Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Joint Meeting with the City Planning Commission

Adopted on July 1, 1998

Thursday, May 28, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.

War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor, Room 410

MINUTES

The Joint Meeting of the Building Inspection Commission (BIC) and the City Planning Commission (CPC) was called to order by BIC President Hood and CPC President Chinchilla at 1:40 p.m.

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

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Bobbie Sue Hood, President

Armando Vasquez, Vice President

Mona Cereghino, Commissioner

Alfonso K. Fillon, Commissioner

Sharon Mark, Commissioner

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Roy Guinnane, Commissioner

Sigmund Freeman, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Hector Chinchilla, President

Anita Theoharis, Vice- President

Cynthia Joe, Commissioner

Lawrence Martin, Commissioner

Beverly Mills, Commissioner

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Dennis Antenore, Commissioner

Richard Hill, Commissioner

COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT:

Linda Avery, Commission Secretary

D.C.P. REPRESENTATIVES:

Gerald Green, Director

Robert Passmore, Zoning Administrator

Mary Galagher, Chief City Planner

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

A.	SPECIAL CALENDAR

DCP Director Gerald Green welcomed members of the two Commissions and members of the public to the joint meeting and said that this was the first time that the BIC and the CPC have held a joint meeting. He said this joint meeting is part of an effort to improve coordination between the two departments of CPC and DBI is welcome and has the support of the Mayor's Office. The purpose of this meeting is to improve the permit process. He said that the agenda was prepared with this in mind. There may be other meetings in the future on other topics. Mr. Green behooved the participants in the meeting and the audience to point at real problems and solutions to the permit process in general and not use this forum to assess blame or single out members of staff or specific projects.

DBI Director Frank Chiu also welcomed members of the two Commissions. He spoke about the purpose, mission statement and the organization of the Department of Building Inspection. He also described new programs and innovations in the department such as the One-
Stop Permit Coordination Program and the launching of the department's website.

CPC President Chinchilla asked Director Chiu to describe the building permit for a typical project, for discussion purposes.

Director Chiu said that for a typical process, for example a kitchen remodel, the building permit is issued over the counter if there are no changes to the outside of a building, including windows, and no structural work.

Director Green added that Planning staff review is not required for such a project under Section 311 of the Planning Code. There are no planning requirements until a certain threshold is reached, after that threshold, planning review and other planning codes are triggered.

CPC President Chinchilla asked if the initial determination on whether planning review is needed is made by a clerk of DBI.

DBI Director Chiu said that there are guidelines for DBI staff to use.

CPC Director Green said that the staff of both departments meet regularly. The first step in filing for a permit is to fill out a form. Based on the information supplied by the applicant on this form, DBI then refers the permit to other departments.

DBI Director Chiu said that another typical permit is a residential extension. He said that DBI staff first refers this to Planning staff. DBI review starts only after getting the green light from Planning staff.

CPC Director Green said that there are notice requirements for various types of permits. The two departments have different notice requirements. City Planning usually sends out notice before the decision on an application. DBI usually sends out notice after a decision has been issued.

DBI Director Chiu agreed with this description with the exception of demolition applications where DBI sends out notices before and after the decision on the application.

Planning Commissioner Theoharis said that there are substantial changes that are made in addenda submittals for site permits. She asked if there was a DBI process in place to refer changes back to Planning staff.

DBI Director Chiu said that revised plans go back to the staff in Planning who processed the

original site permit applicattion.

CPC Commissioner Mills asked how DBI keeps track of these referrals. She requested that DBI listen to the issues brought up during the rest of this meeting with an ear on what the One-
Stop Program can do to provide solutions.

DBI Commissioner Cereghino asked if the Department of City Planning had staff available to enforce the planning code.

DBI Director Chiu said that the enforcement of building permits is the responsibility of DBI. The inspectors make sure that the codes are followed.

BIC President Hood asked how DCP handles incoming complaints. Does DCP call up DBI to enforce the codes.

CPC Director Green said that DCP informs DBI of information received on violations of the Building Code. DCP has stopped, as was done in the past, asking DBI inspectors to field check violations. If a violation or complaint is related to the Planning Code, DCP staff goes out themselves.

DBI Commissioner Cereghino asked if DBI staff are trained on the enforcement of the Planning Code.

CPC Director Green said that most violations of the Planning Code are also violations of the Building Code.

CPC President Chinchilla asked if the two departments had separate computer systems.

DBI Director Chiu said that there is only one system that tracks all building permits.

CPC Director Green said that there is one system for tracking, but the two departments have dual data bases.

CPC President Chinchilla asked if this situation hinders the permit process.

CPC Director Green said that in some ways the current system affects the permit process. He said that the Department of City Planning will be converting to the Oracle system at some future date. This will allow hook-up into DBI's computer systems.

DBI Director Chiu said that DBI's Oracle based system is almost complete and there is an operational prototype on the ground floor.

BIC President Hood said that there should be complete information on plans submitted for permits that show the actual work to be done. The information provided on plans varies. She solicited input on how to improve this part of the process.

CPC Director Green said he had some thoughts on this issue which he has not had a chance to discuss with DBI Director Chiu as of yet. He said, one solution could be that there be a 15-day period from the time a building permit is issued before work can commence. During this 15-day period, an initial inspection can be made to verify the actual conditions in the structure prior to the start of construction. This initial inspection could be required. Another source of improvements would be the use of the GIS (geographic information system).

CPC President Chinchilla said that there should be stronger penalties for people who submit wrong information on plans. The departments should look at available recourse such as state penalties on licenses and certification. Another avenue would be perjury.

(CPC Commissioner Martin arrived at this point in the discussion at 2:25 p.m.)

BIC President Hood and CPC President Chinchilla opened the floor to public comment.

Ms. Edith McMillan said that the agenda for this meeting stated seven separate topics. She asked for procedural clarification on the time limits for speakers. She said that it would not be possible to cover all seven items in three minutes.

CPC President Chinchilla said that the Commissions would allow speakers to address each topic for up to three minutes.

1. Information Procedures

Public notices

Communication between departments

Computer systems for tracking the status of applications

Complete information on plans and accurate description of proposals

Ms. McMillan said that notice provided is not adequate and a wider radius should be used. Errors in noticing compound the problems. She said that communications between the two departments is getting better but is still not what it ought to be. The computer systems have problems and cited a permit that was "resurrected after six years" which was not referred back to CPC. She said that the information on plans is not complete and sometimes semantics is used to avoid permit requirements. She said that training is needed.

Ms. Patricia Vaughy said that there is preferential treatment being given. She said that there are certain people who have greater access to DBI staff. Ms. Vaughy submitted a memorandum from DBI staff allowing Mr. Walter Wong access to the building outside of regular working hours. She said that there should be daily check on the addresses of permits issued. Permit expediters should be required to register with the Ethics Commission. She said that it is a conflict of interests when staff recommends to an applicant to work with a particular expediter.

Mrs. Sima Kushnirsky addressed the Commissions and spoke about a particular permit application. When directed by the chair to address the agenda item, she said that the process is very confusing.

Mr. Bill Deitch asked where notification will stop if it is to be expanded. He said that he feels the current requirements are adequate.

Mr. Irving Rosenthal said that Mr. Robert Passmore, Zoning Administrator, needs staff to enforce the Planning Code and conditions of approval. He addressed DBI Director Chiu and DBI Deputy Director Wong. He said that the issuance of a Notice of Violation on a certain property was delayed for two weeks because of a call from Ms. Millie Valdez from the Mayor's Office. He asked DBI Director Chiu to follow up on this matter and inquired with Inspector John Sims and Chief Inspector Wing Lau.

BIC President Hood requested DBI Director Chiu to look into this matter.

Mr. Joe O'Donoghue, Residential Builders Association, said that it is amazing that there are not more complaint given that DBI processes 55,000 permits per year. He addressed the comments made by Ms. Vaughy and said that some people do have greater access such as Sue Hestor, not based on the time they are allowed into the building, but that some people are allowed into areas where other parties are not. He said that this results in lost plans and that he perceives a nexus between the problem of losing plans and certain people given special access to areas in both DCP and DBI. He suggested the use of computer chips to track plans. He said that he was complaining strongly that something is wrong.

Mr. Leo McClaughlin said that the different noticing requirements of the different departments is a burden. He said that he had to undertake four separate noticing for a single project and found out that it was not possible to integrate this requirement. He agreed with CPC President Chinchilla that a perjury charge for wrong information on plans will be helpful.

Ms. Judy West urged the Commissions to look at the building code provisions on new construction/live work projects and requested DBI to coordinate with DCP on the live/work code. She also urged the Commissions to keep better track of lot mergers and subdivisions in regard to tracking changes of use.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli described a project that involved the demolition of a warehouse which impacted adjacent residences.

David Barnard, DBI staff, invited interested parties to try the new DBI computer system.

Aaron Peskin said that he had sought the enforcement of the conditions of approval of a conditional use permit. He had to go back and forth between the two departments. Eventually, it was DBI who issued the Notice of Violations. He said that he had researched the procedures and now know which department does the follow through. However, a citizen still has to go through the back and forth process. He urged the two Commissions to figure out a way to make the process simple.

Redmond Lyon said he was a builder whose plans have been lost repeatedly. He believes that this was a delay tactic. Time is of the essence for builders and lost plans cost money.

John Bardis said that missed staff deadlines and postponements were a problem. He said that all interested parties should be notified of postponements and should be kept abreast of the status of a permit.

Jake McGoldrick said that he had very little notice about this meeting. This is very little time allowed to speak to address the issues completely. He said there were many examples of illegal demolitions. He could provide more detailed information on specific projects if given more time to address this forum.

Alice Barkley said that the 15-day inspection proposed by DCP Director Green will not work. The BIC needs to be absolutely clear about its policies on unlawful demolition. There should be a separate process for violations for exceeding the allowed scope of work on the permit triggered by Building Code requirements.

Diedre Workman said that she represented San Francisco Beautiful and wished to thank the Commissions and the directors of the two departments for the efforts to increase coordination between the two department. She aid her organization is concerned with varied issues such as billboards and increased coordination between the two departments will assist in the improved enforcement of codes.

CPC President Chinchilla closed the public hearing.

2. Permitting Procedures

Application review by multiple departments

Review of building permit applications at Planning Information Counter

Multiple permits/actions on one property, e.g., serial permits

Edith McMillan said that this meeting's goal was to improve the coordination between the two departments. Better relationships between the two departments are needed. There has been an improvement already but further improvements are needed. The application review process by multiple departments looks good on paper but needs tightening up in practice. She said that the issue of serial permits should be scheduled for another joint meeting to allow for a more detailed discussion.

Patricia Vaughy described several permit applications and said that the drawings that went to different departments/bodies (e.g., Planning Commission, Planning staff, Building Department staff) were different from each other. She said that they had brought up the concern that the drawings were not accurate and staff did not listen. Therefore, the permit was issued and there were problems during the construction process. There is a need to figure out a way to stop this type of problem. She said that the computer tracking system does not give correct or complete information.

Roberta Caravelli said that there are many problems one of which is over-the-counter permits. She said that there is no system in place to track who has reviewed or signed-off on a permit. There are many errors which she has found. The errors, for example a permit that was issued on a wrong address, are not corrected. There is no way to stop future mistakes if one cannot determine who made the mistakes in the first place.

BIC President Hood requested DBI Director Chiu to respond to the speaker. DBI Director Chiu said that plan checkers sign-off on the back of plans for permits, even those issued over the counter. However, the computer file does not identify the plan checker, only the departments who need to review the plans.

Bill Deitch said that he had also experienced the loss of his plans at the planning department. He said that the discretionary review process allows parties to delay projects with very little investments as compared to the investment risks and delay costs that must be bourne by the developer. There is a need to revamp the DR process.

Jake McGoldrick identified several addresses which he claimed de facto demolition had occured. He said there are many flaws in the hearing process. For example, the hearing officer for one address was the supervisor of the plan checker who approved the plans. The Zoning Administrator has no one to enforce the conditions of approval, the situation is sad. There were too many issues to address. He said he hoped the Commissions would break the issues down to smaller pieces so that the public could participate more effectively.

Joe O'Donoghue said that the code requirements on unlawful demolition causes a nightmare for project sponsors. He described a project which involved a 400 sq. ft. addition where eight additional studs, not shown on the plans, had to be removed because of dry rot. This resulted in construction being halted from November to March. The permit was eventually upheld. There is a need to differentiate between protests that are real and those that are meant merely to delay projects.

John Bardis said that the protests and delays are caused by short cuts or deviations allowed by people who are payed to enforce the codes. He said that there have been cases when the Zoning Administrator has ruled contrary to the action of the Planning Commission and so this case had to be appealed to the Board of Appeals. He cited a Notice of Violation that was issued and then revised. He said that the delays are caused by city staff who had not carried out their jobs in a professional or effective way.

Anastacia Yovonopolous said that she has heard that there are property owners and contractors who do not follow the permit process for a number of different reasons. The inspectors let violations fly and there is no effective enforcement process.

BIC President Hood closed the public hearing and invited Commissioners to provide input and direction to staff on the issues brought up during public testimony.

CPC Commissioner Mills said that verification of the scope of work is needed. For single permits, the notification process needs to be improved. There is also the issue of serial permits which is related to having complete information on plans.

CPC President Chinchilla said that the suggestions brought up on having the address entered in the computer file should be implemented. He said that he was also concerned about the over-the-counter- permits and that different sets of plans are being submitted to different departments. There is a need to track and handle plans more effectively. Planning needs to track the implementation of conditions and codes in each set of plans or resubmittals.

CPC Commissioner Theoharis said that the computers need to be improved. The printouts should show the address and also the staff member involved. She said that these are simple changes to implement. She agreed with CPC President Chinchilla on the penalty for perjury for wrong information on plans. There should be a checklist on information that should be included in plans. Planning Commissioner Theoharris said she also was concerned about the delays that may be caused by the discretionary review process. She asked CPC Director Green how long the process took.

CPC Director Green said that a discretionary review request was calendared with six to eight weeks. At the longest, the process took two months.

BIC Commissioner Cereghino said that she had been told that the hard copies of files being scanned were being stored in boxed and were not being sorted.

DBI Director Chiu said that he will look into how hard copies of scanned files are being filed.

BIC Commissioner Fillon addressed Mr. O'Donoghue's comments. He said if plans are getting lost, there must be some recompense to the applicants affected if their plans are lost.

DBI Deputy Director Hutchinson addressed Ms. Vaughy's earlier comments on the memorandum regarding Mr. Walter Wong. He said that the Fire Department staff starts work at 6:30 a.m. DBI thought it was improving service to customers by allowing them into the building before DBI working hours. He said that if the Commissioners had concerns about this, the department could revert back to old practices. He said that he will look into the issues of lost plans and members of the public being allowed in employee areas.

BIC Vice-President Vasquez said that DBI has just instituted the One-Stop Permit Coordination Program which can address some of the routing problems and loss of plans. He agreed with BIC Commissioner Fillon that there should be some accommodation for the project applicant when staff loses the plans such as expediting the repeat plan check. He added that the BIC had formed a committee to address the problems on de facto demolition and look closely at the impacts of the code. He said that the committee had requested and is again requesting the involvement of the Department of City Planning.

CPC Commissioner Mills said that if enforcement is a major concern there should be appropriate staffing in each department.

CPC Commissioner Joe said that sometimes different plans are submitted to each department on permits requiring multi-department review.

CPC President Chinchilla said that the two departments should look into a process where staff routes or carries the plans from one department to the other. The applicant is currently allowed to submit plans at different counters. It is possible that a different plan is submitted to each department.

DCP Director Green said that currently plans are initialed by the staff person who did the review. He is looking to the One-Stop Program to address this issue.

BIC President Hood said that for projects that could potentially lead to illegal demolition, there is a need to get accurate information on the existing building up front.

CPC Commissioner Martin said that he agreed with BIC President Hood and was interested in Ms. Barkley's comments. He was encouraged that DBI Deputy Director Hutchinson was concerned about lost plans. He said that he got the sense from public testimony that losing plans is a problem but that staff does not share this sentiment. Because of this, there should be a report back on this issue. On scanning documents, there may be future problems because the best evidence to use is still the original document.

CPC Commissioner Joe said enforcement of conditions of approval must be addressed.

DCP Director Green said that there will be a report back to the two Commissions on issues raised today.

B. PUBLIC COMMENT

Patricia Vaughy said that plans that have been microfiche are logged in according to date, not according to permit number. This is the reason that plans are hard to find. She requested that DBI Deputy Director Wong look into this issue.

Roberta Caravelli said that regulatory agencies exist to protect the public. This function is more important than serving the permit applicant.

Jake McGoldrick said that there is a need to look into the motivations that lead to unlawful demolition.

David Barnard said that he has been acting, on a voluntary basis, as the transportation coordinator for DBI and CPC. When he retires, there is a need to assign a transportation coordinator for the building to assist employees on Muni passes, Bart tickets, etc. Planning Commission Resolution No. 9414 and City Planning Code Section No. 163 require transportation brokerage systems in new South of Market buildings.

C.	ADJOURNMENT

There being no other business and no objections from members of the two Commission, BIC President Hood and CPC President Chinchilla adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p. m.

_________________________________

MARIA G. T. BANICO

BIC Commission Secretary

p:\mgb\minutes\5-28-98.wpd Çã