Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Adopted August 5, 1998

Wednesday, July 15, 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 1:08 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

Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Technical Services Division

Rosemary Bosque, Senior Housing Inspector, Housing Inspection Services Division

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE:

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

2.	President's Report.

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.

Director Chiu said that he and the Director Gerald Green of the Department of City Planning had issued a letter that identified seven issues brought out at the Public Comment sections of the Joint Meeting of May 28, 1998. Both departments are working on a draft that will be finished soon. Director Chiu said that he could not give a date for the report since it is being prepared by staff of two departments.

President Hood asked Director Chiu for a time line and a work plan resolving the seven items.

Director Chiu said that his goal for the completion of a time line and work plan was the end of August.

President Hood asked if there was anything in this list of seven issues that could be done quickly.

Director Chiu said the quality control issue was an issue that the One Stop Permit Coordination Program is already looking into.

President Hood said that there had been many plans lost too frequently. It was time that DBI looked into a tracking system similar to that of Federal Express or UPS.

Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Hutchinson and he would be working very closely on that issue.

Commissioner Vasquez said there were many miscellaneous issues spoken to at the Joint Meeting that may not fit into the seven categories addressed in the joint letter. DBI should find a way to address those other issues.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli, Citizens Review, said that the word "improve" in the first bullet item was ambiguous. She said that it could relate to the speed of plan intake or it might be a quality control issue. Ms. Caravelli said that regarding the fourth bullet item, the law demands completeness and accuracy of permit applications and plans upon submission and throughout the process. She said quality control was coming later than the law requires. Quality control is needed at the beginning.

President Hood suggested sub-bullets under the first bullet item and use these to define " improve."

b.	Report, discussion and possible action regarding the proposed DBI budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99.

Director Chiu thanked the BIC and specially Vice-President Vasquez and Commissioner Cereghino for their work on the budget. He said the budget looks good. Last year the budget was $22 million. This year, the approved budget for DBI was $30 million dollars. The Board of Supervisors cut this by 1% to $29 million. The new budget represents a $7 million increase over Fiscal Year 1997-98 which includes $4.5 million is allocated for capital improvement, i.e., building expansion.

Director Chiu said that the personnel additions were debated. This Commission gave its support to DBI's request for 28 additional staff. The Mayor's Office cut that down to 25 additional positions. The Board of reduced this further to 22 new positions.

Director Chiu said this budget is the best DBI has had in the past three or four years. One of the goals of the BIC is to adequately staff the Technical Services Division (TSD) in preparation for the upcoming code rewriting cycle. The Board's analyst cut a position from the TSD request. TSD will be getting three new staff members.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector of TSD, said that the major priority of TSD is to deal with the upcoming code cycle. Additional staff has been authorized for two code analyst positions and one additional clerical position.

Commissioner Cereghino thanked Deputy Director Hutchinson and Mr. Kornfield for preparing the report and said that when she had asked for the report, she expected to see time lines regarding the hiring of the two code analysts. She said she expected to see profiles and/or job descriptions incorporated into the report.

Commissioner Cereghino said the report stated that Richard Young is already hired and is paid an annual salary of $78,155. She said that the annual salary for these three positions comes to $235,839 which means that the two new code analysts will be paid less than Mr. Young. She said that Director Chiu indicated that TSD was already interviewing for these positions and asked how that was proceeding.

Mr. Kornfield said that under Civil Service, code analyst is a specific classification. The only code analyst in this city is Mr. Richard Young and he has occupied this post for many years. His salary is at the top step. Mr. Young's job description, which is being revised, requires an architect. That job description is being broadened to allow for the hiring of engineers, architects or other qualified persons.

President Hood said that she wanted to see that job description.

Mr. Kornfield said that he would give her a copy. When DBI was under the Department of Public Works, it was assisted by DPW engineers and had architectural code analysts to assist the engineers. That situation no longer exists.

Mr. Kornfield said the revised job description for a code analyst is now before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). If the CSC views this change to the job description as a minor change, the hiring process will move forward quickly. If the CSC views this request as a major change, the process will be delayed.

Commissioner Cereghino said she was concerned TSD's delay would render the new analysts ineffective. The upcoming code rewriting cycle must create and incorporate the standards for earthquake damage. The state and federal regulations have strict deadlines.

Mr. Kornfield said that TSD had a couple of months of hard work on the code to meet the deadlines. DBI has the opportunity to hire the most qualified person in the field because DBI offers an attractive salary.

Commissioner Cereghino said that her second concern was that these code analysts' posts were going to be filled by in-house transfers. She said she would like to see these post filled from the outside.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said the strategy to fill these posts was on two parallel tracks. If the revision of the job description gets bogged down at the Department of Human Resources, DBI will continue with the hiring process using the current classification. DBI intends to interview people from the outside but cannot deny or stop employees from applying. It is their right. DBI management is sensitive to the backfill problems occurring after a transfer.

President Hood said that she wanted a discussion of the code analyst job revision agendized. Over the years, the viewpoint that Mr. Young brings to the DBI has been very helpful. Within DBI, architects are under represented and DBI should find a way to involve more of them. She commended Mr. Kornfield's efforts saying that it was a good start. Commissioner Cereghino's personnel concerns are well founded. DBI's staff resources are scarce. DBI must have a running start if the state and national deadlines are to be met.

Commissioner Cereghino said the concern this Commission had about robbing Peter to pay Paul is that DBI needs Peter and Paul.

President Hood said the language of the San Francisco Building Code is perplexing. Someone on the code rewriting team, or a hired consultant, should have sound editorial skills. There should be a concentrated effort to simplify the code.

Mr. Kornfield said DBI was looking into contracting with a new publisher. Possibly, the contract provisions may be revised to require professional editing. Indexing skills are also needed, he said.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she wanted a written time line on filling the vacant posts in TSD.

President Hood commended Director Chiu for maintaining the goals and priorities of the Commission.

Ms. Caravelli said she was pleased the Commission desired the immediate staffing of TSD. Then, referring to the organizational chart on p. 5 of the TSD - Budget and Program Summary distributed with the BIC packet, she said the chart showed two vacant clerical posts in TSD. TSD is operating without any clerical support. Mr. Alan Tokugawa, Senior Building Inspector in TSD and currently the Secretary to the Code Advisory Committee (CAC), is spending his time typing for $77,000 per/annum. These clerical posts must be filled with the same urgency as the technical positions.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the job hiring time line she requested from TSD covers all positions.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that Ms. Caravelli was not aware that when Mr. Kornfield's secretary was transferred, he had made his personal secretary available to TSD. DHR is coming out with a 1446 list in a few weeks. When that list is published, we will start the hiring process.

Director Chiu said that when Mr. Kornfield informed him of the transfer, the next day DBI submitted a job requisition to DHR.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI), said that the Commission must enable TSD to work concurrently at the state level with the California Building Officials (CALBO) and at the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) level. In the past, DBI has had poor representation in these organizations. It is important that this Commission see to it that funds are available to insure DBI's membership and active participation.

Ms. Anastasia Youvanopolous said she was a member of two committees that was dealing with the code rewriting project. She said that there were four summer students that will be helping TSD with its clerical duties. One student would be typing up a list of each code section so that a chart could be made showing the sections needing revision.

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

Ms. Caravelli said that the last item on the agenda was supposed to be a discussion about the budget and somehow the Commission discussed the code rewriting project.

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

Commissioner Fillon said that very qualified candidates have applied for the two remaining seats in the CAC.

a.	Mr. James Reed to the Electrical Contractor seat.

Commissioner Fillon introduced Mr. James Reed, a resident and sole proprietor of Century Electric Company. Mr. Reed sits on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Electrical Contractors Association (SFECA). Commissioner Fillon said that Mr. Reed has had experience in reviewing code issues.

Mr. Reed thanked the Commission for their consideration of his application for the Electrical Contractor seat. He said that he had been involved in code review for the past four years. He believed that he could be of assistance to the CAC because he feels strongly about this city where he had grew up in.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to nominate and appoint Mr. James Reed to the Electrical Contractor Seat of the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no discussion or public comment on the motion.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-059.98]

b.	Ms. Dorie Lee for the Major Project Contractor seat.

Commissioner Fillon introduced Ms. Dorie Lee as the president and sole owner of Dorie Lee & Company, which has been involved in several major projects including SFO airport, Yerba Buena Gardens and State Court Annex. He said she had a very impressive resume and is a resident of San Francisco.

Ms. Dorie Lee thanked the Commission for their consideration of her application to serve San Francisco. She said that she was very honored to be nominated for the position of the Major Project Contractor Seat. Ms. Lee said that she has been a long time resident of San Francisco and cares very much for the city. She said that she hopes she could be of real assistance in the code development process.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to nominate and appoint Ms. Dorie Lee to the Major Project Contractor Seat of the Code Advisory Committee.

There was no discussion or public comment on the motion.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-060.98]

At this point in the proceedings, President Hood administered the oath of office to Ms. Dorie Lee and Mr. James Reed.

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

Appeal of Mr. John Sanger on behalf of the 33 Powell Street Corporation, the owner of The Powell Hotel, of the determination by Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield on April 20, 1998 that Building Permit Application Number 9704921 was incorrect insofar as it claimed that there were 43 residential guest rooms as opposed to 49 certified under Chapter 41 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The subject property is known as The Powell Hotel located at 17-33 Powell Street, San Francisco, CA.

At this point in the proceedings Ms. Doris Levine, the Court Reporter, swore in all parties that were to give testimony before the Commission.

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.

President Hood asked Deputy City Attorney, Ms. Judy Boyajian, if the BIC had jurisdiction over this matter.

Ms. Boyajian said that in her opinion, the BIC had jurisdiction over this matter.

President Hood asked if there was a motion from the Commission to take jurisdiction over this matter.

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, that the BIC take jurisdiction over this appeal of Mr. John Sanger on behalf of the 33 Powell Street Corporation, the owner of The Powell Hotel.

There was no further discussion or public comment on this motion.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-061.98]

b.	Presentation by parties, including witnesses.

Mr. John Sanger, the appellant on behalf of the 33 Powell Street Corporation, submitted two documents to the Commission and said his client has filed for a permit to convert residential units in accordance with Chapter 41 of the San Francisco Administrative Code. As defined in Chapter 41 under the Hotel Conservation article, any elimination of residential units must be replaced in kind or a contribution must be made to a special fund. The reason for this appeal is to determine the number of rooms that have been determined as residential units, for which payment has to be made. He said that his client wishes to comply with Chapter 41.

Mr. Sanger said the dispute focuses on how many rooms within the hotel are classified as residential. There are 151 rooms at present defined by occupancy. The records of DBI are confused. The Housing Inspection Services Division's (HIS) records show 173 rooms. The Tax Collector's records show 197 rooms.

Mr. Sanger referred to his submitted documents and said Ms. Elena Sacoma has been a housekeeper since 1985 and the two tenants residence dates back to 1972.

Referring to the Elena Sacoma document entitled Summary of Room Counts (SRC), Mr. Sanger said the chart shows a theoretical room count based on a hotel plan card of 1985 given to Ms. Sacoma when she started working for the hotel. That hotel plan gave a room count of 190 rooms (38 rooms on each of the five floors). Ms. Sacoma, as the housekeeper, discovered that 25 of these rooms did not exist.

Mr. Sanger said that there could not have been more than 165 rooms in 1985. Twelve of the 165 rooms had designations other than rooms for occupancy bringing the total number of rooms for occupancy in 1985 to 153. At that time, the rooms provided for tourist use was 113 and the rooms provided for residential use was 40 plus the three offices restored from office use. The total number of rooms in the hotel, including the lounge and maintenance room was 155. Architectural evidence shows that other conversions occurred at undetermined periods. Room consolidations created larger rooms with baths. Mr. Sanger said his client was not seeking any disproportionate gain. He said that his client was seeking comparability in room classification. These consolidations do not imply that unlawful conversions occurred as defined in Chapter 41. These conversions increased the space of permanent residential occupancy. Mr. Sanger said that his client felt that the determination should be revised and a new Certificate of Use should be issued.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the number on the Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy looked like 183 was scratched out and corrected to read 173.

Deputy Director Wong directed the Commission's attention to the Staff Report of June 17, 1998. He said the issue here is a number count. The existing Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy states the number of residential units is 49 and the number of tourist units is 124 bringing the total number of rooms in the building to 173. The appellant claims that there are 43 residential units and 108 tourist units for a total room count of 155. He said there are three sets of numbers. Deputy Director Wong then yielded the floor to Ms. Rosemary Bosque, Senior Housing Inspector.

Ms. Bosque said the 1986 Certificate of Final Completion and Occupancy (CFC) that appears in the appeal packet is the official document. It is the same document that appears in the microfiche complete with its notations. It is the document that the inspector finalized with the completion of his inspection of a complaint action in 1986 resulting from a Report of Residential Building Records (3R-Report) numbered 3R-303. The inspector physically counted the rooms in order to arrive at the number listed here as a result of the code enforcement action. That room count of 178 is consistent with other city documents. That room count is consistent with the Certificate of Use (COU) which established the legal use of the Powell Street Hotel in 1986. The room count is also consistent with the COU for the building established by the Hotel Conversion Ordinance (HCO). The 1986 COU show the same number.

Ms. Bosque said that during two inspections of the building, there were Notices of Violation issued in August and September of 1996 indicating that the room count was not consistent with the city's documentation establishing the last legal use of that building. The appellant challenges the validity of the 1989 CFC on the strength of two affidavits. The declaration of Kevin Lee states on page 2, that Mr. Lee was told by someone with direct knowledge of the building that there were 173 units existing in the building when the previous owner bought it. Mr. Lee's affidavit is consistent with the city's documentation. Ms. Bosque said Exhibit E of the DBI staff report shows that the appellant filed Annual Unit Usage Reports (AUUR) in 1994 and 1995 using the same room count consistent with the city's documentation. DBI is telling the owner of the Powell Street Hotel that he must comply with the legal use of the building established by code. Ms. Bosque said that if there is a different number of rooms than that number established by the COU, then they must be legalized by way of permit application or the last legal use must be restored. Every COU issued to this building states that there always were 49 residential guest rooms. That number never fluctuated. There is a provision in the HCO that allows changes to the number of units. That is done by filing a building permit with DBI and having it reviewed by staff. That permit must be consistent with the San Francisco Building Code regarding a change in the use. Since that was never done, that issue is not before this Commission.

Commissioner Vasquez said the AUUR of November 1995 was filed by Mr. Green and it listed 49 residential room and the 124 tourist rooms.

Ms. Bosque said that the owner agreed with the city's room count. If he did not, he could have and should have had it investigated by the DBI.

Commissioner Vasquez said that he was concerned that the room assignments have not been consistent since 1995, and the room count compiled by the architect is dramatically different from1995 AUURs.

Mr. Sanger said the 1995 AUUR was a copy of the previous year. The reports were xeroxed every year. Mr. Sanger said that no one ever came out and did a count.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the 1997, 1995 and the 1994 AUURs differ. The room designations were not the same. These reports are not just xeroxed.

Commissioner Cereghino said the classification of number of rooms has never been important to the owner until he wanted to make a conversion. To her, that validates Ms. Bosque's argument.

President Hood opened the floor to public comment.

Mr. Randy Shaw, Tenderloin Housing Clinic, said that he has been the attorney for most of the tenants of the Powell Street Hotel since 1981. All hotels in San Francisco are classified and have been issued a COU stating how many rooms are residential and how many are tourist. That COU could have been challenged within ten days of issuance if the owner disagreed with it. The time for challenging the COU, in this case, has long since passed and the issues here have already been resolved. There has always been 49 residential units in the Powell Street Hotel. Most of the residential tenants of the Powell Street Hotel have lived there for more than fifteen years and still have not received a lifetime lease. Mr. Sanger is trying to save his client about $120,000 in in-lieu fees.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how Mr. Shaw arrived at that figure.

Mr. Shaw said that there was a formula in the HCO. It was a ballpark estimate.

Mr. Robert Pender, San Francisco Tenants Network, said that he had heard that there are a lot of residential evictions going on in downtown. He said the residential rooms are being eliminated because of lack of enforcement. That is abominable. Mr. Pender said that tenants in San Francisco were getting a bum deal and looking for help from city government.

Matt Brown, Executive Director of Saint Peter's Housing Committee, said the organization he represented works for low income housing in San Francisco. Any attempt to take away low income residential units is very damaging. It has a domino effect in all neighborhoods in the city. Mr. Brown said that it was clear the appellant was either 17, 12 or three years too late with his challenge. He said that it seems to be a very simple case. He said the record shows that there have always been 49 residential rooms at that hotel and any attempt to remove them would hurt the city.

Ms. Kate Gordon, Director of Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, said that there is a severe shortage of residential units in San Francisco. She said that residential hotels are a last hope before homelessness for many of the tenants here in San Francisco. Any attempt to take away from that housing stock terrifies her. Ms. Gordon said that it was unfair that the landlord may get a chance to skate over the fact that his challenge is late while the tenants will have to fight for their homes. She urged the Commission to uphold the code.

President Hood asked the appellant if he wished to give a rebuttal.

Mr. Sanger said the tenants will not have to fight for anything. A settlement has already been extended. No units have been deleted, only modified. He said that this hearing is only about a number and that he had already produced three documents showing different numbers for the same building. Mr. Sanger said that Ms. Bosque indicated that a permit should be filed to correct the records and that is just what he was trying to do. He said that he was trying to correct the record and make it reflect reality. He said that the same amount of space that had been allocated to residential units is still allocated to residential units.

Commissioner Freeman asked if DBI had to go by number of rooms.

Mr. Sanger said that was the position DBI was taking.

President Hood closed the public hearing.

c.	Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection.

Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Building Inspection's determination that there are forty-
nine (49) residential guest rooms in the Powell Street Hotel.

Commissioner Vasquez said that in summary the CFC, the COU, and the AUUR submitted by current building owners state 173 rooms of which 49 are residential.

President Hood said that reading through this appeal material was confusing. However, the colored diagrams made it easy to see how the historic reconstruction ocurred. She said that the law is black and white. Every year there was an opportunity to appeal the AUUR determination. The owner should have been aware and should have moved on that at once. She said that it could be seen from the drawing that an effort had been made to upgrade the rooms. However, the Commission is bound by the Administrative Code. She said the issue here is straightforward.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she believed that law was put into place to avoid the pervasive disappearing of residential units. If the BIC did not uphold this ordinance, it would be condoning the practice of allowing landlords to slip through this ordinance.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-062.98]

The Commission took a break at this point in the proceedings, from 3:05 to 3:20 p.m.

7.	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.

Commissioner Cereghino said that Deputy City Attorney, Ms. Judy Boyajian, had made the requested amendments to the ordinance discussed at the last meeting. She said that the first amendment was in Section 77.5 (e) on page 6, line 3 of the amended draft.

Ms. Boyajian said that the amended ordinance now includes the phrase, " . . . has or has not made an error."

Commissioner Cereghino said that second amendment was in Section 77.2 (f) on page 2, line 12 of the amended draft.

Ms. Boyajian said that the amended ordinance now includes the phrase, " . . . Manager or Chief."

Commissioner Cereghino said the third amendment is the addition of Section 4 to reserve Section 104.2.7. This amendment appears on the last page of the amended draft at line 8.

President Hood asked what Section 104.2.7 was.

Ms. Boyajian said that Section 104.2.7 was part of the California State Building Code. She said that because the Commission was not adopting the same section that is in the California State Building Code the interested parties felt it was necessary to say something about reserving 104.2.7.

President Hood said that before she voted something into law she had to know what it was she was voting on.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the last change was at Section 77.4.

Ms. Boyajian said that the section title was changed in view of the debate over the phrase "subordinate appellate bodies." Ms. Boyajian said the revised language use language in Proposition G.

President Hood said that she questioned using the phrase "appropriate technical boards within the Department of Building Inspection" because boards, such as the Board of Examiners, are not within DBI. It is a board outside of the DBI.

Ms. Boyajian said that the language of Proposition G states that these boards are within DBI. She said that Section D3.750-7 states that: ". . . these technical boards and advisory committees are within the Department of Building Inspection." She said that though these boards may be composed of people outside DBI they are considered a board within DBI.

President Hood said that in the same section at lines 20-21 the phrase "advisory committees or persons" is used but, on line 17 the phrase "appropriate technical board" is used. She asked why line 17 did not conform to lines 20-21.

Ms. Boyajian said that the term "appropriate technical board" was used in line 17 because only a technical board has the authority to make binding decisions.

President Hood said that she understood the logic and agreed with it.

Commissioner Cereghino moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to approve the revised language of Section 77.4.

Ms. Boyajian asked if everyone felt comfortable with reserving Section 104.2.7 of the California State Building Code.

President Hood asked Ms. Boyajian what would happen if this Commission removed line 10 of page 10 of the ordinance.

Ms. Boyajian said if that were done the San Francisco Building Code would not be inconsistent with the California State Building Code.

President Hood said that the Commission could vote on this ordinance subject to clarification of that particular clause.

Commissioner Cereghino amended her motioned and moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to approve the ordinance promulgating the appellate powers of the BIC pending clarification of page 10, line 10 which reserves Section 104.2.7 of the California State Building Code.

President Hood said that the Commission needed figures for the fees.

Commissioner Cereghino said the fees should have some relevance to the Board of Appeals and to what other boards charge.

Ms. Boyajian said the fees needed to be connected to the actual expense of the service.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if a Request for Jurisdiction and a Notice of Appeals could be held at the same time.

Ms. Boyajian said it would depend on the Commission's rules.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to know if a court reporter was necessary for a Request for Jurisdiction.

President Hood said that a court reporter was necessary any time a legal document was created by this Commission. She then asked what the fee is for a court reporter.

Ms. Banico said that court reporters are paid $250 for attending meetings. Transcripts are paid for by the party requesting such and costs about $5 per/page.

Commissioner Cereghino said that originally the fees proposed by Deputy City Attorney Dick from $400, $200, and $100. She said she was inclined to use those figures. They could be altered at some point if the Commission feels they are out of line. Also, Mr. Bossi's letter recommends that the ordinance include a provision on the wavier of fees if it is found that the DBI has erred.

President Hood said that she had no objection to that. She said that she wanted to add a provision to waive fees for cases of hardship.

Commissioner Cereghino agreed. She the said the Board of Appeals's (BOA) criteria for the waiver of fees is attached to the ordinance handout distributed with the BIC packed.

Ms. Boyajian said that another section entitled Fees would have to be added to accommodate these concepts. She said that the language of the BOA's criteria for the waiver of fees is standard and could be easily incorporated into the ordinance.

President Hood said that she did not understand the difference among all the categories listed in the ordinance's fee schedule.

Ms. Boyajian said that a Notice of Appeal was that situation where a party is disputing a determination or decision made by the department and has decided to have this Commission hear it. A Request for Suspension of the Decision is the situation wherein the action of DBI/DPW/SFWD is automatically suspended unless the department can show findings that suspending its action is not in the best interest of the public welfare. Those findings would have to be confirmed or negated by the Commission at its next regular meeting.

President Hood asked under what circumstances would a Request for Jurisdiction be filed.

Ms. Boyajian said that it would happen when the Commission Secretary rejected an appeal either because it was not timely or the appeal had been rejected for some other reason. In such a case, she said, one could come to the Commission and ask for a jurisdiction determination.

President Hood said that she saw that as just another appeal. She said that the Request for a Rehearing would be the same thing. She said that a fee of $100 for all types of requests would be appropriate.

Ms. Boyajian asked if the Commission wanted to charge $100 for each type of hearing.

President Hood said yes.

Ms. Boyajian said that the fee rate should be supported by the cost of the service. The fees could not be more than the cost, but they are allowed to be less.

Ms. Caravelli said one of the staff at DBI asked her why Mr. Bonacker and Mr. Bossi wanted to extend the administrative process. She said there was a construction project that was stopped for thirteen months. She said this ordinance would make it possible to stop a project for two years. Ms. Caravelli said that the ordinance would change the scope of the Commission's appellate powers because a verbal determination/decision cannot be appealed.

President Hood asked why it could not be appealed.

Ms. Caravelli pointed to page 2, line 8 and page 3, line 10 and said the Charter says that an appeal must be filed 15 days after a decision is rendered. The Charter does not specify the official who made that decision.

President Hood asked Ms. Caravelli how she would change it.

Ms. Caravelli said that she would delete page 3, lines 10 through 11 and delete page 2, lines 8 through 13. She said this ordinance has a lot of potential loop holes in it and people will find them and learn how to use them against the system. The Charter states that the Commission shall have the authority to hear appeals on all decisions made by the DBI regarding permits.

President Hood said that Ms. Caravelli's concern was that an appeal now has to go up the ranks before it comes to the Commission. On page 2, line 9 and 10 the term "person or persons authorized by the Director of" is used. The same terminology could be used in line 11 of page 8 with respect to the DBI. That would solve the problem of a decision/determination having to be go up the ranks before it could be appealed. Also, she added that line 10 of the same page mean that the decision/determination must be in writing before it can be appealed.

Commission Secretary Banico said that she wanted to address the administrative burden on the Commission Office. She said that this policy of a written decision going up the ranks was being proposed to the Commission because of the work and time consumed verifying verbal decisions. . The policy proposal to have decisions written, going up the ranks, is so that the managers and chiefs would have the ability to resolve problems.

President Hood asked where, in the ordinance, did it say that the DBI must render decisions in writing.

Commissioner Guinnane said the language was on page 3.

Commission Secretary Banico said that it did say that but, the ordinance also states that if the DBI did not give a written decision in 15 days, the matter was appealable directly to the Commission.

President Hood said that the ordinance must inform the public that upon receipt of a verbal decision that member of the public should request, in writing, a written decision form the DBI. This is the only way the pubic will know about the appeal rights.

Commission Secretary Banico said that the DBI was under a notice requirement to inform the public of the 15 day appeal window. If DBI does not inform the public, the window does not close.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker said on line 3 of page 4 the ordinance clarifies the fact that an unwritten decision is appealable. The decision goes up the ranks one step to a manager or a chief but that decision does not have to be in writing.

Commissioner Cereghino said all these questions had been debated in a public meeting. Ms. Caravelli unfortunately did not attend all of those meeting where she would have benefitted from knowledge of those debates. All interested parties were invited to attend. Those who did not come received the documentation of those proceedings.

Mr. Bonacker said the reference on page 3 to written decision was intended for people who wanted to have an interpretation of the code so that if DBI did not render an interpretation, that could be appealed. Any decisions made by an employee of rank lower than a chief or manager could be taken to her/his supervisor. If the supervisor made a disagreeable decision, that too, could be appealed.

Ms. Youvanopolous said that the 15 day appeal window was too short. She said that sometimes it takes time to discover inaccuracies.

Ms. Boyajian said that the City Charter that sets the 15 day requirement window starts form the day the decision is made. Someone could come to the Commission claiming they were not provided with the proper notices and the Commission could grant jurisdiction beyond the 15 day appeal window due to an error of DBI. Ms. Boyajian said that she argued for a written decision in order to clarify the beginning of the appeal process.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-063.98]

Ms. Boyajian asked for clarification on the ordinance. She asked whether the phrase Manager or Chief on page 2, line 12 had remained or was removed.

President Hood said that the phrase was removed and the language throughout the section in reference to authorized person(s) was to be uniform.

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

Director Chiu said that Ms. Paulette Hooey was on vacation but if the Commission had any questions he would try to answer them.

Commissioner Guinnane referred to the Housing Inspection Services line item and asked why from the May Original column to the May Adjusted columns there was a discrepancy of $18,000.

Director Chiu said he did not know why that had occurred. He said that he would need to get back to Commissioner Guinnane with an answer to that question.

Commissioner Vasquez said that the DBI litigation was $27,000 in the May Original and in the May Adjusted it shifted to zero. This may be the reason.

Director Chiu agreed.

Commissioner Vasquez said that he noticed that the Disabled Access Division (DAD) has a negative entry. He said that he hoped that DBI can continue that.

President Hood asked for public comment.

9.	Report, discussion and possible action to approve the format and content of a BIC tracking report to facilitate BIC review and evaluation of issues and programs.

Commission Secretary Banico said that at the July 1, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting, the Commission directed her to prepare a tracking report. She requested Commission comment on format of the tracking report and the specific projects the Commission wished to track in the report. Commission Secretary Banico said the samples she provided could identify tasks, time lines and progress.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the Gantt Chart was a good format.

President Hood said that the chart could be very helpful and asked if it were possible to have one sheet per task.

Commission Secretary Banico said that this type of chart was most useful for tracking large projects and issues.

Ms. Caravelli said that the chart was a good idea for large projects but it would not work for the small issues, these tend to fall through the cracks. However, it was the small procedural issues that caused the most problems in DBI.

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

Commissioner Guinnane asked for an update on the status of the departmental audit.

Director Chiu said that it seemed the audit was going to be very detailed. He would report to Commissioner Guinnane regarding how far along the audit is at this point.

11.	Approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of July 1, 1998.

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to approve the Minutes of the July 1, 1998 Regular BIC Meeting as prepared.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-064.98]

12.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of August 5, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

Ms. Caravelli said if Commissioner Guinnane wanted a report on the status of the departmental, the report should be agendized.

Mr. Bonacker said that to date there is no code language regarding the state legislation that will allow amendments to the California State Building Code. He said the issue was not getting the kind of support it needs from the Mayor's Office. Mr. Bonacker said the private sector supporters of this legislation are all waiting for the language and they cannot comprehend the reason for delaying this work. He said that he would like this issue agendized and have this Commission take up this issue at its next meeting.

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

Amon Murphy said he wanted a list all the tools provided to field inspectors when they execute a field inspection. He said on two occasions, he was told that inspectors did not carry tools.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Murphy wanted the electrical inspector tools list or the plumbing inspectors tools list.

Mr. Murphy said he would like both.

Ms. Caravelli said to Commissioner Cereghino that the reason she did not come to all the meetings dealing with the BIC's appellate powers ordinance was because there was no process employed at those meetings. Ms. Caravelli said to President Hood that as the chair of this Commission it was her prerogative to waive or enforce the three minute speaking limit for the public. She said that staff had unlimited speaking time and the public did not. Ms. Caravelli said that sometimes three minutes was not enough time to advance the issues and that it hard to make good decisions without all the information.

Ms. Youvanopolous said that at the Joint Meeting of May 28, 1998 there was mention of reformatting the permit application form to include a field in which inspectors could place their initials and a field where that an inspector could sign her/his name. She said that she thought that was a good idea.

14.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Guinnane, seconded by Commissioner Fillon, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-065.98]

_________________________________

MARIA G. T. BANICO

Commission Secretary Çã