Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 


BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Regular Meeting

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, April 19, 2000 at 1:00 p.m.

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

Adopted May 17, 2000

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by President Fillon.

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

    COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

    Alfonso Fillon, President Roy Guinnane, Commissioner

    Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Esther Marks, Commissioner

    Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner Debra Walker, Commissioner

    Mark Sanchez, Commissioner

    DBI REPRESENTATIVES:

    Frank Chiu, Director

    Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director

    Ann Aherne, Interim Secretary

    Tuti Suardana, Secretary

    CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:

    Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

2. President=s Announcements.

    President Fillon announced that meetings have been getting out of hand and to make sure that the meetings progress in a fair manner, Robert’s Rules of Order will prevail. President Fillon said that he wanted to have clarity and fairness in the meetings and to maintain order, rules would have to be enforced more stringently. President Fillon stated that he is not a parliamentarian, but would ask that all of the Commissioners familiarize themselves with the rules.

    One of the things that President Fillon requested was that in order to speak, each Commissioner should ask to be acknowledged by making a hand signal to the President who would then allow the Commissioners to speak one at a time. President Fillon said this was not intended, in any way, to prevent anyone from speaking. Everyone needs to be heard, but President Fillon stated that in listening to the tape from the previous meeting, it was difficult to make out who was speaking and what they were trying to say. There were four people speaking at one time.

    President Fillon said that when he first started as President of the Commission, all of the Commissioners made an effort to respect each other and to not get personal. He wanted to

    remind everyone of this, even himself, to keep things civil. President Fillon said that some of the public comment has gotten out of hand, in terms of personal attacks, and he wanted to say that this was not going to be allowed. President Fillon stated that if, during public comment, a Commissioner had a problem with what the speaker was saying, the Commissioners should wait until the speaker is finished to lodge a formal complaint. The complaint will be heard and recorded, rather than interrupting the speaker and creating disorder. President Fillon asked if there was any comment from the Commissioners or the public.

    Anastasia Yovanopoulos stated that she was glad that President Fillon had brought up the points about rules and procedures and how to conduct a meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there was one particular time when she was interrupted in her train of thought, and maybe what came out seemed to be a personal attack on an individual. In fact, Ms. Yovanopoulos was speaking about the integrity of the codes, not the integrity of the individual. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she spoke with Ann Aherne, Interim Commission Secretary, regarding a concern about something that came out in the minutes. Ms. Yovanopoulos thanked President Fillon for dealing with this issue.

3. Director=s Report. [Director Chiu]

    a. Update on timeliness of Notices of Violation being entered into DBI computer for Departmental and public access.

    Director Chiu stated that he was going to give a brief update as to where the Department is in terms of updating and entering information into the computer, Notices of Violations (NOVs), that have been issued against a property. Director Chiu said that at earlier meetings he acknowledged that due to computer problems, DBI was not able to update the NOVs as quickly as desired. Director Chiu said that he asked Deputy Director William Wong to do a survey about how the Department was doing with the Building Inspection NOVs. Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Wong had reported back that there is still a two to three day lag in entering the information. Director Chiu stated that he knew that the Department needed to do a better job and said that a goal of entering the information within the next day or so would be better. Director Chiu said that at present, due to the volume of the workload and staffing that is now available, the information is being entered every two or three days. Director Chiu said that once an NOV is issued and, if for some reason the Department misses it, the inspector always has the latitude to go back and ask for a correction. If a project sponsor needs to pay an additional penalty, the inspector always has the power to write up a correction notice to collect any fees due. If the project was issued without authorization or the approval of the Building Inspector, the permit can be rescinded or suspended. The violation can be corrected at a later date. Director Chiu said that just because the NOV is not entered immediately, that does not mean that the Department does not go back and assess fees or have the project sponsor correct any violations. The District Inspector has the latitude to make the decision as to how serious the violations are. Sometimes the project sponsor will correct a problem on the same day that a violation is issued, and the inspector will determine that perhaps this was an oversight and allow the project to proceed without any penalties. Director Chiu stated that although the code does not clearly state that the Inspector has the

    latitude to make these calls, in his opinion, if there is a minor violation that was detected by DBI staff, no complaints were filed by the public and the project sponsor corrects the violation quickly, then the Inspector should be able to make the call. Director Chiu said that this system is working, but agrees that the Department needs to do a better job in entering the NOVs in a timely manner.

    Vice-President Hood asked if the Inspector writes down a violation on a form and then a clerk enters the information into the computer. Director Chiu answered, yes, that is the way it is at present. Vice-President Hood mentioned palm pilots and Director Chiu said that he knew where she was going. Vice-President Hood asked if it were possible with the computer system that is being set up, that someday the Inspector would be able to take out a lap top or notebook computer and enter the information in directly. Director Chiu said that this is an item that is in the Department’s goals, but this technology is about a year and a half away. The Department has plans for a mobile, portable system where the inspector could issue the NOV from the portable lap top that instantly connects with the mainframe. Director Chiu said that this is something that the Department continues to work on. Vice-President Hood stated that, even if it would be difficult, it would be good if the NOVs could be entered by the next day. This would show that the Department is getting on top of this problem right away.

    President Fillon said that his concern was that the process was consistent and according to code. Director Chiu said that there are some cases where a property owner is not aware that a permit is needed for minor repair work, and perhaps because of a neighbor’s complaint, there is a NOV issued. Sometimes the homeowner has come into the Department and filed for a permit even before the Inspector has returned from the field. Director Chiu said that in the case of a contractor, realtor or property manager, who should be aware of the need to apply for a permit, the Department does not have any sympathy. However, on a smaller scale, for a property owner who may not be aware of the requirements, Director Chiu stated that he would like to leave it up to the discretion of the Inspector as to how these cases should be handled. However, in many cases where it is not appropriate to issue a permit without any penalties, then the Inspector always has the right to go back and ask that the penalty be paid. This has been done in many cases. Director Chiu said that this policy works, but if the Commission wanted to take a harder line, it could be changed. Director Chiu stated that regardless of the code stipulating that the penalty is nine times, the code does allow the Department, the Deputy Director and the Board of Permit Appeals to reduce the penalty down to two times.

    Commissioner Walker asked if there is currently some sort of threshold where the process becomes automatic that a penalty is charged and it is not left up to the Inspector to decide. For instance, if there is a Notice of Violation because either there is no permit, or there is a situation where the work exceeds the scope of the permit, at what point is more extensive review required, rather than just issuing an immediate permit. Director Chiu said there is no threshold, but if someone exceeds the scope of work and is cited by a District Inspector, at some point they will have to deal with the Inspector again. The NOV is very clear. For example, if the scope of work is exceeded, the NOV will state what work or by what dollar amount it was exceeded. Director Chiu stated that if a project sponsor applied for a permit that showed work being done in the amount of $1,000.00 and the Inspector detected that the

    remodeling job was actually $20,000.00, the Inspector would issue an NOV stating that the

    permit was exceeded by $19,000.00. The project sponsor would then have to come in and either apply for a new permit, or pay for the difference of $19,000.00. Commissioner Walker asked if the project sponsor could still get the permit over-the-counter without any further review. Director Chiu said that was correct, if it was only a financial difference. However, if the District Inspector requires plans, then the person would have to come in and apply for a permit with plans to address the issues.

    Vice-President Hood said that there seems to be a class of violations that requires an instance response. For example, if there is a project that is going to require Planning Department review where the exterior of the building has been changed or a building is demolished. Vice-President Hood said there haven been instances in the past where a building has been demolished and no demolition permit was issued. Vice-President Hood asked if when the Inspector goes to the site, does he or she have the authority to stop the work immediately. Director Chiu answered yes. Vice-President Hood said that in that sort of egregious instance, the Inspector can issue a Stop Work Permit instantaneously and they have to go back to Planning before they can proceed. Director Chiu said that the Stop Work Order can stop work entirely or just a particular portion of the work. If Planning Department approval is required for any portion of the work being done, then that work will be stopped completely until the project sponsor goes through the process, including Planning review, and reapplies for a new permit.

    Anastasia Yovanopoulos said she was speaking as a tenant and she also volunteers at the Tenants Union. However, she was not speaking for the Tenants Union, but for herself. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that in one particular instance, when there was electrical work with no permit in her house, the Housing Inspector cited the owner for no access to the electric meters. The deadbolt had to be removed from the door leading to the meters. This was in 1997, Inspector Alex Fong cited the owner, according to the code and she was given a key, so the process worked. Years later the owner installed an automatic garage door and failed to give all of the tenant’s keys. Ms. Yovanopoulos called the Department and made a complaint to Richard Young. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she asked Mr. Young if the owner needed a permit to put on a new garage door and asked if this was a violation. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she was then referred to a Building Inspector. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that in some cases the problem is easily fixed and in other cases it can be something that is bigger and takes a different code section. Ms. Yovanopoulos said it is up to the Inspectors and their Supervisors.

    b. Update on 2000 Ulloa Street regarding number of permit extensions and work hours.

    Director Chiu stated that this item was brought up at the last meeting concerning the number of extensions that were granted to this particular property. According to the Building Code an extension may be granted, and the Department’s policy has always been, up to three times by the Chief Building Inspector of a particular division. Director Chiu said that due to the owner of this particular property having some personal, serious illness issues, staff had

    granted up to seven extensions. Director Chiu stated that he understood that the property owner was now at their last extension of the seventh extension with all work having to be

    completed by May 18th. At that time, if the work is not done, the property owner has been informed that they will need to file for a new permit and routinely this will be issued, probably a form 8 or over the counter permit. President Fillon asked how much time was involved in the seven extensions. Director Chiu said that each extension is good for 90 days according to the code, so the permit has been extended for over 18 months. Director Chiu said that regarding the hours of construction, according to DBI records, a complaint was received that work may have been occurring after hours. Inspector Andrew Greene went to the property and spoke with the property owner to halt after hours work and that has stopped. Director Chiu said that this property has had a number of extension requests granted, and the Department expects the work to be done by May 18th. If a new permit has to be obtained, according to code, the permit may be appealed within 15 days. Director Chiu said that he understands that the project has been going on for some time, but hopes to see closure by the May 18th date. Commissioner Santos said that if the work is not completed by May 18th and a new permit has to be applied for, it implies that this would be under a different code. Director Chiu said that it would depend on how much work is left and what needs to be done. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Santos was correct, as a project needs to be completed with the code that is in effect at the time. This is the reason that every permit has some type of life expectancy. The Department will review the project at that time and make sure that the building codes are still applicable. Commissioner Santos stated that the difference in the codes could be very drastic, structurally. Director Chiu said that if the structure work is done, at the time of a new permit, the project would have to be reviewed to see what needs to be completed. Commissioner Santos asked if this was a standard procedure when a project takes this long and the sponsor needs to reapply. Is there a possibility when applying for a new permit, to request that the project be reviewed under a previous code to be compatible with the initial design or is that left to the interpretation of the plan checker? Director Chiu said that it is left up to the plan checker, but again it has to be reviewed. Traditionally, the project is continued unless no work has been started. Director Chiu stated that it is very rare to have the project sponsor start all over again. At this point, the Department does not know what, if anything, will not be completed. Commissioner Walker asked if Driector Chiu was able to convey this information back to the member of the public who brought this to the attention of the Commission. Secretary Ann Aherne stated that both the property owner and the complainant had been notified of the meeting. Commissioner Walker suggested that the Department let both parties know that the permit expires on May 18th and at that point extensions will be over. Director Chiu said that he will communicate the information to the complainant in writing.

    Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu if there was a maximum of two extensions that are usually allowed for a time period of one year. Director Chiu stated that the code allows up to three extensions by staff, and then the Director may grant additional extensions if he felt that there was reasonable cause. The staff extended the permit because at the time they felt it was reasonable to grant an extension. Commissioner Marks asked if there was usually a time period that the application is good, for instance one year. Commissioner Marks said that the public member that spoke said that she thought a permit could only be extended for a period of not more than one year. Director Chiu said that the time limit for an application

    depends on the size of the job by the valuation. The minimal time is four months and some projects may go on for one or two years. Director Chiu said that he has seen some large projects take up to four or even six years. It depends on the scope of work, but the extension is only good for 90 days each time. Commissioner Marks asked, at what point the applicant is told that a permit can be extended if necessary, but only up to X period. Director Chiu said that on the last extension request, the applicant made the request on February 22nd and DBI staff responded on March 1st giving them a new deadline of May 18, 2000. The property owner is aware that this is the last extension that will be granted and will need to apply for a new permit if they do not comply with this date. Commissioner Marks asked if it is not routine that when a person applies for a permit, as a matter of information, they are informed that they can apply for additional extensions, however, the permit is only good for x period of time. Director Chiu said that for up to three extensions, the extension will be granted without asking a lot of questions. However, after the third extension, more detail is required. The applicant has to explain why they are seeking an extension. Director Chiu said that with the last extension on this property, the Department felt that the applicant has had ample time to complete the work and are hoping that the job will be completed by May 18th.

    Commissioner Walker said that the code indicates that the Director can extend the permit beyond the three extensions and asked if Director Chiu provided the other four extensions. Director Chiu said that he has delegated this to his Deputy Directors and yes, his staff granted the additional extensions.

    Anastasia Yovanopoulos stated that she was not speaking about the particular address on this agenda item, but said that once she spoke with someone who came from another county and was doing some work. This person mentioned that when he was doing work on different garage doors that this county had a quarterly system that took into account permits and when they expired. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there was some sort of tracking system on this county’s computer, but could not remember what county it was. Ms. Yovanopoulos said this would be worth looking into.

    Mr. Peter Bogatsky introduced himself as the property owner of 2000 Ulloa. Mr. Bogatsky said he would like to clear up some items for the record and give the Commission a recap on the project. Mr. Bogatsky said that the complaint about after hours work is a total fabricated lie and stated that he did not work after hours. Mr. Bogatsky said he did not know why his neighbor complained about this. Mr. Bogatsky stated that the neighbor that is putting brakes on his project has been continuously harassing him through the Building Department. Mr. Bogatsky said that there was a police report on record where the neighbor told his wife he was going to **** kill her. Mr. Bogatsky said there is no credibility for a person like that. Mr. Bogatsky stated that he applied for his horizontal, simple addition back in May 18, 1993. It took him 4 ½ years to get the approval for his project. On December 20, 1996, he received a construction permit. Then he went through two Board of Appeals meetings and two Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Bogatsky said that this caused him to spend a considerable amount of money. During the construction in early 1997, he had to underpin the structure and was harassed continuously about what he was doing. Mr. Bogatsky said that when he received the approval in December 1996, there were 8 pages attached to his drawings including many architectural and structural drawings. Mr. Bogatsky said now

    there are twenty additional pages of drawings and different permits that he has had to obtain after he started the project. Mr. Bogatsky stated that there has been delay after delay. The extensions that he has gotten are because of these additional requirements. Mr. Bogatsky said he went along with the City because he did not wish to loose the continuity of the project by having an invalid permit. Mr. Bogatsky said that he would like to sit down with someone in the Building Department to show what the timing has been. Mr. Bogatsky said that Wing Lau’s letter of September 25th gave him a permit until August 18, 1998. Mr. Bogatsky said that he believed the permit should have been for a much longer time period because he was entitled to a year of construction plus three extensions. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Bogatsky if his current extension until May 18th would be sufficient. Mr. Bogatsky said it was not enough time to finish the project completely. Commissioner Walker said that Mr. Bogatsky should sit down with someone at the Building Department to determine what needs to happen from that date. Mr. Bogatsky said he would be happy to do that. Commissioner Santos asked what work would remain to be done on May 18th. Mr. Bogatsky stated that the work left would be cosmetic work. Commissioner Santos said that he had worked for Mr. Bogatsky several times and that he was a great builder, but wanted to make sure that he was not the structural engineer for this project, which might cause a conflict of interest. Mr. Bogatsky said that he was not the engineer for this project. Commissioner Santos asked if all of the structural work, such as concrete foundations had been completed and inspected. Mr. Bogatsky stated that this type of work was complete, but he had some footing on the front stairs that needed to be completed. Mr. Bogatsky said he was working on this at the moment, but all of that work would be done, including all structural work. Mr. Bogatsky said that, as far as the delay, he did have illness in the family as his mother was ill in 1998 and passed away in 1999. Mr. Bogatsky stated that he did have financial difficulties and he has three kids to raise. Mr. Bogatsky said that having to wait 4 ½ years for a permit had upset everything that he had planned for.

    President Fillon asked if the Department has any recourse if the project is not fully completed by May 18th. President Fillon said that if there is only cosmetic work to be done, would the entire project be subject to the new code. Director Chiu said that if there is only cosmetic work to be done chances are that Mr. Bogatsky may not even need a new permit. That will have to be determined on May 18th. President Fillon asked if the Department would be allowed to give Mr. Bogatsky another extension. Director Chiu said that he could, however, when the last extension was granted the condition was that the project needed to be complete by May 18th. The Department wants the property owner to adhere to those conditions. President Fillon said that the project will have to reexamined at that time.

    c. Report on proposed ordinance to amend the San Francisco Police Code regarding

    construction work at night.

    Director Chiu stated that this ordinance was to amend the Police Code, but could have some affect on DBI by altering the hours of construction activity. According to the current Section 2908 of the Police Code, seven days a week there should not be any construction from 8:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. if this construction exceeds five DBA. The new proposal would try to allow property owners in a residential more peace on the weekends by

    stopping construction that exceeds five DBA from 6:00 p.m. on Friday to 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and again on Sunday. Director Chiu explained that 5 DBA is very low and even hammering a nail would exceed the noise level. Painting or wallpaper would be about the only work allowed. At present, construction can be done until 7:00 p.m. any given night and construction may be resumed at 7:00 a.m. The new proposal for the Police Code would affect the hours of construction on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Director Chiu stated that this would have an impact on some of the projects taking place in residential areas. This regulation would only involve residential areas. There is an option for a builder to request a variance from DBI, a noise permit. Director Chiu said that when a project sponsor files for a noise permit, the Department reviews the application and may issue a permit allowing the work to continue beyond normal hours. Vice-President Hood asked if this ordinance had already been passed or was it coming through the Commission’s usual review for changes to the Building Code. Director Chiu said that no, the construction work at night is technically speaking, in the Police Code. However, it is overlapping as DPW and DBI are involved along with the Police Department who are in charge of enforcement. Director Chiu said that if anyone has a problem with noise, whether it be construction or any other kind of noise, they first call the police as they are available 24 hours per day. The Police Department is not attempting to change the Building Code, but because the noise is caused by construction, DBI is involved in the enforcement along with the Police Department. President Fillon asked how many hours of construction would be limited by this ordinance. Director Chiu said that it would take away two hours on Friday evening and then two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening for Saturday and Sunday for a total of 10 hours. Commissioner Walker stated that this is in the Police Code, but asked about a variance that would be requested through DBI. Director Chiu said that yes, if the contractor requests work to be done before or after the allowable hours, a noise permit can be requested. Commissioner Walker asked if the Building Codes pointed to the Police Code currently. Commissioner Walker said she was curious as to how the Building Code addressed the time limits and how the Department would justify enforcing these limits. Director Chiu said that the Department does enforce the hours of activity, but again because it is a noise issue, it is enforced in the Police Code. Director Chiu stated that as far as the construction hours, it is in the Building Code that the Department has the right to set the hours. Director Chiu said that in any area, if people are concerned about noise, the Department has the right to investigate the matter and set the hours. Director Chiu said that pile driving is the largest complaint that comes into the Department and particularly in the Downtown area where there is mixed use of residential and business. It is the responsibility of DBI to respond to complaints and work with Developers to try and set hours of when this type of construction can be done. Commissioner Walker said that perhaps the Commission could ask the City Attorney to look at the Building Codes to see if there needs to be any changes made. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian stated that she did not believe there was anything in the Building Code, but DBI has control over the construction. If there is a complaint about noise, the Department still has control under the jurisdiction of the Building Code to stop the work or tell the Developer to stop during certain hours. Ms. Boyajian said that she noticed that the ordinance lists the Director of Public Works. Ms. Boyajian said that this is probably a hold over from when DBI was part of the Department of Public Works and the ordinance should probably be changed. Vice-President Hood said that she thought this ordinance in another example of creeping "codeism". Vice-President Hood said that in the past year she has had neighbors

    who were doing work on their own homes who started early and worked late. Vice-President Hood said that she was less bothered by the sound of hammering, than she was by loud music and rock and roll bands or heavy metal. Vice-President Hood stated that she did not believe that the hours should be more restrictive and said that she agreed with Director Chiu that on Friday nights construction crews who have worked hard all week because of the construction boom, would like to finish up and no one is in bed by 8:00 p.m. on Friday nights. Vice-President Hood said that there are so many more substantial sources of noise that seem to her, to be more of a problem. Vice-President Hood said that if someone is jack hammering the street, that seems to be over the 90 decibels range and no one is pile driving at 8:00 p.m. Vice-President Hood said that noise from automobiles probably exceeds these limits and stated that she would be opposed to the ordinance. Vice-President Hood asked if it would be possible for the Commission to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors saying that the Commission would like to see this issue not become more restrictive. President Fillon said that if there was a consensus among the Commissioners that could be done. President Fillon stated that he was opposed to this ordinance and said that it was more of a police matter, and not a building matter. President Fillon said that he wondered if anyone had done a cost analysis as to how much money enforcement of this ordinance would cost. President Fillon stated that this would be very costly to the construction industry, as well. President Fillon said that he did not think this ordinance was very thought out. Commissioner Marks said that she did not believe that the Commission had any influence on the outcome of this ordinance as it was going to go before the Board of Supervisors. Director Chiu said that the Board had asked for his input and he had testified before the Board and personally had no problem with construction starting later on the weekend, but did express his opposition to construction being cut off at 6:00 p.m. Director Chiu said that even though this ordinance is about the Police Code, the Board of Supervisors were seeking opinions from all those involved. Director Chiu said that this is only a proposal and would not be reviewed until some time next month. President Fillon asked if the Board of Supervisors would be sending someone to the Commission to make a presentation regarding this ordinance. Director Chiu said that because there is no amendment to the Building Code required, no one is required to come before the Commission. Vice-President Hood said that if DBI is going to be the Department granting variances, which is an additional work load, she would hate to see the Department taking on more work to enforce someone else’s code. Vice-President Hood stated that she thought this would be one of those muddy things that would cause problems and difficult to do right to keep everyone happy. Vice-President Hood said she was all for simple being better and thought that the people who are sleeping on Saturday and Sunday mornings could sleep through normal construction. The construction taking place downtown does not affect anyone. Vice-President Hood stated that she would like to put this on the calendar to have a vote on it and find out how the other Commissioners feel about it, but she stated that she thought it was a bad idea to make things more restrictive. Vice-President Hood said that there is such a problem to produce more housing and referred to a previous speaker who said he had been working on his house for six years. Vice-President Hood said that one of the things that the Commission wanted to do was not to make things harder for the public.

    Anastasia Yovanopoulos stated that she believed that it was in the Civil Code that 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. is the time allowed for construction. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she likes the idea of no construction until 9:00 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday as she has had her landlord

    peering in her window on Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she believed according to the Civil Code it is 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that this is not the first time Supervisor Mark Leno came up with legislation. He came up with a proposal for back stairways, decks and appendages, which did not go anywhere. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that it flopped and it fizzled and DBI took care of it as the Housing Inspectors saw fit. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she does not agree with this proposal, but as a tenant she likes her enjoyment of peace and quite and this is already in the Civil Code, the Habitability Code and she does not need to be constantly jarred with noises. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that many people come into the Tenants Union with the same complaint. Work does not have to be done at night. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the workers should knock it off, it’s over, go have a beer and they might not fall off the ladder.

    Mr. Bruce Bonaker, of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) stated that NARI had not yet reviewed this legislation, but one thought that he wanted to stress was that, with the exception of new buildings that are being built, wherein the crew is working over the weekend as well as during the work week, he would say that 90% of the work that is being done on the weekends is work without a permit. Mr. Bonaker said that on Tenant Improvements and home remodels, work done on the weekends is generally done without a permit. Mr. Bonaker stated that this could become a mechanism whereby the Department could flush that sort of thing out, if it wanted to. President Fillon asked Mr. Bonaker where he was getting the information about 90% of the work done on the weekend being done without permit. Mr. Bonaker said that he did not have absolute information on that and so therefore, he should probably rescind the term 90%. Mr. Bonaker said that he was probably suggesting himself to gross hyperbole there, but he would say that a very large portion of the work done on weekends is done typically without permit. Commissioner Santos asked why this was so. Would it be because the inspectors have the weekend off so people feel they can do the work and will not get caught? Mr. Bonaker said that would certainly be one reason. Commissioner Santos said that there would still be the noise of construction so there would be the same possibility of getting caught on the weekend as during the week. The people that complain would still complain on the weekend. Mr. Bonaker said that the questions then becomes, if the people complain to the Fire Department, does the Fire Department notify the Building Department in each and every case. Mr. Bonaker said he did not know if this was the case. Mr. Bonaker stated that he was also talking about office building tenant improvements. Mr. Bonaker said that a lot of tenant improvements, that occur in the area of his own personal office, occur only on the weekends and one has to wonder why the workers are only working on the weekends. Mr. Bonaker said that therefore, he believes it could be a mechanism, if the Department wants to do it, showing that the work is being done with a permit. President Fillon asked Mr. Bonaker to let him know about any projects that he may know about that he suspects are being done without a permit.

    Vice-President Hood asked if the Commission could send a letter to the Board of Supervisors about this legislation. President Fillon stated that he would agendize this matter for another meeting.

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

    Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that the reason she came to the meeting was to give comment on the minutes from the April 5, 2000 meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the last item that she spoke about, the minutes reflected that she said the tenants were short changed. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she called the Secretary to say that, while she is a tenant and she volunteers for the Tenant’s Union, she is speaking for herself. President Fillon said that the minutes were an item on the agenda and Mr. Yovanopoulos should speak at that time. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that this was her public comment time and she did not like being interrupted and it is important to her that she came all the way to the meeting in the bus to tell the Commission that... Vice-President Hood informed Ms. Yovanopoulos that the public comment was for items that are not on the agenda and the minutes are on the agenda so she should speak at that time. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she had three minutes of public time and she came to the meeting because the Tenant’s Union told her that she does not speak for them. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that when she speaks, she speaks for herself as an individual. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that at the beginning of the meeting President Fillon said that the Commission was not going to interrupt during public comment and she might not be staying for the entire meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she just wanted to let people know that she is an individual who speaks for herself and she does not want to get involved in tenant issues.

5. 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.

    There were no communication items to be discussed.

6. Discussion and possible action regarding number of public comment items on the agenda.

    President Fillon said that this item came about because there were complaints about a meeting where there was only one item for the public to speak about items that were not on the agenda. President Fillon stated that there had always been two items for this matter as some people were present at the beginning of the meeting and others were at the meeting later. President Fillon said this item was about reestablishing two areas for public comment and stated that he was in favor of going back to this practice, as it was fairer to the public. If someone misses the first opportunity for public comment they can still make the second opportunity and if someone does not want to stay for the entire meeting, they can leave after the first public comment. Vice-President Hood said that she agreed with President Fillon and that during her years as President, generally there was no one left by the last public comment so it does not generally delay the meeting. However, if there is something where someone misses the first opportunity to speak, they at have a chance at the second agenda item for public comment. It allows the public to speak on an item that may have come up during the meeting. Commissioner Sanchez asked if the same person would be allowed to speak at both public comment items. President Fillon said that yes, the Commission could not limit the

    public to only one public comment. Vice-President Hood stated that there are at least two times where the Chair, can interrupt, and should interrupt, a speaker from the public. Those are when the speaker is talking about something not under the jurisdiction of this Commission, according to the Sunshine Act, and the second time is when it is an item that is elsewhere on the agenda. Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted to make sure that public member understood that it is not interrupting them in a personal way, but it is because it is something that is not permitted for the Commission to do. The Commission cannot take public comment on issues not under their jurisdiction or on an item that is elsewhere on the agenda. Commissioner Walker stated that she had a concern similar to what Commission Sanchez brought up, that people could speak for a total of six minutes. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a way to say that there can be only one public comment, split in half, and the total limit is three minutes. Commissioner Walker asked if it had to be two separate speaking times of three minutes each because it does give people six minutes to talk about the same thing. President Fillon asked for comment by Ms. Boyajian. Ms. Boyajian said the public has the right to speak for up to three minutes for every calendar item, so if it is listed twice than the Commission needs to hear from the same people on the same thing for three minutes each time. The President can continue the public comment to a later time. There is a way to having it once and continuing it to the end if anyone is left. Ms. Boyajian stated that she had never seen anyone abuse the double comment period. President Fillon said that he has been on the Commission for a while now and has had to sit through some uncomfortable public comment, but he said that the public benefits from the two opportunities to speak and the Commission is present to serve the public. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to move that the Commission go back to having two opportunities for public testimony, one towards the beginning and one at the end as suggested by President Fillon. Commissioner Santos seconded the motion. President Fillon asked if there was any further discussion on this item. There was none. President Fillon asked for a vote. The motion passed unanimously.

    BIC RESOLUTION No. BIC 026-00

7. Report and possible action on the Commission having a Closed Session or Meeting regarding DBI personnel issues. [Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian]

    Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian stated that at the last meeting the Commission asked her to research the possibilities of having a closed session to discuss the comments that have been made by the public at a number of recent Commission meetings. Ms. Boyajian said that she reviewed Proposition G and it does list the permitted topics under which the Commission could go into a closed session. The only one that seems to apply at all would be to evaluate the performance of a City employee, or compliance or charges against the employee, if the Commission has the ability to appoint or dismiss the employee. The Commission only has those powers over the Director and the Commission Secretary. The only other possibility for a closed session is anticipated litigation and there is none at this point. Ms. Boyajian said she believed the Commission could go into closed session, as she reported at the last meeting, to

evaluate the Director’s conduct of his investigation of these complaints and that is as far as the Commission can go. President Fillon said that would mean the Commission would not be addressing any particular personnel; it would just be an evaluation of the Director. Ms. Boyajian said that it would be an evaluation of how the Director is responding to the complaints by the public and where he is at on his investigation. Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last meeting, he had asked for a copy of the report that was done several years ago. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the outcome of that request was. Ms. Boyajian stated that she did consult with the City Attorney directly regarding his request and the City Attorney is still unwilling to release the report to the Commission or anyone else. Ms. Boyajian said that she had an opportunity to look at the report for the first time, but did not actually read it all. Ms. Boyajian said that to her it was more than a work product; it was also personnel information as far as she was concerned. The report and supporting documents are retained in the Department’s Personnel Officer’s files and since the Commission does not have any control over the employees, it cannot really look at personnel files. There is nothing that the Commission can do with it. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Director were entitled to look at the report. Ms. Boyajian stated that the Director could look at it because he has disciplinary authority over all of the employees under him. The Commission can ask the Director to report what he believes the investigation covered and whether he believes the investigation is closed. The Commission can evaluate the Director’s response. Vice-President Hood asked if the Commission was to determine whether or not to go into closed session at the present time, or if they were just supposed to get a report. Ms. Boyajian said that to day, the Commission was just going to determine if there would be a closed session and what could be discussed at that closed session. Vice-President Hood said that based on that, Commissioner Guinnane was the one who wanted the closed session and she asked if he still wanted to do so. Commissioner Guinnane said that yes, he wanted Director Chiu to get a copy of the report and evaluate it and report to the Commission in a closed session. Commissioner Santos said that the public was allowed to speak twice at public comment during meetings and at several meetings, the public made specific complaints about an employee. Commissioner Santos said that if the Commission had no jurisdiction over personnel, the public should be told that it is a waste of time for them to tell the Commission their problems or their encounters with inspectors and other employees. Commissioner Santos stated that the Commission had absolutely no authority over, nor the ability to obtain any records about employees. Commissioner Walker said that this was true, but the Commission did have jurisdiction over process and projects that are going through the Department. Commissioner Walker said that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over personnel, other than the Director. Commissioner Walker stated that at the time all of this was happening the Commission may have been able to act if there was something questionable going on, but she stated that since it has already been investigated, and Director Chiu was on top of it at that point, she would not support going into a closed session to evaluate Director Chiu’s actions. President Fillon said that he did not believe a closed session would be to evaluate Director Chiu, but it would be valuable to get an update as to what is going on in terms of his investigation. Commissioner Walker said that she needed to have it clarified what the Commission is talking about for the closed session. President Fillon said that the Commission has been hearing a lot of accusations and the Commission has asked the Director to look into these allegations. President Fillon said that it had to be a closed session because people are being accused in a public forum and it might incriminate

    employees. President Fillon asked Commissioner Guinnane if that was what he wanted from a closed session. Commissioner Guinnane said that as far as he was concerned, Director Chiu has taken no action at all and that is why he wanted a closed session. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission would not be evaluating Director Chiu and what he wanted was to discuss the report and see what the actual findings of that report are. Allegations have come out and are still coming out. Ms. Boyajian stated that the only legal authority for the Commission to go into a closed session is to discuss the Director’s performance on a particular matter, not in his general job performance, but how he is responding to these complaints, and if he is not taking any action, why not. If he is taking action, what is it. Ms. Boyajian stated that in the course of that, the Commission can determine whether the Director has looked at the formal report to see if it has an relevance as to what is going on today. The report was made in 1994 when the Department was still part of the Department of Public Works, with a different Superintendent. Ms. Boyajian stated that Mr. Chiu was not involved in the report at that time. Ms. Boyajian said that she was cautioning the Commission to be very careful about how they state what the closed session will be about, as it has to fall into the parameters of Proposition G. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to go into closed session to discuss how the Director has handled the matters that have come up in public testimony. Vice-President Hood said that her reason for that is, that even in this discussion, the Commission is getting into dates and other items that have innuendos. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to go into closed session so that the Commission would have general knowledge, so that if complaints come up again from the public about someone who is in Director Chiu’s Department, the Commission would understand how he deals with these matters. Vice-President Hood stated that she supported Commissioner Guinnane’s desire to have this agendized. Vice-President Hood cautioned that the Commission should be very careful to follow the advice of the City Attorney that the Commission does not get into the personal details that it is inappropriate for the Commission to take up. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission will be limited, but at least this can be discussed to make sure that concerns are being checked. Vice-President Hood said that, in response to Commissioner Santos’ question as to why the Commission listens at all, the Commission is the public forum that the City citizens can bring complaints to. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission cannot always act directly on the complaints, but the Commission can be the funnel to the Director who is the funnel to the rest of the Department. Commissioner Santos said that he gets the sense that members of the public have a perception that the Commission can act on this, and that they come to the meetings and tell their stories very emotionally, about someone who has done them wrong. Commissioner Santos said that he feels uneasy about listening to the public knowing that literally the Commission can do nothing about personnel issues. Commissioner Santos stated that at least the Commission should warn the public about this, that they can cry all they want, but nothing can be done by the Commission. President Fillon said that he would inform the public of what is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Santos said that there should be a full disclosure to the public about this. Commissioner Walker said that she is very nervous about the possible direction that a closed session might take and would like to ask the City Attorney that since, if Commissioners are ultimately responsible if violations occur and ultimately responsible if anything is disclosed outside of closed session, and Commissioners can be charged with misdemeanor for any violation of the Brown Act or

    the Sunshine Ordinance, if in session the direction takes a turn that she as a Commissioner thinks is illegal, how does she protect herself. Deputy City Attorney said that she would be in the closed session with the Commission and part of her job is to make sure that no one violates the Brown Act or Proposition G, but if she is not there at some point and a Commissioner believes that there is a violation, it is the obligation of the Commissioner to remove him or herself from the situation and that is how a Commissioner is protected. Commissioner Marks said that Commissioner Sanchez had his hand up several times. President Fillon apologized. Commissioner Marks stated that she would vote against the request to go into closed session. Commissioner Marks said that Director Chiu has explained to the Commission publicly, that an investigation is going on and she feels every confidence that Director Chiu is doing his job. Commissioner Marks said that she could see no purpose for going into closed session. Again, Commissioner Marks said that there is a fear that members of the Commission may want more information than they should legally expect. Commissioner Marks stated that Director Chiu has said that he is continuing with an investigation and there is no reason to believe that he is not. President Fillon asked if there was a motion. Vice-President Hood made a motion seconded by Commissioner Guinnane that the Commission have a Closed Session. The Commissioner’s voted as follows:

    Commissioner Marks No

    Commissioner Sanchez Yes

    Commissioner Santos Yes

    President Fillon Yes

    Vice-President Hood Yes

    Commissioner Walker No

    Commissioner Guinnane Yes

    The motion carried.

    BIC RESOLUTION NO. BIC 027-00

8. Review and possible action on the proposed Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter I, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Building Code) by amending Table 1-P of Section 110 to change the method of calculating the Annual Apartment House Fees from number of rooms to number of units.

Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the format that was before him, especially in the hotel section on the last page, there is inconsistency as from 30 to 39 rooms there is a difference of nine rooms, the next one has nine, the third one from 50 to 59 has nine and then all of a sudden it goes from 60 to 99 which is 39 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane said that then the count goes from 100 to 149, which is 49 and then the next one drops to 25 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not figure out how the schedule was arrived at. Commissioner Guinnane said that the schedule he was given previously was different than the one he was given at the meeting and it was the same with the apartment schedule. Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield said that the Department altered the existing schedule as little as possible, but took into account the request from the Commissioners that the count at

    the end of the schedule be increased to include larger hotels and apartment buildings. It was determined that the most equitable way to do that would be to require the hotels to take into consideration each additional 25 rooms. Ms. Stansfield said that she agreed with Commissioner Guinnane that there is a difference going from 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-99 and 100-150, but that was what the original schedule was. Ms. Stansfield said that the schedule was kept the same. However, Ms. Stansfield said that if the Commission felt it was worthwhile to change that, it would be fine with her. Ms. Stansfield stated that she also took into consideration how many hotels were actually at the numbers that there were and this report was forwarded to the Commissioners through the Director. Ms. Stansfield said that there are only 64 hotels that have over 150 rooms so it is really starting at 150-175. Commissioner Guinnane asked what was the largest hotel in San Francisco. Ms. Stansfield stated that the largest hotel in San Francisco has 1,732 rooms and there are only four hotels that have over 1,000 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane said that the format he was looking at previously seemed to be a lot more detailed and was better done than this present report. Director Chiu said that the only difference from the last time it was submitted was that instead of listing more scenarios of room counts, it was easier to stop at some point and charge $50.00 for each additional 25 rooms. Director Chiu stated that he did not want the public to think that the Department was changing the entire fee structure. This current chart was following what Commissioner Guinnane had suggested that the fees not stop at any given point, but continue for larger hotels and apartments. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he was questioning the beginning part of the chart where the increments increase by 9, 9, 9 then 39 and 49 and then back down to 25. Ms. Stansfield said that was what was in the original code. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not necessarily want to go by what was on the original code. Commissioner Guinnane said that his concern was that when initially hotels were done, the count was stopping at 150 rooms and he felt that the larger hotels were escaping and the same with the apartment houses that were being charged for only up to 60 units. Director Chiu stated that the largest hotel rooms were up to over 1,700 and in the future there could be hotels built with over 2,000 rooms and rather than change the code at that time, it was better to stop at some point. The current table would catch all room counts. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Guinnane wanted to change from 100-200 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was not concerned about the $50.00 for each additional 25 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane said that what was bothering him was the way the table starts off initially and particularly the breakdown from 30-175 rooms. Ms. Stansfield said that there was one other issue that was taken into consideration. The Department wanted to change the structure for apartment buildings specifically to reflect apartment units as opposed to rooms, which had caused a lot of problems in being able to assess fees on buildings that inspectors were not able to get into. Ms. Stansfield stated that she wanted to keep the fee structure as much the same as possible to produce the same amount of money. The Department did not want to increase or decrease revenue. Ms. Stansfield stated that she calculated what the actual revenue would be as this was a concern of the Commission. If the fees were changed dramatically, the Department might receive substantially more revenue, or substantially less revenue. Commissioner Guinnane said that his initial concern was that the larger hotels and apartment houses were escaping fees and the little person was getting squeezed. Director Chiu said that this proposal would fix that situation. Previously, up to 150 rooms paid the same amount as 1,000 rooms, but this new proposal would take care of the concerns of Commissioner Guinnane. Director Chiu said

    that the existing table was not changed at the beginning as the public would say that the Commission is finding another way to raise fees. Director Chiu said that the Department does not want to increase fees, but just wants to pay for costs involved. Director Chiu said that he directed his staff and the City Attorney’s Office to keep the fee schedule the same, as much as possible, but at the same time catch the larger units. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was a change of ownership fee on the prior chart. Ms. Stansfield said that was removed at the time the license fee was put on the property tax bill. There was no additional fee for change of ownership starting at that time, but it wasn’t indicated on this amendment previously. Commissioner Walker said that in looking into the future, in having a variance of 49 room on one fee schedule, for instance 100-149 or the 60-99, does the time required to inspect a building of 100 room as opposed to 149, justify keeping it at the same rate. Commission Walker asked what would happen if next year there were 25 or 30 more 149 room hotels, does it make sense time wise in allocating personnel. Commissioner Walker said if an inspector has to go out to inspect a lot of these units, it seems it would take more time to inspect 49 more rooms. Ms. Stansfield said that tourist hotels do not take as long as residential hotels and the majority of residential hotels fall into the equivalent of the existing fee structure, which goes to 150 rooms. Ms. Stansfield said that there are some residential hotels between 150 and 200 rooms, but there are no residential hotels that are larger than that. Vice-President Hood stated that she understood the concerns of Commissioners Guinnane and Walker. Vice-President Hood stated that there are a number of things embodied in the fee structure that are not in the math of it. For example, on the very large hotels there are very long corridors, the same number of exits and an enormous amount of repetition in the units. Therefore, there is an economy of scale at some point and Vice-President Hood said she thought this was what the Department was trying to reflect. Vice-President Hood said that after the fees reach a room total of 175 rooms; only $50.00 needs to be added for each additional 25 rooms going on forever. Vice-President Hood said that this is the best effort to reflect the time it takes to do the inspection because there is still only one lobby and only a limited number of sprinkler connections on the street and so forth and so on. Vice-President Hood said that on the apartment houses she believes a few very big apartments in Pacific Heights get off with less money and this is more burdensome on the poor than on the rich. However, there are not very many of those apartments that have eight rooms or more, so Vice-President Hood said she did not think that this problem was very significant. Vice-President Hood said that the revenues were already covering the costs so the Commission needed to be very careful about raising the fees too much or the Department would be in violation of the State Code, which requires the Department not to raise fees except to meet costs. Vice-President Hood said that she would not want to go any further than the presented document to increase people’s fees. Commissioner Marks stated that the other alternative would be to decrease the fee that is charged to smaller units, it is not just a matter of increasing fees. Ms. Stansfield said that the fees were not being increased, the fees were calculated and it was almost the same as it would be according to the old schedule. Commissioner Marks said that she was responding to what Vice-President Hood was saying and her concern about raising fees. Commissioner Marks said that in her mind, it was a concern that the smaller apartment houses and hotels are carrying the burden of the financing of the inspections, so there is an option of reducing fees in the smaller units and making the larger units pay a more equitable share. Vice-President Hood said this is one of those things that sounds good until it is looked into and it is the smaller ones that take the most time to

    check and tend to have the most code violations where inspectors have to return several times. Vice-President Hood said there is really kind of a built in subsidy from the larger to the smaller and she would hesitate to take that any further. Vice-President Hood stated that the Department has found over years of experience that the fee schedule is in about the right place. Vice-President Hood stated that she would be in favor of leaving the fee schedule the way it is written as she has confidence in the way it has been set. Vice-President Hood said she would support the schedule as written. President Fillon asked for a motion on the item. There was no public comment on this item.

    Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to accept the fee schedule as presented in agenda item #8.

    The motion carried, with one dissenting vote by Commissioner Guinnane.

    BIC RESOLUTION NO. BIC.028-00

    Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to thank Commissioner Guinnane, even though he was not totally happy with the schedule, because he at least caught the larger hotels and apartment houses for their share of the fees and she appreciated that he looks closely at these items. Commissioner Guinnane thanked Vice-President Hood.

9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of April 5, 2000.

    Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to remind the Secretary that there the public member who had a change to the minutes, but had already left the meeting. Secretary Ann Aherne stated that she had spoken to Ms. Yovanopoulos and had made the change.

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

    BIC RESOLUTION NO. BIC.029-00

10. Commissioners= 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 she did not have an inquiry. Commissioner Walker stated that

    she wanted to thank the staff for getting information necessary for the City Attorney’s Office to take action in trying to do something about the musical rooms in residential hotels. Commissioner Walker stated that she understood that the City Attorney’s Office had actually filed three cases and asked Director Chiu to pass the Commission’s thanks along to Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield for her help. Commissioner Walker said that this is an ongoing problem and it is a great thing that the Departments are working together to make it so that people won’t loose their homes. Director Chiu said he would be happy to give a message of thanks to Ms. Stansfield.

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.

    Vice-President Hood informed the Commission that she would not be able to be at the May 3, 2000 meeting and would like the closed session to be taken up at the second meeting in May, if that arrangement was okay with the rest of the Commission.

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

    Bruce Bonaker of NARI said that he wanted to take the opportunity to reinforce Commissioner Hood’s suggestion that the Commission maximize the allowance for the public to come up and speak to the Commission. Mr. Bonaker stated that this sort of dialogue allows the public to give the Commission, as well as staff, a good sense of where the public’s mind is with regard to procedures that the Department has and where it could be modified. The pulbic can complain about the way a field inspection occurs or the process for plan check. Mr. Bonaker said that when a public member has a specific case, the Commission might not be able to address the specific case, but the Commission can put it in their minds as a sort of procedural change, which can be discussed with the Director. Secondly, Mr. Bonaker said that at several public advisory committees the public had requested that there be staff down in the lobby on the first floor to assist those who look like they have encountered the deer in the headlights in terms of not knowing where they are or what they are supposed to be doing. Mr. Bonaker said that he wanted to thank the Director for having a person there to walk up to the customer and be able to assist the customer by letting them know where they have to be going or what to do. Mr. Bonaker said he appreciated having this service.

12. Adjournment.

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

    BIC RESOLUTION NO. BIC 030-00

    The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.

                  _____________________________

Ann Marie Aherne

                      Interim Commission Secretary

            SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

            Notification to parties involved in 2000 Ulloa regarding expiration of building permit on 5/18/00 - Commissioner Walker

            Page 5

            Proposed Police Code ordinance regarding noise and allowable hours for construction - Department of Public Works should be changed to Department of Building Inspection - Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian

            Page 8

            Future Agenda Item - Proposed Police Code ordinance - President Fillon

            Page 10