Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Adopted on July 1, 1998

Wednesday, June 17, 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 by President Hood at

1:12 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	Sharon Mark, Commissioner

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Roy Guinnane, 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

Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, TSD

Hansom Tom, Manager of CPC/UMB

2.	President's Report.

President Hood said she had no report.

President Hood opened the floor for public comment

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, requested that Agenda Item #3b be placed at the end of the meeting due to the possible length of discussion of that item. The request was denied.

3.	Director's Report.

a.	Status report, discussion and possible action regarding the proposed DBI budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 currently being reviewed by the Board of Supervisors.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that Director Chiu was presently at a budget meeting with the Board of Supervisors and would be attending the BIC meeting shortly. Director Chiu will have a final report after the budget meetings conclude.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that the request for positions in the Technical Services Division (TSD) had been cut by the Mayor. TSD is the division that must do the work on the San Francisco Building Code and it needs to be adequately staffed.

President Hood said that this was the first she had heard about this and asked Deputy Director Hutchinson to explain the situation.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said the Mayor's Office cut the positions requested for TSD. DBI has vacant positions to transfer to TSD.

President Hood asked if these vacant positions would require the qualifications for code review.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said any new staff hired will have to meet the qualifications needed by the department.

President Hood said that working with the San Francisco Building Code requires editing skills. Editing is not required in the testing for engineers or inspectors. She said that the decision to cut TSD positions, when the Uniform Building Code is facing the most sweeping changes in twenty-five years, is inappropriate and should be revisited.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that she understood that vacant positions have been moved. Staff employed at DBI will not transfer into these positions. Vacant positions have been transferred in.

President Hood said that the salaries allocated for these vacant positions may not be enough to pay people with dual abilities. It is the same problem with the Management Information Systems (MIS) Division. She directed that this issue be agendized for further discussion at the next meeting. President Hood said that she did not believe that the Mayor's Office was fully aware of the issues involved or the difficulties DBI had producing the last code which was much simpler compared to this revision.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the most important is timing: how quickly TSD can get new staff without having to go back to the Mayor's Office or the Board of Supervisors.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that although all of the managers were present to answer questions, he and Deputy Director Wong would present a summary report. Deputy Director Hutchinson said he would touch on general highlights of DBI, then his specific program, and would yield the floor to Deputy Director Wong.

Deputy Directors Hutchinson and Wong then referred to the third quarter report distributed with the BIC packet. Deputy Director Hutchinson referred to pp. 17 to 27 and Deputy Director Wong referred to pp. 7 to 15.

President Hood asked Deputy Director Wong how the DAD complaint rate compare with the rate in the past. She asked if there were any figures he could quote.

Deputy Director Wong said that the rate has remained the same. DAD was getting 9 to 15 new cases per/month which was manageable.

Deputy Director Wong said there is no data yet on the One Stop Permit Coordination Program (OSPCP) because the OSPCP opened this quarter. There will be some figures next quarter.

Commissioner Vasquez said he appreciated the efforts put into getting this report together. It gives a picture of where the Department is at.

President Hood said that she was very happy with this and the first report a couple of months ago. At this meeting, summary reports were given because of time constraints. However, in the future, she would like to have the individual managers report to the Commission about the activities of their divisions. She said she wants staff to tell the Commission about problems and how the BIC can help.

In regards to overtime, President Hood asked if the staff had a free choice on working overtime or if overtime was mandatory.

Deputy Director Hutchinson assured her that overtime was handled on a voluntary basis, otherwise it would not work.

Commissioner Vasquez said that in the past, it has been only during budget negotiations when the Commission is made aware of DBI's circumstances. He said that in the future, the Commission should know issues earlier to avoid being rushed into making decisions that are not well thought out during the budget cycle.

President Hood said the additional staff for the code review process was not reflected in this report. It was a major goal of the Commission so that the code revisions are done methodically, without the trauma that occurred in the past. She said that she wants to know how it happened and why this Commission was not informed in time to give input to the Mayor.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said a report on that topic would be forthcoming.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said the reports spoke only to quantity. There is still no measure or mention of quality. She said that she had tripped over three buildings built in 1987 that had extensive wood rot damage before 1990. The estimated cost of repair for these buildings was $367,000. Ms. Caravelli said that she had told the Commission about illegal permits and permit applications she had seen. She said that the few permits and permit applications that she had looked at, have all been defective and some checks in terms of quality, have to be made.

b.	Presentation and discussion on the performance and budget of all of DBI's divisions for the third quarter of FY 1997-98.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said the budget report for DBI would normally be presented by Ms. Paulette Hooey. Ms. Hooey and Director Chiu were appearing before the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the item could be placed on the agenda for next meeting.

There was no public comment on this item.

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

Mr. Jeremy Paul said that he was the appellant for Agenda Item #6. He had withdrawn his appeal and was surprised to find this item still on the agenda

President Hood said that the Public Comment item is only for matters that are not part of the Agenda. President Hood directed Mr. Paul to address the Commission when the agenda item is taken up.

Ms. Anastacia Yovanopolous said that she had attended a Joint Meeting of the City Planning Commission (CPC) and the BIC. Ms. Yovanopolous asked if the BIC was going to follow up on the ideas that came out of that meeting. She said that the follow-up should be agendized.

Ms. Caravelli said that at the Joint Meeting, she spoke to the Commission's function as a regulatory body and that concept is not clear in the Commissioners' minds. Due to gross under-
staffing of code enforcement, the only regulatory function DBI staff serves is in permit processing and the inspection of the work under those permits. A permit issued that is not in compliance with the San Francisco Building Code is invalid and a fine will not make the permit legal.

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

This item was continued to the next meeting.

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.	Discussion and possible action to continue the hearing per request of the appellant.

b.	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.

c.	Presentation by parties, including witnesses.

d.	Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

Mr. Paul said he submitted a letter withdrawing his appeal to Commission Secretary Banico and was informed that this item would be taken off the agenda. The appeal has been resolved by the Board of Appeals and this matter is within the jurisdiction of another forum.

Commission Secretary Banico said Mr. Paul has withdrawn the appeal and there is no action required of this Commission. Interested parties were advised yesterday of the withdrawal. The Commission may take testimony but there will be no action by the BIC.

President Hood said the deputy city attorney is not present. She would have liked to address the question of whether the BIC should take testimony. To hear testimony at this point, in her opinion, would violate the Brown Act because the Commission would be discussing issues that are not on the agenda.

Commission Secretary Banico said that the parties here today were advised that there may be no discussion of this appeal. It is at the discretion of the chair whether or not to hear testimony.

President Hood said that her thought would be not to take any testimony. She asked if there were any objections.

Commission Secretary Banico said the interested parties for Agenda Item #6 may then address the Commission at Public Comment. President Hood and Commissioner Vasquez agreed.

Mr. John Bardis requested to address the Commission and President Hood declined.

Mr. Bardis asked if Agenda Item #6 was on the Agenda.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the appeal had been withdrawn.

President Hood again declined to take testimony at this point in the proceedings.

7.	Report, discussion and possible action to approve the proposed staffing, scope of work, workplan and budget for the review and possible amendment of Section 3403 of the 1995 San Francisco 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. At the May 6, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting , the Commission directed staff to report back on the scope of work and workplan including, but not limited to, the establishment of a blue ribbon panel or the issuance of a request for qualifications/proposals RFQs/RFPs).

Commissioner Freeman reported that Mr. Pat Buscovich had put together a blue ribbon panel primarily composed of structural engineers. There is a meeting scheduled for next Wednesday and Thursday, from noon to two o'clock p.m., to discuss the process.

President Hood said she thought the impacts of this subject matter goes far beyond structural engineering issues. She asked who the members of this panel are.

Commissioner Freeman said this is merely the initial step. The composition of the participants will be broadened. The upcoming meeting is aimed at getting ideas flowing and creating a schedule.

President Hood said she was concerned that to date only structural engineers are seated on this panel. She wanted to know when building owners, architects and the representatives for affordable housing will be included in this panel.

Commissioner Freeman said he understood the concerns. He said that there is a large inventory of existing buildings. The issue is the reduction of seismic hazards which is also a socio-economic concern. The code is unclear on these issues. Perhaps buildings should be categorized into different groups.

President Hood said she thought the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) should be involved in this panel. It is their charge to look at code changes.

Commissioner Freeman said this matter was on the CAC's agenda for today's meeting.

President Hood suggested that Commissioner Freeman invite the building owner and architect members of the CAC to participate on this panel as well.

Commissioner Vasquez said the BIC needs to first understand the problem. He said that he is not familiar with this section of the code and needs someone to report to the Commission what the problems are in Section 3403 along with some recommendation on how to fix it.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said Mr. Buscovich looked to DBI specifically Mr. Hanson Tom, to establish the blue ribbon panel. The panel was to meet and have some discussion and then return to the full Commission with its recommendations. DBI is waiting for that dialogue to begin.

President Hood asked Mr. Tom to approach the microphone and report.

Mr. Tom said that he and Mr. Buscovich have identified several issues. Mr. Buscovich wrote them out in a memo/list form. Many of the issues revolve around the way DBI assesses damage after an earthquake.

President Hood said she thought the Commission would receive a written report at this meeting so that the Commissioners could see what the identified issues were. It is important for the Commission to have that information.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said DBI has heard and understood Mr. Buscovich' concerns. DBI is also willing to work with him and this panel. This is work in progress and it is going to take some time. DBI cannot put anything before the Commission until that panel meets and has put something on paper.

President Hood said it was her understanding that that is exactly what this list was. She said that other groups need to be involved with this panel now because there is such an enormous impact on property owners and residents. She directed Deputy Director Hutchinson to make copies of this list and provide copies to the Commission. President Hood said this item would be continued until the next meeting.

President Hood directed Commission Secretary Banico to be sure that the Commission was not making an ad hoc committee and, with the help of the City Attorney's Office, to be sure that all of the noticing was in compliance with the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance.

Mr. Tom said that the list is not finished product. He said he hoped that Mr. Laurence Kornfield and the CAC will have a voice in this.

Mr. Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector of TSD, said the structural issue is divided into three parts. The first is Section 104(f) which states that when interior partitions are changed or if there is a change of use of a building, the building has to be upgraded to 75% of current earthquake standards. DBI is not in conformance with the state law that requires that the building meets 100% of the current standards. The second issue, said Mr. Kornfield , is the voluntary upgrade of buildings. The San Francisco Building Code discourages property owners from upgrading existing buildings because this may trigger additional mandatory structural upgrades. The last is post earthquake inspection. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has set a deadline to establish standards for earthquake damage. These are the three big issues. All of these include structural engineers but these issues go far beyond the scope of structural engineers.

President Hood thanked Mr. Kornfield for his presentation of the issues and said what she is looking for is the actual workplan of the project so that the Commission can get a picture of what is going to be a long drawn process.

Mr. Tom said that initially there was a long list of people who were to be invited to participate on this panel. Then it was decided that for the first two meetings, when the scope of work was defined, it would not be necessary to invite all the prospective participants for the time being.

President Hood said that the Commission wants to participate in determining who is on the list. This is an important item and representatives for historical preservation, affordable housing and landlords need to be on this panel from the beginning.

President Hood directed Mr. Tom to work with Commission Secretary Banico concerning the composition of this panel.

Commissioner Freeman said if you concentrate on just a few pages of the code and understand what it says, you will begin to understand what the problem is. Section 3403 is only about six pages of code. In the Uniform Building Code nd the state code, that chapter is only one-and-a-
half pages.

President Hood said that at the next meeting, that information could be included in the BIC package along with the work plan and staffing.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Ms. Caravelli said that this was a matter that she could not watch over. She said that she hoped that staff will watch over the changes very carefully. There are competing interests. The process needs objective staff review which demands documented justifications for changes to the code.

Commissioner Freeman said that Oakland went through a similar ordeal. They hired a professional socio-economic cost-benefits group which included an engineering firm. It was like an environmental impact study. The study was unbiased. They came up with all the issues and had them thoroughly discussed with the public. This issue is going to have to be discussed in public forums. It will take about one year to come up with recommendations and maybe two years before there is something on paper. Commissioner Freeman said that he thought DBI did need to hire professional help with this project.

President Hood said that she felt a lot more comfortable with that process. She said that it is like an environmental evaluation document because it has the same kind of difficult to define but significant impacts. She said that the hiring of consultants is something to consider as part of the work plan.

Commissioner Freeman said FEMA may be available for this.

Mr. Kornfield said that staff is working with the Applied Technology Council, which is a non-
profit organization that acts like a bridge between engineers and public policy makers. It may be possible to get FEMA funding for this work.

Commissioner Vasquez said that this is a tremendous undertaking and he wished to underscore its importance. He said that he wanted to commend Commissioner Freeman for taking this issue on.

President Hood said that she wanted to commend Mr. Kornfield and Mr. Tom for all of their efforts.

8.	Report, discussion and possible action to amend the Rules of the Building Inspection Commission (Section 7.02 APPLICATION; TIME FOR REVIEW; SCHEDULING OF HEARING) to schedule hearings on appeals within two Regular Meetings of the BIC excluding meetings that have been canceled.

Commission Secretary Banico said that at the last meeting during the deliberations on an appeal, it became evident that the BIC rule to schedule hearings on appeals within fourteen (14) days of receiving a complete application was untenable. This time line precluded interested parties from providing input on appeals. She said that the proposed language was posted and noticed. The only comment received was a suggestion to change the wording to add, "Regular Meeting that have been or will be cancelled."

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino , to approve the amendment to the Rules of the Building Inspection Commission with the modification proposed.

There was no public comment.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-052.98]

9.	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 that there have been three public forums and the last meeting was with Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian. There is now a document interpreting Section 3.750-4 of the City Charter with the group's consensus. She said that she was very pleased with the document. The original writing was very vague. The draft ordinance is ready for distribution to the Commission. The proposed ordinance will be agendized for the next meeting. The draft proposes the merger of the BIC and the Abatement Appeals Board for efficiency or lack thereof.

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

President Hood asked for public comment.

Mr. Paul said that he wanted to commend the Commissioner who worked on the proposed ordinance. Chapter #7 of the Rules of the Building Inspection Commission is not sufficient. He said that he had found the language of Chapter #7 to be clear as to how an appeal was to be handled. Mr. Paul said that he was party to an appeal that he filed on behalf of a property owner. He and the division who had issued the order he was appealing were the only parties to the appeal. He had withdrawn the withdrawn the appeal and yet the matter was not taken off the agenda. It was kept on the agenda without his knowledge due to a discretionary call made by Commission Secretary Banico.

President Hood asked Mr. Paul to limit his remarks to item #9.

Mr. Paul said it is very important that the guidelines clearly state what is and what is not a discretionary call.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the ordinance did attempt to be as specific as possible but every case is unique and there will always be something that cannot be specified.

Mr. Paul said he agreed with that but that language was with specificity. He said the definitions of various parties in a case are not vague and discretionary calls should not be used where they are not permitted.

Commissioner Freeman said something was placed on the agenda and then it was withdrawn after the agenda had been mailed out. The public cannot be noticed, in time, of the removal.

President Hood said we must limit our discussion to item #9. If the people who were involved with Agenda Item #6 stayed, they could speak under general Public Comment.

Mr. Paul said that the procedure could have been announced to them during Item #4.

President Hood said she had to return to the agendized item.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, NARI, said that he had been attending the meetings on the BIC appellate powers. He said that he was very pleased with the direction that the draft ordinance has taken and a similar process can be taken with the BIC rules. Commissioner Cereghino has taken under consideration the views of many different concerns and has successfully brought them together. He said that the most recent draft of the ordinance is a very good document.

Ms. Caravelli said she felt that she had special relationship with this Commission. The confusion with the appeals procedure makes the Commission look foolish and incompetent. This legislation is not going to resolve the problems. Ms. Caravelli said that she was upset about the issue concerning Agenda Item #6 and called President Hoods' attention to the printed statement on the agenda pursuant to Section 67.16 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. People were not allowed to speak to Agenda Item #6 at all.

President Hood asked Ms. Caravelli to hold that comment until Public Comment because it did not speak to Agenda Item #9.

Ms. Caravelli said that it did deal with item #9 because the Commission is looking to legislation to solve these kinds of problems. The proposed ordinance will not solve such problems. She said that she had written a letter to Deputy City Attorney Boyajian about this a few weeks ago. The Commission is going to have to understand jurisdiction and how to handle appeals, continuances and withdrawals. The Commission has had another embarrassing example today.

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.

Commissioner Vasquez said there should be some way to allow members of the public to comment on appeals that have been withdrawn. This will come up again and the Commission will have to deal with it.

President Hood said that she agreed. She said that this issue needs to be agendized and the Commission needs to seek the advice of the City Attorney.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Ms. Caravelli said that she had sent the Commission a copy of a letter that she had sent to Deputy City Attorney Boyajian. Ms. Boyajian will probably ignore the letter. She said that it would be helpful if the Commission supported her because the letter spoke to jurisdictional questions. The Commission needs to have a list of what it has jurisdiction over.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she had read Ms. Caravelli letter and thought it was a good idea.

11.	Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of May 20, 1998.

Commissioner Cereghino moved, seconded by Commissioner Freeman, to approve the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of May 20, 1998 as prepared.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-053.98]

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

President Hood said that the Commission must come up with a means to let the public know how and when it is permissible to speak. Also, the Commission needs clarity form the City Attorney's Office about what to do when appeals are withdrawn and see if the BIC has rules and procedures that deal with this process. The Commission also continued some budget items and and some agenda items until the next meetings.

Commissioner Freeman said the Unlawful Demolition Committee will schedule a meeting soon.

President Hood said that the Commission needs to follow-up on the Joint Meeting.

Director Chiu said that DBI is currently working on a draft report which will be ready in a week or two.

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

Ms. Sima Kushnirsky, neighbor to 1234 33rd Avenue, spoke to her opposition to the work in progress at the address. She said that she had filed for a rehearing with the Board of Appeals and would be addressing that forum as well. She requested that the BIC look into the code violations and their impact on her dwelling.

President Hood directed DBI management to follow up on Ms. Kushnirsky's concerns.

Ms. Anastacia Yovanopolous said that she had found it disturbing that parties were not allowed to give testimony on the appeal. She said that at the last meeting, the BIC had continued the item and that she understood that the BIC would hear the appeal at this meeting.

Mr. Jeremy Paul said that the BIC did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. The matter of 1234 33rd Avenue is within the jurisdiction of another forum and the codes have been enforced very carefully.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, NARI, said that the state legislation to allow amendments to the CA Building Code is not moving. There is still no bill number to date. The Mayor's Office has wiped out support because it reneged on an agreement to approve additional staffing for the technical services division. The BIC needs to have better communication with the Mayor's Office.

President Hood said that this issue had come up earlier in the meeting. She said that she was glad that Mr. Bonacker had provided this new information to the Commission. It was another example which pointed to the need for better communications with the Mayor's Office.

Mr. Bonacker urged the Commission to make sure that the Mayor's Office understands what the Commission is trying to do with the budget.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that the Commission is a regulatory agency. The Commission is so relaxed about the laws and its role. She said that all of the comments have come together. She asked if the Commission will take seriously the problem of work done without permits.

14.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p. m.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-054.98]

_________________________________

MARIA G. T. BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã