2.

3.

Acting Director Hutchinson reported that the Department has received approval to begin a process to hire thirteen employees consisting of four Housing Inspectors, three Building Inspectors, a couple of Senior Building Inspectors, one Engineer, one Plumbing Inspector and a few other miscellaneous employees.   Mr. Hutchinson said that these positions were approved as part of last year’s budget process and it has been a very lengthy process.  Mr. Hutchinson announced that the Department was going to have a couple of other retirements in Housing, DBI lost a Chief Clerk and there is the potential to lose one of the Senior Inspectors so even with these positions the Department would be below regular staffing.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that later on in the meeting staffing for a project at Bay View Hunters Point would be discussed along with staffing for the AIMCO settlement requirements.  Mr. Hutchinson said that DBI might be asking for a supplemental and look to increasing funds. 

Mr. Hutchinson said that he was happy to have new Housing Inspectors coming on board because the workload increases in these winter months with complaints about lack of heat in residential hotels and lower income apartments. 

President Santos asked if there were any positions that were not approved by the Mayor’s Office.   Assistant Director Amy Lee said that there might be one or two remaining positions, in particular the Deputy Director position.  Ms. Lee said that there were also five I.T. positions that the Department needed to renew in December and hopefully that would be worked out.    President Santos said that Mr. Hutchinson talked about additional positions and asked that since the process took so long for the thirteen positions was the Department working on this new request.  Ms. Lee said certainly.  Ms. Lee said that there were still about six positions due purely to retirement or death or some other matter that the Department had not yet received or gotten approval to fill.    Ms. Lee said that these positions did not even address the Department’s backlog.  Ms. Lee said that for the positions that are already in DBI’s appropriated budge, the Department will have to go through the whole process again in terms of getting the Controller’s, Human Resources and the Mayor’s Budget Office approval.  Ms. Lee stated that as far an new work loads, DBI would have to do a supplemental appropriations request that has to go before the Board of Supervisors first and come before two hearings.  Ms. Lee said that once the Board of Supervisors approves the supplemental then the Department has to go through the process again.  Ms. Lee said that she had been working to expedite those approvals.  Ms. Lee said that it would be helpful for the Department or the Commissioners to talk to the Mayor’s Office in advance or members of the Board of Supervisors that are going to be voting on it would be a proactive, positive thing. 

Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last meeting there were between twenty-seven and thirty-two vacancies and if only thirteen were approved he wanted to know what happened to the rest.   Ms. Lee said that the difference was the temporary employees that will have to be terminated within the next few months because of the way that they were requisitioned.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department had no choice in prior years, but to hire temporary staff.  Commissioner Guinnane asked how long it would take to get the Housing and Building Inspectors on board.  Ms. Lee said that hopefully by the end of January some of these people would be on Board. 

Vice-President Hood said that she heard that DBI lost two Electrical Inspectors due to layoffs.   Ms. Lee responded that the two Electrical Inspectors were provisional and were ranked too low on the list to be hired permanently and that was why they were laid off.  Ms. Lee said that these positions were filled with new people.  Mr. Hutchinson said that DBI did lose two excellent Electrical Inspectors before that, Marvin Wok and Steve Powers.  Mr. Hutchinson said that Steve went to work with the Union and Marvin went back to the trades because the City Retirement system is not as good as what the union offers.  Mr. Hutchinson said that they are both wonderful people. 

4.

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

There was no public comment.

5.

Report, discussion and possible action regarding the Naval Station Treasure Island and Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.

a.

Consideration of adoption of findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project in connection with approval and recommendation of the Hunters Point Shipyard Interagency Cooperation Agreement Phase I Development (proposed Resolution No. BIC 060-04).

b.

Consideration of approval of the Hunters Point Shipyard Interagency Cooperation Agreement and recommendation of approval of the Agreement to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors (proposed Resolution No. BIC 061-04).

c.

Consideration of adoption of Ordinance amending the Building Code to add Section 106.2.3.5 to establish special restrictions for activities on the Hunters Point Shipyard to address potential residual contamination.

d.

Consideration of adoption of Ordinance adding Section 3409 to the Building Code to create a code compliance inspection and graduated compliance plan for non-residential buildings and structures at the Naval Station Treasure Island and Hunters Point Naval Shipyard that have been leased or transferred by the Federal government to the city, the Redevelopment Agency, or the Treasure Island Development Authority.

Mr. Michael Cohen introduced himself as the Director of Base Reuse and Development for the City and County of San Francisco.  Mr. Cohen said that the redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard was an incredibly important project to the people of the Bayview Hunters Point community as well as to the City as a whole.  Mr. Cohen stated that it has been an incredibly long and complex experience that has been going on for almost fourteen years.  Mr. Cohen said his intention was to provide a brief overview for the context of the actions before the Commission and said that Elaine Warren from the City Attorney’s Office would come up and give the BIC more specifics on the agenda items.  Mr. Cohen said that he was going to focus on three key themes about where the City has been in getting to this point. 

Mr. Cohen said that the redevelopment process governing the shipyard is unquestionably the most publicly vetted development project in the history of the City and County of San Francisco.  Mr. Cohen said that a Citizen’s Advisory Committee represents a broad spectrum of community leaders, advocates and interested parties and that committee has been in place since 1991.  Mr. Cohen stated that these people are very dedicated, as their commitment has involved literally thousands of hours of public meetings.  Mr. Cohen said that from 1991 to 1997 the advisory committee worked to come up with a redevelopment plan and what should be done with the five acres, which is the Hunters Point Shipyard.  Mr. Cohen reported that in 1997, the Board of Supervisors and the Redevelopment Agency culminated a six-year community planning effort and adopted the redevelopment plan; I 1999, a primary developer was selected for the shipyard through a competitive process.  Mr. Cohen said that the developer selected was Lenar BVHP.  Mr. Cohen stated that 2001 was a very important time because there was a lot of distrust in the community about what was going to happen about the conveyance of the property from the Navy.  Mr. Cohen said that at the urging of Mayor Brown and Supervisor Maxwell there was a paradigm shift in the way the project was approached. Mr. Cohen said that after many meetings with the Navy and the community there was unanimous endorsement of the CAC for the conveyance agreement last spring.  Mr. Cohen said that he believed that these meetings changed the relationship between the community and the City on this project by building a relationship, which was then carried forward over the last couple of years on these thousands of meetings. 

Mr. Cohen said that the second key theme of this agreement is Parcel, A which is the first parcel that was transferred, and its safety for residential use.  Mr. Cohen stated that Parcel A is a hill top and a hillside that was used as Officers’ quarters and was never the site of the heavy industrial use which was the source of much of the pollution at the Shipyard.  Mr. Cohen said that the City got a tremendous assist from Senators Boxer, Senator Feinstein and Congresswoman Pelosi to move this forward.  Mr. Cohen said that through the community involvement the City secured a number of tools that helped the City as a local agency to compel the best possible cleanup and the most expeditious transfer from the Federal Government.  Mr. Cohen said that a requirement was acquired that not only the Federal EPA, but also the California EPA, which includes DSCE and the Regional Water Board concur before the Navy can transfer any land that it is safe for its intended use.  Mr. Cohen said that this was a very important tool to ensure the cleanup of Parcel A.  Mr. Cohen said that the City also received the right to do independent testing to verify the conclusions of the regulators and the Navy.  Mr. Cohen said that the City codified the legal requirements that the Navy remains liable for the property and for any environmental problems under two Federal statutes.

Mr. Cohen said that the third and final theme that he was going to hit on was that the redevelopment of the Shipyard sets a new benchmark for making sure that redevelopment is not only sensitive to the surrounding community, but that it is actually a catalyst for positive change to that community.  Mr. Cohen said that last year the Agency and Lenar entered into a legally binding agreement, which is called a Disposition and Development Agreement (DD) for the first phase of development of the Shipyard.  Mr. Cohen stated that since then he had been working with the CAC and a number of City Departments on some technical conditions to the Close of Escrow.    Mr. Cohen said that one of the most important conditions was that the Agency had to get the land from the Navy, but the Agency has since been working on things like taking a general opened space plan to a detailed open space plan, conceptual drawings to construction drawings and community benefit plans which were described programmatically into legally binding agreements, etc.  Mr. Cohen said that at the end of the day, the Phase I DDA will, he believed, provide an unparalleled set of community benefits.  Mr. Cohen said that he would hit on just a few of those.  Mr. Cohen reported that there would be a total of 1600 new residential units in the first phase, a minimum of which 32% will be affordable to better reflect the economic reality in the Bayview Hunters Point communities.  Mr. Cohen reported that there will be a first time home buyers assistance program, an annual of 450 construction jobs for a five-year period, community residents, community bases organizations and businesses in the areas of job training, hiring, contracting, including comprehensive community hiring and contracting commitments, construction assistance for local builders, leasing programs for community bases businesses, and incubator space for local startup companies.  Mr. Cohen said that the Agency heard from the community that they wanted to have some equity in the ownership of this development and that community builders have an opportunity to participate in this project.  Mr. Cohen reported that as a result, 30% of all the market rate lots are earmarked for community developers.  Mr. Cohen said that additional, another six acres has been taken out of this first phase and is being set aside for community development of community facilities.  Mr. Cohen stated that there would be guaranteed protections for an existing artists community.  Mr. Cohen referred to 35 acres of new open space and parks for the Bayview including tot lots, trails and a wonderful hill top park, all 100% paid for through the private development.  Mr. Cohen said that there would be a Mello Roos Development on the market rate lots to pay for the maintenance of the parks to keep them beautiful and functional.  Mr. Cohen said that the Agency worked with the Department of the Environment and the PUC on green building issues and said that the Agency worked with the Developer so that 60 cents of every dollar goes to, from the sale of finished lots, the Redevelopment Agency until they achieve a return on the land value of this land that the City got from the United States Navy for nothing.  Mr. Cohen stated that he believed this amount to be between $30M and $40M.  Mr. Cohen said that this was really saying to the community that the City wants the community to play a very active role in prioritizing what to do with the benefits of this project and to give the residents of the Bayview literally and opportunity to participate in the financial upside of this project.    

Mr. Cohen introduced Elaine Warren from the City Attorney’s office to walk the Commission through the specifics of the agenda items. 

President Santos thanked Mr. Cohen for his comprehensive presentation and said that the Commission was certainly excited about this project.  President Santos said that he was particularly impressed that the Navy is on the hook if there are any environmental problems.  Mr. Cohen said that the Agency had taken this a step further by getting $25M of insurance because the Navy is a good pay, but a slow pay.  President Santos asked about Parcel A and asked if there were architectural rendering and drawings.  Mr. Cohen said that there were and said that many of the key design elements have gone though the Planning Commission. 

Commissioner Hanrahan asked about affordable housing and asked what the actual numbers were.  Mr. Cohen said that probably the biggest number of affordable housing will be built by the Redevelopment Agency as was similar to what was done in Mission Bay.  Mr. Cohen stated that the developer would do all the grading and build all of the infrastructure and the Redevelopment Agency would end up with finished lots to build affordable housing on.  Mr. Cohen reported that the Redevelopment Agency tends to build at much lower affordability levels, from 20 to 60%. 

Ms. Elaine Warren of the City Attorney’s Office said that she would walk the Commission through the four items that were agendized.  Ms. Warren said that she would go through all of the items and then answer any questions.

Ms. Warren referred to the first items which was the adoption of CEQA findings which are required because this is a project for which an environmental impact report was prepared and some of the actions would further the implementation of the redevelopment plan so the Commission needed to consider the environmental documents and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. 

Ms. Warren said that the next action has to do with approving an interagency cooperation agreement.  Ms. Warren stated that this was an agreement that was similar to the one entered for Mission Bay and said that this is sort of a good government agreement.  Ms. Warren said that this agreement was to make certain that City departments are aware that the Redevelopment Agency is doing this redevelopment project and is asking City departments to cooperate with the Redevelopment Agency in getting this property developed.  Ms. Warren stated that this agreement does not preclude the City from adopting new regulations if the City decides it needs to do so, as long as it does not conflict with the development plan.  Ms. Warren said that the agreement asks that the Agency and City departments process applications with due diligence.  Ms. Warren said that the Building Department’s normal building process would apply here.  Ms. Warren stated that the agreement also asks the City to cooperate with the Developers if they need permits from other agencies outside of the City such as Federal or State agencies and makes clear that the City may recover its cost.  Ms. Warren said that once the Agency has agreement between all of the City agencies then the Redevelopment Agency will take this agreement to the Board of Supervisors for their approval.

Ms. Warren said that the next item had to do with an amendment to the Building Code and would be adding a new section to Building Code 106.2.3.5.  Ms. Warren state that this provision itself is a very small provision, but it is part of a larger ordinance and legislative scheme.  Ms. Warren said that there is a provision in the Building Code now that says that when someone wants to develop in certain areas of the City that are built near the Bay on fill they must first go to the Health Department to get approval that the soil in the area is going to handled appropriately.  Ms. Warren said that the Agency was proposing a similar program for Hunters Point and it would help to assure that certain mitigation measures that were identified in the EIR and that would be some of the mitigations measures that the BIC are being asked to adopt would be well enforced and implemented.  Ms. Warren said that this would require that when the Developer comes in for a Building Permit the Developer would have to show proof that it has gotten clearance from the Health Department.         

Ms. Warren said that the last action had to do with adding a new section to the Building Code in Section 3409.  Ms. Warren reported that this would apply to Hunters Point Shipyard, but would also apply to Treasure Island.  Ms. Cohen stated that there is now a provision in the Building Code in Section 3406 that while it is there, it has actually expired.  Ms. Cohen said it was a result of State law that allowed deferral of compliance with building permits when property was transferring out of Federal ownership; this was to give everyone a little bit of extra time to come into complete compliance with Building Codes.  Ms. Warren said that this existing provision in the Building Code allowed for a three-year deferral and after that was approved by the State it then passed another provision of State law that allowed for a longer deferral period of up to seven years for buildings that are not residential buildings.  Ms. Warren stated that there were a couple of other differentials about this provision compared to the existing one that is in the Code, for example, in addition to allowing a deferral for up to seven years, it required that there be a graduated plan that is approved by a neutral Engineer, Architect or Building Official prior to going into effect.  Ms. Warren said that this would be the responsibility of the Redevelopment Agency to assure that this happens and then five years after the graduated plan goes into effect, it would require again evaluation by a neutral Engineer, Architect or Building Official to make certain that the plan is actually being complied with.  Ms. Warren stated that it was her understand that there were two buildings at Hunters Point that would like to take advantage of this in this first phase of development.  Ms. Warren said that the other buildings have already been under lease, any of the other buildings that would remain and therefore, cannot take advantage of this and would be subject to City Code unless they can take advantage of this graduated compliance program.

Ms. Warren said that she would be happy to answer any questions.  President Santos thanked Ms. Warren for her presentation. 

President Santos said that this project as opposed to Mission Bay, which was being developed block by block, was going to be developed by encapsulating several blocks.  President Santos asked if DBI’s involvement would be to simply assist DPW in utility issues, retain wall conditions and stabilizing slopes.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that it was his understanding that DBI would have that function and said that there was some discussion about issuing permits.  Mr. Hutchison said that he thought there was an area where potentially the Developer would be applying for demolition permits.    Ms. Warren said that there were buildings that were blighted and unusable that would have to be demolished.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department would have to evaluate if the Developer needed demolition programs, but said that this probably would not be necessary because the buildings are wood frame. Mr. Hutchinson said that DBI would still have to have Inspectors go out and verify the site so that would take time on the inside and in the field.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that he thought it would be a very fast process.  Ms. Warren said that the Agency was asking for two things; one that if DBI receives applications that DBI let the Agency know because the Agency wants to approve everything to make sure it is consistent with the plan and the other is, if the Developer requests that DBI follow the One-Stop shop process, that DBI follows that. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the actual fees were going to be paid on these permits or if there was going to be a discount.  Mr. Hutchinson said that there would be no discount.  Commissioner Guinnane asked about additional staffing for DBI.  Mr. Hutchinson said that as was discussed earlier the Department would have to submit a supplemental appropriation for additional staff because current staff could not handle the extra workload.  Mr. Hutchinson said that this project would require dedicated staff and getting the appropriation for that additional staff would require cooperation from all the parties to help DBI get expedited approval to get people on board.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if DBI could get the staff would the Department consider setting up a satellite office.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department did that with Treasure Island and Mission Bay and said that this would be the best way to accommodate the Developer. 

President Santos called for public comment on item #5.

Mr. Frederick Freund introduced himself as Chair of the Code Advisory Committee and Chair of the subcommittee, which is the Administrative and General Design subcommittee.  Mr. Freund explained what took place at the Code Advisory Committee and said that both the Administrative and General Design Subcommittee and the Code Advisory Committee as a whole, unanimously recommended the approval of these two ordinances.  Mr. Freund said that he was an original member of the Hunters Point Development Corporation and said that it was a delight to see the project finally about to get going.  President Santos asked Mr. Freund about the selection of the consultants on the third party review Engineers.  Mr. Freund said that the CAC just wanted to make certain that the qualification were properly defined so that the third party individual firm has the proper qualifications. President Santos thanked Mr. Freund.             

Mr. John Scott said that he was a resident of Hunters Point and worked for a firm, BDI Construction Services Company that was based in Hunters Point.  Mr. Scott asked the Commission for approval of these issues because he said that a great deal of effort from public entities and the community had gone into overcoming mistrust as well as what might happen to benefit the people living in Hunters Point.

Mr. Olin Webb spoke in favor of this issue and said that he lived in the Bayview all of his life.  Mr. Webb said that he thought this was a solution for the community and said that Hunters Point has lived in this blight since 1951 when the Shipyard was closed.  Mr. Webb spoke about problems with environmental issues, but said that he felt that they would be cleaned up.  Mr. Webb stated that the Bayview Hunters Point community was asking the City to have faith in the community by passing this important issue that would be a benefit to the community and the City.

Mr. Jeffrey Mason said that he was born and raised in Hunters Point and said that it was important for the Commission to pass these issues because development has been a long time coming to the Bayview Hunters Point community.  Mr. Mason stated that he would like to see this benefit the young people in the community and said that he hoped that they would be able to afford some of the housing that Mr. Cohen spoke about.

Dr. Ahimsa said that she was a member of the Hunters Point Radiological Subcommittee.   Dr. Ahimsa was very concerned about the toxins at the Shipyard and the safety of the workers and residents that would eventually reside in the neighborhood.  Dr. Ahimsa stated that there were many buildings that were contaminated, along with storm drains and sewers.  Dr. Ahimsa said that the Developer was planning on breaking ground in March 2005 and this was not enough time for proper cleanup to take place.  Dr. Ahimsa referred to a building that was used, as a submarine barracks that is to be retained and said that it was full of radiation.    Dr. Ahimsa spoke about another building that housed a Vandegraft Nuclear Accelerator that was contaminated with tritium.  Dr. Ahimsa said that the Agency is talking about three buildings on Parcel A, but stated that there are many more buildings in the vicinity that are contaminated.   Dr. Ahimsa said that here main concern safety and said that she was very mistrustful of the government reports. 

Mr. Cohen said that the key to the Navy agreement was that before the Navy can transfer the property to the Redevelopment Agency or anyone else, not only the Feds, but the State regulatory agencies need to be able to conclude that Parcel A is safe for residential use.  Mr. Cohen stated that this issue of safety was discussed in great detail at the Health Commission and the Health Commission unanimously approved the Ordinance.  Mr. Cohen said that when a permit is applied for DBI would send that permit over to the Health Commission for approval.  President Santos thanked Mr. Cohen for his presentation.

Mr. Cohen said that the Redevelopment Agency was planning on breaking ground in March, but said that the bulk of the work for DBI would be for vertical development, which was many months away.  Mr. Cohen said that there were some things such as the demolition of the existing buildings that would require some immediate resources.  Mr. Cohen said that this project is an enormous part of the Administrations commitment to the southeastern section of San Francisco and said that he would be happy to help in any way possible to facilitate the process of making sure that DBI has the resources needed to do this work.  Mr. Cohen said that he suggested a friendly amendment that DBI’s commitment is based on the adequate resources to do so, which shifts the burden back to Redevelopment to make sure DBI has the resources.  Mr. Cohen said that the Agency had required this Developer to pay $3M for Phase I for City permitting and said that Redevelopment would work with DBI to make sure it has the resources to implement Phase I.  Commissioner Fillon asked if that meant that the Agency could pay for staff at DBI directly.  Mr. Cohen said that he did not know the answer to that.  Commissioner Fillon said that Redevelopment provided money to pay for staff time in the past.  Mr. Cohen stated that DBI is just one of a dozen City departments that this project is going to have to intersect with on this project.

President Santos said that he wanted to move forward with voting on the items and asked if each item should be voted on separately.  Secretary Aherne stated that there would be four separate documents to be signed so it would be best to vote on each one.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood to adopt item #5a, which was consideration of adoption of findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA for the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment project.  The motion carried with Commissioner Hanrahan being the one nay vote.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 064-004

Acting Director Hutchinson said that there were some small amendments and minor corrections that should be incorporated into the upcoming items.

After much discussion President Santos made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood to approve item #5b, the Interagency Agreement regarding Hunters Point, with the condition that the Mayor’s Office allows a supplemental to hire a total of sixteen employees to include Building, Electrical and Plumbing Inspectors, Plan Checkers and Clerks.  The motion carried with Commissioner Hanrahan being the one nay vote.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 065-004

Mr. Cohen said that he would continue to work with Assistant Director Lee to make sure that this would happen. 

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood, to approve item #5c, consideration of adoption of Ordinance amending the Building Code to add Section1106.2.3.5 to establish special restrictions for activities in the Hunters Point Shipyard to address potential contamination.  The motion carried with Commissioner Hanrahan being the one nay vote.

RESOLUTION NO. 066-004

President Santos said that the Commission would move onto Item #5d.  Deputy City Attorney Sarah Osowitz said that there were two changes that were presented to the Commission in draft form at the request of the CAC.  Ms. Osowitz stated that one relates to the use of the Uniform Building Code that was in effect at the time of original construction where the Code  that was used at the time of original construction cannot be determined.  Ms. Osowitz said that the second item added provisions stating that nothing in this relates to the State Historic Building Code.  Ms. Osowitz said that there was a third issue brought to her attention this morning regarding mention of the ICBO and said that the ICC should be included in the reference so that it would not be confusing in future years.

President Santos made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood to approve item 5d with the additional items that the City Attorney introduced.  The motion carried with Commissioner Hanrahan being the one nay vote.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 067-004

President Santos said that he wanted to thank and acknowledge the members of the Code  Advisory Committee for their hard work and contribution to the Commission and the Department of Building Inspection.

At this time the Commission took a break.

6.

Discussion and possible action to approve a fee study for DBI as requested by the Controller’s Office.  [Todd L. Rydstrom, Director of Budget and Analysis, Office of the Controller]

Acting Director Hutchinson stated that he and Assistant Director Lee had been dealing with Mr. Todd Rydstrom to discuss why the Controller felt having a fee study was an appropriate thing to do.  Mr. Hutchinson said that the Department became aware the Board of Supervisors put money into DBI’s budget in the amount of $100,000 to conduct this study.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that he felt it was important to bring this issue before the Commission.

Mr. Todd Rydstrom introduced himself as Director of Budget and Analysis with the  Controller’s Office.  Mr. Rydstrom said that one of the responsibilities of the Controller’s Office was to look at the sources of the Mayor’s budget.  Mr. Rydstrom stated that this included not only the General Fund, but also other funds whether it is the General Hospital or the Building Inspection Fund.  Mr. Rydstrom said that over the past several years in particular there has generally been a very prudent fiscal management of the Building Inspection Fund.  Mr. Rydstrom commended the Commission for that.

Mr. Rydstrom gave a presentation regarding the fee study and said that DBI had continued to spend less each year then what is received in service charges and often that money is collectedup front, but will then be spent over time because of the cyclical nature of construction.  Mr. Rydstrom stated that the Commissioners had received preaudit conclusions for the Building  Inspection Fund and referred to an $11M cumulative surplus over a ten-year period.  Mr. Rydstrom stated that the voters had passed the Rainy Day Reserve for the General Fund and now there is a fund balance policy adopted in the Charter that says that a Department has to have an accumulated surplus of not greater than 10%.  Mr. Rydstrom said that based on the Controller’s preaudit numbers DBI would have ended last year with a $12.7M surplus.  Mr. Rydstrom stated that the Department was committing in the proposed adopted budget $8.6 so there was really only a net extra of $4M.  Mr. Rydstrom said that a fee study would not only study whether the Department is adequately recover the various costs that it should, but would look at staffing and the ability to hire and staff at the level to provide adequate service levels.  Mr. Rydstrom said that a rigorous fee study would take operating performance measures into consideration and look at the Department’s backlog and turnaround times.  Mr. Rydstrom reported that the Mayor proposed and the Board of Supervisors approved in DBI’s current fiscal year budget $100,000 for a fee study to revisit not only if the fees are set right, but also if the service levels, the number of people supporting them are really adequate to make sure theDepartment is meeting its performance measures. Mr. Rydstrom said that he wanted to offer his Office’s assistance in helping define the scope of a fee study should the Commission and the Department decide to move ahead and spend that money in the budget.

Commissioner Guinnane asked whose bright idea it was to spend $100,000 of DBI’s money todo a fee study.  Mr. Rydstrom stated that the $100,000 was in the budget and it was the decision of the Board of Supervisors in their adopted budget process to provide that funding for DBI’s expenditure.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at DBI there really is no surplus because there are twenty-seven positions to fill that were awaiting approval and the last item on the calendar was tied into getting funding for sixteen more positions; the Department needs about fifty new cars.  Commissioner Guinnane said that DBI has the ability to make a lot of money for the General Fund because there is over $4 Billon in the pipeline which is probably undervalued by about 50% and if those permits are built and sold at retail there is even more money to be made.  Commission Guinnane said that along with those projects there are projects at the PUC, the Port and Hunters Point that could bring in $20M a year to the General Fund if this Department is left along and properly funding.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that there is so much politics being played in DBI that it is a disgrace and said that he did not believe that the Department needed to spend $100,000 because this Commission has been very prudent over the years.  Commissioner Guinnane said that San Francisco had the lowest fees.

Vice-President Hood said that she would totally agree with Commissioner Guinnane and said that it was not accurate to say that DBI had never studied its fees and monitored how long it took to get various permits.  Vice-President Hood stated that for the past three or four years the Department has been understaffed in certain areas and the Department was criticized roundly in the Grand Jury Report and previous audits for not having an adequate computer retrieval system and processing permits.  Vice-President Hood said that this Commission has tried to address every one of those items in its annual budgeting request to the Mayor’s Office and those items have been cut out by the Mayor.  Vice-President Hood said that she found it preposterous when the City is thinking of getting rid of health services for people with aids that it would spend $100,000 doing something like this study that does not need to be done.  Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted to go on record saying that this is totally fraudulent and outrageous.  Vice-President Hood said that one think that she believed was lacking from Mr. Rydstrom’s analysis was a concept that was advanced upon DBI by the City Attorney’s Office and that is the concept of a nexus.  Vice-President Hood said that this nexus says that DBI is not really a separate and distinct department, but part of this phantom organization called a nexus, which includes the Department of City Planning, the Health Department, the Department of Public Works, the Fire Department and any branch of the City government that is remotely connected with issuing a permit involved in building permit applications.  Vice-President Hood said she hoped Mr. Rydstrom understood that the BIC was not criticizing him, but said that the Commission knew that the law was very clear in saying that the Department could not collect money that is not spent for permit processing and the Commission is distressed at having millions and millions of dollars removed from the budget that was collected for building permit processing, but is being spent for other purposes.  Mr. Rydstrom said that he was not aware that in the past five to ten years where there have been significantly escalating increases in building valuations and construction valuations that there has been an external party come and do a fee study for DBI.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Department did not need to spend $100,000 to come up with solutions to any problems within the Department and said that he would strongly oppose any money being spent for a study.  Vice-President Hood said that she believed that the citizens of San Francisco would not want this money spent on something that is not needed in this time of financial crisis.   Mr. Rydstrom said that the $100,000 was included in the Building Inspection Fund, which is related to the fees, and that money cannot be used for discretionary spending.  Vice-President Hood said that the money needed to spent on hiring an Electrical Inspector or to improve one of the building services.  Assistant Director Lee said that it was recently brought to her attention that this $100,000 was placed in DBI’s budget by the Board of Supervisors, but was not added to the original requested $700,000 for professional services so the budget was in fact cut by this $100,000.  Vice-President Hood said that it is true everywhere in the United States that construction is the activity that drives the economic engine of our economy so when there is a delay that affects construction it does affect the General Fund.  Vice-President Hood said to spend the $100,000 on another Electrical or Plumbing Inspector the kinds of things that are holding people up or on another Plan Checker because there are serious queues that are much worse than they have been since this Commission was formed due to budget cut backs by the Mayor’s Office.  Vice-President Hood said that this is having a financial impact on the City of San Francisco and its General Fund.

Mr. Rydstrom said that it would be his function in controlling the budgetary expenditures that  this $100,000 used specifically as it was delineated for an annual fee study.  Mr. Rydstrom stated that if the Commission should choose to go for a supplemental appropriation he would be happy to work with the Commission and the Department to support that.  Mr. Rydstrom said  that going thru a third party objective analysis might help the Department.  Vice-President Hood said that DBI has a very good accounting system that has been complemented by the Mayor’s Office and other departments.  Vice-President Hood said that it would be more reasonable for the Controller’s Office to spend the $100,000 on another element in the nexus, for instance on City Planning to find out why the funds spent there do not go further.  Vice- President Hood stated that she could not in good conscious sit and authorize funds to be spent for activities that have already been done well in the Department.

Mr. Rydstrom reported that the Board of Supervisors included $50,000 in City Planning’s budget to do a fee study there and to look at their specific service levels.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the Mayor should be looking at every other department except for theBuilding Department, but for some reason he has his eyes locked into this Department and the City has gone completely chaotic.

Commissioner Fillon said that he could not see any benefit for the Department or the City to do a fee study.

President Santos asked for public comment.

Mr. Randy Shaw of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic said that he was at the first budget hearing on Thursday that Supervisor Sandoval presided over and said that he found it unbelievable that the Mayor’s Budget Office would come before the BIC looking to reduce City revenue because that is what this fee study would mean.  Mr. Shaw said that he hoped the Supervisors were watching this hearing so they could see that there is another $100,000 available to be used for things such as saving the Tom Waddell Clinic.  Mr. Shaw stated that the Department of Building Inspection helps the entire City because it helps the engine of economic development.  Mr. Shaw said that the City needs to look at ways to generated more revenue by getting the staff positions that DBI needs.  Mr. Shaw said that he did not believe that this money should be spent on a fee study.

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to echo what Randy Shaw was saying about DBI being the economic generator.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that if DBI cannot hire the people the Department needs, DBI hemorrhages and nothing happens.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he is a very frequent customer of DBI and his biggest frustration is getting permits process, which are now backlogged between four to six weeks.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that the faster the permits move, the more money that comes in. Mr. Karnilowitz expressed frustration with having temporary Inspectors and said that the Department needs to hire permanent Inspectors, as it is important to keep trained staff.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that this $100,000 was a complete waste and said that the people’s money should stay with DBI.

Mr. Francisco DeCosta said that he was the Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy and said that he thought that this deliberation was not focused.  Mr. DeCosta said that the Commission should remember that they serve the people and stated that nobody was saying that the Building Inspections Office was not doing a good job.  Mr. DeCosta said that there comes a time where either the City Controllers or through some other mechanism had to know what is the good, the bad and the ugly.  Mr. DeCosta stated that the Commission has been defending the Building Inspection Office and said that should be done by an independent body.  Mr. DeCosta said that more things need to be taken into consideration rather than just building; the Department should look at the housing element, transportation and pollution.  Mr. DeCosta said that he believed that DBI was a nexus and should state its mission as part of this nexus.

Mr. Rydstrom said that his only additional comments were that DBI was not being singled out as the Controller’s budget instruction instructed every single department to submit every single fee that they charge.  Mr. Rydstrom said that he was happy to assist DBI staff, should the Commission direct them to do this study and if they chose not to that would be the Commission’s decision.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hood not to spend $100,000 for a fee study.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 068-004

7.

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

a.

Letter dated November 23, 2004 received from Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP requesting a postponement of Appeal Hearing for 1345-1347 12^th Avenue.

b.

Memorandum dated November 19, 2004 from Acting Director Jim Hutchinson to All DBI Staff regarding Anita Lee assuming the Duties of Acting Manager of CPB.

c.

E-mails dated 11/24/2004 through 11/29/2004 between DBI staff and the City Attorney’s Office regarding 1001 Polk Street (a City property) and an order of abatement recorded against title.

d.

Letter dated November 23, 2004 from Acting Director Jim Hutchinson to Ms. Kaori  Tokunaga, Project Manager of Citizens Housing Corporation regarding her request for fee deferral/installment at 1250 Haight Street.

e.

Letter dated November 10, 2004 from Mr. John Kelly regarding DBI’s responsibilities for homeless shelters (continued from previous meeting).

f.

Letter dated November 20, 2004 from Mr. John Kelly regarding DBI’s decisions on complaints against 201 – 8^th Street and 525 – 5^th Street.

President Santos asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions on the Communication items.  Vice-President Hood asked about item e, Mr. Kelly’s letter about the homeless shelter and asked if DBI staff was responding.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that he was working with Mr. Kelly and the homeless shelters.  Mr. Hutchinson said that Mr. Kelly would probably be appearing at the next Commission hearing.  Mr. Hutchinson stated that DBI had taken over 101 actions regarding Mr. Kelly’s inquiries.

8.

Review and approval of the minutes of the August 30, 2004 meeting.

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

RESOLUTION NO.  BIC 069-004

9.

Review and approval of the minutes of the September 20, 2004 meeting.  This item was continued.

10.

Review and approval of the minutes of the October 18, 2004 meeting.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 070-004

11.

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.              

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

Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last meeting he had asked about going around the Mayor’s Office to the Board of Supervisors for approval of DBI positions and supplementals.  Acting Director Hutchinson said that it was not possible to go to the Board of Supervisors regarding the positions, but it might be allowable for the supplementals. 

Assistant Director Lee said that only departments that are run by elected officials can go to the Board of Supervisors to circumvent the Mayor’s approval on requisitions. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Acting Director Hutchinson if he knew anything about a noise ordinance regarding a high rise downtown at Spear Street and what the allowable decibels are.  Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Hutchinson to look into that as he had gotten a complaint that people can hear the bell in the garage twelve floors up.  Vice-President Hood said that this was a Health Department issue. 

The next meeting was set for December 20, 2004.  Commissioner Hanrahan said that she would be out of town. 
 

13.

Adjournment.

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

RESOLUTION BIC NO. 071-04

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,



________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary