Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

 

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

 

Wednesday, March 7, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408

 

MINUTES

In the absence of President Fillon the meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by Vice-President Hood.

1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Alfonso Fillon, President, excused Denise D’Anne, Commissioner

Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Esther Marks, Commissioner, excused

Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner

Debra Walker, Commissioner

Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

Amy Lee, Assistant Director

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director

William Wong, Deputy Director

Tuti Suardana, Secretary

2. President’s Announcements.

Vice-President Hood stated that she had no announcements.

3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

a. Report on 1680 Mission Street for use as "open space".

Director Chiu said that he would give an update on the 1660/1680 Mission Street annex proposal. Director Chiu said that on February 28^th or 29^th there was supposed to be a discretionary review meeting with the Planning Department, but as a result of the latest proposal by the Planners Association to have an open roof deck on 1680 Mission Street, the review has been delayed. Director Chiu said that the Department was waiting for the Bureau of Architecture and DBI staff to do a feasibility study on this proposal to see if it is financially and/or physically possible. Director Chiu said that he had a meeting with Planning Director Gerald Green, a group from the Planners Association and DBI staff and requested that the discretionary review be delayed until April 5^th. Director Chiu stated that at this time he hoped to have all of the information available to determine if this plan is feasible. Director Chiu asked for questions from the Commissioners.

Ms. Lois Scott introduced herself as Vice-President of Planners Chapter Local 21. Ms. Scott said that the Planners were very appreciative of Director Chiu’s conciliatory actions and willingness to investigate the design submitted by the Planners Chapter. Ms. Scott stated that there was a copy of the letter sent as a follow-up to the meeting that Director Chiu referred to, that shows two schematic designs that the Department of Architecture are going to evaluate. Ms. Scott said that her concern is that she has been hearing that the continuation of the annex project is somewhat problematic because of some budget issues and the diversion of the funds for that project to something else. Ms. Scott said that she wanted to make sure that the Planners Chapter were not going to be the party that were being blamed for the delay. Ms. Scott said that over a year ago there was a general meeting at 1660 Mission Street that was attended by members of SEIU, Building Inspectors and Planners who met with the design folks. Ms. Scott stated that many issues were discussed at that time and Local 21 have been carrying those issues forward. Ms. Scott said that at the meeting those in attendance were told that the Department was just doing a framing plan, and tenant improvements and floor plans were not being discussed. Ms. Scott said that this turned out to be a big mistake because those in attendance should have been more aggressive and the Department made a mistake by not inviting people who had issues to sit down with the design group and talk about them very early on. Ms. Scott said that now the project is on a good track, but if the project gets delayed she hoped that DBI would ask employee groups, not just Local 21, but also SEIU and the inspectors associations to sit down and help with the design process in the beginning. Ms. Scott said that she hoped that the project would proceed.

b. Update on Shuttle Service for employees.

Director Chiu said that he was reporting on this issue as there was concern at the last meeting that the Department was going through an open contract for the proposed shuttle and commuter service. Director Chiu said that he was not sure at the last meeting if the $65,000 proposal was the actual contract. Director Chiu said that Assistant Director Amy Lee informed him that the $65,000 proposal was just an estimate and now the Department intends to open the shuttle and commuter service for bid. Director Chiu said that since the Planning Department has not budgeted these costs for this fiscal year, DBI would provide the service for this year for both DCP and DBI staff.

Commissioner Walker said that she received a call from a member of the public and could not answer their questions. Commissioner Walker said the person was concerned about the route of the shuttle and what it is supposed to serve. Commissioner Walker said the person wanted to know if the shuttle was replicating Muni availability. Assistant Director Amy Lee stated that the shuttle will drive employees from 1660 Mission to a Muni or Bart station, as they would not be driving to work, and is basically a drop off point to public transportation. Ms. Lee said that the shuttle would not be driving anyone home or following Muni routes. Ms. Lee said that there is already a shuttle service at 1650 Mission Street, which is run by the private owner of the building, and DBI’s service will be duplicating that service. Ms. Lee said that depending on staff interest, the morning and evening times would be determined.

c. Update on 39 Boardman Place.

Director Chiu said that at the last meeting one of the condo owners of 39 Boardman Place raised the issue of how the Fire Department or staff could sign off on fire safety issues on an expired permit. Director Chiu said that he spoke with his staff and Fire Department staff to let them know that there was an issue and concern about this. Director Chiu introduced Captain Mario Ballad from the Fire Department to discuss this matter. Commissioner Guinnane said that he followed up on 39 Boardman Place by speaking with the Electrical Contractor and looked at his job card. Commissioner Guinnane said that he also looked at the job card for the fire alarm panel and the Electrical Division and the Fire Department signed this off. Director Chiu said that when the Fire Department heard about this inquiry they asked to address the Commission.

Captain Mario Ballard said that for the past seven years he has managed the Plan Review Division for the Fire Department. Captain Ballard stated that he had spoken with the property owner, Ms. Lisa Bass about how the Fire Department, and in particular himself, had signed off the CFC when there were outstanding issues regarding the permits. Captain Ballard said that he explained the Fire Department’s involvement in the signing off of the CFC. Captain Ballard stated that the Fire Department has two offices, the office at DBI and the inspection office, which is now on Townsend Street. Captain Ballard said that the field inspectors are located at the Townsend Street office and the plan review staff is located at DBI. Captain Ballard said that normally what happens when a project is completed and the owner or developer wishes to get the CFC signed off, to save time they bring copies of the signed job cards to DBI and show that the field inspectors have signed off. Captain Ballard said that this means the field inspectors have completed their inspections, whether for the fire alarm, sprinkler system or general construction, and to save time they present the cards to Captain Ballard and he signs the cards off for the field inspector. Captain Ballard stated that he signed off for Inspector Bill Bigalani. Captain Ballard said that he only signs off after documentation had been presented to him that proves that everything in the field is in order. Captain Ballard said that Fire Department inspectors would not sign off on the job cards until everything has been completed. Captain Ballard said that, as stated by Commissioner Guinnane, the Fire Department has a specific job card for the fire alarm system; this was one of the issues raised by Ms. Bass as to how the Fire Department could sign off the job when there were no records. Captain Ballard said that due to the Fire Department’s computer system, that is over twenty years old, for the specific tracking of inspector’s time spent at that location, it doesn’t show anything. Captain Ballard stated that in Fire Department staff meetings the Department has come to recognize that numerous records were lost when they moved from Golden Gate Avenue to Townsend. Captain Ballard said that the Department does have a hard copy of the job card with the inspector’s signature that was signed when the job was completed. Captain Ballard stated that the Department was able to get the job card for the fire alarm system and does have a record of the sprinkler system, as there was some question about whether there was a permit issued for that work. Captain Ballard said that there was some discrepancy about expired permits and stated that the permit was issued on August 7, 1996 and the job card was signed by the field inspector on August 26, 1996, so even though the computer showed that the permit had expired, it was some glitch, as it was not expired. Captain Ballard said that he directed Ms. Bass down to the Fire Department and offered her assistance in getting the records, but unfortunately did not know that the records were not in order as far as the computer system was concerned. Captain Ballard stated that he had interviewed the field inspector and he recalls being at the property to make the inspections. Captain Ballard said that he also contacted the contractor for the sprinkler fittings who did not have any hard documentation, but did have recollection that they took permits out, inspections were made and everything was in order.

Commissioner Walker asked if this information was provided to the owners of the property. Captain Ballard said that it was not as Ms. Bass had not provided a phone number. Commissioner Walker asked Director Chiu to get the information from Captain Ballard and forward it to the property owners. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to forward copies of the information to the property owners. Captain Ballard said that he told Ms. Bass that due to the age of the property, certain Code requirement reinspections were done and if any deficiencies showed up in those inspections the company would have reported them to the Fire Department. Captain Ballard said that the Fire Department had not received anything to date. Commissioner Guinnane said that the fire alarm panel is monitored twenty-four hours per day on a supervised system and there have been no problems since it has been up and running. Vice-President Hood thanked Captain Ballard.

d. Update on public complaint regarding roof at Park Merced shopping center.

Director Chiu said that at the previous Commission meeting a public member asked that the Department take a look at the roof at the Park Merced Shopping Center. Director Chiu stated that he had asked Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to send an inspector to the site and called on Mr. Hutchinson to give a report. Mr. Hutchinson stated that Ed Greene is the district inspector for that area and had monitored the progress of the various construction projects that have taken place at Park Merced. Mr. Hutchinson said that Park Merced is a very large complex and there was an item calendared at the Commission within the last year to discuss the overall maintenance of the complex. Mr. Hutchinson said that Inspector Greene, based on what Mr. Pender had asked about, inspected the commercial store at Park Merced and found that there are five roof drains that are all operating correcting. Mr. Hutchinson said that there is a permit for the work, the work has been inspected and Inspector Greene will be issuing a final on that project. Mr. Hutchison said it is important to keep the lines of communication open between the inspector who is in the field and the complainant and Mr. Greene will be happy, if there are any problems in the future, to meet with Mr. Pender.

Mr. Robert Pender introduced himself as a member of the Board of Directors of the Park Merced Residents Organization. Mr. Pender said that he was glad that the inspector went out to look at the roof in the shopping center and said he was hoping to get a written report. Mr. Pender said that he was present to bring a more urgent matter to the attention of the Commission. Mr. Pender said that late Sunday night or early Monday morning, eleven tenants who park their cars at Carport #11 on Diaz Avenue, suffered a serious material loss, but also suffered a greater emotional loss from a fire. Mr. Pender said that the tenants of the Garden Court apartments, of which he is one, have a sense of security when they park their cars in the carport. Mr. Pender said that in his opinion this sense of security has been seriously breached by the fire so close to where many of them live. Mr. Pender stated that there are 1,811 Garden Court Apartments in Park Merced and the vast majority of these tenants park their cars in their carport unless they own two or three cars. Mr. Pender said that the tenants in his carport, #22 have a sense of community that has been seriously damaged by the way the new landlord has handled this vandalism. Mr. Pender said that on March 5, 2001 he made many, many phone calls to the Park Merced management starting at 8:30 a.m. and giving up at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Pender stated that he called 337-7743, 337-4048, 337-1963 and 587-6322 and at each one of these telephone numbers he identified himself by name, address and business phone number. Mr. Pender said that at no time on that day did Park Merced management return any of his calls. Mr. Pender stated that he also called Captain Yalon at the Taraval Police Station, and got no return call from him either. Mr. Pender said that this morning at 8:30 a.m., General Manager Pauletta Boroughs returned his call and told him that she was out of town on March 5^th. Vice-President Hood informed Mr. Pender that his three minutes were up and if his material was written he could submit a report to the Director for follow-up. Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that he would yield his three minutes of public comment time to Mr. Pender, as he was a person who was foremost in getting the Commission created and is very active with tenant groups. Vice-President Hood asked Mr. Pender to please get to the bottom line so the Commission could determine how they could be of help. Mr. Pender said that at 5:30 p.m. the previous day a gardener from Park Merced hung a letter signed by Joe Lopez on his front door. Mr. Pender said that from the letter he learned that it was not a bomb, nor a student riot that destroyed the carport on Diaz Avenue, but it was a criminal act. Mr. Pender said that the Park Merced management was not to blame for the vandalism, but in his opinion the Park Merced management is to blame for not answering his numerous phone calls all day long. Mr. Pender said that in his opinion the Park Merced management deserted the tenants of Park Merced when they were most needed and failed once again in meeting their obligations to the 1,811 Garden Court tenants. Mr. Pender said that this was an emotional loss rather than a material loss, but there was also a material loss because eleven cars have been destroyed and the sense of community was damaged. Mr. Pender said that he would appreciate some kind of written report to the Park Merced Residents Organization on what happened and how the carport is going to be repaired.

e. Update on Board of Supervisors inquiry. Reference #20010205-013. Supervisor Tom Ammiano’s request for a report on the feasibility of establishing a program to broadcast the names of large landlords and information related to their unabated code violations on the City’s government channel.

Director Chiu said that he had a letter request to the Commission from the President of the Board of Supervisors, Tom Ammiano asking the Department to look into the feasibility of establishing a program to broadcast the names of large landlords who fail to comply with the various building codes. Director Chiu said that he wanted to give the Commission some history of what happens in a year. Director Chiu stated that DBI receives 3,000-4,000 complaints and issues approximately that many Notices of Violation to general code violations. Director Chiu said that out of those 3,000-4,000 there are probably 400-500 cases that are sent on to a Director’s hearing, as a result of those people failing to comply. Director Chiu said that generally speaking only about 10% of the cases go to Director’s hearing and out of those about 50-100 cases are sent to the City Attorney’s Office for further litigation. Director Chiu said that it would have to be determined what large landlords mean as the Department does not want to get involved with the small cases. Director Chiu said that he wanted the Commission to have some input as to when, and if, the Commission wants to refer cases to the broadcasting station. Director Chiu said that he would recommend that since the Commission has a Litigation Committee it may be appropriate to let that Committee decide when those cases should be referred to the broadcasting station. Director Chiu said that he did not have a sense of what was appropriate and thought that the Commission should decide. Vice-President Hood said that she thought this should be looked into with the City Attorney’s Office because if someone is delinquent with their taxes, that is published in the newspaper, and there are certain publications of failures to meet obligations that can be made public. Vice-President Hood said that in some instances, cases that have gone to the City Attorney’s Office have been lost and in those cases the people might be able to come back and say that they were damaged because it was advertised that they were a scofflaw and in fact it turned out that the Department were wrong. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to make sure that the Department and the Commission were not exposed to legal damages and wanted Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian look into the legal aspects of doing this. Vice-President Hood said that she liked the idea of turning this over to the Litigation Committee to figure out a way that this could be defined that would be fair and equitable. Commissioner Santos said that he agreed that the Commission needed to be cautious about the type of information that would be broadcast and agreed that the Litigation Committee would be the right arena to discuss this. Commissioner Walker said that she agreed that this should be brought up at the next Litigation Committee and stated that there is a City Attorney present at those meetings as well. Vice-President Hood said that Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian is especially sensitive to this type of issue through all of her work with Commissions. Vice-President Hood said that if the Commission agreed to do this, it is important that this be applied equally everywhere. Vice-President Hood said that there are people who have multiple properties and have problems with all of them, and those people in particular deserve to be better known. Commissioner Guinnane said that most of the problems seem to be with hotels downtown and stated that he did not think there was a big problem with residential landlords. Commissioner Guinnane said that those hotel properties get very well advertised though the newspapers when there are fires. Commissioner Walker said that perhaps it would be better to catch the problems before a fire happens. Commissioner Guinnane said that a letter should be sent to the City Attorney’s Office to have this researched before the next meeting instead of waiting for the next meeting. Director Chiu said that the Board of Supervisors wanted a response by March 9, 2000 and if it were okay with the Commission, he would work with the Commission Secretary to write a response back to the Board explaining what the Commission is planning to do.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that the Commission should not go off on a wild goose chase in trying to determine how big is big, and how small is small, and how fat is fat. Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is even legislation against fat, obese houses and maybe these are covered under Ammiano’s fat persons ordinance. Mr. O’Donoghue said that on a more serious matter, before the Commission goes off and starts putting the cart before the horse, from requests from Neanderthals over at the Board of Supervisors who don’t have a clue, the Commission should first study how many buildings presently are in litigation for non-code compliance and how many are in for minor code compliance. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department should get the figures and the statistics ready and break it down between the large and the small, and define what is really meant by large. Mr. O’Donoghue asked if this was talking about a four unit building or a twenty unit building. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that those records should be available in the Housing Department with Lesley Stansfield in terms of continuous complaints and investigations. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Fire Department should be included because they do inspections periodically. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the data should be collected first and then the Commission could proceed. Mr. O’Donoghue said that once those statistics are gathered, the property owners should be notified that legislation is being proposed and they have an opportunity to have their voices heard because that might stimulate them to get on the ball.

Commissioner D’Anne asked if there had been any study to see if such exposure of broadcasting these people’s names has had any real affect or is there any other way to handle this without going through the media. Vice-President Hood said that in the past, one case did come up in the media because the City won such a large award from the landowner. Vice-President Hood said that this landowner owned several parcels, all of which had flagrant lack of response and this got cleaned up after the situation was in the paper. Vice-President Hood said that she believed that the intent was for people who are repeated scofflaws and obviously egregious, to have this situation publicized, and maybe being able to take care of these cases prior to them becoming disasters. Vice-President Hood stated that she agreed that the Commission would have to be enormously careful that the right cases were put forward. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that if the City Attorney can’t force these people to take care of violations, the media is certainly not going to solve the problem. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that most people hate bad publicity. Commissioner Guinnane said that in the Sainez case that went on for a long time, the City Attorney wanted to settle for $20,000 and the BIC said that they wanted to try the case. Commissioner Guinnane said this how the BIC got the $1M judgment. Vice-President Hood said that when the $1M judgment came out in the papers and on TV coverage, that was when this person cleaned up because people who have that much money do not want bad publicity.

f. Report on the minimum qualifications required for Housing Inspectors from surrounding jurisdictions.

Director Chiu said that Commissioner Roy Guinnane had asked the staff to obtain some information as to what were the minimum qualifications for Housing Inspectors in other jurisdictions. Director Chiu said that there are not too many jurisdictions with Housing Inspectors in the Bay Area, but staff did find one job description for Los Angeles that is very similar to what San Francisco Housing Inspectors do. Director Chiu said that he also included the City of San Jose even though they do not call their staff Housing Inspectors, but they do have a generic description of Code Inspectors. Director Chiu said that he hoped this information would be helpful to Commissioner Guinnane. Commissioner Guinnane said that his biggest concern was that the inspectors are not qualified to make inspections out in the field. Commissioner Guinnane said that for the past ten or fifteen years there are buildings that are full of dry rot; there are annual inspections being made and this problem is not being discovered. Commissioner Guinnane said that it is only being discovered when there is a tragedy such as a deck or stairs collapsing. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he is concerned that when a Housing Inspector does go out and cite something, a Building Inspector has to go out to inspect and sign off on the work and there are two people doing the same job. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to tie the qualifications of a Housing Inspector into the same qualifications as a Building Inspector. Commissioner Guinnane said that he realized this could not be done yesterday, but wanted to see the format changed down the road to start this process. Vice-President Hood asked if any of the Housing Inspectors were trained in recognizing dry rot. Director Chiu said that there was a similar discussion at the Commission two or three months ago and it was agreed that the Department wanted to continue to provide training to help the inspectors do their jobs. Director Chiu said that he thought the Commission and the Department needed to continue to talk about what kind of training is needed for the Housing Inspectors. Director Chiu said that he felt that Commissioner Guinnane had a bigger issue that is also a concern to him, that there is duplication of tasks between the Housing and Building Inspectors. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to work with Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson and Commissioner Guinnane to look into detail as to how the tasks could be restructured, and also if they do those tasks that they are qualified. Director Chiu said the other issue of changing the MQ for Housing Inspectors would take more time as this will involve a meet and confer issue; anytime the minimum qualifications are changed for any class the Department needs to work with DHR and the Unions need to be appropriately notified. Director Chiu said that he thought this could be proceeded with, if that is the wish of the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane said that he has been talking about this for the past seven months. Commissioner Guinnane stated that at one meeting Housing Inspector John Kerley came before the Commission and answered some questions. Commissioner Guinnane said he had asked Mr. Kerley about an apartment house at the bottom of Clipper Street where all the wood stairs and the decks were completely rotten. Commissioner Guinnane said that previous inspections had been made on that building, and all of that fungus and dry rot did not happen over a period of three of four years, yet all of the inspectors were going out there and passing it and signing it off. Commissioner Guinnane said that John Kerley happened to come into the Housing Division and because he worked outside in the building trade he was capable of seeing the problems. Commissioner Guinnane said that only for Mr. Kerley this would not have been identified and the thing would have collapsed, and this is what his issue is; the other inspectors were not qualified. Vice-President Hood said that she noticed in the Los Angeles comparison that their minimum requirements for a Housing Inspector at entry level is four years of full-time paid journeyman level carpentry or masonry, in other words real field experience. Vice-President Hood said that she agrees that the Department seems to have had some problems in this area and stated she would like the Department to look into changing the MQ. Vice-President Hood said she realizes this is very complicated and in the past an effort was made to combine all of the inspectors and there was some major problems with that. Vice-President Hood said that there is such a long tradition in labor contracts that follow these classifications and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make changes. Vice-President Hood said she would like the Housing Inspectors to at least have the knowledge to know when to call in a Building Inspector. Commissioner Guinnane said that the bulk of the Housing Inspectors are coming from the Health Department and none of them have any experience in the trades at all. Commissioner Guinnane said that this is the problem and yet, the salaries are compatible. Vice-President Hood said that the salaries are equal. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is something wrong with the way it is set up and a change has to be made. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission could not do anything about that because this was set through labor negotiations. Commissioner Guinnane said that the salaries could be left alone, but the qualifications could be changed and said he felt that the Commission needs to get on this immediately. Commissioner Guinnane said that this has been dragging on for seven or eight months and nothing has happened. Director Chiu said that if this were the direction the Commission wants him to proceed with, he would be happy to start with changing the MQ and begin working with DHR. Commissioner Guinnane said that DHR appeared before the Commission some four months ago and nothing happened then. Commissioner Walker said that this item needed to be agendized rather than making a determination at the meeting, as it was not agendized for action. Commissioner Walker said that this should be put on the next agenda to vote on whether to open up the process and to get input from people. Vice-President Hood said that in the meantime Director Chiu could look into the aspects of changing the MQ. Commissioner Walker said that Director Chiu could find out what are the requirements for changing the MQ and how it is done. Commissioner Walker said there should be input from the public. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the Commission is going to do this and go through a long, lengthy process, he thought that the Commission should be looking at putting some kind of a freeze in the Housing Division before bringing on any more inspectors, especially if they are going to come from the public health section. Commissioner Walker said that this could be added to the agenda item.

Joe O’Donoghue said that this issue is not just seven months old, but is years old. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that Commissioner Denise D’Anne would understand from Civil Service Rules that the Department does not have to go to HRC, or whatever you call them, to heck with those guys they don’t know what they are doing. Mr. O’Donoghue said that DBI could change the classification and the qualifications of its hiring practices and that was supposed to have been done when the Commission was formed years ago. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the original genesis of Housing Inspectors was that they all came from the Public Health Department. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Commissioner Guinnane was right in saying that these inspectors did not have a clue about what even a 2X4 or a 2X6 looked like. Mr. O’Donoghue said that there are deteriorations in buildings and property owners pay a fee and deserve the right of a decent inspection. Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is incumbent upon this Commission to finally get the horse or the train rolling on this issue. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission needs to change the qualifications because people are brought in who are totally inexperienced. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the infusion of people from the industry who are now over in Housing has been a benefit to other inspectors, even though there was resistance to their hiring. Mr. O’Donoghue said that inspectors were being hired with either a degree from Berkeley or right from the Health Department. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission could make these changes; it is in their power to do it, and it is time to get this going. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he agreed with Commissioner Walker that this item be agendized and would also agree with calling for a hiring freeze. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he lived in a building in the Marina, prior to the earthquake, that had an upper unit with an in-law down below and a support beam had moved. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he happened to catch the problem just previous to the earthquake when he was putting out the garbage, and but for that the whole upper portion of the building that was an extension would have come down. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the owner was a conscientious landlord and not a scofflaw. Mr. O’Donoghue said that some people legitimately don’t know how to recognize these problems and if the Department does an inspection, the owner feels that everything is clear.

Commissioner D’Anne said that she wanted to know, as an ordinary citizen, what is the distinction between a Housing Inspector and a Building Inspector, as it seems to her that they would require the same qualifications. Vice-President Hood said that her basic understanding is that Housing Inspectors know far less technical information. The Building Inspectors have a great list of information that they have to become familiar with to enforce the Building Code and the Housing Code covers things that are less technical like whether or not there is heat in the building. Vice-President Hood said that the Building Code covers how the heating system is installed, so it is more technical. Vice-President Hood said that there are some overlaps, but it is much easier to get qualified as a Housing Inspector than as a Building Inspector. Vice-President Hood asked if Director Chiu could add to her explanation. Director Chiu said that Vice-President Hood was on the right track and basically the difference between a Housing Inspector and a Building Inspector is that the Building Inspector generally does follow-up with permitted work. For example, if someone wanted to do a remodeling project or a brand new building the Building Inspector is responsible to follow-up and make sure that the entire construction meets all of the various codes. Director Chiu said that the Housing Inspector’s primary responsibility is to enforce the Housing Code and make sure that existing apartments and hotels are properly maintained. Director Chiu said that the Housing Inspectors enforce more of a maintenance issue rather than actual construction issues, so there are some large differences as to their expertise. Director Chiu said that he agreed with Commissioner Guinnane that DBI needed to work hard to make sure that the Housing Inspectors that are out there doing the work are qualified and that there is a proper MQ to go along with that. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to work with the Commission to make the proposed changes.

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

There was no public comment.

5. Report on DBI’s latest revenue results. [Taras Madison, Administration & Finance Manager]

Ms. Madison stated that the Commission package contained a revenue report for the first six months of the current fiscal year, which goes through December. Ms. Madison said that the first few pages showed the monthly revenues to date thru December, the next pages showed the actual and the last pages showed the budget versus the actual. Ms. Madison said that the last pages would give the Commissioners a better understanding of where the Department stands as the revenue relates to the budget. Ms. Madison said that overall the budget for this year is about $30.8M and the Department has already collected about $19M. Ms. Madison said that the bulk of that is for two types of revenues; the building permits are budgeted at $12.4M and already through December $9M has been collected. The second largest revenue that is collected is the Plan Checking fee and that was budgeted at $6.4M with $5M being collected through December. Ms. Madison said that the budget and revenue is right on track and DBI will probably exceed the budgeted revenue, as the Department has done over the past three or four fiscal years. Ms. Madison stated that this is because the Department is collecting more in building permits. Ms. Madison stated that this year looked a little different as usually during the wintertime, due to weather, things are slower, but this year fiscal year the Department has already collected $2M in November. Ms. Madison said that this could be attributed to the fact that there has not been much rain and more work could be done. Commissioner Guinnane asked Ms. Madison what impact she thought the moratorium would have on the income as it is on for six months and may be on for a longer period of time. Ms. Madison said that she felt there would be some impact, but on the other hand, in looking at the report there are some revenues that have not yet been collected, such as apartment license fees in the amount of $2M that DBI will receive; to date only $1,900 has been received. Ms. Madison said that even if the Department slows up at this time, so much has been collected to date, before the moratorium, that she feels the Department will still meet or exceed the expected revenue projections. Commissioner Guinnane said that the department house fees stay pretty steady and come to the Department in two installments from the Assessors Office. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was concerned about overtime and revenue in the future. Assistant Director Amy Lee stated that projections are straight line and the Department will probably be under the projected amount that the Department receives, as it is likely that it is slowing down now since everyone pushed the permits out in the prior months. Ms. Lee said that in looking at building permits the actual shows 9,000 through 12/31 and there is a projection of an additional 9,000, but most likely that additional 9,000 will not come through. Ms. Lee said that for Ms. Madison and her staff does a straight-line projection. Ms Madison said that the permits will slow up, but because DBI has collected so much in the beginning months and given that other revenues that the Department is banking on have not come in yet, overall the projections should balance out. Commissioner Guinnane asked how the Department handles part time help if there is a slowdown in the industry, and if there is a problem with laying off part time help as opposed to full time help. Ms. Madison said that the Department has temporary salaries for this purpose. For instance, in the Electrical Department if there is a very busy time, some retired people come in and help. Ms. Lee said that when staff is hired as temporary, the Personnel Officer lets them know in the very beginning that if they accept a position, it is on a temporary, as needed basis so that it is not unfair to either party. Commissioner Guinnane said that his biggest concern is with revenue and the money that the Department actually has in the fund and looking at the big extension that is being proposed. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the future, he did not feel that DBI needed this extension for the amount of money that it is going to cost. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he felt there was going to be a real short fall in revenue in this Department. Ms. Lee said that if not this year, then probably next year, as construction and inflation trends do not affect the Department until a year or two after. Ms. Lee said that right now revenues look healthy, but the Department might want to be a little cautious. Ms. Madison stated that the projection was just for this fiscal year, and previously in talking about the budget she stated that the Department has been more conservative. Ms. Madison said that things like Mission Bay were taken into consideration when doing the budget.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that Commissioner Roy Guinnane was correct, as there definitely will be a slow down and the Department needs to do its projections, not into next year, but into the next two to four years. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that what happens in terms of revenue collections, DBI has to look back into what is in the pipeline and this determines what is going to be collected in the future. Mr. O’Donoghue said that what is in the pipeline as far as framed construction is practically down to zero and it is not that the moratorium has impacted it, but two years ago the Residential Builders did projections and saw the cost of land rising in this City because of the commercial needs. Mr. O’Donoghue said for this reason the builders were already over in Oakland with plan submittals and most of the members were out of the ground there, three and more stories up. Mr. O’Donoghue said that building is popping up around Jack London Square like railroad tracks and the builders are already into West Oakland. Mr. O’Donoghue said that for Oakland that is beneficial, but for this City it is detrimental. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department needs to make sure that it is collecting all of the fees for Mission Bay because he said that he did not know if non-profits, who don’t pay school fees, who don’t pay school taxes, who don’t pay property taxes, pay any permit fees. Mr. O’Donoghue said that years ago they did not, and he raised holy dickens about it and wants to insure that while Mission Bay will be generating a certain amount of revenue coming in, projections beyond that are going to be severely limited. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he could assure that the six months moratorium, which will probably run into eighteen, will stop investors from the outside from putting any money into new property in the City other than to buy old buildings and remodel them. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Residential Builders are telling their members to go out to the Avenues and buy single family homes and don’t do massive expansions on them. Mr. O’Donoghue said that one of the members just brought four single family homes will paint them, put in kitchen cabinets and just hold them as the whole demand is shifting. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the industry has gone away from new buildings, because developers will not be coming in as the uncertainty does that. Mr. O’Donoghue said that for the Residential Builders this is fine because it gives them guaranteed sales for what is presently on the build out and this is causing a limited supply. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Department definitely needs to do a four-year projection and not a one nor two year projection.

6. Update on Litigation Committee meeting. [Commissioner’s Guinnane, Santos & Walker]

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to let Commissioner’s Guinnane, Santos and Walker know that the Commission deeply appreciates their work on this Committee, as it is very important to the goals of the Commission. Commissioner Santos said that it has been quite an education in working with Commission Guinnane as he has a great deal of experience in litigation. Commissioner Santos said that Commissioner Guinnane has managed to pin down projects that the Committee thinks will generate revenue for the City. Commissioner Santos stated that there are a significant number of cases and the meetings last about three hours as the Committee goes through every single case, but Commissioner Guinnane is able to put the right energy on the right projects. Commissioner Guinnane thanked Commission Santos for his comments. Commissioner Walker said that this issue is quite amazing and the more the Committee looks at the cases, the more seriously the people out there will take it. Commissioner Walker said that this would hopefully have the same affect as publicizing the scofflaws. Commissioner Walker said that there a lot of projects and cases that have been allowed to just dangle out there and stated that it is good to focus on bringing these to closure and pursuing them. Commissioner Walker said that it is a very worthwhile project for the Department as she felt a lot of these cases would come to closure. Vice-President Hood stated that she felt it was important to have Commissioners looking at what the City Attorney’s Office is doing because they see so many cases and the Commissioners focus on DBI cases with fresher eyes and a determination to see these cases put to rest. Commissioner Walker said that it is the case in a number of these situations where the building owner has consistently been violating, all of the processes have been carried out and they still don’t do anything. Commissioner Walkers said that some of these cases have been sitting for several years with the building in the same state and the owners have not paid anything and nobody was doing anything about it. Commissioner Walker said that Commissioner Guinnane has been very good about guiding the process.

7. Update from MIS on progress of online permitting and complaint tracking. [Marcus Armstrong, Management & Information Systems Manager]

Marcus Armstrong introduced himself as the IT Manager for the Department of Building Inspection. Mr. Armstrong stated that Director Chiu invited him to the meeting to provide an update on the online permit module that the Department has been working on for the past few months. Mr. Armstrong said that this is a joint effort by DBI, a firm by the name of BAI (Bay Area Information Consortium), DTIS and the Treasurer’s Office. Mr. Armstrong said that there is a projected launch date of mid-May that would include the non-discretionary building permit module, which is something that was not anticipated for this year, but a project plan has been developed to hit this target date. Mr. Armstrong said that the scope of the project has been expanded to include permit query 3-R reports, which was something that it was discovered, would be a real benefit to the real estate professionals in the City. Mr. Armstrong stated that the Department is also going to make sure that it can take in complaints and said that the back office procedure still had to be worked out, but technically up front to take in a complaint is fine, but to answer the complaint, procedures that involve people and process have to be worked out. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI has entered the second month of BETA testing of the electrical and plumbing modules and they have been working. Mr. Armstrong said that to date about fifty permits have been issued through those portals and they are working fine from intake online to the follow-up inspection in the field. Mr. Armstrong said that one of the things that has plagued this project is real time updates of the database, unlike the models in other municipalities where it is a batch process which seems to him to be ridiculous as customers expect instant service, instant gratification and want to be able to pay money, get their permit and go and do the work. Mr. Armstrong said that in other jurisdictions the system is set up where the customer applies online and then through a batch process, two or three days later receives a call that they can now come in and pick up the permit or it is e-mailed. Mr. Armstrong stated that this defeats the purpose and said that DBI’s process will allow for real time updates to the database where once the information is entered online and a fee is collected the permit is issued and the database is populated; updated reports can then be produced to show the status of the permit, a permit query or if the property has complaints against it. Mr. Armstrong said the target date of mid-May is well within sight. Vice-President Hood asked if there could be drawings with the permit applications. Mr. Armstrong said that no, it would be non-discretionary building permits, permits that don’t require plans such as reproofing permits. Mr. Armstrong stated that one of the things that has been the main figure is how to calculate fees, as most developers want to go out and reinvent the wheel to develop their own fee calculation module. Mr. Armstrong said he has insisted that the current fee schedule is used, as it works and the Department collects money. Mr. Armstrong said that all DBI needs to provide online is a bridge to that module and to use it as the calculator versus rebuilding a cash register online Mr. Armstrong said that this has saved about three months of development time. Vice-President Hood said that she was glad to see this first step completed. Mr. Armstrong said that he wanted to announce that the newly designed web page is online and there is a disabled access module which is a text only of the existing site; this allows for persons who have visual impairment issues to use browser readers to view the web page and get information. Mr. Armstrong said that the Department is waiting for approval from DTIS to launch this program. Vice-President Hood asked for the website address. Mr. Armstrong said that the quickest way to get there is to go to Sfgov.org/DBI. Commissioner Walker said that this is great, as it will make information about complaints and permitting accessible. Commissioner Walker stated that there has been a lot of focus in the Litigation Committee on assessments and it was somewhat difficult to access totals from the various different old computer systems. Commissioner Walker asked if the system were keeping track of someone who has a violation and there is an assessment against the property, and also if it were possible to keep track of a situation where Planning assessed a housing or transit fee. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a way to put that on the project as the Department has lost a lot of income and track of that information from both Planning and DBI and it would be great to just have it incorporated into the whole package. Mr. Armstrong asked if Commissioner Walker was talking about online or in house. Commissioner Walker said that it would probably be in house as it does not need to be public, but everything should be. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a way to incorporate this data into the DBI system. Mr. Armstrong said that if DBI captures that data it is already incorporated into the system and if DBI collects fees for Planning, for instance, DBI does not in its fee calculation module break down that particular fee item and delineate what each portion of those fees goes to. Commissioner Walker asked if this could be done. Mr. Armstrong said no, as it is simply information that is received from Planning in the form of a fee schedule and that is pretty much a flat number based on a valuation. Mr. Armstrong said that Planning’s back office accounting breaks this number down and they populate whatever accounts they need to through whatever account codes they use. Mr. Armstrong said that if DBI captures that information, if a criterion is outlined, DBI could run reports to provide that information. Mr. Armstrong said that as far as reporting it on the front end of the PTIS module, he was not sure of the benefit if there is a fee that has to be collected and that fee encompasses all of the sub categories of it. Mr. Armstrong said that getting folks in and out of a line is enough. Assistant Director Amy Lee said that the information that Commissioner Walker is looking for is captured in the City system, which is a sub object. Ms. Lee said that in looking at the revenue reports, the detailed report will show sub objects that may be an assessment of fines and some of this information is captured in an assessment of costs. Commissioner Walker said that she knows that it is Planning that does this, but hopefully DBI and Planning are using the same system. Commissioner Walker said that there have been situations where the Department has lost lots of affordable housing money or transit money and it hasn’t been collected. Director Chiu said that he felt that Commissioner Walker was not talking about a lump sum total fine, but a lump sum total of the penalty for individual cases. Director Chiu said that he would suggest that Mr. Armstrong should look into the fact that the City is working on a GIS system that is supposed to include the various agencies from the entire City. Director Chiu said that he recently had dinner with the Director of Public Works, Ed Lee, and he was talking about looking for some funding to make this GIS process be completed on a faster pace. Director Chiu said that once this system were up and running, anybody, whether it be Planning, Public Works, Fire or DBI could all go into the property profile and enter data; then someone could go into the property address and get the information from all of the City agencies. Director Chiu said that Mr. Armstrong should talk to DPW people to see what the status of that program is and see if DBI could do anything to help the process get completed. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI participated for about four years in the GIS project and the bulk of their data is received from DBI every Thursday. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI has contributed over $50,000 to that development project, which has gone through several different management changes and also different directions. Mr. Armstrong stated that the reason it has moved towards the bulk of the data coming from DBI is because at some point DBI filters out bad addresses and such, and actually add more records to the Assessor’s information, which is what it was primarily based on. Mr. Armstrong said that those records have proven to be pretty outdated and don’t get updated as frequently as DBI updates its records. Commissioner Walker said that the Litigation Committee ran into this problem where it sometimes took a year to get notified if somebody settled, so this works for the Commission and the Department to actually have an integrated system. Mr. Armstrong said that on a case-by-case basis, if that type of reporting is needed, that would not be problem as the information is captured in the database and reports could be run.

8. 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.

a. Letter dated February 24, 2001from Sue C. Hestor to Director Frank Chiu regarding 20000420774S - 175 Russ Street and 200004207751S/Demand for reinstatement of permit suspense.

b. Letter dated February 26, 2001 to Sue C. Hestor from Richard A. Rovetti in response to letter described in 8a.

c. Letters of commendation received from the public regarding DBI employees and Director Chiu’s letters of response to the public.

d. DBI Newsletter.

Vice-President Hood said that she would like to deal with items 8a and 8b together as they seem to be related. Commissioner D’Anne said that in the letter of February 24^th it mentions that Mr. Rovetti is a public relations person and Commissioner D’Anne said that she did not see the connection and wondered if this was a proper role for a public relations person. Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that a public member requested the permit status of this particular address that had two or three permit applications involved. Director Chiu said that as a result of a miscommunication between Mr. Rovetti and clerical staff doing input, an application was inadvertently reinstated; however, on the same day Mr. Rovetti realized that there was a mistake and all of the applications were reinstated. Director Chiu said that there was some mistake made whether it was a clerical error or just miscommunication, but to respond to Commissioner D’Anne’s question about Mr. Rovetti’s role in reinstating a permit, it is not his responsibility to reinstate permits, but he was following up with a public members request on a particular project and somehow there was a mistake in suspending one permit. Director Chiu stated that there was a clerical error made in suspending all three permits, as only two permits were supposed to be suspended; Mr. Rovetti’s role was to clarify and make sure that somebody updated the record correctly, but as a result of miscommunication the clerical person went ahead and reinstated all three permits rather than just one. Director Chiu said that Mr. Rovetti was the person who found the problem and corrected it himself.

Ms. Sue Hestor stated that these permits were not suspended by DBI; they were suspended by the Board of Appeals. Ms. Hestor said that there was a hearing on Wednesday and there were three permits that were suspended. Ms. Hestor said that there were two different appeals to the Board of Appeals; there were two construction permits and a demolition permit. Ms. Hestor said that one of the parties filed appeals on all three permits and there were three permits that were suspended by the Board of Appeals. Ms. Hestor said that she, on behalf of her clients, only appealed the two construction permits. Ms. Hestor said that there is a ten day request from a hearing period which runs until the following Monday, and there is no way that it was appropriate to unsuspend those permits two days after the first hearing at the Board of Appeals. Ms. Hestor said that she questioned whether anyone in DBI has the right to unsuspend a permit while there is jurisdiction at the Board of Appeals. Ms. Hestor said that this jurisdiction belongs to the Board of Appeals. Ms. Hestor asked who has power to unsuspend permits and said that she was troubled by the response that she got from Mr. Rovetti. Ms. Hestor said that she got an incredibly cursory response with no paper trail of how he came to suspend the permit. Ms. Hestor said she asked for any communications that Mr. Rovetti had, whether e-mails or voice mail messages, and said that she asked how his action was triggered, but got no response. Ms. Hestor said that this is still a closed box. Ms. Hestor asked if Mr. Rovetti just wandered up to a computer and unsuspended a permit. Ms. Hestor asked who requested this and stated that she had a right to know. Ms. Hestor asked what were the grounds for requesting this action. Ms. Hestor stated that no one should be unsuspending permits that are done by the Board of Appeals, as they are a body that is superior to this body. Ms. Hestor said that the clerks that work for DBI have no authority; even the Commission has no authority, as the Board of Appeals is over everybody when an appeal is taken to that Board. Ms. Hestor said that this is under the Charter and the Board of Appeals is a court of this City, a quasi-judicial agency that has jurisdiction over all permits. Ms. Hestor said that until their jurisdiction is over, no one has the legal ability to undo a permit suspense and this is not the first time that she has run into this with a live/work project. Ms. Hestor said that there was one a couple months ago where an attorney went to staff and demanded that the suspense be lifted because she thought that the process was going too slow at the Board of Appeals. Ms. Hestor said that this was at the time that the Director of Permit Appeals was out because he had a heart attack, and there was a very short staff as there was another person who had an injury, and they were backlogged. Ms. Hestor said that someone went to DBI staff and asked for a permit to be unsuspended. Ms. Hestor said this was like doing an end run on the judge and stated that she did not understand how the hell this happened. Ms. Hestor said that she did not consider Mr. Rovetti’s response to be helpful and finds that he is ducking the issue. Ms. Hestor said that she wanted to know if there is a bulletin that says who might lift a suspense. Ms. Hestor said if there is no bulletin, there should be one, and if there is one she wanted it as she is flabbergasted by this situation. Ms. Hestor said that it was totally wrong that the demolition permit was not appealed to the Board of Appeals as she has the agenda for that and there were three items, three case numbers at the Board of Appeals for the appeal by the neighbor. Ms. Hestor said one of those appeals was for the demolition permit and Mr. Rovetti incorrectly continued the lifting of the suspense.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that it was nice to get a lecture on the process of the Board of Appeals, but said that this was a clerical error. Mr. O’Donoghue said that assuming the clerical error went unnoticed, the Commission should look at the reality of could that builder have gone out and put that building up or would he have done it to begin with, obviously not; secondly, Mr. O’Donoghue said if the builder did do it he would have been stopped immediately because Ms. Hestor is right in saying that two of those permits were still under appeal. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the reality is that there was a clerical error somewhere in the Department and the next thing that happened is that on the demolition permit that was not appealed, contrary to what Ms. Hestor states it had never been appealed and should not have been put in suspension, in the process of the applicant wanting to go ahead and demolish the building he found out that his demolition permit was in suspension. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the person who Ms. Hestor talks about had removed the appeal on the building permits themselves, but the demolition permit had never been suspended and in the process of unsuspending the demolition permit, two other permits were incorrectly unsuspended by some clerk hitting the improper keys on a computer. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Ms. Hestor makes a mountain out of a molehill. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Commissioner D’Anne’s question about this being a function of Mr. Rovetti could be answered in that Mr. Rovetti’s role is muti-faceted. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Rovetti’s predecessor was David Serrano-Sewell whose role was being a Department troubleshooter. Mr. Rovetti’s function is also that of a troubleshooter and for lack of a better title is known as a public relations person. Mr. O’Donoghue said that if Mr. Rovetti was called a troubleshooter in this City someone would take the wrong meaning and the Department would be prosecuted about it. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Rovetti is a withal and every all and does every kind of job in the Department and has the function to do these things. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Rovetti checked out the complaint and now is being scorched for having done, or attempting to do his job. Mr. O’Donoghue said that maybe Mr. Rovetti doesn’t have the articulation of Ms. Hestor in terms of writing letters because he doesn’t get paid that much for it and if got paid as much as her maybe he could up his articulation. Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.

Commissioner Walker said that maybe it would be a good idea to look at defining the procedure within DBI around this issue. Vice-President Hood said that DBI knows very well that once the Board of Permit Appeals makes a ruling that this is enforced. Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that there was any question about this. Vice-President Hood said that her experience is that this is an unusual situation and stated that Mr. Rovetti had written a letter of apology, saying that he apologized on behalf of the Department. Commissioner Santos said that he agreed that this was an isolated condition as he has worked with Mr. Rovetti. Vice-President Hood said that this error was corrected within 48 hours. Commissioner Santos said that he believed this was a case of no good deed ever goes unpunished as Mr. Rovetti wanted to reinstate a case that was not appealed and that was the demolition permit and accidentally he triggered the unsuspension of the two other permits. Commissioner Santos said that he thought that it was ridiculous to consider this situation to be some sort of a conspiracy.

Commissioner D’Anne said that in one of the letters in item 8c there were some problems outlined and she wondered if there had been any progress in remedying the problem. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner D’Anne was speaking about the Park Merced project and stated that management had obtained permits and were proceeding. Director Chiu said that 8c were the letters of commendation received by staff members. Vice-President Hood asked Commissioner D’Anne which correspondence she was referring to. Commissioner D’Anne said that she was asking about the letter concerning the property at 2041 Pierce Street and wondered if the problem had been resolved. Commissioner D’Anne said that she could see where the inspectors went to the property and were being commended for responding, but again asked if the items had been remedied. Director Chiu apologized saying that he now understood what Commissioner D’Anne was asking about. Vice-President Hood said that there was a letter from Mr. Costello thanking and commending field inspectors Donal Duffy and Tina Louie for their response. Commissioner D’Anne said she could see where they responded and that is very commendable, but still wanted to know if the owner of the property had remedied the problems that were outlined, as it did not appear that anything was done except that the inspectors did go out. Vice-President Hood said that the owner was issued a fifteen-day citation and the Department could provide a follow-up report. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to give a report at the next meeting about this property.

There was no public comment.

9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Budget & Organization Committee of January 23, 2001. [Commissioners Fillon, Hood & Marks]

At this time there was no quorum of the Commissioners who had attended the meeting, so no vote could be taken. This item was continued.

10. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Budget & Organization Committee of January 29, 2001. [Commissioners Fillon, Hood & Marks]

At this time there was no quorum of the Commissioners who had attended the meeting, so no vote could be taken. This item was continued.

11. Review and approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission of February 21, 2001. [Commissioners Guinnane, Santos & Walker]

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commission Santos, that the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-01-01

12. 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.

Commissioner Walker said that in light of the earthquake in Seattle she wondered if the Department had sent somebody up to assess Seattle’s procedures and evaluate San Francisco’s procedures in comparison to theirs, as Seattle seems to have weathered the earthquake pretty well. Director Chiu said that normally the Department sends staff if the jurisdiction requests DBI to help and assist in their assessment, but at this point there has been no request from Seattle. Director Chiu said that if San Francisco had a major earthquake like the one in Seattle normally what happens, if the Department cannot handle the situation within their own resources, the City would call out to neighboring building departments such as Oakland, San Jose or even Los Angeles. Director Chiu stated that when Los Angeles had an earthquake a few years ago they made a request to San Francisco as they needed staff to help out; in this case, Seattle is in Washington State and Director Chiu said that if they really needed help the first thing they would do would be to call within their community or the surrounding jurisdictions, or even Oregon before they would call San Francisco. Director Chiu said that San Francisco did belong to the International Conference of Building Officials, which is an umbrella for all building officials, and they would make an announcement if Seattle needed help. Director Chiu said that there are still lots of projects here at DBI to plan check and projects to inspect, therefore, he did not want to send staff without the proper request and felt that sending someone would be premature at this point. Commissioner Walker said that she was asking about this as a opportunity more for San Francisco and DBI’s benefit. Vice-President Hood stated that a few years ago the Commission to prepared a new emergency response effort and Commissioners Guinnane and former Commissioner Freeman worked on it. As a result the Department got an emergency generator on the roof, so that the computer systems stayed up and running, and there were policies set about employees taking home cars in emergency situations. Vice-President Hood said that there was a whole emergency response plan and maybe that should be agendized at some future meeting to bring the other Commissioners up to date on thinking about that. Director Chiu said that it is always a good idea to send people for training, but at the same time it is beneficial to look at other areas as well. Director Chiu said that the Department was able to look at videotapes of the Japan earthquake to see what damage was done and how to learn from it. Director Chiu said that he did not feel that the Department needed to send people to Seattle yet, but said that there would probably be an opportunity to learn from this earthquake. Director Chiu stated that recently staff was trained on earthquake preparedness, not because of Seattle, but to properly train all employees that work for DBI. Director Chiu said that he was looking forward to learning from what happened in Seattle. Vice-President Hood said that one of the ways that the loop does get closed with earthquakes is that structural engineers from all over will travel to the earthquake area to take videos and come back to their own areas to share information. Vice-President Hood said that this helps to change the Code at the International Conference of Building Officials and that is what ratchets up the Code to make it more and more demanding. Vice-President Hood said that after each quake the engineers learn new things, and there were some major changes made as a result of the earthquake in KOBE, such as how steel is connected in the library in San Francisco; San Francisco spent an additional $17M because it had to retrofit all of the steel connections as a result of the KOBE quake. Vice-President Hood said that there is this loop of information that is shared, but it comes mostly from structural engineers and through Code changes. Commissioner Santos said that in the new Code that was adopted there is a 34% increase in the lateral forces than there used to be and the new Codes are pushing the envelope of conventional timber frame construction. Director Chiu said that the Department is going to be having ongoing ATC training on how to assess buildings in the event of an emergency and said that any Commissioner that would be interested in going to the training should let the Department know. Deputy Director Amy Lee stated that the earthquake training that the Department had recently was very successful and the Department is going to try and have the NERT Training, which is a six part series of training, to come onsite to DBI and train the staff. Vice-President Hood asked if Ms. Lee could let the Commissioners know when that training was going to take place. Director Chiu said that the Commissioners could be deputized in the event of an earthquake to help do earthquake assessment.

Commissioner D’Anne said that she would like to request from Director Chiu, a list of the number of Special Assistants in the Department, their classifications, qualifications and salaries. Commissioner D’Anne said that she would also like to know for what period of time the services of these Special Assistants would be needed. Commissioner D’Anne said that she wanted to go back to item #5 about the overtime budget. Vice-President Hood said that Commissioner D’Anne could bring that up as something she wanted to have on a future agenda under Item 12B.

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 Guinnane said that he had five items to be considered for future agendas. Commissioner Guinnane said that one carried over from the last meeting that was part of Boardman Place. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to look into the engineering special inspections for the Department and wanted to see the engineer that actually designs the job, either he or somebody from the firm, come out to do that required special inspection. Vice-President Hood asked why Commissioner Guinnane wanted this, as then there would not be an independent engineer who would make that inspection. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought there were a lot more problems at Boardman Place that is coming out. Director Chiu asked Commissioner Guinnane if he was suggesting that in addition to whatever the code requires for special inspectors or special inspections, the code should be changed so that the design professional, whether it is an engineer or an architect, be required to do the special inspection report as well. Commissioner Guinnane said that this is what he wanted as the design professional knows his own drawing. Vice-President Hood said that if the same person who designs a project goes out and does the special inspections the problems with that would be that they would overlook the deficiencies of the design, as they do not want to catch themselves doing wrong. Vice-President Hood said that if an independent inspector goes out, then that inspector is on the line liability-wise to find the errors. Commissioner Guinnane said that the engineer is going out to inspect the contractor’s work to make sure it is done in compliance with his drawings, not to check himself, but to check the compliance of the actual drawing that was approved. Commissioner Walker said that this item should be agendized.

Commissioner Guinnane said he also wanted to agendized Housing Inspector qualifications and changing the classification. Commissioner Guinnane said he wanted to discuss putting a freeze on that Division until something gets resolved and wanted to know how many inspectors in that Division have come from the Public Health Department. Vice-President Hood said that another way of putting that would be to look at the sources of the Housing Inspectors, as they may have come from a number of Departments. Vice-President Hood said that she did not want it to look like the Commission had it in for the Health Department.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to look into a comment that was made by a public member about revenue and non-profits not paying certain fees and asked what were the exemptions. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Guinnane wanted to know about all fees, even fees not paid to DBI. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to know about any fees that are paid or not paid that are associated with permits.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in going back to income, he would like to see a four-year projection on the income instead of year to year.

Commissioner D’Anne said that she was looking at the overtime and in light of the moratorium wanted to know if it was going to have any affect on the overtime budget. Commissioner D’Anne said that she wanted to discuss ways to reduce the overtime budget. Vice-President Hood said that some of the overtime has gone on because there has been a tremendous building surge, not just in lofts, but overall in the City especially because of the boom in the economy. Vice-President Hood said that she was sure many people would be glad not to work so much overtime. Assistant Director Amy Lee said that she wanted to comment on the overtime issue and said that in the past couple of years the Department has asked if the Controller’s Office could redefine how the Department defines overtime. Ms. Lee said that with DBI a lot of times overtime is generated by customers asking for off-hour inspections after five o’clock. Ms. Lee said that even if the Department could stagnate staff to work say 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. it is still counted as overtime from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Vice-President Hood asked if Ms. Lee could break this down so the Commission could see what is really overtime and what is a public service. Ms. Lee said that there is substantial off-hour revenues associated with the overtime expenditures. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to discuss how the overtime is allocated and which employees get it, as there seems to be very little overtime for electrical and plumbing, it is mainly building. Vice-President Hood said that the agenda is getting very full.

Commissioner Walker asked for clarification of when the Unlawful Demolition Committee meeting was going to be held. Secretary Ann Aherne announced that the Unlawful Demolition meeting was going to be on Tuesday, April 17^th in City Hall, Room 408 from 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Walker said that the Committee is Vice-President Hood, Commissioner Santos and herself and asked if the other Commissioners could attend. Vice-President Hood said that they could come just as members of the public. Commissioner Walker said that the other Commissioners could not participate.

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

There was no public comment.

14. Adjournment.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the meeting be adjourned.

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-020-01

The meeting was adjourned at 2:55p.m.

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Update on fire at Park Merced carport; permits issued, etc. - Public member, Mr. Pender	Pages 5
City Attorney’s Office to advise on legal issues associated with Supervisors Ammiano’s request for a report on the feasibility of establishing a program to broadcast the names of large landlords and information related to their unabated code violations on the City’s government channel - Commissioner Guinnane	Pages 5 - 7
Update on changing the Minimum Qualifications, the possibility of imposing a hiring freeze and the sources of Housing Inspectors that have been hired. - Vice-President Hood and Commissioner Guinnane	Pages 7 - 10 & Page 21
Update on action taken at 2041 Pierce Street - Commissioner D’Anne	Page18
List of number of Special Assistants in the Department, their classifications, qualifications and salaries. - Commissioner D’Anne	Page 20
Possibility of requiring special inspections of a project to be performed by original design professional. - Commissioner Guinnane	Page 20
Report on what fees are paid by non-profits and what fees they are exempt from. - Commissioner Guinnane	Page 21
Four-year income projection. - Commissioner Guinnane	Page 21
Report on overtime, its affect on the budget and how it is allocated - Commissioner D’Anne and Commissioner Guinnane	Page 21