Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting of April 15, 1998

Adopted May 6, 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 1:12 p.m. by Commissioner Freeman. Commissioner Freeman chaired the meeting until the arrival of President Hood. President Hood arrived at 2:10 p.m.

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

Roy Guinnane, Commissioner	Maria Banico, Commission Secretary

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Armando Vasquez, Vice-President - excused absence

Sharon Mark, Commissioner - excused absence

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Permit Services

William Wong, Deputy Director for Inspection Services

2.	President's Report.

a.	Announcement of a joint meeting of the Building Inspection Commission and the City Planning Commission on May 28, 1998 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 404 of the War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue. The BIC may also discuss and take public comment on what topics could be taken up at this joint meeting.

Chair Freeman directed that this item be continued until the arrival of President Hood. He announced that he would not be able to attend the joint meeting because he would be out of town on this date.

At the end of the proceedings, President Hood returned to this item in the agenda and inquired from the other members of the Commission what topics they would be interested in having on the agenda of the joint meeting. Commissioner Freeman said that the Code Advisory Committee had been discussing the Junior Site Permit process and this may be one of the topics to be discussed at the joint meeting. He said that another topic would be Unlawful Demolition. President Hood said that she would be meeting with President Chinchilla of the Planning Commission to discuss what items would be placed on the agenda for the joint meeting.

3.	Director's Report.

a.	Report, discussion and possible action regarding the use of a payroll reporting system proposed by the Controller's Office called the Time Entry and Scheduling System (TESS) by DBI employees.

Director Chiu reported to the Commission that he had received a request from the Controller's Office for DBI to use an automated payroll reporting system. The Controller's Office recommended that the department start using the Time Entry and Scheduling System (TESS) for payroll reporting. This automated system has been tested by the Controller's Office and will enhance the payroll process. Director Chiu said that Department staff will work out the details with the Controller's Office. One of the issues to address is to gain the support of the eight unions representing DBI employees.

Commissioner Cereghino asked when the automated Time Entry System will go into effect.

Director Chiu said that he anticipated the installation of the TESS system by May. The expectation is to have the system in place within two months.

b.	Report, discussion and possible action to approve a proposed workplan and schedule for review and adoption of the 1998 San Francisco Building Code.

Mr. Alan Tokugawa, Senior Building Inspector, referred to the written report distributed to the Commission and summarized the proposed work plan and schedule for review and adoption of the 1998 San Francisco Building Code. The schedule maps out a BIC Hearing in September to forward recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tokugawa said that the schedule is tight but TAC staff feels that the work can be accomplished within the time frame suggested.

Commissioner Guinnane asked for reassurance that the process will be an improvement from the last code cycle.

Mr. Tokugawa said that the process will be smoother. He said that this code review process is different from the previous cycle. There has been more review from the public and the Code Advisory Committee. Further, there has been no format change in the State Code or the UBC.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if the actual work has already started.

Mr. Tokugawa replied in the affirmative and said that the code changes have been inputted into a LAN system to facilitate exchange of information. In the past, the text of the Code was stored in diskettes and distributed manually. The LAN system will facilitate the exchange of information among various members of staff and advisory committees.

Commissioner Freeman requested a copy of the amendments proposed for deletion.

Mr. Tokugawa said the Code Advisory Committee has started preparing the list of amendments to delete from the San Francisco code. This list may be ready by early June or July.

Commissioner Freeman requested that the list of amendments to be eliminated be forwarded to the Building Inspection Commission even before the rest of the 1998 Code. He suggested that the code review process be broken down into smaller chunks.

Mr. Tokugawa agreed.

Commissioner Freeman asked is there was a printing lag time.

Mr. Tokugawa said the Building Code is sent to the printer usually around the time that the Mayor signs the Code or during the thirty-day waiting period before the Code comes into effect. This way there is no lag time or that the lag time is shorter.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if staff anticipated a high number of substantive changes.

Mr. Tokugawa said that there will probably not be many substantive changes. There have been recent changes that have already been incorporated into the 1995 Building Code such as the requirements on lead-based paint and the base closures. The substantive changes may be on the California amendments and how they link up with the Mechanical Code. Also, some substantive changes may be required to bring the code into conformance with other state codes.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she had heard that there were concerns in the past that some codes were not written down or formally adopted.

Mr. Tokugawa said that this concern probably rose out of the confusion between adopted code and code rulings. Staff is attempting to phase out the use of code rulings. Inspectors need to cite adopted code sections in their citations. There is also a need to clean up the Code and code rulings. It has been ten years since the last clean up.

Commissioner Freeman agreed and said that there are a few big items that need to be taken care of.

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

There was no testimony received at this point in the proceedings.

5.	Discussion and possible action to direct DBI staff to prepare a workplan and schedule to review the provisions of Section 3404.6 of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code (Section 104(f) of the previous code) which regulates the lateral force design of existing buildings undergoing renovations.

Commissioner Freeman said that San Francisco has adopted its own seismic provisions on renovations, damage and change in occupancy under Section 3404.6 of the 1995 Building Code. The provisions of this section are very important especially after an earthquake. The provisions of this section will be used by insurance companies and FEMA.

Director Chiu agreed and said that the department will have to work hard on this code section. One of the concerns that the Commission is already aware of is that there are thresholds established under this section that would require mandatory seismic upgrades. These thresholds often discourage voluntary seismic upgrades. He said that the department hopes to get direction from the Commission on this matter.

Commissioner Freeman said that the city wants to encourage people to carry out voluntary upgrades.

Mr. Pat Buscovich, President of the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEANC), said that his organization represents 2000 civil and structural engineers. He said that there are four areas of concern:

-	There is a need to more clearly define 75% of base shear force. In the 1994 UBC, the 75% cutoff could be determined using simple calculations. This would not be the case in the 1997 UBC.

-	The current code standards for upgrades are prohibitive. For example steel frames will be required for some upgrades of single-family residential buildings in the Richmond and the Sunset Districts.

-	The current code is based on old and archaic technology. The department must look forward to performance based design.

-	Voluntary seismic upgrades trigger mandatory seismic upgrades. This has resulted in a disincentive to voluntary upgrades.

Mr. Buscovich said that there is also a need to improve the definition of earthquake damage. This definition will be used by FEMA and insurance companies to determine whether damage caused by an earthquake will be eligible for FEMA or insurance funds. After the Loma Prieta earthquake, FEMA allowed cities to adopt ordinances retroactively. FEMA has declared that retroactive code changes will not be allowed in the future. He said that the Applied Technology Council is coming out with a FEMA funded proposal or model ordinance on this subject entitled ATC 43. He said that another document, Appendix Chapter 34 written by Rick Ranous for OES, may also be useful.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if the department has started any work on this issue.

Director Chiu said that the issues being raised are new and he would welcome any recommendations from the Commission.

Mr. Buscovich said that the FEMA law to disallow retroactive ordinances was passed in February and will be effective May 1. DBI needs to act quickly. The absence of an ordinance leaves the city vulnerable, especially public buildings.

Commissioner Freeman said that any ordinance passed will apply to both public and private buildings. The provisions of such an ordinance will be a two-edged sword. If a building has little or no insurance, the building owner will resist repairing earthquake damage. If a building has insurance, the building owner will want to declare as much earthquake damage as possible for the insurance company to pay for.

Mr. Buscovich said that currently, the City defines earthquake damage as 20% of the structural system in any floor in any direction. This threshold currently defined in the code was a compromise between 30%, which was the initial proposal, and 10% which is used in Oakland. The city went for 20% without much analysis. Mr. Buscovich said that he had worked with Supervisor Tom Hsih on this ordinance and knows how the 20% threshold was arrived at. There is a need to study this threshold in more detail. He said that SEANC will be glad to assist on this matter.

Commissioner Cereghino asked what the next steps were and what DBI is currently doing to address this issue.

Director Chiu said that the department can address this issue as part of the next code cycle or as an independent ordinance.

Commissioner Cereghino asked who would be the responsible parties.

Director Chiu said that this code could be assigned to the Code Advisory Committee. He recommended that a new CAC committee be formed for this ordinance.

Commissioner Freeman said that there is also a need for funding and dedicated staff to move this issue along.

Director Chiu said that outside experts are needed. The department can then provide one or two staff members as in-house support.

Mr. Buscovich said that Mr. Hanson Tom and his staff are very good at this kind of assignment. However, Mr. Tom can only do so much. His workload is already full. The code is getting more complicated. The department needs to look at its staffing. The department needs more structural engineers with specific areas of specialization. In the immediate short term, the department should contract out some of this work. Some of the issues are small, the 75% issue is a big issue.

Commissioner Freeman said that there should be a way to fund outside experts. He said that ATC and EERI are non-profit groups.

Mr. Buscovich said that these agencies can get the best engineers to dedicate time for a minimal fee.

Commissioner Fillon asked when ATC's model ordinance will come out.

Mr. Buscovich said that ATC43 will come out in two months, OES' Appendix Chapter 34 is already out. He said that the department needs to study the provisions carefully to avoid burdensome requirements. For example, Los Angeles required inspections of all joints and did not anticipate that this would cause so much problems. He said that delegating this task to the CAC will result in a long drawn process.

Commissioner Fillon asked what the timeline for this new code should be.

Mr. Buscovich said that the code should be amended as soon as possible. He said that it has been the experience in the past that when the BIC set a deadline, the work got completed.

Commissioner Cereghino said that oversight should be by DBI.

Director Chiu said that he will look for funds for this work and will discuss the matter with the Mayor's Office.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if the funds in the surplus could be tapped.

Director Chiu said that funds could not be accessed unless they are first appropriated.

Commissioner Cereghino asked for a progress report on this issue by the next BIC meeting.

Director Chiu said that he would be glad to give a report in two weeks.

Commissioner Freeman asked what the scope of the report would be by the next BIC meeting.

Director Chiu said he would report on the formation of a committee and the budget for the work to be done.

6.	Status report on the progress to date and proposed schedule on BIC's review of a 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.

Commissioner Cereghino reported to the full Commission that she had convened a public forum for review of a new base document on the BIC's appellate powers. This new ordinance draft has been reviewed and comments have been forwarded to the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Cereghino said that she has requested comments from Deputy City Attorney Judith Boyajian. She plans to convene a public forum to review the proposed ordinance and will then report back to the full Commission.

7.	Review of Director's performance per goals adopted under the Pay for Performance Program

a.	Public Comment (on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session).

There was no public testimony received at this point in the proceedings.

b.	Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Commissioner Fillon, to convene a Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-033.96]

The BIC went into Closed Session from 2:07 p.m. until 3:14 p.m.

c.	CLOSED SESSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and the San

Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Director of the Department of Building Inspection - Mr. Frank Chiu

d.	Reconvene in Open Session to vote whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.14(a).)

At Open Session, Commission Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, not to disclose the details of the discussions held in Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-034.98]

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.

Commissioner Cereghino noted there was an article in the Independent regarding 1333 33rd Avenue.

Commissioner Guinnane requested copies of all correspondence from the Controller's Office or other auditors reviewing DBI processes.

Director Chiu said that he will set up a meeting between Commissioner Guinnane and the auditor.

Commissioner Guinnane said it would be sufficient to ask the auditor to give him a call. He also inquired about the status of the illegal unit amnesty legislation.

Director Chiu said that the Planning Department is still in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report.

Commissioner Freeman noted a letter from Mr. Pat Buscovich, SEANC, regarding the Permit Streamlining Act.

Commissioner Secretary Banico gave a summary of the Permit Streamlining Act provisions noted in Mr. Buscovich's letter.

President Hood directed that the topic of Permit Streamlining Act be agendized for the next BIC meeting.

Director Chiu said that the chart required to be distributed to the public under the Permit Streamlining Act needs to be updated and amended. He said that he also needs to verify with the City Attorney's Office on the applicability of the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act on the Department of Building Inspection.

9.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of April 1, 1998.

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, to adopt the minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of April 1, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed with 4 ayes. (Commissioner Cereghino abstained.) [Resolution No. BIC-35.98]

10.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of May 6, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

Commissioner Freeman requested that continuing work on updating Section 104(f) be agendized for a future meeting. He also requested that there be an agenda item on live/work regulations. He said that this was coming out of the Code Advisory Committee.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he had prepared a report to the Planning Commission on this subject and will provide a copy of that report to the Building Inspection Commission.

President Hood directed that the live/work regulations be calendared for the May 20, 1998 BIC Meeting.

Commissioner Freeman also suggested that the BIC review the Junior Site Permit process. President Hood agreed and said that this would be for a future meeting date.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the appellate powers ordinance will be back to the full Commission on May 6, 1998. She will check with Deputy City Attorney Boyajian as to when Ms. Boyajian's review will be completed. She has requested that the comments from the City Attorney's Office be furnished one week prior to the BIC meeting date. This may result in the appellate powers ordinance being postponed to the next BIC Regular Meeting.

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 Commissioner Cereghino, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

The motion passed by unanimous vote. [Resolution No. BIC-036.98]

________________________________

MARIA BANICO

Commission SecretaryÇã