Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by President Murphy.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS:

Mel Murphy, President
Reuben Hechanova, Vice-President
Kevin Clinch, Commissioner
Frank Lee, Commissioner
Robin Levitt, Commissioner
Criss Romero, Commissioner (until noon) 
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I.REPRESENTATIVES:

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

Sonya Harris, Secretary

Rosemary Bosque, Chief Housing Inspector, said that she wanted to commend Ms. Chung Hagen for coming today and giving the Commissioners all of the information which eloquently frames what the legislation is about.  Ms. Bosque stated that she wanted to commend Supervisors Campos, Daly and Chu for their assistance, and said that the BIC has already heard about the economics of the Department and providing services with respect to code enforcement for one or two family dwellings has not been directly collected from those property owners.  Ms. Bosque said that all of that burden has been put on the apartment and hotel owners of the City, and as was indicated this particular legislation was thoroughly vetted at the Housing Committee meeting and the Code Advisory Committee which happened a couple of weeks ago.  Ms. Bosque stated that when the large Code Advisory Committee came together, the response they got from that group of rather varied individuals that represented both property owners, architects, engineers, lawyers, and everybody that could potentially be thought of, their reaction was the Department was asking too little.  Ms. Bosque said that $52 is half of $104 which is the minimum hourly rate for HIS’ current administrative charge that is basically an hour of clerical time. Ms. Bosque said that this amount came from the fee study that occurred back in 2008 which is a nominal amount that basically gets the database together to start implementing the fee.  Ms. Bosque stated that one of the concerns is that the fee is only for one or two-family dwellings, but there have been some misunderstandings and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute originally came out against this legislation, but they have withdrawn that in writing.  Ms. Bosque said the ordinance is only complaint driven and it does not create any process for the one and two-family dwellings that HIS is not already doing, meaning HIS is not doing routine inspections on these buildings but it is complaint driven. 

Secretary Aherne said that she wanted to let Ms. Bosque know that she received another communication this morning from the Small Business people, and that they have reversed their support.

Ms. Bosque stated that the fee study which looked at the 2006 and 2007 figures showed that for the services that Housing Inspection Services provides one or two family dwellings, which involves going out to the property, doing an investigation, writing notices, doing education, outreach, everything that is addressed in code enforcement and not only for housing inspection but the Director also wants to include the fact that this is for other divisions that provide a service to these units as well. Ms. Bosque said that for housing it is $2,038,000 that DBI is not collecting on an annual basis. Ms. Bosque stated that the problem is that these complaints are very labor and management intensive and can take anywhere from 10 to 40 hours to deal with the type of situation since staff are dealing with life safety issues, mold and mildew, lead, illegal units, occupancies, garbage, utility shutoffs, destruction, dilapidated stairs, overcrowding, heat and hot water, and abandoned vacant buildings. Ms. Bosque showed a slide that indicated a plethora of serious violations, and said that the question that DBI was asked is how much money would be collected with this particular proposed fee because staff has to go slowly in the City as there is no current rental registry, and the Department is working with the Controller and the Assessor's Office to come up with one.  HIS is also looking at the database that already exists for the Rent Board and figure it would be approximately $1M per year up to maybe $2.5 million in subsequent years, so this particular legislation really is very important to help get a cost recovery for services that are already being provided.

Commissioner Walker said that some of the Commissioners asked if this affects smaller buildings as well as the larger buildings, and if the Department was able to capture the fees and penalties attached to code enforcement efforts.  Commissioner Walker stated if DBI issues a Notice of Violation, generally DBI is able to recover the costs of that violation, and what is being discussed are administrative fees such as those that are charged with hotel conversion costs.

Ms. Bosque said that this is the same service HIS is providing except they do not do the systematic enforcement, and as staff gets to the issue of taking the complaints in and doing an investigation; hopefully HIS gets a quick abatement with or without an order.  Ms. Bosque stated that right now HIS does not have the ability to assess its costs. Ms. Bosque said if it is a property owner that is not responding staff has to prolong enforcement by sending it to the owner’s  address or referring the case to a City Attorney, and at that point DBI captures the assessment of costs. Ms. Bosque said that this is why the Director is saying that the Department is looking at administrative hearings and citations that would begin earlier in the process.

Commissioner Walker asked what DBI charges for larger buildings and Ms. Bosque said that apartment buildings with three units or more pay about $200 to $300, but DBI is proposing that be changed because it is totally under-recovering as far as HIS’ initial costs.

Vice-President Hechanova asked what was the inventory of one and two unit buildings versus three and up in the City. Ms. Bosque stated that there are approximately 346,000 households in the City and approximately 21,000 that are apartment buildings, about 500 residential hotels with 7,000 to 8,000 guest rooms.  Ms. Bosque said that it is estimated that there are 60,000 to 66,000 one and two family dwellings, and some of them are owner-occupied so the fee does not apply to those units; it applies on to rental units.  Ms. Bosque stated that there are a lot of complaints of illegal units with one and two-family dwellings that take a tremendous amount of time to deal with.  Ms. Bosque said that HIS has to deal with neighbors, trying to get in the unit, sending letters, inspection, research and processing paperwork so a lot of time and resources are expended before getting to an administrative hearing or having an order of abatement issued.  Ms. Bosque stated that this is one of the reasons this cost recovery ordinance is so important for the Department to be able to close the gap on its current financial shortages given the fact that DBI is an enterprise department.  Ms. Bosque reiterated that the money from this ordinance will be used for other code enforcement efforts elsewhere in the Department, and could be used for building inspectors, etc.  Commissioner Walker asked if a person lives in one unit and their immediate family lives in another if it was still owner occupied.  Ms. Bosque said that according to Chapter 37 if it is not defined as a rental unit then it would be owner occupied and the fee would not apply.

Commissioner Romero said that for people who are sending in e-mails and letters protesting this ordinance what do they think is a fair charge, and are they offering some type of alternative to the $52 or do they not want to pay anything.  Ms. Bosque stated that they did not have a problem with the fee but their concern was that the ordinance was going to require routine inspections of their building which was misinformation.  Ms. Bosque said that the other question was how would the Department identify the renters, and this is something that is being worked on with the Controller and the Assessor to identify those particular properties.  Ms. Bosque stated that at the Code Advisory Committee meeting people were saying $52 was not enough, but DBI wanted to start slow and be conservative.

Vice-President Hechanova asked if there was public outreach or some category of notifying people before coming up with this ordinance, and Ms. Bosque said yes this legislation was vetted and a number of people attended the CAC, Housing Sub-Committee meeting so the message got out to the public. 

Commissioner Walker stated that this legislation was a good response by the BOS, and said she thought that the BIC should be responsible by supporting it and moving it forward.  Commissioner Walker said that this fee is paying for services that the Department already provides, but DBI can no longer cover these costs.

Commissioner Lee said that DBI has 200 to 300 complaints a year from one and two-unit buildings and there are 60,000 units, so by virtue that is about 59,500 or so, and asked if there is  any way to recover the costs from some of the violators.

Ms. Bosque stated that the benefit to people that do not have any violations on their property is that they can still call DBI to request inspections for other properties that have Code violations, such as peeling paint, clutter, lead issues, and so on.  Ms. Bosque said that these issues could lead to graffiti, crime, and other issues in the community and by DBI staff responding it helps stabilize the buildings, community, and property values.  Ms. Bosque stated that everyone can benefit from the whole enforcement program where the minimum standards have been established through the San Francisco Housing Code, State law, and Federal mandate. Ms. Bosque said not every apartment house or residential hotel has violations but they all pay a fee for inspection services, and the program covers everything so everybody splits the costs.

Commissioner Clinch asked if the costs or the $2.4M shortfall could be recovered by landlords that have violations, and Ms. Bosque stated that they are, but it takes time and requires protracted code enforcement.  Commissioner Clinch inquired about how these services were paid for in the past, and Ms. Bosque said that in previous years DBI had a surplus and funds were able to be used from other divisions but now that is no longer the case.

Ms. Bosque stated that Ms. Chung Hagen mentioned the fact this $52 fee is half of the hourly rate for clerical staff, not an inspector which is $170 an hour with all costs loaded so from that standpoint HIS is not even asking for half an inspector’s hour but half a clerical hour which is paying for the data base.  Ms. Bosque stated that the $2.5M will not be captured the first year, but the Department hopes to get $1M and everyone will benefit from the program because it keeps the neighborhoods in better shape and prevents blighted property.  Ms. Bosque said that this program is currently an unfunded mandate, and HIS has to do the work related to it either way, and there is also legislation coming soon pertaining to vacant and abandoned buildings, which take a tremendous amount of time to deal with.  Ms. Bosque mentioned that there is a lot of interest in neighborhoods to not have vacant property due to the current housing market.

The following items were addressed during the Commissioners discussion of the ordinance:

·         This proposed $52 fee will raise rents because some of the units are not rent controlled and will give landlords the excuse to raise rents.

·         The fees for funding the program should be recouped from the violators.

·         DBI has taken action to make sure that all of the services that the Department provides pay for themselves, and this is a small step towards doing that.

·         $52 and at the most $104 a year is a nominal fee to make sure that buildings are safe and habitable.

·         What created the surplus that DBI had was the value of property in San Francisco, and it had nothing to do with the fee structure but DBI no longer has a surplus.

·         The Department of Building Inspection and other departments are in a lot of trouble, and this fee is one way to help keep the department open.

·         DBI has a $2.4M shortfall but should not have others pay for it.

Vice-President Hechanova called for public comment.

Ms. Antoinetta Statelman said that she lives in a hotel called Baldwin House on 6th Street, which is one of the 500 SRO’s that Ms. Bosque referred to.  Ms. Statelman stated that these buildings were almost all built in the decade after the 1906 earthquake, so they all have certain problems regardless of whether they are well managed or poorly managed; they are 100-year-old buildings so there are continual problems one way or the other.  Ms. Statelman said that a lot of the issues are real life safety concerns which is basic health and not cosmetic, nor is it something about respect or “feel good” stuff but solid physical life safety issues.  Ms. Statelman stated that the economy is going down and basic stuff needs to be kept going, so she would definitely encourage the implementation of this legislation that has been proposed to keep basic and fundamental things going.  Ms. Statelman said though some things will have to cut, that fundamental inspections of buildings is just a core need that no one wants to lose.

Jocelyn stated that she was a counselor at the Chinatown Community Development Center, and supports the license fee proposed by Supervisor Campos.  Jocelyn said that being a part of code enforcement, DBI is crucial to their work as they see lots of buildings in terrible shape because landlords are not willing to repair and maintain them.  Jocelyn stated that they work together to create safe housing conditions for low income San Franciscans, and renters so DBI has been very helpful in addressing these problems directly and communicating with landlords efficiently. Jocelyn said that the Department is charging a fee that is very reasonable, responsible, and fair so she mentioned in response to Commissioner Lee’s and other Commissioner’s concerns about imposing more fees on the violators that there is already a system for that.  Jocelyn stated that the $52 is just a fee to maintain the minimal standard for the City, so she thinks in a time like this when DBI is looking for ways to maintain services that everyone has to pay a cost.  Jocelyn said that most of the people such as landlords, small businesses, small property owners, and tenants all think it is affordable, and do not see why the fee should not be imposed.  Jocelyn stated that she hopes the BIC passes this legislation based on the public’s opinion and Rosemary’s presentation. 

Maria said that she works with St. Peter’s Housing Committee, and they are also present to speak in support of this minor change that would have a huge community benefit.  Maria stated that this legislation can mitigate some of the impacts of the current economic crisis, because it is exacerbating a lot of the housing crisis in the City currently.  Maria said the services of housing inspectors are crucial and St. Peter’s sees thousands of tenants every year, the majority of who are Latino immigrants that almost all live in housing that has serious habitability issues.  Maria stated that she is not talking about complaints like someone does not like the color on the wall of their apartment, but serious pest infestations, leaks, no heat, etc. and tenants have requested these repairs for years and the landlord does not respond.  Maria said that St. Peter’s has written letters to the landlord and has had some success, but once the housing inspectors call and there is even the threat of inspection or a notice of violation, the majority of these repairs (the habitability issues) are abated.  Maria stated that they try to resolve some of the problems before they even go to a hearing or before the City actually has to take on more costs to hold the hearing.  Maria said that this is a way to get some of the cost on the front end instead of waiting or relying on landlords to not fix the problem for years, while having tenants continue to live with no heat until there is a hearing where a decision is made or penalties are collected, versus getting the fees upfront.  Maria stated that regarding the concern about rent increases that two-unit dwellings are covered under rent control so there is a regulatory mechanism, and in terms of one-unit buildings the rents have been inflated mostly because of the speculative market and massive eviction or vacancies.   

Mr. Jeff Buckley, Director of City SRO Collaborative, said that they are furnished by the Department of Building Inspection to do the initial abatement issues for habitability concerns within SRO hotels on 6^th Street, South of Market, and in the Tenderloin area.  Mr. Buckley stated that it would be a bureaucratic mistake to not shore up an unfunded mandate, and said he wanted to put into perspective what the human cost would be if the fee is not applied to apartment owners.  Mr. Buckley said that there would be what they consistently see every winter, that there are some SRO hotels where owners do not heat their buildings, and they only do so because the City SRO Collaborative gets involved and the only true “teeth” they have after trying to abate the concerns is to call in the housing inspectors.  Mr. Buckley stated that if the number of housing inspectors is reduced, which could be the potential fallback of not raising the fee, the burden would basically be spread around the entire San Francisco area, and this could lead to having the same issues that occur in the Tenderloin, 6^th Street, and South of Market occurring in the Sunset or Richmond districts.  Mr. Buckley said that service is reduced for everyone if the number of housing inspectors is reduced, and some concerns that may not get resolved are: broken windows that do not get fixed, lack of heat, bed bugs, rotten floor boards, rats, etc.  Mr. Buckley stated that they see these things in SRO hotels daily, but said that he is concerned that DBI will start to hear about them outside of the hotels, because of the reduction in services that not collecting this fee would provide.

Vice-President Hechanova asked how many units are in the buildings that Mr. Buckley typically oversees.  Mr. Buckley said that within the buildings there are anywhere from 40 to 320 in the larger SRO hotels.  Vice-President Hechanova asked how many individual units within the buildings and Mr. Buckley replied about 20 to 25 at the lowest; predominantly it is 40 to 150, and the higher end is 320 units in one building.

Mr. Joseph M. Jackson said that he lives at 516 O’Farrell Street which is the Coast Hotel.  Mr. Jackson stated that he has lived there for 21 years and is a tenant’s representative for the building closely affiliated with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and Jeff Buckley. Mr. Jackson said that in the course of his duties as a tenant’s representative he has been in most of the rooms in the hotel, and this hotel is unbelievably badly maintained. Mr. Jackson stated that the personnel on duty are incompetent and what scares him is it turns out it is very easy to remove four screws and the circuit breakers can be removed from the enclosure, then you can wire around individual circuit breakers. Mr. Jackson said this hotel, like so many residential  hotels, is absurdly under wired and  the owners are not going to pay to get things wired properly but thank God they have sprinklers.  Mr. Jackson stated that if there is an electrical fire the sprinklers cannot deal with it so he hopes the Fire Department gets there in time, and one example is one of his fellow tenants had three or four items in his room that he wanted to deal with and it took him about eight phone calls to get a building inspector out.  Mr. Jackson said that the tenant’s paperwork was lost twice, but he was persistent so once the inspector finally arrived the inspector was horrified by what he saw so he wrote up the entire room, 10 or 12 violations, and he wanted to write up the whole building but he did not have time. Mr. Jackson stated that the radiator is held in place with a chain to the window sill that involves a steam line and there are many other problems so they need as many inspectors as possible, and they see health and fire inspectors but almost never a building inspector.

Miguel said that he works with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and Code Enforcement Outreach Program, and what they do is try to help tenants navigate the process of filing a complaint. Miguel stated that he primarily works with Latino families and people who live in substandard conditions in their buildings, so he is here to support this fee of $52 which he thinks is the minimum that can be charged for the services that have been provided by DBI.  Miguel said that  if DBI does not charge this fee the cost would  be tremendous for the dense  population, especially in the  Tenderloin, and THC cannot  afford to have lack of services with these  neighborhoods.  Miguel stated that if there is an elevator that is not working and there are elderly or disabled people that cannot use it, and if there are no inspectors the work would not get done. Miguel said that the inspector works with both the tenants and the landlords. Miguel stated that inspectors educate landlords and all of the tenants so it is really important that  to keep that line of communication open.

Mr. Tommy Mecca, Director of counseling programs at the Housing Rights Committee, said that he is a counselor and can assure the BIC of the importance of having an adequate number of inspectors when there is a client with an emergency. Mr. Mecca stated that working with an inspector to put pressure on a landlord is essential to getting that emergency abated, and cutting inspectors makes no sense whatsoever given that there is no shortage on any given day of violations in the City of San Francisco.   Mr. Mecca said that it is vital to have as many inspectors as possible to make sure that tenants live in the kind of housing that measure up to the Housing Code standards in San Francisco and the State and Federal codes.  Mr. Mecca stated that not having an adequate number of inspectors means longer waiting time for tenants to wait for somebody to come and inspect and issue an N.O.V., a longer waiting time for a re-inspection, and longer follow-up waiting time. Mr. Mecca said that all of this is a problem especially when you consider situations that are dire such as a tenant living with severe mold or some other horrible violation. Mr. Mecca said that there are situations that put tenants at risk and working with an inspector helps to abate them a lot quicker.  Mr. Mecca stated that he believes the majority of single family dwellings in San Francisco are under rent control because a lot of them have illegal units or have been divided or are being rented out as boarding houses. Mr. Mecca said please do not put tenants in danger in San Francisco or allow them to have to wait unreasonable amounts of time for services because inspectors have been cut.

Mr. Steve Mungovan stated that he is a San Francisco Housing Inspector and the Vice-President representing Local 21. Mr. Mungovan said that passage of this legislation will allow Housing Inspection Services to continue to enforce minimum maintenance standards for all residential buildings, protect property values and stabilize neighborhoods. Mr. Mungovan stated that recovering the cost of ongoing complaint driven housing code enforcement to one and two family dwellings is crucial to the continuation of these vital services. Mr. Mungovan said that after much discussion and vetting the Code Advisory Committee has endorsed this legislation, and he would like to encourage the BIC in recommending this ordinance to the Board of Supervisors for further action.

Mr. Mel Murphy, speaking as a resident of San Francisco, said that he thought small business owners were supported by the Board and needed by the City. Mr. Murphy stated that small property owners are just that, small business owners, and said that he strongly objects to the new tax as he chooses to call it because DBI cannot spend its way out of this one.  Mr. Murphy said that $52 is a drop in the bucket to what is really needed and with all due respect to all of the people that came and sat for two or three hours to talk about this, he hopes that the Commission votes this down. Mr. Murphy stated that the comments were very responsible and property owners in San Francisco that own buildings Downtown, in the Sunset, and the Mission pay into the treasury $2 billion every year. Mr. Murphy said that he did not  know  what the percentage was for the  single family and two unit  buildings but it is probably  close to half of that, so there is guaranteed $2  billion to run this city every year which is less than the very small  percentage that renege on paying  their property taxes. Mr. Murphy stated for someone to say that people in San Francisco do not pay enough taxes is not true and said that he does not mind paying the taxes if it has been handled responsibly.

Commissioner Levitt said that he has listened very carefully but has so many thoughts about this because he really understands what everyone has been saying, and he has been in a lot of those buildings while campaigning in district six. Commissioner Levitt said that he has lived in district six and has seen the conditions of the SROs and was appalled so there is no question that DBI needs to keep up with the inspection services. Commissioner Levitt stated that the Department is having a hard time doing that now because there is not any money, and even though it is always good to get somebody else to pay for something that you do not want to pay for he was not sure that it is fair to ask one and two-unit apartment owners to pay for inspection services in the hotels that were just talked about.  Commissioner Levitt said that Ms. Bosque mentioned the $52 fee is not going to pay for the inspections but it is going to go for administrative costs of doing a database and so on, so it is not going to help with some of the issues that were discussed. Commissioner Levitt stated that the violators should be paying their fair share for these inspection services, so when there are violations the owners of the hotels should be paying for these inspection services. Commissioner Levitt said that the fee is $52 or $104 yet he owns a four-unit building so every year he pays fees, and this is sort of the last straw on the camel's back. Commissioner Levitt stated on the other hand, a lot of property owners are getting a really good break since Proposition 13 is in effect in California, and when he compares his property taxes with those from Michigan for example, they are much higher in Michigan than they are in California.  Commissioner Levitt said that he should be willing to pay some of the fees, and it is in the best interest of everyone in San Francisco to do these inspections. Commissioner Levitt stated that this is an essential service and all property owners should be paying for it, not just people that have rental units. Commissioner Levitt said that he was probably going to support the legislation but he would like to see in the long term some legislation where everybody shares in the cost. Commissioner Levitt stated that Housing Inspection and Building Inspection services are important functions that everyone needs to pay for but he would like to see a limit on this fee. Commissioner Levitt said that DBI is in an emergency situation and maybe if the fee is imposed for five years to help the Department get through this but meantime some long-term solutions should be found to pay for these essential services.

Commissioner Walker said that she appreciates the public comments on this and the issues that Commissioner Levitt brought up. Commissioner Walker stated that the Housing Division is underfunded in general and they already charge residential hotel fees which some of that mandate also remains unfunded, so hopefully this can be resolved. Commissioner Walker said this fee is specifically for one and two-unit services that DBI provides but are currently not funded so the owners of these buildings do not pay for the services.  Commissioner Walker stated this fee basically just gets the recovery of those costs, and if DBI does not fund services that are provided all services in the Department are going to be cut in various divisions.  Commissioner Walker said that in the past the budget has covered this cost and as much as she appreciates people’s concerns DBI can no longer afford to cover the costs of these building owners, and the Department cannot ask the other public members to fund this cost for them. Commissioner Walker stated that the Department is asking that they cover the cost of renting out units. Commissioner Walker said that DBI may want to look at inspection costs across the board but said that this is an added extra burden and added extra benefit that flows to rental units so part of doing business is covering some inspection services, which is a fair since residential hotels and apartment houses pay as well.  Commissioner Walker said that she does not think of this as a tax, but a fee for services which will actually help DBI cover the Housing Division costs so the other divisions are not unfairly burdened. Commissioner Walker stated that the discussion is about DBI’s financial situation, and the Commission has been asking staff to come up with solutions, and this is a huge solution that is a no-brainer. Commissioner Walker said she believes the only reason  people are not supporting this legislation  is due to undue influence from the Mayor's Office, so people on the Commission need to be responsible for serving the public.

Commissioner Romero said that part of the concern he has is when people say this is just another fee, and realistically services from this Department have to be paid for somehow.  Commissioner Romero stated that he was on the Commission when there were discussions about raising fees and it never happened, nothing happened year after year so DBI is in a bad situation right now. Commissioner Romero said that he keeps going to that because nobody is offering another solution and he represents a lot of people in San Francisco, so when they say positions are being cut, the second question he asks is what would help the situation. Commissioner Romero stated that there has to be some type of solution to help the situation and this is the one that is before the BIC, not a different one so this is what the Commission has to vote on. Commissioner Romero said that the problem is when you vote against something that is a solution, basically the revenue goes away and the Commission had the same debate last year, about whether or not  to pass a  deficit budget and he voted against that. Commissioner Romero stated that he got a lot of criticism from other Commissioners because they thought he was doing it for political reasons but the real reason he voted against it is because there was a Director that wanted the BIC to  pass a deficit budget so he said absolutely not, since it  was going to create a  disaster for the Department. Commissioner Romero said the BIC did not pass the deficit budget and went forward with a budget where the Department of Building Inspection had to pass a budget that they were going to be able to pay for, but unfortunately the market collapsed, the housing has gone down, and the revenue has gone down which is why people are thinking of ways to raise revenue.   Commissioner Romero stated that he pays an extra $200 a year on a partial tax that was passed to support the schools and he happily does it, and he mentioned if he had to pay the $52 fee he would pay it also. Commissioner Romero said that the problem is people do not  want to pay for services and everyone has to get to a point where there is a very real view of  what it costs to run this City.  Commissioner Romero stated that he thinks what the Department is having to deal with are real solutions to problems that were there all along yet have never really been looked at and that is the main reason why he is supporting this ordinance.

Commissioner Lee said that he thinks San Franciscans are very generous and open to taxing themselves to pay for services, and they pass bond measures all the time and he has supported many of them but he has problems with this proposal because he was surprised at the number of units that are actually problematic: 300 out of a possible 48,000 or 50,000. Commissioner Lee stated that he feels very uncomfortable to impose a fee on to the other 99.5% of the units that are in compliance, and if the percentage is so small the costs should be recouped from the violators.

The Commissioners voted as follows: 

Vice-President Hechanova      No                   
Commissioner Levitt                Yes

Commissioner Clinch               No                   
Commissioner Romero            Yes

Commissioner Lee                   No                   
Commissioner Walker              Yes

The motion did not carry due to a tie vote.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 029-09

Secretary Aherne said that this legislation will be forwarded to the  Board of Supervisors.

Chief Housing Inspector Rosemary Bosque stated that she did not have much to say with respect to this legislation except that it did go to the Code Advisory Committee and they had a recommendation of disapproval.  Ms. Bosque said that staff called Supervisor Daly's office to invite them to the CAC meeting so they could provide some additional discussion and information about the legislation, but this particular section has to do with strengthening language that allows an individual a private right of action for property owners determining to rent to less individuals than is allowed by the formulas in Chapter five of the Housing Code.

Director Day said that the Code Advisory Committee’s concern was that the word “affordable” was being added to the Housing Code, because the State Housing Code does not use the word affordable. Director Day stated that it also mentions adding the word “room” after a sentence in the Code which seems small, but it does make a big difference in the language of the Code and changes the perspective in regards to housing and the number of occupants that can be in a unit.   Director Day said that the Code Advisory Committee recommended that this legislation be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with recommendation for disapproval.

Commissioner Lee made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to move the legislation forward to the Board of Supervisors for disapproval.  Secretary Aherne called a roll call vote.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

President Murphy                    Yes
Vice-President Hechanova      Yes
Commissioner Clinch               Yes
Commissioner Lee                   Yes
Commissioner Levitt                Yes
Commissioner Walker             No

Commissioner Romero left the meeting before the vote was taken.

The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 030-09

Secretary Aherne stated that items 7, 8, and 9 are going to be taken together, and Director Day will summarize them for clarification.  Director Day said that items numbers 7, 8, and 9 are actually trying to amend certain sections of the existing San Francisco Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes to bring up the conditions for permit expirations and application extensions to be consistent across the Codes.  Director Day stated that DBI is proposing to have the requirement or not have the requirement to give the Director ability to extend permits beyond the normal time in the Code as written now upon approval and upon meeting all current Codes in effect from other departments at the time of the permit extension if it is an issued permit.  Director Day said if it is a permit application, DBI would still have to go back to the other departments for re-approval to make sure it would meet all of the current conditions under the approval process, and part of the other cleanup legislation they are doing is to take the wording out of some of the requirements that plans can be submitted on paper or cloth.  Director Day stated that DBI cannot accept cloth plans anymore and have not for many years so it is just some cleanup legislation, and DBI is also proposing to add the technology surcharge for the maintenance of the Permit Tracking System.  Director Day said that this would be for either the current system or a proposed system as it is an ongoing technology fee and it would be based on the permit costs for all the departments that the Department of Building Inspection recovers from, and DBI is also actually putting in the Code the state required mandate fee to collect the state fee that is imposed on all permits to fund the Building Standards Commission portion of the Green Building Code.  Director Day stated that it is also going to be put into a special fund that would be reimbursable to the field inspectors and the plan checkers for training on the Codes.  Director Day said this would reduce DBI’s general obligation from the special fund from our enterprise fund for training and the budget has been reduced for next year based on the proposed fee.  Director Day said if there is any specific Code section that the Commissioners want explained, she would be glad to do so.

There was an extensive question and answer session between the Commissioners and Director Day, and following are some highlights of the discussion:

·         Does DBI anticipate that the extended period of time for the permit is going to cost more in services?  No, it would cost the applicant since there is a fee for extending a permit or an application.

·         There are some administration costs, routing costs if it is an issued permit and it has to be routed back to the approving departments to make sure codes are still in effect, current zoning, etc.

·         Will the cost of fees be evaluated individually?  No, the fees are in the fee schedule but whether the extension will be granted will be evaluated individually based on the current codes in effect at the time the extension is requested, especially zoning and planning codes.   

·         Is there any significant change from what staff already has technically & how much more training is required to meet the green building standards?  DBI currently has a green building code in effect and staff is currently being trained on it.

·         Will there be any additional training costs?  No, this also funds the training for inspector’s mandated state training.

·         Can you explain the technology surcharge?  Currently budget funds are set aside for the purchase & implementation of the Permit Tracking System.  This technology surcharge is to fund the portion for ongoing maintenance costs of the PTS.

·         There will be a 2% surcharge for permit fees from all departments due to the fact this Permit Tracking System will be citywide:  Dept. of Public Works, Planning, Building Inspection, Fire Dept., etc.

·         Since DBI is the main holder of the PTS, they are responsible for all of the maintenance & upgrading costs for the whole system.

·         If there is a $20,000 remodel and somebody builds a $6 million building is the cost of tracking those permits about the same? The larger building would be more expensive since it would be tracked over a longer period of time (possibly several years going through the PTS).

·         Why are drawings not accepted on cloth?  DBI is required by the state and city to keep records, microfilm, or digital images of the plans, and it is impossible to digitize cloth.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova to approve the proposed technical changes in items 7, 8, and 9.  The motion carried unanimously. 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 031-09

Director Day stated that this administrative bulletin defines what a soft-story building is for the voluntary seismic retrofit program.  Director Day stated that the legislation will be reintroduced and the reason that the Department did not go forward last time is there was not a specific definition for soft-story.  Director Day said that this legislation has been through the CAC and a lot of agencies so it has been forwarded for the Building Inspection Commission’s approval before issuance.

Commissioner Lee said that he has a question regarding the definition, and he would like to ask for clarification under definitions on page 2 C.c. because it says “has a ground floor first story level in which a, b, c, d, and it's the c, at least 50% of the floor area of the ground floor is used for occupancy, classification”.  Commissioner Lee asked if this means one big space or cumulative spaces.  Director Day stated that it is 50% of the entire ground floor, so someone could have a business that might be in 50% of the building and the other half of the of the ground floor is used for parking or it could be 75% commercial.

Commissioner Lee asked what happens if you have 10 stores, essentially there are ten little boxes underneath, so would that still be defined as a soft-story.  Director Day said yes, because it is at least 50%, and over 50% of the ground floor would be used for retail which are typically just partition walls depending on the occupancy and the type of construction; they would not be occupancy separation walls or actual load-bearing walls.

Commissioner Walker stated that this was discussed at the CAPSS Program meeting and said that she thought that the definition of a soft-story wood frame would then be followed up with inspection and someone such as a seismic engineer or a structural engineer would determine whether it needs strengthening or not.

Vice President Hechanova asked if Director Day could define the difference between S2 and the parking garages.  Director Day stated that private garages are usually 1,000 square feet or less and used for private use while parking garages are usually for commercial use.  Director Day said they are similar to the City public garages for public use rather than privately owned garages.    

Commissioner Levitt asked if there is a classification for storage, because there could be a big area that is just used for storage, such as an open area for storage, a large crawlspace, or just dead space.  Director Day said that it would have to meet the qualifications of a floor and a crawlspace meets that qualification.  Director Day stated that she can see that Commissioner Levitt is looking for like an S occupancy period, just a storage area, that would meet the qualifications of a floor and said that was not addressed that she knows of.

The discussion on agenda item 10 continued further so following are some of the points that were addressed:

·         If it was warehouse space it would be under a different occupancy but if it is clear storage space for a private apartment building or something that is not parking currently, that meets the definition of a floor, it could be a soft-story.

·         Laundry rooms are considered occupancies.

·         On C.D. where the building is determined by engineering analysis, is there a category where at times just a visual inspection would trigger the current determination that it does  meet the current code that would then trigger the next sort of sighting or violation? Answer: An engineering analysis of the building is required, even a visual inspection sometimes could tell you that it is, but not to what extent it is and what extent it might have to be retrofitted to meet minimum standards under the Soft-Story program.

·         This is a voluntary program and the Department does not want to make the determination of whether it is a soft-story or not, that is left up to the property owner to be decided by the engineering analysis.

·         Part of the incentives for the program are: There will be some fee waivers for plan check but not inspections from the different departments, and there is talk about maybe repurposing the seismic bonds for this issue and making loans more favorable for property owners in the future.

·         The only thing that DBI can offer right now would be the fee waivers, and possibly address that any incentives be retroactive to the people who do enter this program.

·         Director Day thinks it was proposed in the legislation that if customers enter the program voluntarily that they would be free from any further enforcement action for a period of five code cycles which is about 15 years.

·         Are there any Planning or zoning categories that might bring about some inconsistencies, or is there some category that requires a planning review? Answer: If the upgrades would include any exterior modifications, it would have to go before planning review.

Commissioner Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to approve the bulletin as written, with the amendment about the storage space. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 031-09

Director Day said that the Department will try to rewrite this and get it back to the Commissioners and make sure it is exactly what DBI and the Commission wants before it is forwarded to the BOS. 

Chief Housing Inspector, Rosemary Bosque stated that she was before the Commission at the December 17^th regular meeting to speak about what inspections HIS had done with respect to this ordinance.  Ms. Bosque said that this ordinance was passed by the Board of Supervisors asking property owners that had wooden ladders that were nailed to the sides of buildings to remove them, and if needed to replace them.  Ms. Bosque stated that the owners would need to do so with a permit and the replacement would be a metal structure.  Ms. Bosque stated that at the time she last was before the BIC there were 41 Notices of Violation issued and staff continued to look for the ladders on each inspection they went on; since then HIS has written 20 additional Notices of Violation and of the 61 notices that were issued, 44 have been abated, 33 since December of last year.  Ms. Bosque said that the Department is finding with the amount of outreach that HIS has done as a division that a lot of these ladders are being taken down voluntarily. Ms. Bosque said that in February of this year she went to the San Francisco Apartment Association’s general monthly meeting where there were 500 people in attendance.  Ms. Bosque stated that she gave a PowerPoint presentation about the ordinance and what had to be done to be in compliance and said that staff has continued to do that type of outreach to various agencies; as a result more wooden ladders are being taken down voluntarily.  Ms. Bosque said if HIS has to write a Notice of Violation, it does require a building permit to remove the wooden ladder or to replace it.  Ms. Bosque stated that staff will continue to look for the ladders when inspections of apartment buildings and one or two-family dwellings are done.

President Murphy asked if most of the inspections were done by Housing Inspection Services so far, and Director Day replied yes they were.  President Murphy asked if building inspectors have been told on routine inspections to write an NOV and Director Day said yes they are, but she does not currently have the stats on just single-family dwellings or commercial properties that also have wooden ladders.

Ms. Bosque stated that DBI has also sent our informational fliers to other City agencies so when their inspectors are in the field and see this issue, they can make a referral to the Department so it can be addressed.

Vice-President Hechanova asked if there was a higher priority of 10-unit buildings because there seems to be more residents that could potentially have a problem.  Director Day said generally if it is a 10-unit building staff will not have this situation because the buildings have elevators that go to the roof or the penthouse.  Director Day stated that wooden ladders are usually seen in a one or two-family dwelling or a three or four-unit building that is two or three stories in nature but not in the larger buildings.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Levitt, to approve the minutes of February 4, 2009.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. 032-09

Commissioner Levitt said that he was responding to the inspector's comments earlier during public comment and maybe sometime soon the BIC can hear from Director Day about the supposed inequities in the layoffs, housing versus field inspection staff.  Director Day stated that she would be glad to provide that information at the next meeting.

Vice-President Hechanova said that similarly with Commissioner Levitt's comments, he was concerned about the inequitable percentage of those candidates that are unfortunately being identified.  Vice-President Hechanova asked if the building inspectors have more of a multitasking ability than the housing inspectors.

 Director Day stated that the housing inspectors are inspecting the Housing Code which encompasses the other Codes due to the nature of the violations, leaky pipes, and things like that.

Director Day said that the construction inspectors are considered the craft inspectors and are geared towards a certain Code, and the building inspectors enforce the Building Code, two large volumes.  Director Day stated that the plumbing and mechanical inspectors inspect the Plumbing Code, and the electrical inspectors have a large volume of Code to inspect and are also first responders in the case of an emergency as is all the Department staff . Director Day said that City workers are the first responders on the scene, the building inspectors are required to be out in the field inspecting buildings which is an initial duty, and all inspectors have inspection duties, but construction inspectors have the role of inspecting a building from the foundation up.  Director Day stated that construction inspectors are responsible for every single nut and bolt that goes into a building and making sure it is constructed according to the plans to meet minimum life safety.  Director Day said that housing inspectors go out on issues that are in existing buildings that are already built, so the difference is housing inspectors are using existing housing stock, and construction inspectors and code enforcement inspectors go out on commercial buildings and buildings that are under construction, being altered or repaired or something of that nature.  Director Day stated that all inspectors have similar duties and are all out in the field so she cannot say that one unit is more valuable than the other unit.  Ms. Day stated that the construction inspectors are working for industry and the housing inspectors are working for homeowners that are building things.  Director Day said that the housing inspectors mainly deal with landlords and tenants on rental properties even though they do single family residences based on ordinances that are in the Housing Code.  Director Day stated that every code is unique and inspectors have to be  specialized in their Code so building inspectors do not necessarily know the Housing Code and housing inspectors have a little bit of knowledge about the Building, Electrical and Plumbing Codes because it is all intermingled in existing properties.  Director Day said that they are all specialized towards what kind of code enforcement they do on their specific discipline.  Director Day stated that you cannot say that a building inspector and a housing inspector are interchangeable, because they are different in this City and they are even in different unions.

Commissioner Lee asked if there was an earthquake tomorrow morning, who would Director Day be in the most need of.

Commissioner Walker said that the Commissioners are talking about something that is not on the agenda.

Director Day stated that she would send out the building inspectors and the plan check engineers to go out in the field, and some of the housing inspectors are certified disaster workers and can go in the field because they are cross-trained for disaster working. Director Day said that she could not just say it would be building inspectors, because whoever is certified to go into the field for disaster working can go in the field so basically, the Department has cross-trained some of the housing inspectors to do that.

Commissioner Walker said that as a reminder the Commission wanted to ask the Department of Real Estate or whoever is charging DBI rent to come and explain how the Department is paying rent on a building we own.

Secretary Aherne stated that President Murphy asked her to look at changing the date of the June 17^th meeting and said she also understood from the Director that there is some legislation that may need to be addressed so there may be a special meeting at the beginning of June in order to get those items to the BOS before July 1^st.

Director Day said that there are some proposed vacant building ordinances that have been sent to the CAC and the Department would like to get them addressed with the budget presentation to the Board of Supervisors in June. Director Day stated that however, some of the legislation is lagging behind so that is not a concern right now. Director Day said that DBI had proposed to increase some of its existing or proposed revenue by these amounts so it would be to DBI’s benefit to finish in early June.

Some Commissioners said that they would be available in the beginning of June and others would not be available. Secretary Aherne stated that she reserved a few rooms but the best time would be Friday, June 12^th and this date worked for some Commissioners but would not work for Commissioner Walker. Commissioner Walker asked if there were other Commissioners that could not make the regular meeting that was schedule on June 17^th and President Murphy said that he could not make the 17^th.  Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to keep the regularly scheduled meeting date.

President Murphy said that the Commissioners should try some more dates but right now it looks like the meeting would be held some time during the week of the 8th.

Secretary Aherne stated that she was going to send the Commissioners an e-mail to check everyone’s availability.