2.

President’s Announcements.

President Lee reminded all of the Commissioners that the Form 700’s were due on April 1^st.  President Lee asked that all agenda items for Commission meetings be submitted at least ten days before the meeting to make sure that everyone is prepared.

 

3.

Swearing in members to the Board of Examiners.  All seats to expire September 15, 2010.  Continued from January 16, 2008 meeting.

      a.   Robert Fuller  -           Fire Protection Engineer

      b.   Armin Wolski  -           General Contractor

      c.   James Reed   -           Electrical Contractor

Mr. Reed was not present to be sworn in.

 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy that Mr. Fuller and Mr. Wolski be sworn into the BOE.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC  016-08

 

Fire Marshall Barbara Schulteis said that she was impressed by the group of candidates chosen for the Board of Examiners, but said that she wanted to single out Bob Fuller who served as the Fire Department’s Fire Protection Engineer for fourteen years.  Ms. Schulteis said that Mr. Fuller was a mentor and a wonderful teacher who made his students think about things differently.  Ms. Schulteis thanked the Commission for making a good choice.

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) spoke in support of Mr. Fuller and said that BOMA members worked with Mr. Fuller both in and out of the City.  Mr. Cleaveland said that the members did not always like Mr. Fuller’s decisions, but stated that Mr. Fuller was always thorough and fair.

 

President Lee administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Fuller and Mr. Wolski.

4.

Director’s Report.

 

      a.   Status of MIS.

 

Director Hasenin said that he would be addressing MIS issues under the BPR agenda item.

 

 b.   Financial Report.

Director Hasenin reported that the Department continues to see higher levels of revenue than budgeted and said that if the trend continues the Department will see $3M above the projected revenue.  Director Hasenin said that the Department has been trying to keep expenditures down and as a result should only need $1M of the surplus at the end of the year instead of the budgeted $7M.  Director Hasenin stated that he expected the downturn in construction to continue for the next couple of years so the Department would continue to closely watch the revenues and expenditures.

Director Hasenin said that DBI continues to meet with other departments particularly regarding the BPR.stated that the Department has sent BPR recommendations to the other City departments involved and over the next month or two will be meeting with those departments and the Mayor’s Office to discuss implementation.  Director Hasenin said that he would then come back to the Commission with an informational item as to how implementation is progressing.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she would like the BIC to have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss issues relevant to both departments.  Director Hasenin said that he has been meeting with the Planning Director and the members of the Mayor’s Office and would suggest that the Presidents of the two Commissions should possibly meet to set an agenda for a joint meeting.

 

Commissioner Sattary asked that any items for a joint meeting be given to the Commissioners in advance for review.  Director Hasenin suggested that when a meeting date is set the BIC should agendize a discussion of items to be included in the joint meeting.

 

Director Hasenin said that this item is concerned with office space and stated that the Department continues to look at the options of moving the entire operation or of remodeling the 1660 Mission Street building to make it more user friendly.  Director Hasenin said that unfortunately there is limited office space available near City Hall and the cost of a private building would be approximately 50% more than the lease rate that the Department is now paying to the City.  Director Hasenin said that the Department was looking for a permanent solution that would take place in three to five years.  Director Hasenin said that the Department was open to suggestions and said that Commissioner Walker had suggested a sub-committee of the Commission to address these issues. Director Hasenin stated that the Department was doing minor remodeling such as paint and carpeting to the 4^th and 5^th floors at 1660 Mission Street which should be completed by July.  Director Hasenin stated that he wanted to thank the other City agencies that have been involved with the remodel.

 

Commissioner Walker suggested that the forming of a sub-committee to deal with this issue be agendized for the next meeting. 

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he understood about making 1660 more customer friendly, but asked that adequate space and a lunchroom for employees be high on the agenda.  Director Hasenin said that he is very aware of the need for more space for employees, but said that a complete remodel of the building would cost approximately $2.4M per floor and said that the Department does not have the money right now.

 

       e.    Update on Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety. (CAPSS)

 

Director Hasenin reported that the CAPSS program was back on track as the contract was amended and signed.  Commissioner Walker thanked the Director for moving this forward.

 

5.

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

There was no public comment.

 

President Lee said that item #’s 6 & 7 would be heard together.

 

6.

Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed ordinance (Mayor Gavin Newsom - File No. 080063) amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Chapter 13C to impose green building requirements on newly constructed residential buildings, newly constructed commercial buildings that are 5,000 gross square feet or more, alterations to new or existing commercial interiors that are 25,000 gross square feet or more in area, and major alterations to existing buildings that are 25,000 gross square feet or more in area, where interior finishes are removed and significant upgrades to structural and mechanical, electrical and/or plumbing systems are proposed; exempting City projects, which are covered by Chapter 7 of the San Francisco Environment Code; providing that the requirements become effective 90 days after enactment of the ordinance and increase over the following five-year period; adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings required by California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5.  [Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield]

 

7.

 

Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield said that these were two important pieces of legislation for the City and would allow San Francisco to take a leadership role in green buildings. Mr. Kornfield gave a brief history of both legislations and said that the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) voted unanimously to approve the proposed ordinance before the Commission that harmonizes these two pieces of legislation. 

 

Mr. Kornfield stated that there were some changes to the ordinance suggested by Mr. Phil Williams, Chairperson of the Mayor’s taskforce, who was authorized by the CAC to submit any minor changes to Mr. Kornfield.  Mr. Kornfield called on President Peskin of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office Representative Jennifer Entine-Matz to speak on this proposed legislation.

 

Supervisor Peskin acknowledged the first anniversary of Director Hasenin with DBI and said that the Director, DBI staff and the Commission had definitely moved forward in the past year.  Supervisor Peskin thanked the BIC, staff at DBI and staff at other City departments for their work on this ordinance.  Supervisor Peskin said that the ordinance still needs some work on the objective criteria for the adaptive use of extant buildings especially historic buildings. 

 

Mr. Craig Nikitas of the Planning Department spoke about added cost to construction as a result of the Green Building Ordinance and said that the taskforce had included stakeholders from residential builders to high rises and that the cost would be minimal considering the resulting energy savings.

 

Mr. Kornfield said that there would be substantially higher costs for a new building and said that the Office of Economic Analysis would be preparing an analysis of cost for presentation to the Board of Supervisors.  Mr. Kornfield stated that future amendments to this ordinance are likely.

Mr. Kornfield introduced Jennifer Etine-Matz of the Mayor’s Office of Economic & Workforce Development.

 

Ms. Etine-Matz gave a history of the Mayor’s Office involvement in green building standards and said that many of the members of the Green Building taskforce were present to speak on their involvement in the taskforce.  Ms. Etine-Matz said that the taskforce and the process had been very productive.  Ms. Etine-Matz stated that one concern that had been addressed was that the cost of “greening” an existing building would be more costly than tearing that building down.

 

Mr. Kornfield said that this ordinance would require comprehensive implementation by the Department of Building Inspection and said that the Department had started working on an Administrative Bulletin to address that implementation that would be coming before the BIC prior to this ordinance becoming effective.

 

The Commissioners raised several issues regarding the ordinance including:

 

• construction cost impacts especially for smaller projects
• possible funding assistance and other types of aid to reduce exemptions for economic hardship
• methods to provide for public education and outreach about green buildings and related construction requirements
• possible green building impacts on preservation of neighborhood character, retention of affordable housing and workforce, and general preservation of neighborhood diversity and fabric
• preservation of existing buildings, including historic buildings, as the greenest building strategy
• incentives to go beyond minimum requirements for green buildings
• removing any impediments to development of green buildings and green building features
• alterations to existing buildings may need greater clarification, with green building requirements for alterations being proportional to the scope of work

President Lee called for public comment.

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of BOMA said that he wanted to read a letter into the record from Mr. Phillip Williams of Webcor Builders, Chairman of the Mayor’s Task Force on Green Buildings.  Mr. Cleaveland read the following: 

 

“Because of previous commitments I am not able to attend today’s meeting.  However, please accept this letter as a sign of my full support for the ordinance with the proposed modifications.

 

As the chairman of the Mayor’s Task Force on Green Buildings, which authored the report that served as the basis for the Green Building Ordinance, and as a member of the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Green Building CAC Subcommittee – the recommended changes as approved by the CAC at the last regular meeting March 12^th only serve to enhance the originally proposed ordinance.

 

The incorporation of note worthy items that both strengthen and clarify the ordinance includes:

• Historical buildings
• Limited exemptions
• Building occupancy types (B and R)
• The requirements for three waste streams (trash, recycling and composting) all with equal occupant convenience, including specific references to trash chutes
• Major remodel and commercial interiors effective January 1^st 2009
• Simplified storm water requirements (per PUC’s request)

As a member of the CAC, I endorse this ground breaking ordinance for private sector green buildings.  I also speak for Webcor Builders and many others in the building construction community that whole heartedly endorse and support the intent and requirements of this legislation.

 

Signed by Phillip Williams, Vice President of Webcor Builders.”

 

Mr. Cleaveland said that the blend of the two ordinances made this much better.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that the combined ordinance was a gradual ordinance that would give the industry time to meet the goals of the ordinance.

 

Ms. Ruth Brehanis introduced herself as the Vice-President of the Commission on the Environment and said that Jared Blumenfeld the Director of the Department of on the Environment had asked her to thank all of the various City departments that worked on this ordinance particularly Laurence Kornfield, the Green Building Taskforce and Phil Williams of Webcor as this was a perfect example of a public/private collaboration.  Ms. Brehanis stated that this was a not a “one-size fits all” ordinance, but it provided numerous options and choices for builders to meet the requirements of green building.  Ms. Brehanis said that the ordinance would help the City meet its waste diversion goals as well as meet many environmental goals.  Ms. Brehanis urged the Commission to support this ordinance.

 

Ms. Jennifer Devlin introduced herself as an Architect and President of the American Institute of Architects (AIA).  Ms. Devlin stated that the AIA fully endorses this legislation and its green building targets.  Ms. Devlin said that San Francisco would be providing national leadership by adopting this legislation and said that the AIA would be looking to see how this process continues to evolve as this legislation modifies itself.

 

Ms. Margie O’Driscoll of the AIA said that it was imperative that San Francisco become a carbon neutral environment by 2030 and said that the AIA was proud to be member of the Green Building Taskforce.  Ms. O’Driscoll stated that the taskforce came up with a set of recommendations that are incentive based in the beginning, but requiring performance in later years.  Ms. O’Driscoll said that this ordinance would have a powerful impact on how San Franciscans live their lives.

 

Mr. Paul Guisti of Sunset Scavenger said he was in support of this legislation as it would make it easier for folks to recycle.  Mr. Guisti stated that this is important especially in large apartment buildings and multiple chutes or diverters would be a tremendous help.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he wanted to applaud City leaders, both the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor’s Office, for heading up this issue and City staff for combining these efforts to come up with a unified ordinance.  Commissioner Sattary said that he is usually not in favor of changes to the Building Code, but said that this issue is very important, impacts so much of everyone’s lives and is achievable that he would support it.  Commissioner Sattary stated that it was important that the general public be educated on the green building standards as it is the consumer that ultimately pays the additional costs associated with this ordinance. 

 

Commissioner Walker said that education to the public could take place at the DBI yearly Summit and the neighborhood meetings.  Commissioner Walker said that she had concerns about finding ways to help people who would be seeking exemptions because of hardship and asked that the Department find more creative ways of helping the public, particularly with funding to do this greening.   

 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova, to support the blended version of the two ordinances as recommended by the Code Advisory Committee with concerns raised in today’s meeting submitted to the Board of Supervisors.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 017-08

8.

Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield said that these items could almost be consent items unless the Commissioners thought that any of these items needed to be discussed in greater detail.  Mr. Kornfield stated that these Administrative Bulletins are a result of extended discussions by the Code Advisory Committee.  Mr. Kornfield said that if these items were handled as one it could expedite the calendar. 

 

Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to talk about AB-082 and AB-083.  Commissioner Walker said that AB-083 had come before the Commission previously and said that the change to AB-083 was a minor process change regarding compliance and defining how the Director interfaces with an engineering process.  Mr. Kornfield said the changes were to bring AB-083 into compliance with the current Code regarding non-prescriptive performance design.  Commissioner Sattary said that these two Administrative Bulletins were basically updates to deal with new Codes adopted in January 2008 and are consistent with the requirements and spirit of what was approved previously by the Commission.

 

Mr. Kornfield said that AB-088 was a new bulletin administering a long standing State law dealing with providing adequate space for the collection of trash and recycling.

 

Mr. Kornfield stated that AB-058 deals with the seismic instrumentation of new buildings and implements steps telling the builders how this strong motion instrumentation equipment should be installed, monitored and reviewed.

 

President Lee said that he thought that AB-088 was a good idea, but had concerns about how it would be policed if someone wanted to change the use of the space set aside for trash collection and recycling. 

 

Commissioner Sattary expressed concerns over AB-058 with the owner of a building being responsible for the installation and monitoring of the strong motion instrumentation.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department would address that issue with a required form that the owner

would have to provide stating that the equipment was inspected by an engineer or architect.

 

Vice-President Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova, to adopt the Administrative Bulletins.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he was in favor of adopting the bulletins with clarification of who is going to inspect the strong motion instrumentation since the owner is responsible, but does not have control over the equipment.  Director Hasenin said that he would work with Commissioner Sattary on the required form to be distributed to the public.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she wanted clarification regarding AB-082 and the structural design aspects particularly the Peer Review process.  Director Hasenin said the term Peer Review had been changed as that was creating confusion and that that the Department would no longer take part in the Peer Review process, but would only provide a list of qualified professionals to the project sponsor; DBI does have the final say in accepting or not accepting any design. 

 

Jim Guthrie a member of the Code Advisory Structural Sub-committee said that the committee kept SEAONC advised of the progress of AB-082 and that several engineers participated in the review.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that this Administrative Bulletin empowers reviewers to be independent and that the logs and communications involved in the review of a project will be turned over to DBI upon completion to become part of the public record so that everything is transparent.

 

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that he was in support of the Administrative Bulletins, but said that perhaps there should be another Administrative Bulletin to address liquefaction particularly in the South of Market area.

 

President Lee called for a vote on the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 018-08

 

At 10:55 a.m. the Commission took a break.

 

9.

Discussion and possible action regarding the implementation plan for the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) for DBI. [Director Hasenin]

 

Director Hasenin said that in December he promised the Commission that he would come back with an implementation plan for the BPR and the 180 recommendations of that plan.  Director Hasenin stated that he would be doing a PowerPoint presentation showing the timeline, priority and staff involved in the implementation for some of the recommendations.  Director Hasenin said that the Department had reconvened the committees that had come up with the recommendations for the BPR and said that his presentation would only include the items that affected DBI; other City departments would be coming up with their own implementation plan for recommendations of the BPR. 

 

Director Hasenin gave a forty minute PowerPoint presentation that outlined the BPR Implementation for Plan Review and Permit Issuance, Inspections, Automation, Performance Measures and gave Recommendations for Reviewing Departments and Agencies.

 

Commissioner Walker thanked the Director for his presentation as the Commissioners were concerned with the anticipation of going into the red on the budget this year and suggested making automation a priority to implement some of the recommendations right away.  Commissioner Walker said that the Director could then come back to the Commission periodically regarding increasing staff; the automation would drive the need for staff as necessary. 

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he thought this was a no-brainer and said that the entire process should move forward. 

 

Commissioner Walker said that she supported the BPR but was not ready to go ahead with any increase in staff as the Commission did not have the budget. 

 

Director Hasenin said that the budget presented to the BIC previously was more of a “place holder” budget as it showed a $10M deficit and could not be presented to the Board of Supervisors.  Director Hasenin stated that he always intended to come back to the Commission after the fee study was completed for fee adjustments as there had been no fee increase since 1992.  Director Hasenin said that he had another budget prepared that is a more responsible one that does not show any deficit whatsoever, but it would be more painful for everyone for the next year or two.  Commissioner Walker asked if this budget would allow the Department to implement some aspects of the BPR even in tight times. 

 

President Lee said that a lot of the items in the BPR could be implemented within the status quo budget and suggested that the Commission would allow the Department to go forward with those items that do not cost any money or any additional staffing.  President Lee stated that when the fee study is completed and if there is a fee increase the Department could project the expected revenue and then come back to the BIC to hire additional staff.  

 

Commissioner Walker said that some of the MIS issues could be addressed with the IT money allowed in next year’s budget. Director Hasenin said that there was a misunderstanding about the $6M as it is not for new projects, but is for ongoing maintenance and there is only about $1M that would go for enhancements.  Director Hasenin stated that if there was no increase in fees, the budget that he would bring back to the BIC in April would be less than $6M for MIS. Director Hasenin said that next month he would be presenting the analysis and conclusion of the fee study that would hopefully help the Department to recover its costs for services. 

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he would support President Lee’s suggestion that the Department move forward in the first year with items that incur no cost as the economic forecast is not promising.  Commissioner Sattary said that $4M would be difficult to justify for the first year and suggested that instead of a three-year plan for the BPR that perhaps it could be adjusted to a five-year plan with a more realistic budget. 

 

Director Hasenin said that the BPR was more of a blueprint for how the Department could operate better and said that this was not a budget discussion.  Director Hasenin said that this report was the effort of hundreds of people and thousands of hours and was showing what levels of staff would be needed to fulfill the recommendations.  Director Hasenin stated that if this was approved he was not going to go out in July and hire thirty people without having the money to do so.  Director Hasenin said that this BPR was just a blueprint showing what is needed to give the customers the level of service that the customers want no matter who is in charge.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he appreciated fiscal responsibility, but said that the plan should not be watered down as a lot of effort went into this venture and the end result should not be lost. Commissioner Murphy suggested waiting another month until the fee study was presented.

Commissioner Walker asked that the Director bring more detail back next month about the MIS and what is currently happening versus implementing automation as that is separate from staffing.  Commissioner Walker said that she felt that automation was a key issue.  Director Hasenin said that regarding the budget, if it came down to cutting staff or enhancements he would unfortunately have to cut automation. 

 

Commissioner Romero asked how the Department was going to hire a contractor for the IT plan as the City was looking closely at those issues.  Director Hasenin said that nothing had been done yet as he was waiting for the approval of the Commission.  Director Hasenin stated that once he had approval he would be meeting with DTIS Management to hear what options the Department has.  Director Hasenin said that DBI had been trying to hire its own programmers for several months and was having a hard time finding qualified people that want to work for the Department.  Director Hasenin said that he was looking at this as a 3-year project using a lot of resources at once, but said that if the Department was to hire two or three people to work on this it would take approximately seven years to accomplish.  Director Hasenin stated that one of the goals of the BPR was to get the automation going as soon as possible.

 

Vice-President Murphy said that he wanted to hear from the stakeholders who were ultimately going to pay for this.   

 

President Lee called for public comment allowing each speaker two minutes.

 

Mr. John Schlesinger introduced himself as a Chairperson of one of the Sub-committees for the BPR and the implementation plan.  Mr. Schlesinger spoke in support of the BIC adopting the implementation plan and said that there was a danger that the implementation program would fall apart if not adopted as a whole.  Mr. Schlesinger stated that he was in support of raising fees to pay for the BPR procedures that would make DBI a stronger department.  Mr. Schlesinger said that increased fees would help pay for staff needed to implement the BPR and said that the implementation of the BPR would result in a wholesale rejuvenation of the permit process throughout the City.  Mr. Schlesinger stated that a better process would generate revenue.

 

Mr. Luke O’Brien of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG) said that he was in support of the implementation of the BPR and said that he did not want to see the BIC adopt it in piecemeal as it would destroy the whole thing.  Mr. O’Brien said that while the economy is down is the time to make this change and said that everyone wants to get on with their jobs to keep the economy going and everyone working.

 

Mr. Jerry Gardner of SFCRG said that he thought that the Director had done a wonderful job in the last year and said that he fully support implementation of the BPR.  Mr. Gardner said that the current staff needs to be more efficient.  Mr. Gardner stated that the automation would speed up the process.

 

Ms. Margie O’Driscoll of the AIA said that Director Hasenin had brought together at least 75 members of the industry and organizations throughout the city to work on the BPR.  Ms. O’Driscoll said that the BPR was a customer oriented focus and said that the Department would lose the respect of the Community if the BPR was not implemented in its totality.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that Director Hasenin has gotten resistance for the changes that need to be done in the Department, but has stayed the course.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that he was in total support of the BPR implementation and said that it would result in a better, efficient and transparent DBI.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that these changes would bring a financial return to everyone and allow DBI to put money back in the bank.

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of BOMA said his organization is the largest customer base of DBI in the City.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that the BPR is a remarkable document and urged the Commission to support it in its totality.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that the customers of DBI have been waiting for this for years.

 

Mr. John Keogan of SFCRG said he found the previous speakers comments to be very encouraging and said that the BPR is all about satisfying the customers of DBI.  Mr. Keogan said that there were 180 recommendations and said that he would encourage the BIC to go forward with all of them in their totality.  Mr. Keogan stated the Department should be ready for change.

 

Mr. Kirby Morris of SFCRG said that a lot of work had gone into this report and aid he was excited about some of the changes that had already occurred at DBI.  Mr. Morris said that accessibility to staff has improved.  Mr. Morris urged the Commission to adopt this report in its entirety and said that when there is a downturn in work that is the time to make long range plans.

 

Mr. Simon Quan of SFCRG stated that this program should not stop, but the Department should get the momentum going.  Mr. Quan stated that San Francisco is behind other cities in automation and urged the Commission to support this BPR.

 

Mr. Robert Noelke said that he was representing small property owners and apartment house owners.  Mr. Noelke said that his constituency wants to improve apartments as soon as possible to get them back on the market.  Mr. Noelke asked that the Commission support the BPR.

 

Mr. Harry Clancy of SFCRG introduced himself as a Mortgage Broker and said that the downturn in the economy is over as he sees increases in purchasing and refinancing; the time is ripe for this change now.  Mr. Clancy asked the Commission to support the BPR now.

 

Mr. John McArdle said that he was retired and was representing himself as a small property owner.  Mr. McArdle said that he had past difficulties with DBI when trying to rebuild his house and the bureaucracy that his project sponsor had to endure.  Mr. McArdle stated that recently he had been to DBI and said that he was pleasantly surprised to see how well customers were being treated.  Mr. McArdle said that in his vast business experience he thought it would be a mistake to break up this BPR report into little pieces as it would not be successful.

 

Mr. Angus McCarthy of the RBA said that he did not think that an expenditure of $13M for automation over 3 - 5 years was a lot of money considering the business plan being laid out.  Mr. McCarthy stated that San Francisco can survive a downturn and said that he would be willing to invest in this plan through higher fees as long as services are improved.  Mr. McCarthy urged the BIC to keep the plan together and to pass it forward.

 

Mr. Sean Keighran of the RBA said that in recent years customers of DBI have seen service and the surplus erode and said that this became the status quo.  Mr. Keighran said that the Commission saw the need for a new Director and found one who was able to form steering committees and come up with a plan; the BPR.  Mr. Keighran stated that the BIC needs to reinforce that Plan, stick together and finish it out.  Mr. Keighran said that everyone is waiting for a signal to see if the Department will go back to the old status quo or move forward with this plan in its entirety. 

 

Mr. John O’Connor of the RBA said that he co-chaired the Inspection’s Sub-Committee and said that participants put in hundreds of hours to this BPR and its implementation.  Mr. O’Connor stated that many changes had already occurred at DBI for the better.  Mr. O’Connor said that it was loud and clear that customers want better service and said that there is a nexus between fees and service.  Mr. O’Connor asked that the BIC not piecemeal this report as nothing would be accomplished.  Mr. O’Connor said that users of DBI’s services are willing to pay higher fees, but only for better service.

 

Mr. Ritchie Harte of the RBA said that Director Hasenin had just completed an excellent year of leadership.  Mr. Harte said that the BPR was a valuable document that should be adopted in its entirety.  Mr. Harte stated that San Francisco is unique in that there is a housing shortage and people will pay money to live in this City.  Mr. Harte said that any fees collected by DBI need to stay within DBI and must not be used by other departments.  Mr. Harte said that the Department needs to keep moving forward and would go from strength to strength by following the recommendations outlined in this report otherwise it would return to the disastrous status quo.

 

Mr. Joe Cassidy of the RBA said that he was present to support the Director who has done a fantastic job for the past twelve months.  Mr. Cassidy referred to an article in the San Francisco Daily newspaper showing employees in San Francisco making over $150,000.  Mr. Cassidy said that only one employee from DBI was on that list and said that the Department has been under funded.  Mr. Cassidy stated that he supported DBI and would support fee increases to promote better customer service.  Mr. Cassidy said that if the BPR was implemented it would be profitable for the Department and a great thing for customers.

Mr. Nick Freeman said that he has lived in San Francisco all of his life and urged the Commission to do the right thing by going forward with the program that has been put forth by all of the participants in this BPR.

 

Mr. Paul O’Driscoll of the RBA said that he wanted to applaud all of the hard work done by the Director, DBI staff and especially the volunteers who worked on this report.  Mr. O’Driscoll said that the time for change is now and urged the Commission to get together and support it 100%.

 

President Lee said that he was happy to hear the public say that they would support fee increases and said that he hoped that members of the public would be back again to review the fee study.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that the Commission was not trying to dismantle the BPR, but said that the Commission needs to determine the best timing for implementation and how to pay for that implementation.  Commissioner Sattary said that the process could start slowly and then when revenues increase it could speed up or the other option would be to do everything right now even though the Department is facing a 25% deficit in the budget.

 

Commissioner Hechanova made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Murphy, to approve the implementation plan and support the Director.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she would not support the motion, as she supports the BPR, but did not have enough information on the fee increase.  Commissioner Walker stated that it would be irresponsible to move forward and create financial obligations without having a clear idea of the revenue.

 

President Lee said that he had heard loud and clear from the public that they are in full support of the implementation of the BPR and are willing to support fee increases to make this happen.  President Lee said that he wanted to go ahead and implement the BPR and support the Director.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that the Commission previously accepted the BPR report unanimously, but said that today was about the implementation of that plan and the financial requirement.  Commissioner Sattary said that this was putting the cart before the horse and said that the wanted to hear the budget aspect next month before making a decision.

 

Commissioner Hechanova said that the Commissioners had heard from the stakeholders and customers of DBI that they are willing to pay more fees for the implementation of the BPR.  Commissioner Hechanova said that the Commission has the ability to put the brakes on if the revenue is not there, but said that the Commission needs to help the customers and stakeholders move forward and not backward.

 

After much discussion it was decided that the Director would come back to the Commission next month with the fee study and the budget.  Director Hasenin said that he would meet with Commissioner Romero who had questions about the Department working with DTIS for MIS purposes.  Director Hasenin reminded the Commission that in the past year he had watched the Department’s expenditures and revenues very closely and would be doing so in the future.  Director Hasenin said that he would be coming back to the Commission with the fee study and any fee increases necessary to pay for a balanced budget along with a conservative projection of revenues.

 

This item was continued until next month.

 

10.

Discussion and possible action regarding the purpose, roles and responsibilities of the existing Nomination Committee and Litigation Committee of the BIC.  [President Lee & Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque] – continued

 

11.

Discussion and possible action to appoint members to the existing Nomination Committee and Litigation Committee of the BIC. [President Lee] – continued

 

12.

Discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the Director.

a.  Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

Mr. Bob Noelke said that he was representing the Small Property Owner’s Association and said that the organization was in full support of the Director.  Mr. Noelke thanked the Director for making property owners part of the BPR process.

 

Mr. Jim Westover introduced himself as an Architect and customer of DBI for over twenty years. Mr. Westover said that he had seen a vast improvement in the Department under the new Director and thanked the Director for all of his hard work.

 

Mr. Angus McCarthy of the RBA said he was a big fan of the Director and said that the Director identified how backward DBI’s systems are and came up with the ways to improve them.  Mr. McCarthy stated that the Commission should understand what a tough job the Director has in dealing with other City departments, customers, and the rank and file at DBI.

 

Mr. Simon Quan of SFCRG said that the change at the Department since Director Hasenin took over has been great and urged the Director to keep going.

 

Mr. John O’Connor of the RBA said that the Director has done an excellent, professional job over the past year.  Mr. O’Connor said that the Director brought people in from all walks of the City and the BPR process did not cost the Department anything.  Mr. O’Connor asked that the Commission give the Director high ratings.

 

Mr. Luke O’Brien President of SFCRG said that from today’s testimony it is evident that the Director is overwhelmingly supported by the business industry and in particular the construction industry.  Mr. O’Brien urged the Commissioners to give the Director a resounding endorsement.

 

Mr. Richard Harte of the RBA said that the Director has done a great job in reaching out to the community and has set high standards for other departments. 

 

Mr. Joe Cassidy of the RBA said that when he met the Director nine months ago he asked only one thing, that the permit process would improve.  Mr. Cassidy stated that the Director involved builders and stakeholders in the BPR process and said that this was never done by any other Director of any department.  Mr. Cassidy said that the Director is fiscally responsible and would watch out for the Department’s budget.

 

Mr. Sean Keighran of the RBA said he would give a “thumbs up” to the Director as it hard to bring about changes while still staying open for business.  Mr. Keighran said that the Director has made a mountain of progress in only one year.

 

Mr. John Keogan of SFCRG said that this Director’s qualifications are impressive and said that he is recognized as one of California’s top experts of the Building Code.  Mr. Keogan asked that the Commission give the Director a vote of confidence to proceed with his plans for DBI.

  

Mr. Harry Clancy said that he was present to give his support to the Director.

 

Mr. Nick Freeman said that he worked in BPR consulting and said that completing a BPR while doing the day to day is like changing the engine in a flying airplane.  Mr. Freeman said that he felt that with Director Hasenin in charge San Franciscans could take back their town.  Mr. Freeman thanked the Director for his work.

 

b.  Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Murphy, that the Commission go into Closed Session. The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 019-08

 

The Commission went into Closed Session at 1:13 p.m.

 

c.  CLOSED SESSION:  Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).
Director of the Department of Building Inspection – Mr. Isam Hasenin

d.     Reconvene in Open Session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.10(b)

 

The Commission reconvened at 1:45 p.m.

 

President Lee made an announcement that the Commission was continuing this item until the next meeting in April.

 

13.

Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

• 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.

 

• 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 Walker said that all of the items that were continued would be on the next agenda.

 

14.

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

 

There was no public comment.

 

Adjournment.

 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Murphy, that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously. 

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 020-08 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

                                                  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary