Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 2:15 p.m. by President Murphy.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS:

Mel Murphy, President

Reuben Hechanova, Vice-President
Kevin Clinch, Commissioner
Frank Lee, Commissioner
Robin Levitt, Commissioner
Criss Romero, Commissioner, excused
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I.REPRESENTATIVES:

Vivian  Day, Acting Director
Edward Sweeney, Deputy Director
William Strawn, Communications Manager
Rosemary Bosque, Chief Housing Inspector
Laurence Kornfield, Acting Manager, Permit Services
Pamela Levin, Administration & Finance Division Supervisor

Sonya Harris, Secretary

2.  President’s Announcement.

Commissioner Levitt said that there were several really good candidates and that this was a very tough decision, but the Committee decided to recommend Mr. Vignos.  Commissioner Levitt said that the Committee appreciated all the people that applied.

Vice-President Hechanova made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Levitt to accept the Committees recommendation and swear in Mr. Vignos. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 034-09

President Murphy asked Mr. Vignos to step forward to take the Oath of Office.  President Murphy administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Vignos, congratulated him and thanked him for accepting this appointment.

Director Day said that the report for May was included in the Commissioner’s packets and noted that the revenues have increased a little in the month of May. Director Day said that the proposed refunds that the Department has not issued to date are also included in the report.  Director Day stated that the Department was having a little bit of difficulty getting the paper work back from the applicants that have requested the refunds. Ms. Pamela Levin said that there are two large refunds that are not accounted for were just received at the beginning of this month that will account for another $500,000 worth of refunds. Director Day stated that the refunds were due for two large projects, two large parking garages, so that will be for the refunds for this current year. Director Day said that the Department has continued to decrease expenses for materials and supplies and is trying to balance the budget.

Director Day said that the Department has its first hearing before the Budget Committee next week, and is receiving the proposed cuts that the Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst is proposing.  Director Day reported that the BOS is asking for a $3.3 million reduction in expenses for the Department.

Commissioner Walker said that it has come to her attention that in the budget that the Mayor presented to the Board of Supervisors the funding for the S.R.O. Collaborative was not included. Director Day stated that was correct; that item was in the first round of the budget that was presented, but that budget had to be revised again before it was submitted to the Mayor.  Director Day stated that DBI is funding the S.R.O. Collaborative for this year, but not for next year.

Director Day said that this item could be covered under Item #7 for action of the vacant building ordinance as there is no other current legislation right now that the Department will be bringing to the board.

Inspector Dennis Carlin said that at the end of the last BIC meeting there were two questions asked by Commissioners about the difference between Building Inspectors and Housing Inspectors; what their duties were and who would be sent out in the event of an earthquake. Mr. Carlin said that he works with the people in Housing and stated that he knows he has not made any friends here in this debate, but said that he did not start this nor did he want it. Mr. Carlin gave the Commissioners a visual aid of the difference of these two divisions by showing the Code that the Building Inspectors enforce and that of the Housing Inspectors.  Mr. Carlin said that the Building Inspectors enforce the California Building, Mechanical, Energy and Disability Access Codes and stacked up several Code books, as opposed to one Housing Code book.  Mr. Carlin stated the Building Inspectors inspect everything from remodels to high-rises, every building in this City. Mr. Carlin said that he came to work at DBI at 49 years old, and had 31 years of experience in the field; the city has now invested five years of time and money in training him on this Code to go along with his expertise in building. Mr. Carlin said that he built multifamily houses, did seismic upgrades, remodels, and did it all whether commercial or residential. Mr. Carlin said that most Building Inspectors, like himself have these kinds of credentials.

.

President Murphy said that Mr. Carlin has been at the last two or three meetings regarding this issue and said that nobody has told him what the breakdown is as far as layoffs between the Housing Inspectors and Building Inspectors.

.

Director Day said that there was a total of 30 construction Inspectors in the staff reductions, 5 of those were Housing Inspectors. Director Day said that this was out of 94 total reductions, although some of those were vacant positions; there were a total of about 65 filled positions of actual people that left DBI.  Director Day stated that of the 30 construction Inspectors that would include Electrical and Plumbing inspectors, which are also construction inspectors, and a total of five Housing Inspectors.  President Murphy asked if the balance would be clerks.  Director Day said that the balance were clerks, administrative staff and MIS people, but said that every division took a hit.  President Murphy said that of the Engineers most were able to go to the PUC and most of the clerks went to other City departments, but the Building Inspectors have gone to the unemployment department.

Vice President Hechanova asked how many Housing Inspectors and Building Inspectors were now in the Department.  Director Day stated that the Department has three senior Housing Inspectors and 17 regular Housing Inspectors so there are a total of 21 people in that division.  Vice President Hechanova asked how many Construction Inspectors were left. President Murphy asked that the number include the combination of Electrical, Plumbing, and Building Inspectors.

Director Day said that she did not have that number available.  Deputy Director Ed Sweeney said that there were about 50 Building Inspectors before the layoffs, which covered Plan Check and field inspection, which included a lot more duties such as Disability Access and Code Enforcement. Deputy Director Sweeney said that 20 positions were lost and of those eight were unfilled and 12 were filled.

Secretary Aherne said that she knew this was an important item, but because it is not on the agenda and there cannot be a full discussion on it or the Commission would be going against the Sunshine Ordinance.

President Murphy called for other public comment and thanked Inspector Carlin for the information.

Mr. Luke O’Brien said that he was speaking just as a regular citizen of San Francisco on the matter that the previous speakers just mentioned.  Mr. O’Brien said that he has heard all kinds of explanations about why there was such a disparity between people who were terminated from the Building Division and people who were terminated from the Housing Division.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he would love to know the rationale behind the large numbers of people in the Building Division that were laid off, versus the people in the Housing Division because they are all equally important in terms of safety.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he thought that people who are in the business of protecting workers from falling pieces of steel or from other very dangerous issues on the job site are dealing with a more pronounced safety issue than somebody who might be checking that the Housing or Health Code has been adhered to. Mr. O’Brien said that it does not seem like there was a rationale behind the disconnect in numbers even though San Francisco prides itself as being a City of open government.  Mr. O’Brien said that on the Sunshine Ordinance, he thought that people have a right to know if there are any rumors to make sure that this is an honest and open government and citizens need to understand the rationale behind it. Mr. O’Brien stated that he would not mind seeing some of these people back in the Building Department as it would be very helpful.

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that he was a general contractor and said that the layoffs have affected contractors as well as the employees that have been laid off because Building Inspectors have a heavier load to carry and cannot do a full inspection. Mr. Karnilowicz said that the Department should have considered working four days instead of five and then more people would be employed.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that some folks were able to transfer to other departments, but with the Inspectors it was particularly hard because contractors are not hiring. Mr. Karnilowicz stated that this has been a really difficult time and said that he hoped there would not be any more losses.

Mr. Walter Park said that he did not envy the BIC these budget problems, but said he was not present to speak on that subject.  Mr. Park said he was present to talk about the BIC’s appointment to the Access Appeals Committee.  Mr. Park said that he was a member of the AAC as a Licensed Architect working on accessibility projects. Mr. Park stated that by the time someone comes to the AAC the project does not comply with the Code because if it did, the Inspector would approve it. Mr. Park said that the AAC is always trying to balance accessibility versus cost which is not difficult for a large downtown building where the resources are enormous, but said that it is very difficult for the mom and pop jobs. Mr. Parks stated that the retail spaces and neighborhoods is really where the AAC spends a long time looking at cases to go through them in much detail, even though they are smaller cases in dollar value. Mr. Park stated that the AAC does not want to stop the small business and do not want to have inaccessible spaces and the judgment it takes to do that is really informed by lengthy experience doing accessibility work, which is what this candidate has. Mr. Park said that the candidate he was supporting is Mr. Zack Nathan who is a member of the A.I.A and the BIC’s Code Advisory Committee.  Mr. Park said that he would like to recommend to the Commissioners that they  consider Mr. Nathan again as he knew that the Committee was perhaps going to put someone forward without considering alternatives.

President Murphy asked Senior Building Inspector Dan Lowrey to explain the Notice of Violation (NOV) process.  Mr. Lowrey said that at the beginning of the process there might be a complaint originated and an Inspector does an investigation of the property or sometimes a Building Inspector goes out to a job and realizes that the building was beyond the scope of the permit. Mr. Lowrey said that if a complaint is valid the Department issues a NOV that will have conditions consistent of what was seen by the Inspector and a permit may be required. Mr. Lowrey stated that if a permit is required the customer is given a length of time and the process of what to do on the NOV and told whether or not plans are required.  Mr. Lowrey said that with the first NOV on a construction site usually the inspector would require that the contractor get an extended permit that would be issued for the extended scope of the work. Mr. Lowrey explained that a time limit is set in both cases and when that time is up if the conditions of the NOV have not been met then a second NOV will be issued. Mr. Lowrey stated that the time itself for the scope of the work varies, so if there is an imminent danger, it could be as short as 24 hours or from 30 to 60 days. Mr. Lowrey said that when a second NOV is issued, it is referred over to Code Enforcement if there has been no compliance with the first NOV.  Mr. Lowrey said that the Department tries to work with the customer especially if plans are required, but DBI still wants to see some action taken.  Mr. Lowrey stated that if the customer does not respond to a second NOV for a lengthy time, then the case gets scheduled for a Director’s Hearing.  Mr. Lowrey said that even when a case goes to a Director’s Hearing the customer can still negotiate and get a continuance or the case could even be returned to staff at that point. Mr. Lowrey stated that the Department is trying to work with the person with the NOV to get compliance, but said that once the case goes to the Director’s Hearing it is usually to the point where the customer has not complied and the window for compliance is narrowed.

President Murphy asked what percentage of people do not respond to the NOVs.  Inspector Lowrey said that he was not sure of the percentages, but said that there are a lot of cases that get referred over to Code Enforcement. Inspector Lowrey said that if the customer is communicating with the Department that they have submitted a set of plans, but need more time or it needs notification DBI will work with them on that. Mr. Lowrey stated that the Department is giving ample time to correct these violations and the hearing officer will make a decision on what to do; after the Director’s hearing then the case goes to the Litigation Committee and eventually the City Attorney’s Office.  Mr. Lowrey said that it takes a very long time before an Order of Abatement is put on the property.  President Murphy said that he understood as a number of these cases end up in front of the Litigation Committee and it seems to be fodder for the City Attorney’s Office and there is very little recovery for DBI.  Mr. Lowrey said that the City Attorney’s Office is the last alternative if the Department cannot get any action.

Commissioner Walker thanked Inspector Lowrey for the work that he and other staff do as this is a very complicated and challenging thing. Commissioner Walker asked who actually assesses if a permit is needed, if it needs to be rerouted to Planning, or does Planning look at the NOVs routinely.  Mr. Lowrey said that is determined at the Plan Check process and if there is a NOV on a property that needs to be seen by Planning the Plan Checker notes that on the permit so that it gets routed to Planning.

Commissioner Levitt asked if the process takes into consideration that in order to get a permit someone might have to hire a professional architect or a structural engineer to do those drawings and that might take some time. Inspector Lowrey said that if there is a NOV and the customer communicates that to the Building Inspector, the Senior or the Chief and are going forward to try to correct the NOV, the Department will work with that customer, but the Department does try to keep the window for compliance as narrow as possible.  Mr. Lowrey stated that DBI does not want somebody to file for a building permit and then have it sit there for three years.

President Murphy asked if somebody applies for a permit and the Department knows about it, is all action against that customer suspended at that point.  Inspector Lowrey said that the Inspector, who issues the first NOV, keeps the file on that NOV and as long as the customer is trying to work with the Department no second NOV is issued, but if they ignore it then the second NOV is issued.

Commissioner Hechanova asked if there was a threshold of how many cases one Housing Inspector or other staff is involved with and is there a process for tracking and following up on these cases.  Inspector Lowrey said that in the past there was a Complaint Investigation Team that did a very good job and were able to spend more time on a complaint, but said that the Building Inspectors are very busy and sometimes could not gain access to the properties. Inspector Lowrey said that now with the cuts that would be even more difficult to track.  Commissioner Walker said that the BIC Litigation Committee deals with a lot of these people who do not respond and some of the concerns are that the time of the Building Inspectors or the Code Enforcement staff is not captured in the reimbursement fees. Commissioner Walker stated that it is very important to list all of the time spent on all of these negotiations and hopefully the new computer systems will help with that process.  Inspector Lowrey stated that the Department does track the time.  Director Day explained that the Department cannot collect fees if the NOV is abated before the Director’s Hearing; it is only after the Director’s Hearing takes place.

Director Day said that the Department is trying to write legislation right now to correct that.

President Murphy stated that there are a lot of complaints out there for people that are literally stuck as they have applied for a permit, but sometimes the case has been moved on to Code Enforcement so the applicant is in limbo; a monthly monitoring fee might help move things along.

Commissioner Levitt said that he understands the need for recouping some fees for monitoring these cases but said that, in his experience, the process takes a long time sometimes to get through certain departments such as Streets Use and Mapping or Planning. Commissioner Levitt stated that sometimes this is beyond the control of the property owner and yet the Building Department is calling them up every month and then they charge them every phone call, or whatever it is, to monitor this process. Inspector Lowrey said that it is a difficult balance for Code Enforcement to get compliance because some of the cases can get resolution in a short period of time and others are very lengthy.  President Murphy said that it can be a nightmare if the property owner tries to take it on their own and run with it and many hire an attorney or someone who is used to going through DBI; it is very difficult and can take years because all of the cases are different.

Mr. Rodrigo Santos of SFCRG thanked Inspector Lowrey for his presentation and explanation of the process.  Mr. Santos said that many cases fall into the category of having to go through Planning especially when a NOV relates to construction without a permit. Mr. Santos stated that now Planning, depending on the property will forward a project to Historical Preservation that only has staff at the counter twice a week, but could decide that the drawings will need a 311 notification. Mr. Santos said that this is a process that can take a great deal of time and also that the 311 notification is an invitation for an appeal. Mr. Santos said that he thought that if the project sponsor is making an attempt of submitting plans the punitive clock at DBI should stop. Mr. Santos asked for improvement on the communications between Planning and Building and said that on the basis of fairness there should be some built-in system where Planning can stop the clock of Code Enforcement and wait until the resolution.

Inspector Dennis Carlin said that when a NOV is issued the Building Inspectors name and phone number goes on the form so that the customer can call the Inspector directly.  Mr. Carlin stated that the Inspectors try to be as sensitive as possible with the contractor or the homeowner to walk them through the process. Mr. Carlin said that all of the Building Inspectors do the best they can to deal with these people professionally and with the utmost of courtesy as do the Senior Inspectors and the Chief Building Inspector. Mr. Carlin said that he had conversations with Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque about how in this down economy it would be a great time for DBI to be able to work and assist the City in cleaning up these old cases instead of laying people off.  Mr. Carlin said this would be a perfect time to ramp up Code Enforcement, but said that the Department does not have the funds to do so.

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that what Mr. Santos was speaking about earlier were illegal units. Mr. Karnilowicz said that neighbors complain about these units and parking and before you know it there is a NOV on the door stating that DBI wants to come and see what the complaint is about.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that a lot of these units can actually be legalized, but said that it is difficult because of the parking and also because it is very expensive.  Mr. Karnilowicz urged the Commission to do something about this as people want to do the right things, but the process has been made very difficult.

.

Mr. Bob Noelke of SFCRG said that when an abatement is issued on a property, it becomes a cloud on that property's title, which means that when somebody goes in to take a loan out to comply with the NOV they will have a great deal of difficulty getting a loan to take care of that NOV. Mr. Noelke explained that there is a process called subordination, which can be done, but that is only done at the willingness of the lender and said that in this particular market, it is very difficult for a lender to go through that. Mr. Noelke said that many times the property owner may be in a catch 22 situation.

7.         Discussion and possible action regarding File No. 090554, Ordinance amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 103A.4 to require the owner of a vacant or abandoned building to register the building with the Department of Building Inspection, require the owner to maintain the grounds and the exterior and interior of the building in good condition, and provide that a property in violation of the requirements is a public nuisance; and by amending Section 110, Table 1A-J to establish an annual registration fee; adopting environmental and other findings.

Director Day said that President Chu of the BOS introduced this ordinance as a vacant building ordinance which would allow the Building Official to declare all vacant buildings nuisances, but then to back off and determine individually whether or not they should be considered under this ordinance. Director Day said that this ordinance was heard by the Code Advisory Committee and was forwarded to the BIC with recommendation for approval. Director Day stated that late this week she received the recommendations of the Planning Commission and of the Historical Preservation Board that are proposing to modify the ordinance as written by President Chu. Director Day said that many of the added conditions seem to be Planning conditions that cannot be enforced by the Building Department, but should be enforced by the Planning Code. Director Day said that DBI wants to make sure that a building is boarded up correctly and not open to the elements and that is the major concern of a vacant building ordinance, so the building does not become a blight.  Director Day said that this ordinance would allow DBI to do commercial properties that are not covered under the Housing Code and has more teeth in it for the actual Code Enforcement officer to go out and make the building secure and weather tight. Director Day stated that this ordinance covers occupied buildings and buildings that are not occupied and will not be become occupied. Director Day said that the way the ordinance is proposed by President Chu the building owner has discretion and said that the Department would not consider a vacant building to be one that is for sale or lease. Director Day stated that there are also provisions to not penalize people for good reason or if they had a just cause; they will not fall under the ordinance. Director Day said that this was the reason for allowing the Building Official to have jurisdiction. Director Day said that her recommendation to the Commission would be to accept the ordinance the way it is written with any amendments that the BIC might want to add before forwarding it to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Director Day said that she would not recommend accepting planning conditions in DBI’s Code because it cannot be enforced.

Commissioner Walker said that this legislation came about as a result of a property that was demolished in an emergency situation.  Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to say that she had never gotten as many phone calls about any other issue as she had on this one as the effect of these properties that become blighted is an effect on the entire neighborhood.  Commissioner Walker stated that even though there are rules in the Code and laws on the books, this is a pro-active way of helping DBI staff be able to manage these properties in their districts and more importantly, the Department needs to cover the costs of doing this. Commissioner Walker said that everyone is working towards the same goal of having safe housing and keeping neighborhoods up and the living conditions good; this ordinance will help people out of the neighborhood and will probably help the people that own these buildings. Commissioner Walker stated that there have been some cases where people inhabit these houses and the building owners lose control so the situation is not healthy or safe. Commissioner Walker said that she would support the ordinance provided President Chu and agreed that the amendments that were forwarded might be something to consider for another day.

Commissioner Lee said that Director Day mentioned that other cities had vacant building ordinances and asked if there was any value in having a vacant building list for San Francisco.  Director Day said that other cities do have legislation for vacant buildings and said that buildings are listed on a vacant building list, but that nothing is recorded against the property unless someone is not paying for their fees. Director Day said that real estate companies like to have vacant building lists because sometimes they can convince the property owner to sell their property; there are also companies out there to help people get their property back on the market or to help them get it back for themselves.  Director Day said that Planning had provided a good breakdown of ordinances from several other cities such Palm Springs, Minneapolis, Dallas, Stockton and Chicago.

Commissioner Levitt said that he was not convinced that this was a good thing because San Francisco is very different from Stockton as Stockton has a tremendous amount of foreclosures and San Francisco does not have that experience. Commissioner Levitt stated that there are already ordinances that deal with weeds and maintenance issues. Commissioner Levitt said that in his neighborhood there is a building that has been vacant for a couple of years now and another building that is blighted where people live. Commissioner Levitt said that he did not know why the owner of a building that is vacant for what ever reason should necessarily be penalized as owners are required to carry insurance and other things. Commissioner Levitt stated that this would be adding another layer of responsibility and things that the staff needs to do now with legislation; he is concerned given the economic situation.  Commissioner Walker said that it seemed to her that staff is doing this anyway and that this would make the job easier and actually gets staff paid for doing it; this actually acknowledges the fee that DBI should be charging to cover this cost. Commissioner Walker stated that at this time and with the pressures on the Department, a lack of work is showing that DBI depends on the larger projects to cover the costs of the smaller ones; the Department cannot afford to do this anymore.  Commissioner Walker stated that perhaps had this been done last year the Department would not be cutting 93 positions. Commissioner Walker said that there are many buildings that have been foreclosed upon and they are the larger buildings where the tenants are getting the power shut off and people are walking away from these buildings. Commissioner Walker said that this gives DBI a way to make sure that something worse does not happen.

President Murphy said that, with all due respect, he did not know anything about the Lombard Street fiasco Commissioner Walker was talking about until he read the newspaper and saw Commissioner Walker’s quotes in the paper; then all the bells and whistles starting taking off.  President Murphy stated that he drove down to the property to investigate for himself and said that on the day that he was present there was a City Attorney who felt that the building was too dangerous for him to even walk across the floor. President Murphy stated that after asking some questions of the department he understood that everything that was done was above board and legal. President Murphy said that for this ordinance to come out of that fiasco is unfair to the Department.  President Murphy said that the District Inspectors are doing their jobs and are policing these buildings and keeping their eyes open to notify owners that they need to board buildings up. President Murphy said that property is too expensive in San Francisco for the majority of landlords to let it become deteriorated and said that the insurance company will not give these owners insurance. Commissioner Murphy stated that there is a good system in place and said that no one should mess with it.  President Murphy said that this was his common sense take on this matter.  Commissioner Hechanova said that he would agree that common sense has to be used in this case as there are ordinances in place that are adequate.

Commissioner Lee said that he thought that there might be some value in having the list of the abandoned buildings as it could be helpful for certain agencies for example the Police Department.  Commissioner Lee said that he was not sold on this legislation yet especially the way this proposal is written as it is too simple, and the definition of what is vacant and abandoned needs to be sorted out.

Commissioner Clinch asked if the Code Advisory Committee had reviewed this. Director Day said that the CAC reviewed and recommended nonsupport of this ordinance as they want to develop procedures.

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that he is a member of the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) and the CAC has been looking at a number of issues regarding this ordinance.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that San Francisco already has ordinances such as the blight ordinance and the Code which gives the Building Official the authorization to inspect properties after complaints. Mr. Karnilowicz stated that the CAC recommended nonsupport of this ordinance as written and recommends that there should be administrative procedures to support existing requirements.

Commissioner Walker made a motion to approve this legislation.  There was no second.

Vice-President Hechanova made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Clinch, that the BIC not support this ordinance. 

Mr. Rodrigo Santos of SFCRG said that this encapsulates the demolition ordinance and said that it takes approximately two years to get a demolition application approved.  Mr. Santos said that some of the projects that might appear to be abandoned are probably waiting to be viewed by the Planning Commission and said that it is quite possible that a third of the abandoned buildings would have an application for demolition. Mr. Santos stated that this involves a mandatory discretionary review and said that if these buildings are reported the Department would have to notify the project sponsor that these buildings will be categorized as abandoned. Mr. Santos said that this would make it complicated to deal with the issues of enforcement at the same time as waiting for resolution from Planning. Mr. Santos said that he thought that the applicable Codes in place are sufficient until there is a more comprehensive analysis on issues such as historic buildings and other complicated matters that really apply to this. Mr. Santos stated that he would suggest that the fact that a building is old does not make it historical and no one intended to have buildings out of timber that lasted more than 150 years.

Mr. Bob Noelke said that he worked for the Department of Building Inspection and for the Planning department and said that when he was with the Code Enforcement Division the Department did emergency ordinances. Mr. Noelke said that DBI worked with DPW which had a demolition fund which is periodically funded and said that under the existing system of emergency orders and three notices of violation as well and for the directors process did a great deal of work on the buildings.  Mr. Noelke said that DBI’s costs were reimbursed through the emergency order process and then there is an assessment on the property owner, and this system is still in place at the Department. Mr. Noelke stated that he was concerned about insurance as it is very difficult and very expensive to obtain insurance on a vacant building. please.

Mr. Luke O’Brien said that he listened very carefully to the discussion on this and one of the first observations he noticed was that Commissioners Levitt and Walker disagreed on how many buildings fall into this category.  Mr. O’Brien said that he is still in the dark after listening to all of this and said that this was not a good thing when talking about legislation that is going to become mandatory. Mr. O’Brien stated that this would be a nightmare to enforce and said that he did not like to see legislation being imposed upon the people of San Francisco by the government in reaction to something that might or might not have happened; it sounds like a solution in need of a problem. Mr. O’Brien said that he did not like the idea of creating a list because it kind of reeks of fake government needs and said that there are rules and regulations to take care of this already.   Mr. O’Brien stated that he was the recipient of a notification to clean something up and said that he took care of it which is an example of the government working with him and not against him. Mr. O’Brien said that bringing the government on top of people will not help them and will in fact engender a bad reaction as this is too controversial and too unclear. Mr. O’Brien suggested taking a step back and doing some research first.

President Murphy said that there was a motion on the table to inform the Board of Supervisors that the BIC was not going to support this legislation.  President Murphy called for a vote.  The Commissioners voted as follows:

President Murphy                     Aye

Vice-President Hechanova        Aye

Commissioner Clinch               Aye

Commissioner Levitt                Aye

Commissioner Walker              No

Commissioner Lee                   Aye

The motion carried on a vote of 5 to 1.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 035-09

8.  Review and approval of the minutes of the March 18, 2009 meeting.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 036-09

9.   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 Lee asked about the Department’s plans for the commemoration of the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake.  Commissioner Lee requested that this be an agenda item in July or August so that the Commission can talk about what is going to happen in October.  Director Day said that the City is making plans with the Emergency Management Center and those plans should be published by that time.

Commissioner Walker asked if the BIC could get an itemized list of the added Department expenditures and how they were cut from the current budget being submitted by the Mayor.

Commissioner Hechanova said that San Francisco wants to be one of the greenest cities and want to create renewable energy and asked if it is the Building Inspectors that do the reviewing along with inspections. Director Day said that some of the requirements are already on the plans; the Field Inspectors also inspect the construction for the proper energy compliance.  Commissioner Hechanova asked if this was an area where the Department might run short of Inspectors if these proposals are coming on line.  Director Day said that might happen and explained that the Electrical Inspectors inspect the solar energy; there is also water conservation inspections done that are spread throughout all the Inspectors. Director Day stated that DBI cannot charge extra for energy inspections; the Department does have a solar permit.  Director Day said that if these inspections get to the point where the Department is not functioning she would have to take another look at these, but would have to bring back a source of revenue for them.  Commissioner Hechanova asked if this was something that could be offered at the same time the City provides an incentive.  Director Day said that the PUC is doing the audits and received the money for energy conservation.

.

Commissioner Levitt said that there was a little bit of discussion about the layoff of Housing inspectors and Building Inspectors, but said that he would like the BIC to discuss this a little bit more.  Commissioner Levitt stated that he wanted to look at how many people have been laid off and how it effects each division.  Director Day said that she had charts that would break down all of this information.

Commissioner Levitt said that there had been a lot of discussion about a property on Folsom Street and asked if he could get an update on that issue.

President Murphy said that he wanted to address the issue of the building at 1660 Mission Street and said that he knew that it was difficult to get answers back from the Mayor’s Office.  President Murphy said he wanted to know about the surcharge, how much it was and when it was implemented and stopped; after the building was paid off was there is a time when DBI did not pay any rent? President Murphy asked if there was any legislation saying that Enterprise Departments cannot own the building, when the legislation became effective and what the rent that the Department pays covers.  Director Day said that she would have to make up a list and send it to the Mayor’s Office as the Department cannot find all of the answers by going back through the records.

Commissioner Murphy asked when the construction would be finished on the fifth floor.  Director Day stated that it is scheduled for completion at the end of August and once the fourth floor operations have been moved to the fifth floor, then the fourth floor should be completed by the end of December.  President Murphy said he believed that this remodeling is being paid for by someone else.  Director Day said that part of the repair work is being paid for under the Real Estate Department.  Director Day stated that the other $1M that the Department recouped is from the surcharge as this was money collected after the surcharge was supposed to stop; the Department is going to get credit for $1M towards the project which will go into the operating fund.

Commissioner Levitt said that he and Commissioner Walker had received a series of e-mails and phone calls regarding a property on Church Street and asked if that issue had been resolved.  Director Day said that she would have an update on that issue at the next meeting.

President Murphy said that he received a call four or five days ago about a Plumbing Contractor who was waiting for a plumbing inspector. President Murphy stated that the Contractor was given the time of 8:00 a.m. - noon, but at 2:00 p.m. he was still waiting.  President Murphy said that the Contractor wanted to contact the Inspector, and he was told that the Department does not give out the Inspector’s cell phone number.  President Murphy asked what the procedure is for contacting an Inspector that is late or does not show up for an inspection.  Deputy Director Ed Sweeney said that a Contractor is usually given an a.m. or p.m. inspection time, but does have the option of calling on the morning of the inspection to get a more specific time.  Deputy Director Sweeney said that if the Inspector is late a Contractor can call the office and have the office staff answer any questions or call on the Contractor’s behalf, but specific cell numbers are not given to the public.  Deputy Director Sweeney stated that if someone misses their inspection, the Contractor should call the Senior Inspector and find out why and an inspection will be set up for the next day.

Secretary Aherne stated that the next meeting would be on July 15^th.  Commissioner Levitt said that he would be out of town until July 23rd.

Commissioner Walker said that the BIC has one meeting a month scheduled on a regular basis and said that she had actually worked out her schedule to accommodate that. Commissioner Walker said that it would be best for the Commissioners and the public if that schedule was adhered to.  President Murphy said that he agreed, but said that this meeting was changed because of a discussion that took place in June.  Secretary Aherne said that this Special Meeting was held so that legislation could be sent to the BOS as soon as possible so that revenue would be generated before July 1^st.

There were no public comments on this item.