City and County of San FranciscoDepartment of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 


BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

Wednesday, April 2, 2003
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:20 p.m. by President Fillon.

1. Call to Order and Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

    COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

    Alfonso Fillon, President Denise D'Anne, Commissioner
    Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President, excused Esther Marks, Commissioner
    Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner
    Matt Brown, Commissioner
    Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary, excused

    D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

      Frank Chiu, Director
      Amy Lee, Assistant Director
      Taras Madison, Administration & Finance Manager
      Sonya Harris, Secretary

2. President's Announcements.

President Fillon had no announcements.

3. Director's Reports. [Director Chiu]

    a. Report on a pilot project proposal from Applied Technology Council/FEMA for DBI to replace the current paper-based ATC-20 with a wireless PDA system.

Director Chiu reported that two weeks ago he received a call from Applied Technology Council (ATC) informing him that ATC had received a grant from FEMA to come up with a program to replace the current paper process of doing post earthquake evaluations with a wireless PDA system. Director Chiu said this was going to be called the ATC 20-I and because DBI had so much experience since the 1989 earthquake these organizations were asking San Francisco to evaluate this project to see if it would work for the entire State of California and perhaps the whole United States. Director Chiu said that this would be done at no cost to DBI. Director Chiu said that doing a post earthquake evaluation is very labor intensive and because of the nature of the business that DBI is in a lot of property owners, tenants and concerned citizens called DBI to report damage to properties. Director Chiu said that many times Inspectors were sent out to the same property more than once because the complaints were not consolidated. Director Chiu said that this particular system is supposed to eliminate these kinds of problems. Director Chiu said that he was looking forward to working with this group since this is not a cost item to DBI, but is a grant given by FEMA. Director Chiu said it was a coincidence that just a few months ago he asked the MIS Department to come up with an automation system where the post earthquake information could be entered into DBI's own system. Director Chiu stated that he would report back as this particular program progresses.

    b. Status on the implementation of Bilingual ordinance.

Director Chiu said that this ordinance that was sponsored by Supervisor Yee was signed into law sometime last December. Director Chiu said that the intent of this ordinance was to let everybody know if there was a project being proposed for new construction, demolition, change of use or any enlargement of a building in three different languages. Director Chiu stated that this ordinance required that any time any notice was required for the public there would have to be phone numbers and contact information listed for the Hispanic, Chinese and other different ethnic groups. Director Chiu reported that the Department was getting complaints from neighborhoods through the immigrant rights Commission saying that DBI was not following this ordinance. Director Chiu stated that he wanted the Commission to know that DBI is in compliance with the law since the law was just passed and signed by the Mayor in December and only covers those projects that were filed and issued after the law came into effect. Director Chiu said that what is happening is that some of the projects that were filed for a couple of years ago and are just being started now. Director Chiu said that he wanted to let the Commission know that DBI is in compliance with this ordinance.

    c. Report on the proposed building surcharge increase from 5% to 6.5%.

Director Chiu said that at the last meeting he reported that the Mayor's Office was proposing to increase the surcharge on the property at 1660 Mission from 5% to 6.5%. Director Chiu stated that initially he thought this was an action item that required the Commission's vote, but the Mayor's Office has informed the Department that this is an issue that does not require BIC action. Director Chiu said that the Mayor's Office intends to enact this increase.

Commissioner Guinnane asked how much money this would bring in on an annual basis based on the volume of permits today and where would the money go. Director Chiu said that obviously the intent of the surcharge is to pay for the building at 1660 Mission Street. Director Chiu called on Taras Madison who was communicating with the Mayor's Office on this issue.

Ms. Madison said that once the surcharge would be raised to 6.5% it would probably bring in about $2M and that is based on DBI revenues plus Fire and Planning. Ms. Madison stated that up until this point the money had been used for the debt service on 1660 Mission Street, but now that it would be raised to 6.5% it would actually cover both the debt service and the operating charges. Ms. Madison said that this money goes directly to Real Estate because they manage the funds and pay the bills on behalf of DBI. Commissioner Guinnane asked that assuming the amount collected is $2M how would that affect the actual payoff of the building. Ms. Madison said that it would not shorten up the life of paying off the building because the extra amount is being used to cover the operating portion. Ms. Madison said that instead of DBI paying $472,000 for operating expenses from the Special Fund, Planning paying another $200,000 and whatever Fire was paying, the extra money would be used to pay the operating costs. Ms. Madison said that she was assuming that the same amount would be paid to the debt service, which is about $1.6M or $1.7M, and then the extra would cover the operating. Ms. Madison said that no one had discussed shortening the life of the lease payment. Commissioner Guinnane asked what would happen if the Department brought in $3M instead of $2M and the money goes directly to Real Estate, what would happen to that $1M. Ms. Madison said that the Department had been collecting more than the actual debt payment, however Real Estate has not accelerated the payments. Ms. Madison said that she thought that Real Estate had been keeping the payments in reserve. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was asking where that money would go and if it would go into the General Fund. Ms. Madison said that it would not go into the General Fund, but would still go to Real Estate to keep in the 1660 Mission fund.

President Fillon said that he had one question for the Director on item #3b. President Fillon asked who was complaining about DBI not complying with the bilingual requirements. Director Chiu said that it was adjoining neighbors and the neighborhood in general when they would see a property being remodeled or developed and claimed that they did not receive notice. Director Chiu in looking at the cases that were complaints on, it was discovered that permits had been taken out on the projects before the ordinance was in place. President Fillon asked how the Department was responding to those complaints. Director Chiu said that the Department has to look at these projects on a case-by-case basis. President Fillon asked if the Department was sending out a letter explaining what happened. Director Chiu said that usually the complaints come in by phone and someone from the Department calls the complainant to explain the situation. Director Chiu stated that if any of the Commissioners received any complaints about this issue they should refer the customer to the Director's Office and it would be taken care of.

4. Report and discuss permit status of 843 South Van Ness Street.

[Deputy Director William Wong]

Deputy Director William Wong said that this item came before the Abatement Appeals Board on March 19, 2003 and the project sponsor expressed concern during the public comment portion and a staff report was requested. Mr. Wong said that the Commission had a report in front of them and said that he would address two main items. Mr. Wong stated that the project sponsor said that there was a plan review delay and had concerns about lost plans. Mr. Wong said that he looked into the plan review delay and said that the project was originally assigned to Rudy Pada, one of the Plan Check Engineers, and because he was unable to get to it within the normal backlog time, the Supervisor took the plans and reassigned it to Mr. Y.Y. Chew, Manager of the Major Plan Check Division. Mr. Wong said that in his review and investigation of one of the applications that took several months during the review of the project in DBI, the applicant had filed for another application to deal with a variance that had to go back to City Planning. Mr. Wong stated there were actually two applications that were tied together. Mr. Wong said that when the applicant filed the application for the variance it went up to Planning and as a result of that the Building Department could not approve the first application until Planning reviewed and approved the second one. Mr. Wong said that it was not a long delay as the project sponsor reported to the Commission, and said that DBI was responsible for a three week delay with Rudy Pada and when the delay was discovered the project was reassigned. Mr. Wong said that he wanted to clarify that it was not one permit application, but there were two permit applications and the second one affected the first one. Mr. Wong said that with respect to the issue of lost plans, there were some concerns about the plans being missing and the project sponsor was upset about this. Mr. Wong said that he looked at the documents on file and reported that the plans were not lost, but one set of revision number four was loaned back to the designer to help them expedite the project. Mr. Wong said that this is a very major project and said that the Department had fifty-four review comments. Mr. Wong said that his Plan Checker, Mr. Chew had worked very hard with the designers to resolve a lot of the issues and said that the permit was either ready to be issued or may have already been issued. Mr. Wong said that Mr. Chew was available for any questions.

Commissioner Santos said that he happened to be the Structural Engineer of this project and in looking at the documents there were plan check comments dated 2/12/03 that were submitted by Mr. Y. Y. Chew. Commissioner Santos said that Deputy Director Wong was correct in stating that Mr. Chew had been very cooperative and responsive regarding the plan check comments because the project was technically quite complex. Commissioner Santos stated that the architectural and structural comments were substantial and said that his firm responded to Mr. Chew very quickly. Commissioner Santos said that Mr. Chew called him to know if there were any difficulties and stated that the Department's response was almost immediate as far as the City review process was concerned. Commissioner Santos said that he wanted to thank Mr. Y. Y. Chew and Deputy Director Wong for their help. Commissioner Santos said that regarding the prior delays that were claimed by the project sponsor, as Mr. William Wong stated some of it was linked to Planning and the variance.

Mr. Wong said that he did talk to Mr. Pada to ask him to be careful in the future if he couldn't get to his backlogs to make sure that they get reassigned.

5. Discussion and report of CAPSS contract with review of program details and deliverables, invoices and payments thereof. [Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield; Deputy Director William Wong]

President Fillon said that he had a request from Commissioner Guinnane to continue this item. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to request a continuance because he had received three binders of documents on Monday evening at 3:00 p.m. and said that there was no way that he could go through all of this documentation. Commissioner D'Anne said that she had difficulty lifting the three binders up the stairway into her house because it was so heavy. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the Commissioners were supposed to look at all of this documentation and asked if there couldn't just be a summary to decide if more detail was needed. President Fillon said that he did not think that each Commissioner would have to bring this documentation to the meeting, but staff could bring a copy for reference. President Fillon said that he wanted more time to review all of this material and said that the Commissioners should go through the documentation on their own and then bring any questions to the meeting. President Fillon said that when this item was rescheduled then there could be one copy at the meeting for reference.

Commissioner Marks said that her question was whether Phase II was going to be completed or not and then is DBI going to proceed with Phase III. Commissioner Marks said that when this has been discussed at previous meetings Commissioner Hood had claimed that the information that was gathered, much of it could have been gathered through other sources. Commissioner Marks said that she did not think that this was correct and said that she did not know if looking through all of this documentation would answer that question. Commissioner Marks stated that she would just like to ask staff what the answer to that question was and said that in terms of the invoicing she felt satisfied that the procedure of the contract was followed. Commissioner Marks said that she did not know if looking through all of the documentation was going to answer the questions that needed to be answered.

President Fillon said that both he and Commissioner Guinnane would like the opportunity to really go through the documentation on their own. President Fillon said that he wanted to discuss the invoicing and the connection with the deliverables, the invoicing and the contract itself. President Fillon said that he thought that it was perfectly acceptable to continue this item. Commissioner Marks said that she would go along with this item being on the next agenda, but said that she thought there were other issues. President Fillon said that if Commissioner Marks wanted to agendize another aspect of this item then that would be fine. Commissioner Marks said that she would like to agendize making a decision about the completion of Phase I and Phase II and proceeding with Phase III. President Fillon said that this was discussed and a vote was taken to not do any more work at this time at the last meeting. Commissioner Marks said that the Commission voted to suspend further activity until these questions could be answered and stated that she thought this was the purpose of this item today. President Fillon said that this item would be agendized for the next meeting.

6. Discussion and possible action on 2003 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation Data.

    [Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield]

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said that every year the Technical Services Division reviews the revised valuation as presented in the Marshall and Swift Valuation Handbook and brings to the Commission an update based on that handbook and further local modifiers. Mr. Kornfield said that the Commission then decides whether to adopt a revision to the valuation schedule. Mr. Kornfield explained that the valuation is the basis upon which the permit is valued. Mr. Kornfield said that this handbook provides an equal valuation for all projects of similar size so just because someone has a brother-in-law doing the work for free it doesn't mean that the applicant doesn't pay the same fee as someone who has a contractor do the same work. Mr. Kornfield said that the Code was changed a few years ago to allow the Commission discretion as to whether or not to allow the update of the valuation schedule every year and during the time of budget surplus this did not seem necessary. Mr. Kornfield said that the valuation schedule included all commercial, residential, specialty work such as drilling piers, excavation and all sorts of stuff so there is a great deal of variation within the cost index update. Mr. Kornfield said that some of those things went up a lot and stated that the Department had adjusted wood frame construction up to represent a higher level of construction which is realistic of what happens in San Francisco although the numbers are still low. Mr. Kornfield stated that the numbers in the valuation schedule are not intended to reflect the real cost of the work, but are simply intended to be a benchmark that everybody could pay their fees against. Commissioner Santos said that the valuation went from $85.00 to $100.00 on all type V construction. Mr. Kornfield said that was correct and said that everyone understood that type V 1-R construction is probably closer to $200.00 per square foot than $100.00. Commissioner Santos asked if this was something that someone would use on a soundness report and would that be the application. Mr. Kornfield said that he gets questions from the Planning Department often as to whether this could be used as a basis for determining whether these unsound building updates are correct. Mr. Kornfield said that this is not the purpose for this schedule at all and stated that if someone needs to get a soundness report estimate they need to actually have a contractor or an estimating agency do an estimate. Mr. Kornfield said that last year DBI did a major revamp of this evaluation and had a whole series of public meetings with industry people and others with specialty knowledge in valuation and estimating. Mr. Kornfield said that after a long series of meetings it was agreed that what DBI was doing was reasonable and correct so this year the Department went through the same process and cleaned it up a little bit more and added a few things to bring it before the BIC for adoption.

President Fillon asked why the values would not reflect the actual construction cost and then adjust the fees to be lower if that `s the object. Mr. Kornfield said that this could be done, but the Code would have to be changed, and right now the Department is using a standard nationwide index, which has local adjustments on it. Mr. Kornfield stated that builders throughout the country use these standard indices from Marshall and Swift and they are all very close. Mr. Kornfield said that for San Francisco to come up with its own actual cost would mean that the Department would have to somehow figure out the index and stated that he was not sure how this would be done. President Fillon said that Marshall & Swift does not provide San Francisco with its own index. Mr. Kornfield said that Marshall & Swift supplies numbers and then says to multiply those numbers by 1.5 or whatever, but it is still very low. Mr. Kornfield said this is why the Department tells people not to use this as a realistic cost guide because it is used to have a stable platform against which to charge a permit fee and then the permit fees can be adjusted appropriately.

Commissioner D'Anne asked if the Department adjusted each fee and asked how that was done. Mr. Kornfield said that this was not related to the actual permit fees, as the permit fees are dollars per valuation. Mr. Kornfield said that the permit fees are charged by so many dollars for so many tens of thousands of dollars worth of work and the Marshall & Swift tells what those tens of thousands of dollars worth of work is going to be. Mr. Kornfield said that the BIC has the authority to propose changes to the actual fees that would go to the Finance Committee and the Board of Supervisors, but that would be a separate, next step for this. Mr. Kornfield said that he knew that there was talk about having an in-house study to find out if the Department is charging the correct amount of fees.

Commissioner Marks said that previously Commissioner Santos had brought up the subject of unsound structures and said that the BIC had a case where the project sponsor was actually using these figures as a basis for determining that it would be permitable to demolish a residential structure. Commissioner Marks asked how this policy could be in effect when the Department is advising people that this is not an accurate dollar figure. Mr. Kornfield said that a person could say that, but said that he did not think that this would be an acceptable basis for determining the unsound structure valuation. Mr. Kornfield said that in addressing the unsound structure, in 1988 or 1989 the Planning Department had some interim controls that prevented demolition and what those controls said was that when a building is reviewed to determine whether it is to be demolished or not, it had to be looked at to see if it was an unsound structure and the Building Department was required to do this survey. Mr. Kornfield said that if it cost more than 50% of the rebuild cost to fix it then it was considered an unsound structure. Mr. Kornfield stated that this has long been out of Code and the Planning Department no longer has those interim controls and DBI no longer has that responsibility in the Building Department, but people still, just by inertia, carry forward that calculation methodology. Mr. Kornfield said that it is not correct to use this, nor is it reasonable to use that standard of 50% anymore and the Planning Department and Director Chiu has directed the Department simply to supply to the Planning Department a Housing Inspection report if it is a residential property and to no longer say a building is an unsound structure based on this formula. Mr. Kornfield said that if someone were to present this in that manner then they are no longer presenting the current policies and are using the wrong data.

Commissioner Marks asked what should be done considering that this was what was done to justify demolition of a residential structure. Director Chiu said that as Mr. Kornfield stated this has been a hot issue with the Planning Commission for the past couple of years and what DBI agreed to do was to provide a true and accurate report to anybody who asked for a report showing what was wrong with a property just by Code Violations. Director Chiu said that it is up to the project sponsor to add them all up and present this to the Planning Department, as to what the problem is or what the cost is. Director Chiu said that DBI is no longer in the business of trying to sway it one way or the other saying that a structure is unsound. Director Chiu said that this seems to be working and the Planning Commission seems to like the policy because now when the project sponsor wants to do something to a project, they now have the Notice of Violations on the property and it is up to the project sponsor to argue in front of the Planning Commission. Director Chiu said that in the past some of these proposed projects never went through, but the Department has records showing that these properties are unsound and unsafe. Commissioner Marks said that again, the report that was before the Commission basically used these figures as justification. Mr. Kornfield said that the change that Director Chiu directed the Department to do was about nine months ago, so some of these pipeline cases are older than that. Commissioner Santos said that he remembered the property Commissioner Marks was talking about because he was one of the structural engineers that had written a report on the property and someone hired by the project sponsor had written a report as well, and there were some discrepancies. Mr. Kornfield said that he believed that it was Mr. Abend who wrote the other report. Commissioner Santos said that Director Chiu suggested that someone else, a third party and it happened to be Mr. John Hom, come up with a number and the number he came up with was closer to Commissioner Santos' firm. Commissioner Santos said that was quite some time ago so this case was an old case that just happened to come before the BIC two months ago. Mr. Kornfield said that he was at the Board of Appeals when the case was heard and said that he explained to them that this case pre-dated the change in the policy.

Mr. Kornfield said that he was asking the Commission to consider and approve the 2003 schedule for valuation data.

Mr. John Carney of 829 Rhode Island Street said that there is this whole problem of costs and stated that he has been to the Planning Commission and they use these numbers as cost formulas that come out of this report, so Planning and DBI need to come together and say that there has to be a factor of two or six or whatever it is. Mr. Carney said that Planning makes major decisions on whether someone gets to tear down a building or not based on these facts. Mr. Carney said that these numbers should be brought up to market level and then people could argue them back down. Mr. Carney said that fees could then be based on 50% of this; so the number is legitimately close to the cost and then base the fees on say 50% of that because this is being used to tear down buildings. Mr. Carney said that this is a real problem in the Planning Commission because this is like their gospel.

Commissioner Marks asked if a letter could be sent to Planning reaffirming the change or what could be done. Director Chiu said that when the Planning Commission requested him over a year ago to look at this, he told them that he was revisiting the policy. Director Chiu said that Planning Director Gerald Green told him that the latest policy appeared to be working because those people who had a lot of problems with the property had actual reports of the violations. Director Chiu said that he was not getting any more calls from Planning staff or the Planning Commissioners saying that there is a problem.

President Fillon asked for a motion to take action on this item. Commissioner Marks said that she would like to make a motion that the Department send a letter as a reminder to the Planning Department and Commission. Commissioner Santos asked if this would be from the BIC. Commissioner Marks said that she wanted the letter to say that the Marshall & Swift was an estimate and was not to be used as an index of actual costs of construction. President Fillon said that he thought that the letter could be sent and the changes could be approved.

Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner D'Anne to approve the 2003 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation data. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 017-03

President Fillon asked for another motion to send a letter to the Planning Department. Commissioner Marks made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brown, that a letter be sent to the Planning Department letting them know that the BIC had approved the 2003 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation data, and reminding them that these figure are not to be used as an actual figure for construction costs. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 018-03

Director Chiu said that the Director's Office would draft a letter for President Fillon's signature.

7. Review, discussion and possible action regarding DBI staff's recommendations on current legislation for Unlawful Residential Demolition versus the proposed Major Exterior Alteration Ordinance. [Deputy Director William Wong]

Deputy Director William Wong said that this particular item was heard before the Commission at the March 5, 2003 meeting. Mr. Wong said that all of the items had been presented at this previous meeting, but Commissioner Hood wanted Mr. Wong to put something in writing for the Commission to take a look at. Mr. Wong said that the first document that Commissioner Hood requested to be put in writing was the Code Advisory Committee minutes and the comments that they had. Mr. Wong stated that he believed that the Commission Secretary had given the Commissioners a copy of those notes. Mr. Wong said that he went through some of the CAC's concerns at the last meeting and stated that Mr. Kornfield was present to answer any of the Commissioners questions. Mr. Wong said that the second document that Commissioner Hood requested was a comparison chart, which was now expanded to include a column of DBI comments and recommendations. Mr. Wong said that this was the new portion from the version that was presented at the March 5th meeting. Mr. Wong said that he would recap some of the concerns of DBI staff and some of the recommendations.

Mr. Wong said that on the first page DBI felt that the proposed 75% to determine the Major Exterior Alteration is not that much different from the existing Code which states that there is a principle portion that exceeds 2/3 so there are still numbers in the proposed legislation and anytime there are percentages or numbers it becomes an enforcement problem. Mr. Wong said that if a project is just under the number when the project is presented, but then out in the field due to some unforeseen conditions a few studs might have to be removed and that pushes the project over the limit, whatever that is whether it is 2/3 or 75%, then a decision has to be made whether to have the entire project stopped and have the builder go back to step one to do the notification. Mr. Wong stated that in DBI's view it would make more sense to require the notification based on project types, for example a vertical addition that is adding another floor or a horizontal addition. Mr. Wong said that it would be better to require the notification up front because the point of this change is to give notification to the neighbors. Mr. Wong said that a lot of time the project comes through and the project is not scoped as it really is, then due to lack of notification projects get stopped so it doesn't benefit people either way, either the neighbors or the project sponsor.

Mr. Wong said that the other concern is that it is very difficult to measure the 75% or 50% as shown on page two that talks about another percentage. Mr. Wong said that it states that major exterior alteration means the removal of 75% or more of the exterior walls of a building or the removal of 50% or more of the building façade so this is another element that has to be measured. Mr. Wong stated that the question is how to measure these things, as this would be very difficult for a plan checker to determine. Mr. Wong said that another problem is that when this gets to the field there would need to be continuous inspections the whole time that construction is going on to see whether certain elements are being removed. Mr. Wong said that the Inspector would not be on the job site the whole time to say that someone has removed more studs than originally indicated. Mr. Wong said that based on past experience there is a lot of disagreement in this area with neighbors because the neighbors would complain that something was removed but the Inspector was not out on the job site to see what was being done. Mr. Wong said that this gets into a three-way discussion between the project sponsor saying that they only removed so much, the neighbor disagreeing and then the Inspector is caught in the middle because unless there are continuous inspections there is no way to ascertain this thing. Mr. Wong said that a lot of the comments from DBI fall into the category of how effectively DBI could enforce these issues in both plan check and inspection.

Mr. Wong said that there is a section about the removal of walls and in the past if the exterior skin of the wall was removed, but not the stud or the interior, then effectively the wall is not being removed. Mr. Wong said that if studs are removed then a wall is being removed. Mr. Wong said that the proposed legislation tries to define this, and the intent is good in trying to determine what really constitutes removal. Mr. Wong said that the proposed legislation defines removal by saying that removal means the temporary or permanent complete removal of walls which would include the exterior materials, includes the framing members and also the interior finish. Mr. Wong stated that someone would have to remove the entire thing before that is considered a removal, but again when an Inspector is out in the field and someone removes the exterior material and the interior material, but leaves the studs then the wall is not being removed so again how is the Inspector going to know that. Mr. Wong said there are concerns about that and about what is temporary and what is permanent.

Mr. Wong referred to page five of his report regarding the violation if the project gets cited for the fact that it exceeded the scope of work initially or exceeded the percentage that was referred to earlier then certain consequences would result. Mr. Wong said that for instance, the Department would issue a stop order for the entire order and this is not what was done in the past. Mr. Wong said that if this was work that was done in a bathroom remodel, and there was an application for a horizontal addition, effectively what is proposed would be that the Department would stop the whole thing even if roofing was involved or whatever. Mr. Wong said that in the past the Department found that it was more effective to give partial suspensions on the areas of work that were being affected. Mr. Wong said that staff thought that this might be over harsh on the project, and at the same time might take away the City's ability to work with applicants. Mr. Wong said that, at the same time, the Department understands that this type of work should be discouraged.

Mr. Wong stated that the proposed legislation was also calling for no over-the-counter permits as a catchall, but it did not define what over-the-counter permits were being talked about. Mr. Wong said again, using the more extreme case, if there is a problem then effectively the Department could not issue any permits if somebody comes in and says they have a leaky roof; that roof could not be repaired, or if there was some dry rot a permit could not be issued for that either because this ordinance would stop all permits on the property.

Mr. Wong said that the ordinance goes into the amounts, which have some changes and shows a fine of $5,000 and an appropriate administrative penalty. Mr. Wong said that the Commission might want to take a look at page six, 3.1, because it says that the City shall not approve a permit that legalizes the work done without permits or beyond the scope of a permit, but shall require the owner of a property to rebuild what was removed. Mr. Wong said that in other words if the work was done without a permit, this clause says that the owner no longer has the right to apply for a permit to legalize the work at all. Mr. Wong said that this would raise questions such as does this apply only to the present owner and what would happen if the property was sold and how would that be monitored. Mr. Wong stated that this would probably require a special notice to be put on the deed or whatever, so this needs to be looked at from the issue of enforcement. Mr. Wong said that this is something that the Commission should look at carefully to see if the Department wants to issue this kind of policy. Mr. Wong said that he could understand the neighbors' frustration because in the past some of the people have felt that they could build whatever they wanted and then get the permits after the fact. Mr. Wong said that this issue was trying to prevent that, but asked if the Department was being harsh on this or was it overly restrictive.

Mr. Wong said that further down on 3.2 a time limit has been put on the property, as it says that the Department would not issue any permits for ten years. Mr. Wong said that the language states that ten years from when the Department's Order of Abatement becomes final no over-the-counter permit shall be issued. Mr. Wong asked if this was reasonable and something that the Department wants to do. Mr. Wong said that the rest of this section falls into the same area of concern about taking some of the rights away and said that the big question would be if this is even legal.

Mr. Wong referred to page eight and said that this section talked about putting this on a special form and said if the Department really wanted to do that, it would be fine except that the Department is trying to move away from creating additional building permit forms and are trying to get a single permit form. Mr. Wong said that in asking for another type of application for this type of work more paperwork would be created.

Mr. Wong said that there were some general comments on page nine about it being fairly difficult during construction to determine the amount of removal, so it is those areas dealing with inspection that the Department was concerned about. Mr. Wong said that DBI wanted to define what a horizontal or vertical addition is because he understood from Planning that they don't really consider exterior decks to be horizontal additions. Mr. Wong stated that any building enlargement should really be defined.

Mr. Wong said that starting from page ten, staff felt that those additional requirements are good; asking for the photographs, asking for the plans to be of the same scale, and asking for them to be the same orientation so that there is no problems with the developer showing the existing plan to be at ¼ scale, but showing the new plans at 1/8 scale so that in looking at the project the big change would not be noticed. Mr. Wong said that this would be sort of an illusion because the developer would be providing the new plans at a smaller scale. Mr. Wong said that requiring separate drawings for the existing plans and separate proposed plans would be good because right now the Department receives plans that are superimposed showing three things, existing, removal and new. Mr. Wong said that staff felt that a lot of the extra requirements were good and other items just need more clarification.

Mr. Wong said that at the last meeting he urged the Commission to help DBI convey these concerns to the Board of Supervisors and said that to summarize, the enforcement part of this proposed legislation is what DBI wants to look at. Mr. Wong stated that if this did not end up as something that would be easily enforceable, then it would be subject to interpretation and the Department would be right back to square one where a lot of these problems would come up again and none of the issues would be solved. Mr. Wong stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.

President Fillon asked if someone had a larger project how they would get a readable, legible reduction on 11" X 17" paper. President Fillon said that this seemed a little bit difficult to him. President Fillon stated that it would seem feasible for smaller, residential projects. Mr. Wong said that this proposal was an improvement because the current procedure is that it is on 8 1/2" by 11" and the diagram is very small. Mr. Wong said that by expanding it to 11" X 17" it would be twice the size. Mr. Wong said that he thought that most of the plans could be fit on 11" X 17" paper at a 1/8 scale or 1/16 scale. Commissioner Santos said that this would be a big help.

Commissioner Marks said that she would like staff to write a specific recommendation in the areas of enforcement where Mr. Wong said that rather than giving a percentage amount, which is difficult to enforce, it would be based the type of project to be built. Commissioner Marks stated that Mr. Wong had given the example of the vertical and horizontal additions, but later on he said that those needed to be defined. Commissioner Marks said that she thought that DBI staff should come up with specific language to propose as a substitute for the percentages. Commissioner Marks said that Mr. Wong talked about temporary or permanent versus complete removal and said that should be used to define the elements of a wall and to her what there is now covers this. Commissioner Marks said that it should be one or the other. Mr. Wong said that if the Commission felt comfortable with that it is fine, but staff felt that this should be understood to be the whole thing, both sides plus the structural and if somebody went over and removed the exterior on the other side then that is not considered a removal. Mr. Wong said that supposing there was ten feet, but five feet of that was doing the interior, exterior and the structure element then that would be considered removal, but on the other five feet they only remove the interior material, then that five feet would not be considered removal.

President Fillon said that he was concerned about DBI being drawn into this again and having staff time spent drafting language that the Board is probably not going to like anyway so it might be enough to point out the shortcomings of the proposal. Commissioner Marks said that for her it is not enough to just point it out, but the Commission and the Department should give specific recommendations since this Department is responsible for enforcement. Mr. Wong said that he was involved in this in the beginning when the Department was meeting with neighbors and it is still going around in circles. Mr. Wong said that the committee started out with project types and Commissioner Hood was very active in saying that it should be defined and Director Chiu was also at those meetings. Mr. Wong stated that it is in the minutes where those project types were defined and then somehow it evolved into this proposal. Mr. Wong said that he would agree with the President that the Department should just show the concerns and have the Board work with those groups again. President Fillon said that he thought that the Department could offer to write the language if they could agree with the comments. Commissioner Marks said that for her it was just a waste of time to suggest that the Board meet with those groups again and said that the Department should just propose specific language that the Department could enforce. President Fillon said that he felt that anything that would be sent would be outright turned down. Commissioner Marks stated that at least the Commission and the Department would have fulfilled their responsibility. Mr. Wong said that it would not be a problem to enhance that portion. Mr. Wong said that he did not want to get into too much of the definition because Planning has some definition of what they call horizontal and vertical. President Fillon said that he thought that turnaround time is critical here because the train is on the tracks and the sooner the Department can get back to the Board with this input the better. President Fillon said that it would take a lot of time if staff had to rewrite Building Codes. Commissioner Marks said that this has been going on for months. President Fillon said he agreed with Commissioner Marks that this issue needed to be completed. Mr. Wong stated that he could come to a middle ground and said that he could send the concerns to the Board of Supervisors and if they would like the Department to start drafting some of the language then that could be done. Mr. Wong said that he did not want to do a lot of detail if this is not the direction the Board wants to go. Mr. Wong said that if the Board did not want to do project types then the Department might want to go back to what was originally proposed as Mr. Wong said he felt that this was going around in a circle. President Fillon said that he thought that this was a perfectly acceptable compromise to send the concerns to the Board and at the same time, start working on it.

Commissioner Brown said that he thought that it would be good to send the Department's comments to the Board with a cover letter that says that there will be some language revisions forthcoming. Commissioner Brown said that he agreed with Commissioner Marks that if DBI is the agency charged with enforcing this then it should be written as close to what the Department thinks is enforceable, otherwise there are going to be too many ambiguities and its going to be a law that has no teeth or too many teeth. Commissioner Brown said that he thought that staff time should be used to make the suggestions of the way that the Department thinks it should be written to get that on the record. Commissioner Brown said that he did not know how long that would take. Mr. Wong said that it would take a great deal of time so he liked the idea of letting the Board know that the Department has these suggestions and will start working on it in case the Board does not like the suggestions and says it is going to proceed with the legislation anyway. Mr. Wong said then at least the Department tried to address the concerns. Commissioner Brown said that there should be a cover letter saying that there will be revisions forthcoming and said that he thought that was really important. Commissioner Brown said that if it looked like it was taking too much time he would suggest prioritizing by doing the ones that are the most important first.

Director Chiu said that rather than nitpicking about saying how many studs were removed or whatnot the proposed project is more important than how many feet of the exterior wall has been removed. Director Chiu stated that he wanted the Commission to understand what the Department's frustration is because nobody is disputing that if a project is approved for so many square feet to be added to the building, the Department knows how to enforce that. Director Chiu said that the problem is with going for the percentage as that would require an Inspector to really be there full time, day and night, while the construction is going on to make sure that somebody does not accidentally or intentionally remove a wall by propping it up and then putting it back on the foundation. Director Chiu said that this is what the Department is having a problem with. Director Chiu said that all of the Commissioners seem to agree with DBI staff's frustrations with the idea of a certain percentage or certain amount of a wall that has been removed; it is a nightmare for DBI staff. Director Chiu said that DBI could come up with recommendations that would work for everyone including the neighborhoods, but for some reason every time DBI talks about that the Board listens for a while and then months go by and if it's not 2/3 it's 75%. Director Chiu said that to him this is going back to square one and said that the Department could certainly, if the Commission agrees with the Department's frustration, write back and say that these are DBI's comments and DBI strongly urges the Supervisors to come up with a legislation that deals with a proposed project rather than how many linear feet of wall has been removed. Director Chiu stated that this is the key issue. Commissioner Marks said that she would make a motion to that effect, because basically again she thought that the Department started off with the frustration with being able to enforce percentages or the primary principle portion. Commissioner Marks stated that for this to be helpful it would not just be enough to point out what the errors are, but to make a specific proposal as to what is workable. Director Chiu said that the Department knows what the problems are and said that he was once again repeating himself by saying that there is no way that someone could come in and propose a two-story building to an existing one-story building without doing all of these things because the entire foundation would have to be replaced or beefed up and this would be a nightmare to enforce. Director Chiu said that a lot of the walls would have to be jacked up or removed temporarily so it would be honest to say that there is no way to do that without triggering all of the changes DBI would like to see incorporated into this legislation.

Commissioner Santos said that he agreed with the Director and said that there was a Committee that was reviewing that part and said that his point was that it did not matter how someone got from a to z as long as the 300 foot notice defined the final product. Commissioner Santos said that the Committee met for several months and could not solve this issue so Supervisor McGoldrick took it over. Commissioner Marks said that part of the problem was that it went on without meetings for too long. Commissioner Santos said that he would agree with Commissioner Marks. Commissioner Marks said that the political will was not there, so for her to have the Commission just say what is wrong with the proposal was not enough, the Department has to give specific recommendations and the Board can turn it down if they want as the Commission has not done this before. Mr. Wong said that he would give a little perspective on this and said that he had worked with a smaller group on this and did come up with some things, but as Director Chiu alluded to, the neighbors did not really like what the Department had proposed regarding the project types. Mr. Wong stated that this then elevated to the Board of Supervisors who had their own groups working on it and this latest proposal is what they came back with. Mr. Wong said that if the Department goes back to that one, the Department is going back to where the group originally started and said that he did not know if that would upset anybody along the process as they might come back and say that the Department is going round and round on this one. Mr. Wong stated that the Department had to be careful because if this went back to step one with just DBI's involvement, the Department might start getting criticism from neighbor's groups. Commissioner Marks said that would be okay because it is the Department's and the Commission's responsibility to provide recommendations on what could be enforced. Mr. Wong said that he would like to suggest that builders, contractors and designers have a look at this as he said that they were not as involved as the neighborhood groups were. Commissioner Marks said this was not the Department's responsibility at this point, as that would be up to the Board of Supervisors to get input from other parties. Commissioner Marks said that the Department's responsibility is that the Department has to enforce whatever comes out of this and whatever the Department's recommendation is for enforcement. Commissioner Marks said that the Department should provide wording so that it is enforceable.

Mr. Wong said that he would go ahead and proceed with that as long as there is support from the Commission. Commissioner Santos asked what support was needed. Director Chiu said that it sounded like the Department got the support from the Commission.

President Fillon said that he thought it was very important that DBI had a voice in this issue before it happens. Director Chiu said, as to the comment about participation, he did not know that anyone could fault DBI for not trying to get everybody involved because this item has been on the Commission's agenda many times and people had the opportunity to come in and give their input. Director Chiu said that the moment the law is passed people would come in and say it is not working. President Fillon said that the tragedy would be if everybody in the City got their input except DBI and its staff, and that would be a big problem because DBI is the agency that has to enforce it. President Fillon said that at least the Department should get its two cents in there. Director Chiu said that it sounded like the Department has the direction from the Commission to do that and said that he would be happy to draft a letter to Supervisor McGoldrick to let him know of the Department's consensus and concerns. President Fillon said that the concerns should be very specific. Mr. Wong said that the way the proposal is written, DBI is taking a lot of the responsibilities that Planning is supposed to enforce as Planning should be looking at if the project is good enough instead of sending all of these things back to DBI that are really design issues.

Commissioner Brown asked if those concerns as well as the other concerns that were raised today could be incorporated into the letter because the Commission wanted to make sure that any law that is passed is enforceable and that DBI is the Department that is going to be charged with enforcing it. Commissioner Brown said that DBI wanted to make sure that the correct language was in there before anything would be passed.

Mr. John Carney said that he had seen this on the agenda for months and said that he thought that people want the 300-foot notice sent out and that is all they care about. Mr. Carney said that the only time the neighborhood picks up on this is when the 300-foot notice goes out for a demolition and it draws the attention of more people because it is not just the 150-foot notice. Mr. Carney said that all the Building Department has to say is that a project is a demolition even if there is only one 2 by 4 being removed and just send the notice out and this would make it very simple. Mr. Carney stated that he did not agree with the 10% or 25% because if the public is not informed by the time they figure out what is going on a permit has been issued and the neighbors find out that the project sponsor is taking down ½ or ¾ or the building. Mr. Carney said that he had the same job with different sets of plans and one was determined to be a demolition, one an alteration and one a remodel. Mr. Carney said that these projects came out of Planning with three different determinations and with the different determinations there are different circles of notification and that is really the problem. Mr. Carney said that if the Building Department looked at the plans and marked demolition on them then that would require the 300-foot notice whether the Planning Department agrees or not. Mr. Carney said that if he wanted to tear down a building he wouldn't go for a legal demolition he would go for an illegal one because if he wanted to put a yard in he couldn't use it for five years, but no way could he tear down a building to put a yard in at this point. Mr. Carney said that the only way to put a yard in was to go for an illegal demolition and he would have a yard for five years and then he would build something by paying the $10,000 fine. Mr. Carney said that if he were a real yuppie he could afford to pay $100,000 fine. Mr. Carney said that if he wanted to tear a shed down he would have to go for a demolition so he would just go ahead and tear it down. Mr. Carney said that he thought that Planning and DBI should get together to figure out what the two departments are going to do because Planning is going through the same thing and both should have the same definition.

8. Discussion and possible action on proposed legislation as introduced by Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to amend the San Francisco Building Code by amending Section 106.3.3 to require proposed curb cuts to be shown on plans. [Director Chiu]

Director Chiu said that this was an action item for the Commission. Director Chiu said that DBI was already requiring anyone who was going to do a curb cut to show this work on the plans and those applications were being routed to the Department of Public Works. Director Chiu stated that the only thing that would be new to DBI was the street tree removal because in the past the project sponsor was not aware that the Department would have to be notified if a street tree was going to be removed. Director Chiu said that in the future, the Department would have to do a little bit more public outreach to let the public or project sponsor know that when there is an application submitted for a curb cut those plans would also have to show that there is a tree to be removed. Director Chiu said that the Supervisor was just trying to make sure that DBI does require a permit and would include the Department of Public Works in that approval of the permit. Director Chiu reported that DBI already does the curb cut portion of this proposal and this would just require the Department to include the street tree removal.

Commissioner Santos asked if that would be on the site plan. Commissioner Santos said that the only difference would be that a project sponsor would have to show the potential tree removal. Director Chiu said that would be correct and stated that sometimes the tree would be removed without a permit. Director Chiu said that this proposed legislation would give the Department the responsibility to go and cite the project sponsor, ask for permits and plans and include Public Works as well. Commissioner Santos said that the project sponsor could be forced to plant a tree. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the legislation it seemed to him that it was just more for fees and would make it more complicated because the project sponsor or public member would have to go over to DPW and get a permit. Commissioner Guinnane asked why it could not all be kept within DBI's structure. Director Chiu said that streets and sidewalks are under the jurisdiction of Public Works. Director Chiu stated that he did not know if the applicant would actually have to go back to the Public Works as a separate department because within 1660 Mission there is staff from Public Works already. Director Chiu said that these types of plans and projects are already being referred to the Department of Public Works for their review. Commissioner Guinnane asked if someone could get a permit issued by DPW at 1660 Mission Street. Director Chiu said that was correct. Director Chiu stated that essentially DBI is doing most of this work already, but the street tree is something that designers are not familiar with or the designer might not even know that the owner is removing trees, but now with this ordinance the Department will have to make sure that the designers know that any tree removal would have to be shown on the plans. President Fillon said that if someone wants to remove a tree now it would not have to go before Public Works. Director Chiu said that it does, but in the past if no one tells the Department that there is a tree there the Department doesn't know to send this to DPW; now the intent of this law would mandate that if anybody does a curb cut and/or a tree removal the Department would have to make sure that there are plans and permits that would be routed to Public Works for their approval. President Fillon asked what the ordinance had to do with tree removal. Director Chiu said that tree removal would require a permit. Director Chiu said that right now DBI does not require plans for this and the applicant might go to Public Works and apply separately for a permit to remove the tree; DBI does not know what the applicant is doing. Director Chiu said that this ordinance is saying that the applicant would have to apply with plans and a permit through DBI and then those plans and the permit would be routed to Public Works. President Fillon said that supposing he was applying for a permit how many weeks would this add to the process. Director Chiu asked if he was just talking about cutting a curb. President Fillon said that it would be whatever he was doing that would fall under this new ordinance. Commissioner Santos said it would probably add three weeks. Director Chiu said that for DBI it would probably add a couple of days to over-the-counter. President Fillon said that it would have to be routed to DPW. Director Chiu said that DBI does have staff from DPW working out of 1660 Mission Street. Director Chiu said that he could not answer what DPW's backlog or process would be and said that Commissioner Santos would probably know better. Commissioner Santos stated that it would take at least two weeks if it had to go to DPW. President Fillon asked if this would be like having to go to the Bureau of Streets Use and Mapping. Commissioner Santos said that BSM would help, but again this is an added process and items have to be submitted and a fee has to be paid, so it is more costly and slightly more complicated. President Fillon asked what the exact difference would be. Director Chiu said that as far as he knew at present any time an applicant goes to cut the curb and DBI is aware of it DBI will tell the applicant that they need a site plan showing exactly where the curb is, how large it is and how it is going to be put back or how it is going to be cut. Director Chiu said that a permit is required; and staff would review it and approve it, and refer it to Public Works, but DBI does not know how long it would take for Public Works to approve it. Director Chiu said that he knew that street tree removal also requires some kind of permit from Public Works right now, but DBI is not aware of it. Director Chiu stated that this new law would require that anyone who is going to cut the curb and/or remove a street tree would have to have a plan, apply for a permit with DBI and DBI would have to make sure that DPW is included for review and approval, so there is not much difference. Director Chiu said that hopefully, this ordinance would beef up the intended law and sort of consolidate the requirements to keep DBI involved in the street tree removal process.

Commissioner Santos said that the bottom line is if an applicant wanted to take down a tree in the past they only needed approval from DPW and now approval would include DBI. Director Chiu said that was correct. President Fillon said that it would be the same process as if someone were doing a curb cut. Director Chiu said that for a curb cut DBI would always require a permit and Planning is involved in a curb cut, so the curb cut is nothing new for DBI. President Fillon said that he was just saying that now if this proposed ordinance was enacted the tree situation would be the same as the curb cut situation. Director Chiu said this was correct. Director Chiu said an applicant would file a plan, show where the tree is and what kind of tree it is. Director Chiu said that the Building Code would be amended to require this kind of thing on the plans and on the permit and that is why this proposed ordinance is seeking the Commission's action.

President Fillon asked what the staff recommendation was on this issue. Director Chiu said that it certainly has no real impact on DBI because DBI is requiring permits for the curb cuts and now would be requiring permits for tree removal. Director Chiu said that his recommendation would be that this does not really impact DBI's operation that much. President Fillon asked if there were any further comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Santos asked if it would bring any money to DBI. Director Chiu said that certainly DBI would be issuing a building permit so therefore DBI would be receiving some money, but it would not be substantial because it does not cost that much to remove a tree. Director Chiu said that if it cost $500.00 to remove a tree then DBI's revenue would be about $30. Commissioner Guinnane said that in talking about this legislation, Director Chiu talks about this not really impacting DBI. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission should not be looking at DBI, but should be looking at the public that DBI does the work for. Commissioner Guinnane said that all he could see is that this is more bureaucracy and more money for the public and that is what it is all about. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he felt that DBI already had this situation covered when a permit or plan is put in for a curb cut as the process is already in place. Commissioner Guinnane said he would not be in favor of this legislation. Director Chiu said that it would not be that much money because it would not cost very much to cut the tree. Commissioner Guinnane said that in talking about that, it is just another fee because it's the same thing as if someone comes into the Department and says they are going to put in a $20,000 kitchen DBI is going to charge them $100, the same with the tree. Commissioner Guinnane said that if it was a twenty foot tree an applicant could say that they could take it down for $500, but in looking at the Marshall & Swift index the Department might say that it is going to cost at least $7,000 to take that tree down. Director Chiu said that based on $500 DBI's fee is about $28. Commissioner Guinnane said that is just more things and in talking about the time element Commissioner Santos says that if someone is lucky they would get a permit out in two weeks, if unlucky that becomes three weeks and that is more time and more money. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that this was a duplication because the only thing DBI is not really duplicating is the issue about getting a permit to take down a tree and other than that everything else is covered by DBI. President Fillon asked for opinions from any of the other Commissioners.

Commissioner D'Anne said that if DBI covers the curb cut then she did not see why this legislation was needed. President Fillon said that it would probably kill more trees to have the added bureaucracy to deal with it then it would save trees by creating more bureaucracy to keep people from not doing the work. Commissioner D'Anne said that was a good point. President Fillon said that Director Chiu said that the trees are already protected by a City ordinance, as there is already a review process. Director Chiu said that in his opinion the reason this even got on a proposal is not that there are no requirements on street tree removal and curb cuts; it is just that the sponsor thought that people need to know that the City means business that a tree cannot be cut without actually applying for a permit. Director Chiu stated that DPW's Code probably covers this, but now DBI would be in the loop. Director Chiu said that now there would be a record of the tree removal. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at this legislation and the way it is done, assume that an applicant is not building a building, but just wants to take down a tree; this legislation talks about getting a survey. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the applicant would have to put a plan in to show the whole layout of the sidewalk, show all the meter boxes, the poles and the tree that is to be removed so many feet from the corner. Commissioner Guinnane asked if he would have to submit a survey with this. Director Chiu said that he was not sure that it would require a survey. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the way the legislation is set up it could go that way. Director Chiu said that it could require plans. Commissioner Guinnane said that then an applicant would have to go and hire an architect and maybe even an engineer and that would be more money. Commissioner D'Anne asked if the purpose of this was for notification. Director Chiu said no, but it is just a requirement to let people know that they can't cut trees without a proper permit and this would now require plans. Director Chiu said that as he said before, the applicant in the past could have gone straight to Public Works to let them know that a tree was going to be cut and Public Works would probably give them the permit. Director Chiu said that the difference was that now DBI would be brought into the loop and maybe potentially once the permit is filed, people would have the right to protest the cutting of the tree. Commissioner Santos said that any permit could be appealed.

President Fillon said that there was a City ordinance already in place that someone could not just go out and chop down a tree in front of their house. Director Chiu said that it is not in the Building Code, but maybe it is in the Public Works Code. President Fillon said that he was talking about the City in general; the tree is protected by law already.

Commissioner Guinnane said that at one time there was an issue, years and years ago, a big controversy regarding a big building over on Monterey Boulevard on private property where someone went in and cut down some trees and he was fined for it because he was supposed to have a permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that this person was required to have a permit to cut down trees even on his own property and said that he was pretty sure that DPW already has this covered. Director Chiu said that this ordinance was talking about street trees. Commissioner Guinnane said that he knew that, but there are already controls in place for private property other than the sidewalk and there were penalties already in place.

Director Chiu said that in his opinion this is another case of thinking that DBI has plenty of Inspectors so let DBI enforce it. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought that it was just another avenue for money and said that he would vote not to go along with this proposal. Commissioner Brown asked Director Chiu about his knowledge on the background of this legislation and asked how it came before the Board. Director Chiu said that to be honest he did not know what the background was and did not know anything about this issue until he received the proposed legislation. Commissioner Brown said that Director Chiu still didn't know what the background was. Director Chiu said he did not know what prompted this Supervisor to sponsor this because he was not briefed.

President Fillon said that perhaps the Department could draft a memo rather than take any action on this to the Supervisor explaining what Director Chiu had explained to the Commission and see what the feedback is. Commissioner Santos asked if that would be sent to Matt Gonzalez.

Deputy Director William Wong said that this item had been sent over to the Code Advisory Committee to have a look at it so the Commission might want to wait for that recommendation. President Fillon said that the Commission would wait for any feedback from the CAC. President Fillon asked if there was any public comment on this item.

Mr. John Carney that he did not come down to the meeting for this item, but this was sort of a fun meeting. Mr. Carney said that it costs about $1,000 to replace a tree in a legal tree spot and it costs $3,000 to remove a tree if a driveway is put in and it can't be replaced so technically the fees could be based on $3,000 for that cut if there was a tree in the way. Mr. Carney said that if someone happened to plant the wrong tree in a spot that they had illegally a person might be allowed to take it down for nothing. Mr. Carney stated that this is a big revenue maker potentially for the urban forest people. President Fillon thanked Mr. Carney for the information.

9. Status and strategy of civil litigation against contractors' performance of DBI MIS projects.

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

b. Possible Action to convene a Closed Session.

c. CLOSED SESSION: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.11(a)(b).

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

    President Fillon said that there was going to be a Closed Session to discuss the status and strategy to discuss civil litigation against contractors' performance of DBI MIS projects. President Fillon reported that Director Chiu had requested that this item be continued. Director Chiu said that he wanted to apologize because it was his mistake that this had been included on this agenda because Secretary Aherne had informed him that she spoke with someone from the City Attorney's Office and a certain date was agreed upon for this session. Director Chiu said that this item would be put on the agenda for April 19th.

10. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

    a. Copy of letter dated March 27, 2003 from Assistant Director Amy Lee to William Wong, Deputy Director of Permit Services regarding CAPSS.

      b. Copy of memorandum dated March 11, 2003 from Amy Lee, Assistant Director to Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director of Inspection Services regarding 107 - 17th Avenue.

      c. Copy of letter dated March 15, 2003 from Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to Mr. James Riley regarding 101 - 17th Avenue.

      d. Copy of letter dated March 20, 2003 from Winchell Hayward, President, Local 21 Retirees' Guild to President Alfonso Fillon, Building Inspection Commission regarding the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).

      e. Copy of letter dated March 7, 2003 from Director Frank Chiu to Eleonora Bletnisky regarding 101 - 17th Avenue.

      f. Copy of letter received from Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney to Director Frank Chiu thanking Ann Aherne and Carolyn Jayin for excellent service.

      g. Copies of thank you letters received from the public commending DBI employees and Director Chiu's response letters to the public.

      h. Copy of letter dated March 26, 2003 from Amy Lee to ATC regarding CAPSS invoices.

      i. Financial reports for February 2003.

    There was no discussion or public comment on the communication items.

11. Review Commissioner's Questions and Matters.

    a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

    There were no inquiries to staff.

    There was no discussion or public comment on future agenda items.

12. 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 comment.

13. Adjournment.

Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commission Brown that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.

    RESOLUTION NO. BIC 019-03

    The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

                    _______________________

            Ann Marie Aherne Commission Secretary

            SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

            Discussion and report of CAPSS contract with review of program details and deliverables, invoices and payments thereof, to be agendized for next meeting.

            Page 4

            President Fillon asked for a motion, originally made by Commissioner Marks, to send a letter to the Planning Department letting them know that the BIC had approved the 2003 Cost Schedule of Building Valuation data, and reminding them that these figures are not to be used as an actual figure for construction costs.

            Page 8

            President Fillon said the Department should draft a memo to Supervisor Matt Gonzalez explaining what Director Chiu explained to the Commission regarding amending the ordinance to require proposed curb cuts to be shown on plans. (SFBC, Section 106.3.3).

            Page 19