Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting of March 18, 1998

Adopted April 1, 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 2:10 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	Armando Vasquez, Vice-President

Mona Cereghino, Commissioner	Alfonso K. Fillon, Commissioner

Sigmund A. Freeman, Commissioner	Roy Guinnane, Commissioner

Sharon Mark, Commissioner	Maria Banico, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

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.

There was no report from President Hood.

3.	Director's Report.

a.	Report and discussion on a proposed Board of Supervisors resolution sponsored by Supervisor Gavin Newsom regarding window bars and door locks. The Commission may take action to direct the Director of Building Inspection to identify or approve sources of funds, including but not limited to the Code Enforcement Rehabilitation Fund (CERF), to be used to enable low-income homeowners and tenants to install releasable bars on sleeping rooms (primarily bedrooms, but any room that is regularly used for sleeping) windows and on doors (including gated doors) in their residences.

Director Chiu said that at last week's meeting, the Board of Supervisors' Finance Committee approved a resolution proposed by Supervisor Gavin Newsom regarding window bars and door locks. The resolution urges the BIC to direct DBI to identify sources of funds to enable low-
income homeowners and tenants to install or replace window bars and door locks in sleeping rooms with mechanisms that have releasable features. Mr. Chiu said that the most logical source would be the CERF fund which provides no-interest loans to low-income homeowners. He said that Mr. Laurence Kornfield carried out a quick survey and estimated that approximately three to four thousand households will be affected by this program. The program needs about $1.3 million. There is about $385,000 in the CERF fund. The department will still have to find other fund sources. Director Chiu said that he is looking at funds generated by assessment costs. These are penalties paid by property owners who fail to comply with Notices of Violations. He believes that these two funds will be able to finance the entire program.

President Hood asked if this fund will be available only to low-income homeowners.

Director Chiu said that this fund will be available to homeowners or tenants who fall into low-
income categories set by the Mayor's Office of Housing.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, addressed the Commission and said that the CERF fund is the most appropriate source of funding for this program. There will be a series of amendments made to the Housing and the Building Codes to allow the department to retroactively require the installation of releasable window bars and door locks. He said that the program details are in the conceptual states. The program concept to date is that it may be carried out by the Housing Inspection Services Division. Affidavit forms will be sent to the homeowners and inspections will be scheduled for those who do not respond. He said that the tentative date for the code changes to be before the Commission is April 15th.

President Hood asked how the department will identify who is qualified to get this loan.

Mr. Kornfield said that there will be legislation to change the definition of the CERF fund. There is one issue that has not yet been resolved: who will administer the fund. It could be administered by the Mayor's Office of Housing.

Director Chiu said that currently the CERF fund is being administered by the Mayor's Office of Housing. He said that this office should continue to administer the fund and implement this program.

Vice-President Vasquez said that he agreed that the CERF fund should not be administered by the DBI. He could not see the department functioning as a rehabilitation or loan processing office.

President Hood said that in a typical rental situation, the tenants will be happy to comply, however, the homeowners will drag their feet.

Director Chiu said that there will be a press release informing property owners and tenants of this new legislation. He said that other cities are also doing the same thing. For example, Oakland provides a 3% interest loan to low-income homeowners.

Vice-President Vasquez asked how the Mayor's Office of Housing is responding to this program.

Director Chiu said that he understood that several meetings have been held between Supervisor Newsom's aide and staff of the Mayor's Office of Housing.

Vice-President Vasquez requested a copy of the legislation.

b.	Status report, discussion and possible action on the progress to date to define the program, operations and staff of the One Stop Permit Coordination Program.

Deputy Director Wong referred to his written report and said that significant progress has been made on the One Stop Permit Coordination Program in the last two weeks. Interviews for the staffing of the program have been concluded and appointments will be made by the end of the week or by early next week. The ground floor remodeling was completed this afternoon. The operating procedures are being printed and training sessions will be provided for the newly recruited staff. The implementation of this program will commence on April 1st. A flyer describing this pilot program has been distributed to the public.

President Hood said that there had been some resistance from other departments such as the Fire Department and the Planning Department. She asked what the status is.

Deputy Director Wong said that this matter has been resolved. These departments have been supportive ever since Director Chiu met with the respective department heads. Mr. Wong has met with the designated point person in each department. The interview panel consisted of representatives from each department. If this program is successful, it will be expanded in six months.

Director Chiu said that everybody is on board except for DPW who has expressed concerns on their ability to keep up with the program. He said that DPW wanted DBI to fund two full time plan checkers for the One Stop Permit Coordination Program. This matter will be resolved by appointing a DPW staff as one of the permit coordinators. DPW will then be able to refill the vacated position.

In response to Vice-President Vasquez's question, Deputy Director Wong corrected an error on page 1 of his report and said that the interviews were concluded this morning.

President Hood asked if the manager and the secretary have been appointed.

Deputy Director Wong said that he has been appointed as the interim manager by Director Chiu. The secretary has also been appointed.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the number of applications for the permit clerk seems low.

Deputy Director Wong said that there were 24 applications to fill four positions. Most of the applicants were in-house applicants who have had experience in the building permit process.

President Hood asked if the permit coordinators will be DBI staff or staff of other departments.

Deputy Director Wong said that the intention is for DBI to hire permit coordinators from staff of each department. They will be DBI personnel.

President Hood asked if the permit coordinator will be the primary contact with the customers and whether the permits will be issued by DBI.

Deputy Director Wong said yes. There will be five permit coordinators and four permit clerks for this pilot program.

President Hood asked if the majority of the positions will be filled by current City or DBI employees. She also asked what would happen to their current positions once they take up their new positions.

Deputy Director Wong said that for the DBI employees, the department will put out job announcements to backfill the positions. He said that the permit coordinator and permit clerk positions are permanent exempt positions. The employees have the right to retain their permanent civil service positions.

President Hood asked if the salary for the permit coordinator is higher than that of building inspector.

Deputy Director Wong said that the coordinator salary will be higher than a building inspector's salary but lower than the senior building inspector's.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, said that the One Stop Permit Coordination Program institutes parallel permit review instead of linear. She said that the linear process has a purpose. Planning decisions have to be made first. She cited the site permit process as a feature of the linear permit process. She said that mistakes will increase. An example of a permit that was issued because of parallel review is a permit that was filed in 1990. In 1997, Mr. K. K. Chiu issued the permit. Ms. Caravelli said that the permit was retrieved from Planning. Planning staff had requested that the plans be routed back to them because their review was not yet completed. However, the permit was issued even though the plans were not returned to Planning.

Deputy Director Wong agreed that the linear process has some advantages. He said that the One Stop Permit Coordination Program will not take in applications for site permits. The plans need to be complete before they are processed under this program.

President Hood said that the permit application can be filed with the One Stop Program once the site permit is issued.

Deputy Director Wong added that the One Stop Program is for quality control. There have been problems with the serial process in the past. The permit coordinator will review the comments from all department before the permit is issued.

Director Chiu said that DBI processes about 25,000 permit applications per year. This program will process about 5,000 of those permits.

President Hood said that permit coordination has worked extremely well in other cities. This is a test case and there will be a lot to learn in the process.

c.	Report, discussion and possible action regarding the reimbursement or payment of charges by Book Publishing Company for copies of the corrected 1995 San Francisco Building Code which were issued to parties who purchased the original version of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code.

Director Chiu said that the Controller's Office disapproved reimbursements directly to individuals. The department had to work out a scheme to reimburse Book Publishing Company directly. There were some delays in processing but a check has been issued recently to Book Publishing Company for $36,000. He apologized for the delay and said that an announcement will be printed in the next DBI newsletter.

Vice-President Vasquez inquired about those individuals who bought code books but are not subscribers.

Director Chiu said that they could exchange their old code books for the corrected version at the department.

President Hood said that there should also be an announcement in the department's web site.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, contractor, thanked the Commission for looking into this matter. He said that this was a bigger issue than getting the refund. He said that the Commission should also be concerned about the amount of time that reimbursement has taken even after the Commission gave clear directions to the department. He said that the other codes will be published soon. There should be a plan in place that if these codes are reissued, they should not be at the subscriber's expense.

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, Citizen Review, said that in the BIC's review of proposed legislation, there seems to be a presumption that the original authors of the current legislation made mistakes and there is a compulsion to change existing legislation. She said the Commission should think about previous laws and how these pieces of legislation fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. She also urged the Commission to have some deference to the original authors of legislation.

5.	Public Hearing on a draft administrative bulletin on Dimensional Tolerances for New and Existing Construction (AB.21.98) proposed by the Department of Building Inspection. Pursuant to the BIC Rules, DBI staff will circulate the draft and to solicit and incorporate comments after which a revised draft will be presented to the Building Inspection Commission for adoption.

Deputy Director Wong presented the draft administrative bulletin and thanked the Disability Access Advisory Committee, Mr. Laurence Kornfield and Ms. Carla Johnson for their assistance in preparing this first draft.

President Hood commended the department for the draft bulletin and said that this document is not plowing new grounds. The proposed standards have already been approved at the national level.

Mr. Kornfield thanked his staff at the Technical Services Division for their work on this bulletin. He said that the draft proposes reasonable levels of deviation from the code dimensional standards. The state is in the process of adopting legislation to give cities the authority to adopt dimensional tolerances. San Francisco, with this bulletin, is at the front of this movement and the state is looking at this endeavor as a model.

Commissioner Fillon referred to the distribution list and said that department staff should make sure that the organizations have reviewed the proposal. He said that there is a need to make sure that everybody has been involved.

President Hood asked what formula was used to calculate accumulated tolerances.

Mr. Kornfield said that the square of all the components were added and the square root of the sum was proposed for the overall tolerance.

President Hood said that the document needs to explain this formula.

Mr. Kornfield said that staff will continue to review the language and content of the bulletin during the public comment period. He said that a diagram may also be added to illustrate the proposal.

President Hood applauded the efforts of the department and said that this document is very important.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, contractor, said that he had attended 1 or 2 meetings of the DAAC on this bulletin. The distribution list is, by and large, composed of large-property owners and contractors. He said that the department should make sure that the rest of the disabled community reviews this document. Their representation is sorely missing in the process of preparing this draft.

Deputy Director Wong acknowledged Mr. Bonacker's comments. He said that the draft bulletin has been sent to the Access Appeals Commission's mailing list which has more than a hundred names.

President Hood suggested that there be a clarification that the bulletin was sent to the parties on the mailing list of the Access Appeals Commission and other bodies.

Ms. Grayce Reagan, Independent Resource Center, offered her assistance in identifying disabled access organizations. She said that many members of the disabled community are afraid to come forward or are not adept at understanding plans and policies.

President Hood directed department staff to work with Ms. Reagan and suggested that she be provided a copy of the mailing lists used for distribution of this bulletin.

6.	Report, discussion and possible action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approved two proposed ordinances listed below:

a.	Ordinance moving the requirements for the Central Permit Bureau from the Public Works Code Section 1 to the San Francisco Building Code Chapter 1, Section 106.1 through 106.1.3.

A letter from Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, was distributed to the Commission, incorporated herewith as Attachment A.

Deputy City Attorney Dick reported that the Department of Public Works was working on streamlining their code. As a result, this ordinance which is found in Section 1 of the Public Works Code is being transferred to the Building Code as part of the clean-up. She said that the proposed ordinance is verbatim from the language in the Public Works Code except that it brings the language current on charter changes such as those required under Proposition G. She said that the section properly belongs to the Building Code.

President Hood asked if the term "Central Permit Bureau" is still being used.

Director Chiu said that the term is being used to connote the division that takes-in and collects permit fees.

Commissioner Freeman reported on the Code Advisory Committee proceedings at the meeting this morning and said that the CAC was requesting additional time to review the proposed ordinance. He said that the Committee received input from members of the public that the listing of permits in the draft legislation is not complete. He said that there was also some discussion on whether the ordinance should be in Section 103 or Section 106 of the Building Code.

Commissioner Cereghino referred to the ordinance on hazardous materials and asked if this ordinance is duplicated in any other city codes such as the public health codes.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that the issuance of building permits has always been in the Department of Public Works Code until the Bureau of Building Inspection became an independent department. The permitting function is not found in other city codes.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if other department have reviewed the proposal.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that such a review was not necessary. The building permit codes are all in one place and are not duplicated in other codes. In the particular case of building permits, the city's codes are all in one place, the Building Code.

Commissioner Mark asked if there is a standard used for collecting fees and if such standard includes the use of credit cards.

Director Chiu said that a recent ordinance allowed the use of credit cards to pay for permit fees. The department is currently working on this new procedure.

President Hood said that the ordinance grants the authority to review and set permit fee changes to the Controller on page 6, paragraph 2. She said that in the past, the Commission reviewed this matter. She asked how the Controller and the Commission would fit into the process. She also asked if fees are adopted only be ordinance.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that fees can only be set by ordinance. This ordinance does not take away from the BIC authority granted by the Charter. The Controller could make recommendations to the BIC. This would be duplicative.

President Hood said that ordinance needed to be clear on the BIC's review authority.

Vice-President Vasquez agreed with President Hood. He also concurred with Commissioner Cereghino's earlier comments on reviews by other departments and interested parties. He said that other modifications may be needed to make this ordinance fit better with other codes.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that the Commission could postpone the decision on this ordinance if they so desire. She said that she or the Commission Secretary could report to the Board of Supervisors that the Commission is not ready to act on this ordinance.

Vice-President Vasquez said that recently the BIC adopted a policy on the CAC's participation in the legislative review process.

Commissioner Freeman said that this item will be brought back to the CAC at their next meeting.

President Hood said that the ordinance seemed to be boiler plate and that she could not see what was controversial about it.

Commissioner Freeman said that the CAC had concerns on the appropriate place for the provisions in the Building Code. There was also a question on whether the list of permits processed by the Central Permit Bureau was an exhaustive listing. He said that a closer look at the ordinance may yield further questions.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that Deputy City Attorney Boyajian, Mr. Vit Troyan from DPW and she had reviewed the ordinance.

President Hood asked Ms. Dick if there would be a problem if the BIC decision was delayed.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that there could be a problem.

Vice-President Vasquez asked if the BIC could wait for comments from the CAC.

Ms. Dick said that the CAC could have a special meeting.

President Hood asked Ms. Dick if there would be problems if the BIC decision was delayed for about a month.

Commissioner Freeman added that there are enough questions to justify the delay.

President Hood agreed to postpone any action on the proposed ordinance.

Ms. Caravelli said that the ordinance referred to another section of the Building Code. The number of the section being referred to was in error. She said that she was glad that the BIC was delaying the decision. She reminded the BIC members that the Commission is the responsible party in making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. She said that the public cannot continue to give this amount of time to provide advise to the BIC. The Commission needs to check what staff forwards to them. She referred to page 2 of her letter for example of errors in the proposed document.

Commissioner Cereghino asked how some permits were dropped out of the proposed legislation.

Ms. Caravelli referred to page 5, line 22 of the draft ordinance and said that the cross reference numbering was wrong.

Deputy City Attorney Dick did not agree and said that Article 1 of the Public Works Codes consists of Sections 1 and 2.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker said that the Public Works Code is solely a local code. The Building Code builds upon the Uniform Building Code and the California Building Code through the San Francisco amendments. The CAC is concerned what umbrella the proposed language should be under. He said that there was no urgency to adoption of this code. He urged the BIC to give it more time. If the public supports the BIC action, there is more credibility.

b.	Ordinance moving the regulations regarding hazardous wastes on private property from the Public Works Code, Article 20 to the San Francisco Building Code by adding a new Chapter 37.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that the proposed ordinance moves the language verbatim from Article 20 of the Public Works Code with the change of deleting Section 1010.

President Hood asked if the provisions on hazardous wastes are covered by CEQA.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that CEQA is applied only when environmental review is required. She said that these provisions have been in the code since the mid 80's.

President Hood asked why there was no reference to the Controller on page 12 regarding fees, unlike the previous agenda item.

Ms. Dick said that page 12 pertained to permit review fees, not permit fees.

President Hood requested more information on the difference.

Vice-President Vasquez asked for input from DPW on the permit review fees. Are these fees still adequate?

President Hood said that the Commission should solicit input from DPW as a matter of courtesy. She asked if the "site permit" on page 23 has the same meaning as the site permit being issued by the department.

Ms. Dick said that the two terms have the same meaning.

President Hood said that the language would be clearer if the words were in upper case.

Ms. Dick agreed.

President Hood asked why Site Permits were exempted from the provisions of the subject provisions.

Director Chiu explained the Site Permit process and said that this is conceptual review only. He said that DBI's role in this process is limited. If the excavation is greater than or equal to fifty cubic yards, DBI will put the plans on hold and direct the applicant to go to the Health Department.

Vice-President Vasquez asked why "Director" was defined as Director of Public Works and there was no corresponding definition for the DBI Director.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that DBI Director is defined in the definition section of the Building Code. This provision will be part of the Building Code.

Commissioner Freeman said that the CAC would like to have the opportunity to review and comment in more detail on this proposed ordinance.

Vice-President Vasquez asked if there was a map on the known locations of hazardous materials.

Director Chiu said that DBI will prepare a map of the known sites.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, said that there was an error in the title of the proposed ordinance. She said that the title indicated that only Section 1010 would be deleted. The text of the ordinance showed that Section 1009 was also being deleted as shown on page 13. This deletion should also be noted in the title. She said that she has not had the time to review this ordinance in detail and had just skimmed over the draft during this meeting. In the process, she had found errors.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that Section 1009 is inapplicable in its face, therefore the deletion does not have to be noted in the title.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, contractor, said that DBI does not have staff who have the expertise to deal with hazardous materials. There will be a cost to DBI to implement the provisions of this ordinance. He raised the issue that there may be liability being transferred from DPW which should be reviewed by DBI. He also asked where the permit fees go to and whether there is a need to review the fees. Mr. Bonacker encouraged the BIC to postpone any action on this ordinance until additional review has been carried out.

7.	Report and discussion on the proposed ordinance promulgating the scope of and procedures for appeals to the Building Inspection Commission pursuant to Section 3.750-4 of the City Charter. The Commission may take action to constitute a BIC Committee to review the proposed ordinance and make recommendations to the full Commission.

Commissioner Cereghino said that at the previous meeting, she had suggested that this item be calendared and that the Commission form a subcommittee to review the appellate powers ordinance. She said that she had received the latest draft of the ordinance but did not receive it in time to allow her a chance to review the document. She said that the Commission should form a subcommittee at this meeting and postpone further discussions on the draft until the committee has had adequate time to provide a recommendation.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that this draft had been submitted to the Commission Secretary in January.

Commission Secretary Banico concurred and said that she did not forward the draft to the Commission until the matter was agendized.

Ms. Dick added that she was waiting for input from Director Chiu on the response of the Directors of DPW and the Water Department.

Ms. Banico said that was also the reason that she withheld the draft because further changes were anticipated. She had hoped to wait for a final cut on the document before forwarding the draft to the Commission.

Director Chiu said that he was still waiting for input from the other departments.

Commissioner Cereghino said that there should be a reasonable time line for getting input from other departments.

President Hood inquired from the members of the Commission on their interest in being part of a subcommittee on the BIC's appellate powers.

Vice-President Vasquez said that he wanted to echo the concerns raised in the past. The draft should address how determinations are made. There was also some question on whether the draft ordinance limited the BIC's powers granted under Proposition G. He also suggested that there be some review on what should be in the ordinance and what provisions should be adopted as Commission rules.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that in the past, the Commission expressed concerns on the billing from the City Attorney's Offices. She said that she has been very mindful of DBI's expenditures for legal services. In this light, she said that she will not be attending the meetings of the committee. The committee can bring back a revised draft to the Commission for review. She will review any recommendations at that time.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if there were any notice requirements for meetings.

President Hood said that notice is required for meetings of BIC committees. She did not know if the requirements applied when there was only one Commissioner who then does not constitute a committee.

Deputy City Attorney Dick said that the noticing could be in the form of an announcement of a public meeting by Commissioner Cereghino regarding the BIC's appellate powers.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she will bring back recommendations by the next BIC meeting.

President Hood said that Commissioner Cereghino should feel free to contact Deputy City Attorney Dick if needed.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield inquired if this matter is appropriate for CAC review and said that it could be agendized for the April 15th CAC meeting.

President Hood said that the matter could be postponed for a month. Commissioner Cereghino may want to bring back specific aspects or questions to the BIC before the whole draft is recalendared.

8.	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.

There was no discussion under this item.

9.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of March 4, 1998.

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to adopt the minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of March 4, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed with 6 ayes. (President Hood abstained.) [Resolution No. BIC-029.98]

10.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of April 1, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

There was no discussion under this item.

11.	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.

12.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Vice-President Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.

The motion passed by unanimous vote. [Resolution No. BIC-030.98]

________________________________

MARIA BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã