Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, September 16, at 1:00 p.m.

Adopted October 7, 1998

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

MINUTES

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

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	Roy Guinnane, Commissioner

COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:

Alfonso K. Fillon, Commissioner - excused absence

Sigmund A. Freeman, Commissioner - excused absence

Sharon Mark, Commissioner - excused absence

COMMISSION STAFF PRESENT:

Maria Banico, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Permit Services

William Wong, Deputy Director for Inspection Services

Laurence Kornfield, Manager, Technical Services Division

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE:

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

2.	President's Report.

a.	Discussion and possible action to clarify the implementation of the BIC Procedure 4 (Administrative Bulletins and Code Rulings Preparation and Flowchart Process) in the Commission's Rules, Regulations, Policies and Procedures (RRPP) adopted on November 17, 1995.

Commission Secretary Banico gave a background on the BIC's procedure for reviewing administrative bulletins and code rulings. She said that in November 1995, the Commission approved the flowchart (Attachment A) submitted by Director Chiu during the BIC Meeting. The Commission packet included a draft administrative bulletin describing this procedure. Subsequently, in February 1996 the department finalized the administrative bulletin and the flowchart was revised. The presence of two flowcharts has resulted in confusion on the BIC's approved procedure. Ms. Banico requested clarification from the BIC on whether they wished to review administrative bulletins and code rulings once or twice, at the end of the 60-day public review period OR at the beginning and at the end of the 60-day public review period.

Deputy Director Wong referred to his written report and said that the record of the Commission meetings showed that the administrative bulletins and code rulings were reviewed by the BIC only at the end of the 60-day public review period. He gave examples of such items pointing to the agendas and minutes of some meetings.

Commission Secretary Banico also requested for clarification on whether, if the BIC's pleasure is to review these two types of documents twice, how should the first review be handled. She asked if the first review should be an agendized item or merely a communication item.

President Hood said that she preferred to review administrative bulletins and code rulings twice. The Commission wants to see the draft and not just review the end product. This Commission does not want to be a rubber stamp. She said that the author of the bulletin or code ruling could decide on how the first review should occur.

Vice-President Vasquez said that if there is interest from the Commission on a particular topic, the administrative bulletin or code ruling should be agendized. One easy way to do this is to report under Director's Report on upcoming bulletins and rulings.

President Hood directed Deputy Director Wong to provide a list of upcoming administrative bulletins and code rulings to Commission Secretary Banico who can then call the Commission's attention items of interest. She said that this way the BIC can give input at the front end of the process. President Hood said that the procedure should be rewritten and agendized for discussion.

Deputy Director Wong suggested that administrative bulletin containing the flow chart on processing administrative bulletins and code rulings should also be amended to reflect the substance of this discussion.

President Hood said this can be done after the BIC votes on the procedure at the next meeting. After that, all documents relating to this subject should be made consistent.

Commission Secretary Banico said that she would prepare a proposal for revising the procedure and would bring this back at the next meeting.

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 Director Gerald Green of the Department of City Planning is working with a member of the City Planning Commission on finalizing the report to address the issues brought up at the joint meeting. DBI staff will bring this report to the BIC when it is completed.

b.	Quarterly status report and discussion on DBI's progress to date in implementing approved policies, timberline and action plan to address the backlog of the Housing Inspection Division's abatement cases. The Commission may take action to approve current operations or direct DBI staff to undertake new procedures and methods.

Deputy Director Wong said that the second quarter Housing Inspection Services (HIS) Division's report to the BIC was given as part of the overall department report. He said this current report will be limited to the backlog cases.

Ms. Lesley Stansfield, HIS Manager, said that the division has continued to eat away at the backlog, averaging resolution of 500 cases per year. She summarized the progress to date giving the number of unresolved cases reported to the BIC at past meetings as follows:

June 1995	-	2000 cases

June 1996	-	1480 cases

March 1997	-	1040 cases

September 1997 -	955 cases

September 1998 -	498 cases.

Ms. Stansfield said that between September 1997 and September 1998, HIS staff discovered 131 cases that were not originally identified as part of the backlog. This brought the September 1997 total up to 1086 cases instead of 955 cases. The remaining 500 cases will be the most difficult to resolve.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the HIS Division had an amnesty period. He asked if this amnesty program was effective.

Ms. Stansfield said that the amnesty period lasted for six months. She said that the carrot approach did not work as well as the stick approach.

Commissioner Cereghino said the process of referring cases to the City Attorney's Office could be cumbersome and expensive. Sometimes, it is not in the best interest of the department to refer cases for legal action. Commissioner Cereghino requested information on the legal referral process.

Ms. Stansfield agreed that there was a need to further prioritize cases and separate those which are not worthwhile to send to the City Attorney's Office for legal action. She said, however, that the procedures for referrals have been streamlined tremendously and does not take as much staff time as it did in the past.

President Hood asked Ms. Stansfield if there were any tools that she needed.

Ms. Stansfield said that the division needed more MIS support. For example, the scheduling and sending out letters for the apartment inspections cannot be done unless MIS works on the program to identify the subject properties.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that in prioritizing the various MIS projects, some division requests had to be put on hold. He said that he would meet with Ms. Stansfield on the MIS work needed to facilitate the apartment inspections. He said that the MIS support needed seems to be a small program and that this could be attended to quickly.

President Hood requested a report on this MIS support issue within a month. She said that she heard that the HIS Division was starting up on routine inspections. She asked if this new task will affect the progress on the 500 remaining cases.

Ms. Stansfield said that the progress on routine inspections will also be affected by MIS support.

Deputy Director Wong asked for clarification on future HIS reports to the BIC on the backlog. He asked if this should be folded in with the departmental report or whether it should be a stand alone report.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the backlog should be a stand alone report. It concerns the specific topic of the backlog and not the whole HIS operations.

President Hood said that the reports should be agendized every quarter, or more frequently if the BIC has a special request such as the MIS report. She said that report should be agendized for next month's meeting.

c.	Report and discussion on approved revisions to Office Policy and Procedures #OP-
016.98: Permit Inspection Procedures for Data/Communication and Low-Voltage Systems.

Mr. Steve Young said that the proposed Office Policy and Procedure was meant to regulate low-voltage systems such as telephone jacks, computer terminal outlets, security systems, etc. The Department has found that since these types of systems do not require a permit, there are problems on the standards of installation. The proposed policy would regulate any construction that involved ten or more low-voltage installations.

Mr. Mike Hennessy, acting Chief Electrical Inspector, said that the problems are becoming more frequent. Staff is already inspecting these types of installations in buildings where inspections are carried out for other types of electrical work. A permit process is needed.

President Hood asked if there had been any involvement from the multimedia industry in the development of the draft Office Policy and Procedure.

Mr. Young assured the Commission that department staff had worked with various sectors affected by this proposed policy.

Mr. Ed McMillan, president of the Electrical Contractor's Association described current practices and spoke in support of the proposal.

President Hood asked if this procedure would regulate putting in security systems which had more than ten windows. She asked if a permit would be required.

Mr. Young said that the Office Policy and Procedure would only be for commercial uses.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how the program will be staffed.

Mr. Young said that the department will undertake the program step by step and will revisit its impacts as implementation comes along.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if electrical inspectors will be requiring customers to take down walls when an installation is already in place. He described a situation in the past where he was asked to remove a wall to show how the electrical installations were constructed. He said that he had to come down and talk with the senior inspector to get relief from this order.

Mr. Young agreed that such a request is wrong and should be looked at as an anomaly.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Office Policy and Procedure would require that low-
voltage systems be installed by union members.

Mr. Young said that the requirement was for state-licensed contractors, not that the contractors are union members.

President Hood asked how the proposed procedure evolved.

Mr. Young said that in the past, low-voltage systems were few and far between. Now with the developments in computer technology and communications, there has been a big increase in these types of installations and systems.

Mr. Ron Allen, Electrical Inspector, said that the department is responding to requests made by building owners and contractors to regulate the installation of low-voltage systems.

Vice-President Vasquez said that this Office Policy and Procedure addresses a missing link in the process. Sometimes, a contractor cannot ask for a final inspection because the electrical installations are not yet in compliance.

Mr. McMillan said that these types of installations are usually carried out separately and are not part of a bigger construction project.

Mr. Arnie Hollander, representing The Lurie Company, said that he had some concerns that this proposal was being classified as an Office Policy and Procedure. The program being proposed is not inexpensive and is not easy to do. He said that he supported the intent of the proposal but there needs to be a lot of discussion and education on the subject.

President Hood said that the proposal entails a sweeping change.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she had the same position as previous speakers. She noted that none of the speakers were opposed to the concept but the question is how this program will be implemented.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland, BOMA, said that the proposal should have been drafted as an administrative bulletin, not an office policy and procedure. The draft should have been forwarded to the Public Advisory Committee which is the forum where the industry has a chance to sit down with DBI personnel. He said that telecommunication people, electrical contractors, and all parties should be at the table.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the proposal is a big change. He had concerns that the implementation will start with downtown and then will be expanded to include residential.

President Hood agreed that the draft should have been an administrative bulletin especially since it included fees.

Commission Secretary Banico asked for clarification on whether the BIC would like to review this document once or twice.

President Hood said that this should be brought to the BIC twice with this hearing counted as the first referral.

4.	Public Comment.

There was no testimony from the public given at this point in the proceedings.

5.	Report, discussion and possible action to adopt four Administrative Bulletins listed below proposed by the Department of Building Inspection:

a.	Proposed Administrative Bulleting for maintenance of accessible features and allowable temporary interruptions to disabled access. (Administrative Bulletin No. AB.015.98)

b.	Proposed Administrative Bulletin to allow use of panic hardware as an equivalent facilitation to required push-side clearance. (Administrative Bulletin No. AB.016.98)

c.	Proposed Administrative Bulletin to allow exception to requirements for disabled access to vacant spaces. (Administrative Bulletin No. AB.017.98)

d.	Proposed Administrative Bulletin to allow dimensional tolerances for new and existing construction to be approved by DBI inspectors: Plumbing, Electrical and Building (Administrative Bulletin No. AB.021.98)

Mr. Laurence Kornfield reported that at the BIC's direction, these administrative bulletins were prepared and circulated for public review. The bulletins contain administrative, straightforward solutions to problems and issues that come up again and again. He said that the first bulletin under #6a allowed vacant building not to provide disabled access. However, when these buildings become occupied, even for a temporary period, the access would be required. The second bulletin allowed the use of panic hardware in lieu of the required push-side clearance for disabled access. The third bulletin allowed temporary disruptions to the requirement for disabled parking spaces. This has been the subject of statewide debate. The fourth bulletin has the most far-reaching ramifications among the four proposed at this meeting. This bulletin allowed dimensional tolerances, very small deviations, which was a result of the construction process. Mr. Kornfield said that an example is to allow a 1/4 inch deviation over 8 feet. The dimensional tolerances did not change the dimensional requirements but merely took a realistic look at the construction process.

President Hood asked if there were any objections on any of the administrative bulletins from the disabled community.

Mr. Kornfield said that he had received many comments from various parties. For example, Mr. Richard Skaff said that San Francisco should not allow dimensional tolerances even if these are allowed by the state. Most other comments were on individual deviations rather than the concept of allowing construction dimensional tolerances.

President Hood said that the construction tolerance bulletin was one of the top priorities of the BIC.

Vice-President Vasquez said that to any extent possible, administrative solutions for cases before the AAC should be sought. The department should begin to look at bulletins for issues, even if they have come up before the AAC only a second time. DBI should work toward providing accessibility but also fix it processes for seeking compliance.

Mr. Ken Cleaveland, BOMA, said that the more written interpretations there are, the more the opportunity to avoid delays. He said that the administrative bulletin allowing construction tolerances was a long time in the making. However, it is only a starting point and the bulletin can be changed as new issues come up.

Mr. Rob McNeil, Co-Chair of the Disabled Access Committee of BOMA, said that in his work as a subcontractor, the issues on construction tolerances keep coming up. He has worked hard with the Disabled Access Advisory Committee to get this bulletin adopted.

Mr. R. K. Stewart, Gensler, said that the work on this bulleting has been going on for the last two years. It does not modify design requirements but only acknowledges construction difficulties. He commended Deputy Director Wong and Mr. Kornfield for their work in making sure that all interested parties had a change to input into this bulletin.

President Hood also thanked the American Institute of Architects for their involvement in this process.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the Code Advisory Committee requested that "fire door" be changed to "fire-rated door."

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to approve the administrative bulletins described above with the change of "fire door" to "fire-rated door."

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-082.98]

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

Ms. Paulette Hooey reported that the July 1998 billing from the City Attorney's Office was $22,000 less than the budgeted amount. She said that the July billing was in the same ballpark as last year's July billing.

Commissioner Guinnane asked for information on monies coming from settlements and judgments. He said, for example, that Deputy City Attorney Manolius reported receipt of $100,000 settlement recently. The monthly report should show how this money was transferred.

Ms. Hooey said that she did not yet receive last month's billing and so this $100,000 may be for the upcoming billing report.

7.	Report, discussion and possible action to reconstitute the Code Review Committee of the Building Inspection Commission to review the proposed 1998 San Francisco Building Code and other related matters.

President Hood directed Commission Secretary Banico to inquire with Commissioner Freeman and Commissioner Fillon (who were not at this meeting) if they would be interested in making up this Committee. This matter was then continued to the next regular meeting.

8.	Report, discussion and possible action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an 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. The Commission may also consider and act on alternate legislative proposals, including but not limited to, moving these provisions to the S.F. Building Code and the S. F. Health Code.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said that per direction of the BIC, this ordinance was being redrafted and split into a two: part will go to the Health Code and the enabling language ( a very small portion of the text) will be in the Building Code. He said that given this charge, the Building Code change will be incorporated into the general code cycle. This strategy was approved by the BIC at a previous meeting.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she thought that the BIC was going to review the alternate ordinance at this meeting.

Mr. Kornfield said that it would be folded in with the general code cycle.

Commissioner Cereghino moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to direct the Commission Secretary Banico to inform the Board of Supervisors that the BIC approved an alternate strategy which will move the regulations regarding hazardous wastes on private property from the Public Works Code to the Health Code and to allow the Technical Services Division to process the accompanying Building Code change as part of the regular code cycle.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-083.98].

9.	Report, discussion and possible action recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an ordinance amending Part 1 of the San Francisco Municipal Code by adding Chapter 77 thereto and amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 105.8 thereto to implement the Charter-mandated authority of the Building Inspection Commission.

a.	Report on the recommendations of the Code Advisory Committee.

b.	Discussion and action by the Building Inspection Commission.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield reported that the Code Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed ordinance on the BIC's appellate powers at their regular meeting earlier in the day. He said that the CAC wished to convey that their workload is great and referrals of appeals from the BIC would be hardship. However, the CAC will accommodate requests if this is the will of the BIC. The CAC also requested protection from liability on appeal referrals.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that if the appellate review or authority is granted by ordinance, the parties are already covered. She said that she would provide more information on this issue.

Mr. Kornfield said that the CAC requested a review of the reference to Section 105.2. which would fold in the AAC with the BIC.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that she had reviewed this reference and that there is no error in the language as drafted.

Mr. Kornfield requested that this ordinance be folded into the building code cycle. He also spoke in opposition to the proposed language on Section 104.2.7 which would reserve this section. He said that this change would delete the current language in Section 104.2.7 which are the provisions allowing the Director some level of discretion.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that currently, the San Francisco Building Code, does not contain a Section 104.2.7. Therefore, the language in the California Building Code is in effect. The proposed change is to reserve this section thereby eliminating the language in the state code.

Commission Secretary Banico said that during discussions on this item, there was no substantive discussion on changing the scope of the Director's authority. The section was included because it was determined that the 1995 San Francisco Building Code erroneously added this section back during the code correction process. Ms. Banico also said that the new language in the appellate powers ordinance speaks to a certain level of discretion by the Director since the appeals to the BIC can be matters where the Director "has abused his discretion."

President Hood asked for clarification on "request for jurisdiction." She said that she has found it awkward for the BIC to deliberate on jurisdiction for each and every case.

Commission Secretary Banico said that the term, which is capitalized in the text - Request for Jurisdiction, refers to two specific instances only: if the appellant fails to file the appeal within 15 days or when the Commission Secretary refuses to take an appeal.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the ordinance now outlines the BIC jurisdiction. It will not be necessary to determine jurisdiction on each and every case in the future.

Commission Secretary Banico also reported on the proceedings at the CAC meeting earlier in the day. She said that her report deviates slightly from Mr. Kornfield's because the CAC reviewed this item twice: once at the CAC Committee meeting and again at the full CAC meeting. She attended the former and Mr. Kornfield attended the latter. In the earlier meeting, the CAC said that appeals are not part of the typical matters before the CAC. The CAC works on general code issues. Appeals deal with specific code interpretation. The CAC workload would also preclude its close involvement with appeals. Therefore, appeal referrals could be made to specific members of the CAC for their individual expertises and that particular member could attend the BIC meeting. Ms. Banico said she reported to the CAC that when the BIC reviewed the referral language, it was their intent to solicit advice from individuals as well as bodies. The appellate powers ordinance allows the BIC to ask for advice but does not bind the CAC to give such advice.

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed ordinance on the BIC's appellate powers. The timing of the recommendation to the Board will be together with the whole building code.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-084.98].

10.	Review of Director's performance per goals adopted under the Pay for Performance Program.

a.	Public Comment (on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session).

There was no public comment received pertaining to the Closed Session.

b.	Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Vice-President Vasquez, to convene a Closed Session.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-085.98].

The Commission went into Closed Session from 3:50 to 4:35 p.m.

c.	CLOSED SESSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and the San

Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Director of the Department of Building Inspection - Mr. Frank Chiu

d.	Reconvene in Open Session to vote whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.14(a).)

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, not to disclose the details of the discussion held at Closed Session.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-086.98]

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

There was no discussion on this agenda item.

12.	Approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of September 2, 1998.

The Minutes of the September 2, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting was not available for review and adoption.

13.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of October 7, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

There was not discussion on this agenda item.

14.	Public Comment.

There was no public testimony received at this point in the proceedings.

15.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Vice-President Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, the meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-087.98]

_________________________________

MARIA G. T. BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã