Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Special Meeting of May 6, 1998

Adopted May 20, 1998

1660 Mission Street, Room 2001

San Francisco, CA 94103

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:30. p.m. Vice-President Vasquez chaired the meeting until the arrival of President Hood. President Hood arrived at 1:50 p.m.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS 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

COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT:

Maria Banico, Commission Secretary

Garland Simpson, Recording Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Permit Services

William Wong, Deputy Director for Inspection Services

David Serrano-Sewell, Special Assistant to the Director

Steven Young, Chief Electrical Inspector

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

Helen Kwak, Deputy City Attorney

2.	President's Report.

a.	Introduction of Mr. Garland Simpson who has been appointed as staff to the Building Inspection Commission as Class 1446, Secretary II.

Chair Vasquez postponed this item until the arrival of President.

After item #3, Commission Secretary Banico introduced Mr. Simpson and said that he had been appointed two weeks ago and took over the functions of Ms. Tuti Suardana. Ms. Banico said that Mr. Simpson came with high commendations from members of the public for his work in the Records Management Division.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that Mr. Simpson had been an asset to the Records Management Division. He said that over the past two years, the division has cut the processing time of 3-R requests from three or more days to less than 24-hours in most cases. He said that this accomplishment was due, in large part, to Mr. Simpson's work in that division.

3.	Report and discussion on the newly completed Oracle-based permit intake/issuance/tracking computer system which will replace the Motorola system currently used by DBI. The department will provide a demonstration of the new system and will carry out parallel runs of the new and old computer systems.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said there were three items he wanted to address before the Commission. First, he intended to show a short video tape that was presented at the Department of Building Inspection's open house for the benefit of those commissioners that were unable to attend. Secondly, the corrections made to the department's web site would be shown. Finally, the demonstration of the two computer permit tracking systems (PTS) would be given. Deputy Director Hutchinson yielded the floor to Chief Electrical Inspector Steven Young and Mr. Gilbert Ginn, consultant.

Mr. Gilbert Ginn, Reach Communication Inc., demonstrated the DBI web site and to show the changes to address the Commission's suggestions at a previous meeting.

Mr. Ginn demonstrated the range of functions of the DBI web site. He said that its design is like that of other corporate web site presently found on the world wide web. It is user friendly.

The DBI web site is presented in three languages: English, Chinese and Spanish. Mr. Ginn said that all pages of the English and Spanish versions of the web site were completed. The Chinese version is still under construction due to the complexity of the language.

Mr. Ginn displayed a page in the web site that gave general information about the Commission along with addresses, contact information and short descriptions of individual Commissioners.

The web site address is http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/dbi and will be on line by the end of this week. The Chinese and Spanish pages will be available by early next week.

President Hood asked what the schedule was for getting the codes and administrative bulletins on the DBI web site. Mr. Young said the department is waiting for clarification form the City Attorney's Office as to what DBI's contractual commitments are with Book Publishing Company. DBI is re ready insert those items. The administrative bulletins can be easily accomplished since these are DBI documents.

President Hood said she believed the code and bulletins should be moved up in DBI's priorities because the primary interest in this site is going to be from people who need access to specific information. Mr. Young assured her that the work on the code and the bulletins could be a prioritized.

Mr. Young moved on to the Permit Tracking System (PTS) demonstration.

Ms. Patty Perez, Manager of Customer Services, explained the content of a screen on the Motorola System.

Ms. Patricia Vaughan demonstrated several screens of the new Oracle based PTS. Ms. Vaughan said that over two-thirds of the DBI staff had completed training. That core group includes staff from the Central Permit Division, the One Stop Permit Program and the Commercial Plan Check Division. Once that core group is finished, the remaining employees of DBI will have training.

Chair Vasquez yielded the chair to President Hood at this point in the proceedings (2:00 p.m.).

4.	Director's Report.

There was no report given at this time due to Director Chiu's attendance at a conference.

5.	Public Comment.

Mr. John Bardis read a letter of commendation from the Inner Sunset Action Committee for Senior Building Inspector Rafael Torres-Gil for the thoroughness of his report on the building violations at 1234 33rd Avenue. Mr. Bardis said that this was a follow-up report to one issued six months ago for the same violations. He commented that the PTS could track only the permits and applications that were filed, not the quality of work.

Ms. Barbara Roczniak-Kugay, Residential Plan Check Division, addressed the Commission and responded to Mr. Bardis. She said there was a screen in the Motorola System that recorded all adjustments, amendments and corrections attached to each application and that the same is true of the Oracle PTS.

Ms. Edith McMillan asked that the Commission, in regard to the One Stop Permit Program, not rush through the permit review process. She said that staff should also take into consideration the requirements of the Planning Code.

6.	Report and discussion on DBI's processes and procedures to comply with the California Permit Streamlining Act which sets mandatory deadlines for determining when a permit application is complete and for issuing a decision on a permit application once the project has been determined or deemed to be complete. The Commission may take action to constitute a committee or task force to review and report on the department processes to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian summarized the requirements of Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). She said she was not prepared to advise the Commission on what DBI had done to comply with the PSA.

President Hood asked Deputy Director Hutchinson if the department was in compliance with the requirements of the state Permit Streamlining Act.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he and Ms. Teresa Hansell, Manager of the Central Permit Division, have met and have drafted language which is being reviewed by the City Attorney's Office. Once that document has been finalized by the City Attorney's Office, he will forward a copy to the Commission. Ms. Hansell and Deputy Director Hutchinson will continue to meet and to thresh out those areas where compliance is questionable.

President Hood asked if there have been any situations where a citizen had come to DBI and said that his/her rights had been violated under the PSA.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that to date there are no complaints or such claims. In fact the opposite situation is more common. The customers are overwhelmed with checklists of things that need to completed or done and information of processes and timelines involved. Once these items are completed, adjusted, corrected and/or included, they can walk out the door with their approved permit in hand. This kind of service was not available in the past.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Mr. Patrick Buscovich, president of the Structural Engineers Association Of Northern California (SEONC) said that he had raised this issue by writing a letter to the Commission. He said that he was concerned when he found out that DBI staff was handing out information from the Planning Department on the PSA and DBI was not. Secondly, the PSA provides that if a plan is approved, DBI can only require changes that are a matter of life safety. There are limitations as to what the district inspector can require to be corrected in the job site unless it involves life/safety issues.

Ms. Boyajian said that she didn't think that this requirement was in the PSA but rather was part of the State Health and Safety Code. She said she would provide information on this particular question to the Commission. The PSA was designed to preclude cities from requiring unlimited submittals and adjustments in the field.

Ms. Boyajian made mentioned of two more comments pertaining to the PSA. First, she said the city used to believe that when a permit ran up against the PSA time limit, it could simply deny the application. State legislation has since closed this loophole and said a permit cannot be denied on that basis. Denial of a permit must have legitimate grounds. Secondly, in her memory there has been only one case where a citizen had claimed his rights under the provision of the PSA. She was not familiar with the case and could not go into detail, however; she said that the question was on a Planning Department application. The issue was that the Act requires one to give notice. However, if a hearing has already been held and notice has been given, can the permit then be deemed approved without further notice. This is an unanswered legal question.

President Hood suggested that this matter be brought up before the joint meeting of the BIC and the Planning Commission for public comment.

Ms. Barbara Roczniak-Kugay, Residential Plan Checking Division, spoke to Mr. Buscovich's initial comment concerning the restrictions placed on district inspectors in the field. Ms. Kugay stated that sometimes applicants do not show all the information on plans hoping to focus the attention of DBI on only the items they think are important. But field inspectors sometimes encounters major deviations from the approved plans.

President Hood stated that if major discrepancies were found in the actual building, the approval of the plans would be invalid.

Ms. Boyajian added that the statute does not protect anyone who has misrepresented actual conditions on their plans.

7.	Report, discussion and possible action to approve the proposed staffing and budget for the review and possible amendment of Section 3404.6 of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code (Section 104(f) of the 1992 S. F. Building Code) which regulates the structural design, seismic retrofit and definition of earthquake damage in existing buildings. At the April 15,1998 BIC Regular Meeting, the Commission identified staffing alternatives which includes assignment of DBI staff, establishment of a committee composed of members of the Code Advisory Committee, or hiring outside consultants/engineers.

Mr. Alan Tokugawa, Senior Building Inspector said that Mr. Laurence Kornfield (Manager of the Technical Services Division) Mr. Patrick Buscovich, Mr. Hanson Tom (Manager of Major Projects), Commissioner Freeman and he had met and recommended that the review of Section 3404.6 (Section 104(f) of the 1992 S. F. Building Code) should be done by an outside consultant with a very strong voice from DBI which would include the Code Advisory Committee. DBI staff would attend all meetings, but there would be minimal impact on the staff's workload. This work would not be incorporated into the next round of code changes due to the complexity of the subject.

President Hood inquired if there had been a recommendation on whether the consultant would be paid or if the services would be pro- bono.

Mr. Tokugawa said that topic had not been discussed.

Commissioner Freeman said he felt the work should be done by a paid consultant. He said that the job scope should be defined and the department can issue a Request for Proposals (RFP). There would have to be a public announcement for people to apply for this work. He said he believed the matter was very important. The process of hiring a consultant and selection of a panel to choose the consultant should be studied thoroughly before any action is taken.

Deputy City Attorney Kwak said this type of work to be contracted out by DBI would have to comply with equal benefits law and other EEO requirements of the City.

Mr. Buscovich stated the current version of the code was co-authored by Mr. Bob Bossi and himself. The issue is that FEMA has notified everyone that they will no longer accept retroactive changes to the building code for earthquake damage triggers after a certain date. That date has already passed. FEMA has hired experts, in advance of a disaster to carefully scrutinize city codes. There is still an opportunity to change the code before an earthquake occurs.

Mr. Buscovich suggested that the Commission's next step be to get a consensus from all involved persons/agencies.

Mr. Hanson Tom said this is a very complicated issue. California Section 3404.6, the equivalent to the previous SF Section 104(f), is the criteria for the seismic retro fit of existing buildings established by DBI many years ago. At that time, the criteria was that any existing building had to be retrofitted to at least 75% of the current code requirements. There are several mechanisms that can trigger seismic retrofit of a building: a) Substantial change; b) the removal of 30% of the lower vertical elements; c) a vertical addition; and d) a horizontal addition of 30% of the building footprint. Any of these circumstances will trigger a seismic retrofit. Any time a project involves a retrofit, structural mechanisms must meet 75% of the current code standards. He said that, in his opinion, that is a sound definition. He said that he has already reviewed the provisions of Chapter 34 as part of the ongoing code cycle and has given his recommendation on changes. He said that due to the time constraints on work on the upcoming code, staff should continue its review of Chapter 34 and put forward the recommendations as part of the 1998 San Francisco Building Code.

Mr. Tom said that there needs to be more research done on the earthquake definitions. That is a larger scope of work and will involve a great deal of study, agreements and tremendous consideration of other government policies. The staff, at this time, is unable to undertake such an extensive study. He said that he agreed with Commissioner Freeman and Mr. Buscovich that an outside firm or committee should be formed and they should develop the base language for that part of the code. When the base language is completed and comes to DBI, staff should play a bigger role in administering the revisions. He said that the criteria to e used for selecting the consultant should be their experience in seismic design and understanding of past, present and future codes. Also, the firm should be knowledgeable in government policy. One of the positive features about hiring a consultant to do this work is that we would be able to control timelines. If the work is to be carried out pro-bono by a blue ribbon committee, the department would not be able to control the timelines.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Ms. Edith McMillan told of a case in which semantics played a role in preventing the seismic trigger. The applicant used "anchor bolts" instead of "anchor wedges," and "panel" instead of "sheer walls." The permit was approved without structural review. She wanted to bring to the Commission's attention the fact that people will be operate under devious pretenses.

Vice-President Vasquez suggested, in regard to hiring an outside consultant, the use of a timeline with built in milestones to keep the Commission aware of progress.

Mr. Buscovich suggested a multi-disciplinary consultant team due to the complex nature of the political, public and community coordination efforts. Perhaps what is needed is a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to find out the skills and abilities available to accomplish this task.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, that DBI staff prepare a draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) or Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant team to deal with the issues of Section 3304.6 of the 1995 San Francisco Building Code for the next BIC meeting.

President Hood asked for discussion on the motion.

Commissioner Freeman stated that the new codes are becoming quite complicated on seismic requirements.

Vice-President Vasquez said that consensus was very important.

Mr. Buscovich said that the issue before the Commission was a huge undertaking. It is unreasonable to expect that DBI staff could study the matter in two weeks. He suggested that DBI report back to the Commission in one or two months with substantive information.

President Hood said that the Commission is only requesting for a draft proposal.

Mr. Buscovich said that an RFP draft would take a couple of months to prepare.

Deputy Director William Wong stated that an RFP is also a budget item. This would require a supplemental budget request. He suggest that staff prepare a work plan instead of a draft RFP. This work may be ready in two weeks. The Commission could then decide on whether the department should prepare a supplemental appropriation which would have to go to the Mayor's Office.

President Hood said that she would like to have general parameters.

Deputy Director Wong said that staff could present something in an outline format.

President Hood asked if a work plan could be accepted as an amendment to the motion. Commissioners Fillon and Freeman agreed.

Mr. Tom requested input from Commissioner Freeman and Mr. Buscovich. He asked if they could develop some fundamental language to start this process.

Commissioner Freeman and Mr. Buscovich agreed to assist department staff.

Commissioner Secretary Banico asked for clarification on the motion, on what is being requested and the timeline.

President Hood said that the Commission is asking for a workplan, timeline and the RFP parameters. She suggested that the matter be agendized for the second meeting in June.

Commissioners Fillon and Freeman accepted the amendments.

The motion passed by unanimous vote. [Resolution No. BIC-037.98]

The Commission took a break at this point in the proceedings, from 3:05 to 3:30 p.m. After the break, the Commission took Item #9 before Item #8.

8.	Site inspection, presentation and discussion on the operations of the One-Stop Permit Program. The Commission will walk through the work area of the One-Stop Permit Program located on the first floor of 1660 Mission Street.

Deputy Director Wong gave a general background on the processes of the One Stop Permit Coordination Program and then yielded the presentation to Ms. Crystal Pearl, Permit Coordinator.

Ms. Pearl described the program operations to date. She said that the program allows a permit applicant to work with one contact person. The permit coordinator "walks" a permit through and is the contact for the applicant to all other staff involved in the permit process.

Mr. Wong said that the program is a pilot program and is very new. To date, business is slow but is already picking up.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if the department was checking on the business license of architects and engineers who apply for permits. This is a revenue issue for the City.

Commission Guinnane clarified the question and said that department staff check into the business licenses of contractors or people who file the permits. He said that often, architects and engineers are not the ones who file the permits.

Mr. Wong said that this is a separate issue from the One Stop Program and he will look into this matter. Currently, staff requires wet stamp drawings and this verifies that the architects and engineers are state certified. However, it has not been standard procedure to look at the status of the City business license.

Ms. Barbara Roczniak-Kugay, Residential Plan Check Division, said that the One Stop Program staff is composed of different expertises. She asked who takes over one employee's function when that employee is not available given that the expertises are different. She asked who takes over Ms. Pearl's functions when Ms. Pearl is on vacation.

Deputy Director Wong said that the Permit Coordinator's function does not include the review of plans. The staff is supposed to coordinate, not to plan check. The applicant is supposed to work with the same coordinator.

President Hood said that this is a valid question and requested Mr. Wong to respond to the question on the staff having different backgrounds. What are the procedures in place where one coordinator will take over another coordinator's work?

Mr. Wong said that for the time being, the applicant is being asked to work with the same coordinator. He said that as part of his supervisory functions, he will assign takeovers when needed. He said that the coordinators request the plan check engineers to come to the One Stop work area to review plans when needed.

President Hood encouraged management to get input from DBI staff on the operations of the new program.

The Commission then proceeded to the One Stop Program work area in the first floor of the building. Various members of the One Stop Program described the operations and answered questions from the Commission.

After the presentation, President Hood thanked the program staff. She said the program seemed to be operating well.

Commission Fillon agreed and said that the work area looks great.

Commissioner Cereghino concurred.

Commission Freeman said that the concept of the One Stop projected that over time, the whole permit process with be a coordinated or one stop process.

President Hood said that it takes time to change processes. The One Stop is a pilot program which hopefully will be able to put this change in place.

9.	Public Hearing on the effects on DBI processes of the new City Policy for "E" plated vehicles that went into effect on April 15, 1998. The Commission may take such action as to forward information received at this meeting to the Mayor and the Department of Parking & Traffic.

President Hood said that the Commission recognized the parking problems of the City and supported the Mayor's goals on improving Muni. She said that sometimes the solutions for one set of problems infringe on other departments of the City and the Commission would like to look into ways to ease the effects of the new parking policies on DBI operations. She asked the department management if they have been in contact with the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). She suggested that DBI inquire on the use of stickers for a few of the department's vehicles. She said that double parking should not be allowed.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that there will be some staff members addressing the Commission. He said that he has been in touch with Mr. Stuart Sunshine, Director of DPT. Director Chiu will be meeting with Director Sunshine in the near future. He said that it is incumbent upon DBI's management to work out a solution to this problem. He thanked the BIC for its interest and said that staff was grateful for this public hearing. He said that he will not shirk his responsibility and will continue to look for a solution to this problem. One idea that is being pursued is the purchase of trucks for use by DBI employees.

Mr. Tom Lehane, Manager of the Plumbing Division, said that his inspectors looked to him for solutions to this problem. He responded to questions from the Commission. He said that plumbing inspectors carry some equipment around and taxi service or dropping off inspectors would not be feasible or would still cause some delays.

Commission Fillon suggested that the department rent out some spaces in strategic locations in busy parts of the City.

Deputy Director Hutchinson agreed to look into this alternative.

Mr. John Singleton, President of the San Francisco Building Inspector's Association, said he would first like to address the Commission on a previous request to receive the Agendas and the Minutes of all meetings.

Commission Secretary Banico said that the Agendas and Minutes are available to all DBI employees through the departmental e-mail.

President Hood apologized to Mr. Singleton and assured him that the Agenda and Minutes would be provided to him.

Mr. Singleton said that the parking policy is causing delays and inconveniences to inspectors. He said that inspectors have to pay garage charges out of pocket. He said that the matter is also covered by the Memorandum of Understanding.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he would look into this matter.

Commissioner Fillon asked if the garage charges could be reimbursed using petty cash. He said that at the Redevelopment Agency, they are reimbursed immediately for parking expenses.

President Hood said that this should be allowed for parking expenses.

Commissioner Freeman said that the department should also look into the use of credit cards for parking expenses.

Mr. Ronald Tom said that the backlog has increased from one to two weeks. He said that the accumulation of parking expenses can add up to some $300/month before they are reimbursed. He said that the policy also requires inspectors to adhere to the time limits posted on the meters. This has caused the issuance of parking tickets for which employees are responsible for.

Commissioner Freeman said that the time limits should not be imposed.

President Hood asked if the Commission should write a letter to Director Sunshine.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this may not be necessary. He said that the Minutes of this Meeting would be used for reference when Director Chiu meets with Director Sunshine. He thanked members of the staff for providing their input at this public hearing and for their patience while DBI management continues to work on solutions.

President Hood also thanked Mr. David Serano-Sewell for his coordination work with the Mayor's office and other city departments on behalf of DBI.

10.	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 or public testimony for this agenda item.

11.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of April 15, 1998.

Commissioner Cereghino moved, seconded by Commissioner Fillon, to adopt the minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of April 15, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed with 4 ayes. (Commissioner Vasquez abstained.) [Resolution No. BIC-38.98]

12.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of May 20, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

Commission Secretary Banico reported that the Commission has received an appeal on the Powell Hotel which may be on the agenda for the next meeting if it is determined that the Commission has jurisdiction over this appeal.

Vice-President Vasquez said that there have been requests from members of the public to schedule appeals at the end of the agenda. As an alternative, the agenda could state the time for the appeal hearing.

Ms. Banico said that there have been requests from different sectors some for putting appeals at the end, and some for putting appeals at the beginning of the meeting.

Deputy City Attorney Kwak said that the Powell Hotel appeal may not be within the BIC 's jurisdiction and the question is moot. She said that she will get an answer on the question soon.

13.	Public Comment.

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 Freeman, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

The motion passed by unanimous vote. [Resolution No. BIC-039.98]

________________________________

MARIA BANICO

Commission SecretaryÇã