Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting of January 21, 1998

Adopted February 4, 1998

War Memorial Building, Room 428

401 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 2:50 p.m. by President Hood after the Abatement Appeals Board meeting.

1.	ROLL CALL - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT:

Bobbie Sue Hood, President	Mona Cereghino, Commissioner

Alfonso K. Fillon, Commissioner	Sigmund A. Freeman, Commissioner

Sharon Mark, Commissioner	Armando Vasquez, Commissioner

Maria Banico, Commission Secretary

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Roy Guinnane, Commissioner	(excused absence)

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

James Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Permit Services

William Wong, Deputy Director for Inspection Services

Carla Johnson, Assistant to the Director

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE:

Ilene Dick, Deputy City Attorney

2.	President's Report.

a.	Introduction of new members of the Building Inspection Commission, Commissioner Alfonso K. Fillon (General Public Seat) and Commissioner Sharon Mark (Residential Landlord Seat), who were appointed and sworn into office by Board of Supervisors President Barbara Kaufman on January 15, 1998.

President Hood introduced and welcomed new members of the Building Inspection Commission, Commissioner Fillon for the General Public Seat and Commissioner Mark for the Residential Landlord Seat.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, welcomed the new Commissioners and said that she is happy to see new members in this Commission.

3.	Director's Report.

Director Chiu welcomed Commissioner Fillon and Commissioner Mark and said that he looks forward to working closely with them.

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

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that a new house on Burnside Avenue, south side of Bosworth Street, has its back sitting on air as a result of a recent landslide. There are many areas in the city that are prone to landslides and new buildings have been allowed to be built. She urged the Commissioners to inspect the site.

Ms. Caravelli also suggested that the Commission ask the appellants of the two cases to be heard at this meeting, how they learned about their appeal rights. She said that there are no provisions in the proposed legislation on the BIC Appellate Powers to inform the public of their rights to appeal.

President Hood urged Ms. Caravelli to give the exact address of the new house on Burnside Avenue to the department for further investigation.

Deputy Director Wong said that Ms. Caravelli has already given him the address.

5.	Discussion of alternatives and possible action to form a committee and hold orientation meetings with the recently appointed members of the Building Inspection Commission.

President Hood said that under the Brown Act, a Commissioner may meet with two other Commissioners provided there is no discussion on any agenda item. She said that she would like to meet with the new Commissioners to discuss matters that are important to this Commission and to find out their interests. She asked Commissioner Cereghino if she would like to have an informal meeting.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if the meeting can be held together with all three new Commissioners.

President Hood said that only three Commissioners can meet at one time.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that there will be a presentation on the Brown Act, the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance at the BIC's second meeting in February. She said that the Commission could form a subcommittee or the department could hold orientation meetings with the department staff.

President Hood said that the department staff can provide orientation meetings. She will meet with the new Commissioners after the presentation from the City Attorney's Office is held in February.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that she prefers that the orientation session be held by a sub-committee under public meeting laws so that the public could give their input.

6.	APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION D3.750-4 OF THE CITY CHARTER:

Appeal of Mr. Randolph E. George regarding the administrative determination by the Director of the Department of Building Inspection issued on November 26, 1997 that Building Code Section 106.2 does not apply to the installation of the hot tub and its utility connections on property located at 361 Lombard Street, San Francisco, CA.

a.	Report, discussion and possible action regarding the Building Inspection Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to Section D3.750-4 of the City Charter over this appeal.

b.	Presentation by parties, including witnesses.

c.	Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

President Hood said that it appeared that Mr. George has left and decided not to attend the Building Inspection Commission meeting since this matter was acted on at the AAB meeting earlier. She asked what is the appropriate action of the Commission under this circumstance.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that it does not mean that Mr. George has withdrawn his appeal.

Commission Secretary Banico read Section 7.04 of the BIC Rules Resolution Policies and Procedures which states that the appellant must appear at the hearing in person or by representative. Failure to appear will be deemed an abandonment of the appeal.

President Hood said that since the Mr. George or his representative was not present, the Commission assumed that he has abandoned his appeal.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that Mr. George might not be clear about the BIC procedures. It was very confusing. She suggested writing a letter to Mr. George explaining what happened.

President Hood said that a letter will be sent to Mr. George.

7.	APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION D3.750-4 OF THE CITY CHARTER:

Appeal of Mr. Reed Super, on behalf of the Twin Peaks Improvement Association (TPIA), regarding the administrative determination by Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson of the Department of Building Inspection issued on December 3, 1997 regarding building permit application numbers 9708664 and 9718925. In his letter, Mr. Hutchinson confirmed that Sutro Tower is an essential facility under Section 1625 and Table 16-K, Item 1 of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code. The appellant states that the determination failed to require a full dynamic analysis of Sutro Tower.

a.	Presentation of arguments by parties.

Mr. Reed Super, appellant, addressed the Commission and said that this hearing is only on the BIC's jurisdiction over this appeal.

President Hood and Deputy City Attorney Dick concurred.

Mr. Super said that there are two decisions being appealed: whether a dynamic analysis as opposed to a static analysis should be used to assess the seismic safety of the tower, and whether the owner of the tower has complied with requirements of the essential facility criteria defined in the 1995 San Francisco Building Code. Mr. Super said that in preparing the Environmental Impact Report for the additional beam for the tower, the Planning Department asked DBI to give its recommendations. DBI staff responded that they could not ask for anything more than what is required by the code. He said that the BIC could direct the department to require a dynamic analysis to assess the seismic safety of the tower.

Mr. Super said he is appealing Deputy Director Hutchinson's letter dated December 3, 1997 which did not answer the question on a dynamic analysis requested by the Twin Peaks Improvement Association. He was also appealing Mr. Hutchinson's letter dated December 18, 1997 (issued after the appeal was filed) to the Planning Department which says that the owner complies with the essential facility criteria. He said that under the Administrative Code, all city departments including the Department of Building Inspection are required to provide consultation and information to the Department of City Planning as part of the environmental review process.

Commissioner Freeman asked for the justifications for requiring a full dynamic analysis and the definition of a "full dynamic analysis." He also requested the speaker to clarify if the appeal is to meet code requirements or to impose requirements beyond what is required by the code.

Mr. Super said that static analysis uses applied pressure to the building and dynamic analysis measures effects of shaking. He said that the appellants are requesting that the dynamic analysis use higher standards or at levels beyond what is required by the code.

President Hood asked when the appeal was filed.

Mr. Super said that it was filed on December 18, 1997.

Deputy City Attorney Dick clarified that on December 18, 1997, Mr. Super appealed Mr. Hutchinson's letter dated December 3, 1997. He is now asking to include Mr. Hutchinson's letter dated December 18, 1997 as part of this appeal.

President Hood asked if the Commission can accept this request.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that the question to ask is if this letter will assist the Commission in interpreting the December 3rd letter.

Mr. Robert McCarthy, attorney representing Sutro Tower, Inc., addressed the Commission and said that Mr. Super was trying to appeal whether or not Sutro Tower meets the criteria as an essential facility. Through his letter dated December 18, 1997, Deputy Director Hutchinson determined that Sutro Tower meets the essential facility criteria as defined in San Francisco Building Code. It did not require that a full dynamic analysis be conducted. The appellant did not appeal and it is now too late for Mr. Super to appeal the determination that Sutro Tower meets the essential facility criteria.

Mr. McCarthy said that Mr. Super referred to Mr. Passmore's inquiry regarding the seismic safety of the tower. Mr. Passmore, of the Planning Department, never raised the issue of a full dynamic analysis. The reason why Mr. Super was unable to identify the section of the code which requires a full dynamic analysis is because there is no such code section.

Mr. McCarthy said that Permit Application No. 9708664 was for the seismic upgrade of the tower. A full discretionary review hearing was before the Planning Commission on this permit in June 1997. There was no request then that a full dynamic analysis be attached to this permit. The permit was issued in August 1997. No appeal was received and 80% of the work has been completed. In November 1997, the appellants attempted to get the Board of Appeals to take jurisdiction over this permit. The appeal was withdrawn on the day of the scheduled public hearing on the Board of Appeals' jurisdiction. Mr. McCarthy said that this seismic retrofit permit is now a vested permit. The Commission and the Department cannot impose a full dynamic analysis on this permit at this stage.

Mr. McCarthy said that the question before the Commission now is whether the Commission can impose a dynamic analysis on the second permit which is now being reviewed. He said that the tower weighs 3.7 million pounds. The beam which will be attached to the tower weighs less than 1% of the structure's total weight. The department is correct in its determination that it does not have the authority to require a dynamic analysis.

Mr. Reed Super said that Mr. Passmore requested that DBI review the seismic safety of the tower based on Llyod S. Cluff's letter addressed to Hilary E. Gitelman, Environmental Review Office of the Planning Department. He said that he is not appealing a vested permit, he is appealing the second permit and raising the question on whether the tower is strong enough to hold the proposed beam. He said that the first permit was mentioned because Deputy Director Hutchinson wrote both permit applications in his letter. He said that he is not questioning whether Sutro Tower is an essential facility. The question is whether the owner has complied with all the essential facility criteria.

Commissioner Freeman asked if this appeal is concerning the second permit only and if the appellants' concern is that the additional load to the tower will make it an unsafe structure. He asked if the appellants are trying to open the door to go back.

Mr. Super said that this appeal is on the second permit only. He said that from the environmental review perspective, if something was added to a structure that was unsafe to begin with, cumulative problems can occur. The tower is not safe to begin with.

Commissioner Freeman asked whether any building in San Francisco which was built in 1920's, 1930's or 1940's, will have to go through a full seismic upgrade for additions of less than 1%.

Mr. McCarthy said that the appellant has had many opportunities to appeal the permits and is now trying to bootstrap back. He said that a structural analysis has been conducted according to code. Structural analysis is a scientific document made by a structural engineer, not a legal document. The analysis was reviewed by the department to determine whether the structure meets the code. He repeated Commissioner Freeman's comment on whether a building which was built in the 1920's needs to go through full seismic upgrade for additions of less than 1%. This structure was seismically upgraded this summer. He said that his client has a statutory deadline of November 1998 to install DTV antennas or his client will lose his right to broadcast.

President Hood asked department staff what kind of structural review has been conducted on the second permit for the installation of the digital TV antennas.

Mr. Yan Yan Chew, Structural Engineer for the Plan Check Division, said that the review is based on the current building code which is limited to lateral forces.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the design which was submitted to the department exceeded the minimum code standard.

President Hood asked if the second permit was filed by a licensed California structural engineer.

Mr. McCarthy said yes.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the department's letter did not have any comments on dynamic analysis, however, it addressed the question that the Planning Department asked. He reiterated Commissioner Freeman's concern that this appeal is asking for something beyond what is required by the code.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he did respond to the Planning Department question and reviewed the application carefully.

Mr. K.K. Chiu, Structural Engineer for Plan Check Division, said that the seismic upgrade done on this structure exceeded what is required by the City. It can safely carry the additional load according to the current building code.

b.	Deliberation and possible decision by the BIC on whether the appeal is within the BIC's jurisdiction.

President Hood said that the Commission should not take jurisdiction because the structural issues on the original permit such as proper codes, the margin of safety, etc. were never brought to the Commission. The permit was duly issued and the work is almost completed. She has to assume that the first permit was issued properly. The second permit was brought to the Commission which does not change the first permit. She said that although the Commission has the power to impose additional criteria, she suggested that the Commission not take jurisdiction on this appeal because the department is adequately dealing with the second permit and has followed appropriate procedures in reviewing it.

Commissioner Freeman agreed.

Commissioner Vasquez concurred. He said that the first permit is a vested permit. The second permit does not require a full dynamic analysis.

Commissioner Cereghino concurred that the department acted properly in this case.

Commissioner Freeman moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, that the Commission not take jurisdiction over this appeal.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-008.98]

8.	COMMITTEE REPORT:

Consideration of the proposed DBI budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99:

a.	Report from the Budget and Organization Committee on the deliberations at the January 15, 1997 Committee meeting regarding the proposed DBI budget for Fiscal Year

1998-99.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the Budget and Organization Committee met twice last week. He thanked the department for putting the budget proposal together in a timely manner and Commissioner Cereghino for diving in quickly. The budget proposal reflects some of the BIC goals and objectives. The budget reflects the department's response to permit activities, major/special projects, Disable Access, multimedia, code development, and legislation on lead and exterior based paint practices.

b.	Public hearing and possible action on the proposed DBI budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99. Pursuant to Charter Section D3.750-6, the Commission will hold the first of two public hearings on the adoption of a budget to be recommended to the Mayor.

Director Chiu thanked Ms. Paulette Hooey, Ms. Carla Johnson, Deputy Director Hutchinson and Deputy Director Wong for their efforts in developing the budget request. He also thanked Commissioner Vasquez and Commissioner Cereghino for their continuing support in assisting staff in finalizing the budget request. He said that the projected revenue for the next fiscal year is $24.5 million with about 10-12% increase in workload. During the Committee Meeting yesterday, the number of staff requested had been trimmed down to 24. He referred to the Draft Budget Summary distributed prior to the meeting and said that the major increase in the budget are in the City Attorney's billing, the rent for 1650 Mission Street and additional staff. He said that he feels comfortable with this request.

Commissioner Mark said that with the staff increase, it seems that the overtime is still too high.

Director Chiu said that some overtime is unavoidable for inspections during off-hours, response to emergency situations, etc. He said that the overtime amount for this year is less than last year's actual expenditure.

President Hood thanked Commissioner Vasquez and Commissioner Cereghino for their work in the budget process.

Commissioner Vasquez said that most the work was done by the staff.

President Hood asked if the $770,000.00 settlement awarded to the department recently will show in the budget.

Director Chiu said that the amount is not shown in the budget. The department will receive a check from the City Attorney's Office when the fines are paid and the costs incurred will be offset from this amount.

Commissioner Cereghino said that Director Chiu indicated during the Budget Committee Meeting that there is a surplus budget of about ten million dollars. She would like to see a report with proposed projects for the use of these funds.

President Hood agreed with Commissioner Cereghino. She said that a portion of the fund is for prepaid services rather than surplus.

Director Chiu concurred.

Commissioner Fillon said that there is a construction boom and the department is planning to streamline the permit process. He asked if the department has enough staff to meet the increase in workload.

Director Chiu said that he feels comfortable with the workload if the Mayor's Office approves the additional staff requested in the budget.

President Hood said that she agrees with Commissioner Cereghino's suggestion that the department look for new opportunities.

Director Chiu said that he plans to use the reserved funds for the expansion of the building.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the department is budgeting new staff for major projects. However, the revenue generated from these projects is not included in the revenue projections.

Ms. Carla Johnson said that the revenue from major projects was not included and the revenue projections were kept conservative.

President Hood said that when staff presents the budget to the Mayor's Office, it is important to stress the increase in payment to the City Attorney's Office because of the increase in number of cases referred to them, on ADA compliance and Housing Code violations. She said that staff should state that the department has actually become more efficient in legal costs. Staff should also mention the $770,000 judgment awarded recently.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the Budget & Organizational Committee's next meeting will be scheduled for next week.

9.	Commissioner Inquiries and Review of Communication Items: At this time, the Commission may make inquiries to staff regarding the status of various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the Commission and may discuss communication items received since the last Commission meeting.

Commissioner Vasquez referred to the letter sent by Triangle Engineering with regards to the 1995 SF Building Code.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the letter has been referred to Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield for further investigation. He said that he will report back to the Commission on the outcome.

Commission Secretary Banico referred to the Annual Statements of Economic Interests Form 700 distributed to the Commissioners and said that this form should be filed by April 1, 1998. The newly sworn Commissioners have to file this form within 30 days of their swearing-in date.

10.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of January 7, 1998.

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to adopt the minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of January 7, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed by 4 ayes. (Commissioner Fillon and Commissioner Mark abstained) [Resolution No. BIC-009.98]

11.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the BIC and the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) of January 7, 1998.

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to adopt the minutes of the Joint Meeting of the BIC and the Code Advisory Committee of January 7, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed by 4 ayes. (Commissioner Fillon and Commissioner Mark abstained) [Resolution No. BIC-010.98]

12.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of February 4, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

There was no discussion under this agenda item.

13.	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 testimony received at this point in the proceedings.

14. Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, the meeting adjourned at 4:27 p.m.

The motion passed by unanimous vote. [Resolution No. BIC-011.98]

________________________________

MARIA BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã