Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

REGULAR MEETING
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 400
July 19, 2004
Adopted September 20, 2004

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by President Santos.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

2. President's Announcements.

Secretary Aherne read out the various vacancies on the Committees and Commissions appointed by the Building Inspection Commission. President Santos and Commissioner Fillon agreed to be on a Committee to recommend appointments to the various boards. All of the Commissioners and the public were asked to help in the recruitment of members to serve on these committees.

President Santos asked the new Commissioners on the Board to introduce themselves. Commissioner Philip Ting said that he was currently the Executive Director of the Asian Law Caucus, which is a civil rights organization in San Francisco. Commissioner Ting said that prior to that he worked in the Real Estate industry both as a Real Estate Management Consultant as well as an investor for a pension fund advisory firm. Mr. Ting stated that he hoped that expertise and knowledge would come in handy on this Commission.

Commissioner Criss Romero stated that the President of the Board of Supervisors Matt Gonzalez appointed him to the BIC. Commissioner Romero said that he was a labor representative at IFPTE Local 21and also worked for SEIU and other unions. Commissioner Romero said that he hoped this would be a good learning experience for him and said that he needed to find out a little bit more about the various committees on the Commission and then would be happy to serve.

President Santos said that he would give Commissioner Hanrahan the opportunity to introduce herself at the next meeting.

President Santos said that it had recently been brought to his attention during meetings of the BIC by the concerned public and some Commissioners that there is a pervasive feeling that some members of the Engineering staff of DBI might be passing over several important steps and overlooking details in the plan checking process regarding vertical additions for residential structures. President Santos said that he had taken the initiative to devise and propose new guidelines for the Engineering staff to follow during this Plan Checking process. President Santos stated that the guidelines would be created with the full cooperation and input of Engineering Management at DBI as well as the San Francisco Engineering community as a whole. President Santos said that it was his intent that these guidelines would be easy to implement and said that he did not seek to burden the Engineers with a new level of bureaucracy, but wanted to oversee the formulation of directives that would facilitate and expedite the permit approval process. President Santos said that the Engineering staff would review his proposal prior to implementation and Engineers would have his assistance regarding peer review. President Santos said that Commissioner Guinnane had helped him with these guidelines. Commissioner Romero asked if President Santos had copies of the guidelines. President Santos answered that they were in the process of being developed so there was nothing specific at this time. President Santos said that these were not Code changes, but were simply guidelines.

President Santos said that he was going to speak about the emergency demolition aspect of the permit process. President Santos stated that currently some buildings in San Francisco are in such state of structural disrepair that there is no other alternative than to demolish them in the name of public safety. President Santos said that sadly some members of the Department of Building Inspection are afraid to make such choice for fear of public backlash due to the perceived historical significance of the structures in question. President Santos said that the preservation of this City's architectural beauty is important to this Department, but these concerns must never be allowed to outweigh the need for public safety. President Santos said that DBI must retain the authority to condemn the structures it deems unfit for human habitation after careful inspection. President Santos stated that again, he intends to meet with Engineering staff to propose a new set of guidelines that will include a grading system that will clearly establish the threshold between when a building should be torn down and when it can be salvaged. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like this calendared for the next meeting.

There was no public comment.

3. Director's Reports. [Director Frank Chiu]

Director Chiu welcomed the new Commissioners, Philip Ting and Criss Romero. Director Chiu reported on the homeless shelter issue that came before the Commission a few months ago at the request of the Board of Supervisor's urging City Planning, the Mayor's Office of the Homeless and DBI to look into what is known as "Jim Reid's" mobile type homeless shelter. Director Chiu stated that this item was referred to the Code Advisory Committee and that Committee urged DBI not to allow this type of use. Director Chiu said that this was a great concept, but a lot of it was contrary to the Codes for example the square footage and plumbing and electrical issues. Director Chiu said that another concern was the fact that there was no foundation and this particular shelter was more like a mobile home and mobile homes are regulated by the State so there is a process already in place. Director Chiu said that at this time there were too many Code issues involved and it would not be feasible for DBI to allow these types of structures to be constructed in the City.

Vice-President Hood said that she thought it would be good to give the people who were supporting this type of shelter some sort of written report as what they would have to do to get it into the State mobile home definition. Director Chiu said that he would respond back to Jim Reid.

Director Chiu said he was going to report on this item, but it was not on the agenda for action today. Director Chiu stated that whenever the Department receives a permit for asbestos removal before an application is considered the application is forwarded to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to register and then they require a mitigation plan before anything can proceed. Director Chiu said that the Fire Department is involved, as is the Health Department. Director Chiu said that this bulletin would address the issues of all of these agencies to identify the procedure of how to process a permit that comes in for an alteration or demolition that might deal with asbestos or lead. Director Chiu said that he would like this calendared for a future agenda.

Director Chiu said that this was a status regarding where DBI was regarding the ordinance urging the Department to move forward to enhance the Building Inspection Permit Tracking System. Director Chiu stated that this was reported to the Commission a couple of meetings ago and this particular item was a companion to the resolution that was looking at registering Permit Expediters/Consultants. Director Chiu said that the community wanted the Department to make the transparency of who was applying for a permit more inclusive and as a result Deputy Director Wong devised a Permit Applicant Disclosure Form. Director Chiu said that anybody who was involved with a project would be listed on this form and the public could query this information on line. Deputy Director Chiu said that with this openness process the Board of Supervisors voted not to pursue the registration of Permit Consultants. Director Chiu said that staff and DTIS were working to have this in place by October or November. Director Chiu said that this was not just for DBI, but would include the entire Plan Checking staff including other agencies such as the Fire Department. President Santos said that people would be able to trace a policy under an applicant's name. Director Chiu said that right now the information is not inclusive enough because only one contact person is listed, but this form would make it much more inclusive so that anyone involved with a particular project would be listed.

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

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that for those who saw the budget process it was pretty horrific and stated that he hoped it would not be repeated in the future. Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted to appeal to the Commission regarding the loss of DBI's Personnel Officer and the people who assist him. Mr. Hutchinson said that he did not know if this was a done deal as the Department still had to go before the BOS, but said that it has been absolutely critical to have this function at DBI on a number of levels. Mr. Hutchinson said that DHR over the years has not been staffed or been able to deal with the workload that they have much less the increase in the workload from the Departments that have had to give up their Personnel Departments. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there are 260 employees at DBI and it has been helpful to be able to go to these Personnel employees to help in employee relations and said that this staff has saved the Department a lot of money that would have come out of delays in having to work with DHR regarding potential lawsuits and it would have been highly problematic. Mr. Hutchinson said that he has been involved in doing some testing for DBI with DHR and it was not successful. Mr. Hutchinson gave the example of a test for Electrical Inspectors that was done on different days that resulted in allegations of people having the questions for the test prior to their examination date. Mr. Hutchinson asked if the Commission could do something to help the Department retain its Personnel staff. Vice-President Hood said that she could not agree more with Deputy Director Hutchinson and said that she could not imagine having a private company of 260 employees without having a Personnel Department.

5. Review, discussion and possible action regarding the assignment of DBI's vehicles. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said that his biggest concern was that there are Inspectors out in the field who don't have cars and said that he wanted to look at any cars used by any Senior Inspectors or other Administrative staff. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were people who used the cars for emergencies. Director Chiu said that cars that are assigned to the Chiefs or Managers are used by the Division staff for site visits. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought it would be better for those people to use their own cars because the Inspectors need these cars all day long. Director Chiu said that he would look at the policy and meet with staff to see if there is some way to reallocate some of the cars. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department should stop spending money on old cars and said that he believed that the Department was allowed 28 new cars in the current budget. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the Inspectors would prefer to have the Ranger pick up instead of the F-150 truck and asked if the Department had any control over that issue. Director Chiu said that the Department does not have any control over what cars it receives, but would let Central Shops know of the Department's preference. Director Chiu said that he would meet with staff and come back to the Commission at a future meeting.

6, Discussion and possible action to approve a proposed draft of Statement of Incompatible Activities for the Department of Building Inspection and the Building Inspection Commission as required by the Ethics Commission. [Ken Harrington, Special Assistant to the Director]

Ken Harrington, Special Assistant to the Director said that Proposition E that was passed by the voters in November of last year mandated that each Department by August 1, 2004 submit to the Ethics Commission a list of incompatible activities with respect to the Director and employees of DBI and with respect to the Commissioners. Mr. Harrington stated that he and Ms. Amy Lee worked on this report and had a number of meetings with employee groups, looked at the reports of other Departments and even other jurisdictions and even conferred with the City Attorney. Mr. Harrington said that the Department was asking that the Commission pass these today and from here the reports would go to the Ethics Commission who would have hearings regarding them and would handle the meet and confer issues with the bargaining units. Mr. Harrington said that he wanted to point out that in the preamble of the Incompatible Activities it states that no one would be disciplined for alleged violations of any of these Incompatible Activities until he or she has had an opportunity to explain their situation to the Director. Mr. Harrington said he heard objections regarding the rule that no employee could retain an active license in the construction trades and this was something that the Electrical Division was particularly concerned with. Vice-President Hood said that in one way the BIC wanted people to have more credentials and said that it is important for Housing Inspectors to have more knowledge about construction and many Inspectors come from the trades. Vice-President Hood said that these Inspectors would need their licenses to work on their own property and said that this seemed counter productive for these employees to be better prepared for their positions. Vice-President Hood stated if there has only been one or two examples of employees working in other counties there might be some other way to say this so it would not be so onerous on employees working on their own projects. Mr. Harrington said that the argument was given that if one employee is allowed to do it then everyone would want to do the same. Mr. Harrington asked Chief of the Electrical Division, Michael Hennessey to speak on the issue. Vice-President Hood asked if the employees were okay with these items and said that it was good that the rules were now codified.

President Santos said that at the BIC a member of the public will bring up a specific project where they feel that they are not getting the permits in a timely manner or there is a problem with the application process. President Santos said that frequently he and Commissioner Guinnane had volunteered to review the application or even go to the site and stated that he has made it clear that as a Commissioner and a Structural Engineer he does this pro bono. President Santos asked when that would become an incompatible activity. Mr. Harrington said that he did not see where that would become a problem because of the way this Commission was set up and the Charter states that the Commissioners have to come from various disciplines so that they are familiar with the everyday person out there. Mr. Harrington said that it would have to be pro bono and disclosed. Mr. Harrington stated that if a Commissioner was involved with a project that he or she was getting compensation for then that Commissioner could not vote on anything to do with that project that might come before the Commission.

Leo McFadden, President of the Building Inspectors Association welcomed Commissioners Romero and Ting and stated that he supported the adoption of some draft of the Statement of Incompatible Activities. Mr. McFadden said that unfortunately the draft before the Commission had some generalities and some pitfalls for employees. Mr. McFadden said that the Union was looking forward to a meet and confer to make this more compatible for the employees. Vice-President Hood asked when this was due at the Ethics Commission. Mr. Harrington said that it would first go to the Ethics Commission and then the Ethics Commission would handle the meet and confer issues. Vice-President Hood said that this was just a draft and said that she wanted this to be something that the employees did not regard as onerous. Mr. McFadden said that one item he wanted to point out was the issue that stated that employees must disclose to the Director's Office whether a spouse, partner or family member is engaged and said that he did not know exactly what would define a family member, as it could be a cousin, brother, sister or whomever.

Mr. Bill Fiore of Local 21 said that he echoed the statements made by Mr. McFadden. Mr. Fiore said that he thought there were a lot of broad and overly vague statements in this draft that would lead to some confusion. Mr. Fiore stated that he did look forward to the meet and confer process with the Ethics Commission, but did want to point out that Local 21 felt that there were some statements that could be a problem for DBI employees. Vice-President Hood said that one way to deal with some of the issues would be to put in exceptions, just as there are exceptions in the Code.

Mr. David Herring introduced himself as President of the Housing Inspector's Association. Mr. Herring stated that he concurred with Bill Fiore and Leo McFadden that there are some problems with this draft; not with the general intent, but with specific language. Mr. Herring said that a lot of the items are overly broad and said that one issue he wanted to discuss was the fact that an employee could not maintain an active license. Mr. Herring said that he was an employee for four years and currently had an active contractor's license even though he had not made use of it since he started with the City except for purchasing materials for his own home as he is able to get discounts because he is a contractor. Mr. Herring said that he kept his license active because he might work doing some work for family in San Jose and might need to pull a permit. Mr. Herring said that he understood it could be problematic if someone was doing business in San Francisco, but stated that there was already language in the Statement of Incompatible Activities that would prevent him from doing that. Mr. Herring said that preventing him from not having a license would be pretty extreme because there are situations such as doing things for family members on the weekends that would not be a problem. Vice-President Hood asked if a contractor had to be recertified or take a test every couple of years. Mr. Herring said that there is not continuing education like there is with ICBO certification, but there is information that is sent to contractors to inform them of changes in the laws.

Commissioner Ting asked if Mr. Herring knew if there had been any issues in the past that would prompt the Department to put this kind of language in the draft. Mr. Herring stated that there was nothing that he had heard of and said that he assumed that maybe someone, somewhere was conducting business in San Francisco, but said he did not know of anything in particular. Mr. Herring said that there were a lot of items in the draft that specifically prohibits people from doing work in San Francisco or from working for entities that work in San Francisco. Mr. Herring said that the draft refers to employees doing any work in San Francisco for anyone regulated by the Department and said that every property in San Francisco could be regulated by the Department. Commissioner Ting asked if this would be a problem for an employee doing work on his or her own home. Mr. Herring said that it would not be a problem on the employee's property, only if the employee was doing work on someone else's property.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz, a licensed general contractor, said that he thought it was important for Building, Plumbing or Electrical Inspectors, if they have a license, to be able to keep that license. Mr. Karnilowitz said that he did not think that it would be a problem for the employees to do work in another county. Mr. Karnilowitz said that it would be a burden if an employee decided to leave the Department and would then have to apply for a new license or maybe even sit for another exam. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is an active and an inactive license and if someone inactivates their license they can activate it in a couple of weeks by putting up a bond. Mr. Karnilowitz said that this was true, but said that it did not happen within a couple of weeks, but could take months.

Secretary Aherne said that the Commission needed to take action on this item.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane to approve the draft submitted by the Department for submittal to the Ethics Commission.

Commissioner Romero asked if there were going to be any modifications to the draft of the Incompatible Activities. President Santos asked Mr. Harrington to clarify the situation. Mr. Harrington said that this would go to the Ethics Commission and that is where the modifications would take place. Commissioner Romero said that he had already been at meetings regarding these with other departments as there are sixty two departments that have to prepare this document. Commissioner Romero stated the departments that he met with were Civil Service Commissions and at these meetings that was where the modifications were proposed and then said that he believed that it went back to the departments. Commissioner Romero asked how that was going to occur here. Mr. Harrington said that it was his understanding that this document with any additions or deletions that the BIC would make today would go to the Ethics Commission and it would be at the Ethics Commission where it would again be looked at and then there would be public testimony again as there was today. Mr. Harrington said that then the Ethics Commission would make its decision as to what to add or what to delete and in that process there would be the meet and confer with the bargaining units. Commissioner Romero asked if all decisions had to be made today. Mr. Harrington stated that August 1, 2004 was the deadline for the Commission and the Department to get their suggested draft of the Incompatible Activities to the Ethics Commission. Commissioner Romero said that when the BIC voted on this there would be no modifications. Mr. Harrington said that was his understanding.

Director Chiu said that he wanted the Commission to know that the Department met with many representatives of the employees such as those that spoke before the Commission today. Director Chiu said he knew that some of the language was still broad, but at some point the Department had say that this is it and the real bargaining negotiations would be at the Ethics Commission so the bargaining unions would have another chance at that point.

Vice-President Hood said that there were two or three employees who were representing their bargaining units that have expressed concerns about this draft and said that it seemed to her that some of these issues should be easy to change. Vice-President Hood said that with the licensing issue the draft could say that an employee could not do work outside the City for anybody who owns property or has any projects whatsoever in the City and County of San Francisco. Vice-President Hood asked how the Ethics could do a better job when the BIC knows more about the issues. Mr. Harrington said that Director Chiu was correct in saying that the Department had eight or nine meetings with representatives from the various functions at DBI and there was never consensus on any item. Mr. Harrington said that on the licensing issue most of the people wanted to eliminate active licenses and that was clearly the consensus. Mr. Harrington asked Mr. Hennessey to come forward and speak on this issue.

Mr. Bill Fiore of Local 21 said that he did expect to be able to meet and confer and make changes to this document, but said that he was never invited into any meetings to put together this document. Mr. Fiore said that he would like some clarity.

Vice-President Hood asked if it would be agreeable to change President Santos' motion to approve the section that was written for the Commission, but basically to say that before this document is sent over the Department needs to respond to those concerns that have been expressed at today's meeting. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that this just needed a good editor. President Santos asked Mr. Fiore if he was saying that he had not met with Management of the Department. Mr. Fiore said that was correct. Vice-President Hood said she had some ideas about solving some of these issues without stepping on anybody's toes and volunteered to help rewrite the draft. Mr. McFadden said that the employees who were involved in writing this document were employees who were appointed by the Director's Office and were not representative of all the Unions.

Mr. Michael Hennessey introduced himself as DBI's Chief Electrical Inspector. Mr. Hennessey said that he wanted to go on record on this issue of Incompatible Activities as saying that the Electrical Inspection Division is strongly opposed to having licensed contractors working as Inspectors, as they find it highly problematic. Mr. Hennessey said that his experiences in the past have indicated that it is difficult enough dealing with a new Inspector who has recently inactivated a license because of ongoing relationships with industry folks and contractors and property owners, but to have somebody with an active license as an Electrical Inspector is entirely unacceptable and highly objectionable by the rank and file Electrical Inspectors. Mr. Hennessey said that the Electrical Inspectors were unanimously opposed to that.

Mr. Harrington said that the Department was advised by the City Attorney that the Department was not to do the formal meet and confer with the bargaining units, but the Department did attempt to get a representative from the various functions of the Department and had many meetings. Mr. Harrington stated that the memo from the Ethics Commission telling DBI what it had to do and what it had to forward dated January 5, 2004 says that the formal meet and confer process would be conducted after review of the statements by the Ethics Commission. President Santos said that Vice-President Hood's suggestion would be incompatible to the suggestions made by the City Attorney. Vice-President Hood said that she did not want to approve the ones written for the employees. Mr. Harrington said that in meeting after meeting there were exceptions to every activity and it became a matter of getting the task done.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Harrington for his comments on Mr. Hennessey's comments on actually supporting the employees having an inactive license instead of an active license. Mr. Harrington said that was his sense at those meetings. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to make that with all license holders, not just electrical. Mr. Harrington said that was why it was written that way and no one was to be singled out.

Mr. Ting said that he would concur with Vice-President Hood that there should be some greater consensus with this document, but understood that this was supposed to happen after it was submitted to the Ethics Commission.

President Santos said that there was a motion on the floor and said that he would stand by his motion.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

The motion carried on a vote of four to two.

RESOLUTION BIC NO. 036-004

7. Discussion and possible action regarding penalties imposed by DBI's Electrical Inspection Division. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had asked this item to be calendared because about three years ago he noticed that the Electrical Department was bringing in the most money in penalties. Commissioner Guinnane said that in the last six months he had a lot of people calling him to complain about these penalties and said that he was not trying to barrage Inspector's about inflicting the penalties, but asked if maybe the Electrical Inspectors were being a little bit overactive with the two times, nine times and so on and said that he did not know if this was the policy of the Department or just a problem with a few Inspectors. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had talked to Chief Inspector Hennessey about this and he had assured the Commissioner that this was not the case. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the penalties in Electrical for `02/'03 were $119,000 and looking at this year the penalties are up to $153,000.

Chief Electrical Inspector Mike Hennessey said that in doing a review of the investigative fees that the Department collected over the last few years and in viewing the month to month it ranged from a low of $5,000 to a high of $23,000. Mr. Hennessey stated that it is possible that a distortion could occur when a significant tenant improvement such as in a commercial office with multiple floors is done without permit the base fee might be $1,000 and nine times that would add up especially with multiple floors. Mr. Hennessey said that the Electrical Department had strict procedures for responding to complaints, issuing Notices of Violation and assessing investigative fees. Mr. Hennessey said that his department followed these procedures quite rigorously and stated that he was proud of how the field Inspectors and their Supervisors handled this difficult part of being an Inspector to get the owner's cooperation to get these violations brought into compliance with Code. Mr. Hennessey referred to a Memorandum that spelled out these procedures. Mr. Hennessey said that the owner has a chance to speak with the Electrical Inspector's Supervisor before these penalties are assessed.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if it was one sector in the City that was generating a lot of these penalties, such as downtown. Mr. Hennessey said that he had some recent computer printouts that would show that the penalties are assessed all over the City. Mr. Hennessey said that in the regular weekly meetings the Supervisors discuss and try as best they can to be consistent with the enforcement proceedings across all of the district lines and there are seventeen Electrical Inspectors. Mr. Hennessey said that there was consistency across all Electrical Inspector lines.

Vice-President Hood said that very often it is with electrical work that people do work without permit and said from Mr. Hennessey's testimony it seemed as if the Department was assessing these fees fairly. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission should support the Electrical Division on this. Mr. Hennessey said that all things considered he felt that the Electrical Inspectors do very well with this very difficult task.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that the people who get hit with the penalties are the owners and not the contractors and sometimes an owner will innocently hire a contractor and assume that the contractor has gotten the proper permits and then they found out that the work is done without a permit. Mr. Karnilowitz stated that he thought that the nine times penalty is a bit extreme when it is the owner who is getting charged the nine times penalty and said he thought it should be the contractor that pays for that. Mr. Karnilowitz said that he thought this was a very severe penalty for the owner.

Mr. Hennessey said that the reason for having the Senior Inspector or the Supervisor's name on the Notice of Violation is to give the owner or their agent the opportunity to explain whatever extenuating circumstances there might be and the Supervisor has the authority to reduce or delete those fees based on valid data.

Commissioner Fillon asked if there was an appeal process for the penalties. Mr. Hennessey said there was and said that Electrical rarely has cases go that route and it is probably because of the nature of the work and a rapid review process. Mr. Hennessey said that he was open to suggestions, but from what he had seen over the last nine years this process has worked quite well.

Director Chiu said that in addition, anybody who has an objection to the assessment of fines could go to the Board of Permit Appeals and these cases are heard on a weekly basis.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was a penalty assessed and it was going to the Board of Permit Appeals if there would be any signoff on the job until the penalty issue was solved. Mr. Hennessey said that was correct. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the backlog was with the Board of Permit Appeals for getting a hearing. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was any other avenue other than going to the BPA and asked what was the DBI process and was it from the Senior to the Chief. Director Chiu said that sometimes it goes to the Deputy Director or even to the Director so there is an internal review process for compromise. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was not aware that the owner could go beyond the Chief Electrical Inspector. Commissioner Fillon asked if the property owner understood this. Mr. Hennessey said that the Senior Inspector explains the process to the owner.

Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield of Technical Services said that he wanted to remind this Commission that approximately a year ago Technical Services brought forward to the Commission a Policy and Procedure to deal with penalties and investigation fees so there would be a clear set of rules for the public and the staff would know exactly what authorities lie in the position of penalties and what the appeal process in both in the Department and the Board of Appeals. Mr. Kornfield suggested that the BIC might wish to reconsider that bulletin. Vice-President Hood asked Mr. Kornfield to distribute copies of the bulletin to the BIC. Mr. Kornfield stated that the bulletin was not adopted so the BIC might want to reconsider it. Vice-President Hood asked for a redistribution of the draft.

At 10:20 a.m. the Commission took a break.

The Commission reconvened at 10:40 a.m.

President Santos said that on item #7 he felt that perhaps the item was left hanging and asked Vice-President Hood to make a statement. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the message that the BIC wanted to send to the Department is that the Commission heartily supports what the Electrical Inspectors have been doing and thinks that the process for appeal is fair. Vice-President Hood thanked the Electrical Inspectors for the good job that they are doing.

8. Discussion and possible action regarding legislation for abatement of interior lead based paint and DBI's programs as to cost versus income. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said that at a recent BIC meeting numbers that were put forth for the interior lead abatement program were around $568,000 per year and that included putting a Chief and a Senior in place, having a hygienist work on this program 1/3 of his time, a clerk and maybe two Inspectors. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had a real problem with putting a Chief in place for only six employees. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not believe that the numbers put forth to the Commission were realistic and said that he went back and looked at the exterior. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he looked at the expenses versus the income for the six years that the exterior program has been in place and for six years $238,000 has come in for revenue, but the cost to run the operation was $2.2M. Commissioner Guinnane said that obviously the numbers don't add up and the exterior is being funded with the penalties and litigation settlements. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was trying to figure out how this sector was going to be self supporting when the outside was off by four times.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would give a quick overview for the new Commissioners. Mr. Hutchinson said that there was a committee that was formed back in the early `90's, the Citizen's Lead Hazard Reduction Advisory Committee and a non-profit attorney Neil Gendel set this up and put together a group of people from different entities who wanted to regulate health hazards on exteriors. Mr. Hutchinson said that laws were passed in 1998 and DBI funded the program and set up with two Inspectors, a clerk and a Senior Housing Inspector dedicated to lead. Mr. Hutchinson stated that it was funded out of overall revenues received by the Department and said that the monies now going to Planning helped to fund this program. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Commission decided it wanted to look at the health hazards with interior lead paint and the Department were looking into a funding mechanism because the economy was not as healthy so the Department came up with a small surcharge on building permits only for this affected group; single families and R-1's, and some educational facilities. Mr. Hutchinson said that DBI looked at what the population for enforcement would be to put in some ways to collect revenue and $425,000 was the amount determined. Mr. Hutchinson said that this money was going to be spent on additional personnel to do these interior inspections. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there would be two Inspectors and Senior Inspector would become the Chief Inspector and some accounting in-house would have to be done so that the funds collected would only go for the interior. Mr. Hutchinson said that this would be a huge commitment on the part of the Department and aid that it would take until September or October to get the computer system set up for collection of the fees and to put this mechanism in place. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department was also looking at ways to collect revenues for the exterior enforcement.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Hutchinson was talking about pre-1979 buildings. Mr. Hutchinson said that was correct. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the salary of the hygienist was. Mr. Hutchinson said that including fringe benefits it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 to $110,000. Commissioner Guinnane said in looking at a hygienist, a Senior, a Chief, two Inspectors and a typist along with all of the cars and fringes he could not see how that would fit into a $500,000 budget. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Chief's position would be split between the interior and the exterior and some of these were part time positions and could not be factored entirely to the interior side. Commissioner Guinnane asked why there needed to be a Chief for six employees. Mr. Hutchinson said that he thought this was reasonable as this is an important program and said that it was important for someone at the Chief's level to work with the public and the Board of Supervisors and the managerial duties and interactions are more in line with that of a Chief rather than a Senior Inspector. Commissioner Guinnane said that this was more of a public health function and DBI is actually implementing it and funding it. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was a lot of discussion about that and to be candid a lot of people felt that it was a health issue, but through this consensus of the Department and the community working together; DBI took it on and agreed that there was enough building related items in it to make sure that it was done in a safe manner.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the exterior and interior was going to be under one Chief. Mr. Hutchinson said that was correct. Commissioner Guinnane asked how many employees would be under that Chief for the interior and exterior. Mr. Hutchinson said that it would be six employees and the Department would have the ability to bring on retired Inspectors if there was a need. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had a real hard time putting a Chief in place for only six employees especially with the budgetary issues and the way the Department is running today.

Vice-President Hood said that it has been a while since this was discussed and said that the paint changed in 1979 to being non-lead based so many, many buildings in this painted City have been scraped down and repainted so the problem is diminishing over time and asked if this wasn't becoming less of a problem over the years. Mr. Hutchinson said that it is getting somewhat better, but there is such a stock of old housing and the majority of buildings are pre-1979. Mr. Hutchinson said that this problem is very prevalent in older cities such as San Francisco. Vice-President Hood said that if there were no Chief for the six people would there be another Chief who was close in expertise and interest take this on. Mr. Hutchinson said that it could be a Building or a Housing Chief, but the reason he didn't put this with the Housing Inspectors was because of the backlog in routine housing inspections. Vice-President Hood said that because of the way every position is being scrutinized now in DBI if this is not set up as a very clear entity it might be cut at some point and because of the strong effort in State and Federal Government to do something about lead abatement she thought this should be proceeded with as proposed. Mr. Hutchinson said that the current Senior Inspector Louise Kimball has been in charge of this program for several years and has done an outstanding job, far and above Senior duties, and said that he sees this as being a Chief's position.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the salary difference would be between the Senior that is running it now and a Chief's salary. Mr. Hutchinson said that it would be a 7.5% increase; the Senior's salary is upward of $90,000 and the Chief's would be right around $100,000. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had no problem supporting this as long as the Senior was just being moved up to a Chief's position, but said that the Department had to come up with some way to fund this. Commissioner Guinnane said that he felt that the numbers were glossed over.

Commissioner Romero said that he was interested to know what types of communities were impacted by this program as he was obviously not present for the previous meetings. Commissioner Romero said that there was mention that low-income communities were impacted. Mr. Hutchinson stated that there was heavy concentration in the Mission district, Chinatown and places where there are large residential hotels because there are a lot of families now in the residential hotels. Mr. Hutchinson said that it was anywhere where there was a large amount of older housing and the Department wanted to educate the public that when they do this type of work they do it in a safe manner so children are not endangered.

Director Chiu said that the lead ordinance was targeted to save young children because they tend to be more susceptible to the lead issues. Vice-President Hood said that this even affects the IQ of unborn children.

Commissioner Romero asked if there were any reports available to look at or read. Mr. Hutchinson said that he would be happy to forward reports to the Commissioner as he had been on this committee for about ten years and said that he would get some general information to anyone who was interested and said that he would pass this on through the Secretary. Vice-President Hood stated that the Department had folders that were handed out to the public on lead abatement with the policies for remodeling. Commissioner Ting said that he was interested in getting more information as well and said that the tenants he works with in Chinatown consider this a very serious issue.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that most painting contractors are aware that they have to put shrouds around the scaffolding to contain the paint that is scraped off the buildings and they are given a notice to post on the building. Mr. Karnilowitz said that there is no charge for this notice and perhaps DBI should consider having a lead abatement fee that is charged across the board whether for interior or exterior painting and that would help to alleviate some of the cost.

9. Discussion and possible action regarding permits issued for square footage expansion in the last five years with values of $20,000 or more where the work has been completed, but no CFC issued. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said that initially his thinking was that any work that was improved in San Francisco was subject to an assessment by the Assessor's Office, but said that he had since learned that this is not true. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the only thing that is subject to an assessment is additional square footage. Commissioner Guinnane asked the Director to give the Commission a list of any buildings where there was additional square footage, but have never gotten a final inspection or received a CFC from the City. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Guinnane was asking for any expansions. Commissioner Guinnane said to include new buildings, and vertical or horizontal additions. Director Chiu said he would be happy to request that information for a future meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that he asked for this information about six weeks ago and asked if there were issues as to why the information was not available.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he needed to do a service request to pull this off the MIS system and said that he had just put that request in place. Mr. Hutchinson said that the other thing was that the Department was looking at the past history of these to make sure the Inspectors don't expire those job cards. Mr. Hutchinson stated that he and Chief Inspector Lau had talked to the Building Inspectors to make them aware of this so the Department is not expiring cards for work that doesn't have a Certificate of Final Completion. Mr. Hutchinson said he was hoping to have that information available for the next meeting. Commissioner Guinnane asked how old the MIS request was. Mr. Hutchinson said that he was remiss in getting a written request in so the current request was only about a week old. Commissioner Guinnane said that if somebody does work and does not get it all signed off and get a CFC from the Department the CFC does not get picked up by the Assessor's Office so there is no reevaluation on the property. Commissioner Guinnane said that there are some large buildings in the downtown area with no CFCs issued. Director Chiu said that he was not sure that the Assessor's Office needs a CFC to reassess a project and said that he thought that they would pick up the completion. Commissioner Guinnane asked if DBI does not issue a CFC then how does the Assessor's Office get that. Director Chiu said that he didn't know, but said that he talked with Sue (Metzger) about Jim's request so hopefully that report would be generated in the next few days. President Santos said that this source of income would go to the General Fund and would not come to DBI. Commissioner Guinnane said that was correct, but if it went to the General Fund then maybe the General Fund would be generous with Planning.

10. Discussion and possible action regarding Administrative Bulletin AB-057 regarding Roof Hatches in Lieu of Stairway Penthouses. [Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector]

Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield said that this Administrative Bulletin is one of a long series of forty to fifty buildings that the City is adopting or preparing so that in-house staff and the public know how DBI does business and how the Department interprets the Code. Mr. Kornfield said that this bulletin came before the BIC a few months ago and was returned to the Code Advisory Committee for some minor changes as suggested by Commissioner Hood. Mr. Kornfield said that there were further meetings and the Fire Department was asked if they were interested in the further development of this bulletin, and they are not as the Fire Department has jurisdiction over some, but not all, of the buildings in the City. Mr. Kornfield stated that the Bulletin that is currently proposed and amended before the BIC addresses buildings that under the sole jurisdiction of DBI which includes one and two family dwellings and low-rise commercial buildings. Mr. Kornfield said that other buildings are jointly regulated by the Fire Department and they would approve the use of roof hatches in lieu of stairway penthouses that often stick up from the top of buildings on a case by case basis.

Mr. Kornfield said that if the BIC were to approve this Bulletin he wanted to point out that John Schlessinger, who was present, asked him to make a clarification to item #4 on the last page where it says "the curve of the roof opening for the roof hatch shall extend above the roof surface no more than nine inches". Mr. Schlessinger recommends and Mr. Kornfield said that he agreed that it should say that "the curve of the roof opening for the roof hatch, where the stair emerges from the interior of the building, shall extend above the roof surface no more than nine inches." Mr. Kornfield said that would allow someone to cap the roof cap at an angle and not restrict the whole thing.

President Santos said that he wanted to clarify that the Fire Department has jurisdiction over some particular units or buildings and DBI has jurisdiction over single family dwellings, some commercial buildings and two unit buildings. Mr. Kornfield said that was correct; the Department of Building Inspection has some jurisdiction over one and two family dwellings and low-rise commercial buildings, buildings less than 75' to the highest floor. Mr. Kornfield said that on the other buildings the Department has joint jurisdiction with the Fire Department. Mr. Kornfield said that the purpose of roofs going to stairs really in many cases is to allow Fire Department access so the Fire Department is very concerned about that.

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to commend Mr. Kornfield as this was an excellent document and is very important in the City of San Francisco. Vice-President Hood stated that she had used these roof hatches since 1977 and found them to be wonderful ways to provide roof access and help to retain views in the City. Vice-President Hood thanked Mr. Kornfield for all of his hard work on this item.

Mr. John Schlessinger introduced himself as an Architect and said that the reason he made the recommendation to Mr. Kornfield was because in some circumstances on these buildings the roofs are actually occupied roofs, such as roof terraces and they then require guard railing. Mr. Schlessinger said that this would not be a protuberance for neighbors. Mr. Schlessinger provided a drawing for the Commissioners.

Vice-President Hood said that in looking at Mr. Schlessinger's drawing she was concerned that there be a limit on the high end of the angle also because that is how people get away with the 45 degree angle thing where they put in a full door. Vice-President Hood said that she should have the other side go to two feet as she was envisioning these as being flat, but some of them are made to have an angle and said that the maximum should be 24" and that should be added to this legislation. Mr. Schlessinger said he would agree. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the Bulletin should say that the overall height could be no more than 36" and asked Mr. Kornfield to add that.

Vice-President Hood said that with that change she wanted to make a motion that the Commission approve this Bulletin as written. President Santos seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION BIC NO. 037-004

11. Discussion and possible action on the update of DBI's progress in meeting with the recommendations of the 2001 Controller's Management Audit. [Director Chiu]

Director Chiu said that the first draft was discussed at the May 17, 2004 BIC meeting and Vice-President Hood had some concerns about the broad language that was used in a lot of the recommendations. Director Chiu said that since that meeting the comments were revised and are more like action items than just a broad explanation. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that this draft was much more specific and much more goal oriented and said she thought that would be much more helpful to the staff. Director Chiu stated that this needed to be sent on to the Controller's Office quickly. President Santos asked for any public comment.

There was no public comment.

Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by President Santos, that the BIC adopt the Departments update of the 2001 Controller's Management Audit. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION BIC NO. 038-004

Vice-President Hood thanked DBI staff for their hard work on this item.

12. Review of Communication Items received since the last meeting. At this time, the Commission may request DBI staff to research an item or to place an item on a future agenda.

President Santos said that he would go through the items and if any Commissioner had a question on any of the items to please make comment.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to look at item 12b. Commissioner Guinnane said that the letter said that there was representation made that the permit was signed out and when the individual checked the following week it hadn't been signed out. Commissioner Guinnane stated that then the Plan Checker went on vacation and everything went on hold. Commissioner Guinnane said that if a Plan Checker goes on vacation why is it that the job does not move forward and doesn't the Department have somebody else that it could be assigned to. Director Chiu said that since he received this letter he had asked the Senior Plan Checker to take over this project and said that he understood that there were still some outstanding issues, but said he did not have the list with him. Director Chiu said that the Supervisor was working on the project to make sure that it moved on. Commissioner Guinnane said the Department had comments on the 7^th and there is a response back from the contractor laying out all of the issues. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the project could be signed out that would be great.

Commissioner Fillon said that it should be general policy in the Department that if someone goes on vacation someone should be designated to take care of their work. Director Chiu said that if someone is going on a long vacation projects are reassigned, but said he would reinforce the policy of the Supervisor getting more involved in this situation.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to look at item #12e and said that it referred to President Santos and himself going out to look at particular projects; one at 786 - 35^th Avenue and the other at 1364 Union Street. Commissioner Guinnane said that he knew that one member of the Commission had a problem with individuals from the Commission going out to look at the property, but said that he thought it was a very good idea and the public seems to be very enthused about that. Commissioner Guinnane said that with 786 - 35^th Avenue there was a bad call made by the Department and if this Commission didn't intervene it would have gone to a Director's hearing and probably gotten completely out of control. Commissioner Guinnane said that he just wanted to clarify this for the record.

Commissioner Romero said that he had a comment and said that when he heard of Commissioners actually going out to inspections and said he wanted to know if there is a way to find out if there is a conflict of interest if Commissioners are actually doing business with any of the contactors or representing them at all. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was sure that the Commissioners could make a disclosure as the President has made numerous conversations saying that any work that he does for the public is all pro bono. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he does not do any work other than for himself and said that his license is invalid.

Vice-President Hood said that the Ethics Code prevents that from being legal and said that if President Santos or Commissioner Guinnane had a business connection of any sort that they would have to recuse themselves from the issue completely. Vice-President Hood said that if they have an existing relationship with one of those people they can't go out and that would be true of any Commissioner. Vice-President Hood said that the types of cases that they typically go out to are usually small ones where there has been a pattern of either scofflaws or people who don't even have a structural engineer involved so it has been more of an assistance to people who don't have access to experts to help them figure out what to do to get their permit. Commissioner Fillon said that it is usually people who have gotten themselves into trouble and don't really know how to get out of it and need to get some help. Vice-President Hood said that it is definitely pro bono, volunteer work. Commissioner Romero asked if there was some way that he could get a copy of the Code of Ethics. Secretary Aherne said that there was a Code of Professional Conduct that she would send to Commissioner Romero. Vice-President Hood said that there was training for new Commissioners that was very helpful. Commissioner Fillon asked if there was a video that was available from the City Attorney's Office. Secretary Aherne said that the video was not yet available from the City Attorney's Office.

13. Review and approval of the minutes of the June 7, 2004 meeting.

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

RESOLUTION BIC NO. 039-004

14. Review Commissioner's Questions and Matters.

There were no inquiries.

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 would have seven items, but would have to come up with a way to write them because all of them would require action at the next meeting and emergency orders would be part of it. Vice-President Hood asked what the emergency order item was about. President Santos stated that the Commission wanted to review the current procedure. Vice-President Hood asked if that was the issue where if someone was building without a permit it could be stopped right then. Commissioner Guinnane said that Vice-President Hood was talking about unlawful demolitions and said that basically what he wanted to talk about was if someone filed an application for an emergency order as denied by the Director or if there were some issues where the Department did not want to make a decision he wanted that to be appealable to a body of this Department. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to come up with a body that the project sponsor could appeal to within a week so there would be no delay. Vice-President Hood asked if that could be done through the BIC. Commissioner Guinnane said no that was not his intent because he did not want to have the same problem as with the Abatement Appeals where people are waiting to be heard. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to put that on a future agenda because there should only be one or two cases heard at the Abatement Appeals and there was too long a delay for people to get on the Abatement Appeals calendar.

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

Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he wanted to say that the Board of Supervisors was going to begin the process of hearings on the various budgets and said that DBI's was going to be tomorrow. Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted to reiterate that the transfer of funds from this Department, since the Commission talked today about the Lead Program and things that DBI could do with the resources that it has. Mr. Hutchinson stated that Supervisor Ammiano very brilliantly a few years back suggested that every department hold some funds in reserve. Mr. Hutchinson stated that this Department did that and of all the City agencies, DBI really tried to take the public's advice in saying that the City should act like a business. Mr. Hutchinson said that to a large degree, thanks to the BIC's help and guidance, this Department acted like a business and what it got in the end was three Supervisors who argued over how poorly managed the Department of City Planning is, and this is no slap to the people who work there at all, but in general the comments for anyone who wants to watch it, the Supervisors made them. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the funds that this Department set aside were all transferred and it does not bode well with the employees or the Managers at DBI and said he was personally offended by that. Mr. Hutchinson said that some of the things that he wanted to do with these monies as the Deputy Director for inspections was to expand the Code Enforcement Committee set up with Non-Profits by this Commission that helps people all over the City from the Mission to Chinatown and helps people who don't trust government by having them go to these Non-Profits. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department wanted to make sure that these funding mechanisms were there to continue this program year in and year out. Mr. Hutchinson said that he wanted to send people into the Residential Hotels and said that he had a couple of Inspectors that were dedicated to Residential Hotels. Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department had a list of the best to the worst Residential Hotels and said that he wanted to increase that program and have more Housing Inspectors go out on a daily basis to the Residential Hotels. Mr. Hutchinson stated that the Department would not be able to do that now. Mr. Hutchinson said that BOMA and the people downtown said that they wanted more Building Inspectors and would pay more money for better service, but that can't be done now. Mr. Hutchinson said that on behalf of the employees he wanted to say that DBI has a lot of hard working, dedicated people that care about their jobs and can do better, but the funding is needed to do that. Mr. Hutchinson said that the employees were disappointed when they saw the monies that they set aside by trying to be frugal, and certainly the Commission treats DBI's money as if it were their own, and it is all for naught in the end.

Vice-President Hood said that she thought it was terribly sad because it sends a message to the Commission and the Department to not keep surplus funds or don't have funds that is being saved for a specific service in the future if you can't spend them now then the Department won't have them. Vice-President Hood said that this is a terrible message that has been sent and said that she thought that the Department would have to look for ways to be saved in other departments because that message for some peculiar reason is not getting to the Mayor and said it was a great tragedy.

Commissioner Romero said that he was at the meeting and watched the Supervisors and said that he saw the way the Supervisors were just cutting positions and in some cases were just getting organizational charts and deleting positions without making any analysis of what the impact would be in any department. Commissioner Romero said that he thought that was what happened at DBI; the Supervisors saw a HR position and assumed it was a Managerial or Supervisorial position and then deleted it. Commissioner Romero stated that this is why he is not as prone to looking at positions or the salary and said that he did like to know what the person does and who they are supervising. Commissioner Romero said that this is not what happened when the Supervisors deleted positions in DBI. Commissioner Romero said that Deputy Director Hutchinson had come forward twice, asking the Commissioners to take action and asked what the Commissioners could actually do with the Board of Supervisors.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that perhaps the Department could have a letter of support from the Commission or the Commissioners could also attend the hearings and just the Commission saying that they care goes back to the employees and the employees look at the BIC's actions. Vice-President Hood asked what time the hearing was. Mr. Hutchinson said that it was tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

Vice-President Hood said that the Commissioners could not just show up at a meeting and speak on behalf of the Commission unless they were authorized to do so by the Commission so she wanted to say if Commissioners wanted to appear and address this issue, the BIC unanimously agreed that these funds should not be transferred to a Department that has not performed competently. Vice-President Hood said that this transfer of funds must be terrible for morale in the Department. Mr. Hutchinson said that it was and said that the employees would understand if it was money that was transferred into the community and not for long-term planning; the customers see nothing, the service users see nothing and the employees see nothing. Mr. Hutchinson said this was a waste of funds and if it went to General Hospital, aids programs, or children's programs it would be easier to take than for long-range planning. Vice-President Hood said that it was going down the drain.

President Santos said that some of the Commissioners took a very active role in letting the Board of Supervisors know that the BIC totally objected to the taking of the money and even had a closed session to try to take some more aggressive steps to prevent it. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission hasn't stopped yet. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he really appreciated it.

Commissioner Fillon said that he wanted to talk about the money that was taken and how DBI could exert some influence on what they do with it. Commissioner Fillon said that he thought the Commission was reluctant to talk about that because it has been so focused on not letting the money be taken. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission has been told by the City Attorney's Office that there is nothing that DBI or the BIC could do about it and it would be entirely up to them to decide what falls under the nexus. Commissioner Fillon said that he did not buy the nexus argument and said that there were some questions as to the validity of that argument. Commissioner Fillon said that it was a stretch by any standard and was unforgivable. Vice-President Hood said that everyone needed to call their Supervisors.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue said that those budget hearings were a disgrace and those Supervisors, especially Sandoval, never heard of a flow chart because had he done a simple flow chart he would not have required representatives of the various department's employees, including the public to sit there for three days from 9:00 a.m. some days right up to midnight and come back again and again. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this showed the lack of any business sense. Mr. O'Donoghue said that regarding direct action there is a taxpayers lawsuit being filed this week and said that Commissioner Guinnane had been working with members of the Community to get this done. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that this is the fastest way to go to court and said that he had no doubt but that they would prevail. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that in terms of action, as a result of what he considered a disgraceful performance with arbitrary cuts, the RBA was going out to unseat Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he has long held the premise that Supervisors should be required to do some minimum test on economics and said that it is obvious that many on that Board are clueless; they truly are. Mr. O'Donoghue said that when they sit there arbitrarily and then at the end of a hearing after several weeks and then embrace themselves as if they had done something outstanding when all they did was just juggle numbers around and when you humanize what they did all you have to do is look at Laguna Honda. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that as a result of lack of privatizing and budget cuts there are now patients being pulled out of bed, raped and arson people dousing the walls with gasoline. Mr. O'Donoghue said that then Mayor Newsom made a big deal about having jobs for youth during the summer, and said that everyone was for jobs for youth, but when jobs for youth are created during the summer months for kids at the expense of employees especially single parents that is absolutely shocking. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he had received some letters from employees at DBI who are single mothers and they won't have a job, maybe their kid has a job for two weeks, or two months, but this has been great grandstanding by Supervisors running for reelection. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this is going to come down to political activity and said that the RBA was concentrating on the lawsuit, but said that next week he would be moving onto humanizing these budget cuts. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he was all for defending people's rights, but when you look at who got back what, the public defender's office did not get any cuts. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the moral of the story is that if you are a criminal and you do need a defense you have the assurance of Sandoval that you have full court money to insure full defense because there were no cuts to the public defender's office; on the other hand, if you are a hard working employee out there in the community, a law abiding citizen, you got zapped. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the Supervisors did not consider the imbalance of priorities and this has to be addressed. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that there has to be a whole new approach to the budget starting with the Mayor's Office and going down to the Supervisors themselves and it is going to come down to grassroots action. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he would be starting that next week.

Mr. Steve Hajnal introduced himself as the Vice President of the San Francisco Builders Association and an employee of DBI working in the Plan Check Division. Mr. Hanjal said that he spoke at the Budget Committee Meeting and said that he found the behavior there to be totally appalling and uncalled for. Mr. Hajnal said that he found the whole process during DBI's presentation to be antagonistic by the Committee, confrontational, condescending and just plain rude. Mr. Hajnal said that he just wanted to state his objection as to what he sees taking place over there because he noticed that they had a completely different demeanor with every other department that was up there and as soon as DBI got up there they just jumped all over them and said that he found that very unacceptable.

Vice-President Hood said that she found that very interesting and said that she would like to know why that happened. Vice-President Hood said that maybe this should be put on the next agenda. Vice-President Hood said that maybe the Department could get some of these people to come before the Commission and tell why that was the situation. Mr. Hajnal said he did not know if anyone else felt the same way he did. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission could look at the tapes and said she was shocked to hear that and was very sorry to hear that.

Inspector Leo McFadden, President of the Building Inspector's Association, said that he also spoke at the Board of Supervisor's hearing and said he was attacked by Gerardo Sandoval when he couldn't define bankruptcy. Mr. McFadden said that he was appalled by the whole thing and said that Supervisor Sandoval's whole demeanor was very attacking. Mr. McFadden said that everyone had to stand there for hours and hours and this was completely disorganized and was a horrible process.

16. Adjournment.

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

RESOLUTION BIC NO. 040-004

The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted by

_______________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Secretary