Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Adopted on July 15, 1998

Wednesday, July 1, 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 Vice-President Vasquez at 1:20 p.m. Vice President Vasquez chaired the meeting until the arrival of President Hood at 1:30 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

Sharon Mark, Commissioner

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

Alan Tokugawa, Senior Building Inspector, TSD

2.	President's Report.

Vice-President Vasquez said postponed this item until the arrival of President Hood. Subsequently, President Hood said she did not have any items to report.

3.	Director's Report.

a.	Report and discussion on the progress to date to follow up on the issues and recommendations brought up at the Joint Meeting of the Building Inspection Commission and the City Planning Commission held on May 28, 1998. The Commission may take such action as to approve or amend strategies proposed by DBI staff to address the issues and problems identified at the Joint Meeting.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the attendance at the Joint Meeting of the BIC and the City Planning Commission (CPC) of May 28, 1998 was good and there was good input. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the Director's Office is working on a draft report and that next Monday, July 6, 1998 DBI Director Chiu and DCP Director Gerald Green are scheduled to meet. Deputy Director Hutchinson said a report would be ready by the end of the week July 10, 1998 and it could be scheduled for the Commission's calendar of July 15, 1998.

Vice-President Vasquez asked for public comment.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, said that some of the suggestions made at the Joint Meeting will result in conflicts between the Planning Code and the Building Code. Ms. Caravelli reminded the BIC of its role as a regulatory agency.

b.	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 requested that this item be moved to the end of the meeting or after Director Chiu arrives. He said that Director Chiu was currently before the Board of Supervisors for the budget deliberations. At the end of the meeting, this item was continued to the next meeting due to the length of this meeting.

4.	Public Comment.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, said that at the last meeting, the Building Inspection Commission violated the Sunshine Ordinance by not allowing speakers to address the Commission on an agenda item. She was referring to the appeal by Jeremy Paul. She said that the public should be allowed to speak on any item that appears on the agenda. She urged members of the Commission to call the chair's attention to such matters and to raise a point of order. She said that members of the public can not raise point of order.

Mr. John Bardis said that he acted at the last meeting in the same manner as he was treated. He said that the anarchy was caused by the action of the Commission. He said that the matter (of Jeremy Paul's appeal on 1234 33rd Avenue) was in the Commission's hands. No one has the authority to withdraw this appeal. There were two appellants before the BIC. He said that two meetings ago, the Commission allowed both sides to speak. At the last meeting, only one side was allowed to speak. He said that the appeal should have been heard regardless of whether it had been withdrawn by Mr. Paul. He said that he had filed an appeal on the same property but that the Commission Secretary had determined that his issue was not ripe for appeal to the BIC.

Vice-President Vasquez said that in retrospect, the Commission should have acted differently at the last meeting.

President Hood took over the chair at the point in the proceedings at 1:32 p.m. and apologized for her delayed arrival.

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.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that Ms. Paulette Hooey was with Director Chiu at the Board of Supervisor's meeting on the budget. He referred to the monthly billing report that was part of the meeting packet and said that the Disabled Access Division and the Housing Inspection Division will continue to be the big ticket items for legal expenses.

There was no further discussion or public comment received on this item.

6.	Report, discussion and possible action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve 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.

President Hood thanked Commissioner Cereghino, Deputy City Attorney Boyajian and members of the public that participated for the work that they accomplished on preparing the draft ordinance on the BIC's appellate powers. Ms. Hood then turned over the chair to Commissioner Cereghino.

Commissioner Cereghino referred to the mailing list that the draft ordinance was sent to. She said that all concerned individuals and agencies were included. She said that the other departments who would be affected by this ordinance did not send a representative to any of the meetings. She holed that there would be no complaints or late changes. Commissioner Cereghino also thanked Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review for her input in the process which had been helpful.

Commissioner Cereghino said one of the challenges of drafting the ordinance was to understand the intent of Proposition G. This starting point for this ordinance was that understanding that the BIC had authority over all actions of the Department of Building Inspection. These actions include all of the actions that lead up to issuance of a permit and matters that occur after a permit is issued. The authority includes appeals over procedural issues within DBI also. Many of these issues are left up to administrative interpretation.

Commissioner Cereghino recommended two changes suggested by Mr. Bob Bossi (See Attachment A.) and also recommended that Sec 77.2 on page 2 be revised to read "... by the manager or chief," which was suggested by Commission Secretary Banico.

Commissioner Cereghino said she wanted to point some highlights of the ordinance before turning over the floor to Deputy City Attorney Boyajian. The draft proposes that the Abatement Appeals Board (AAB) no longer be a separate body apart from the BIC. The two bodies have been merged. The draft also proposes that all technical matters go first to technical bodies that have jurisdiction over the appeal. Additionally, during the course of the hearing on the appeal, the BIC can postpone action up to a month in order to solicit input from any party or technical/advisory body. She also recommended taking up Ms. Caravelli's suggestion that BIC have a list of examples of items that are and are not within its jurisdiction.

Ms. Boyajian said that the section on fees is still blank. In most cases, fees are set to cover the cost of the procedure.

President Hood said that the appeal fees should not be made unaffordable to the public. The fees should not be made prohibitive.

Ms. Boyajian said the fees can be lower but not higher than the cost of processing the appeals.

Commissioner Vasquez asked how this type of issue was handled in the past.

Commission Secretary Banico said that to date there have been no fees imposed. The calculation of cost was postponed until the issues affecting cost could be finalized such as the cost of a court reported. In the previous versions of the ordinance reviewed by the Commission, the fees shown were those being charged by the Board of Appeals.

Ms. Boyajian suggested that Commission Secretary Banico could come back with calculations. She said that the Board of Appeals fees has to fund a whole department. This situation is not the case with the Building Inspection Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the fees were for the Access Appeals Commission.

Ms. Boyajian said that the appeal fee was about $400. She said this also covered the stipend for the AAC members. The BIC do not receive any stipends.

President Hood said that the charge for City Planning Commission discretionary review is $75. The BIC appeal fee should be closer to $75 than to $400. She said that the cost of the court reported should not be used as a criteria for setting fees.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the BIC has had less than ten (10) appeals per/year. He said the he agreed that the cost should be low.

President Hood said that abatement cases should be higher.

Commissioner Guinnane said that perhaps there could be a tier system.

Ms. Boyajian said that the fee for the AAB has already been set.

Commissioner Vasquez thanked all those who were involved with the work on the ordinance. He said that the ordinance did not narrow the jurisdiction of the BIC and at the same time gave it flexibility. Commissioner Vasquez said that the only problem now was to figure out a fee schedule. He asked if this would require bringing back the draft at the next meeting or if the Commission could set fees at this time.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the Department of Public Works has just started to review the draft ordinance. DPW has contacted her, confirmed that they have received information and notice for this meeting and in the past, and requested additional time to respond.

President Hood referred to section 77.4 and said that she understood this to require that a matter needs to first go to the Board of Examiners before it can be appealed to the BIC.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that this is limited to appeals that are within the jurisdiction of the Board of Examiners.

President Hood said that the jurisdiction of the Board of Examiners is very broad. She said that the public should have a choice on whether to go to the BIC directly. The BIC should also have the discretion to refer a matter to the Board of Examiners.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that her role in preparing the draft was as a scribner. Section 77.4 needs a policy decision by the BIC. She requested clarification on the BIC's policy direction and said that the language could be rewritten to reflect a different policy.

Commissioner Cereghino said she can go along with President Hood's recommended changes. She suggested getting public comment first.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that one of her goals was to write an ordinance that was clear for members of the public.

Commissioner Cereghino said that Deputy City Attorney Boyajian also gave legal advice on the draft. She also said that Commission Secretary Banico participated in drafting the proposal at hand.

Mr. Bob Bossi, said that Section 77.4, as written, would disallow forum shopping. The second sentence in the section covers President Hood's recommendation. He said that a definition of the word "technical" may be adequate to address President Hood's concerns.

President Hood said that would not be adequate. She wanted the BIC to decide where an appeal should go. The intent of the appellate powers is to allow the public to have a voice. That is accomplished through the BIC.

Mr. Bossi said that the original ordinance did not give BIC jurisdiction over subordinate bodies. This draft is a liberalization from the previous draft. He said that they should just agree to disagree on this one issue. He said that the proposal will result in confusion and people will be running in circles.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that Citizen review invested many hours of work on the BIC's appellate powers. The BIC has jurisdiction over the department, director and DBI employees, but not over the subordinate bodies. She said that an unknowing member of the public will try to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the ordinance sets a trap. Ms. Caravelli said that an ordinance cannot expand or narrow the authority granted under the Charter. She also said that the ordinance should be referred to the Code Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the BIC.

Ms. Caravelli said she had other concerns. One page 3, line 3, the language "unless context ..." is in error. She said that the ordinance has narrowed the Charter's provisions on "all decisions" to "written decisions." She urged the BIC not to rush through the ordinance and ask the City Attorney's Office to clariy the BIC's jurisdiction.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker said that President Hood's concerns could be addressed by deleting the first sentence of Section 77.4. He also said that AAB fees are stipulated in the code, but the BIC can choose to change those fees per this ordinance. Mr. Bonacker said that he was disappointed with the lack of participation from other city departments affected by this ordinance.

Ms. Edith McMillan said that appeals should be agendized at the end of the BIC Meetings. The public as a whole should not be inconvenienced by the appeals of private parties.

Ms. Evelyn Wilson, SPEAK, agreed and said that the public needs to be served before appeals. She inquired if fees need to be set in the ordinance, or if the ordinance could set standards but not specific amounts.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the ordinance needs to specify a dollar amount.

Mr. Mike Hamman said that the document before the Commission is a consensus document. Earlier in the process, he had the same concerns as President Hood. He said that his concerns were addressed. Section 77.3 allows for all alternatives. He said that the ordinance even allows an appellant to request for jurisdiction when the Commission Secretary makes a determination that an issue is not within the BIC's jurisdiction. The BIC will be able to take an appeal and if it wants to, to refer an appeal to a technical body. He agreed with Mr. Bossi's suggestion for a definition of the word "technical" to provide guidance to the Commission Secretary.

President Hood said she does not want to burden the Commission Secretary with interpreting jurisdiction. Currently, there is already too much discussion on jurisdiction before a matter goes to the BIC. She agreed with Mr. Bonacker's suggestion. She said that the draft has come a long way from previous drafts. There are just a few issues remaining.

Mr. John Bardis said that it may be appropriate to bring the matter back. The Board of Supervisors has two readings before action on an ordinance. The appellate body role is very important. It is a way to know and to define how the department is operating. He agreed with President Hood on the issue of subordinate bodies. Also there should be no fees for appeals. The department collects fees for permits and is required to regulate. The fees for permits should cover the cost for processing appeals.

Ms. Judy West requested clarification on how to exhaust administrative remedies. In response to her question, Commissioner Cereghino said that the BIC has no jurisdiction over matters appelable to the Board of Appeals and had jurisdiction over code interpretations.

Ms. Caravelli said that on page 2, "all decisions" (Charter language) has become "some decisions" because decisions were defined. She said she would go along with any proposal that complied with the Charter. Another way would be to have a Charter change to clean up the language in the Charter.

President Hood said that the language could be amended to have a clause that would include everybody in DBI. She said that this was an editing matter.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that this was not an editing issue. The language was deliberate. Decisions were required to go up some management levels so that there would be some sort of filtering. She referred to an earlier comment by Ms. Caravelli and said that the Charter allows the Board of Supervisors to expand on the authorities granted by the Charter.

Vice-President Vasquez said that he could support Mr. Bonacker's earlier suggestion to delete the first sentence of Section 77.4 He said that this would be an easy way to deal with the issue of subordinate bodies. Other matters can be dealt with at a later time. This would also allow time for other departments to respond. He said that the Commission needs additional information on fees. The matter can be brought back at the next meeting.

Commission Secretary Banico requested for clarification on the policy direction. She said that as amended so far, Section 77.4 would not allow the BIC to refer an appeal to a subordinate body. The language allows the BIC only to continue. She asked if the Commission intended to refer an appeal to a subordinate body for decision.

President Hood said that adding the language "may refer back" would take care of this problem.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that Commission Secretary Banico raised a good point and requested direction on whether the Commission wished to have an option to refer for decision to a subordinate body.

President Hood said that that was her intent.

Mr. Bossi said that if the BIC sent a matter to the Board of Examiners for decision, the appellant can still file a separate appeal if the appellant wants a separate BIC decision.

Commissioner Fillon said that the language should be redrafted and brought back at the next meeting.

Commissioner Marks said that the second sentence is not clear if the first sentence is deleted. She agreed that the language needs to be redrafted.

Commissioner Cereghino said that Deputy City Attorney Boyajian can work on Section 77.4 and Commission Secretary Banico can bring back information on fees.

President Hood said that he agreed with Mr. Bardis' comments.

Vice-President Vasquez said that there are a variety of cases, some fall within the categories described by Mr. Bardis, some do not.

President Hood said it was better to err on the side of the public.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the issue of frivolous appeals also needs to be taken into account.

Commissioner Guinnane requested information on fees for the BIC to analyze. The BIC can then set fees and have a provision for waiver.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said the criteria to waive fees needs to be in the ordinance.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the BIC has not charged appeal fees to date. No fees will be consistent with what the Commission has done in the past.

Commissioner Cereghino said she would support nominal fees.

Mr. Bossi said that the AAC has the ability to waive fees. If there are no fees, the permit applicant will be subsidizing the appeal process.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that state law precludes the use of fees for other than the service provided for processing permits.

Commissioner Freeman said that there should be some fee which can be waived. Another alternative is that permit applicants not be charged fees because they have already paid permit fees. Other parties can be charged the cost of processing the appeals.

President Hood said that the cost may be high, more than $1000.

Ms. Caravelli said that paying fees brings closure for the appellant. S/he has a receipt to prove that an appeal has been filed.

Mr. Alan Tokugawa, CAC Secretary, said that the Code Advisory Committee will not be meeting in July because of a scheduled public meeting on the building code. He said this information may impact the BIC's schedule on sending the draft to the CAC.

President Hood directed that this matter be reagendized for the July 15th meeting and then forwarded to the CAC afterwards.

The Commission took a break at this point in the proceedings, from 3:20 to 3:40 p.m.

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.

Commissioner Freeman referred to the copy of the seismic code provisions (UBC Chapter 34) distributed prior to the meeting. He then referred to his memorandum which contained a copy of a marked up code (SFBC Chapter 34) identifying the seismic/structural provisions that needed to be addressed. He said that there are issues that can be addressed quickly and issues that will take time.

The issue of partial strengthening of a building is an issue that may be addressed quickly. The San Francisco Building Code establishes a trigger for mandatory seismic upgrade when a threshold is reached even if the construction is voluntary. He said that the California Building Code does not have such a threshold and a quick fix may be to simply delete this San Francisco amendment.

Another issue, that of assessing earthquake damage, is a long range project. There is a need for public input. He said that Mr. Laurence Kornfield is looking into bringing in an outside non-
profit agency to assist in this matter.

Another potential short range issue is the definition of a change of use which is a trigger for seismic retrofit. A possible solution is to use the change in occupancy as the trigger for seismic upgrade.

Deputy Director Hutchinson thanked Commissioner Freeman for the input. He said that DBI has also received a list of issues from the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEANC). He said that the short terms issues can be addressed in the current code cycle. For the long term projects, a public forum will be convened. There is a budget for staff and outside consultants to address this work. He said that Mr. Kornfield will be the lead staff person and will be assisted by Mr. Hanson Tom. Mr. Kornfield will bring organize the public meetings and bring specific proposals to the Code Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the BIC.

Mr. Pat Buscovich, past president of the SEANC, presented a list which identified 12 provisions in SFBC Chapter 34 proposed for amendment. He said that Chapter 34 is difficult to amend or clean up. There have been attempts in the past. However, there are too many overlays of amendments. Mr. Buscovich ready through his list and explained the provisions. He suggested that these code provisions be referred to the Code Advisory Committee for review and public comment. He also suggested that the department contact the Applied Technology Council and FEMA for assistance. He said that there is willingness from these two agencies to assist jurisdictions in fixing their codes on earthquake damage. He said that SEANC will be happy to help. He has already contacted other concerned parties such as Mr. R. K. Stewart from the AIA and Mr. Ken Cleaveland from BOMA. They are reviewing the provisions he had identified.

President Hood thanked Mr. Buscovich or his proactive work on the seismic provisions of the code. She said that the identification of short and long term work is very helpful. She requested a copy of literature on the Applied Technology Council and a list of people who have been contacted on these issues.

Mr. Buscovich suggested that the code provisions be forwarded to the CAC for the July public meeting on the code since the participants in that forum will be the same as those being invited for this issue. After this meeting, the schedule can then be developed.

Commissioner Freeman said the issues do not need to be tackled all at once. There may be some short term issues that could be included in the CAC July meeting.

President Hood directed staff to bring the item on mandatory/voluntary seismic upgrades (item 1 of Mr. Buscovich's list) to the CAC quickly.

Mr. Buscovich said that six or seven of the twelve items are "slam dunk" and can be done as quickly. He said an example are the triggers that look at cumulative construction value on all work done on a building since the building was constructed. If a building was constructed in 1910, the department does not have all the records. He said a new cut-off date should be identified.

Commissioner Freeman moved, seconded by Vice-President Vasquez, to refer all the short term provisions identified to the Code Advisory Committee. He said that the CAC can define the priority and schedule for addressing the review of the code provisions and possible changes.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-055.98]

8.	Report, discussion and possible action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve two proposed ordinances listed below:

a.	Ordinance moving the requirements for the Central Permit Bureau from the Public Works Code Section 1 to the San Francisco Building Code Chapter 1, Section 106.1 through 106.1.3.

b.	Ordinance moving the regulations regarding hazardous wastes on private property from the Public Works Code, Article 20 to the S. F. Building Code by adding a new Chapter 37.

Mr. Alan Tokugawa, Secretary to the Code Advisory Committee, said that the CAC had reviewed the two proposed ordinances and recommended that the proposed ordinance under Item #8a be amended and moved to Part III of the Administrative Code. He said that the CAC recommended that the ordinance under Item #8b be amended to move the Public Works Code provisions on hazardous waste to the Health Code. There would be a short provision to be added to the Building Code. This provision can be incorporated into the current code cycle. Mr. Tokugawa said that the Technical Services Division is currently working on the language for the revised ordinances.

President Hood asked why the provisions on the Central Permit Bureau is being transferred to the Administrative Code.

Director Chiu said that this is the first time he has heard about this proposal and requested that action be postponed on this matter.

Commission Secretary Banico said that the Board of Supervisors has inquired several times on the status of the ordinances that was originally referred to the BIC. The BIC may wish to take action to communicate the progress to date on the draft ordinances forwarded by the Clerk of the Board.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that the Central Permit Bureau is under the BIC. There were mistakes in the original ordinance and the BIC should look into this matter.

Mr. Bob Bossi said that in the proposed ordinance under Item #8a, there is a list of permits that needs to be brought current. He suggested that the list of permits be deleted from the code and by translated into a code ruling. This would facilitate updating the list.

Mr. Michael Hamman said that if the code provisions were not transferred into the Building Code, the BIC would lose jurisdiction over the Central Permit Bureau.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker agreed with Mr. Hamman. He said that the head of the Central permit Bureau is retiring and this presents an opportunity to look into changes. He said that he was not sure that the ordinance under Item #8b was useful for the present time.

President Hood said that there are already may laws in place regulating hazardous materials. Staff should look at whether this ordinance is still needed or if this is an opportunity to clean up and delete unnecessary legislation.

Vice-President Vasquez said that he did not know how the lines are drawn to determine soil contamination. It is good to have regulation on when people can move contaminated soil.

President Hood directed that these two items be continued to the next meeting when Deputy City Attorney Boyajian is present. (Ms. Boyajian had left the meeting after Item #6.)

9.	COMMITTEE REPORT:

Report by the BIC Ad-hoc Committee on Unlawful Residential Demolition on the progress to date, including but not limited to, the responses to a questionnaire which was distributed to solicit public comment on the code language.

Commissioner Freeman said that he had circulated a questionnaire to get input on the interpretation of the code provisions on unlawful demolition. He said that there will be a Committee meeting scheduled in the near future. He said that at the Joint BIC/CPC Meeting, there was input from the public that there are different reasons for not taking out a demolition permit. He said this could be an item for discussion at the next meeting.

Vice-President Vasquez said that he is looking forward to the meeting and is still working on his response to the questionnaire.

President Hood asked if other members of the Commission could respond to the questionnaire.

Commissioner Freeman said that he would welcome all input.

10.	Commissioner Inquiries and Review of Communication Items: At this time, the Commission may make inquiries to staff regarding the status of various documents, policies, practices and procedures which are of interest to the Commission and may discuss communication items received since the last Commission meeting.

There was no discussion on this agenda item.

11.	Approval of the Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Building Inspection Commission and the City Planing Commission of May 28, 1998.

Commission Secretary Banico read changes to the Minutes requested by Mr. David Barnard and Judy West. Mr. Barnard said that the Minutes should reflect his statement should include a reference to Planning Commission Resolution No. 9414 and City Planning Code Section No. 163 about the requirement to set up a Transportation Brokerage System for new buildings in the South of Market Area. Ms. West requested that the Minutes reflect her comments on to state that she had urged the Commissions to look at new construction/live work 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.

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to approve the Minutes of the May 28, 1998 Joint Meeting of the BIC and the CPC, as amended.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-056.98]

Ms. Caravelli said that she had not listened to the tapes of the Joint Meeting. However, she recalled that CPC Director Gerald Green said that the Planning is purely for aesthetic reasons.

12.	Approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of June 17, 1998.

Commissioner Freeman said that the reference to ATC should be corrected to say Applied Technology Council, instead of Advanced Technology Council.

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to approve the Minutes of the June 17, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting, as amended.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-057.98]

13.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of July 15, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

Commissioner Cereghino requested that Commission Secretary Banico prepare a list of future items and issues that would be before the BIC. She said that this would be used as a tracking report and should have a time line projecting work to be done and accomplishments.

14.	Public Comment.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker said that the work underway to propose state legislation that will allow amendments to the California Building Code should be opened up and speeded up.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli commended Commissioner Cereghino for her recommendation to track the work of the department. She said that she was informed that the Technical Services Division will only have one new staff in the approved budget.

Ms. Anastacia Yovanapolous said that she had addressed the Commission at the previous meeting regarding a report on the Joint Meeting between the BIC and the CPC. She said she thought that report would be available and discussed at this meeting.

15.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Guinnane, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p. m.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-058.98]

_________________________________

MARIA G. T. BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã