Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting of May 20, 1998

Adopted on June 17, 1998

Wednesday, May 20, 1998, at 1:00 p.m.

War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor, Room 428

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Sharon Mark, Commissioner - excused absence

COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT:

Maria Banico, Commission Secretary

Garland Simpson, Recording Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Permit Services

William Wong, Deputy Director for Inspection Services

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

Helen Kwak, Deputy City Attorney

Kimon Manolius, Deputy City Attorney

2.	President's Report.

a.	Discussion and possible action to cancel the BIC Regular Meeting of June 3, 1997. The BIC will be holding a Special Meeting on May 28, 1998 as a joint meeting with the Planning Commission.

President Hood said the joint meeting of the BIC and the City Planning Commission (CPC) is scheduled for Thursday, May 28, 1998. Due to the proximity of the joint meeting date to the next Regular Meeting, she suggested that the BIC Regular Meeting of June 3, 1998 be canceled.

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to cancel the next Regular Meeting of the BIC of June 3, 1998.

President Hood opened the floor to for public comment

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, said she hoped that the BIC does not expect too much out of the joint meeting. She understood there were expectations that the joint meeting would resolve a number of problems in the permit processing area. The joint meeting is a distraction which came about because the Department of City Planning (DCP) is trying to keep the City Planning Commission (CPC) from tending to DCP's malfeasance. Ms. Caravelli said that because the CPC had started to look very closely at DCP's performance, the Department suggested having a joint meeting with the BIC as a distraction.

Ms. Caravelli said she understood that Commissioners give up their personal time for these meetings. She hopes that the BIC would not waste its time but rather concentrate on its own business.

President Hood thanked Ms. Caravelli for her comments and said that both the Commissions had worked very hard on that agenda to make the joint meeting productive.

The motion passed unanimous a vote. [Resolution No. BIC-040.98]

3.	Director's Report.

Director Chiu said that since the inception of the BIC and Department of Building Inspection, a major concern has been the need to prepare written rules and guidelines on the department's regulations and procedures. Director Chiu thanked Deputy Director Wong and his staff for developing such documents. He said that Agenda Items #3a through #3c are office policy and procedure documents that were recently discussed at Closed Session.

a.	Report and discussion on approved revisions to Office Policy and Procedures

#OP-002.96: Disabled Access Compliance Checklists.

Director Chiu said that #OP-0002.96 is an extensive plan check list. The document covers, step by step, what the Department looks for in the plan check stage and during field inspection. This document is intended for public distribution.

b.	Report and discussion on approved Office Policy and Procedures #OP-014-98: Issuing Certificates of Final Completion and Occupancy.

Director Chiu said that #OP-014-98 describes the office policies and procedures for obtaining Certificates of Final Completion and Occupancy. Director Chiu said he wants to distribute this document to both staff and customers to facilitate a better understanding of the process and issues.

c.	Report and discussion on approved Office Policy and Procedures #OP-015-98: Issuing Notices of Violation.

#OP-015-98 outlines the procedures for issuance of a Notice of Violation. This document describes how an inspector should conduct an initial inspection and issue a Notice of Violation.

President Hood said she felt the documents were excellent and commended the Department of Building Inspection. She thanked Deputy Director Wong and his staff for their work on the documents. She said that the next task of the Department was to insure that these documents find their way to the people who would benefit most from them, such as: project sponsors, designers, architects, structural engineers, etc. President Hood asked Deputy Director Wong how he would go about doing that.

Deputy Director Wong said that it was his intent to have the documents handed out at the counter.

President Hood asked if there would be a sign that indicated the availability of the documents.

Deputy Director Wong said yes. Copies of the Disability Excess Plan Check List will be available at the second floor counter. The documents will be handed out as applications are being screened and will be sent out to organizations. Customers will be given extra copies upon request.

President Hood suggested that these documents be incorporated into the Department's web site so that they could be called up and downloaded by anyone who wants them.

Deputy Director Wong agreed with President Hood's suggestion and affirmed the department's intent to place all available informational documents on the web site for easy access by the public.

Commissioner Vasquez voiced his approval of the Office Policy and Procedures documents and thanked Deputy Director Wong and his staff for their work. He said that anything which helps demystify the department is helpful. He said that the Unreasonable Hardship Request figure is listed at $84,607 which is not correct.

Deputy Director Wong agreed with Commissioner Vasquez. He said that the amount should be $86,770 and that the error would be corrected in the document.

President Hood opened the floor for public comment.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that the subject matter of the proposed office policies and procedures relates to DBI's regulatory function. That is not the subject of the typical office policy and procedures. Office policies and procedures relate to the internal workings of DBI that are non-regulatory. The proposed documents should first go to the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) before the BIC. They should not be agendized under Director's Report. She said that it is worrisome that there are three different kinds of administrative documents:

a)	Office Policies and Procedures deals with the internal operations of Department of Building Inspection;

b)	Administrative Bulletins deals with the processes of Department of Building Inspection's regulatory function;

c)	Code Ruling clarifies sections of the San Francisco Building Code.

Now, DBI has begun to issue Administrative Bulletins calling them Office Policies and Procedures. It doesn't work. The three documents presented here deal with the regulatory function of Department. It is not just a matter of being consistent, calling oranges - oranges and apples - apples. In the process of adopting these kinds of documents, it is inappropriate for the issue to be presented here as a done deal when this forum is the first opportunity for public comment on the issue.

Commissioner Vasquez asked for the Department of Building Inspection's response.

Director Chiu said that the documents presented here are informational. The documents describe and clarify, to both the public and the staff of the Department, how to proceed successfully from point A to point B. These documents do not, in any way, seek to interpret the San Francisco Building Code. The processes and procedures are not new. They existed before the inception of both the BIC and the Department of Building Inspection. What is new is that, for the first time in the Department of Building Inspection's history, these office processes and procedures and written down. Director Chiu said because these documents have nothing to do with the interpretation of the San Francisco Code, but rather deal specifically with procedures. They are correctly labeled Office Policy and Procedures. Director Chiu said he is confident that these documents will educate the public and establish in staff a high standard of service and consistency throughout the department.

Commissioner Fillon said that he wanted to clarify that there is nothing in any of these documents that are establishing any new guidelines or requirements. All of these procedures are already established. This is merely a means to present it to the public and to the staff.

President Hood said it would be interesting, at some future date when it is agendized, for this Commission to discuss the differences among these three types of documents.

Mr. John Bardis, Inner Sunset Action Committee, said he listened to the response of Director Chiu to Ms. Roberta Caravelli's statement. He said the documents are not peculiar to the Department of Building Inspection. The documents are used by Department of Building Inspection to interact with the public. Mr. Bardis said that even supposing the Commission possessed perfect wisdom and the ability to anticipate everything that the public needed. The Commission still owed the public, out of courtesy, an opportunity to speak at a public hearing. Further, the Commission did not have perfect wisdom and there is some real input that could be provided to the Commission by member of the public. Mr. Bardis said the BIC exists to respond to public concerns.

President Hood said the Commission is happy to hear comments on matters before the Commission. These policies and procedures have evolved over time. Their intent of writing down the current procedures is to help the staff serve the public more effectively, not to foist something on the public. The agenda allows for public comment on any item in the agenda.

Mr. Bardis said the process excluded the public being noticed that there is a public hearing being held on the issue.

Deputy Director Wong said there is nothing in the proposed Office Policies and Procedures that is new or that seeks to interpret the San Francisco Building Code. These are simply aids to help the department's staff and the customer to better enforce the code.

For example in Agenda Item #3a, the first form, is simply information lifted directly from the San Francisco Building Code. It has not been altered. It has been formatted in a specific manner to enable the customers, to see at a glance, where one is in compliance and where one is not in compliance. The code has not been modified.

The same is true with the Certificates of Final Completion and Occupancy. It is a form that a staff members fill out. It tells the staff how the document is distributed internally, i.e., that white copy is sent to this division and the pink copy is sent to that division.

Deputy Director Wong said he was not sure that was the kind of thing that the public needed to be involved in. It was certainly within the range of Director Chiu's authority to make those types of administrative decisions.

President Hood said that she wanted to commend the department for its effort on this project because in the past she had heard a great deal of negative criticism alluding to an inconsistency in customer service and staff behavior. Sometimes the perception was that this inconsistency was intentional. However, once things are written down there is a better chance that service will be uniform and consistent.

Commissioner Vasquez said that he wanted it on record that this Commission has been dogmatic with its insistence and vigilant to assure that when an issue is raised that warrants public review, this Commission demands public distribution of the issue. There are many witnesses to the fruits of public review. It is a responsibility this Commission will continue to demand.

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 she heard President Hood say she had been working on the agenda for the joint meeting of the BIC and the CPC. Ms. Caravelli said the general issue concerning the problems in San Francisco revolves around one question: work without the benefit of permit. Ms. Caravelli said she hoped that the agenda for the joint meeting will deal with this issue. She also asked if the public will still be bound by the three minute limit even though the public will be speaking to issues raised by two different department staffs. Ms. Caravelli also recommended that President Hood chair the Joint Meeting.

President Hood said that it had been decided that each commission president would chair one-half of the joint meeting.

Mr. Stephen Noh, resident of 1493 17th Street, said he has been having code problems for the last three years. He has called the Housing Division numerous time and spoken with Deputy Director Wong. He said that his car has been vandalized five times while it was parked in his driveway and he has been beaten up several times. His landlord has installed an illegal unit. The new tenants do not have a separate meter and his water bill has more than doubled. The roof leaks and the walls of the building are not soundproof. The residents in the illegal unit constantly complain and call the police when he turns on his radio.

President Hood said that this Commission can only deal with building code violations. A number of the things that have been mentioned may be issues that might brought before the Rent Control Board. In cases of destruction of personal property, the Police Department needs to be notified and a police report should be made out.

Mr. Noh said he has pursued these avenues. He is before the BIC to request an investigation on whether this landlord has made any of the repairs mandated in the Notice of Violations issued in the past.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the department will follow up on issues that are within the jurisdiction of this Commission. However, since this issue is not agendized, the BIC cannot take up this specific issue in length.

President Hood directed Deputy Director Wong to follow up on this issue.

Mr. John Bardis said that he was present to address an item that he thought would be on the agenda but was not. He said he had filed a request for continuance on the appeal of Mr. Jeremy Paul last Thursday around noon. There is no mention of this request on the agenda. Mr. Bardis asked if the request will be taken up under Agenda Item #6.

Commission Secretary Maria Banico said that the request for continuance was received on Friday noon which was after the agenda had been finalized and sent out.

President Hood said that the BIC will take up the request for continuance when the appeal is heard under Agenda Item #6.

5.	Discussion and possible action to nominate and appoint various applicants to vacant seats in the Code Advisory Committee.

President Hood yielded the floor to Commissioner Fillon.

Commissioner Fillon said there were several vacancies in the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Commission received several applications to fill those openings. There are still seats left vacant but the Commission could appoint applicants who have come forward to facilitate the current work on the codes. The applicants are highly qualified.

President Hood said a number of the nominees are present in the audience. Each one of them could step forward and state why he or she is interested in being a member of the CAC.

a.	Mr. Michael Ma to the Remodel Contractor seat.

Mr. Michael Ma said that he lived and worked in San Francisco. He said that at his job, he is a Project Manger working in the Tenant Improvement Division for most of the high-rise buildings in downtown. His job duties include the follow-up work on commercial permit applications filed by his company. Mr. Ma said that his job has given him a lot of experience working with the plan-checkers and inspectors at the Department of Building Inspection. He is a community-oriented individual.

Commissioner Fillon motved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to nominate and appoint Mr. Michael Ma to the Remodel Contractor seat of the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-041.98]

b.	Tom Murphy for the Residential Project Contractor seat.

Commissioner Fillon recommended Mr. Tom Murphy for the Residential Project Contractor seat of the CAC.

Mr. Charles Breidinger, member of the CAC, addressed the Commission on Mr. Murphy's behalf and said that Mr. Murphy was unable to attend this meeting. He spoke of Mr. Murphy's genuine interest in the CAC and said that Mr. Murphy had been active in the construction community of San Francisco. Mr. Breidinger said that he had encouraged Mr. Murphy to become involved in the code development process.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to nominate and appoint Mr. Tom Murphy to the Residential Project Contractor seat of the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-042.98]

c.	Mr. Fredric Freund for the Commercial Property Owner seat.

Mr. Freund said that he has been a resident of San Francisco for forty-two years. He works in commercial property management, sales and leasing. Mr. Freund said that he hoped to be a productive member of CAC and thanked the Commission.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to nominate and appoint Mr.Fredric Freund to the Commercial Property seat the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-043.98]

d.	Mr. A. R. (Tony) Sanchez-Corea III for the General Business Community seat.

Mr. Corea said he was born and raised in San Francisco and has been involved with Department of Building Inspection for the past fifteen years. He said the he would be privileged to help develop the codes in San Francisco and get everyone on the same page.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez , to nominate and appoint Mr. A. R. (Tony) Sanchez-Corea III to the General Business Community seat of the Code Advisory Committee.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said she questioned whether Mr. Corea, who was a permit expediter, was qualified for the General Business Community seat of the CAC.

President Hood ask what the code requirements were for the General Business Community seat of the CAC.

Commission Secretary Maria Banico said that the code does not list any specific requirements or experience for the General Business Community seat therefore the dictionary meaning is used. There are no specific business type requirements for the seat.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-044.98]

e.	Ms. Carolyn Abst for an At-Large seat.

Commission Secretary Banico said that she had spoken with Ms. Abst who was unable to attend this meeting because of a previous business commitment. She conveyed Ms. Abst's apologies. Ms. Banico added that she was not able to give early notice of this meeting to the applicants which resulted in some of the applicants not being able to come.

Commissioner Fillon refered to Ms. Abst's resume which was part of the meeting packet and noted that Ms. Abst was a resident and an architect practicing in San Francisco with 17 years of experience working in the city.

Commissioner Vasquez said that he saw no objection to her appointment.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to nominate and appoint Ms. Carolyn Abst to an At-Large seat on the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-045.98]

f.	Ms. Lorraine Graves for an At-Large seat.

Commissioner Vasquez said that he supported having gender balance on the CAC and on other committees and was in support of Ms. Graves' appointment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-046.98]

Ms. Lorraine Graves said she came to San Francisco in 1977 and worked with Berkeley Engineering on the San Francisco Waste Water Program as Construction Manager. She has worked the entire twenty years here in the City and County of San Francisco and has worked very closely with the Department of Public Works.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez , to nominate and appoint Ms. Lorraine Graves to an At-Large seat on the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-047.98]

g.	Mr. David Wasserman for an At-Large seat.

Mr. Wasserman said that he is a second generation San Franciscan. He said that he is a member of the Board of Realtors, a real estate broker and an attorney. He said that he had worked with Department of Building Inspection many times in the past and was very interested in how the codes are drafted and implemented in the City of San Francisco.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez , to nominate and appoint Ms. David Wasserman to an At-Large seat on the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-048.98]

At this point in the meeting, 1:55 p.m., the BIC recessed for the swearing in of the newly appointed committee members of the CAC. The BIC resumed its Regular Meeting at 2:00 p.m.

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

Appeal of Jeremy Paul on behalf of the property owner, Ms. Raina Rakita, regarding the issuance and content of the Notice and Report of Violations issued by Senior Building Inspector Rafael Torres-Gil on April 29, 1998. The subject property is Lot 036, Block 1718 with address of 1234-33rd Avenue, 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.

Mr. John Bardis, Inner Sunset Action Committee, addressed the Commission and said that he was speaking on behalf of Ms. Sima Kurshnisky, the adjacent property owner. He had submitted a written request for continuance. He said that due to lack of time, he had been unable to gather the proper documents for this hearing and had not been able to secure legal services. He told the Commission that although he had submitted a written request for continuance, this request had not be agendized.

President Hood asked Secretary Banico if the appellant was aware of Mr. Bardis' request for continuance.

Commission Secretary Banico said that all parties had been notified of the request but that the appellant had not agreed to the continuance. Per the Rules of the BIC, if there is no agreement among all the parties to the appeal, the continuance can only be granted by a majority vote of the Commission.

Mr. Bardis said that the BIC rules requiring that a hearing be scheduled within fourteen days after an application has been deemed complete does not allow for adequate time for other parties to submit evidence on the appeal. He said that Mr. Paul waited until the last minute to complete his appeal submittal so that other parties to the appeal would have little or not time to respond.

Commissioner Guinnane asked when the appellant had completed his submittal.

Commission Secretary Banico said that she had sent a letter to the applicant stating that his appeal was incomplete within the timeframe required by the BIC rules. Mr. Paul submitted the additional materials the following day. The matter was agendized for this meeting because the next Regular Meeting might be cancelled due to the Joint Meeting with the City Planning Commission.

President Hood asked if there were any objections to a continuance.

Mr. Jeremy Paul, the appellant, said that he did not want a continuance. He wanted to have the case heard today at this hearing.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if a ruling is made by this Commission, if that action is it appealable.

Deputy City Attorney Helen Kwak said the Commission's action would be final as to the department. This was stated in the City Attorney's Office opinion on the BIC's appellate powers. This matter is also under appeal with the Board of Appeals.

Commission Secretary Banico said that the Commission may wish to continue this matter and ask for an opinion on the BIC's jurisdiction on this case.

Commissioner Cereghino said since this case is before the Board of Appeals and asked if it should be before the BIC.

Ms. Kwak said Section 105.2 of the Administrative Code gives jurisdiction of this case to the Abatement Appeals Board (AAB).

Commission Secretary Banico said that the scope of the BIC's appellate powers is granted by the Charter. There have been many discussions in the past that the scope of these appellate needs to be clarified and codified in an ordinance.

President Hood asked Mr. Paul why he brought this appeal before the Commission instead of having the case before the AAB.

Mr. Paul said there has been no Order of Abatement issued to date, therefore the case is not yet appealable to the AAB.

Ms. Kwak said that procedurally the request that is before the BIC is to continue Agenda Item #6 until the next BIC meeting. The BIC may also act on the jurisdiction question so that the matter is not continued and afterwards, the BIC does not take jurisdiction.

Commissioner Vasquez asked if there will be an opportunity for the appellant to determine what appeal route to take.

Ms. Kwak said she believed the appellant had already chosen to bring this case before the BIC.

Mr. Paul said that if this matter is continued until after the Board of Appeals rules on this case, the Board of Appeals action will substantially impact what is in the Report and Notice of Violation prepared by Inspector Torres-Gil. He asked what the Department would do if they withdrew the BIC appeal based on the action of the Board of Appeals.

President Hood that the BIC should not prognosticate. There is no way of knowing what the Board of Appeals will rule on this matter. This Commission can only take up the case if it falls within its jurisdiction

.	Mr. Paul said that is why the appeal has been filed. There was a process under way related tot he appeal before the Board of Appeals. The new Notice of Violation affects that process.

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioners Guinnane and Fillon, to continue the hearing on the appeal until the next Regular Meeting of the BIC.

President Hood asked if there was public comment beyond those things which have already been stated.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopolous said she did not know anything about this appeal. She said that made sense to her that if a person has an attorney, most of the questions should be directed towards that individual.

Ms. Fainna Rakita that she was the owner of the property at 1234 33rd Avenue. This case is keeping her family from occupying their home. She urged the Commission to allow occupancy of the dwelling.

Ms. Sima Kushnirsky, neighbor, said she has lived in her home for the past nineteen years. She hope that the BIC would make the right decision on the code violations at the subject property..

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-049.98]

At this point in the meeting, 3:00 p.m., the BIC recessed and resumed the Regular Meeting at 3:17 p.m.

7.	Presentation by the Litigation Team of the City Attorney's Office and discussion on the recent transfer of the Code Enforcement Section from the Land Use Team to the Litigation Team and its resulting changes in City Attorney's Office staff and services to the Building Inspection Commission and the Department of Building Inspection

Deputy City Attorney Kimon Manolius introduced himself and said that he was the head of the Litigation Team in the City Attorney's Office. Deputy City Attorney Louise Renne, in an effort to provide better service to the Department of Building Inspection, moved the Code Enforcement Team into the Litigation Team. This results in a more effective legal group because Code Enforcement would be benefit from the experience of more trial attorneys.

The Department of Building Inspection would have two contacts at the City Attorney's Office, himself and Ms. Helen Kwak. It would be helpful if he defined their roles. Ms. Kwak will handle the day to day advice matters for the Department. He would provide litigation support.

The trial team will give DBI the hard core litigation skills needed which goes a long way in sending a message to property owners that DBI is serious about code enforcement and the CAO is going to support DBI. When a case is referred, the best hammer DBI can have is to take a litigation stance. Mr. Manolius cited the Sainez Case at 387 South Van Ness was awarded a judgment of $770,000. He said he personally handled this case and the appeal action on that case has just been dismissed. He said that this case has changed the landscape.

Commissioner Guinnane said why the appeal on the Sainez case was dismissed.

Mr. Manolius said the appellant withdrew the appeal. Another case, 1080 Bush Street which had gone on for years, has just settled for $100,000. And another case, the Velasco Case at 2770 Bryant Street, has just been settled for $200,000. These are the cases that DBI has had trouble with for years.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the share of DBI was in the two cases that settled. He said that his concern is that the awards may just revert to the general fund. He asked if the agreements were structured in such a way as to allow for the penalties to come to DIB and not the general fund.

Mr. Manolius said about 95% to 98% of the settlement goes to DBI. The portion that goes to the general fund are the penalties under the Business Profession Code (BPC). This is a flat amount of $2500 per case. The Building or Housing Code penalties are much more, in some cases $500 per/day. They also can accrue much more quickly.

Commissioner Cereghino asked who decides the breakdown of the penalties. DBI had considerable expenses in these case.

Mr. Manolius said the penalties vary for each case. For the Sainez Case, the $770,000 judgment has just happened and the CAO is still waiting for the determination on attorney's fees.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if DBI gets reimbursed on attorney's fees. If the penalties goes to the General Fund, DBI isn't getting reimbursed.

Mr. Manolius said the penalties go to DBI, about $765,000 in building code penalties and a small amount goes to BPC penalties.

President Hood said it was great that the penalties are going to DBI. This is the bottom line information that the BIC wanted to get to.

Mr. Manolius said that only the BPC fees go to the general fund.

Commissioner Guinnane said what he was concerned about was that when the CAO entered into an agreement, it can be structured in such a way that the money is allocated for BPC. In a settlement agreement, without a judge, the settlement can be structured in that manner.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the money can be used to repair the property.

Mr. Manolius said the question has come up as to how much does each case cost. He said he had prepared a table to show the positive results that the CAO has had lately.

President Hood said that the Commission has requested that settlement agreements be brought before the BIC. She said that the Sainez case was almost settled at the recommendation of the CAO for $40,000. This Commission protested that settlement. Our protest caused the CAO to step up its efforts and as a result CAO achieved the $770,000 judgment. She said that she and former Commissioner Sanbonmatsu met with City Attorney Renne to urge her to try the case. This Commission is determined to be pro-active in settlement conferences. The BIC has an agenda. She said that she undersood that by law, the CAO is not required to consult with the BIC. However, the BIC expects the CAO to consult with this forum as a matter of courtesy.

Mr. Manolius said that the CAO is in contact with DBI at all times.

President Hood said that DBI is not Commission. The settlement agreements should be submitted and reviewed by the Commission. This can be done in Closed Session.

Mr. Manolius said that there are a lot of settlement conferences.

President Hood said that the Commission does not need to be involved in every case just in major cases.

Mr. Manolius said he was not aware of the history of the Sainez case. The Commission must have reviewed the case prior to his takeover in August.

President Hood said yes, it was before August. She said that the Commission appreciated the more aggressive stance that Mr. Manolius is taking.

Commissioner Vasquez said that he did not feel comfortable with the $200,000 settlement for the Velasco case for the same reasons this Commission was uncomfortable with Sainez. The BIC has made it clear that they want to be involved in these cases; specifically a case involves the notorious slumlords.

President Hood said that BIC has a Litigation Committee with Commissioners Vasquez, Guinnane and previously Commissioner Sanbonmatsu. She said that she was sorry to hear that this information was not passed on to Mr. Manolius. The Committee was very active with the Sainez case.

Commissioner Vasquez said the he believed DBI and the Housing Inspection Division (HID) possessed the expertise and knowledge to estimate repairs costs and whether or not a certain case should or should not be moving in a certain direction in the settlement process. It was not the purpose of the Litigation Committee to review every case. One of the reasons for forming a Litigation Committee was that sometimes during the course of a settlement a case, the City Attorney's Office could not proceed without a response and could not wait until the next meeting of the BIC.

Commissioner Guinnane said going to the Sainez the initial offer was $40,000. He said the Commission rejected that.

Mr. Manolius said that he too would have rejected that offer.

President Hood said the CAO recommendation was to accept the offer. This Commission had to personally meet with City Attorney Renne to urge her to try the case.

Commissioner Vasquez said what we are looking at is trying to stop, what has been, business as usual for some of these landlords. These two in the Mission, Sainez and Velasco, are notorious. Even having gone through this $770,000. judgement I know for a fact that they continue to maintain their properties in the same pre-judgement state.

Mr. Manolius said perhaps that is why Ms. Renne asked him to lead the team. He has evaluated the dollar worth of thousands of cases in the past and is good at it. He said that Sainez has really changed the landscape. No one had ever seen a judgment of that size before. You can't judge a case now in the same way as before the Sainez Case. Sainez had outstanding violations. If violations are abated, the value of the case would not be as high.

President Hood said that was what the City Attorney's Office argued before the Commission, that in the Sainez case, most of the violations had been abated.

Commissioner Guinnane said they were supposed to have been abated and but it turned out that they were not. He asked Mr. Manolius' opinion on the judgment, if it actually went to appellant court would the judgment be upheld given the net worth of the property.

Mr. Manolius said he thinks it would have stood. The Housing Code was read as non-
discretionary, its penalties had to be imposed.

Commissioner Guinnane asked for a more detailed breakdwon of legal expenditures for each case.

President Hood said this could be agendized for future discussion. She reiterated that BIC's desire to be consulted before entering into settlements with substantial scofflaws.

Mr. Manolius said he has been consulting with DBI and did not operate within a vacuum.

President Hood asked Director Chiu if he had conveyed the BIC's request to the CAO.

Director Chiu said that he has been consulted by the CAO on settlements. As an example, this morning one of the attorneys from the CAO asked if DBI was willing to settle a particular case for $4,000. Even the attorney felt that the offer was very low, but he felt obliged to ask DBI if the offer was acceptable. He said he rejected the offer.

President Hood said that the BIC was therefore directing Mr. Chiu that whenever there is someone with a lot of violations or when there is a significant amount of money involved, the settlement proposal should be agendized and brought before this Commission.

Mr. Manolius said he has been discussing matters with Ms. Stansfield on a regular basis.

Ms. Kwak said the monthly reports that the CAO sends to the department is a good indicator to use. The BIC can identify those cases that it wants to review. The same is true of the monthly billing. The BIC can find out how many hours has been devoted to a case and how much money has come back to the department as of the date of the settlement. One way to do that is to track it through the monthly billing that is sent to Ms. Paulette Hooey's division. She said that one issue is that the monthly report is a confidential document. It contains information that is privileged and it gives a snapshot of a case. It is not information that the CAO would normally share with the public.

President Hood said the Commission was aware of the need for confidentiality.

Commissioner Guinnane said that 1080 Bush Street had gone into bankruptcy. He asked if the CAO would be able to collect $100,000 settlement.

Mr. Manolius said there were fund for the settlement because of the increase in property values.

Commissioner Vasquez said that for the Velasco, $200,000 to be collected over five years is low. This landlord is notorious. The CAO had spent 242 hours since 1996, and $200,000 is not enough. He said that perhaps there are facts that the BIC is not aware of. Those need to be discussed if this department is to continue effective enforcement of the San Francisco Building Code.

President Hood asked when the Velasco case was settled. She said that she was very disappointed with the system and how it is working because the BIC was not notified. The BIC has repeatedly expressed this in the past, it is a matter of record. She asked if the Velasco Case was closed and if there was still a way for this Commission to revisit that case and investigate its options.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how the $200,000 would be secured over the five year period.

Mr. Manolius said that if Velasco defaulted, there would be a move for summary judgment.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the settlement was interest free.

Mr. Manolius said there was no interest accrued. Mrs. Velasco has to make every payment on time. If she misses even just one payment, the entire amount becomes due. It is an excellent settlement.

President Hood said this Commission does not want the CAO to be the sole judge of whether a settlement is good or not. The Commission has been trying to say that for the last half hour.

Mr. Manolius said he understood what the Commission was saying.

Commissioner Vasquez said every time that the BIC met with the CAO on the Sainez Case, they were told that it was an excellent settlement. This was said numerous times.

Mr. Manolius said the Sainez case was such a change in the legal landscape. No one could have foreseen it.

President Hood said the Commission did. She said that this Comission has a different agenda than the CAO. The CAO's agenda is to make good settlements. The agenda of this Commission is to change the way housing code violators behave. Therefore, the BIC is willing to take different risks with the money spent on legal fees. It is not a criticism of the CAO's work. The BIC and CAO have different motivations in settling cases. The Commission believes it is good for the people of the City of San Francisco for the CAO to hear what this Commission thinks about these settlements. It is not the money. It is the message that is broadcasted with the settlements to the landlords that is important. The message is worth many times the legal fees spent because it saves money in the future. These landlords are not going to behave in the same manner over the same issues. They will think about the Sainez case.

Mr. Manolius said that the CAO does not want to go to trial where they have undervalued cases because that sends a message as well. The Trial Team knows how to value cases. He urged the BIC to hear what they have to say.

President Hood asked what Mr. Manolius would do in the future when something the like Velasco Case comes up, if he is going to contact this Commission or not.

Mr. Manolius said however the Commission advises him.

President Hood said this Commission wants to have a discussion before the settlement conference.

Mr. Manolius suggested that there be someone in DBI who could make that call for the CAO, someone who knows what is going on on a regular basis.

Mr. Manolius said that there are problems in discussing these matters at a public meeting.

President Hood said it is always done in Closed Session.

Commission Secretary Banico said suggested that the procedure would be for Mr. Manolius to contact her. She, in turn, will contact the Litigation Committee and they could determined whether it is appropriate to calendar an item for Closed Session.

President Hood said she thought that would be a good mechanism and asked if there was any public comment.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said per attorney hour, the Commission did much better in 2770 Bryant. She said in teaching lessons, the BIC does not have to throw away too much public money. Ms. Caravelli said she has not seen the Summary Reports and asked if this was the same as the monthly billing report.

Ms. Kwak said this was a different document.

8.	Report, discussion and possible action regarding the March 1998 billing and expenditures for City Attorney's Office' services to the Building Inspection Commission and/or the Department of Building Inspection.

Ms. Paulette Hooey, Manager of the Administrative Services Division, refered to the March 1998 billing report. She said that the original billing was $77,000 and was adjusted to $71,000. With this trend, the end of the year projection has decreased by $100,000 to $836,000.

Commissioner Guinnane asked why the HIS billing was adjusted from $4,637.59 to $26,952.

Ms. Hooey said the litigation amount was reallocated. She said that there needs to be some work on this because in the summary report, the litigation item shows as a separate line item. There are monies in the litigation line item that should be placed under their respective divisions.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Ms. Hooey could give a dollar figure as to how much money was paid back.

Ms. Hooey said no, she would have to look it up and report back.

Ms. Kwak asked if this was a good time to clarify as to when she would be advising the BIC and when Ms. Boyajain's team would be advising the BIC.

President Hood said that the matter would have to be agendized and needs to be discussed and clarified.

9.	Public Hearing on various DBI Code Rulings currently in effect that have been recommended for deletion by the Code Advisory Committee. Pursuant to BIC Procedure 4 of the BIC Rules, Regulations, Policies and Procedures (RRPH), the BIC is holding this public hearing and will act on this matter after sixty (60) days to allow for public comment. A staff report and copies of the Code Rulings proposed for deletion are available at the Commission Office.

Mr. Alan Tokugawa, Senior Building Inspection, said that of the 55 or so code ruling that were issued by the Bureau of Building Inspection (BBI) between 1984 and 1993, about 40 have been discussed by the Code Advisory Committee (CAC). Of the 40, 30 have been recommended for deletion because they are covered by the 1995 San Francisco Building Code.

Director Chiu said this is an ongoing process. It would be helpful it each of the Commissioners had a copy of this code rulings to make sure that the issues of concern have not been deleted. These deletions are outdated items that are no longer relevant to the San Francisco Building Code.

President Hood asked of this is just housing cleaning.

Director Chiu said yes, that is correct.

President Hood ask if CAC needed any action form the BIC on this matter.Director Chiu said these proposed deletions are being circulated for comment and suggestions.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Tokugawa if plastic garbage containers are required by code.

Mr. Tokugawa said that the code does not require plastic garbage containers. However, the code requires that if plastic containers are used, they must be non-flammable.

10.	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 said the drafting of the appellate powers ordinance has been progressing steadily. Two drafts had been prepared which were then referred to the City Attorney's Office. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian has now issued draft #3. Commission Secretary Banico then prepared a table that showed the first two drafts side by side. Two new issues came up today, the fourteen day deadline for hearing and overlapping jurisdiction with the AAB. There will be another meeting on May 27, 1998.

Ms. Caravelli, asked about the details of the upcoming meeting.

Commissioner Cereghino said that a meeting is scheduled for May 27, 1998 at 12:30 p.m. Commission Secretary Banico will inform interested parties of the location.

President Hood thanked Commissioner Cereghino for her work on the appellate powers ordinance.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli requested that documents for the meeting be circulated a week in advance of the meeting.

11.	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.

President Hood asked if there were any public comment on these items.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that she had sent a letter to Director Chiu about a month ago dealing with access to public records. She said that she was at DBI on Monday and found a file that she wanted to see. She was told that the file was in the Director's Office. Ms. Caravelli called the Director's Office to view the file. She was told that she would have to make an appointment with Inspector Andy Green to see the file. Ms. Caravelli said that she had to call Mr. Green twice to make the appointment. When she got there, Mr. Green told her that he wasn't answering any questions. She drew Mr. Green's attention to the summary report that named Mr. Green as DBI's inspecting agent who discovered the building had been demolished. Ms. Caravelli said that the Public Records Act requires that public records be available to the public during normal business hours. The Act does not require the public to make an appointment. There needs to be a process whereby the public can access the records by simply coming to DBI and accessing the record.

12.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of May 6, 1998.

President Hood asked if there were any changes or corrections of the minutes.

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve the Minutes of the BiC Regular Meeting of May 6, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-050.98]

13.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of June 3, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

Commissioner Freeman said that he would like to have an agenda item for Unlawful Demolition, earthquake damage and the repair of earthquake damaged building.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli recommended that the Commission agendize a rule change regarding the scheduling of hearing within fourteen days of receiving a complete appeal application.

President Hood asked Commissioner Cereghino if there is need for a Commission discussion on outstanding policy questions on the BIC appellate powers such as the fourteen day rule.

Commissioner Cereghino the policy questions are being threshed out in the meetings and will be presented to the Commission. She said that at some point, there will have to be a discussion on what goes into the BIC rules.

14.	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 comment at this point in the proceedings.

15.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p. m.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-051.98]

_________________________________

MARIA BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã