the Department had also given funds to the Department of the Environment.  President Santos said that an earlier examination of the Planning Department budget that was performed by Assistant Director Amy Lee with the support of Commissioner Guinnane it was discovered that the Planning Department budget had allocated a substantial portion of that budget to what they called the future planning of San Francisco, San Francisco in the Year 2020.  President Santos stated that he found it quite odd that during this time of belt tightening and cost cutting that the Planning Department was spending most of its money and efforts working toward future goals instead of immediate goals like removing their backlog or expediting permits.  President Santos said that the Commissioners were very clear in their discussions with Mayor Newsom that if DBI was going to assist the Department of City Planning DBI should be able to guide the expenditure of that particular budget to immediate needs because there is an incredible backlog.  President Santos said that the Commissioners were hoping that they could make some suggestions and influence the Mayor in that regard.  President Santos said that he was quite puzzled when the Mayor submitted his budget last Tuesday actually a larger portion of DBI’s budget is going the Planning Department.  President Santos said that this was a surprise and stated that he understood that the Mayor has to look at the whole City and that it is a very complicated process, but said that he wanted to make sure that people understood that he would do everything in his power to ensure that this Department is properly funded.  President Santos said that people have to understand that DBI’s source of income is 100% based on permit application fees; people pay for permits and DBI has the obligation to utilize the money towards that permit process.  President Santos said that he was puzzled by what happened and said that he was sure that there would be other comments from the Commissioners on this issue, but said that it is important that this Commission cannot allow this Department to go bankrupt.  President Santos said that in looking at the numbers for 2003/2004 there was allocated funding of $2.7M with an additional $1.3M that is going to be taken out of DBI’s budget so that is $4M for the last fiscal year and now another $5M is being proposed for allocation of DBI’s fees.  President Santos said that was $9M of DBI’s fees that were going somewhere else and these are prepaid amounts where people have paid for the permit process.  President Santos stated that he did not know how DBI could explain or justify these funds. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that in meeting with Mayor Newsom he thought that the meeting was going to be very, very productive as they met with him for forty-five minutes.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he and President Santos were very frank with the Mayor with the issues from the top to the bottom about the Department and said that they talked about cars, inspections and being fee generated.  Commissioner Guinnane said that basically he had talked to the Mayor about money for 2004 because the Department has lost $3,750,000 and on the 9^th of this month, which is a couple of days from now, there is another Committee meeting coming up and they want to take another $1,290,000 so that is over $5M for the ‘04 year.  Commissioner Guinnane said that for the ’05 year the Mayor is looking for $5.4M.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he thought that the meeting was going to be very productive, but now he has come to the conclusion from looking at the way things are going that this Department has to take a stand and look at the legal sector for a way to keep on to this money.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it was his personal belief that there are people out there who would like to bankrupt this Department and completely throw out Prop G and put the Department back to being tied into the General Fund.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there were also some issues circulating that any money that this Department brings in with penalties times two or times nine and any litigation money that would come into this Department would be stripped from this Department and go directly into the General Fund.  Commissioner Guinnane said that before Prop G came into place if there was $1 spent there was never a dollar recovered; if a $1 is spent today the Department is recovering $2, $3, or $4.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that this Department is a very well run Department and the Commissioners need to take a stand and look at bringing a suit to stop this or getting outside legal counsel.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he has been told that the Department would have to get approval from the City Attorney’s Office and said that he was sure that the City Attorney would have a conflict because he couldn’t defend the City and represent DBI at the same time.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would propose holding a meeting, a Closed Session, next Monday to look at this issue.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was very, very disappointed in the meeting with the Mayor because when he left the Mayor’s Office he asked the Mayor, “please Gavin, don’t take our money; we need your help.”  Commissioner Guinnane stated that the Mayor assured him that he would not take the money and now there is $5.4M being taken.

Commissioner Marks said that she thought that the idea of evaluating a possible lawsuit to challenge the City on diversion of the Department’s funds to other departments is an excellent idea.  Commissioner Marks said that she personally felt that the Commissioners meeting with the current Mayor reflects that he really doesn’t know what is going on within the City government and said that she was sure that he was probably in his heart supporting what the Commissioners were saying, but basically the other people who run the operations out of the Mayor’s Office probably know more and have more say about what actually happens than the current Mayor.

Commissioner D’Anne said that she supported having a Special Meeting and asked if there had to be a motion.  Commissioner Guinnane said that perhaps the Commission should take public comment.

Mr. Randy Shaw said that he thought that Commissioners Marks, Santos and Guinnane had laid this out pretty clearly and said that he wanted to mention that it is incredibly disturbing about the money that is being allocated.  Mr. Shaw stated that this Wednesday, and said that the Commission should attend the Finance Committee for item #7 on the calendar, this issue will come up around 1:30 p.m. and it is said that this money is being allocated for Environmental Review Projects including the one in the Mission which recently got funded; the better neighborhood’s program the Mayor announced was part of the $1.3M in new money for next fiscal year, but the calendar says that it is for this fiscal year.  Mr. Shaw said that it then amazingly throws in shortfalls for the Planning Department in 1997 and DBI is going to take permit fees that were probably paid in 2002/2003 for a backlog in 1997.  Mr. Shaw stated that the facts don’t add up and what is happening is that they are taking a successful Department and using it as a money trap at Planning because there are no fiscal changes there.  Mr. Shaw said that DBI was told that the taking of the $3M last year was a one-time thing, but instead money is being taken every year and there is no accountability in Planning.  Mr. Shaw said that it was astonishing to find out how many Planners are involved in quote, unquote long-term planning compared to those involved in the projects that people are paying to have done.  Mr. Shaw said that the General Public probably doesn’t know that and said that it is pretty shocking to look at 21 long term Planners and 38 Planners doing the day-to-day work.  Mr. Shaw said that he knew this was what the Commission and the Department was trying to convince the Mayor about and if the Mayor wants to move the City forward he has got to look at that and not just give a blank check.  Mr. Shaw said that there is an item later on the calendar and said that he was sure that Supervisor Sandoval was misinformed because he never would have introduced this, but the legislation would actually take all of the Code Enforcement money and take it out of DBI whose Inspectors are doing the Code Enforcement and give it to the General Fund.  Mr. Shaw stated that this would end Code Enforcement in San Francisco because there would be no money for it and that was how it was before Prop G.   Mr. Shaw said that people are coming up with these crazy ideas because they are desperate to find money and this is not the way to go.  Mr. Shaw said that he would strongly urge the Commission to have that meeting next Monday because it will soon be too late and the money will be taken.  Mr. Shaw said that the Commission has to get a suit potentially filed so that the Supervisors know that they shouldn’t count on this money because there is a legal nexus between the fees and what they claim they are spending it on in Planning and it is extremely doubtful.  Mr. Shaw said that he did not think that they could prove their case.  Mr. Shaw said that last year this Commission was generous and said that it would be one-time, but now it seems like it is an every year thing until this Commission and this Department has no money.  Mr. Shaw said that then this Commission would be blamed and in fact Contractors could sue the Department of Building Inspection for misusing their fees if the Commission doesn’t initiate this kind of lawsuit.  Mr. Shaw thanked the Commission. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Shaw what he thought about his belief that there are individuals in this City that are trying to bankrupt this Department.  Mr. Shaw said that it is interesting that a Monitor was appointed by the Mayor to investigate DBI, but Planning has not had a Monitor appointed and this is very odd.  Mr. Shaw stated that as President Santos stated, DBI is the only Department in the City to get a surplus and this is the Department that is being investigated.  Mr. Shaw said that everyone would have to draw their own conclusions. 

Commissioner Brown asked what the viability of this kind of suit would be.  Mr. Shaw said that he thought the chances would be very good because he has already researched it and because DBI is a Special Fund and the voters have not voted on these fees and that is why they are called fees and not taxes.  Mr. Shaw said that if money is going to be used for a general purpose that is called a tax and the voters have to approve it; fees are for a very specific purpose.  Mr. Shaw said that he would be interested to see what the City Attorney has to say on Wednesday, because Mr. Shaw said he did not know how fees could be used.  Mr. Shaw read off of the Board of Supervisor’s agenda that said “To reimburse the City for General Fund Expenditures on Long Range Planning in fiscal years 1997/1998 and 1998/1999.”  Mr. Shaw said that he could not see how fees paid after that date could possibly have a nexus; although the legal standard on some things could be justified because they probably could justify the EIR for the Mission with permit fees if it was the same year or close to it, but said he did not know how this could be done retroactively.  Mr. Shaw stated that legally the City, if they were forced to defend this in court, would have a heck of a problem.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was a statute of limitations on the money for 1997-1999.  Mr. Shaw said that was a good question and another area that would have to be revisited because the books were closed and the Controller signed off on the budget for that year.  Mr. Shaw said that he thought a lot of questions would be answered at the Finance Committee this Wednesday when they are trying to divert $1.3M for this year.

Assistant Director Lee said that while the revenue is being emphasized and the fact that there is a surplus and whatnot she wanted to remind everyone that on the expenditure side the Department is not where it should be in terms of providing service.  Ms. Lee stated that the Mayor’s Office has put on hold DBI’s proposed remodel for the first and second floors and a lot of new positions have not been approved so there is not sufficient staffing to reduce the backlog.  Ms. Lee said that if indeed, the Department had all of the expenditures necessary to provide all of the services that the Department needs to provide and then there is a surplus that could be given to Planning then that might be appropriate, but when the Department is being starved from expenditures in order to give that same amount to another department there is real concern there.  Ms. Lee said that she wanted everyone to understand that DBI is not where it should be in terms of MIS, staffing because a lot of staff is going to be retiring soon and DBI is not prepared for that, a lot of the Plan Checkers are on top of each other physically because they do not have enough room to even unroll the plans and the cars are a problem.  Ms. Lee stated that she thought it was important before the Department gives any money away to make sure that all of DBI’s necessary tools are in place to provide service.  Commissioner Guinnane said that DBI is a fee-generated Department and not tied to the General Fund and asked why the Department has to go through the Mayor’s Office for approval to fill positions.  Ms. Lee said that according to the Charter there is a whole process with the Department of Human Resources, the Controller’s Office and the Mayor’s Office; all three different agencies have to sign off on all positions whether it be a new position or just a backfill.  Ms. Lee said that right now she is working very closely with the Mayor’s Office and said that right now there is a temporary hiring freeze for General Fund departments whether it be backfills or new.  Ms. Lee stated that it does not necessarily apply to non-General Fund, but DBI has to provide justification on an as needed basis, but there is a little bit more bureaucratic obstacle or hurdle with every new position now so that takes additional time.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that he thought that the proposals were excellent and said that the question should be asked as to why would the Mayor endanger the fiscal health of the fiscally most responsible Department in this City and would he then take the money from this Department and fund the most unproductive fiscally irresponsible department in the entire City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that presently today if someone fills out an application that involves Planning it takes seven to ten weeks before that plan is assigned to a Planner.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the delays in Planning are enormous and it impacts DBI because as this Department has a great productivity record it is waiting for these plans to be passed on to this Department and that is not happening.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it comes down to the fact that it is politics because even prayer is political in this City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is a Mayor who has now decided, without any due process and said that he was not saying that the Mayor was right or wrong, but there is no due process and he has decided to get rid of the Director of the Planning Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he has then decided to throw additional money, approximately $4M to one of the few departments to get extra money because now he is going to try to justify his political decision with another political decision robbing Peter to pay Paul; in that context this is political.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that at the same time the Mayor is demonizing this Department and said that he was going to fire Frank Chiu and fire Ed Lee; he didn’t do those things so this Department was under attack from the day of the Mayor’s inauguration.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in that context it is in the Mayor’s agenda to demonize one, bankrupt one and shore up the other.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he had the right to go to the voters and said that he will try to bring about changes fiscally.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that on behalf of the Residential Builders, and said that he told this to the Planning Department last week, DBI will be sued and Planning will be sued.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when they sue Planning the RBA will add then to the suit that the nexus and conditional use fees are so enormous compared to what is actually spent and what is used that the Mayor will end up with not just losing the money that he is trying steal from this Department, but the industry will benefit because they will expect fee reductions that would cost anywhere from $1M to $3M.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that then the Mayor would be in more trouble fiscally so if the Mayor chooses to make war, the RBA has always offered peace and the integrity of their industry, but won’t hesitate to fight.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he wanted to thank the Commissioners on behalf of the employees for standing firm on this.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that staff at DBI genuinely want to do a good job and there are many frustrations among the employees about the taking of this money.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he, the Director and the Deputy Directors choose not to use City cars, but use their personal vehicles and not get paid for them because the cars go to the staff.  Mr. Hutchison said that the net result of not having enough cars is the Inspectors are not going to be able to do eleven inspections per day.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that he could not put an Inspector on a bus out to the Sunset, but would put an Inspector on the bus to do downtown inspections.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this would hurt business and hurt the very people that the Department supports to keep revenue. Mr. Hutchinson said that he would not mind spending money to give to General Hospital or crossing guards or to places where there would be a good reason for the money to be used, but here we are talking about lunacy.  Mr. Hutchinson said that when an Inspector went downtown with a City car he could park in a red or yellow zone, pop in do his inspection and leave, but what happens now is by mandate, the City cars have to be parked legally.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this sounds fine, but when a car is ticketed the ticket goes from the Inspector to the Senior to the Chief to his office and all of that time and that accounting going back to DPT, there are just hours and hours of waste for nothing.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this is where the money that people who pay for a service is going and said that he would like to see the money stay with the Department to continue the services.  Mr. Hutchinson said that later in the meeting the people from downtown are going to be asking the Department to hire more Inspectors and the Department can’t hire them; inspections and response time are going to drop.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he can’t ask his staff to do more with less; their phones have been taken away and staff used to be able to schedule inspections on their way home, but that has been taken away from them.  Mr. Hutchinson thanked the Commission for understanding and for fighting for the employees, as he knew the employees appreciated it.

Commissioner Guinnane said that part of his conversation with the Mayor was about cars and said that he proposed purchasing 40 more cars.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Mayor asked him how many cars DBI had in its fleet and Commissioner Guinnane told him there were 110 and the Mayor asked if that wasn’t enough.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he told the Mayor to go over to DPW where they have 70 SUVs.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he told the Mayor that over half of DBI’s cars were over 10 years old so that was covered in the meeting.  Mr. Hutchinson said that he deeply appreciated Commissioner Guinnane’s candor and said that with a fleet that is so old many of the cars break down and they go into Central Shops and it takes a long time to get back.  Mr. Hutchinson said that reimbursing an employee to use their personal car, with the union MOUs, it is going to cost between $400 - $800 per month and it is not a wise use of money.  Mr. Hutchinson said this is what he means when talking about the lunacy because the average person would not run their household finances this way and it is incumbent upon the Department to use money wisely.

Assistant Director Amy Lee said that she wanted to remind everyone that the new $5.4M including the Department’s budget baseline for the next fiscal year which starts July 1, 2004 the Department will have an $8.4M deficit for the proposed budget and to make up for that because revenues are not going to meet that DBI will be using all of its remaining surplus of $3M as well as its capital fund that had been put aside.  Ms. Lee said that there will be no more monies available after this next year and there will not be enough money for any capital remodeling that the Department had proposed to do. 

Commissioner Guinnane said taking away the capital remodeling and assuming that revenues drop, how does the Department cover its expenses because DBI cannot go to the General Fund.  Ms. Lee said that the Department would have to lay people off because DBI does not have the option to go the General Fund and that is why it was so incumbent for this Department to keep a surplus fund for ongoing years as evidenced by this past two years where the Department had to utilize its surplus just to maintain operations expenses.  Ms. Lee said that in 2001/2002 the Commission and the Department planned for this knowing that revenues would be lower during these years.

Mr. Ritchie Hart of the Residential Builders said that it scared him when he heard Ms. Lee say that the Department might have to lay off people because this Department has a surplus and because of the Mayor’s acquisition of DBI’s funding it is ridiculous that the Department might have to lay off staff.  Mr. Hart said that he wanted to congratulate DBI for having a surplus in this City with so much bureaucracy and said that it is incredible and goes to the fact that this is a well run Department.  Mr. Hart stated that Mr. Randy Shaw made a great point by saying that this Department has been investigated and monitored when it is the Planning Department that should be monitored.  Mr. Hart said that this City does not need long-range planning as study upon study has been done, but nothing has been accomplished.  Mr. Hart said that if the City wants to save money and this should be told to the Mayor, get rid of long term planning and put them back into Planning staff to keep the process moving.  Mr. Hart said that if a study is needed, hire a consultant because they work on a profit basis and are not bureaucrats.  Mr. Hart stated that you give the consultants the guidelines and give them a certain amount of time to get it done.  Mr. Hart said that the Mayor should not take any money from the Department of Building Inspection.  Mr. Hart stated that Commissioner Guinnane was right in saying that a lawsuit should be filed and said that it should be filed today; do not procrastinate.  Mr. Hart said that if he finds that his fees are going to pay DBI’s debts and his plans are not being approved; he would sue DBI and said that it was nothing personal. Mr. Hart said that he would encourage every homeowner and every builder to sue this Department until DBI pushes the Mayor to keep the money. 

Mr. Angus McCarthy of the Residential Builders Association said that he had the pleasure of serving on the South of Market SOMA pack.  Mr. McCarthy said that in the old days when Jesse James was asked why he robbed banks he answered that is was because that’s where the money is.  Mr. McCarthy said that is what is going on here this morning.  Mr. McCarthy stated that he wanted to stress the point that DBI is a department that has demonstrated over the years that has worked and made money.  Mr. McCarthy said that the Commissioners were right in saying that there is a bigger picture here as there seems to be a real sense of attacking a Department that has proven itself to be viable and take it back five steps after it has advanced over the years.  Mr. McCarthy said that he thought that it was very important that the Department stand firm especially now with the Mayor and letting the Mayor know that this Department has demonstrated, not only to every department in the City, but has demonstrated to the people of the City that when given the opportunity to manage itself in a productive way along with the free enterprise it can make money and can also demonstrate that the people in the Department can feel proud about their Department.  Mr. McCarthy said that in looking at the people today, there is a real sense of anger among the people who work at DBI because for the last x amount of years they have being fighting hard to show that within government you can generate a department that can be productive.  Mr. McCarthy stated that the question that should be asked of the Mayor is why isn’t the Planning Commissioners along with Planning Management asking DBI how to get into the same mind frame so that they can be just as productive as DBI.  Mr. McCarthy said that he thought that it was very important that the Commissioners stand firm and don’t retreat and said that Director Chiu should stand up and fight for his people because this is one big fight that should not be lost.  Mr. McCarthy stated that the City and the citizens of this City, especially the development community of this City need the Commission to do the right thing today.

Ms. Alice Barkley said that she would like to put a little bit of perspective into why the Planning Department doesn’t need any more money.  Ms. Barkley said that recently on behalf of a client she filed an Environmental Review application and the fee was almost $49,000.  Ms. Barkley said that a portion of the Building permit fee also goes to Planning; Conditional Use Fee is another $45,000 to $50,000 so when she has a construction project of a substantial size, around $24M, her client should be entitled to a full time Planner working on nothing but this project.  Ms. Barkley said that this is fee for service.  Ms. Barkley stated that if the fee is diverted into general planning purposes it becomes a tax and said that she was very surprised that no one has sued the City for transferring a fee into a tax.  Ms. Barkley said that it was her opinion that this sort of lawsuit could be successfully mounted against the City.  Ms. Barkley said that DBI is also behind because customers are waiting for things to come out from DBI Plan Checkers and DBI cannot afford to divert the money that DBI receives more than what has already been given to Planning. 

Mr. Sean Gorman introduced himself as an Architect working in the City.  Mr. Gorman said that currently with the backlogs in Planning it is about six to eight weeks when someone submits a revision, and this is after a project has already been reviewed once, and there is often a revision cycle because of requests for compliance with various objective sections of the Code, sometimes three times.  Mr. Gorman stated that this is six to eight weeks each time a revision is submitted until the project sponsor actually gets another response so these projects can string out nine months to a year and then there is the negotiation process once the project goes to public notification.  Mr. Gorman said that one of the issues that he sees is that the department is vulcanized from the fifth floor to the fourth floor and it is also vulcanized within all of the different quadrants.  Mr. Gorman said that there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of flexibility in terms of moving staff around to deal with backlogs in some areas and other areas where Planning is overstaffed.  Mr. Gorman stated that this is something that perhaps the Commissioners would talk to Planning about to see if there is something that could be done.  Mr. Gorman said that another issue he wanted to discuss was Code Enforcement and said that there was one case where there was potentially about $500,000 in fines that the Planning Department could have levied and said that he did not know whether they went and collected any of that money especially at the time the particular property owner sold the property and there was substantial equity in that property.  Mr. Gorman stated that DBI is charged with enforcing the basic life safety for the City and it does not make any sense to gut this budget with such an important Department because this is an area where there are earthquakes.  Mr. Gorman said that this Department needs to be properly funded to deal with those issues.  Mr. Gorman said that one of the issues that was brought up was the surplus and said that the surplus is important for this Department because it cannot go to the General Fund to ask for more; DBI has to keep a reserve.  Mr. Gorman said that currently a lot of the permits that are coming in are a lot smaller than they were a number of years ago; the Department is getting the same volume of permits, but the values are a lot less.  Mr. Gorman said that the Department is tapping into the surplus right now in order to keep the Department functioning and that is the thing that a lot of people don’t understand.  Mr. Gorman stated that this Department needs a surplus to keep the services that they currently provide.  Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Gorman about the penalty in Planning for $500,000 and asked for the address.  Mr. Gorman stated that there was a project at he believed was 372 Pennsylvania where there was an adjacent property to his house that was being run as a hotel.  Mr. Gorman said that this is an RH-2 district and there was an enforcement action that was done through Planning and also the Housing Department and said he did not know if any money was collected.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what year that was.  Mr. Gorman said that it was probably about two years ago.

Director Chiu said that he recently traveled to Las Vegas with Mr. Ken Harrington and Ms. Amy Lee and also visited San Diego a few years ago and their policy is to make sure that the Department keeps a fund of at least half a year of operations cost.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was more public comment.

Mr. Sean Keighran said that he came to the meeting this morning to express his frustration with the news about the Mayor taking the money from the budget.  Mr. Keighran said that given more money, despite where it comes from, to long range planning is an absolute joke especially if it comes from this Department.  Mr. Keighran stated that long range planning is inefficient, Planning is overstaffed and the employees are not held accountable; the work that they produce is outdated and they really don’t serve any function other than to occupy space on a floor at 1660 Mission.  Mr. Keighran said that if they were to go away they would hardly be missed, but if this happens and the Building Department has to go away there are some serious safety issues here.  Mr. Keighran stated that as a customer he does not like coming down and waiting in line to try to get his plans out; it is a hassle and a delay, but said that he understood the consequences and the safety issues involved with DBI.  Mr. Keighran said that earthquakes or no earthquakes there are all kinds of issues that this Department deals with; good quality housing all started with the efficient, well-run Department right here.  Mr. Keighran said that to take money from this Department which would essentially bankrupt it and giving it to long range planning is just a joke and is throwing good money after bad. Mr. Keighran said that if the Mayor really wants money for long range planning there is no way that this Commission should allow it; there is no way the Director should allow it and there is no way it should be allowed period.  Mr. Keighran said that as a customer he would do something about it.  Mr. Keighran said that if the Mayor really needs the money he should go to the Gettys or someone else because he was not going to get it from the builders. 

Mr. Brian McGee said that he was a small Contractor in the City and said that he hears all of the numbers about so many million here and so many million there.  Mr. McGee said that he wanted to put this into a different perspective as he was doing two jobs in the Sunset for elderly people who are on fixed incomes.  Mr. McGee stated that he went to get permits for them and said that the Building Inspection Department charged $120 and the other was almost $200; then he had to go to planning because what he was doing could be seen from the street.  Mr. McGee said that one job was removing and replacing some stucco and the other job was replacing three steps.  Mr. McGee said that by the time he got through with Planning one job was $300 and the other about $400 on top of the DBI fees.  Mr. McGee said that he had to go back and tell these people that he had to charge them more as it was three times more than he thought it was going to be.  Mr. McGee said that the Planning Department was more expensive and they do not use their money wisely.   Mr. McGee said that his customers are on Social Security, a fixed income, and should not have to pay for inefficiency whereas in the Building Department it is cheaper and more effective.

Director Chiu said that as he was saying other larger City departments that he talked to have a policy of maintaining at least half of the operations cost annually.  Director Chiu stated that for example, if DBI has an annual operations cost of $40M the Department should set aside $20M to continue funding what customers pay for in advance.  Director Chiu said that Ms. Lee mentioned that if the Department went bankrupt people would have to be laid off, but the Commission has the option to raise the fees.  Director Chiu said that the Department was criticized in the past for having a surplus and it was said that perhaps the fees were too high.

Commissioner Guinnane said that this Department should not have to raise fees and said that he has been opposed to that for the past four or five years, but has gone along with increasing the Marshall and Swift every six months.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know what the Planning Commission does other than to spend a lot of time on DRs, but don’t seem to spend much time on actually watching the department for accountability, the money, the Director or different individuals. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at it Planning is completely out of control and there is nobody there keeping an eye on the department, running the department and setting mandates so that is the problem.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would totally oppose raising fees in DBI to fund another department.

Commissioner Brown said that he appreciated the comments from public and staff.  Commissioner Brown said that it has been alluded to a couple of times during the meeting, but to provide a little bit of institutional memory, he as well as every single member sitting on this Commission last year when this appropriation was forced upon DBI agreed that this was going to be a one-time stop gap measure.  Commissioner Brown stated that he thought that today the Commissioner put forth that they are committed to honoring that declaration from last year and are looking out for this Department and doing its best to stop DBI from being looted.  Commissioner Brown said that he appreciated the fact that there was such positive response and said that the Commission was going to do everything possible to ensure that the Department did have enough money for the future and the present because that sounds like it is in danger.  Commissioner Brown said that last year it was a mandate that the Commission was looking at and it was not something that was terminal.

President Santos asked if Commissioner Guinnane wanted to propose a motion to have a special meeting.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion to have a meeting on June 14, 2004 to go into Closed Session to discuss the possibility of hiring outside legal counsel if the City Attorney cannot represent DBI.  President Santos mentioned that there was a Litigation Committee meeting scheduled or next Monday.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this was more important and the Litigation Committee meeting could be cancelled.  President Santos asked the Secretary if there was a room available for the Special Meeting.  Secretary Aherne said that Room 400 would be available and said that she believed that the meeting could be televised because there would be opportunity for public comment before and after the Closed Session.  Commissioner Fillon said that there was no item on the agenda to take action at this time, but it could be done later in the meeting.

3.

Director’s Reports. [Director Frank Chiu]

a.   

Report on the status of Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee hearing of May 26, 2004 on an ordinance directing DBI to improve its permit tracking system to allow open and public review of the status, routing, and location of pending permits along with the people associated with the project.

Director Chiu said that at the Rules Committee of May 26, 2004 there was a hearing about DBI further enhancing its permit tracking system.  Director Chiu said that in March DBI launched its online permit tracking system that has the capability of tracking the permit by the address of the project or application number.  Director Chiu reported that one of the features that the Board of Supervisors were urging the Department to provide was to be able to search by name for any permit applicant, contractor or designer.  Director Chiu said that this would include anyone who would have anything to do with the project.  Director Chiu said that he asked Deputy Director Wong to come up with a form to capture all of the possible applicant names whether that be the authorized agent of the permit project, the permit consultant or the designer.  Director Chiu said that he had provided a copy of a proposed form in the Commission’s package.  Director Chiu said that the goal was to make this process as Sunshine Ordinance transparent as possible and it would be ready in about four months. 

b.

Report on the Board of Supervisors’ City Services Committee calling for a public hearing to review “S.F. Earthquake Risk Report”, a study done for DBI by ATC.

Director Chiu said that as a result of publicity that the Department got from the Seismic Upgrade Report that came out a few months ago the Board of Supervisors is interested in learning more about this report.  Director Chiu stated that the full Board had assigned this task to the City Services Committee for a possible future hearing and at this time there is no date set.

c.

Update on possible Unlawful Demolitions discussed at Noe Valley community meeting with DBI Staff, Planning Staff and Supervisor Bevan Dufty.

Director Chiu reported that he attended a Noe Valley Community Meeting with Supervisor Bevan Dufty a few weeks ago and neighbors came up with a series of projects that they thought were potentially out of scale and too large and could potentially trigger an unlawful demolition.  Director Chiu said that he had directed staff to start an investigation and out of these projects there may be, and he wanted to emphasize may be, potentially one project that would trigger that.  Director Chiu said that staff had issued an NOV on one project.  Commissioner Guinnane asked which project that was.  Director Chiu said that the address was 555 Valley Street.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he and President Santos went out and looked at 555 and said that in looking at this case it is a lot different than the rest of the cases.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not personally believe that this was an unlawful demolition for the simple fact that the existing house that was there was 25’ x 25’ and the house that is now there is a four-story house because of the back drop in elevation. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the drawings the Architect clearly stated exactly what was going to be removed and what was going to be put in its place, granted the actual Builder did go beyond the scope of the demolition around 12%, but in looking at the overall drawing he has not gone beyond the two-thirds.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had put a call into Bevan Dufty, but had not gotten any call back.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the building looks like a brand new building, but that is not the case.  Commissioner Guinnane said this was just his personal opinion.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was no serial permitting; it was just one permit with very precise drawings and said he did not believe there was any intent to defraud this Department.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not know the individuals or the Builder out there, but just went out there when he received the list like he does on other projects. 

Director Chiu said that staff had not come back with any recommendation at this time and said he would be happy to report back to the Commission.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how long it would take staff to come back with a recommendation because this job has now stopped and the Department should be fair to the applicant.  Director Chiu said that he would look into it right away and said that the Department does not like to stop any project.

President Santos said that he advised the Project Sponsor to develop a revised set of architectural drawings to be submitted to the City encapsulating the new configuration of the site as far as the percentages so that was developed in response to the Notice of Violation.  President Santos said that he believed that the overall intent was to comply to be as closely connected to the actual permit that was issued.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Project Sponsor was still well within the two-thirds.  President Santos said that was correct and the property lines were all intact.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he looked at the outside walls because he thought that the outside rustic might have been removed and replaced at a later date, but in looking at the property line walls all of the walls were left intact 100%. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Building Association stated that this Project Sponsor was not a member of the RBA and said that he never met the man.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is exactly the type of case he was speaking about earlier where the Department needs to form protocol where a person like this is really innocent is not now drawn into the unlawful, scofflaw violators net and this is precisely what happened.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he wanted to ask the Director who he assigned this case for review to because if he did it to some of the alleged corroborators within the Plan Check Division who have in fact been part of illegal demolitions, defacto and otherwise, then it is in their interest to delay a proper objective report coming out because if he does get an objective report tactically everyone is being brought into the net and it justifies somewhat their actions as has been seen in the past.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this case, and that is why he asked at the last meeting that the Commission develop a task force to come up with instant relief and due process for people who are the victims of politics, this property owner is a victim of politics.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Bevan Dufty went to the Noe Valley meeting where there were some people who had objections, and nothing for years has been built in the Noe Valley because it doesn’t have any institutional rehab buildings for opiates or drugs or drink, no homeless shelter; its activities have been null so recently on Valley there have been about five projects.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that when it went from zero to five the neighbors think that the Huns have arrived and are totally devastating the whole neighborhood.  Mr. O’Donoghue said this is what is happening there so Bevan Dufty who is looking for reelection decides to react and he makes an accusation at the Planning Commission regarding this property, which was totally invalid.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA takes everyone on whether it is fair or unfair they are going to put it right out there and in this instance Bevan Dufty was wrong and unfair.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is a man who has two children and is building and remodeling a home for himself and now suddenly he is a victim of DBI.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Commission should not accept from the Director that he would get back to the Commission as he should have been on this case immediately and prioritizing it so an innocent person does not become a victim.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he did believe that this was a selective prosecution case because of what has been going on and asked the Director what makes this job different to 4109 Irving Street where the Director went out and formed an opinion or 425 Junipero Serra where the Director went out and formed an opinion.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Director should go out and look at this one and asked why he relied on staff.  Director Chiu said that he did not know what Commissioner Guinnane meant by selective enforcement and stated that this report was written after he was requested to attend this community meeting by Supervisor Dufty.  Director Chiu said that at the meeting there were 25 to 30 people who were complaining about these projects being out of character or exceeding the scope of work so immediately he came back and wrote a memo to Jim Hutchinson who is in charge of the Inspections program.  Director Chiu said that he was aware that the Inspector went out the next day and issued a NOV, but was not aware of the severity of the project and said he would be happy to go out and take a look at it.  Commissioner Guinnane said that when the Director goes out there he should look at the other jobs because there is one project next door to 555 where there is no work at all going on and also the one on the lower side.  Director Chiu said these were treated like any other complaint.  Commissioner Guinnane asked when Director Chiu could go out and look at this project because it was on hold and there was no serial permitting put in place here and it was unfair to the Project Sponsor.   Director Chiu said that he would go out the next day.

Commissioner Marks said that she could understand that the Director does not have the time to go out on every complaint that comes into the Department.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was not asking the Director to go out on every complaint, but said that he found it very disturbing that the Director was able to go to 4109 Irving Street and 425 Junipero Serra as those projects as far as he is concerned are clearly unlawful demolitions with serial permitting.  Commissioner Marks said that she believed that Commissioner Guinnane brought those two projects to the attention of the Department and the list of the properties that were turned over to Deputy Director Hutchinson were complaints from a public meeting.  Commissioner Marks said that she was sure that this was just a small list of the number of complaints that come in on a regular basis.

President Santos asked if Commissioner Guinnane was able to set up a meeting with Supervisor Dufty.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he called last Sunday and left a detailed message, but had heard nothing back. 

Mr. Kieran Woods introduced himself as the owner of 555 Valley Street, which had been the object of this discussion.  Mr. Woods said that originally he was not going to make any public comment, but just wanted to state that the process was completely open from the very beginning.  Mr. Woods said that there was a DR on the job and he appeared before the Planning Commission on two occasions.  Mr. Woods said that this was a sizeable house and certain people in the neighborhood did not like that.  Mr. Woods stated that he has done a very good job, particularly because it is his own house and he intends to live there.  Mr. Woods said that he could understand how someone looking from the outside could conclude that this is an unlawful demolition because it is an extensive property and the original house was very small.  Mr. Woods said that the walls that were retained are not visible from the street and one has to be inside the building to see them.  Mr. Woods said that he wanted to thank everyone for their help and listening to his side of the arguments and said that he would be happy to show his property to anyone who wanted to look at it.  Mr. Woods stated that he could show the difficulties that occurred and said that he spoke to his Building Inspector about some of the situations that were coming up and probably should have attempted to put in a revision at that stage.  Mr. Woods said that he wanted to thank everyone for their help and for looking after him as an inexperienced person in this political arena.  Mr. Woods thanked the Commission.  President Santos asked if Mr. Woods had spoken to Supervisor Dufty.  Mr. Woods said that he would attempt to speak with him at his open door session.  Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Woods how long it took him to get his project through the City with all of the public hearings.  Mr. Woods said that it was ten or eleven months.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what the outcome of the DR was.  Mr. Woods said that the DR was rejected and said that he made some changes that the neighbors requested. 

d.

Update on the permit status of the property located at 1372 – 1374 Union Street. (Application #200103144264 as requested by Commissioner D’Anne.)

Director Chiu said that this permit was filed in 2000 and the project was approved in September 2002 and subsequently the neighbors protested the project and it went to the Board of Permit Appeals (BPA).  Director Chiu said that once a project is filed and goes to BPA the clock for the permit stops, but in any event when the time for the project was restarted the Project Sponsor has not started work and since no work was started as of today the permit has expired.  Director Chiu said that the Project Sponsor would have to file for a new permit.

Commissioner D’Anne said that she went out to the site and said that it is an eye sore and has been for a number of years.  Commissioner D’Anne said that the permit says that the work is for a third story and it was her understanding that the garage is a story so it would appear that the owner lifted the house off the foundation and it is propped up now with wood pilings so that would make it a four story building.  Commissioner D’Anne said that this appears to be very dangerous and said that the people who live in the property were present to speak on this issue.  Commissioner Marks said that it did appear that the Department picked up on the fact that the project would be four levels because the permit history shows that a sprinkler system is required with the addition of a fourth story. 

Ms. Judy Harris of 1364 Union Street spoke about the irresponsibility of the developer because he raised the foundation of the building, stopped work, asked the neighbors to check their foundations and then abandoned the project and left the sight open.  Ms. Harris said that garbage piled up and there were rats, mice and vermin at the site.  Ms. Harris said that the rats killed the trees in her back yard and endangered neighborhood animals.  Ms. Harris said that the Health Department finally boarded up the building, but the developer left steel bars in the gutter taking up two to three street parking spaces.  Ms. Harris said that the developer showed no respect for the neighborhood or the neighbors and asked whom he was accountable

Mr. Gordon Harris said that it was 4 ½ years since the project was started and said that basically the neighbors want some integrity that the project will be built and will conform to the area.  Mr. Gordon said that he spoke with the Architect of this project and was told that it was held up because of some problems with the foundations, but had no idea what those problems were.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the debris and rebar that Ms. Gordon spoke about was in front of the project or was it blocking other property.  Mr. Gordon said that it was taken off the street and thrown onto the site.  Commissioner Guinnane asked who the Contractor was.  Mr. Gordon said that the only person he could contact was the Architect. 

Ms. Susan Staggs said that she was representing her brother who was one of the owners of 1364 Union Street because he could not be present.  Ms. Staggs stated that she was not sure how high or how far back the building was going to go, but said she had a great concern about the light that comes into her unit that will be cut off.  Ms. Staggs said that all of the owners have some windows on the same side as the building on the west side so it will impact the breakfast rooms and kitchens of the units.  Ms. Staggs said that she had a tenant that is now looking for another place to live because of the impact this building has had on the area so now there is an economic impact without construction even being started.  Ms. Staggs stated that her Real Estate Agent has told her that this project could impact the value of the property by as much as 25%.  Ms. Staggs said that the project needs to be looked at again.

President Santos said that issues with property lines and windows are Planning issues, but potential safety issues are DBI issues.  President Santos said that the permit has not been extended so the neighbors would have ample opportunity to file an appeal on this new permit when and if the project sponsor files for one.  President Santos asked Director Chiu if there was a blight ordinance about how long someone could leave a building in shambles.  Director Chiu said that currently there is no blight ordinance in the City and County of San Francisco, but there is a concern about safety and if the property is vacated it has to be properly secured.  President Santos said that safety and security would be something the Department would be concerned about and said that he and Commissioner Guinnane would go to the property to look at the conditions and see how the building is supported.  Director Chiu said that the Department could make sure that the property was properly secured and that there was no vandalism.  President Santos asked what would happen if there were numerous attempts to contact the owner and nothing happened, would the City then go and secure the building and send the bill to someone.  Director Chiu said that the Department could do this.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he and President Santos could look at the building to determine if it should go to the Litigation Committee and then to the City Attorney.  Director Chiu said that if there is imminent danger the Department could take immediate action. 

Ms. Adrian Briar said that she lived at 1364 Union Street and thanked the Commission for hearing this issue and said that she did not think that so much could be accomplished in this short of a time.  Ms. Briar stated that this property is being operated under two permits, not just one; one that ends in 44264 and another permit number ended in 36442.  Ms. Briar said that two weeks ago PG&E was trying to install electrical at the property, which leads her to believe that construction is going to start.  Ms. Briar said that PG&E could not get in because the building was boarded up and said that the neighbors have no problem with someone trying to improve that building, but the problem is how it is going to affect the neighbors economically and the emotional quality of life impact.  Ms. Briar spoke about the light and the view.  Ms. Briar said that some of the people did not receive notification of changes.  Ms. Briar said that the Project Sponsor paid $740,000 for the property and if there are three apartments plus a garden unit there is going to be millions of dollars of profit, but for the neighbors having to have an economic loss is not fair.  Ms. Briar said that Planning is not willing to talk to the neighbors anymore because they say it is already passed.  President Santos said that the project sponsor would have to reapply and Planning would require a 300’ radius notice so the neighbors would have an opportunity to appeal.  Mr. Briar asked Mr. Santos if the structure was safe. President Santos said that he was going to go to the site with Commissioner Guinnane. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was any chance that this permit could be reinstated.  Director Chiu said that he did not know because the Project Sponsor could say that much of the work was done, but said that the Department would go back and look at the project.  Director Chiu said that any permit was appealable by the neighbors.  Director Chiu said that the case was heard at BPA last year.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not want the permit to be reinstated so this permit should be flagged so that it goes back to Planning.  Director Chiu said that he would take care of that. 

4.

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

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to commend DBI for issuing 92% of permits over the counter however; he said that some permits that do get logged in fall into sort of an abyss.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that in May 2002 he applied for a permit to add another floor in a hotel that would add 200 rooms of low-income housing and it is now 2004.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that about a week and a half ago he received a call that the Architect called and said the permits were ready to be picked up so he went in last Tuesday and was told that it was in One Stop.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that One-Stop told him that it was upstairs somewhere and he could not find out where it was until the following day, but as it turned out he had to provide backup calculations.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that the Architect came back with the backup calculations and said that it should be ready the following Monday or Tuesday.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he checked on the Friday to make sure the permit would be ready and was told that it still had to go to architectural.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that when a judge makes a decision it is final unless it is appealed and surely he should not have to go back and start the whole process again.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that if DBI wants people to be happy about what is going on he should not have been required to provide backup calculations and have everything revisited again.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he was hoping that the Plan Check would be signed off today.  President Santos asked the Director to get back to Mr. Karnilowitz on this project today.

Ms. Alice Barkley said that given the fact that it was now 11:00 a.m. she asked the Commission to consider hearing Item #12g out of sequence and stated that Supervisor Daly was present earlier but had to leave.  Ms. Barkley said that this was a very important issue regarding the Trans Bay Terminal.

President Santos said that public comment would be completed and then the Commissioners would consider moving to Item 12g.

Mr. O’Donoghue said that on a procedural statement it looked like some items would have to be continued and said that those could be included in the Special Meeting for June 14, 2004.

President Santos said that the Commission would move to item #12g.

Commissioner Marks said that she thought that this item should be moved to the next meeting because the Commission could take no action on it.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the public comment should be taken.

12.

Review of Communication Items.  At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

g.

Copy of letter dated May 27, 2004 from Alice Suet Yee Barkley dated May 27, 2004 of Luce Forward, Attorney’s At Law, regarding Requests for Stop Work Orders – 80 Natoma Street.

Mr. David Schonbrunn said that he was President of TRANSDEF, the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund who are regional planning advocates focused mainly on the functioning of the metropolitan transportation Commission.  Mr. Schonbrunn said that his colleagues have been successful in saving the TransBay Terminal and have gotten approval for the terminal to be rebuilt with CalTrain extended to it.  Mr. Schonbrunn stated that this $2B terminal is the highest priority transit project for the region as the new terminal will allow travelers to conveniently get from one part of the Bay Area to another by connecting all of the regions transit operators.  Mr. Schonbrunn said that the redevelopment of the surplus land around the terminal would provide a vibrant, new neighborhood for the City with thousands of new housing units.  Mr. Schonbrunn said that because of the importance of this project TRANSDEF are very concerned about the conflict between the project and 80 Natoma with Meyers Development.  Mr. Schonbrunn said that as a result TRANSDEF hired a San Francisco firm with expertise in dealing with Building and Planning and they have come up with the unexpected discovery that this is not a fully entitled project.  Mr. Schonbrunn said that he was particularly concerned about the conflict with Proposition H, which his colleagues put on the ballot, and it passed, which made it City policy that the TransBay Terminal was to be rebuilt with CalTrain extended to it.  Mr. Schonbrunn stated that there was a conflict between City agencies and the approvals that have occurred since Prop H. 

Mr. Bill Marchant stated that he was representing TRANSDEF in this matter.  Mr. Marchant said that his firm was hired to look at the conflict between Proposition H and the building at 80 Natoma when it started going under the ground.  Mr. Marchant said that the conflict is that the TransBay Terminal has the potential for a high-speed rail, which would connect San Francisco to Los Angeles and also connect to the Peninsula; that rail tunnel will be affected by the building at 80 Natoma.  Mr. Marchant said that when he started looking at the permit history for 80 Natoma he discovered that there was a site permit granted in 1999, a revision to that permit in 1999 and work had to be commenced no later than February 6, 2002 in order for that permit to be valid.  Mr. Marchant said that the permit expired by effective law in 2002 and it was not until recently, on April 8, 2004, that there was a revision to the expired site permits and work started.  Mr. Marchant stated that at this time, work is being done on this project without a valid site permit.  Mr. Marchant said that this calls into question the conditional use application, which required that there be a site permit in place by February 2001.  Mr. Marchant said that the application for a revision to the expired site permit is not the proper procedure; a new site permit should have been applied for.  Mr. Marchant stated that there have been proposed revisions to the building at 80 Natoma since the time the peer review took place and there have been different discussions about the proposed settlement of the building and how much settlement there would be.  Mr. Marchant said that he was requesting a Stop Work Order.  Mr. Marchant said that the Building Inspection Department had the obligation under Prop H to avoid any conflict, infringement or increase to the cost of the TransBay Terminal Project.  Mr. Marchant said that if there is a way for the TransBay Terminal to be completed and 80 Natoma to go up, the opportunity should be taken now to prevent anything from happening with this absolutely essential project.  Mr. Marchant gave the Commissioners a chronology of the project at 80 Natoma.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu who Plan Checked this project because in looking at the chronology it starts out with Planning in 1993; then all of a sudden the site permits are cancelled in 2/06/02 and then twenty-six months later the project sponsor comes back applying for another permit for indicator piles and refers to the 1999 permits that says that a new site permit is required.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how this permit was issued.  Director Chiu said that this was brought to his attention last week and he has asked Mr. Harrington to look into the permit history with staff and the City Attorney’s Office is involved.  Director Chiu said that attorneys on both sides of this issue are calling the Department, but the Department is waiting until Mr. Harrington is through with the investigation to see if a Stop Work Order should be issued.  Director Chiu stated that this is a very large project and a site permit is good for four years and said that he did not know what was filed within that time.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that this job should be temporarily shut down until more information is available.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he had about five or six questions.  President Santos said that the Commission would hear all of the public comment and then bring this item back to the next meeting after there is an opportunity to look at the paperwork.

Ms. Alice Barkley said that there were a few additional issues.  Ms. Barkley said that when this project came back to the Building Department for a revised site permit the building design was changed.  Ms. Barkley said that the original site permit had four underground parking garage levels and it was her understanding that it was on a very thick mat foundation, but no piles.  Ms. Barkley said that when the project sponsor came back in 2003 with the so called revised site permit, a site permit that had been dead for two years, the design was changed to a building with only two underground parking levels with piles that do not extend very deep into the old Bay clay level of about 80’.  Ms. Barkley stated that this is a 47-story concrete building and said that the piles allowed to be installed with the structure of the building itself on top is under peer review because there is a question about the structure.  Ms. Barkley said that she did not understand how a building could be constructed when no one understands what is going on with the building because you can’t just build a foundation if it doesn’t support this very heavy building on top.  Ms. Barkley said that she would urge the Commission to put a one-week Stop Work Order on this project because piles are being put down and it could be a waste of time and money.  Ms. Barkley said that she did not think that this could wait. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked about settlement issues.  Ms. Barkley said that it was her understanding that there was a report from a Mr. Ladd that she had provided that does not even consider the TransBay Terminal and said that there is a substantial difference of opinion on the settlement.  Ms. Barkley said that instead of 2 to 2 ½” there are projections from soils engineers that the settlement could go as high as 11” which is substantial. 

President Santos said that Ms. Barkley stated that this project was under peer review and asked if it was the procedure of installing the piles under peer review or was it the foundation design.  Ms. Barkley said that the Department could best answer that question because there was a review that took place from December of last year until April of 2004.  Ms. Barkley said that she did not see a copy of the final peer review report, but said that the peer review did not take into consideration that there might be the TransBay, train activity, right next to it.  Ms. Barkley said that Hanson Tom could best answer President Santos’ questions.  President Santos asked if it was a Structural Advisory Board that was reviewing this plan such as was done on Edgehill.  Ms. Barkley said that she believed that there were three structural engineers on the peer review committee.

Mr. Michael Keys Ling of 1000 Union Street said that he had been working as an individual to try and get the TransBay and CalTrain project built for fifteen years.  Mr. Ling said that he has been following 80 Natoma Street for a long time and it has been a non-project until recently when funding came in place for the TransBay Terminal.  Mr. Ling said that this building could not get built during the dot.com boom and that should say something right there.  Mr. Ling expressed his support of the TransBay Terminal and said that all of this has to be sorted out and asked for a slow down and a Stop Work Order. 

Mr. Bill Barnes from Supervisor Daley’s Office said that Supervisor Daley represents the district that includes this site.  Mr. Barnes stated that he would talk about the CalTrain extension because it is important and there were two ballot measures, Proposition H and most recently Proposition K which put forth $270M over the next 30 years to extend CalTrain to downtown.  Mr. Barnes said that there was an obligation to the voters and residents of this City to make sure that the permits and the actions of City agencies are consistent with their intent relative to the delivery of a multi modal transit facility downtown.  Mr. Barnes stated that there has been a lot of discussion about this issue and the voters have favored this project with their votes and their tax dollars.  Mr. Barnes said that it was important that the Building Inspection Department look at this project relative to whether it is compatible with CalTrain and said it was his understanding that there are some solutions where the building could be built and a train could run through it, but that work hasn’t been done.  Mr. Barnes said that the peer review committee did not have the opportunity to look at this project at 80 Natoma as it relates to delivering CalTrain downtown.  Mr. Barnes said that it was unfortunate for the project sponsor to spend resources for a project that might not be delivered and an ounce of prevention would be worth a pound of cure.  Mr. Barnes stated that the Commission had an opportunity to press the pause button to get people to take a little bit of time to think about what they are doing.  Mr. Barnes said that the reason there is structural review and peer review at the Building Inspection Department is because DBI is an independent arbiter of these issues.  Mr. Barnes said that DBI had the opportunity to broker a solution to make both sides satisfied.  Mr. Barnes stated that on the question of issuing a Stop Work Order today or waiting a week, the environmental documents relative to CalTrain extension are on appeal that is before the Board tomorrow and people are looking at the comments and actions today.

Commissioner Guinnane asked when the actual work on the project started back up.  Mr. Barnes said that he did not have all of the details as to when piles started being driven, but said that a few months ago there was a story in the Chronicle that the project sponsor, who had permits dating back many years, decided to basically revive the project.  Mr. Barnes stated that he got a call two weeks ago Monday that work was being started on the site, but said it would be best to ask the Department for that data.

President Santos asked Mr. Tom about the peer review and asked if it was related to the foundations or was it linked to the potential compromise that could be reached between the terminal and this new building.  Mr. Tom said that he could give some of the history to the Commission so the Commission could understand how the permit process was taking place.  Mr. Tom stated that the original permit was applied for in 1998 and that permit was approved for 48 stories with 3 stories of basements; this was October 1998.  Mr. Tom said that in 1999 the building envelope was revised to become 48 stories with 4 levels of parking spaces.  Mr. Tom said that at that time, from the initial permit to the second revised permit, the project was allowed to have a construction time of about 7 years.  Mr. Tom said that in 2003 the permit was reapplied for with another change to the building envelope to a 47-story building with 2 stories of parking levels. Mr. Tom said that right now there was a permit that had been issued for the site permit last year in October, and then the piling permit was applied for.  Mr. Tom stated because of the complexity of the structural system of this building DBI invoked the Structural Peer Review panel; that panel was formed last December.  Mr. Tom said that the reason for that was because the structural system used an alternative structural system other than the Code prescribed structural system; it is a very complicated system and therefore DBI needed the Review Panel.  President Santos said that it appeared that there were a couple of site permits, one in 1998 and one in 1999 with revisions to the number of stories and parking levels.  President Santos asked if at that time it was simply an architectural set of drawings, not structural drawings.  Mr. Tom said that in 1999 they were using a structural system that was a perforated shear wall system and there was a peer review at that time, and a structural permit for fabrication of the structural steel and perforated steel wall was issued at that time, but no construction was done.  President Santos asked if the structural drawings were approved with 47 stories and 4 stories of basement.  Mr. Tom said that was correct and it was also peer reviewed by Professor Astaneh-asi of UC Berkeley.  Mr. Tom said that it is really the responsibility of the project sponsor to deal with this issue and City Planning would have to deal with the complexity of the TransBay Terminal and this project.  Mr. Tom said that the structural peer review is concentrating on the structural design of the building only.  President Santos said that Mr. Tom stated that when someone has a site permit they have to complete the job in six or seven years and asked if there was also the requirement of starting the job within twenty-one months of a revision.  Mr. Tom said that was correct.  President Santos asked if someone decided to alter or revise that site permit does the clock start with the new site permit or is the project sponsor obligated to the twenty-one months of the previous permit.  President Santos asked how many site permits someone could have before they start construction.  Mr. Tom said that this was a unique case because usually every site permit gets built, but with this case the building envelope keeps changing and he would say that if the building envelope changes they should get the combination of the time.  President Santos said that someone could conceivably make revisions to a site permit indefinitely without having the obligation to build and they would just have to pay for the permits to keep it alive.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not think that there was anything in the Code that says that and said he thought that was really stretching it.  Mr. Tom said he would have to agree. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that the site permit was issued in 2/06/99 and it clearly said that work had to be completed by 2/06/02 and in 2/06/02 there was no work done so it was cancelled; then they waited another two years and came back in again.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this thing is clearly out beyond the time limit and is not even close; no work was done and now all of a sudden work starts up a week ago.  President Santos said that was because the site permit was cancelled so the project sponsor should have to reapply.  Mr. Tom said that the Commission should take a look at the policy of the Department because this is a very huge project, $60M, and usually even a high rise gets built within the time limit.  Mr. Tom stated that this is an unusual case and said that he was sure that there were other site permits approved where the owner chose not to build because of financial problems or the market situation and then later on they reapply.  Commissioner Guinnane said that unless Mr. Tom could show the Commission something in the Code that clearly extends the timeframe that was discussed, and then this job should be stopped until there is a handle on it.   Commissioner Guinnane said that the project was only started up a week ago and the project sponsor had no problem letting it sit for the last four or five years.  Mr. Tom said that the revision of this project really is the duty of City Planning.  Mr. Tom said that when there is a project approved by City Planning it really is not Building Inspection’s responsibility to allow this project.  Commissioner Guinnane said that Planning had nothing to do with it because right now everyone was talking about the site permit, not a Planning issue or a change of use.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that this was getting like the Board of Permit Appeals where someone was starting to interpret the law; the law is the law and the Department has to follow the law.  Mr. Tom said that he wanted to stress that he was sure the Department had a lot of projects that were issued and not built and they are still hanging in the air.  Mr. Tom stated that it was kind of the Commission’s policy if they wanted the Department to spend a lot of man-hours to research that issue.

Director Chiu said that the chronology of this project was just handed to him this morning and anytime there is a question of a valid permit the Department always tries to be cautious and usually suspends the permits for at least a few days to give staff time to evaluate if the permit is valid.  Director Chiu said that since this is not on the calendar for an action item by the Commission, the Department could take the action given that the issue has been raised as to whether or not the permit is valid.  Director Chiu stated that he was not aware of the permit validation, but the issue was just a legal issue as to whether the project sponsor should move forward or not.  Director Chiu said that the Department could issue a suspension for a couple of weeks.  Commissioner Brown said that this could not be an action for the Commission to issue a Stop Work Order, but the Department could issue a Stop Work Order as they do in other cases.  Director Chiu said that he would suspend the permit for a couple of weeks to give staff time to look at all of the facts.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he thought the Director should take immediate action today and said that he did not think that it was a hardship on this particular job because it was left dormant for all of these years and it is not that the building is 20 floors up.   Director Chiu said that as soon as the meeting was over he would issue a suspension letter for at least two weeks to allow staff to look into the validity of the permit.  President Santos asked if that meant that there would be two weeks where no work could be performed.  Director Chiu said that was correct.

Commissioner Marks said that Mr. Tom said that first of all a structural review was done in relation to the entire project that was handed to him and then later he said that it was now being looked at for structural review.  Commissioner Marks asked if it was always done in relation to the entire project.  Mr. Tom said that was correct, but the initial building had a different structural system than is now proposed.  Commissioner Marks said that she understood that, but said that when Mr. Tom was saying that it was now under review again, and asked if it is still looked at as the entire project that is proposed.  President Santos asked if the Professor that Mr. Tom mentioned was the gentleman working on the peer review.  Mr. Tom said that it is Professor Jack Moehle from U.C. Berkeley and he’s the Director of the Pacific Earthquake Center and also Mr. Lyn Joseph from Thornton Tomasetti Engineer’s office who is an expert at building high rises.  Mr. Tom mentioned a geotechnical engineer who was also working on the geotechnical area and said that these three persons are working on the technical review.  President Santos asked that since the Commission has taken action if further public comment was necessary.  Commissioner Fillon said that the Commission had not taken action, the Department had.  President Santos said that the Director was going to put a Stop Work Order on this project.  Commissioner Brown asked that the public comment be somewhat limited because the Department is going to take action.  Commissioner Fillon said that the Commission had heard half of the public comment and should hear all of it.  Commissioner Brown said that he understood, but asked that it be limited since the public knows that the Department is going to take action at this time.

Mr. Ronnie Rolf spoke saying that he had been involved in efforts to get CalTrain downtown for over twenty years and on the Campaign for Proposition H in 1999.  Mr. Rolf read a couple of excerpts from Prop H. Mr. Rolf said that this project with questionable permits certainly does conflict with the intent of Proposition H.  Mr. Rolf said that a lot of safety issues have been discussed and said that he urged the Commission to issue a Stop Work Order on this project.

Commissioner Marks said that, just to repeat what Commissioner Brown had said, the Department has agreed to issue a Stop Work Order.

Ms. Margaret Oguzami said that she was the Executive Director of Bay Rail Alliance, a grass roots transits riders group and said that the downtown CalTrain project has been one of their highest priorities for a long time.  Ms. Oguzami stated that she has been mystified as to how the 80 Natoma project has been allowed to proceed because it is clearly in violation of Prop H and said that the issue here is not only whether the developer’s building is structurally sound, but if it is built what will that do for the CalTrain downtown extension.  Ms. Oguzami asked that the Commission take action.

Mr. David Bascus said that he belongs to an organization called Public Vision Research that is a transit advocacy group.  Mr. Bascus gave the Commissioners a picture of what the new terminal would look like.

Mr. Richard Leonardi said, not to give aid and sucker to the enemy, but the latest flurry of activity at 80 Natoma started on the 10^th of May and not just last week.  Mr. Leonardi stated that as the Department took time to study this issue, he urged the Department to open the peer review to include the TransBay Terminal because there are two projects looking at the same site and to undertake a peer review of just the 80 Natoma piling in the absence of the TransBay Terminal, which is what DBI has done in the past, is a disservice to everyone concerned.  Mr. Leonardi said that he thought that this would take more than two weeks and said that there should be serious review.  Mr. Leonardi said that he understood that the project sponsor had only done one test boring at the test site and said that a great deal of more work should be done at the site.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about only one boring being taken at the site.  Mr. Leonardi said that the project sponsor seemed to be in a hurry to put anything in the ground as soon as possible.  President Santos asked who the soils engineer was for the property.  Ms. Alice Barkley said that it was her understanding that it was Treadwell & Rollo.  Ms. Barkley said that this site was vacant and there is no reason why there is only one boring on this property especially before any construction is started.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the City should have picked up on this.  Ms. Barkley said that it has been her experience with larger projects that once the site is cleared, especially when talking about an unprecedented design with a 47 concrete, not steel, building there should be more borings.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in the reports it shows that there is soils material of an exceptionally high quality and asked if there was something in this lot that would be a problem.  Ms. Barkley said that in her review of the file there is Bay mud going down about 75’ at that one bore hole and then after that is old Bay clay that goes down to about 180’ to 200’ before bedrock is reached.  Ms. Barkley stated that within a site the soil could be different at different areas so to rely on a foundation design on only one boring she believed would be a very unsound practice.  President Santos said that his firm did 85 Natoma which is across the street from this site, a building that is three stories of timber over concrete podium and they took 11 samples.  Ms. Barkley said that this was more usual.  President Santos stated that he had a great deal of respect for Treadwell & Rollo so it was quite possible that they may have relied on previous soils reports on the site. 

Mr. Ken Rakowski introduced himself as the Vice-Mayor of the City of Emeryville and said that he has followed this project for the past seventeen years.  Mr. Rakowski stated that the East Bay is very interested in this project.  Mr. Rakowski said that in Emeryville every time there is a project there is one person designated with the responsibility for the project and if there is any problem with the project to take action and that person’s name must be posted at the site.

Commissioner Fillon said that it was obvious that the Department has jurisdiction over the permitting and the structural issues related to the project, but said what was not clear in his mind was if the Department had the jurisdiction over the conflict with Prop H.  Ms. Barkley said that Prop H basically said that no City official or agency could take action that might conflict with the implementation of the TransBay Terminal and the CalTrain extension.  Ms. Barkley said that this was not saying that the Department could not approve a project; it is just that in proceeding with any kind of approval or review of a building permit and the construction the Department would have to take care to make sure that the conflicts are resolved so that if it is possible that both the TransBay Terminal and the Cal Train extension, as well as the building could move forward.  Ms. Barkley said that she thought that in this case the Department basically has abdicated its responsibility.  Ms. Barkley said that she understood that in the world of entitlement in the past, Planning seems to be the guru, but again Planning also has the responsibility, and this Commission should make sure that in the future, that Planning advises DBI staff that there are certain projects under their preview of what the constraints are in addition to just a conditional use.  Commissioner Fillon said that staff would look at the permit history and how valid the permit is, but with conflicts with Prop H he asked what staff would be doing.  Ms. Barkley said that this is why a previous speaker asked that the Department in its peer review include TransBay to make sure that everything is being considered.  Ms. Barkley said that there could be alternative designs that could accommodate both projects, as in New York there is the Pan Am Building over the Grand Central Station and in Chicago there is lots of rail underneath a high-rise building so it is done all over the world.

President Santos said that to end this technical discussion on a happy note, if the project sponsor was to change the basement from four to two, as it appears he is trying to do, is that the ultimate goal and would that make it easier for the TransBay to be installed.  Ms. Barkley said that she had not had any contact with TransBay and that is why she thought it was important to include them in the review as the previous speaker said.  Commissioner Fillon asked if the TransBay people knew what they needed and what the conflict is.  Ms. Barkley said that the certified EIR shows the preferred local project and shows the alignment of the TransBay tracks going downtown.

President Santos said that there were two items that had to be heard; items #8 and #13 and said that perhaps everything else should be pushed to next week’s special meeting.  Commissioner Guinnane said he had one question about this job and asked what would happen at the end of two weeks.  Director Chiu said that if it is found that the project doesn’t have a valid permit then the Department could issue a Stop Work Order indefinitely, but there are some legal issues involved so the two weeks would just give staff time to follow up.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he was worried that two weeks was not enough time.  Director Chiu said if it was not then the Department could extend the suspension.

The Commission moved to Item #8.

8.

Discussion and possible action to approve DBI’s Strategic Plan. [Assistant Director Lee]

Assistant Director Amy Lee said that this draft has been before the Commission several times and under the Grand Jury recommendations the Commission was to approve it, print it and send it out. Ms. Lee said that the last time it was heard she was out sick, but she did include some of the comments made by Commissioner Marks requesting additional brochures.   Ms. Lee said that there were some errors with the percentages of the turnaround and approval in the Plan Check so that was improved and updated.  Ms. Lee stated that there were some issues with the MIS portion of this plan, but this plan is more for the operations of the Department and although MIS is critical to the operations it is in a separate strategic plan.  Ms. Lee said that the MIS strategic plan was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and said that the Department was now asking the Commission, so as not to delay this more, to approve this version and it will be updated every six months and is not something set in stone.  Ms. Lee said that because this report is not printed out, the Department has been criticized for having no strategy, when indeed it does and even though this is a draft, Management has been trying to implement this to achieve the performance measures.  Ms. Lee said that once this is approved by the BIC the Department will continue to update it so it is a living document.  President Santos said that the Commission does have the option to make changes.  Ms. Lee said that was correct. 

Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to ask the Litigation Committee about a performance measure that would increase the number of cases for referral to the City Attorney’s Office.  Commissioner Marks said that in her mind, if the Department is more effective in getting property owners to comply with what is required then it would reduce the number of referrals to the City Attorney, so she did not know if that was a valid criteria for anything.  Ms. Lee said that because staff believes that enforcement is a comprehensive approach one of the other performance measures is to increase the number of abated cases per fiscal year so that coupled with additional City Attorney enforcement would help increase compliance with all of the Codes.  Commissioner Marks said that it might be better to say working more effectively with the City Attorney’s Office.  Ms. Lee said that with all of the Department’s goals they were going to use a basic strategy of reassessing the effectiveness of the current process.  Ms. Lee stated that because this is a strategic plan specific details were not set out of what steps would be taken.  Director Chiu said that he thought that Commissioner Marks made an excellent comment and suggested that it be incorporated into the strategic plan. 

Commissioner Marks said that she did have a question because she did understand that there are people who think that the development of a strategic plan is a waste of time, but there are some who feel that it is a valuable tool.  Commissioner Marks said that she thought it was valuable because the Department sets specific targets and measures whether or not those are met.  Commissioner Marks referred to page 11 and said that the first strategic plan had numbers that were less than what was now being presented and said that she had asked how these numbers were determined.  Commissioner Marks said that for example there was a May 14^th report summarizing for this current year what the numbers are, the number of permits that were issued and the percentage that were responded to within 48 hours.  Commissioner Marks said that the minimum that was listed was 96%, which was Electrical inspection, but Building was 99%, Plumbing 99%, 97%, 98% and how does staff decide that 94% is a goal that they want to accomplish in the next year.  Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that staff could only do as much as Management affords them and this is a moving target because there is a hiring freeze on.   Mr. Hutchinson said that where staff would like to do 99% within 24 hours, but it is really going to depend on the resources that the Mayor’s Office and the Controller’s Office are going to dictate what happens with money.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department was able to meet these goals in the past because the resources were there, but today is a different day because he did not know what the Department was going to be able to provide and it is frightening.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fillon, that the Commission approve the Strategic Plan for DBI with the change suggested by Commissioner Marks.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 029 -004

14.

Review 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.

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.

Commissioner D’Anne stated that there were two items that came up about permits that were expired or delayed or projects that delayed unconscionably and asked if there was any way that these could be flagged so that somebody could go out when a project is delayed unnecessarily or the permit expires.  Commissioner D’Anne referred to Union Street and Natoma Street.  President Santos said that there was a policy in place where once a project sponsor picks up their permit they have 90 days to commence work and then there is a range for completion of the work, but someone could apply for extensions.  Director Chiu said that normally for small projects this is not a problem, but where there are problems it is usually with a site permit on a large project.  Director Chiu stated that the Department should come up with a better policy to address multiple revisions to the original site permit.  Director Chiu said that this is something that could be talked about at a future meeting.  President Santos asked if there should be a taskforce.  Director Chiu said that he did not think that a taskforce was necessary at this point.

Commissioner Fillon said that regarding future agenda items the Commission had talked earlier about having a Special Meeting to talk about legal issues.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to have that meeting on Monday and asked if the meeting had to be at 9:00 a.m.  Secretary Aherne said that it could be 10:00 a.m.  Commissioner Guinnane said that 9:00 a.m. would be fine and the meeting would be about bringing legal action against the City and County.  Commissioner Marks said that it would be a Closed Session.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the other items that were continued should be included. 

Secretary Aherne said that she wanted to remind everyone that at the next regular meeting there would be an Abatement Appeals Board hearing and a presentation by the AIA and SPUR. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that he was watching the PUC meeting last week and it was the first time being televised; they were having the same problem as DBI where their money was being raided and they basically put a stop to that.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that in looking at the meeting itself he was very interested in the minutes that were being done over the weeks.  Commissioner Guinnane said that one of the new members on the Commission was Commissioner Warbock who he found to be a very smart individual from watching him asked about an item that was on the calendar for the approval of minutes.  Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a motion to approve minutes, but there were no minutes in front of them.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission Secretary was asked about the minutes and the minutes hadn’t been done since August of last year.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Secretary told the PUC Commission that they were sent out to be transcribed.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he just wanted it to be known that the BIC has a very good Secretary and asked for a round of applause for the great job that she does.  Commissioner Marks said that the BIC minutes are probably the most detailed minutes of any Commission.

15.

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

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that the issue continuously comes up about DBI being an independent body that is fee generated and doesn’t take a nickel from the General Fund and yet the Mayor’s Office has power over whom DBI can hire or can’t hire.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it makes no sense that if the Department has the sufficient money to hire Inspectors and there is a need to hire them because plan review is needed as well as inspections and somehow or other the Department is being held hostage by the Mayor’s Office.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Commission should consider a number of possible actions: #1 to ask the City Attorney’s Office for a legal opinion as to whether or not they have the right to dictate to this Department whom it should hire and whom it should not hire because it is taking away from the Department’s independent judgment.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is also creating a surplus of funds here that could eventually go into a deficit if the work is not getting done because it is delaying the jobs.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if the City Attorney then tells the Department that in fact the Mayor’s Office has this power of veto over whom DBI can hire then a discussion could take place about going back to the ballot asking the voters, as they did approve in the past the standing of this Commission, for a change in that law much like happened with Planning when the Board of Supervisors took some of the Mayor’s powers away.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this is coming up time and time again and the Department is dealing with people over in the Mayor’s Office who obviously, might know figures, but don’t know the realities of construction or even the fiscal yields of things like that.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that even though the Commission is very judicious about not giving too much money to Dennis Herrera’s Office, the Commission should ask how much his office would charge to give an opinion on this issue and if it is too much then Commissioner Guinnane could do the research because he has shown himself competent enough to match some of the brightest minds over there.  Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

16.

 Adjournment.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 030-004

The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,



________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary