Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)
Wednesday, May 2, 2001 at 1:00 p.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Adopted June 6, 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, excused
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
Amy Lee, Assistant Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
2. President's Announcements.
President Fillon stated that he had no announcements.
3. Director's Report. [Director Chiu]
a. Report on 1680 Mission Street - Proposed Employee Open Space.
Director Chiu said that this first item was to give the Commission an update as to where the Department is with the 1680 annex and stated that he has directed his staff to continue to have an open dialog with the Planning Association people who have continue to express their desire for outdoor open space. Director Chiu said that he would not go into detail about what has been proposed, but said that he did want to inform the Commission that since the project has been going on for so long, the original bid from the contractor is no longer valid. Director Chiu said that if the project were to continue, the Department would have to go out for new bid. Director Chiu said that as of today, since the Department initiated this project and asked DPW to help with the design phase and project management, staff has informed him that the Department has spent nearly $1M and there is no permit to construct. Director Chiu said that as soon as he received a form for the design guideline of the open space he would bring this back to the Commission and the Commission could decide if the Department should once again open the project for bid, or if the project should proceed or not. Director Chiu stated that at this point he wanted the Commission to know that the contract is no longer valid for the original project since it has been delayed for so long.
Commissioner Marks said that in Ed Lee's letter about not approving the 1680 use of the roof, Mr. Lee did not explain why. Commissioner Marks asked if Director Chiu knew the reason. Director Chiu said that he did not have a detailed conversation with Ed Lee, but said that he felt that Mr. Lee's concern was that if remodeling is started on an existing building, it triggers all sorts of other things and their Department felt that it was not a good project for them to be dealing with, as it is not their project. Director Chiu said that anytime there is occupancy of a roof, it would trigger other requirements such as reinforcement or updating of disabled access regulations. Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that 1680 Mission is a brick building and some seismic upgrading was done, but he did not know if the entire building was upgraded to the full seismic requirements. Director Chiu stated that there is a lot of uncertainty that another department does not want to deal with, but said that again he did not have a full discussion with Ed Lee.
Commissioner Santos said that he wanted to clarify that the Department did not have a permit for the extension. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Santos was correct; the Department filed for a permit, but the permit is pending with City Planning for the discretionary review filed by the Planners Association. Commissioner Santos asked if any structural plan checking had been done. Director Chiu said that no plan checking has been done, but stated that the point he was trying to make was that with any City project, the Department has to hire DPW staff to manage the project and the design core and all of their time has added up to approximately $1M. Commissioner Santos asked when the Department applied for the initial permit. Director Chiu said that he would have to get back with the exact date. Commissioner Santos said that now there might be a different code that applies to the structural work. Director Chiu said that this might be true. Commissioner Santos stated that the Department might have to redo the plans. Director Chiu said that this would depend on how long more the project is delayed, but if the Department continued with the existing application, because the application was made before the new law changed; the structural provision should not change. Director Chiu stated that the structural provision should be based on when the application was made, so the Department would probably not have to comply with the new code. Commissioner Santos asked if the Department would have to go with 1997 and a new soils report and Director Chiu said that he did not believe so.
Ms. Lois Scott addressed the Commission and introduced herself as being with the Planners Chapter of Local 21, Professional and Technical Engineers. Ms. Scott said that she appreciated Director Chiu's directives to further explore design options for the open space, but stated that as Commissioner Marks said, when the Planners got a copy of the letter from Edwin Lee, it had the phrase "at this time". Ms. Scott said that the Planners were working on three alternatives with the Department of Architecture, and said that the real preferred alternative is something involving 1680. Ms. Scott stated that what the Planners had in mind, and said that she did not think that Ed Lee realized this, was a cantilevered structure that only used air rights and did not actually use the roof itself. Ms. Scott said that she hoped there would be a chance to talk with Ed Lee about the minimal impact this would have on the 1680 building and how it could considerably enhance a design that would use both 6th floor space and an open terrace that extended over the roof if they got air rights permission. Ms. Scott said that the Planners are continuing to work on this and said that she hoped when they came back and went to the Planning Commission there will actually be a workable solution that creates a sufficiently sized space that actually allows some fresh air for the employees of the building. Ms. Scott thanked the Commission.
b. Update on certification required for building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical inspectors.
Director Chiu stated that this item was to give the Commission information as to the State law requirements on construction inspectors, plan examiners and building officials certification and continuing education. Director Chiu said that he did some research as to the definition of construction inspectors. Director Chiu apologized that he only obtained the information the previous evening and handed out copies. Director Chiu referred to Assembly Bill 717 that has a definition about construction inspectors. Director Chiu said that if the bill was read literally it would exempt Housing Inspectors for the purpose of certification, but at the same time Director Chiu said that he did not believe that this would prevent a local jurisdiction from imposing additional requirements if the Commission of the City chose to do so. Director Chiu said because of this language, since the law was put in place sometime in 1995, DBI has been requiring Building Inspectors, Plan Checkers, Electrical, Plumbing and even his own position to be certified. Director Chiu stated that Personnel Officer John Marquez has been making sure that the people who are supposed to be certified are working on or obtaining their certification. Director Chiu said that the way the law reads is that if someone is employed they are supposed to obtain the certification in their area within two years. Director Chiu said that this concluded his report unless the Commissioners required additional information. Director Chiu said that he wanted to add that all of the positions that he mentioned are also required to have an additional 45 hours of training every three years. Commissioner Guinnane thanked Director Chiu for his report.
c. Report on 2838 Sacramento Street.
Director Chiu said that one of the Commissioners asked him to report back regarding his determination on this particular project. Director Chiu said that this project was brought to his attention as a result of neighbor's concerns and stated that the neighbors have been working very closely with Wing Lau. Director Chiu said that his letter of March 30, 2001 to Mr. Steven Williams was regarding his determination as to whether the Department felt that a Director's Hearing was required to have an unlawful demolition hearing. Director Chiu said in preparing for his response of March 30th he met with Wing Lau several times and went over the project personally and said that he would still maintain that the project sponsor did exceed about 15 feet to 16 feet of the exterior wall, but in the Department's view, given what was approved, the Department still felt that the project sponsor still substantially complied with the approved set of plans. Director Chiu said that in other words, the Planning Department authorized some removal of walls or some part of the structure, but DBI felt that the additional 15 feet to 16 feet removal of wall did not trigger the penalty that would be called for under the definition of unlawful demolition; however, the project sponsor did exceed the scope of work and the Department will penalize them accordingly. Director Chiu said that his letter was attached in the Commission package. President Fillon thanked Director Chiu for his report. There was no Commissioner's or public comment.
d. Report on requests from customers regarding permit assistance.
Director Chiu said that he wanted to give the Commissioners a report on the Department's handling of customers asking for permit assistance. Director Chiu said that he did not want to use the terminology that has been brought up about favoritism or special treatment. Director Chiu said that the Department's goal is to serve all customers that come in for any service that they need and said that he did not want the perception to keep coming up about certain people getting their projects moved faster. Director Chiu said that even some of the staff, based on a survey, claimed that they had seen some favoritism, but Director Chiu said that he wanted the Commission to know that the Department does keep track of any requests made by the public. Director Chiu said that since December of last year when he was hearing about these issues, he has asked his staff to log in any public member's request regarding permits or expediting. Director Chiu stated that he had a logbook in front of him that he would be happy to share with the Commission or make copies for anyone requesting it. Director Chiu said that in looking at the log book, the people requesting service come from all over and there are some recognizable names and some repeated names, but the names come from architects, engineers, property owners, neighbors or anyone that is interested in a particular job or the process. Director Chiu said that he wanted the perception to go away that there is always favoritism going on and someone is getting their permits approved faster than others. Director Chiu said that he wanted to note that anyone who follows the checklist and guidelines that the Department has published and has the plans decently drawn to substantially demonstrate that they comply with the code will tend to get their projects approved faster. Director Chiu said that the people who come in and apply for a permit and get in and out quickly tend to know the process and know what they need to have on the plans; obviously those kinds of clients will get their plans approved faster as opposed to someone who is not familiar with the process. Director Chiu said that these people come in and do business all the time. Director Chiu said that he did not know how else to explain the accusation that somebody gets their project out the door faster or why sometimes the Department helps someone on a project. Director Chiu said that he planned to have the logbook at the public counter and anyone can look at it and see who asked for assistance with a permit either last week or yesterday. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to maintain this document so that there is no question in the public's mind as to why some project sponsor seems to get their projects approved faster. Director Chiu asked if the Commissioners had some specific instances or information regarding this issue and said that he did not want the Commissioners to keep repeating this perception of some project or person getting favoritism. Director Chiu said that the record should speak for itself. President Fillon asked if the logbook was available to the public at this time. Director Chiu said that he planned to make it available, as he has been tracking this issue since December. Director Chiu said that sometimes a plan checker does not have time to look for plans that were assigned to them and they say that they can't find someone's plans; the customer then goes to the permit expediter to ask for help. Director Chiu said that there is a column for problem requests and many times this column will say that the plans were misplaced or lost. Director Chiu said that the plans are not really lost, but just temporarily misplaced by a plan checker for one reason or another. Director Chiu said that this seems to be the majority of the requests, and there are people who ask for projects to be expedited, but in no way does the expediter have the right to sign off on a project and still has to work with the plan checker. Director Chiu said that the Department just provides additional service to the public to make them feel that someone is taking a look at their project and asking the plan checker to see what they can do to expedite it.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Mr. Terry Milne said that he lived in Bernal Heights and stated that he was present to ask the Commission's assistance because two houses are being built in the neighborhood that are being built wrong. Mr. Milne stated that approximately three weeks ago he had contacted the District Inspector and the Planning Department about the two houses and said that he understood that letters were exchanged between the Planning and Building Inspection Departments about the problem. Mr. Milne said that the builder is still wailing away building these two houses and has actually added another floor on since photographs were taken. Mr. Milne handed photos to the Commission for review (addresses 174 & 178 Brewster St). Mr. Milne said that the basic problem is that the survey that the builder was using is wrong and the builder is building closer to the sidewalk than he is allowed to do. Mr. Milne said that there are five other houses on the block that were recently built and all of them had three foot set backs, but the current builder's buildings are set out a foot and a half in front of all those other houses. Mr. Milne stated that when the neighborhood design committee talked with the architect more than a year ago the first plans that they showed had an inaccurate survey. Mr. Milne said that the committee asked the architects to do a new survey and they did and brought a second survey to the committee. Mr. Milne said that the committee pointed out that the plans showed the front property line on the sidewalk and said that it was probably inaccurate too. Mr. Milne said that now that the house is under construction and it is not set back three feet from the front property line, the committee thought that the Building Inspection Commission could help get this project stopped and make the builder build it correctly. Mr. Milne said that there were two things, one being the inaccurate survey because the two previous surveys were inaccurate; and secondly, the committee understands that the Planning Code says that if there is a uniform front set back line a new house built on that block would have to average with the other setbacks. Mr. Milne said that last week the committee met with the builder and during the meeting the builder gave six different excuses why he was doing it correctly. Mr. Milne said that one excuse was that the City had approved his survey, another was that the City probably built the street wrong so that the curve was in the wrong place; another was that the green house in the photos was actually built wrong and set back much further than its plans called for. Mr. Milne said that the Committee has seen surveys of the two adjacent properties and they were built correctly and the builder's claim is that the other properties are wrong and his has to be right. Mr. Milne said that the neighbor's concern is that this building is going to be finished and another floor has been added and no one has gotten the builder to stop building and correct it. Mr. Milne said that when the builder started building from the rear of the property he added a new foundation and room in the back that was not on the plans and he is building up from there. Mr. Milne said that the builder has put in a permit to alter his plans, but he is building up the house on top of that and at some point the builder is going to say that he cannot fix any of this. Mr. Milne said that he wanted the Commission's assistance in at least getting the builder to stop work and fix it. President Fillon said that set backs and property lines are under the jurisdiction of the Planning Department and advised Mr. Milne that he might want to go to the Planning Commission with his complaint. President Fillon asked Director Chiu to follow up with Mr. Milne's complaint in terms of the construction being in the wrong location. Director Chiu said that if there was a new survey done that clearly shows that the builder has encroached into public works or if the building was not built according to the lot line than the Department could stop the project. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to look into the complaint and as soon as the meeting was over he would speak to one of the District Inspectors to go and take a look at the property, if this had not already been done.
Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the picture showing the existing building #170 and looking at the new building under construction he did not see where the building was out beyond two feet as all of the building are matching. Commissioner Guinnane said that there are three houses being built. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking down at the lower end of the third house all of the buildings are in line with the two existing buildings and are not two feet out beyond them; the foundations look like they are all back. Director Chiu said that the Department would look at the survey and see what the actual property line is and if the builder did encroach beyond the property line then the Department would have the right to ask that it be adjusted accordingly.
5. Update regarding meeting with Commissioner Santos and neighbors at 4733 and 4741-18th Street. [Commissioner Santos]
Commissioner Santos said that this item was regarding a meeting that he had with the property owner of 4733 - 18th Street that took place about three weeks ago. Commissioner Santos said that the meeting was relating to the impact of a three-story structure that was constructed to the east of 4733 - 18th Street. Commissioner Santos stated that he met with the property owner and suggested a couple of options that could be explored in relation to the potential use of a self-venting chimney that would not require a stack that would have to be constructed and would have to project three feet off the near elements of the adjacent property. Commissioner Santos said that he consulted with an architect that also met with the property owner and at the present time negotiations are taking place that will include a self-venting system that the property owner seemed excited about. Commissioner Santos said that cost is being looked at, as well as ways to save the old chimney and mantel. Commissioner Santos said that negotiations are progressing and expected to reach a solution shortly.
6. Report on the Emergency Order Process as it pertains to the repair and demolition fund. [Assistant Director Amy Lee]
Assistant Director Amy Lee said that she was not sure how familiar all of the Commissioners were with the Emergency Orders and the Repair and Demolition Fund so she wanted to explain it briefly in terms of background. Ms. Lee referred to Item 6 and the materials that were included in the Commission package, in particular the staff report. Ms. Lee said that in general Emergency Orders are issued by a department when there is serious imminent danger and it directs the homeowner to make immediate repairs within 48 hours; if the repairs are not completed when a reinspection is conducted then the Department will make the repairs themselves using the repair and demolition fund. Ms. Lee said that the repair and demolition fund is kind of a revolving fund where money comes in whenever there is a serious repair needed and once the repair is corrected then the homeowner pays or when the house is sold the money pays back this fund. Ms. Lee said the Emergency Orders can be issued by several divisions, housing inspection division, building, plumbing and electrical. Ms. Lee said that mostly with electrical and plumbing it might involve PG&E where people don't pay their bill and the electricity gets shut off so sometimes the repair and demolitions funds are used to pay those bills and the homeowners must pay DBI back. Ms. Lee said that when there is actual construction and repairs it is done through the Bureau of Building Repair and DBI gives a portion of the funds to BBR and they would give DBI a cost estimate and actually make the repairs if the homeowner does not do so. Ms. Lee said that unfortunately what has been happening with DBI, because there are so many divisions that are involved in issuing emergency orders, there has not been a centralized unit or person in charge making sure that the money is all coming back into the account once the homeowner is able to pay back. Ms. Lee said that this isn't to say that those dollars have been lost, but what has been discovered is that the money may not come back to the repair and demolition fund, but is often deposited into the operations fund which is under the code enforcement division and is collected by other means. Ms. Lee stated that as a result, the repair and demolition fund is a little bit depleted. Ms. Lee said that some changes were made about eight months ago when she discovered that some of the funds were deposited in the 61165 which is the code enforcement sub object revenue code, which is the operating fund. Ms. Lee said that she moved money from that account to the repair and demolition fund because that is where the money should have been. Ms. Lee stated that what is happening is that staff is collecting penalties in the repair and demolition funds and consolidating those dollars and depositing it into a different account rather than returning the funds to the repair and demolition fund. Ms. Lee said that the Department has been able to replenish some of the funds right now and as a result of Commissioner Guinnane's inquiry the Department did realize that significant improvement is needed and now all Emergency Orders are being tracked to see where the money went and to see if the money has been returned. Ms. Lee said that another situation that has arisen is that the BBR sometimes will take the money and the repair will not be made because the homeowner has abated the problem themselves and BBR has kept the money. Ms. Lee said that now DBI is working with BBR to make sure that they have returned all of the money. Ms. Lee said that one of the recommendations from staff that she would strongly support is that the Department contract directly out with a certain list of consultants rather than BBR because DPW has significant overhead that they attach with any work that they provide. Ms. Lee said that Ms. Rosemary Bosque did an excellent job on the report that the Commissioners received that consolidates how many Emergency Orders are outstanding and how much has been collected. Ms. Lee said that some of the dollars that have been collected have not yet shown up so this is a process that the Department is going through that should be completed in the next month. Ms. Lee referred to Exhibit B1, which is a draft policy and is an effort for the Department to fix this problem and centralize it to make sure that all of the divisions involved would be on the same page. Ms. Lee said that the Department wants to make sure that this does not happen again and staff will have to be trained on this draft of the new policy and procedure. Ms. Lee encouraged the Commissioners to make comments on this as it is a draft and will not be finalized for several weeks.
Commissioner Guinnane asked who was responsible for the Repair and Demolition Fund initially, to implement it and follow all of the tracking. Ms. Lee said that she believed that was Housing Inspection. Commissioner Guinnane asked who in the Housing Division. Ms. Lee said that it would be the Chief and whoever she assigned. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the last time the City and County made an audit of that division was any of this picked up. Ms. Lee said no. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Ms. Lee knew why. Ms. Lee said that she was not sure, but sometimes when there are audits they do not look at fine issues and may look at management stuff. Commissioner Marks said that she did read in the 1998 audit that it did specifically mention that funds were expended, it did not identify the emergency fund, to make corrections and the Department did not have any tracking of attempts to get reimbursed. Ms. Lee said that she stood corrected and said she forgot about that note. Ms. Lee said that she was taking questions at this point. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was looking at Exhibit A1 and Exhibit C1 and said that in CI it shows a total out of $90,257.64, but Exhibit A1 shows $183,877.57. Commissioner Guinnane asked why there was a difference of $100,000.00. Ms. Lee said that Ms. Bosque took an example of 20 cases and this is a work in progress. Ms. Lee asked if Ms. Bosque would like to come forward to answer any questions.
Ms. Bosque said that the difference is that what is on the table is what the DBI has identified so far Department-wide, but item C1 is that portion of the table that are housing cases where it actually shows where in 66 cases out of the 132, those expenditures that have come from the Repair and Demolition Fund and what has been collected so far is only one case. Commissioner Guinnane said that in going through Exhibit C1 the total of the amount of orders is 66 and then in looking at the payment schedule from 1995 there are 20 with a total of $90,000 and there has only been reimbursement for one. Commissioner Guinnane asked what happened and how does the Department stand to collect the rest of the money as far as statute problems with filing liens on the property. Ms. Lee said that as she was going thru the records she discovered that some of the money was deposited to different accounts, so the $18,000 shown is only an estimate and the Department has probably collected a little bit more. Ms. Lee said that she made one journal entry for $30,000. Commissioner Guinnane asked if this was just one case and Ms. Lee said that this issue is still a work in progress. Commissioner Walker asked if Ms. Lee could answer Commissioner Guinnane's question about the statute of limitations and is it still possible to go back and get the money. Ms. Lee said that she believed, but would have check with the Deputy City Attorney, that the Department can still, once the Department knows for sure that money is due, bill these properties. Ms. Lee said that her only concern would be if the property has changed hands in terms of sale. President Fillon asked who was actually going after the money, was it the Department? Ms. Lee said that it would be the Housing Inspection Division of the Department. Commissioner Walker asked if the property has changed hands, is the Department out of luck? Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that generally the Department could go back at least three years under the statute of limitations and maybe even further. Commissioner Guinnane asked what happens if ownership was changed during those three years. Ms. Boyajian said she would have to research that question, as the question would be did the property owner have notice of the debt. Ms. Lee said that this fund was in existence prior to the Department being created and she has had staff only working on 1995 and forward and there were other cases before 1995. Commissioner Guinnane asked what is being done right now to correct this issue with the current cases that are coming up in the future. Ms. Lee said that right now all of the staff is involved and staff has tracked down all of the Emergency Orders that have been issued. Ms. Lee said that now the Department is going to make sure that on the PTS system it shows up with any address if any Emergency Order has been issued. Ms. Lee said staff is also being trained, the Department knows it is a problem and it is going to stop today. Commissioner Walker said that these properties should have had liens on the property and that did not happen. Ms. Lee said that was correct and some of the properties have been liened through the Code Enforcement Division where the Department receives a lot of the fees and penalties and these have to be checked to see which Division did the work. Ms. Lee said that she believes that a significant amount of the money has been collected, but deposited into the wrong account. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Ms. Lee could come back at a future meeting to let the Commission know what has been secured versus what the loss is. Commissioner Marks referred to a column in the report that asked if the BBR contractor made repairs and in most of it there is no response. Commissioner Marks asked if that meant that the Department has not been able to determine whether the homeowner has corrected the violation or what exactly does that mean. Ms. Bosque said that in that particular column, if it is blank, it means that on the basis of the research that has been done to date, the Department has not been able to determine that there was repairs made by the Bureau of Building Repair; where it is marked yes in the column it indicates that documentation was found that there was in fact repairs made. Ms. Bosque said that if there is a no in that column the Department was able to determine that the owner went ahead and made the required repairs. Commissioner Marks said that if there is nothing in that column then it means that the Department doesn't even know if the repairs were done. Ms. Bosque said that the repairs were done, but what it means is that when the Emergency Order documentation was investigated on that particular address, no information was found that led DBI to believe that BBR was involved in the repairs. Ms. Bosque said that, as indicated in the staff report, staff had to go through several different areas to try and research what had happened because the record keeping was fragmented. Commissioner Marks said that she understood that problem, but was concerned that from the appearance of the report it looks like on most of the violations the Department doesn't know if they were corrected. Ms. Bosque said that the comment column of the table shows the instances where there were revocations and in those situations there was an abatement of the Emergency Order. Commissioner Marks said that on the majority of the cases there is no indication that the Department knows what happened. Ms. Bosque said that Commissioner Marks was correct, but staff is saying that the table is based on the evidence that has been compiled so far and this is what exists today. Ms. Bosque said that one of the areas that still needs to be looked at is the Code Enforcement Division because as the Assistant Director indicated there were monies received for repairs made that originated out of the Building Inspection Division and the Code Enforcement Division. Ms. Bosque said that the report was a reflection of what was gathered as far as Housing Inspection cases. Ms. Lee said that as staff did their research with BBR, BBR's records are severely lacking and one of the recommendations that would probably be made would be that the Department takes full ownership of the project and sets a list of contractors to work with directly. Commissioner Walker said that the procedure that was set forth before was that the Department just didn't know. Commissioner Walker asked if it was the responsibility of BBR to record keep or DBI. Ms. Lee said that she was not sure because of the history of the Departments being one at some point. Commissioner Guinnane asked whom the Manager of the Housing Division reported to for this work back to 1995. Ms. Lee said that during 1995 they reported to Deputy Director William Wong who was in charge of the Inspection divisions for quite some time and at one point the Director took over the management of Housing Division and Ms. Lee said she took over for about two months, then it got sent back to Deputy Director William Wong and currently it is under Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson. Ms. Lee said that this problem did not happen on one particular date, but has been over a period of time. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not believe that when the City came in to do an audit that they did not pick up on this. Ms. Lee said that they did make a small mention of it and some follow up work was done. Ms. Lee thanked the Commission for bringing this issue to light.
7. Discussion and possible action to place hiring freeze on Housing Inspector positions; discussion and possible action to make changes in the minimum qualifications for the hiring of Housing Inspectors. [Commissioner Guinnane]
Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last Commission hearing there was a lot of discussion about putting a freeze on for Housing Inspectors and changing the classification. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was some public comment and the Commissioners were about to vote on the issue when the Deputy City Attorney informed the Commission that they did not have the authority to vote on this issue, as it was beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had since gone to Buck Delventhal as he felt that the Commission did have authority and Mr. Delventhal has given an opinion basically stating that the Commission does have jurisdiction to put a hiring freeze in place at this time, until the classification can be changed. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had been talking about this for months so he would like to proceed.
Commissioner Marks said that she would like to make a correction. Commissioner Marks stated that Deputy City Attorney Boyajian did say to the Commission that they could give instruction to the Director. Commissioner Marks said that basically she reported what Mr. Delventhal wrote. Commissioner Guinnane said that unless his memory is completely wrong, Vice-President Hood made an offer to Frank Chiu to basically ask if he would not hire any Housing Inspectors until the Commission had the issue sorted out. Commissioner Guinnane said that he believed that Director Chiu would not go along with that friendly amendment. Commissioner Hood said that she did not remember that particular item, but her recollection was that it ended up that the Commission made a recommendation to the Director that he not hire anybody else until the certification issue was resolved and stated that she did not recall the particular point that Commissioner Guinnane was referring to, but said that she was sure that it was in the minutes. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that she thought that Commissioner Guinnane was correct; Mr. Delventhal's written opinion did go a little bit further than what she had told the Commission. Ms. Boyajian stated that Mr. Delventhal is saying that the Commission can actually impose the freeze whereas she was advising the Commission that they needed to urge the Director to impose the freeze. Vice-President Hood said that this was a more decisive action than was recommended under her motion. Commissioner Guinnane said that the reason the Commission voted to urge the Director was because the Commission did not believe that they had the authority to actually impose the freeze. President Fillon asked if there was a motion.
Commissioner Guinnane made a motion to put a hiring freeze on the Housing Inspection Division until the classifications can be changed. Ms. Boyajian said that if she recalled Mr. Delventhal's memo he stated that the Commission could place the freeze and order the Director to implement it, but if the Director did not, which the Director has the discretion to do, the Commission could discipline the Director. Ms. Boyajian said that the proper motion would be to impose the freeze and order the Director to implement the freeze.
Vice-President Hood said that it was her understanding after the last motion was that the Director said that he would heed the Commission's words and Vice-President Hood said she would question whether or not, given that he has made that commitment to the Commission, it is necessary to take any further steps. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission should clarify what the Director said in response to that motion. President Fillon said that there was a motion in front of the Commission and asked if there was going to be a second. Commissioner Guinnane said that Frank Chiu said at the last meeting that he would not adhere to that. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to hear that from Director Chiu and Commissioner Marks said that is not what she heard. President Fillon said that he needed a second or the motion was dead. Vice-President Hood said that she would second the motion just for points of discussion.
Director Chiu said that he did not remember saying that he would not follow the direction of the Commission and Director Chiu said that in looking at the minutes, the minutes clearly indicate that there was a motion made and some friendly amendments made and a motion was made to urge him to follow the order. Director Chiu said that the records do not show that he would not follow the order. Vice-President Hood said that was her recollection as well. Commissioner Marks said that the reason that it was changed was because Director Chiu said that there were two positions that he wanted to fill and Director Chiu said that he did hear the direction of the Commission and if he were to fill those positions he would fill them with people who had some construction background and that is why the motion was changed. Commissioner Marks said she remembered reading this in the minutes. Commissioner Guinnane said that his recollection is that the motion was changed because Judy Boyajian told the Commission that they did not have the authority to implement the hiring freeze. Ms. Boyajian said that the motion was amended twice; once to change the wording to urge and the second amendment was to clarify that Director Chiu could use his discretion to hire inspectors as long as they had construction knowledge. Ms. Boyajian said there was more than one amendment and the second one she did not express any opinion on. Commissioner Marks said that she found the section in the minutes and read from the minutes saying, Director Chiu said that he would give his commitment that the next person that is hired in Housing Inspection would fall into the category that everyone was talking about. Commissioner Marks said that this was on page 10 toward the middle of the paragraph. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that the record was clear and what she said was to urge the Director not to hire further Housing Inspectors until the Commission dealt with some of the issues that have been brought up and those two issues were to implement the training program for Housing Inspectors that would include the Inspection of fire escapes and certification as a Building Inspector. Vice-President Hood said that was the intent and said she thought that the Director has not hired anybody. Commissioner Marks said that it says specifically in the minutes that the Director understood what was being said. Vice-President Hood said that she agreed and there is no problem.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to withdraw her second, as she believed the Commission had accomplished Commissioner Guinnane's goal. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Frank Chiu were telling the Commission that he would not fill any slots in the Housing Division until the Commission gets the classifications and the problems sorted out. Vice-President Hood said no, what the Director said was that if he did have to fill the two positions that he would make sure that they were filled by people who had the qualifications that the Commission expressed their concerns about. Vice-President Hood asked Director Chiu to correct her if she did not express his sentiments correctly. Director Chiu said that the minutes reflect what he said and Vice-President Hood is correct on that. Commissioner Walker said that there was no second so it was not an issue. Vice-President Hood said that her second was withdrawn. President Fillon said that he would second the motion.
Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that this has been an issue that has been going on for a number of years and said that he thought the simplest way to resolve it was to have the Commission direct Director Chiu to convene a meeting of the interested parties before the next Commission meeting, resolve what the policy and criteria should be and then have the Commission ratify the new criteria at the next meeting. Mr. Shaw said that as long as Director Chiu sets up the meeting then there should be no problem; this could be resolved and the Commission would never have to talk about it again. Commissioner Walker asked who would the parties be that would participate in this meeting. Mr. Shaw said Local 21 would be affected, someone from the tenant community and anyone who would be affected by these changes. Mr. Shaw said that he did not see any real disagreement, but it is something that has never been codified even though there have been discussions since 1995. Mr. Shaw said he thought that this had already been done and then misinformation around this issue has come out and it might be best for Director Chiu to have a meeting and in an hour it would be gone for good. Commissioner Walker said she thought this was a great idea.
Ron Dicks introduced himself as Vice-President of Local 21 and said that he wanted to concur with what Mr. Shaw had just said. Mr. Dicks said that the Union stands ready to negotiate this issue. Mr. Dicks said he wanted to apologize to Commissioner Guinnane if he played any part in this issue escalating to this level or exacerbating situation. Mr. Dicks stated that the Union has been involved in serious negotiations that are still going on, but said that he wanted to go on record to say that the Union is very concerned, but are willing to meet to facilitate a resolution to this issue. Mr. Dicks thanked the Commission.
Mr. Joe O'Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that he was the one who several years ago, not several months ago, and it was Commissioner Marks that brought it up; it was brought up as soon as the Building Commission became law and the reason was that Housing Inspectors were being hired exclusively from the Public Health Department. Mr. O'Donoghue said that many of these people were not qualified to do inspections and based on the General Motors business principal of being able to move employees horizontally and vertically, having worked for that company, Mr. O'Donoghue wanted to put the most qualified people into the Housing Department. Mr. O'Donoghue said that those were people with construction experience and Mr. O'Donoghue stated that this was not to say that the Department could not still hire health inspectors, but wanted it put in there as a condition of employment an either/or and the either/or was never done. Mr. O'Donoghue said that consequently over the years there was no either/or in there for qualified people with construction experience and the fact was that since a number of people were hired from the construction industry, it helped the existing Housing Inspectors do a better job. Mr. O'Donoghue said that unless you are a contractor out in the field when you go in to do an inspection you are going to miss a lot of stuff even though it may not be within your job classification. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the present proposal has nothing to do with the people who have already been hired; it is not putting their jobs in jeopardy, but what should be done is an either/or and presently it is too vague and someone fell down on the job on this. Mr. O'Donoghue stated that he remembered when John Kerley, who happens to be present at the meeting, was reluctantly hired into the Department, because there was a bias against people from construction. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Mr. Kerley being hired helped the other inspectors in the Department because now there are conscientious Housing Inspectors out there who want to learn and want to understand and it is not enough to send them to some Mickey Mouse continuing education course reading out of a book, that is not going to give it to you in construction, you need to be out there with someone who has the experience to show you. Mr. O'Donoghue said that moreover, the idea was that if the Building Inspection Department was down on people you could pull on the Housing Inspectors, qualified people, to dip in for the Building Inspectors so the Department could then save on increasing payroll. Mr. O'Donoghue said that this was really done with that on the bottom line and he said he did not know where it went wrong, but it is a mountain being made out of a molehill and it needs to be corrected. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Commissioner Guinnane was right in insisting because in the past what was stated at the Commission was not carried out and with all due respects to those in charge the intent of what was to happen did not occur. Mr. O'Donoghue thanked the Commission.
President Fillon asked for any further public comment or discussion. Commissioner Walker said that she would not vote for this at the present time as she would like to do, as one of the public members suggested, about getting together and meeting and letting the current motion that was passed at the last meeting stand. Commissioner Walker said she was throwing this out as an option and this could be voted on at the next BIC.
Commissioner Santos asked Commissioner Guinnane to clarify the motion. Commissioner Guinnane said that his motion was to put a freeze on the hiring of Housing Inspectors and change the classification for new inspectors coming on board. Commissioner Santos asked if this would be a directive to Director Chiu. Commissioner Guinnane said yes.
President Fillon asked for a role call vote.
The Commission voted as follows:
Commissioner Marks No
Commissioner Santos Yes
President Fillon Yes
Vice-President Hood Yes
Commissioner Guinnane Yes
Commissioner Walker No
The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 2.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC. 027-01
Commissioner Walker asked that as a follow-up if Director Chiu would have a meeting with the various groups and bring back a proposal at the next BIC. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to. President Fillon said that he would like to make it clear that this does not affect anyone who is already hired and said that he would be vehemently opposed to any other motions that would have any bearing on people that are already working for the Department as a Housing Inspector. President Fillon said his support applies only to new hires
President Fillon said that the second part of this item is to make changes to the minimum qualifications for the hiring of Housing Inspectors. President Fillon said that he would like to carry this over to the next meeting and have a discussion on it at that time. Commissioner Guinnane said he did not know why it needed to be carried over as it could be voted on and gotten over with right away. Commissioner Guinnane said that this had been carried over numerous times.
Commissioner Guinnane said that his concern was that a lot of the new hires were coming out of the Public Health Division and have no experience in certain aspects of construction. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was getting alarmed at the amount of people that were being hired. Commissioner Marks said that she has supported Commissioner Guinnane about providing additional training to the Housing Inspectors with Public Health background because she does believe, and said that the inspectors are in agreement, that they would like the benefit of additional training. Commissioner Marks said that in terms of reclassification of a position there is a civil service process involved in that and so this is like prejudging what the conclusion should be and that is something that she did not want to get into. Commissioner Walker said that there was a proposal from the public to get the parties together to come up with language proposal on this issue and said that she would ask that the Commission deal with this after public input from that group through Director Frank Chiu at the next meeting. President Fillon said that he would agree that this needs to be an item by itself and suggested to get as many interested parties together at that meeting as possible. Vice-President Hood said that the main problem is going to be with the Human Resources Department because she believed that when this group meets, as recommended by Randy Shaw, that they are going to quickly reach a fairly close consensus. Vice-President Hood said that if the Commission could vote on this topic with the full support of all of the different groups represented then it would send a very clear message to the Department of Human Resources that this is the right thing to do. Vice-President Hood said that she would wait until the Commission could show on the public record and have testimony from those groups that they are in favor of it. Vice-President Hood said that this language needs to be carefully written and stated that she felt that the Commission's intention had already been made clear through previous motions. Vice-President Hood said that now the Commission needs to get the input from all of these groups to go forth with a united front. President Fillon said that this needs to be dealt with quickly and asked for it to be put on the next meeting's agenda. Vice-President Hood said that she thought it would be a good thing to invite the Department of Human Resources to the next meeting so they can know this is going on because they are a hard nut to crack. President Fillon said that the Commission had done this in the recent past. Commissioner Guinnane said he believed that John Marquez had DHR at the January meeting.
8. Report on HIS inspections of R-1 buildings, number of inspections, percentage of drive by inspections, ratings applied, and NOVs issued. [Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson]
Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said that he was currently in charge of the inspections programs at DBI. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that in looking at these items he had a couple of things he wanted to let the Commission know about. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that long standing Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield has announced her intention to retire, which is a big change as Lesley has been on board for the duration of this Commission as Chief. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that with that happening Lesley has been burning up some of her time and Deputy Director Hutchinson has been relying on the Senior Inspectors to help him manage the program. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that it is his intention to take an active role working with the staff in Housing Inspection, particularly with the seniors, on a rotational basis to fill this position for the interim. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he wanted to thank Senior Inspector Dave Gogna for helping him with some of the numbers in his report.
Deputy Director Hutchinson said that staff went back utilizing employee records and the computer system to run a count of all of the routine inspections that have been done for the last two-year period. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that in opening this discussion, about two years ago there was quite a debate on the Commission about whether the Department should elongate the period between routine inspections; the Department said that the inspections could not be done on a yearly basis and it seemed like inspections could be done every three years, but the Department needed to concentrate on getting them done because of pressures from the public. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the Department was being pressured to do a good job on residential hotels and complaints and to make that the focus, so routine inspections were changed in the Code to be up to a five-year period. At that time, Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department told the Commission that a baseline should be established and agreed that within a two year period staff should be able to inspect all the buildings and establish that baseline. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that unfortunately this did not happen and records indicate that of the 20,000 odd units or buildings the Department was able to complete routine inspections on 11,345. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that by way of explaining why this was not done, over the past couple of years, housing has been a major focus; every time a residential hotel goes off line there have been debates with Supervisors about sprinkler ordinances and ways that Housing can improve the way the job is done. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that many times the Department has had to pull staff off and respond, not to crisis situations, but things where the public has come to the Department and dictated that business be stopped in order to take care of a particular problem. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that one instance was when CPA, the Chinese Progressive Association, approached the Department a few years ago and said that the Department did not have an Asian Inspector in Chinatown where there were horrendous conditions and CPA stated that they did not feel that the Department was doing its job. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that at that time he had to take three inspectors and concentrate on Chinatown. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that as a result of that, even though the Department may have done all of the majority of buildings in Chinatown, the Districts where the inspectors were borrowed from suffered. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this was not a way of making excuses, as Housing Inspection should have been able to do the baseline, but they didn't, so he would start from that point.
Deputy Director Hutchinson said that 11,345 routine inspections were done on buildings. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he was asked to calculate the violations or the rating system; as a way of going through the violations 5,583 buildings had no complaints issued against them and 5,762 had Notices of Violation issued based upon inspections. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department went through and rated all of the buildings with the results being: fair buildings accounted for approximately 3,000 buildings; good buildings approximately 5,500 and poor buildings approximately 282 with a small pool of about 800 buildings where the inspectors either did not enter the code or there was a problem getting the information. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he was trying to ascertain what the rating was on these buildings. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the allocations of poor buildings are relatively small or about 3% of all the buildings that were looked at. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this was encouraging and proves that the staff is getting out, following up and holding people's feet to the fire. Deputy Director Hutchison said that one of the other things that staff was asked about was drive by inspections and the ratings that were applied. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that in 1999 when the Department came before the Commission, in researching this it was his understanding that in order to go ahead and perform the baseline, a plan was devised to utilize inspectors to go by and do an exterior survey of the building. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the hope in doing that was that if an inspector saw a code violation, and there was a criteria (at this point Deputy Director Hutchison passed out a copy of a form used by Housing Inspectors) that if any of the inspectors found any of these deficiencies by going by the exterior of the building, staff would go ahead and cite it and get back in. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that he could not give an exact number between that time, whether it was twelve months or eight months, but during 1999 when this was utilized it was a contentious program. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that not all staff was in agreement and found that there was a percentage of staff that didn't want to do this and a percentage of staff that did it. Deputy Director Hutchison said that in interviewing staff he found that it was a very small percentage of buildings that were done and he can't quantify it because when staff went out and did a routine it was not specified if it was one of the visual inspections from the exterior or it was a regular routine where staff got into the building. Deputy Director Hutchison said that staff did tell him, which was encouraging, that this was done in better neighborhoods where there was not problematic buildings and was not done in areas such as the Tenderloin, the Mission or South of Market where there are more problems. Deputy Director Hutchinson said this type of inspection was done in other areas like Pacific Heights; neighborhoods where the buildings tend to be kept up better. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that staff also let him know that many times they did in fact see violations, which prompted them to get back into the building; they then notified the owner and got in to do a proper inspection. Deputy Director apologized saying that the Department did not keep statistics, but said that the program was for a very limited duration of time; it stopped and is not going to be repeated. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that if staff is not in agreement with it, it is not really a good policy to go through. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that even though he thought the intentions were well meant it really didn't work and the Department is no longer doing this.
Vice-President Hood referred to the form that Deputy Director Hutchinson had passed out to the Commission and asked what was meant by "front or main entrance doorway". Vice-President Hood asked if that meant that it was there. Deputy Director Hutchinson answered no, and said that he thought this referred to instances where an inspector drives by and many times sees broken glass, the lock in inoperative, there is a gate where there is a double locking device or things of that nature. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he realizes that this was not the best criterion to use and this is why is was problematic and eventually stopped. Vice-President Hood said that the criteria was not clear and stated that she was glad that this was no longer happening. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that it was well meaning from the standpoint that Housing Inspection was challenged to do a baseline and when the inspectors went into good neighborhoods where historically these buildings did not have violations, the inspectors did go by, the building appeared to be well kept and that was the reason.
Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were any inspections done on Saturdays. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that yes, there were and stated that he looked into that situation. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that a lot of times the inspectors could not cold call a building or try and get into it if the Department does not get a response from the owner by sending a letter; the idea was that an Inspector would go out and ring the doorbell and someone would let him in and more routines could be done. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that when Inspectors did work on Saturdays in 1999 that was specifically to go out and get access to the buildings. Vice-President Hood asked if people were still doing that because right now if someone doesn't want an inspection they just keep out the Inspector. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department was not utilizing overtime to do inspections. Vice-President Hood asked how the Inspectors get in when the owner or manager won't let them in. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that by and large people are cooperative about letting the Inspectors in; residential hotels are also not a problem, but in some of the units and apartment houses it is difficult to get in. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that in those cases, the Department sends out notices, makes an attempt to get into the building sometimes by utilizing the help of tenant to see if the inspector can gain entrance that way. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that in extreme cases the Department could go for an inspection warrant. Deputy Director Hutchinson asked Senior Housing Inspector Bob Noelke to comment. Mr. Noelke said that in the past the Department has set up scheduling where there is a first and second letter sent out, but then the Department could go to forcible entry, but in the past the Inspectors have been successful in getting in. Vice-President Hood asked if Housing Inspection could get a warrant and Mr. Noelke said that the Department has done so, both regular and forcible. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would like to qualify that inspection warrants are rarely required and would be done only under the most extreme circumstances. Commissioner Guinnane asked what was gained by doing the drive bys, finding a small item and then going back out doing a thorough inspection as the Inspector was already there and this took double the time. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he agreed with Commissioner Guinnane and said that this program was flawed from the beginning, but what the Department was trying to do was based on the fact that the Department came and said they wanted to make the window larger, up to five years, and there was such a debate and so much concern over this, particularly from the Commission and the public, the Department was trying to over excel to try and get this baseline and move forward with what the Commission wanted. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he did not think that it was the best way to do it and this is why it was stopped, but stated that in the months that he has been working with Housing and the way he likes to manage, it will be hard without a Chief; however, Deputy Director Hutchinson said that having been a Building Inspector and a clerk in Housing, he would like to work with the employees and listen to them. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that in going to Housing's staff meetings and working through the problems, the five years always appeared to be problematic, but based on the numbers the Department is doing the inspections in less than five years; it is being done in three to four years. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he wanted to implement a series of changes and has worked with staff to go ahead and get the baseline back down to a three-year period or better. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that earlier there had been a discussion about the Emergency Orders and from that the Commission should understand that Code Enforcement for Housing is done within the Housing Division, yet all of the other Code Enforcement for the Department is done in the Code Enforcement Division. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he thought that at this point the Department should consolidate and centralize Code Enforcement and the way to do that is to put the appropriate personnel from Housing with Marvin Ruiz as Chief of the Code Enforcement Division and centralize all of the enforcement. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the other thing that he found out from meeting with the Housing Inspectors is that up to about 1988 Building Inspectors went out on complaints relative to one and two-family dwellings and most of those were complaints about illegal apartments. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that there was probably a pressure point in 1988 and Building Inspectors couldn't do it because they had to concentrate on something else and it was shifted over to Housing. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Housing Inspectors are telling management that 25% of their time is being taken up with these anonymous complaints regarding illegal units; the Housing Inspector goes out, posts a complaint, writes a letter, generates a file, does a follow-up, tickles a file and tries and to get back in and in these instances it is very difficult to get in. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that what he would like to do is to go ahead and remove obstacles that are keeping the Housing Inspectors from doing routines and keeping them from doing complaints. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would like to return those illegal unit complaints to BID where he believes they appropriately belong and leave the R-1 apartments and hotels with the Housing Inspectors. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this is what the Housing Inspectors are getting paid for and what their charge is. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this would increase the number of routine inspections. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the concern has always been, when the Commission was set up, the problem was that the people who founded the Commission said that Housing Inspectors were spending all of their time on routines and ignoring the whole section of the population that has problems with Residential Hotels. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Housing Inspectors came up with the idea to implement a program to identify the 30 worst hotels in the City; Housing Inspector Daniel Shiu, who is bilingual and John Kerley have agreed to along with their regular districts, take on room by room inspections of these 30 worst hotels. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that these two Inspectors have been doing this for about a month and have made a big dent in completing these inspections. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he was very proud of the Housing Inspectors, as they did not ask for any additional personnel. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he has been working with the Litigation Committee, which is one of the best things that the Commission ever did, to be very aggressive with the hotels that have code violations. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the hotel owners are getting tremendous amounts of money for these rooms and the people deserve to have, safe, sanitary and code complying housing and with the Litigation Committee, once the worst hotels have been inspected, the Committee will fast track them to the City Attorney. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Inspectors already have the list for the next 30 hotels. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he thought the Department could do the routines, increase the number and not sacrifice what everyone in the Community needs in the Tenderloin, the Mission, Chinatown and the people in the SROs. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department has other ideas, but the staff has been great to work with and want to do a good, professional job; staff is coming up with the ideas and he will just be a facilitator and work with them.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he had two questions; the first one being that Deputy Director Hutchinson was talking about a five-year number and he thought that it was a four-year maximum that the Commission agreed upon. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to check on that issue. Commissioner Marks said that this is in the Controller's audit and in Director Chiu's response to this issue that was brought up in the audit apparently the Housing Code was changed in 1999, changing it to five years. Commissioner Marks said that reportedly Director Chiu in response said that the inspections would be completed in a three-year time frame. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the numbers do show that the Department does it a little less than four years and said that he felt if the changes he suggested were made, it could be back to three years. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that then if the Commission would like the Department to go ahead and change that back, an amendment could be put forth to change or leave it; the Commission could monitor the Department's performance and hold Housing to the three-year window even though it is in the code for five years; this would be an option for the Commission.
Commissioner Guinnane asked who authorized the actual drive by inspections and the way it was set up. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he believed the Chief Housing Inspector came up with the program to get the five-year window to allow the inspectors to respond to the Community of SROs. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Chief Housing Inspector came up with this on her own and did not have to get approval from somebody higher up, the Director or anybody else. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he did not know, but said that his problem was that when he went back and talked to staff they were not in full agreement and some staff was doing the drive by inspections and others were not. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this was a recipe for failure and all staff should be in line and agree to it. Commissioner Guinnane asked when the Housing Inspection Department would have all of the buildings inspected and rated. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the way the numbers are now, it would be a four-year turnaround, but in meeting the Senior Inspectors if the suggested changes can be implemented it would probably be closer than less than a three-year window for routines. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the staff is in place to do this and staff has shown that they have the ability and the will power to do it.
Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that he hoped that everything Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson said was correct, but said that he thought it was more problematic. Mr. Shaw said that Jim was saying that the Department could do all of these routine inspections in three years without any weakness in the complaint operation, but when this same discussion happened in 1999 that wasn't the case. Mr. Shaw said that at that time, Director Chiu said that the Department would have to hire four more Housing Inspectors to do that when a previous Commissioner raised it. Mr. Shaw said that he thought it was true that if the Department decided to stop wasting all of their time running around on all of the anonymous in-law apartment complaints, which is a significant amount of work, if that were to be cut back and the Board of Supervisors realized that every time they have a hearing it would not be necessary to have four Housing Inspectors present, which takes a lot of staff off line, then some time would be freed up. Mr. Shaw said that he thought that if staff or Director Hutchinson felt that the Commission is really concerned that all of these inspections be done in three years, there is always the risk that the Department does not have the people to do more room-by-room inspections as needed. Mr. Shaw said that if a bad hotel is found the Department would want a room-by-room inspection because there might be many bad places in the hotel, and that hotel would not necessarily be on the list of the 30 worst hotels. Mr. Shaw said that Mr. Kerley had been helpful on these inspections, but if inspectors feel that they are on a time limit and have to be continually doing routines there is a risk of cut backs on the complaints. Mr. Shaw stated that this needs to be monitored carefully for problems and the anonymous complaints should be cut back on, because one neighbor calls up and complains about ten addresses and that is one or two days gone for that inspector. Mr. Shaw said that there is some in-law legislation in the works that may eliminate this problem altogether and if some of these ridiculous complaints of illegal in-laws is taken away then some time would be freed up. Mr. Shaw cautioned that the Department would still need to monitor and revisit this issue in a few months to make sure that there is no let down on the complaints because this is a critical area. Mr. Shaw said that in the last two years in particular because the demand for the low end side of the spectrum in housing has been so much greater than the supply people who used to complain, especially in the residential hotels, are so thankful to have a place to live they don't want to say a word. Mr. Shaw said that there is an increasing number of people with mental problems in these residential hotels. Mr. Shaw said that there has actually been more problems requiring inspection than there used to be because of the fear that if a tenant complains they will be asked to leave. Mr. Shaw said that there are all of these 28-day move out cases and people don't want to say anything or they will be locked out right away. Mr. Shaw said that there have been some unseen factors in the past couple of years that have needed more intensive inspections and stated that he wanted the Commission to be aware of that.
Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that there was any way that the inspections could be done in three years because first of all, the Commission originally had a policy that it would not deal with illegal units at all because it wasn't really a building inspection issue unless there was a code violation and yet the Department got sucked into it. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that there was no way that this was going to happen unless there are more Housing Inspectors hired and if that is the policy of the Commission, Vice-President Hood said that this was something that the Commission needed to discuss, vote on and put funds into the budget. Vice-President Hood said that to say that the same number of people is going to be somehow able to use their time differently to accomplish what they haven't done in the past three years is absurd. Vice-President Hood said that she did not believe in setting people up for failure.
Commissioner Walker said that Deputy Director Hutchinson had suggested that all of the R-1 properties be delegated over to building. Vice-President Hood said that this was implying that those people in building are twiddling their thumbs. Vice-President Hood said that they are already working so efficiently and so effectively that they cannot take on this stuff. Vice-President Hood said that there is nobody sitting around in the Department that needs an assignment. Commissioner Walker asked if anyone knew the status of the in-law legislation. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Department really did not know. Mr. Randy Shaw stated that there has been legislation that has been drafted and there is a meeting set up for next week with Supervisor Peskin to finally get the issue resolved. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to point out that somebody has been looking at that issue for the past twenty years so no one should hold their breath. Mr. Shaw said that he thought there was a broader consensus now than there has ever been. Commissioner Walker said that she would agree.
President Fillon said that he would like to hear the rest of the public comment.
Mr. Paul Hogarth introduced himself as an employee of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic through the DBI's Code Enforcement and Outreach Program. Mr. Hogarth said he would like to add to what Randy Shaw had said earlier on. Mr. Hogarth said that inspectors really need to zero in on the worst of the worst hotels. Mr. Hogarth said that he had referred some cases to Inspector Kerley who has been doing room-by-room inspections and the problem is not just the conditions of the hotels, but the fact is that many of the low-income or no income tenants are reluctant to complain due to fear of retaliation. Mr. Hogarth said that many times when the landlord addresses an issue because they have been forced to, they do a half-assed job. Mr. Hogarth said that there was one hotel in particular where one of the tenants in their private bathroom had a caved in ceiling and the landlord said that instead of fixing the problem he would lower the tenants rent by $100.00. Mr. Hogarth said that these were tenants who had been burned out of a hotel on Sixth Street two months earlier and were relieved to finally have a place to live. Mr. Hogarth stated that when the Raymond Hotel burned down his agency was trying to place tenants in other hotels and he was asked to check out another hotel that had a fire on that same day down through the garbage chutes and the garbage chutes were in the bathrooms. Mr. Hogarth said that to focus on only the routine inspections or outdoor drive by inspections is a waste of time, as the Department needs to focus on the bad hotels and the bad areas and give those buildings priority number one at DBI.
Mr. Joe O'Donoghue of Residential Builders Association said that first of all it would be nice if the public knew how many complaints come into the Housing Department on in-law units in terms of computerization in order to get an idea of the magnitude of this problem. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the issue is not conflicting interests, but conflicting needs and prioritizing. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Commissioner Hood was right because in-law unit legislation will be opposed and the leading opponent of it will be Jake McGoldrick, and it will be strongly opposed by neighborhood associations. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the Residential Builders have been very patient for many years, but stated that the Builders would put this issue on the ballot especially to embarrass Jake McGoldrick to see how he is going to vote for his constituency out in the Richmond District where there are many in-law units. Mr. O'Donoghue said that Mr. McGoldrick had a philosophy of opposition in the past and for that reason alone the Residential Builders would put this on the ballot even if it has no merit. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the Residential Builders are being honest about this issue, unlike Jake McGoldrick and company and that it is a given that the RBA looks forward to. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the fact is that this issue has taken up too much time; for years it took up the City Attorney's time in terms of having to deal with it and then the Department got those cases back from the City Attorney's Office and Lesley Stansfield was stuck with the problem. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he did not want to see Building Inspectors going out and doing investigations of in-law units. Mr. O'Donoghue said that it was time to put this before the voters and he would definitely have this on the ballot for next November. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the organization would not do this, as they have never done in the past through four Supervisors, but would go out and collect the signatures as was done with this Building Commission. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the legislation would not be diluted and said that the RBA would be able to get something solid done that would involve vacancy control on in-law units because there will be the sellers of so called progressors on that Board who will oppose vacancy control because if you don't have vacancy control in in-law units the price will escalate beyond market rate. Mr. O'Donoghue said that then there would be more dispossessed people. Mr. O'Donoghue said that he would probably put out a press release so that the RBA does not get pre-empted being that there are so many publicity hounds over there on the Board.
Mr. John Kerley introduced himself as a Housing Inspector and President of the Housing Inspector's Association. Mr. Kerley said that his name had been mentioned so he wanted to identify himself. Mr. Kerley stated that he is working on the hotels and there is a lot of work out there, but said that he would agree with everything that was said particularly that the in-laws take a lot of time and most of the Inspector's time is spent on anonymous complaints. Mr. Kerley said that someone calls in a complaint, but won't give their name; then they find out the name of the Inspector and complain that the Inspector never responded. Mr. Kerley said that the Inspectors go by the addresses and most times leave a card on the door because no one will let them in. Mr. Kerley said this takes a lot of time and creates a great deal of frustration.
President Fillon said that as a Commissioner, his interest is that the Department follow-up on those situations that deal with the most powerless of those in the community who are the people living in these hotels. President Fillon said that he totally supported the Department in putting more emphasis on those situations. Vice-President Hood said that she was glad that the thirty worst hotels had been identified, but said that she would like a list of the next one-hundred worst ones because Vice-President Hood said that as she drives through the parts of the town where these properties are concentrated she is aware that there is quite a large number of them. Vice-President Hood said that the Department needs to expand on this list.
President Fillon said that he would like to break for ten minutes and would reconvene the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
9. Update on Litigation Committee Meeting. [Commissioners Guinnane, Santos & Walker]
Commissioner Guinnane asked Commissioner Santos to report on the legal committee. Commissioner Santos said that Commissioner Walker was not present at the last meeting, but stated that he and Commissioner Guinnane are going through an itemized process where every single case is reviewed and analyzed for the potential for collection and the ability to collect. Commissioner Santos said that it is decided which cases the City Attorney should be spending time on and there are cases that the Committee does not feel that there is any real hope to collect. Commissioner Santos said that this has been a tremendous experience for someone like himself to work with Commissioner Guinnane who has a great deal of understanding about the collection process and it truly an asset for the Department to have someone such as Commissioner Guinnane because he has focused on specific issues. Commissioner Santos said that if the Department has been granted a judgment in their favor Commissioner Guinnane has suggested ways of making sure that this is collected by linking the judgment to the title of the property. Commissioner Santos said that the Committee is making sure that the property is not transferred during the process. Commissioner Santos said that this in-depth knowledge is something that is truly needed if there are any hopes of collecting these funds and said that Commissioner Guinnane has really educated, not only himself, but also the City Attorney in terms of how to go about collecting. Commissioner Santos said that this program has been quite successful and stated that he was happy to be a part of the Litigation Committee. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee is trying to get the legal bills in a more timely manner and holding back payment through the Controller until someone in the Department signs off on them. Commissioner Walker asked if this was billing from the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Guinnane answered yes. Commissioner Santos said that it is taking quite a bit of time and in some cases the City Attorney gets paid and the actual tabulation of hours comes to the Department 45 - 60 days later so this is a very difficult process to trace. Commissioner Guinnane said that 45 days was being very kind, as it takes a lot longer than that to get the billings. Vice-President Hood said that in the past the Commission has tried to look at a way of having the statement approved before it was paid. Vice-President Hood said that she hoped this had been taken care of, but it sounded like Commissioners Guinnane and Santos were saying that it was not. Commissioner Guinnane said that the way the Committee is going to go after it this time, it will be taken care of because the Department will hold back funds to be credited to the City Attorney's Office through the Controller until the bills are received and signed off. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought this would be a better way of doing business. Vice-President Hood said that she always thought that this was the policy that had to be followed as it was conventional for private practice and this would lead to a sense of how the money was being spent and whether it was worth it or not. Vice-President Hood said that she was glad the Committee was working on this. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not figure out what the problem is with getting the bills. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was sure that every lawyer in the City Attorney's Office was clocking in their time and it should be computerized so that at the end of the month it would all be printed out. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not figure out why it takes 60 - 90 days to get a copy of the bill. Commissioner Guinnane said that the January bill was not received until April and said that this made it difficult to go back and remember who was talking to whom, as it is too far-gone. Vice-President Hood said that the problem that the Commission heard in the past was that it had something to do with the City Attorney's computer or accounting system and that is where the problem was. Vice-President Hood said that she did not think that it was true that people just punch in their hours and then it spits out the bill. Vice-President Hood said that this is probably true in many places, but doubted that it was true in the City Attorney's Office. Vice-President Hood said that previously the Commission was told that it was because of the archaic computer system. Vice-President Hood stated that she thought it was good to work with the City Attorney's Office to try and find out if it could be sped up. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission has a good rapport with the City Attorney's Office.
Mr. Bob Noelke said that he was staff serving on this Committee and stated that it has been very good for staff. Mr. Noelke said that the Department is able to focus on the cases and then move on to the next step. Mr. Noelke said that this has been a very good Committee. President Fillon thanked the Committee.
10. Update on Unlawful Demolition Committee Meeting. [Commissioners Hood, Santos & Walker]
President Fillon said that he heard that this was a very well attended meeting. Vice-President Hood said that there were many people at the meeting and there was an excellent review of the history of the attempt to get a demolition ordinance from Deputy Director William Wong. Vice-President Hood said that the people who spoke, instead of becoming divisive tended to pull less toward the same issues of concern and said that she found that the main issue was that developers did not build what was shown on their drawings. Vice-President Hood said that the issue of demolition or major remodeling is really not so much the issue as whether or not the project manager ended up doing whatever they said they were going to do. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee were fortunate to have Larry Badiner present at the meeting; Mr. Badiner is the Zoning Administrator from City Planning. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee agreed to work very closely with the Department of City Planning to come up with legislation that the Committee could recommend. President Fillon asked how Mr. Badiner knew about the meeting. Commissioner Walker said that she had called him. President Fillon said that this was great. Vice-President Hood stated that since the meeting she has run into Mr. Badiner at the Noe Valley Bakery and has had occasion to verify that the Department's are going in the same direction. Vice-President Hood said that initially what she suggested was that people require much more thorough documentation on the front end; that there be a pre-application meeting at which the neighbors would be noticed and the Planning Department would have an opportunity to list the features in the building which were of concern to be preserved; it doesn't have to be a historic building maybe it's just an important piece of the block face or something of that sort, and that would become something similar to a conditional review except it wouldn't be contingent on zoning; it would be just getting those things out. Vice-President Hood said that then the project sponsor would prepare a really thorough set of existing documentation that really carefully matched the existing conditions and show what portions were to be remodeled or replaced. Vice-President Hood said that this would have a notice, like a 300 ft. radius notice. Vice-President Hood stated that everyone seemed to be on the same wavelength as far as that approach was concerned. Vice-President Hood said that Larry Badiner reiterated that he was working with a group of people through the Planning Department and they were coming up with the same ideas. Vice-President Hood said that it might seem like a time when this issue can be put to rest and get away from the word demolition and be talking more about major remodeling. Vice-President Hood said that this would not place upon the Department the burden of identifying 25% of what, but to have the Department charged with having Planning first of all saying what is going to stay or be rebuilt exactly or be rebuilt in a new configuration. Vice-President Hood said that this would be on the documents so DBI would just be charged with making sure that the building is built according to the plans, which is an appropriate role for the Department of Building Inspection. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee hoped that by doing this it would calm everybody's unhappiness. President Fillon asked if anybody brought up the idea of having a demolition portion of a remodel job on a separate set of drawings. Vice-President Hood answered that this was brought up. President Fillon said that this would be like the electrical plans and structural plans. Vice-President Hood said that this was one of the things that was going to have to be absolutely clear. President Fillon said that he thought this would be better if it was included as part of the permit and not considered a separate permit. Vice-President Hood said that it would be part of the permit. Commissioner Walker said that it would be just a separate action as part of the plan checking process. President Fillon clarified that someone would be assigned to demolition just as someone is assigned to look at mechanical or electrical. Commissioner Walker said that it might be a separate person, or it might not, but it would be a separate act. President Fillon said that if it were a small project it might just be one person. Commissioner Walker said that she had also talked with Larry Badiner and said that he is including people from the public, from the different groups who are involved and knowledgeable about planning issues. Commissioner Walker said that these people are giving input so that everyone is on the same page as the Committee goes through this process so that they won't hit as big an obstacle, which is likely to happen at some point anyway. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee feels that if they can work together on this it can move forward. Vice-President Hood said that another element that the Committee will give a lot of attention to is what happens if someone does not follow their demolition drawing as the penalty has to be something with real teeth in it. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee will be working with the City Attorney's Office and these various groups to come up with something that is not onerous to the building community, but which insures that there is enough teeth in it that people don't want to be scofflaws. President Fillon said that this could be modeled after the existing model of what is in the code already for violations. Vice-President Hood asked President Fillon if he meant the code that states that the project manager would have to wait five years and so forth to build on the property. President Fillon said no, that he was speaking about if someone had an inspector come out and look and sign off on a certain portion of the work, and if it is not correct the builder is required to correct it. Vice-President Hood said that was right; for instance, the electrical is not covered until there is a sign off or the concrete wall cannot be poured unless the reinforcement has been inspected. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that this was a very good idea and the whole reason to have very careful documentation of what is there is that the fix for tearing down too much will be to put it back exactly as it was, so that will be a pretty strong penalty as people have a pretty strong incentive given the high value of profit to tear down and build more than what is shown on drawings. Commissioner Walker said that the current remedy is so steep that no sitting Commission is likely to submit a project sponsor to it, which is that, the builder could not build for five years. Commissioner Walker said that nobody wants to create a situation like that in the neighborhood. Commissioner Walker said that the Committee is also looking at the penalty in terms of it being something that is real and serious, but won't affect the community as much. Vice-President Hood said that the Committee is going forward and announced that there is another meeting scheduled for the evening. Vice-President Hood asked the Commission Secretary what the date was. Commissioner Walker said that it was a Monday evening, May 14th from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in Room 416. President Fillon thanked the Commissioners and said that they were doing a great service. President Fillon said that he knew some of the people that had attended the meeting and said that they were very impressed.
There was no public comment.
11. 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.
b. DBI's 2000-2001 First Quarter Report (July, August, September 2000).
c. DBI's 2000-2001 Second Quarter Report (October, November, October 2000).
d. Letter dated March 28, 2001 from Supervisor Ammiano and City Attorney Louis Renne to All City Department Heads regarding Lead Paint Abatement.
e. Letter dated April 2, 2001 from Linda Bass to the S.F. Building Inspection Commission regarding 39 Boardman Place.
f. Letter dated April 24, 2001 from Mackenzie Green to the Mayor's Office of Housing copied to the BIC regarding 39 Boardman Place #203.
g. Letter dated April 3, 2001 to Commissioner Walker from Jose and Maria Pinto regarding 50 Linda Street with attachments. Response to Jose and Maria Pinto by Director Frank Y. Chiu.
h. Signed Ordinance No. 46-01 amending Section 1004.2.3.2 of the San Francisco Building Code by repealing Exception 7 dealing with exiting from Group R occupancy buildings.
i. Motion No. M01-37 regarding District Town Hall Budget Meetings.
j. Motion No. M01-42 regarding scheduling a Committee of the Whole to examine the process of re-drawing the district lines within San Francisco should the Department of Elections find the needs to do so, to be held on April 16, 2001 at 3:00 p.m.
k. Resolution No. 242-01 urging the Controller, Mayor's Office of Public Finance, Department of the Environment, Public Utilities Commission and other applicable departments to assist in crafting a solar energy bond for consideration on the November 2001 ballot to provide funding for solar power technology to be used on San Francisco public buildings and land.
l. Board of Supervisors Inquiry (Supervisor Newsom) to investigate and report on the number of fines issued during the past year for violation of construction limitations; also, by what mechanism are construction limitations, such as time of day, patrolled? Response from Director Frank Y. Chiu dated April 11, 2001.
m. Letter from Randall M. Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to the Building Inspection Commission regarding Routine Inspection Policy.
n. Notice of Receipt of an Application for the Formation of a San Francisco-Brisbane Municipal Utility District.
o. Letter dated April 16, 2001 from Wm. M. Ausseresses dated April 16, 2001 regarding roof water drainage problem of 767 North Point Street and continuing damage to neighboring property at 769 North Point Street.
p. Board of Supervisors Inquiry (Supervisor Daly) requesting a complete listing of all office and business services permits approved or pending in the SLI, SLR, and RSD districts since 1995 from both the Department of City Planning and the Department of Building Inspection. Transmittal of information letter dated April 24, 2001 from Ann Aherne, BIC Secretary.
q. Letter dated April 14, 2001 from Margaret L. Brady of Save our Richmond Environment regarding proposed demolitions at 442-20th Avenue, 322-28th Avenue and 324-28th Avenue.
r. BOMA San Francisco Advocate Newsletter.
s. Letters of commendation received from the public regarding DBI employees and Director Chiu's letters of response to the public.
President Fillon said that he would read down the list of communication items and if any of the Commissioners or the public wanted to discuss any one item in particular they should stop him at that point. There was no discussion on items on a, b, or c. On item d, Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to update the Commissioners by letting them know that the occupants of Boardman Place had contacted her and a meeting was set up with Director Chiu. Commissioner Walker said that the meeting was very successful in term of everyone getting on the same page and said that she thought that this particular project was going to get solved. Commissioner Walker said that it may take a while, but certainly the Department and the people living there are on the same page and Commissioner Walker said that she appreciated Director Chiu's assistance. Director Chiu thanked Commissioner Walker for setting up the meeting. Commissioner Marks said that she would like a report of what eventually happens with this property because of the issue of giving a Certificate of Final Occupancy and then supposedly there is no record of actual inspections being done. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to report and there will be a letter sent to Ms. Lisa Bass with a copy sent to the BIC as well. Commissioner Walker said that this project is in the process of being wrapped up and will be resolved.
There was no discussion on items e, f, g, h, I, j, k, l, m or n. Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu what the Department's response was to item n. Director Chiu said that the item, which addressed 767 and 769 North Point, has been ongoing for three or four years with neighbors disputing. Director Chiu said that DBI did not want to get involved with the Planning and permit issue. Director Chiu said that the issue of roof drainage is something that DBI needs to look at. Director Chiu stated that he had a meeting with both the Plumbing Inspector and Building Inspector and told them to go to the property to identify whether the complaint is valid or not; they will be making an inspection sometime next week. Director Chiu said that he would report the results of the inspection at the next meeting, but said that it appears that there may be some problem with roof drainage as a result of a new dormers installed and the water is probably not draining properly, but the Department will verify the situation. Vice-President Hood asked if this was the famous hot tub issue. Director Chiu said that this is a different property, but has had an ongoing legal problem for the past three or four years. Director Chiu said that hopefully DBI would inspect this roof drainage and move on.
President Fillon asked if the Department had responded to Item p. Director Chiu said that the Department had taken care of the Supervisor's request.
Commissioner Marks asked what the response was for item q. Director Chiu said that Wing Lau did speak to him a few days ago about this item, but apologized that he could not recall what was discussed. Commissioner Marks said that she wondered if this should be referred to the Unlawful Demolition Committee to discuss at their meeting. Commissioner Walker said that the Committee was trying to keep on track with discussing future policy rather than individual cases and said that she would rather it be referred to the Director. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to give Commissioner Marks a call or report back at the next meeting as to what the finding are, but said that the Chief Building Inspector did tell him something and did not want to speculate at this time.
There was no discussion on Item r. President Fillon thanked those employees who had received letters of commendation from the public that were included in item s.
12. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC meeting of April 4, 2001.
President Fillon asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Director Chiu said that in reviewing the minutes on page 14, the last paragraph, where Vice-President Hood commented on the certification of Building Inspectors, he believed she meant to say Housing Inspector or the minutes should read Housing Inspector. Director Chiu said that he did not want the Housing Inspectors to get upset by thinking that the Commission wants them to get certified as Building Inspectors. Director Chiu said that this was the fifth line from the bottom of the page where it says, "certified as a Building Inspector". Director Chiu said that he wanted the minutes corrected to say that Vice-President Hood meant to say certification as a Housing Inspector rather than a Building Inspector. Vice-President Hood said that she meant to say Building Inspector and that the Commission wanted the persons hired to be certified just as the Building Inspectors are. Director Chiu asked if that is what Vice-President Hood meant and she answered yes. Director Chiu said that he wanted the Commissioners to know that I.C.B.O. has certification for Housing Inspectors as well as Building Inspectors. Vice-President Hood said that she felt that the Housing Inspectors certification did not put enough emphasis on construction knowledge and since the Housing Inspectors are most likely to be the people who are getting out to places like the badly maintained hotels they have an obligation to be able to spot really serious problems like dry rot which could cause a balcony to fail. Vice-President Hood said that there was one case where an Inspector thought that there was something wrong with the attic rafters, but there was nothing wrong with it. Commissioner Walker said she thought that was mold. Vice-President Hood said that whatever it was, it was not a problem and those inspectors going out there, if they have this other knowledge, they will be of far greater benefit at the same cost to the City. Vice-President Hood stated that practical field experience is useful and is something that people could pick up and said she felt that the labor unions would support this higher level of certification. Director Chiu thanked Vice-President Hood for her clarification. President Fillon asked for a motion to approve the minutes.
Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-028-01
13. Review 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.
Commissioner Marks said that at the last meeting after the Commission had reviewed the questionnaire that had been completed by members of the staff and the Department, the issue of the expediter was raised and Amy Lee had said that the Controller was completing an audit and included this question. Commissioner Marks asked if this were part of the performance audit that had been referred to or is that something separate. Director Chiu said he thought that this was what Ms. Lee meant, that this is part of the performance audit and the Controller's office is going by the survey results from the employees as well as the external survey. Ms. Lee said that this is all part of the entire survey and that issue, in terms of the permit expediter, is something that the Controller's Office had brought into the audit in the first place. Ms. Lee stated that the Controller's Office told her in the beginning that they would bring this into the audit; the role of the permit expediter was one of the things they would be looking at because it had been getting press. Ms. Lee said that the report would include the findings on the role of the permit expediter at DBI. Commissioner Marks asked when the report is expected. Ms. Lee said that, as she suspected, it was not done in April and said that the Controller's Office had e-mailed her and said it would be done within the next couple of weeks. Ms. Lee said that what happens is that the Controller's Office gives the Department a draft copy of the findings, and then the Department reviews it. Ms. Lee said that what she wanted to do this time is give a copy of the draft findings to all of the Commissioners so that she would take comments from the Commissioners, as well as the Department to incorporate into the response. Ms. Lee said that she would hope to have this by the next Commission meeting. Vice-President Hood asked if she could just give comments to Ms. Lee so that they could be incorporated.
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.
President Fillon said that one item would be the Housing Inspection requirements. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to look at the notification process around demolition after fires of multiple units especially residential hotels, that it actually expand to the tenants who were living in the hotels at the time of the fire. Commissioner Walker said that she has been asked by the tenant community to have the Commission look at this. Commissioner Walker said that one of the problems is that as residential hotels are burned down and the review for demolition is going on the tenants are left out of the loop. Commissioner Walker said that the Community out there that deals with the tenants are asking that they be notified so that there can be some sort of participation on their part. Commissioner Walker said she would like this issue put on the next agenda.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he had three items, one of them being the minimum qualifications on the Housing Inspectors. Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last meeting he had asked for information on hotels, such as ratings, NOVs and a list of the worst 150 hotels. Commissioner Guinnane stated that one thing he wanted to discuss, and said that the Commission should give this some serious thought, is the extension of 1660 Mission Street. Commissioner Guinnane said that Director Chiu has informed the Commission that $1M has been spent to date. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know where all of this money was going or what it is for, but the Department has nothing for it. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission needs to evaluate if this extension is needed at this time and if not controls need to be put on the expenses. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to tie this in with some sort of report from Assistant Director Amy Lee as to the future of DBI.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to talk about the parking at DBI. Vice-President Hood said that very often people have difficulty finding parking and if there could be a way that people from Planning and DBI could park in a neighboring lot during the day so that those places under the building could be available for the public as they were originally intended. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to look into how the parking spaces are allocated right now as she thought that only a small portion of those spaces are available for the general public. Vice-President Hood stated that there is great difficulty finding parking in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Marks asked if the shuttle service had begun yet. Director Chiu said that it has not yet begun as some of the Commissioners had asked that the Department make sure that they go through the bidding process and an RFP. Assistant Director Amy Lee stated that the Department has now received several bids and will be moving forward very shortly. Ms. Lee said that regarding parking, recently after speaking with the Department of Real Estate, it has been discovered that several people have access cards and the parking has gone beyond the designated amount; for example, the Fire Department is only supposed to have one, but have four access cards; planning is only supposed to have three, but have seven access cards, so right now DBI is in the process of taking those access cards away. Ms. Lee said that this might help if people stay within the designated stalls. Vice-President Hood said she would like a full report on this at the next meeting and what sort of process would be put in place to make sure these people do not sneak back in.
Commissioner Marks said that she would like a report on the issue of Conflict of Interest regulations for employees. President Fillon asked Commissioner Marks what specifically she was looking for. Commissioner Marks said she wanted to know what are the Conflict of Interest regulations for employees. Commissioner Marks said that the Commissioners knew what it was for them. Vice-President Hood said that the big package that the Commissioners received and the training by the City Attorney's Office on it includes the employees as well. Vice-President Hood said that there is a very stringent, detailed Conflict of Interest Code. Commissioner Marks said that she would look at that documentation. President Fillon asked if there was a specific issue Commissioner Marks was interested in or if there was a way to narrow this subject down. Commissioner Marks said that she noticed in Margaret Brady's letter she enclosed information about two projects and the name of the applicant was James Li and there is an employee named James Li. Director Chiu said that these were not the same person; the applicant James Li used to work for the Department, but left and is now on his own; the Department now employs a different James Li. Commissioner Marks said that for her it did raise the question of whether employees are permitted to have businesses on the side. Director Chiu said that they are not unless they have prior approval from the Department and Civil Service. Director Chiu stated that the Department would not authorize this sort of request. Ms. Lee said that just recently employees had to fill out Statement of Economic forms where it discloses information; such as she had to disclose her husband's salary because he is employed in San Francisco. Ms. Lee said that this form has been completed by all of the Managers and key staff people in the Department. President Fillon asked if Commissioner Marks still wanted this item on the next agenda and she answered no.
14. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission's jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Mr. Joe O'Donoghue said that he would speak briefly. Mr. O'Donoghue said that recently the Carpenter's Union disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the Residential Builders prior to their merger with the Carpenter's Union long advocated that the RBA pull out of the Building Trades Council in this City and pull out of the Labor Council because they considered the labor movement run by labor Neanderthals. Mr. O'Donoghue said that their General President had pulled out and notified Sweeney who came from the SEIU, the same Union that Mr. O'Donoghue organized for at the International level, that there is no reason that the Carpenters should pay $4M per year in which then what was happening was that SEIU was hiring organizers who were going after places like Harvard University. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the result of this was that the Carpenter's money was going to increase the membership of SEIU and at the local level it was advocated that the Building Trades Council was the large financier of the Building Trades including the Labor Council and then the Labor Council was turning around and electing anti-construction politicians to the Board. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the RBA was absolutely elated that they finally got the Carpenters and other Unions are looking at the same process of seperentity much along the lines of the RBA where they will have their own organizing committees out there. Mr. O'Donoghue said that the Building Inspectors are part of Local 22 and this move received absolutely unanimous endorsement. Mr. O'Donoghue said that there will be a change in the dynamics at the local level at SEIU and others; Mr. O'Donoghue said that he was not knocking SEIU, but the interests are totally different from that which the trades are looking for. Mr. O'Donoghue said that when the pendulum goes the other way too much it always has an impact and the RBA figures that they have heard the gong and are now responding to it. Mr. O'Donoghue thanked the Commission.
15. Adjournment.
Vice-President Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santiago that the meeting be adjourned.
The motion carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. BIC-029-01
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Follow-up on 174 & 178 Brewster. - President Fillon Page 5 & 6
Expanded list of worst hotels, hotels inspected, ratings given and NOVs issued. - Vice-President Hood & Commissioner Guinnane Page 23 & 30
Update on Boardman Place when issue is resolved. - Commissioner Marks Page 27
Follow-up on inspection of 767-769 North Point. - Commissioner Marks Page 28
Update on 442, 322 & 324 - 28th Avenue. - Response to letter from member of the public. Page 28
Update on Controller's Audit. - Commissioner Marks Page 29
Follow-up on change to minimum qualifications and training for Housing Inspectors. - Commissioner Guinnane Page 30
Agenda item - Notification to tenants of burned out residential hotels as to repairs and follow-up. - Commissioner Walker Page 30
Agenda item - 1660 Mission Expansion as it relates to future of DBI. - Commissioner Guinnane Page 30
Agenda item - report on parking allocations at DBI. - Vice-President Hood Page 30
Update on shuttle for 1660 Mission. - Commissioner Marks Page 31