Building Inspection Commission (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, November 18, 1998, at 1:00 p.m.

Adopted on December 16, 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 1:25 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	Armand 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

Carolina Vera, Recording Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

William Wong, Deputy Director for Inspection Services

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Permit Services

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE:

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

2.	President's Report.

Commission Secretary Maria Banico introduced Carolina Vera who joined the Commission staff a week ago.

3.	Director's Report.

a.	Report, discussion and possible action to approve the following Administrative Bulletins:

- AB-001.98 - Preparing Administrative Bulletins

- AB-002.98 - Preparing Code Rulings

- AB-002.98 - Preparing and Office Policy and Procedure

Director Chiu said that based on his understanding of discussions at previous meetings where he was not present, the Commission directed staff to go back and revise the procedures for preparing bulletins and code rulings. He thanked Deputy Director Wong for redrafting the three bulletins per the Commission's directions.

Deputy Director Wong reported that on October 7, 1998, BIC adopted a new flowchart for reviewing bulletins, code rulings and office policies & procedures. He referred to his written report which included the three administrative bulletins currently used to establish procedures for administrative bulletins, code rulings, office policy and revisions thereof to conform to the changes that were adopted last October 7, 1998.

Deputy Director Wong also reported that on the flowchart, they added two controls. After the department reviews the first draft, the documents were to be reviewed by the Technical Services Division and respective Deputy Directors and at the end of the process before taking these to the Commission for public review.

Deputy Director Wong thanked Mr. Kornfield for helping him re-write the three documents.

President Hood stated that, the BIC wants to be involved at the beginning of the process. The Code Advisory Committee and BIC should not be left out of the loop.

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, to approve the three administrative bulletins implementing BIC Procedure 4 (Administrative Bulletins and Code Rulings, Preparing and Office Policy and Procedure).

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-094.98]

Director Chiu said that one of the department's goals is to extend office hours. He announced that DBI will now be open on Saturdays and thanked Deputy Director Hutchinson and his staff for their willingness to provide more customer service. He said that the pilot program started the week of November 9, 1998. The full launch for this program will be on December 5, 1998. There will be a press release and advertising so that community people know that they can do some limited scope of work during Saturdays and that there will be an express line.

Commissioner Cereghino said that express line sounds good.

President Hood made a suggestion to post notices around the 1st floor and 2nd floor of 1660 Mission. She also said that the department should be prepared if they want to have an average size express line. There might be a surge of people showing up on Saturdays. The department should be able to call additional people who are available.

b.	Report and discussion on the report entitled "Listing of Administrative Bulletins, Code Rulings and Office Policy and Procedures" prepared by the Department of Building Inspection. The Commission may take action to identify which of the draft Administrative Bulletins and Code Rulings shown in Exhibits A and D of said report should be calendared by BIC once or twice pursuant to BIC Procedure 4 of BIC's Rules, Regulations, Policies and Procedures.

Director Chiu asked the Commission if the administrative bulletins, code rulings and office procedures in appendices should be calendared once or twice for BIC review and approval based on approved BIC Procedure 4.

President Hood replied that what the BIC wants is to review issues before they are reviewed by a lot of other people.

Commissioner Cereghino said that when she went through the flowchart, it seemed that documents come to BIC three times. Commissioner Cereghino asked President Hood if the Commission can decide at the time of the first hearing whether an item is controversial enough that the BIC wants it to come back to the BIC.

President Hood said that it would be alright to put the word "Optional BIC Public Hearing" on the first draft.

Deputy Director Wong stated that he thinks that the action to take today, or at some future meeting, is to go through the list of administrative bulletins and code rulings and determine if the BIC wants one or two public hearings on each item. This is not a public hearing on the bulletins and code rulings.

Commissioner Cereghino said that what the BIC is adopting is a Procedure 4 which is the administrative bulletins and code ruling flowchart. The flowchart gives the BIC the ability to review bulletins and code rulings once or twice.

Commissioner Secretary Banico reported that at this BIC meeting, the Commission action is shown in the triangle in the flowchart. If the Commission wishes to revise Procedure 4, this needs to first be agendized and noticed.

Commissioner Freeman clarified that the Commission action is shown in the diamond.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield suggested that staff prepare a listing of bulletins and rulings with a short description of the proposal.

Vice-President Vasquez agreed and said that the summary will allow the Commission to review the information to see if it is important enough to have it on the agenda either once or twice.

There was no public comment received on this agenda item.

4.	Public Comment.

Ms. Mia Lord, resident and owner of 174 Majestic Avenue, addressed the Commission and said that she had addressed the Commission regarding code violations in her home. She requested that her concerns be agendized for discussion at a Commission meeting. Ms. Lord referred to documents she submitted to the Commission for this meeting.

President Hood said that Ms. Lord's concerns will not be put on the agenda again. She also stated that the Commission took this matter up several years ago. Further, Deputy Director Wong has met with Ms. Lord, discussed the issues and replied to her in writing. President Hood said she believes that the department has dealt with the matter adequately.

5.	Report, discussion and possible action to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the San Francisco Building Code which regulates exterior paint practices on buildings built before 1978 since such buildings are likely to have lead paint.

Deputy Director Hutchinson described the adopted lead paint ordinance and reported the department's experience in trying to enforce this law. The code allows 72 hours for someone to respond and correct the problems once the department notifies them that there is a problem. Staff has found that there are situations where the department wants somebody to correct the problems immediately, that 72 hours long will make the problems worse. This is one of the changes proposed.

Deputy Director Hutchinson also said that another problem is finding the person(s) who are responsible for the work. There are several other minor items that department wishes to change in the current ordinance.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if there is any state code in place that regulates lead paint practices.

Mr. Kornfield stated that they are all in the local code and not covered by the state code.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the changes Deputy Director Hutchinson mentioned are for an ordinance that is already in place. The amendments seem reasonable.

Vice-President Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Fillon, to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the San Francisco Building Code which regulates exterior paint practices on buildings built before 1978 since such buildings are likely to have lead paint.

Mr. Bruce Bonnacker, NARI, said that he was in support of the concept of the proposal. However, he said this ordinance should not be in the San Francisco Building Code but in the Health Code.

Mr. Bonnacker also said that he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Bob Bossi who could not be at this meeting. Mr. Bossi wanted the record to reflect his opposition to the concept of this legislation in the SFBC.

Mr. Michael Hamman said that he also supported the concept of regulating exterior paint practices. However, the legislation should be in the Health Code not the Building Code.

Mr. Neil Gendel, Lead Hazard Reduction Citizen Advisory Committee, said that his committee was formed by the Board of Supervisors in 1997 to protect citizens from lead hazards. They were active in bringing forward the legislation that is now in place. The changes are meant for clarification and were proposed at staff's recommendations. He urged the Commission to adopt the amendments so that they can be in effect before the new painting season.

Ms. Karen Cohn, Department of Public Health, said that the changes were proposed at DBI staff's request. This legislation represents many groups working together. She said that her agency has enjoyed being a partner with DBI. She told the Commission that the existing legislation has already had an impact.

President Hood asked Deputy City Attorney Boyajian's opinion on the ordinance being in the Building Code.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the ordinance could be in the Health Code but could also be in the Building Code. There is some validity to the argument that the regulations are not for building safety but there are many other such ordinances in the Building Code such as asbestos notification. It is also practical to put such regulations in the Building Code because this department has inspectors out in the field who can be more effective in implementing the regulations.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the timing is also important. The sooner these changes are in place, the better it will be.

Mr. Kornfield said that some of the provisions can be carried out administratively if the Director issues a temporary order.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said that he had already inquired from the City Attorney's Office on whether the changes can be done through an administrative bulletin. He had been advised that the code change is the better route.

The motioned passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-095.98]

6.	Report and discussion on DBI's ongoing efforts to automate and computerize records and information managed by DBI, including but not limited to the development of a permit tracking system.

a.	The Commission may take such action to initiate the hiring of a consultant(s) to assess the progress-to-date and recommend future action.

Commission Guinnane said that his concern with the computer systems is that a lot of money has been spent and a lot of consultants had been hired but the MIS problems are not being resolved. He wants to see what is needed to get back on track again and to try to control spending. Furthermore, he wants to discuss getting two outside consultants who have not been affiliated with the department to come in and assess the department. The Commission would then compare their recommendations. He wants to see what it would take to turn MIS around and get it squared away once and for all. He said that consultants are getting $300.00/hour and he finds this outrageous.

Director Chiu stated that he did not have any objections to getting two consultants from the outside. It is true that there has been a lot of money spent over several years. Some systems worked and some did not work. He reported earlier that the previous consultant had to be let go. Since then, the department has a new contract and the department is getting close to where it wants to be. He also said that if BIC wants to hire two more new consultants or two more auditors, DBI staff would be happy to welcome them on board and have them take a look at the system and give any recommendations. The department chose Mr. Bruce Yuke to assess the MIS consultants' progress. Mr. Yuke is a former DBI employee who worked with MIS.

President Hood said that Commissioner Guinnane wants an independent assessment and this implies that the consultants should not be somebody who knows the people from the staff or who has been involved with them before. She said it should be a fresh eye.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he was looking at Mr. Yuke's comments. He said that he was not concerned about price for Mr. Yuke's services, but on the MIS costs overall. What he is concerned about is identifying the problems. He also wants to form a committee so that decisions are not left to one person. The BIC should go to outside contractors with no affiliations to the department or anybody in the department. BIC will let them come in and do an assessment and prepare a report. The Commission will compare the two reports and make the decision from there.

Commissioner Cereghino asked Director Chiu if the department has an itemized report on exactly where the money went. She said that she went over Mr. Yuke's report, there was nothing concrete. She said that in the summaries, in one of his reports early on a year ago, Mr. Yuke said that he did not know if the Sierra Computer Company was going to make it within the time frame and the proposal was very costly. Mr. Yuke was concerned about a number of things like trade-offs and who was managing the project. Throughout the report, Mr. Yuke was saying that there has never been a contract that specified the final product. Commissioner Cereghino said that Mr. Yuke's report was not flattering to the department. She said that she is getting a little bit of distrustful of previous reports on MIS.

Director Chiu reported that he welcomed this report because it gives the information requested by the BIC from the department last year. The department wants somebody from the outside to tell them what the problem is. He also said that because of this report, the department focused on the ITS system because it was failing. He said he would be happy to work with the Commissioners to see if the department is going in the right direction.

President Hook asked the members of BIC if they would like to, before that person is selected, to have the resumes, the selection process and the recommendations brought back to full BIC for approval.

Commissioner Guinnane agreed and said this is what he would like to do.

President Hood asked Director Chiu if this is acceptable to the department.

Director Chiu said that he does not mind working with a BIC Committee.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wants to set up a committee. He does not want one commissioner or one person of the department making the decisions. He did not feel that there is a person qualified to make decisions based on what has happened the last three to five years.

Director Chiu said that the consultant hiring will have to go through an RFP process.

Commissioner Cereghino said that even though Director Chiu selected Mr. Yuke as a consultant, his advise was not followed. She wants to make sure that the committee can confirm that the suggestions are followed and the BIC committee can follow through with implementation.

Director Chiu said that he thinks that this committee should continue to look at the whole process not only at picking the auditors or the consultants. The committee should stay on top of the issues with the staff to make sure that the entire project is completed.

Commissioner Guinnane stated that what he wants of the committee, whoever the two or three people will be who come on, need to put some time into it and follow it through right to the end. Recommendations should be made and implemented to get MIS back on track and control spending.

President Hood said that this suggestion of having the committee is an excellent one. She solicited volunteers.

Commissioner Guinnane, Cereghino and Mark signified their interest.

Director Chiu said that he is looking forward to working with this new committee. He also said that this is something that he would have liked to have done three years ago to get the MIS problems will be resolved.

Commissioner Freeman asked if hiring a consultant meant a consulting firm or individual consultants.

President Hood thinks that it could be either way.

Commissioner Freeman asked if these consultants would be proposing new systems, meaning starting all over again.

President Hood said that this consultant would not be hired to do the actual work. This is like an audit or assessment.

Commissioner Cereghino asked Director Chiu when the PTS system will be up and running.

Director Chiu said that it is already running.

Commissioner Cereghino asked if the data base has all been transferred from Motorola.

Director Chiu said that the department could operate on the Oracle if they want too. Right now, what he wants to do is to make sure that the system 99% to 100% before they roll it out.

Commissioner Freeman said that it would be nice if they have a few experts individuals or top people who really look at this system and see if this system is going in to the right direction.

President Hood said that Commission has the right to hire consultants. Since this will be a consultant which the Commission hires, the BIC will have the oversight responsibility.

Commissioner Guinnane said that all the consultants on board were all previously tied to the department prior. He wants somebody to come in who's not tied to the department and is completely independent. He wants to get resumes. Then the Commission and the sub-
committee will make the decision to get these two individuals to come in and give the BIC an assessment. Then the Commission can make decisions after the BIC finds out what the real problems are.

Commissioner Cereghino said she wants the consultants to report back to BIC and keep the BIC in the loop all along the way and not years later.

President Hood stated that the committee will review the expenses and billings from the current consultants. The BIC consultant can tell the Commission if these meet the terms of the BIC.

President Hood asked for public comment.

Mr. Michael Haman, NARI, thanked Commissioner Guinnane for opening up a can of worms. He said that the department has announced many times in the past that they are "on the verge" of rolling out the new computer systems. He said that hiring a BIC consultant is the right way to go. He recommended that the BIC hire an "expert" instead of a "consultant" to avoid lengthy procedures.

Mr. Bruce Bonnacker, NARI, said that he understood that the BIC did not know about Mr. Yuke's reports. He said he hoped that this disturbs the Commission. He said that the BIC consultant should also look into the Year 2000 bug.

Commissioner Freeman asked if there is a difference in procedure on hiring "experts" versus "consultants."

Director Chiu said that the committee would have to meet with the City Attorney's Office and the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Bob Davis said that every consultant who comes in establishes a new agenda with new criteria. This is because technology is moving so fast. The BIC must establish a start date then have very specific goals and objectives. The target has been shifting over the years. This is technology's fault. The consultant services must also be kept under a certain dollar amount to avoid certain threshold.

Commissioner Fillon said that BIC should be careful in setting criteria for hiring a consultant. What the Commission is looking for is a straightforward analysis. Different consultants will have a varying view of what the problems are and how to solve the problems. The department should not look at the Commission's action as a slap in the face. The BIC wants to work with staff. This is an attempt by the Commissioners to work closer with the department and be more involved so that the Commission is more informed and can make better decisions.

Director Chiu thanked Commissioner Fillon for his comments.

President Hood agreed and said that ultimately, staff will be the ones to work out the solutions. She suggested that the committee or task force call two architecture firms with very advanced computer systems such as SOM, HOK or Gensler.

Mr. Davis suggested that DBI look at the San Jose Building Department.

Director Chiu said that he had already surveyed other jurisdictions and they are in worst conditions than DBI.

Commissioner Cereghino suggested field trips to the City of Sunnyvale.

Director Chiu said that theses smaller jurisdictions do not have the same problems as San Francisco. Smaller cities use over the counter software.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the process should also involve other procedures such as simplifying forms and the permit processes.

b.	The Commission may also take action to direct the department that future expenditures for the computerization and automation be submitted to the BIC for review and approval prior to disbursement.

President Hood said that this agenda item was already covered by the previous discussion.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to talk about a freeze on all new hiring and new contracts. He wanted these to go through the task force.

Director Chiu agreed.

The Commission took a break at this point in the proceedings, from 2:30 to 2:55 p.m.

7.	Report on DBI's Surplus and Prepaid Inspection Fund covering the period from FY 1995-
1996 to present. The Commission has requested that the department prepare a report accounting for the sources and past expenditures from this fund. The Commission has also requested that the department identify alternatives future uses of these funds, including but not limited to, reduction in fees and its relationship to increases in fees based on the Marshall & Swift Valuation, building expansion of 1660 Mission Street, and possible improvements in services.

Director Chiu presented colored charts distributed with the meeting packet.

President Hood asked if the bar chart figures represented cumulative numbers.

Director Chiu said that each year was separate.

Commissioner Cereghino asked what was the reason there was a drop in the surplus from 1995-
96 and 1998-99.

Director Chiu said he did not know off hand what happened in 1995-96. He said that for the 1998-99 figure, there was an appropriation approved for the expansion of 1660 Mission Street.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the $4.6 million appropriated for the expansion is a lot of money. She said that the Commission should take this step by step.

Director Chiu said that the $4.6 million was based on an estimate of roughly $200/square foot.

Commissioner Mark said that that was an industry average.

President Hood said that she felt that was a good basis for an estimate.

Commissioner Guinnane asked why there were no fluctuations on the deferred credit amounts from year to year.

Director Chiu said that the deferred credit amount has remained the same every year.

Commissioner Guinnane said that revenue was fluctuating.

Director Chiu said that there were roughly the same number of projects every year, the valuation changed since projects were becoming bigger.

Commissioner Guinnane said that it was hard to believe that the deferred credits would remain the same three years in a row.

Director Chiu said that this amount is set by the Controller's Office.

Commissioner Cereghino said that there were a lot of big projects this year.

Director Chiu said that he would come back with more details on the deferred credits at the next meeting.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the Commission needs more accurate figures before the Commission can talk about reducing fees.

Commissioner Guinnane asked who supplied the numbers for the report.

Director Chiu said that these numbers were given by the Controller's Office.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Ms. Hooey provided the numbers.

Director Chiu said no, they were provided by the Controller's Office.

Commissioner Cereghino said she thought the deferred credits amount would necessarily fluctuate.

Commission Secretary Banico said that this matter was before the Commission sometime in March of this year. The deferred credits is based on a formula of amortizing the revenues over the life of permits or pre-paid inspections. Therefore, it does fluctuate from month to month.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the department produced the report and they should make sure that the numbers are accurate.

Director Chiu said that the bottom line numbers are accurate.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she was interested in seeing how the surplus had grown over the years. The information before the Commission are still estimates. The Commission wants historic data.

Commissioner Freeman asked if the deferred credit amounts can be calculated based on the formula submitted to the Commission.

Commission Secretary Banico said that she did not know if the data to be plugged into the formula was available.

Director Chiu said that he would do additional research on the deferred credits.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if the department could solicit any support from the City or other departments on the cost of the expansion.

President Hood said that she doubted that would be possible. The department has a surplus while other departments have a deficit. She asked if the department could purchase the building.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the City owned all city buildings. Some departments have jurisdiction over their building and they "manage" them. Other departments rent from the City.

Director Chiu said that the department makes the payments for the mortgage on the building.

Commissioner Cereghino asked what the $4.6 million would include.

President Hood said that typically the cost would include the building and built-in improvements such as wiring. It would not include furnishings such as carpets.

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said that he had been requested to report on the Marshall & Swift valuation and the permit fees. He said that DBI adjusts permit fees based on Marshall & Swift every six months. The last update was in July 1997 and every six months thereafter. There was a lapse before that date. The two previous updates were on June 1996 and June 1994. The department is current with the fee adjustments.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the average percentage increase was.

Mr. Kornfield said that it varies per element but the average increase in fees would be about 1.5%.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had been informed by the auditors in the Controller's Office that the department was supposed to have adjusted the fees twelve times, but only adjusted three times. He did not want to look at reducing fees and at the same time increasing fees based on the valuation.

President Hood said that maybe the Commission should just look at not increasing the fees.

Mr. Kornfield said that this would require a code change.

President Hood said that she would want to look at the code language and requested a copy from Mr. Kornfield. The Commission should also respond to the findings of the audit by the Controller's Office.

Vice-President Vasquez asked of a copy of the fee schedule.

President Hood also asked for a copy of the fee schedule and requested that this be forwarded sooner than the next meeting packet.

Mr. Bruce Bonnacker, NARI, said that he had a couple of questions. He asked if any of the surplus funds have been spent. He said that there is supposed to be $3.4 million available for appropriation. The department is proposing that $1.1 million of this be used for the expansion. This would mean that the expansion would cost $5.6 million. He also asked how the department has invested the funds.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the Treasurer controls the placement of funds and interest has been credited to the department.

Mr. Bonnacker said that he shared the concern that the estimate for the expansion is a high figure.

Director Chiu said that this was based on square footage and was a very rough estimate.

Mr. Bonnacker said that the public prefers more service and more staff rather than a reduction in fees. Time is the most important concern of permit applicants.

Mr. Michael Hamman, NARI, said that he has never heard anyone ask for lower fees. The public always asks for better service. It takes three hours to see a permit clerk. Some wait one week for an inspection. DBI has the worst reputation all over the state of California as the most difficult place to get a permit from. He said that the department lacks staff and has antiquated processes and paperwork. He said that no one should wait in line three hours. The most impacted are the small projects, not the big projects. He invited the Commissioners to spend ten minutes at the department to see for themselves.

Commissioner Freeman said that the department can not get the appropriations approved.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she was a member of the budget committee. The proposals were cut. Also, the Department of Human Resources have been a bottleneck.

Director Chiu said that he could understand the Commission's frustration. He said that DHR recently released the clerical lists.

Commissioner Guinnane asked for response on the inspection time. He said that the Commission had been informed that the turnaround time for inspections was 48 hours.

Director Chiu said that 91% of inspections are done in two days.

Deputy Director Wong said that this is the first time that he is hearing of this. He said he did not think that the occurrence of five days wait for an inspection was widespread.

Director Chiu said that he has told the deputy directors that if the turnaround times cannot be met, they should go out and do inspections themselves.

Commissioner Cereghino asked who was heading the Electrical Inspection Division since Mr. Steve Young had been reassigned to MIS.

Deputy Director Wong said that Mr. Mike Hennessey has been appointed acting chief.

Director Chiu said that division has also bee beefed up.

Commissioner Cereghino asked how long Mr. Young had been reassigned to MIS.

Deputy Director Wong said that Mr. Young has been with the MIS Division between two to six months. He was not full time at first.

President Hood said this discussion needs to be agendized separately.

Commissioner Guinnane asked for more accurate numbers on the surplus at the next meeting.

President Hood continued the discussion to the next meeting.

8.	Report and discussion on the requirement for permits and applicable fees for various types of roofing work. The Commission may take action to direct staff to prepare legislation that will amend the San Francisco Building Code by deleting the permit requirement and associated fees for types of roofing work to be identified by the Commission.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had requested that this matter be agendized because he was concerned that roofing inspections were not being made per code requirement. He wanted to know what the department's processes were regarding roofing permits and inspections.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she was informed that this ordinance was instituted by the Board of Supervisors upon the initiation of roofing contractors. She said that her concern was that the ordinance was only applicable to old buildings.

Commissioner Guinnane said that the roofs for new buildings was part of the overall permit.

President Hood agreed with Commissioner Cereghino and said that the principles are the same for old and new buildings. Also, she said that her concern was that the BIC was trying to hold down the number of permits.

Director Chiu said that this ordinance was adopted ten years ago. It is difficult for the department to carry out the requirements of the ordinance. The code's intent was to discourage the fly-by-night roofers which was a problem at the time.

President Hood said that it is still a problem. She asked if the permit has been effective in weeding out these roofers.

Director Chiu said that overall, the number of complaints have dropped.

Commissioner Guinnane said that a fee is being charged but perhaps the services was not being provided. The inspector does not go out on the day that the roof is installed or the asphalt is poured. He is not there to test the temperature of the asphalt.

Commissioner Cereghino said that there are a lot of complaints on inspectors not showing up at all. She had heard about a job where an inspection card was signed on what turned up to be a vacant lot.

Director Chiu said that if this did happen, it would be considered a serious offense.

President Hood said that what the ordinance seems to have succeeded in doing is seeing to it that only licensed contractors do roof work.

Commissioner Guinnane said that this is covered by the state licensing board. It need not be duplicated by the department.

Director Chiu said that the cost of the permit which is $68.50 would not cover the cost of inspections.

Commissioner Guinnane asked what the cost was for generating the paperwork for the permit.

Director Chiu said that the administrative cost would be about $50, the inspections would cost about $100.

President Hood said that it did not seem to be the perfect situation, but the ordinance has brought in some improvements. She said that she felt comfortable in leaving it the way it is.

Commissioner Freeman asked if there were some informational materials available on roofing.

Director Chiu said that none were available currently. The department could do some informational outreach if the Commission so desired.

Commissioner Cereghino said that she had a problem with requiring a permit and relying on inspectors. She said that a permit entails a service.

President Hood said that in this case, the service is for generating the paperwork.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if standards were set.

Director Chiu said that the code contained standards.

Commissioner Mark said that a lot of people do not know about roofing.

Commissioner Cereghino said that the permit does not guarantee a good roofer.

President Hood said that a building permit does not guarantee getting a good contractor. The Board of Supervisors responded to a need for some minimum level of service. There seemed to be no support for something more elaborate than what was eventually adopted.

Commissioner Fillon asked if the public is expecting a service that they are not getting.

Commissioner Cereghino said that this code needs to be talked through.

President Hood said that the department is checking into contractors' licenses.

Director Chiu said that if there is a request for an inspection, one is carried out.

Vice-President Vasquez said that the fee is reasonable to cover the check of contractor's license. He said he would have a different opinion if the public was being charged for inspections.

President Hood said that the code seems to put the fear in someone.

Mr. Bruce Bonnacker, NARI, said that there are no reported roof cave-ins so that the ordinance may be working. He asked if there were code requirements regulating the types of roofs.

President Hood said that there were requirements in the Housing Code.

Mr. Michael Hamman, NARI, said that the department regulates and keeps records of roofing permits. There is then a presumption of a code complying roof. He said that DBI is not in charge of the state's contractors license. DBI is in charge of the Building Code. The records should at least say that there were no inspections of the roof so that the records do not confirm that the roofs are in compliance with the code.

President Hood said that 3R reports state whether or not inspections were done.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he was agreeable to leave the code as is and move on to the next agenda item.

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

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

There was no public testimony received on this agenda item.

b.	Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to convene a Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-096.98]

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 on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.14(a).)

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, not to disclose the details of the discussion held at Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-097.98]

10.	Review of Commission Secretary's performance for period covering 1996-98.

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

There was no public testimony received on this agenda item.

b.	Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Commissioner Fillon moved, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, to convene a Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-098.98]

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

Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Secretary of the Building Inspection Commission - Ms. Maria G. T. Banico

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

Commissioner Guinnane moved, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, not to disclose the details of the discussion held at Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-099.98]

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.

Because of the lateness of the hour, there was not discussion on this agenda item.

12.	Review and approval of the Minutes of October 21, 1998.

The Minutes of this meeting were not available for review and approval.

13.	Review and approval of the Minutes of November 4, 1998.

Commissioner Cereghino moved, seconded by Commissioner Mark, to approve the Minutes of November 4, 1998, as prepared.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-100.98]

14.	Discussion and possible action with respect to those items that could be placed on the agenda of December 2, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting and other future meetings.

Commissioner Freeman announced that he would not be able to attend the December 2, 1998 BIC Regular Meeting.

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

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

14.	Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Guinnane, seconded by Commissioner Cereghino, the meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.

The motion passed unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-101.98]

_________________________________

MARIA G. T. BANICO

Commission Secretary

Çã