Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission


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


 

 

 

       

      BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

      Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

       

      Wednesday, February 21, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.

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

      Adopted March 7, 2001

       

      MINUTES

      The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by President Fillon.

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

        COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

                      Alfonso Fillon, President Denise D’Anne, Commissioner

                      Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Esther Marks, Commissioner

                      Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner

          Debra Walker, Commissioner

        Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

        D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

          Frank Chiu, Director

          William Wong, Deputy Director

          Tuti Suardana, Secretary

      2. Election of Building Inspection Commission President and Vice-President.

      Commissioner Santos nominated Alfonso Fillon for another term as President of the Building Inspection Commission. Commissioner Guinnane seconded the nomination. Commissioner Fillon asked if there was any discussion on the nomination and stated that he would like to accept. Commissioner Fillon said that it has been a great honor for him to serve as President and appreciates the opportunity to give people a chance to be heard. Commissioner Fillon said that he sees the role of the Commission as being a conduit to the Department and staff to make sure that they are able to hear the concerns of the public. Commissioner Fillon stated that in trying to achieve this he tries to give everyone a fair chance to be heard, including the Commissioners and would like to continue serving as President.

      Commissioner Hood said that she would like to speak in favor of Commissioner Fillon. Commissioner Hood stated that she has found that he has made a smooth transition and said that she thinks Commissioner Fillon is a very effective consensus builder and said she appreciated his role in that respect.

      Commissioner Walker said that she knows that at times the BIC gets somewhat heated because the Commissioners disagree on issues, but said that she feels that Commissioner Fillon gives people the opportunity to speak and there are a lot of issues coming up before the Commissioners this year. Commissioner Walker said that she supports Commissioner Fillon and trusts that the openness will continue.

      Mr. Robert Pender from Park Merced asked how long the President’s term would be. President. President Fillon stated that the term was for one year.

      Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she knew that certain seats on the BIC were for certain people and said that she felt that a non-profit housing developer is the type of person that is called for in a certain seat. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she did not know if there was one on the Commission.

      A role call vote was taken on the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-014-01

      President Fillon thanked the Commission and said that if any of the Commissioners needed to speak with him about anything, such as agenda items, they were encouraged to call him at any time.

      President Fillon asked for nominations for Vice-President. Commissioner Guinnane made a motion to elect Commissioner Hood as Vice-President, assuming she would accept. President Fillon seconded the motion. Commissioner Hood said that she would be delighted to accept the nomination even though the role has not required much of her time, but said that she hoped she could contribute to the historic information bank for President Fillon. Commissioner Hood said that she hoped, along with President Fillon, to be someone that anyone feels free talking to. Commissioner Hood said that she enjoyed serving on the Finance Committee this year and would like to continue in the role of Vice-President.

      Commissioner Walker asked if other nominations could be made. President Fillon said that he thought the first nomination would have to be voted on. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that some Commissions take all nominations and then vote serially on the nominations. Commissioner Walker nominated Esther Marks for Vice-President and stated that her nomination was no comment on Commissioner Hood, but it was basically a desire to have a varied voice in the leadership of the Commission. Commissioner Walker stated that she felt it would be a good addition and a shift in the Commission to actually facilitate open dialog. Commissioner D’Anne seconded the nomination. President Fillon spoke in favor of Commissioner Hood stating that she brings her vast experience as an original member of the Commission. President Fillon said that Commissioner Hood served as President of the Commission at the very beginning and her experience has helped in many of the issues that have a long history with the Commission. President Fillon asked for any comments.

      Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she heard the last comments by President Fillon and said that there is a truth to the continuity of the Commission, but that was last year when people were needed to preserve the continuity. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that if the Commission gets stuck on things just to preserve the continuity, the Commission does not move forward. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she found it pretty distressing when things came up with the Building Code approvals and many of the Commissioners did not take the time to study what was going on. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she felt that some of the public got shut out by that.

      Mr. Robert Pender from Park Merced asked if the Vice-President was also being elected for one year. President Fillon answered yes.

      Secretary Ann Aherne took a role call on the two nominations for Vice-President.

      The Commissioners voted as follows:

        President Fillon - Commissioner Hood

        Commissioner D’Anne - Commissioner Marks

        Commissioner Guinnane - Commissioner Hood

        Commissioner Santos - Commissioner Hood

        Commissioner Walker - Commissioner Marks

        Commissioner Marks - Commissioner Marks

        Commissioner Hood - Commissioner Hood

      Secretary Aherne announced that Commissioner Bobbie Sue Hood was retained as Vice-.

      President on a vote of four to three.

      Vice-President Hood thanked the Commission for their support.

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-015-01

      3. President’s Announcements. [President Fillon]

        a. Discussion and possible action to reconvene Committee to review applications of candidates to serve on the Code Advisory Committee and Unreinforced Masonry Appeals Board. Select Commissioner to replace former Commissioner Mark Sanchez.

      Vice-President Hood asked what Commissioners besides former Commissioner Sanchez served on the two committees. Secretary Ann Aherne stated that the Committee consisted of President Fillon, Commissioner Santos and former Commissioner Sanchez. Commissioner Walker nominated Commissioner D’Anne, seconded by Vice-President Hood, to serve on the Committee.

      The motion carried unanimously.

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-016-01

      Commissioner Marks asked if there was a need to set a date for this Committee to meet and President Fillon stated that this could be decided outside of the Commission among the Committee members.

      There was no public comment.

      4. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

      Director Chiu congratulated President Fillon and Vice-President Hood on their reelections.

      a. Report on "open space" project as suggested by Local 21.

      Director Chiu said that he wanted to give the Commission the status of where the Department is with the open space issue as the Department is looking at ways to address the Planners Local 21 concerns about the possibility of a roof top. Director Chiu stated that one of the last suggestions that was brought to the Commission and DBI was to occupy the adjoining property at 1680 Mission Street; this property is not owned by, or under the control of DBI. Director Chiu said that this property is owned by DPW and because of this DBI is enlisting the help of the Real Estate Department to coordinate with this other agency. Director Chiu referred to a letter that he wrote to Mr. DeLucchi asking for his assistance in working with Lois Scott, the representative from Local 21 Planners to see if the Department could look into providing the space. Director Chiu said that the Department did look into putting a roof deck on DBI’s facility, and whether on the existing building or the new proposed annex building, it would trigger the high-rise provision. Director Chiu said that physically or financially, he did not believe it was feasible to proceed with that project if the entire building had to be changed according to the high-rise provisions. Director Chiu said that because of that, the Department is pursing the idea that was suggested by Local 21. Director Chiu said that he would report back when the Department hears from Real Estate and DPW. Director Chiu said that DPW, of course, has interest in what would be going on with their building. Director Chiu stated that he had not yet spoken with Ed Lee of DPW, but had left a message for him to set up a meeting. Director Chiu said that he would also include Local 21 in the discussions.

      Commissioner Santos asked if putting the "open space" on 1650 (1680) Mission Street would trigger the high-rise provisions. Director Chiu said that he did not know yet, but that building is a five story building and the Department has not checked out what the roof level height would be. Director Chiu said that the first step is to have Real Estate start the dialog as there is no point in pursuing this issue if Real Estate or DPW says to forget it. Commissioner Walker asked if Commissioner Santos meant 1680. Commissioner Santos answered yes. Director Chiu said that the Department has not explored the possibilities at 1680 and would have to check into seismic requirements, etc. Commissioner Santos said that he did not believe that the building at 1680 would comply with seismic requirements as it was built in 1991 and thought that it would be very expensive to pursue. Director Chiu said that, at this point, the Department did not know what the situation was, but was just going to begin a dialog to explore the possibilities. Director Chiu thanked Commissioner Santos for his comments.

      Commissioner D’Anne asked if there were any kind of provisions for workers presently for rest areas. Director Chiu said that currently there is no designated lunchroom, or break room, but there are official rooms that will be used. Director Chiu stated that with this proposal to build the annex, there is a proposed open space on the fifth and sixth floors; the fifth floor would have a space open to the air and the sixth floor would be similar. Director Chiu said that those two large rooms were proposed, but Local 21 staff felt that this is not adequate and wanted a roof top, so this why this is being explored at this time. Commissioner Walker stated that it was her understanding that the current open space is used for other things and the concern of the union was that the open space in the plans would also be convertible to be used as something other than that. Commissioner Walker said that this was one way of trying to resolve that, by having a roof area that is out in the open that allows people to smoke.

      President Fillon asked what size the areas would be. Director Chiu said that he did not have the floor plan in front of him, but there were to be two separate rooms, on the fifth and sixth floors with each room probably having approximately 400-500 square feet. Director Chiu said that this area would be open and people could smoke. Commissioner D’Anne asked about protection from the weather and an area where staff could eat lunch. Director Chiu said that this why it was suggested that on the sixth floor there be the capability of open able skylights or open able windows in case of rain; however, Local 21 is pushing for strictly open space. Director Chiu said that at this time there is no agreeable solution, but hopefully in talking with Real Estate and DPW there would be some answers as to a workable solution. Director Chiu said that he would report back to the Commission. Vice-President Hood said that there was a representative present from Local 21 and perhaps the Commission should move on to public comment.

      Ms. Lois Scott introduced herself as a Planner and Vice-President of the Planners Chapter of Local 21. Ms. Scott said that she appreciated Director Chiu’s communication to Mr. DeLucchi and stated that the office had already been in touch with her requesting more details. Ms. Scott said that the building at 1680 did go through a seismic retrofit a few years ago and has an approximate height of sixty-two feet, which is well below the high-rise trigger height. Ms. Scott stated that the sixth floor level for the proposed annex would be about sixty-two feet eight inches. Ms. Scott said that with a little bit of fixing and imagination there could be a ramp of some sort to avoid having to get into expensive elevator solutions that were part of the problems of the cost with the other proposal. Ms. Scott said that the spaces that Director Chiu spoke about are about 250 square feet and are small kind of logia areas to be in the front of the building on Mission Street. Ms. Scott said that this would take away from the net space of the office area and appeared to be something that was vulnerable to being closed. Ms. Scott said that Local 21 is very eager to explore being able to use the roof of 1680. Ms. Scott said that it has a beautiful view, sunshine and a southern exposure. Ms. Scott stated that Local 21 would like to have Steve Young and Neil Friedman involved in any meeting and said that she and Max Putra of Planning met with Neil Friedman that morning and discussed some of the things that would be necessary. Ms. Scott said that there are some cost issues about how this would be done, but it appears to be a more economical solution than either using the existing roof of 1660 or the annex roof. Ms. Scott said that her group was very happy that the first step was taken, but hoped that the project manager and supervisor for this project will be with them in trying to work this design out. Ms. Scott again thanked Director Chiu for making the contacts with Real Estate and DPW.

      Commissioner Marks asked about a solution to this issue. Commissioner Marks said that it sounds like the Union is willing to sit down and talk with Real Estate and DPW and stated that it would be important for the project manager to participate. Director Chiu said that there was no problem with that and stated that Steve Young, or whoever was going to be managing the project, should also sit in on these meetings to see what sort of issues are being raised.

      b. Report on Shuttle Service for 1660 Mission Street.

      Director Chiu said that at the last meeting the Commission had asked him to look into the schedule of the shuttle pick up times. Director Chiu said that he had included a schedule in the Commission package that is based on DBI’s agreement, whether the annex project proceeds or not, as some ten years ago the Department agreed to supply a van pool. Director Chiu said that it is his understanding that the Department is close to getting the service on board. Commissioner Walker asked if the Department got competitive bids for this proposal. Director Chiu said that he did not know how this company was selected, but said that he believed that DBI looked at 1650 Mission Street to find out what kind of service they provide. Director Chiu said that usually Real Estate helps out in getting these kinds of contracts and he would check for the next meeting.

      Commissioner Marks asked how the hours for the pick up in the morning and evening were determined and was a survey done of the employees who might use the shuttle service. Commissioner Marks said that to her the times seemed kind of whacko. Commissioner Walker said that these were the times that staff worked. President Fillon said that it was two hours in the morning and two at night. Commissioner Marks said that the pickups seemed early, as the pick up at the Mission Street station was 6:00 a.m. and then the first shuttle was leaving the office at 4:00 p.m. Director Chiu said that the Department does have people who come in as early as 6:00 a.m., not the majority of people, and then leave starting at 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. as there is some flex time. Director Chiu said that this shuttle would also include Planning staff. Director said that next year he hoped that Planning Director Gerald Green was setting aside money in Planning’s budget to augment and provide additional pickup times. Director Chiu stated that this was not something that was anticipated for the budget, but the Department went ahead and found some money to do this in the current fiscal year. Director Chiu said that the amount of money allocated had some impact on the schedule, but in the future if staff requires more service, then DBI will work with Planning to coordinate and make sure there is a better pickup and drop off schedule. Director Chiu said that he was presenting a proposed schedule only, and if it did not work for staff than the schedule would be revisited; however, this schedule was set by what could be provided for $65,000. Commissioner Marks said that the Commission had spoken about the shuttle service before and she has been told that City Planning would be matching the dollar amount spent by DBI. Commissioner Marks said that this would mean that there was $130,000-$134,000 available for the shuttle service. Director Chiu said if that was the case then the trips could be doubled. President Fillon said that he would like the Department to get a couple of other bids for comparison. Director Chiu said that he would look into this, but his understanding was that since the Commission was very eager to get this service going, staff probably secured a bid from the existing service at 1650 Mission Street. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a specific contract signed. President Fillon said that staff would be involved with the actual contract, but the Commission could certainly make suggestions. Commissioner D’Anne asked where the Mission Street Station was located. Commissioner Santos said that the station was located at Mission and First Streets. Commissioner D’Anne asked for clarification of the stations. Commissioner Marks said that the Department did not want to start something slip shot and said that Ms. Taras Madison checked with City Planning about what their share was going to be. Commissioner Marks said that Ms. Madison told her that Planning was going to match DBI’s allocation. Commissioner Marks said that should be checked out before a contract is singed. President Fillon asked if Ms. Madison was talking about the Planning Department’s budget and Commissioner Marks said that was correct. Director Chiu said that Planning was going to participate in the next fiscal year, but DBI was going to be implementing this program pretty quickly with the current budget. Director Chiu said that DBI would be dealing with Planning next fiscal year as to schedules, pickups and drop offs, but this fiscal year DBI has committed to spending $65,000. Commissioner Walker asked Director Chiu to call Director Green of Planning to check about the monies, as this would make a difference in the service. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to, but in knowing Planning’s budget he doubted if they had the money. Director Chiu said that Planning staff had informed him that Planning will be more than happy to chip in their share for the next fiscal year. Director Chiu said that DBI were going to provide this service as was planned ten years ago. President Fillon asked if the shuttle was being provided for the entire building. Director Chiu said that the shuttle was being provided for all staff and customers as well. Vice-President Hood asked if there could be some kind of three-month trial run to monitor how many people actually use the service because if nobody was using it, it would be a shame to continue for another nine months. Vice-President Hood said she did not know if three months was enough time for people to become aware of the service and maybe the trial should be for six months, but it would be prudent to have some flexibility in adjusting the hours or even a cancellation clause at mid-year. Director Chiu said that he shared Vice-President Hoods’ concerns.

      Lois Scott again expressed her thanks to Director Chiu for taking early action on this issue. Ms. Scott said that the adjacent building’s shuttle is fully subscribed and on rainy mornings or evenings, both DBI and Planning employees have begged to get on the bus to be taken to Bart and there has not been space. Ms. Scott said that she feels there will be users, particularly since the bus at the adjacent building runs full. Ms. Scott said that Director Chiu told her that he was asking the Customer Service people on the first floor at 1660 Mission to do transit pass sales. Ms. Scott said that people have been waiting for that for a very long time. Ms. Scott said that there is a commuter check program that the City is involved with; pre-tax purchase of commuter passes. Ms. Scott said that the Mayor’s office is trying to get that rolling and said that she is very pleased that there is agreement that the service will be provided on the first floor of the building and will be accessible to both employees and other people interested in purchasing fast passes and transit passes. Ms. Scott thanked Director Chiu and said that she felt this would improve the quality of working life and would appreciate the opportunity to use these services.

      c. Report on 39 Boardman Place.

      Director Chiu said that he wanted to give the Commission an update on what is happening at 39 Boardman Place. Director Chiu said that in the past he had reported that the Department had not been able to make contact with the project sponsor or Ms. Lisa Bass one of the property owners. Director Chiu said that since that time the Department sent a letter to all of the owners of the building and has made some progress as to gaining entry and starting to work with a project engineer and contractor. Director Chiu said that the Department has been able to start the investigative work and has been able to assist with permit inspections to correct the problems. Director Chiu asked Senior Building Inspector Ron Tom to give a report to the Commission.

      Mr. Tom said that he would keep his comments brief and provide an opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Tom said that last Thursday, he, Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau and Rich Rovetti, DBI Information Officer, went to the site and met with representatives of the building, the contractor and the project manager. Mr. Tom said that there was a follow up meeting yesterday at DBI and they were able to accomplish a number of things, including setting up the submittal procedures to expedite their applications and review the structural corrections. Mr. Tom said that BID inspections and communication channels were set up to make sure that they get timely inspections so that the building can be closed up during inclement weather. Mr. Tom said that the Department has assigned Residential Plan Checker Tom Le to bring continuity to the review process and administer all of the paper work necessary to keep the project flowing. Mr. Tom said that he would be answerable with the inspection requirements and would do that in a very timely manner. Mr. Tom said that as of yesterday a permit had been issued that would document the wall at the back for some corrective work related to the structural elements and the wall would be closed up using the protocols that were established. Mr. Tom said that the President of the Homeowners Assn. and the project manager were present at this meeting and were available to support or add to his comments.

      Commissioner Guinnane asked what kind of structural work was being done at the project, as he thought it was siding that was leaking. Mr. Tom said that when the walls and decking were opened in order to do the remedial work for the waterproofing of the building, it was determined that there were some deficiencies in the structural elements relative to the approved drawings and the execution of work in the field. Mr. Tom said that there are design professionals on board, particularly an architectural/engineering firm reviewing the conditions. Mr. Tom said that there is not a total reconstruction being done, but they are focusing on areas where the current design professional, relative to the approved drawings and the calculations, but at the time for when the construction took place, which is one or two previous code changes, and relative to that code, whether the construction was in compliance with the calculations and approved drawings. Mr. Tom said that they are making an assessment and considering how to do the remedial work. Mr. Tom stated that DBI has established the protocol as to how they can bring these on going field directives into the office for review and continue to make the corrections. Mr. Tom said that this was something that came about after they opened the walls to do the waterproofing. Commissioner Guinnane asked if when the building was initially built, was a special inspection required for the structural at that time. Mr. Tom said that yes, there was. Commissioner Guinnane asked if that was complied with. Mr. Tom said that DBI had on record a document showing that a design professional signed off for the special inspections. Commissioner Santos asked if the original structural engineer or the original consultants were involved in the process of reviewing the potential modifications and upgrades. Mr. Tom said that to his knowledge they are not involved and there is an independent consultant who was not involved at any point before the building was constructed. Commissioner Santos asked if the homeowner’s association hired the independent consultant. Mr. Tom answered yes. Commissioner Santos asked if Mr. Tom knew whether or not the consultants who were involved in the original design were still practicing. Mr. Tom said that to his knowledge they still are. Vice-President Hood asked how many condominiums there were in the project. Mr. Tom said that there were fourteen. Commissioner Walker thanked Mr. Tom, Mr. Rovetti and Director Chiu for taking care of this and stated that this issue was brought to the attention of the Commission by a letter from one of the owners. Commissioner Walker said that she hoped the Commission could keep being assessed as to how this progresses. Commissioner Walker said that this was somewhat disturbing to her and wanted to make sure that the public was served. Vice-President Hood said that DBI has received a report on the rear wall, but wanted to know if the Department has received the independent inspection that was requested previously. Mr. Tom said that there was an agreement at the meeting the previous day that the report is forth coming, but it has not yet been received.

      Ms. Lisa Bass introduced herself as one of the fourteen homeowners at 39 Boardman and said that she wanted to thank DBI for the last two weeks and the partnership they have shown with the owners’ repair project. Ms. Bass stated that this is quite a financial burden on the homeowners and said that it looks like it is continuing, so anything that the Department can do to alleviate this from getting to be a worse situation is appreciated. Ms. Bass said that she had two questions; one relates to the special inspections that were referred to. Ms. Bass said that the problem that has been currently discovered on the structure is that the structural beams were not bolted to the foundation and there was a signoff in special inspections, along with other things that they still do not know about. Ms. Bass said that Delta Design, Mr. Jimmy Jen, is someone who had been deferred the special inspections. Ms. Bass said that her question is what is the Commission going to do in the future about this kind of situation. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu if it was the policy of the Department that whoever the designer of the project was, if he is supposed to sign off, or can someone get an outside engineer, other than the actual designer. Director Chiu said that the Code is not specific in saying that the original designer has to be hired; the property owner or contractor could ask to hire somebody else and normally the Department will accept an outside, independent engineer to do that special inspection. Commissioner Santos said that it would have to be a licensed professional engineer, but does not have to be the structural engineer of record. Vice-President Hood asked Commissioner Santos, if it were his experience on construction projects, that if a special inspection is needed, the structural engineer of record does it. Commissioner Santos said that in most cases that is correct, but a lot of the inspections in a project of this nature, it is conceivable that a testing agency was used for concrete test results, but in general the overall configuration of the building should have been checked by the structural engineer of record. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to point out that, in the case of condominiums, this kind of egregious concealment of improper work or error, not following the design, is something for which the buyer should expect not to have to pay. Vice-President Hood said that she trusted that the owners knew that they had legal resources to get this type of thing corrected. Ms. Bass said that the owners are looking into that, but the developer is in Ireland and there are no assets in the states. Commissioner Santos asked if a lawsuit had been filed. Ms. Bass said that there is exhausted insurances on subs and the contractor is gone. Commissioner Guinnane asked about the structural engineer that did the inspections at the property. Ms. Bass said that perhaps now the homeowners would look into that. Ms. Bass asked if this structural engineer were still on record and could still be approved for other projects for deferred special inspections. Director Chiu said that at this point the investigation is not concluded and the Department is looking into what needs to be done next, but certainly the Department is concerned about this kind of reporting and wants to make sure that everyone learns a lesson from it. Director Chiu said that he does not have a definite answer as to what is going to be done until the investigation is complete. Vice-President Hood said that it is her understanding that the Department has to accept any licensed structural engineer and can’t say, for instance that they have heard that an engineer is not good and even though they are a licensed structural engineer in the State of California, the Department is not going to accept their work. Vice-President Hood said that the engineer, himself or herself, is responsible; however, there is a something under Consumer Affairs and they have an engineering licensing board and are very careful about any complaint from the public. Vice-President Hood said that there is a hearing on a complaint and follow-up on it; this is very different from other professions as they publish the names of those who are complained about. Vice-President Hood said that Ms. Bass should check with Commissioner Santos who could tell her more about the licensing process for engineers. Vice-President Hood said that it would be that board that would determine if the original engineer was sufficiently remiss and they can fine him or her, take away a license and have procedures to follow that are not available to the BIC. Vice-President Hood stated that she would encourage Ms. Bass to follow up with Consumer Affairs. President Fillon stated that at the very least, they would have a record of any past complaints. Commissioner Walker said that she hoped that Director Chiu would continue to work with the homeowners and report back to the Commission as to any findings on this matter.

      Ms. Bass said that in looking through the various files and getting educated on the process, she understood that the Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy is issued when fire and safety, including the elevator, fire alarm, sprinkler system and firewalls are inspected. Ms. Bass stated that there is no record of permits on file and no records in the Fire Department of any inspector ever going out and checking any of these four areas. Ms. Bass said she questioned how both Patrick Raymond from DBI signed that certificate and also Captain Ballard with the San Francisco Fire Department. Ms. Bass said that she did not know why they would sign something without any substantiation. Vice-President Hood said that was not under DBI’s jurisdiction. Ms. Bass asked if the Certificate of Final completion and Occupancy did not come out of DBI. President Fillon said that this would have to be investigated. Commissioner Marks said that the Department of Building Inspection does participate in issuing the final occupancy permit. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Marks was correct; DBI is the leading agency for initiating the CFC in coordination with this Fire Department as in this case, and if it is a restaurant the Health Department is included as well. Director Chiu said that the Department wanted to look into exactly what happened and how the CFC got issued. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to report back at the appropriate time. President Fillon said that this information would be public record. Ms. Bass thanked the Commission and DBI for working with all of the owners.

      d. Update on February 15, 2001 Public Advisory Committee meeting.

      Director stated that about three months ago members of the public came to the Commission meeting to ask the Department to reconvene the Public Advisory Committee. Director Chiu said that this is a very useful Committee to listen to some of the concerns of the public. Director Chiu said that recently there has been some complaints or concerns from the designers, particularly architects, about the way DBI does business by asking for a more complete set of plans, or more detail to comply with the Codes. Director Chiu said that in the past the Department would accept plans that were typically not 100% complete and were more reasonable about accepting plans with the hopes that the corrections would come in quickly. Director Chiu said that this was not helping anybody; therefore, recently DBI has been trying not to accept any plans that are not complete or does not comply with the Codes. Director Chiu said that some of the designers are feeling the heat and are concerned about the method. Director Chiu said that DBI’s position is that the Department is not going to accept incomplete plans or plans that do not address the Code. Director Chiu said that he wanted to give the Commission a heads up about this issue in case the public comes to the Commission to complain. Director Chiu said that under the leadership of William Wong, staff is being asked to spend a little more time up front to help everyone turn in complete plans. Director Chiu said that in the long run this helps as when complete and correct plans are submitted they go through the process quickly. Director Chiu said that the terminology used is that if garbage is submitted this type of plan will not get approved and will take longer; this results in the Department getting criticized for delaying plans. Director Chiu said that he hoped the Commission would support the staff’s way of doing business to get in decent plans in order to expedite projects. Vice-President Hood said that she was 500% behind this policy and said that she has looked at the process in other jurisdictions where the preapplication meeting is not available or information needed is not forthcoming. Vice-President Hood said that this takes enormously more time and it saves so much time to go through the materials with the Plan Checker before submitting the plans and it tremendously aids the designer. Vice-President Hood stated that she thought the policy of not accepting the plans until they are done right is a good one. Vice-President Hood said that the Architectural Licensing Board in California, right now, and the National Registration of Architectural Boards is in the process of defining criteria that is more stringent for architects to meet. Vice-President Hood said that this kind of detail and working to do plans more completely is a very important part of that. Vice-President Hood said that she would pass Director Chiu’s name onto the National Registration of Architectural Boards as he has such vast experience in dealing with this issue. Director Chiu thanked Vice-President Hood.

      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.

      6. Brief History of Unlawful Demolition Committee. Discussion and possible action to reconvene the Unlawful Demolition Committee.

      Director Chiu said that he did not intend to discuss this item in detail, but wanted the Commission to reconvene the Unlawful Demolition Committee. Director Chiu said that a couple of years ago there was a committee headed by one of the Commissioners to work with staff, the neighborhoods and designers to proceed with what is the appropriate way to resolve a lot of the issues that have been raised to the Department and the Commission. Director Chiu said that in the last few months there were a couple of projects that have been discussed. Director Chiu stated that he did not feel good about ruling one way or the other when a project sponsor exceeds the scope of work by a few feet, or in some cases abuse the process to proceed with a project. Director Chiu said that his goal is to have a Code that is easy to understand so that everyone knows the rules and can follow them, rather than have ambiguities as to what is an unlawful demolition. Director Chiu said that if a project comes in with detail showing what is going to be removed and DBI looks at it and Planning approves it, it is permitted work if the project manager follows the approved set of plans. Director Chiu said that what seems to be the problem is determining how much more work they can do, or in some cases the plans are not clear. Director Chiu said that in the package that the Commissioners received there are some key minutes where in the past there were attempts to resolve this issue, including changing the Code definition of unlawful demolition. Director Chiu said that all of these things failed in the last few years. Vice-President Hood stated that nobody would accept the proposed changes. Director Chiu said that there were neighborhoods that said that did not want any change and wanted to keep things the way they were, while still complaining about the process and the interpretation. Director Chiu said that he was urging the Commission to reconvene the Committee so that everyone can work together and reiterated that it is his goal to come up with definite Code language that everyone can follow. Director Chiu said that he was looking forward to working with the Committee. President Fillon stated that he would like to see the Committee reconvened, as this is a problem that needs to be solved.

      President Fillon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner D’Anne, that the Unlawful Demolition Committee be reconvened with the members being Vice-President Hood, Commissioner Walker and Commissioner Santos.

      President Fillon asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to point out that Sig Freeman who was the Structural Engineer for the Commission worked on this, literally for years, and said that it was extraordinarily frustrating. Vice-President Hood stated that she has been involved in this for years through the AIA Housing Committee and said that it would be a wonderful thing if this could be laid to rest for both DBI and the Planning Department. Commissioner Walker said that she appreciated all of the information that was supplied by the Department regarding the history of unlawful demolitions and said that it was interesting to go through and read. Commissioner Walker said that she appreciated the perspective that Vice-President Hood offered, as well as ex-Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Walker asked if it were possible to ask Mr. Freeman to participate as an advisory. Vice-President Hood said that anyone could come and testify. President Fillon said that he could be present as a member of the public. Commissioner Walker said that this is a huge issue and said that in reading the materials, it is the same issues over and over again and said that it would service everyone, including the public, to get some resolve on this. Vice-President Hood said that perhaps the Commission could talk about the strategy of the first Committee meeting. President Fillon said that one thing he would like to see come out of the Committee is one very enforceable definition that is fair. Commissioner D’Anne said that she was concerned about the fines, as in looking at information she sees fines of $500 and that is no deterrent; perhaps if the fines were stronger it would be easier to enforce compliance. Commissioner D’Anne asked if this was going to be part of what the Committee would consider. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the Committee should make a list of the program requirements starting with enforceability, serving Planning and Building and fines would come under enforceability. Vice-President Hood said that she thought the issues are absolutely the same as what went on previously and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Commissioner Walker asked if it were possible to ask the Planning Department to provide staff to sit in on this Committee. Director Chiu said that his advice would be to do this with Planning. Vice-President Hood said that her advice would be the direct opposite, as the more people that are involved the less likely it is that the problem will be solved. Vice-President Hood said that after dealing with this issue for over twelve years, and DBI knows what Planning thinks, it would be better to get a total program that works and then use that as the framework to give to Planning and then invite people to critique it and modify it. Vice-President Hood said that what happens is that the Department never gets anywhere with this issue because there are too many opposing voices. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission was getting off of the agenda. Vice-President Hood stated that she thought the Commissioners appointed should convene as a Committee and get a really good plan, as she does not want to spend 50% of her time on it and would like to see something get done. Vice-President Hood said that this was why she volunteered for this Committee and said that she knows people want to see buildings protected and want teeth when something is done that they can actually get it torn down when something has been done wrong. Vice-President Hood said that everyone would jump on the bang wagon because it’s not like there are a lot of problems because the issues are truly known. President Fillon said that when the Committee gets together they could determine the issues. Commissioner Marks said that she agreed with Vice-President Hood that it is better to work with a smaller group and then come up with a proposal and get response to it. Commissioner Marks said that it was wonderful to have all of the previous notes because it will avoid wasting people’s time going over the same issues. Commissioner Marks stated that to her the memorandum that was issued on May 6, 1996 by Director Chiu would be a very good starting point. Commissioner Marks said that she understood that this issue was put on hold because there was a court challenge. Commissioner Marks asked what happened to the court challenge. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that this was a lawsuit brought by Citizen Review challenging a decision on a particular project on Chenery Street and also attacking the Department’s enforcement of the ordinance. Ms. Boyajian said that eventually the Department won the lawsuit after it was taken to Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court refused to hear it and the Department did win eventually. President Fillon said that Commissioner Marks was off of the agenda and her comments should be related to the motion on the floor. President Fillon asked if there was any further comment on the motion on the floor. President Fillon asked for a vote on the motion.

      The motion carried unanimously.

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-016-01

      Commissioner Marks said that because the item on the agenda says discussion and possible action she would again recommend that the Committee start with the May 6, 1996 memo since it has survived a court challenge. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that she should be clearer in that the court did not really review the memo and pass on it. Ms. Boyajian said that while the Department was in the litigation they felt that they should not be fueling the opposition, so this memo was put on a hold position.

      Mr. Ian Burke stated that he was representing the Pacific Heights Residence Association and said that in the last few weeks the association has become increasingly concerned about what they perceive as a very high level of illegal demolitions for a number of reasons. Mr. Burke said that there are things that are demolished under a renovation permit and the contractor suddenly finds that there is dry rot or they have to do this or that and clearly the system is not working. Mr. Burke said that he thought that his association were the only ones concerned about this and was stunned to read the collection of memos and testimony that has been taken for the last three years. Mr. Burke said that this is truly unbelievable and said that it looked to him like never have so many labored for so long and done so little; nothing has changed. Mr. Burke said that he would have to say that it has gotten worse. Mr. Burke stated that he would like to take exception to a comment that was made by Director Chiu when he said that some people in the neighborhoods are satisfied with the demolition ordinance and process as it is and why change it, as they like it the way it is. Mr. Burke said that he has never heard this and would like to know who said this to the Director, as it is not the sentiment that he hears at all. Mr. Burke stated that he thinks this is a tremendous problem and it seems clear to him that there has not been the political will to address it. Mr. Burke said that he did understand the realities of how the Commission was created and understands who appointed whom and does not expect miracles, but perhaps with the small change in the political tide maybe something effective will come out of this Committee. Mr. Burke said that there has been three years of nothing and he would be embarrassed.

      Mr. Bruce Bonnacker introduced himself as being with the National Association of Remodeling Industry. Mr. Bonnacker said that he would like to congratulate those Commissioners who agreed to serve on this Committee, as it was a tough one for Commissioner Freeman before and said he was pleased that the Committee is willing to take this up again. Mr. Bonnacker said that he wanted to point out something that aligns with what Commissioner Marks was saying, and that is, that even if this is not in DBI’s jurisdiction, the Planning Code has demolition definitions as well. Mr. Bonnacker said that to the extent the Commission is going through this process in order to make it easier for everybody to understand, in terms of neighborhood activists, designers and preservationists, he would urge the Committee to think in terms of making recommendations to the Planning Department about how all the definitions might want to coordinate.

      Ms. Maria Galatti said that she was coming forward to support Mr. Frank Chiu. Ms. Galatti said that she did not know what the ratio is for when someone is feeling very upset. Ms. Galatti stated that the Commission hears from people when they have something to complain about and the Commission does not hear the other 90% who think things are okay. Ms. Galatti said that in her neighborhood there was a demolition going on, a renovation, on Noe Street and all of the neighbors around it were perfectly happy with it, but somebody a mile away decided that something was going on that shouldn’t be going on and all of a sudden there is this tempest in a teapot. Ms. Galatti said that she is not clairvoyant and does not know what is in the builders, speculators or a homeowner’s head and does not know what is in other people’s heads, but is only speaking from what she has seen. Ms. Galatti stated that in these cases she does not know the owner, is not related, is not in the building business and has nothing at all to do with a project except her own observance. Ms. Galatti stated that the Planning Department may say that they want things pretty much the way they are to keep the character of the neighborhood and so on and the Building Department says that every structural wall must be at least two by fours, made of two by fours if not two by sixes, and then the contractor opens up a wall and there are two by threes. Ms. Galatti said that there is confusion and a dilemma and said that she hoped the Committee would take it into consideration that the Commission and the Department hears the complainers, but don’t hear from the people who are somewhat satisfied, satisfied or really give other people the credit that they are trying the best that they can. Ms. Galatti said that there is this business of "I’ve got you" and the need to stop a building because somebody determines that they are out to do no good and this can be somebody that lives miles away. Ms. Galatti said that she wanted to point this out to the Commission.

      7. Update on Litigation Committee meeting. [Commissioner Guinnane] (Letter from Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield and Chief Building Inspector Marvin Ruiz regarding DBI Referrals to City Attorney.)

      Commissioner Guinnane said that on January 29, 2001 the Litigation Committee consisting of himself, Rodrigo Santos and Debra Walker met with Deputy City Attorney Tom Lakritz and reviewed approximately seventy-five cases. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee went through all of the cases to get a handle as to what was going on regarding litigation with the City Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco versus the tenants and owners and gave direction to the City Attorney on some of the cases; which to pursue, which to settle and which to try and negotiate.

      Commissioner Santos said that the Committee were slightly puzzled by some of the financial arrangements that the City has made, as there were a lot of people who committed violations that were given a financial break in terms of payment plans. Commissioner Walker said that some payments were as low as $25 per month. Commissioner Santos said that some of the violators were financially capable of paying off the City Attorney. Commissioner Guinnane said that because of this, the Committee would give direction to the City Attorney’s Office on settlements and how to handle them. Commissioner Guinnane stated that this is what had happened in the past, but the Committee was suspended because two members were lost off of the Committee, but the Committee is back meeting again. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee decided that all referrals to the City Attorney would have to be approved by the Committee. Commissioner Santos said that it was a very productive meeting as the Committee went through every single case and were pragmatic about some of the cases that had been going on for a long time when the financial rewards are not there and some of the cases were dropped. Commissioner Guinnane said that the concern of the Committee is that they do not want to spend good money going after bad when cases can be settled. Commissioner Guinnane said that in one particular case the people were sued and the Department lost very badly. Commissioner Guinnane said that now there is a handle on what will be referred over for prosecution. President Fillon asked how much money was lost. Commissioner Santos replied that it was around $100,000 on that one case. President Fillon said that he looked forward to hearing more from the Committee. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee was going to try and meet once a month in the future.

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

        a. Memo from Chief Building Inspector Wing Y. Lau, dated January 25, 2001 to BID Staff regarding Board of Supervisors/BID Districts.

        b. Park Merced Residents Organization January 2001 Newsletter.

        c. February 9, 2001 letter from Assistant Director Amy Lee to Mr. Robert Pender regarding inquiries about Park Merced Apartments raised at the January 17, 2001 BIC Meeting.

        d. Copy of memo sent to Commissioner Marks from Union (Local 21) regarding issues related to proposed FY 2001-02 Budget.

        e. Letter to Director Frank Y. Chiu from Mr. Owen Brady regarding 200 Bridgeview Drive.

        f. Letter from The Committee to Save Grocery Outlet dated February 7, 2001 to the Department of Building Inspection Commission regarding the closure of the Grocery Outlet and the poor land use proposed by the new owner Best Buy Electronics.

        g. Letter from the Zoning Administrator of the Planning Department to Interested Parties regarding the Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000 0515 0033, Case No. 1999.811D, for the property at 1660 Mission Street.

        h. Copy of Resolution No. 26-01 regarding "Policy Priorities of the Bay Area Latino Health Summit."

        i. Copy of Resolution No. 1085-00 regarding "Urging City departments to participate in electricity load reduction programs in order to help avoid future electricity blackouts in the Bay Area and to reduce unreasonably high power purchase costs by the City."

        j. Memorandum from Chief Building Inspector Wing Lau to Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson regarding Fire Investigation at 1312, 1314, 1316 & 1318 Page Street.

        k. Department of Building Inspection’s "Brown Bag Lunch Talks" agenda for February and March 15, 2001.

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

        m. DBI Newsletters.

    President Fillon said that there were quite a few items and he would just ask if any of the Commissioners had any questions or comments on any of the items.

      Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to call attention to the letter that she received from Local 21that addressed the "open space" issue and the shuttle, but stated that it also addressed the whole issue of Code Enforcement. Commissioner Marks said that when this issue was discussed at the Budget & Finance Committee, Vice-President Hood commented that this was another issue that had a long history of attempts made to try and do something. Commissioner Marks asked if the Department could compile a report, as was done with the unlawful demolition issue, and give the Commission a history of what DBI and Planning have done in the past in trying to deal with Code Enforcement. Commissioner Marks said that then the Commission could decide what sort of steps could be taken. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to do his best, but was not so sure if the Department had a long history of trying to establish something. Director Chiu said that Planning abolished that unit some time ago and DBI has been doing the front and leg work for many years including zoning issues, but said that he would be happy to report back in terms of what the Department had, if any, historical records.

      Commissioner Walker said that she would be bringing up an agenda item around this issue.

      Commissioner Marks asked about agenda item #8f regarding "Save the Grocery Outlet". Commissioner Marks asked if the Department writes a letter in response or what happens to the communication. Commissioner Marks said that in reading the text, and even though she is sympathetic toward the situation, it says that Best Buy Electronics have already gotten their plans approved to demolish the building and do a replacement. Commissioner Marks asked if the Department then writes a letter explaining that the plans were approved and DBI has no choice, but to issue the permit. Director Chiu said that if a letter, or copy of a letter, is sent to his office the Department responds or tries to refer it to the appropriate agency. Director Chiu said that somebody else has already called him on this particular project or it could have been the same person who wrote the letter. Director Chiu said that this is more of a Planning or zoning issue and his policy is to acknowledge receipt of the letter and let the sender know that it has been passed on to the appropriate agency, as it is out of DBI’s jurisdiction. Director Chiu said that it is DBI’s policy to respond to every letter. Commissioner Walker asked if it were true that this project already got approval for demolition without a hearing. Commissioner Walker asked if this required a hearing. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian asked if Commissioner Walker meant at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Walker said, yes, anywhere. Ms. Boyajian said that the Planning Commission would only have a hearing on a building permit if there was a request for a discretionary review. Commissioner Walker asked if this were true even if there was a demolition involved; Ms. Boyajian said that this was correct. Commissioner Walker asked how anyone would get noticed and said that she was curious about the process. Commissioner Walker said she wondered if there was something within DBI, if someone does a permit to demolish an existing building to build another building. Ms. Boyajian said that the Building Code had requirements for a notice of demolition and said she believed it was 300 feet upon application of the permit and again upon issuance of the permit. Commissioner Walker asked if this happened. Director Chiu said that it did happened and he remembered that he met with Jim Reid personally and this was his concern. Director Chiu said that Mr. Reid’s issue was more with Planning and DBI’s only involvement with issuing a demolition permit is that there is a Code mandating that the Department does two things; one is that as soon as a permit is filed for demolition DBI notifies property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project; two, when letters with questions or concerns come back to DBI then those letters are passed on to the Planning Department for them to address. Director Chiu stated that DBI’s role is very limited and is more of a processing. Commissioner Walker asked if when the Department does a demolition notice, are letters also sent to the neighborhood associations that have asked to be noticed. Director Chiu said that if they make a request in writing then they would be noticed. Commissioner Walker asked if there were two different lists, one for Planning and one for DBI. Director Chiu said that the Department does take requests for additional notification. Commissioner Walker asked if this was different from the requests submitted to Planning. Commissioner Walker said that there is already a list of groups that have asked to be noticed about Planning. Director Chiu said that it would probably be a separate request and DBI does not generally notify them automatically unless there has been a specific request made. Commissioner Walker said that it might be a point of confusion from groups who don’t understand that there is a different thing happening from getting a permit and going though a Planning review. Commissioner Walker said that it may be good to educate the public that there are two lists or make a step forward to the public wanting notice and actually use that list. Commissioner Walker said that the Departments need to let people know what they are not getting. Director Chiu said that in response to Commissioner Walker’s question, generally there are two different types of notices. Commissioner Walker said that in this case and especially because there is interest in demolition, if people are requesting Planning permits she would assume that they are also interested in things like demolition. Commissioner Walker said that maybe DBI should be looking at informing the public that they can be added to a list even if they are not within the specific radius. Director Chiu said that according to the Building Code anybody may request, with a fee, to be notified. Director Chiu said that Jim Reid was upset because the Planning Commission chose not to have a hearing and Director Chiu stated that he did not think this had anything to do with the notification process. Commissioner Walker said that this is something that should be talked about in the unlawful demolition meetings and said that it is complicated because a lot of people don’t understand that the Planning Department doesn’t authorize demolitions, as DBI does sometimes. Director Chiu said that he would have to correct Commissioner Walker as any time anybody makes a request, particularly a demolition form 6, both departments have to sign off. Director Chiu said that DBI is the leading agency for processing the paper work, but DBI’s role in determining approval or disapproval is very limited. Commissioner Walker said that the issue was about noticing because DBI is responsible for noticing and Planning Department only notices when they have a hearing. Director Chiu said that he was not sure about that and thought that there were additional requirements for Planning to notify. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that Planning Department has certain notification requirements in its Code and a demolition does not necessarily trigger a notice, but there are separate notices and lists and there is no fee required, but there is an annual fee to get on the Building Department’s list. Ms. Boyajian said she could understand that people might think that they are on a big list that covers both departments. Commissioner Walker said that this was something that could be worked on in the demolition committee.

      President Fillon said that he would like to acknowledge the letters received for a job well done by several of the staff members. President Fillon said that for the record he would like to thank those individuals: Michael Rodman, Rochelle Garrett, Chris Schroeder, Norman Gutierrez, Wing Lau, Henry Hinds, Alex Kwan, Andrew Greene, Tara James, Sean McNulty, Willy Lau and Carol Roseman. President Fillon said that he knows staff reads the minutes and wanted these staff members to know that the Commission appreciates what they are doing for DBI.

      Mr. Robert Pender introduced himself from the Park Merced Residents Organization. Mr. Pender said that he would like to thank Assistant Director Amy Lee for writing him a nice letter about what he inquired about at the January meeting. Mr. Pender said that he thought she misunderstood what his complaint was about. Mr. Pender said that in her letter Ms. Lee stated that DBI is not responsible for the shrubbery on 19th Avenue and Junipero Serra. Mr. Pender said that he agreed that DBI has no jurisdiction over that. Mr. Pender said that what he was complaining about was the water on the roofs of the shopping center. Mr. Pender said that the erosion is causing this, as they took away the bushes and trees and all of the water is coming down the hill and sitting on the roof of the buildings. Mr. Pender said that these are flat buildings and the water is collecting on the roofs and making it unsafe because there is no place for the water to go. Mr. Pender said that in the old supermarket the roof is being held up by two by fours, great big beams are holding up the roof. Mr. Pender said that on the other buildings where there is just as much water, nothing is being done. Mr. Pender said that this is unsafe. President Fillon asked if the hill actually comes down to the roofs so that run off water flows onto the roofs. Mr. Pender said that this is what is happening and his complaint is that it is not safe for the general public or the people that work there. Mr. Pender said that he was not complaining to the BIC about the bushes, he is complaining about that to the Recreation and Parks Department. President Fillon asked if it was just a supermarket where the water was coming. Mr. Pender said that there are other buildings there as it used to be a little shopping center with a drug store, a bank and at one time there was a police station. Mr. Pender said that these are flat roofs and the water is coming down and just sitting there. President Fillon asked if there were people in these buildings and Mr. Pender said that yes, there were. Mr. Pender said that the landlord’s offices had been moved into the old bank building. Mr. Pender asked if someone could just come and look and see where the water is coming onto the buildings. Commissioner Guinnane said, in reference to the item, there are flat roofs out there with about an inch of water on the roofs that are not used as decks. Commissioner Guinnane said there is no public nuisance out there or structural problems as there is nobody going up on the roofs, so he couldn’t see where there was danger or any public nuisance as nobody was using the roofs as a deck. Commissioner Guinnane said that all flat roofs have water on them and once it gets up to a certain amount it would either flow over the top or run into a drain. Mr. Pender said that he lives in a building that has a flat roof that collected water and when it collected enough water there was a leaky roof and the water came pouring down the walls. President Fillon said that the water is supposed to run off of the roof. Commissioner Santos asked if Mr. Pender was concerned about potential life safety issues. Mr. Pender said that he thought that it was dangerous. President Fillon asked Director Chiu to have an inspector check into the problem.

    9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of January 17, 2001.

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

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-017-01

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

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

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

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

    12. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Litigation Committee of January 29, 2001. [Commissioners Guinnane, Santos & Walker]

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

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-018-01

    13. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Special Meeting of January 31, 2001.

      Commissioner D’Anne made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker that the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Guinnane excusing himself as he was not at the meeting.

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-019-01

    14. Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

      a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

      b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

    Commissioner Walker said that she would like to bring up the issue of Code Enforcement within DBI and related departments. Commissioner Walker said that there are issues that DBI’s inspectors see when they go out on inspections, such as mold and mildew that are presenting major health problems. Commissioner Walker said that there is one case after the other of enforcement problems, that granted are outside of DBI’s venue, but often times the DBI inspectors are the only ones out there. Commissioner Walker stated that she gets the issue that the Department does not have the training nor the personnel, nor does the Department get reimbursed for doing inspection for other departments, but said that it might be a wise thing to talk about; putting together a task force of all those relative departments to actually come up with, especially since Planning is now reinstating their Code Enforcement, to actually work together to make it clear and concise so that everybody knows what everybody is doing so that things don’t fall through the cracks. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to see that agendized as far as the BIC can discuss DBI getting into this issue and get input. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Walker wanted a presentation of what DBI does now for other agencies, not limited to Planning and Health. Director Chiu said that there is a perception that DBI does not do Planning enforcement, for example illegal units, as technically speaking there may be no work that was done, but someone is occupying a space illegally and DBI responds to those complaints. Commissioner Walker said she wanted to know what was done by complaint or what is routine. Commissioner Walker said that she felt it was important that if there are things that are falling through the cracks because no one is paying attention, that the three departments that she knows about, and maybe there are more, should come together so that things don’t fall through the cracks. Commissioner Walker said she was not as interested in DBI taking responsibility for it, but somebody should be. President Fillon said that a report would be a good place to start. Commissioner Marks said that at the Budget Meetings Vice-President Hood had said that there had been past efforts to work, particularly with Planning, on Code Enforcement and Commissioner Marks asked if information on these attempts could also be included. Director Chiu said that he would incorporate this request.

    Commissioner Guinnane said that he had five items that he would like on the next agenda. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to know what was happening with the education of the Housing Inspectors and what other cities and counties look for in hiring a Housing Inspector; what are the qualifications. Commissioner Guinnane said that another thing he wanted to look at was the amount of money that is allocated on the budget to overtime. Commissioner Guinnane asked for a report on the income to date, of what the Department has generating. Commissioner Guinnane said that it is his belief that the new building or annex that is being talked about is not going to be needed. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he thought there was going to be a big slow down in the City on revenue and development. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was a lot of growth in the City in the last few years and stated that he did not believe that there was going to be that future growth anymore. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission needs to look at this new building to decide whether to go forward or shelve it at this time. Commissioner Guinnane said that another item that he wanted to explore as a result of Boardman Place is when an engineer or a firm designs an engineering plan, can the Department have someone from that firm or the actual engineer come out and do the actual inspection to sign off. Commissioner Guinnane said that the engineer or the firm would be more familiar with the project since they drew it, versus an outside firm coming in. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Guinnane’s interest was if the City could require the original designer to do the special inspection versus hiring an outside agency. Commissioner Guinnane said he was not talking about concrete testing and cable, but about actual framing and tie downs of bolts, sheer walls and all of that. Director Chiu said that he could certainly do the research for Commissioner Guinnane, but could also argue against this because sometimes it is good to have that outside eye taking a look at the project, rather than the person who designed it. Commissioner Guinnane said he was just looking to explore this possibility. Director Chiu said he would research to see if the Code would have to be changed and if there is support to change the Code to the policy Commissioner Guinnane is suggesting. Director Chiu said that he does not have a preference one way or the other and this could raise a legal issue, but would start the research.

    Commissioner Marks said that she had an issue that might be covered with the Committee looking at the demolition issue. Commissioner Marks said that the Commission had spoken about the fees levied when parties go beyond the scope of the permit and said that she did not know if this should be handled separately. Director Chiu said that several months ago staff did a presentation to the Commission on penalties in general. Director Chiu said that he thought that part of the discussion for the Unlawful Demolition Committee should include the fines and penalties as also raised by Commissioner D’Anne. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Marks had a specific issue about a generic penalty that there was some concern about that he was not aware of. Director Chiu said that generally speaking if work is done without a permit then the fine is ten times the original permit fee; if there is a permit, but the scope of work is exceeded then the penalty is two times the original permit fee. Director Chiu said that he did a survey many years ago and except for San Jose, who increased their penalty fee to five times the permit fee, the rest of the country’s fines have been two times the permit fees; San Francisco has been the only City charging ten times the original permit fee. Director Chiu said that he is not saying that this is reasonable in certain cases, especially when there is an unlawful demolition involved, but Director Chiu said that if Commissioner Marks wanted him to revisit the penalty in general, he could do another presentation. Director Chiu said he thought Commissioner Marks’ concern was more about if the fine was equitable when somebody exceeds the scope of work and triggers an unlawful demolition. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that Vice-President Hood brought it up at a prior meeting that those types of penalties are worth it for the developer because it is worth risking getting caught as the penalties are so low compared to the benefit that people receive. Commissioner Walker said that if the Department is trying to use the penalties as discouragement, it is not working. Commissioner Walker said she thought this could be dealt with in the Unlawful Demolition Committee and look at recommending stronger fines for that. Commissioner Walker said that it has come up and she doesn’t believe it has been on the agenda. Commissioner Marks said that the most recent episode was the garage at 114 Wilmot where the fee was $235, but the Commission has talked about it in general; for example, when a permit is taken out to basically do some remodeling work in the kitchen and then the actual work that is completed goes way beyond the scope. Commissioner Marks said that the fees that are levied don’t discourage anyone from going beyond the scope of the permit. Commissioner Marks said that the fees really are minimal and it is one thing if a person does minor work beyond the scope of the permit versus something more major. Commissioner Marks stated that there is nothing built into the process where if something goes 50% beyond the scope of the permit, and it would be difficult to define what 50% is, that there would be a higher levy of fee rather than two times. Director Chiu said that if the Commissioners wanted to revisit the entire penalty in general, then the Department has to take a look at it, but the Unlawful Demolition Committee should also look into the fines related to unlawful demolition. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to present the general fee/penalty structure again.

    Commissioner Marks said that at the Budget Committee meeting she asked about the status of the money set aside for the City Attorney’s Office and DBI to work on the musical room issues. Commissioner Marks said that Ms. Boyajian had checked the Department and no one knew anything about it. Ms. Boyajian said that the City Attorney’s Office believes that they are doing a special program and Deputy City Attorney Tom Lakritz is putting together a memorandum to submit to the Department explaining what program they think they are doing. Commissioner Walker asked if this would be like a task force that is in existence. Ms. Boyajian said that she was not sure, but the City Attorney’s Office did come up with a new program that they have been working on all year. Commissioner Walker asked if the Commission could have that by the next meeting. Ms. Boyajian said that she would ask Mr. Lakritz for that information.

    Ms. Maria Galatti said that she was speaking as a consumer. Ms. Galatti stated that sometimes when contractors do work that is against the Code and DBI finds that Code violation, the Code violation goes against the property. Ms. Galatti said that the property is owned by the consumer and when the Commission is talking about penalties, DBI is not only penalizing the consumer for having gotten a bad contractor, but are doubling the injury by not only condemning the work, but then ten times the permit fee is levied on the consumer, not necessarily the contractor. Ms. Galatti said that this does not go against the contractor at all. Ms. Galatti asked the Commission to please think about that. Ms. Galatti said that this is an issue that has been taken up at the State Contractor’s Licensing Board at their last board meeting and she will be following what the Commission does.

      11. 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.

    12. Adjournment.

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

      The motion carried unanimously.

      RESOLUTION NO. BIC-020-01

      The meeting was adjourned at 3:10p.m.

                      _______________________

            Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary

            SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

            Update on "open space" project and shuttle for 1660 Mission Street. - Commissioner Marks

            Pages 4 - 8

            Explanation of stations listed on shuttle schedule. - Commissioner D’Anne

            Page 7

            Continuing update on 39 Boardman Place. - Commissioner Walker

            Pages 8 - 11

            History of Code Enforcement within DBI and other related departments- Commissioner Marks & Commissioner Walker

            Pages 17 & 21

            Inspector to be sent to Park Merced Shopping Center to check roofs for potential life safety hazards. - President Fillon

            Page 20

            Update on education of Housing Inspectors and report on required qualifications in other jurisdictions. - Commissioner Guinnane

            Page 21

            Report on amount of money allocated to overtime. - Commissioner Guinnane

            Page 21

            Report on income generated by DBI to date. - Commissioner Guinnane

            Page 21

            Possibility of DBI requiring original engineer or firm assigned for special inspection to do final inspection. - Commissioner Guinnane

            Page 21

            Presentation on general fee/penalty structure. - Commissioner Marks

            Page 22

            Report from City Attorney’s Office on program on "musical chairs" as related to SRO’s. - Commissioner Marks

            Page 23