2.

President’s Announcements

 

3.

Director’s Report.

a.  Update on Permit Tracking System’s (PTS) assessment.

Director Isam Hasenin said that he would continue to evaluate all options regarding the Permit Tracking System.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI was going out with the Planning Department to have an RFQ to assess what the marketplace is, and what options the departments might have on the outside.  Director Hasenin said that this process should be done in the next two or three weeks, so the RFQ should be sent out and then hopefully the Department will hear back in the next month or two.  Director Hasenin stated that he would keep the Commission apprised of this.

b.  Update on recent meetings with Supervisors, staff and industry groups.

Director Hasenin stated that when he first came to the Department, one of the first things he wanted to do was to go out and meet with the different stakeholders that deal with DBI including customers, politicians and staff.  Director Hasenin said that he has started that process, and been organizing one-on-one meetings with staff.  Director Hasenin stated that he has met with four or five of the members of the Board of Supervisors, and plans to meet with the rest of the members this week.  Director Hasenin stated that he has also scheduled meetings with industry groups that are representative of the different community groups that the Department of Building Inspection deals with.

 

President Walker said that Director Hasenin would be meeting with the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) on April 18^th.

c.  Update on recent SFSTAT meeting including review of performance measures.

Director Hasenin said that he had attended his first meeting for the group that runs the SFSTAT, and made a presentation regarding some of the changes that the Department was contemplating in terms of what type of stats staff should be presenting.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department has a commitment to work with the auditors, the Controller’s Office, Planning, and other groups so that there can be uniform consistency in the information that our staff presents. 

 

President Walker asked if this was connected with the 311 system, and if the Department was getting any more calls or different kind of calls.  Director Hasenin said that it was not directly related and DBI is part of the 311 system, but the agreement that DBI has with the 311 center is that they would continue to refer calls directly to the Department for handling by DBI staff.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI reports back to the 311 center, regarding the statistics so there is not a direct relationship with the SFSTATS on that.

d.  Update on the interdepartmental coordination meetings and recommendations.

Director Hasenin stated that the Department of Building Inspection has continued meeting with the Planning Department, and tentative policies have been established as far as pre-application meetings on major projects to ensure that life safety, building code, and fire issues are being handled as early as possible to make sure there are no late hits or potential changes to a project that may affect the Planning implications.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is on track and plans to meet with the Fire Department to continue the coordination.  Director Hasenin said that he would continue to report to the Commission on those issues. 

 

President Walker asked for a future agenda item to discuss some of the issues that came up in the Joint Planning and Building Inspection Commission hearing, and said that the Commission  would be scheduling another joint follow up meeting in a couple of months.

 

4.

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.

5.

Update on emergency demolition requests, procedures, and processing time. [Acting Deputy Director Carla Johnson]

 

Acting Deputy Director, Carla Johnson said that emergency demolition has been an area of concern for both community members and Commissioners for some time.  Ms. Johnson stated that this had recently been discussed at the Joint Planning & BIC Meeting that was held in December.  Ms. Johnson said that she was going to give a brief overview about emergency demolitions and discussed the following points:

 

• The demolition process through the Planning Department for residential building is a very lengthy process that can take from six months to two years or more.
• The general requirement is that under the Planning Department rules, when you file for a demolition permit, you also need to submit the replacement structure at the same time.
• The exception to the general rule is if the Director of the Department of Building Inspection has made a determination that there is an imminent hazard, that the building in question may possibly collapse on itself and harm people.
• The way the process works is: A) DBI either receives a referral from the Fire Department that a building has been severely damaged by fire, and poses an imminent hazard.  B) DBI receives a referral from a neighborhood interested party who has observed a building they think is a hazard.  C) DBI receives a request from a property owner who owns a building, and believes that it is a danger and needs to be demolished quickly.
• With Fire Department referrals, there is a fairly straight forward order of assessment:  A DBI engineer is sent out with a Senior Building Inspector to look at the structure, and if there is severe fire damage the property will qualify for an emergency demolition.  The emergency demolition could be issued in a day or so.
• When DBI receives a request from the property owner, the owner submits their own engineer’s report first.  This tends to be a detailed assessment of the building describing the deficiencies that lead to an imminent hazard.  Next DBI receives the report; a site inspection is scheduled with DBI’s engineer and a Senior Building Inspector.  The review of the DBI engineer’s report is overseen by the Chief Building Inspector, the BIC Commissioner or one of the Deputy Directors.  If they concur that an emergency exists, then the Department issues a Director’s emergency order.
• The Director’s emergency order is instructional and states that the owner needs to demolish the building quickly, but if they fail to do so then DBI can step in and do the work at the city’s expense.  This money will be recovered from the owner at a later date.

Ms. Johnson stated that one of the Commissioners expressed concern about the timeliness of the Department’s review and assessment of emergency demolitions.  Ms. Johnson said that the concern was specifically about two projects that came in, in February and the response time was delayed due to the Department responding to the rock slide.  Ms. Johnson stated that once the projects were reviewed it was determined that there was not an imminent hazard, so they did not need to be demolished under a Director’s emergency order.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he thinks the sole responsibility for an emergency demolition should be the Building Department, and it should not have to go to the Planning Department.  Commissioner Murphy stated that the final decision should be a licensed engineer’s decision only. 

 

Ms. Johnson said that it has been her experience that when the DBI engineer determines that an imminent hazard exists and the Department issues the Director’s emergency order, that the Planning Department accepts that determination and actually processes the emergency demolition permit very quickly.  Ms. Johnson stated that she and Larry Badiner have been working on this process, and said that once she hands him the permit it is approved at the Planning level.

 

Commissioner Sattary asked what factors go into the decision when an emergency demolition is being considered, and if the owner could hire their own engineer.  Commissioner Sattary asked what happens in those cases that an outside licensed professional engineer recommends an opinion that may not be the same as what the Building Department had in mind.

 

Ms. Johnson said that is actually the process, and said there are obvious cases of severely damaged buildings and then there are less obvious cases where the building has been damaged due to lack of maintenance and neglect.  Ms. Johnson stated in certain cases the property owner does rely on their engineer to do the initial assessment, but DBI needs to review that decision to see if the Department concurs.  Ms. Johnson said that there are different levels of danger that may affect the Department’s decision such as:  Danger that may affect an occupant, a neighbor, or an adjacent structure.

 

Commissioner Sattary asked if there have been cases where DBI has overruled the engineer for the project.  Ms. Johnson said yes there have been cases where the Department overrode the engineer’s decision, but it does not necessarily mean that DBI disagrees with them.  Ms. Johnson stated that DBI may believe that a building should be demolished, but the difference s usually how urgent the hazard is.

 

Commissioner Murphy stated that if a property owner pays, files an application, and gets a permit for emergency demolition then that decision should not be appealable.  Ms. Johnson said it is the opposite, if he does not get a permit and the Department denies it then the decision can be appealed.  President Walker stated that they could still demolish it, but not under emergency order by DBI.  Ms. Johnson stated that emergency demolitions were part of the discussion at the Joint Planning and BIC meeting, and said that it is her opinion that there should be a different category for buildings that are suitable for demolition, but not necessarily cause an imminent hazard which is the level that needs to be reached if DBI is going to convince the Planning Department that a building needs to be demolished tomorrow.

 

Director Hasenin said that he had a question about the use of this provision, and said he did not know if it was actual ordinance language or just a policy that allows the Department to issue the emergency demolition orders.  Director Hasenin stated that the issue is if a building is so weak seismically would that constitute an imminent hazard, and there may not be a consistent decision or opinion so the decision can be argued.  Director Hasenin said that he plans to have discussions with staff and the Commission in order to come up with a specific standard on how to use provisions in the code to make these decisions about emergency demolitions. 

 

Commissioner Sattary stated that there have been cases where an owner contacts an engineer because a building is in severe distress, and the engineer comes to the conclusion that the building can not be repaired or renovated.  Commissioner Sattary said there is a “gray area” of living in danger because no one knows exactly when the building is going to fall down, but engineers can just give their best judgment that the building needs to be taken down.  Commissioner Sattary stated that it is at this point when there have been cases where the demolition permit is delayed six months to two years not because of the Building Department’s issues, but due to Planning issues.  Commissioner Sattary said that in the interim a weak building remains, the owner loses revenue, and overall it is a lose-lose situation for everyone.  Commissioner Sattary stated that the Department needs to clarify the scope of the engineer of record’s determination. 

 

Director Hasenin said that there are two current processes in place:  1) One is in extreme cases when it is obvious that the building is sagging and going to collapse, then DBI uses the emergency process and bypasses all regular reviews and allows the owner to demolish it. 2)  A second process is when the engineer for the owner of a building does an analysis and says the building needs to be demolished, because there is not enough in it to make it economically feasible.  Director Hasenin stated that in this case DBI could agree that the building can be demolished, but there is another process to go through the Planning Department and that is where neighborhood groups, historic preservation issues, and so on get involved.  Director Hasenin said the idea is to take time because the building is not going to fall tomorrow, but no one really knows that, and the building could cause damage to neighbors, people on the street, etcetera.

 

President Walker stated that it is preferential for people to have an empty lot, rather than a building on it that probably is not maximizing the zoning.  President Walker said that the challenge is that this emergency process can be misused in order to maximize profit on development, because an empty lot does not carry conditions but an existing building does.

President Walker stated that DBI has a system that she thinks makes sense as to what it is trying to achieve, but it is cumbersome.  President Walker said that as a result it makes a strong case for the Planning Director, Dean Macris, and the Building Director, Isam Hasenin, to work together to try to make this system more seamless. 

 

Commissioner Murphy said that Commissioner Sattary was not referring to Victorian or historic buildings, but buildings that have no significant history.  President Walker stated that rent control is an issue.  Commissioner Sattary said that he agrees with President Walker about some people letting their property decay, but this is not what happens in the majority of cases.  Commissioner Sattary stated that the Planning Department will ultimately have their say, because they have to approve the new plans for replacement of the building.  Commissioner Sattary said that if it is a legitimate case for demolition, then DBI needs to proceed as quickly as possible.  Director

Hasenin stated that it is a seismic issue where a lot of these buildings may only be able to resist a certain work level, but at what point does it become an imminent hazard.  Director Hasenin said the question becomes does the hazard justify allowing the building to go through the emergency demolition process.  Director Hasenin stated that he and other DBI staff would work on coming up with a better policy on emergency demolitions.

 

Commissioner Sattary stated that the issue of rent control has come up in several projects where the issue was that the tenants did not want their building demolished, because they feared that they would no longer have affordable housing.  Commissioner Sattary said that in some cases there have been agreements between the owner and tenants to guarantee them a space in their building.  Commissioner Sattary stated that the city needs a process that they can renew and improve older buildings that may be inadequate in terms of energy efficiency and structural or seismic strengths.  Commissioner Sattary said that at the same time the communities would like to maintain affordable housing and reasonable rents, so there needs to be a reasonable balance between these two.  Commissioner Sattary stated that since rent control is not in the Building Commission’s jurisdiction, maybe Planning could come up with some guidelines in terms of how to deal with this issue.

 

Commissioner Romero said that he brought up the fact that he had some concerns about this issue at the last meeting, but it was based on his experience on the Building Inspection Commission with other commissioners.  Commissioner Romero stated that in the past there were many times when staff would recommend that a building not be demolished and commissioners would go to the site, and it would be demolished very quickly after their visit.  Commissioner Romero said that the commissioners basically overturned the Department’s decision.  President Walker stated that it was just a different political body and there were different interests.  Commissioner Romero said that there was one instance where a woman came to testify before the Commission, and he asked her a specific question about the age of the building and she lied to him.  Commissioner Romero stated that it was obviously a Victorian building, but she told him it was a mid century building and it was demolished anyway.  Commissioner Romero said that from that moment on he was skeptical about some of the decisions that his fellow commissioners made.  Commissioner Romero stated that this Commission’s emphasis when considering demolition issues should be focused only on the issue of building safety.  Commissioner Romero said that the Commission should do what the Building Department has always done when there is a structural engineer of record, and that is to rely on their opinion.  Commissioner Romero stated at the same time DBI building inspectors can eradicate it, but it has to be based only on building safety.

 

Director Hasenin stated that he would take some time to review the Department’s policy with staff and come back to the Commission in the next few months with some proposed changes to make the process more streamlined.  President Walker said that it would be good to discuss this issue at the next Joint Planning and Building Inspection Commission meeting.

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Francisco DeCosta said that San Francisco needs to have more empirical data on its buildings.  Mr. DeCosta stated that in the Avenues if there is a huge earthquake 80% of those buildings would be adversely impacted.  Mr. DeCosta said that the Department of Building Inspection does not have a mandate or policy which is quick, and there needs to be a check list.  Mr. DeCosta stated that there should be a task force consisting of a structural engineer, a mechanical engineer, and architects that understand a little bit more about what architecture is involved in order to make quick decisions.  Mr. DeCosta said that the Directors of the Planning and Building Departments cannot always be involved in such issues, and there should be people lower down on the totem poles who are involved.  Mr. DeCosta stated that this is an issue even with brand new buildings, as they have been built in areas without a proper soil assessment, especially in the southeast sector.  Mr. DeCosta said that there are brand new buildings built on the side of hills which are prone to a slide, and these may come before the BIC for emergency demolitions.  Mr. DeCosta stated that there should be operators with heavy equipment ready to deal with such issues when they arise.  Mr. DeCosta said that it is good for the Building and Planning Departments to meet and talk about issues, but they need to put some precise models in place.

 

Ms. Kelton Finney of Santos & Urrutia said that her office has been involved in a number of demolition projects, but to keep this in perspective there really are not that many demolition orders issued.  Ms. Kinney stated that in two and a half years she has been involved in about six. Ms. Finney said that emergency demolition is a political issue in San Francisco, and the political process has influenced the issue and it should not.  Ms. Finney stated that emergency demolition is not about preserving affordable housing, it is about protecting public safety so there should be no other criteria used. Ms. Finney said when Acting Deputy Director Carla Johnson spoke earlier she indicated that there were some cases when buildings were suitable for demolition, but did not meet the criteria for an emergency demolition order so they had to go through the Planning Department.  Ms. Finney stated that the problem is there is no guarantee that a building that is suitable for demolition would actually get a demolition permit by going through Planning, since the process is very variable. Ms. Finney said that there are community groups and various stakeholders that could approach the project and it could end up losing.  Ms. Finney stated that as a result there would be a building that the Building Department agrees should probably come down, and yet it does not meet the criteria for emergency demolition.  Ms. Finney said that there is no guarantee that the building would actually come down, so there is then a situation where public safety is not protected because this is a politicized process.  Ms. Finney stated that she has found that the staff of the Building Department is very competent, but are extremely reluctant to issue emergency demolition orders for fear of political reprisal.  Ms. Finney said that when the issue comes up at the Planning Commission, the Commissioners are alarmed because they do not understand the process since they are not engineers.  Ms. Finney stated that this is really a technical issue that should only be reviewed by licensed engineers who will stamp a building as being safe or not safe. 

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz stated that leaving unsightly buildings creates a public hazard.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that most of those buildings are uninhabitable, possibly contain toxic elements that could bleed into the soil and affect that property as well as the neighbors.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that these buildings could be easily broken into and people could get hurt.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that he believes the Building Department should determine when a building should be demolished, not the Planning Department.

 

Ray Lui said that he wanted to talk about the Tall Buildings Administrative Bulletin (AB-083) which will be a bulletin for the design of new tall buildings using non-prescriptive code requirements.  Mr. Lui said that after review by the Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), and in particular their seismology committee and professional practices committee, the bulletin was returned to the Department with comments.  Mr. Lui stated that the

Department decided to put a moratorium on non-prescriptive requirements or tall buildings using non-code prescriptive requirements sometime last summer.  Mr. Lui said that once the Department reviewed the comments from SEAONC a second draft was submitted back to SEAONC in September of 2006.  Mr. Lui said that highly qualified tall building designers from SEAONC had volunteered over 650 hours in the past four months evaluating this administrative bulletin and had now resubmitted a new administrative bulletin to their Board of Directors for approval.  Mr. Lui said that once the SEAONC Board of Directors signs off on this document it will be presented to DBI and the Director and Senior Staff will look at the document to make sure that it is indeed what the Department wants for San Francisco; the document will then go to the Code Advisory Committee for comments and hopefully by June this item could be agendized for approval.

 

Mr. Lui spoke about the Soft Story Wood Frame Program that is being developed to look at reducing the status of seismic risks of high density residential wood frame construction similar to the kind of construction that collapsed in the Marina district during the Loma Prieta Earthquake.  Mr. Lui said that on February 24^th approximately 150 volunteers fanned out across San Francisco to survey and determine how many of these types of buildings there are in San Francisco.  Mr. Lui said that the City was also developing a Community Safety Element Plan that would not only cover earthquake risk, but would address things like terrorism, flooding and other issues.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he hoped that AB-083 would be finalized as soon as possible to clarify the policy for projects that are being held up.  Director Hasenin said that he would suspect if these projects had gone through the process up to now there should be no surprises later on and said that he would be willing to entertain proposals from developers, using the document in its final draft format. 

 

President Walker said that there were other tandem issues that come up with tall buildings such as fire safety in these buildings.  Commissioner Sattary said that one major item was related to fire response and fire safety in these buildings and said that the issues had been very well covered by the efforts of the Fire Marshal.  Commissioner Sattary said that there was going to be a meeting coming up with all of the stakeholders on this issue.  Director Hasenin said that the meeting would take place sometime in April and involve all colleagues and stakeholders.

 

Mr. Ray Lui announced that draft #2 of AB-083 was on the DBI website for review.  Mr. Lui said that he anticipated SEAONC’s version of AB-083 to come out tomorrow.  President Walker asked that Mr. Lui e-mail the approved Administrative Bulletin to the Commissioners. 

 

President Walker asked if Director Hasenin wanted to give an update on the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).  Director Hasenin said that he did not know if he was going to be upsetting people, but said that he saw the latest document and said that he would have to go back again to the issue of revenues and expenditures and the Department’s core missions and processes.  Director Hasenin stated that he was somewhat hesitant to commit $800,000 or $900,000 towards a research project that he thought was very valuable and good for the City and the citizens, but because of DBI’s financial status did not know if this is the best use of that money.  Director Hasenin said that he was going to be looking at the proposal and what the deliverables are and perhaps slowing the process down unless the Commission directs him to do otherwise.  President Walker said that perhaps this is one of the things that the Department could get funding for through grants.  Director Hasenin said that he would definitely support that and would help lead the effort to get funding, but said he would hate to spend DBI money and wait for reimbursements later from such organizations as FEMA.  President Walker said that this would have to be on a future agenda item before any official action could be taken.

 

6.

Update on building code requirements for geologic and geotechnical assessments during the permit processing.  [Deputy Director Wing Lau & Manager Ray Lui, Structural Safety & Emergency Management Division]

Deputy Director Wing Lau said that in responding to the question of how to process a building permit in a landslide area that the decision would be based on the 2001 Code and the 1996 DBI Memorandum, which is a special ordinance that was passed by the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Ray Lui, Structural Safety & Emergency Management Division Manager, stated that DBI has code requirements and internal policy requirements that dictate when geotechnical reports are needed or not.  Mr. Lui gave a presentation and stated that some requirements would be changed with some of the new code revisions, and reported on instances of when a geotechnical report is required.  Mr. Lui said that these items are not in the code yet because the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) recommended that they reevaluate the boundaries of the soil protection area that is pending legislation. 

 

Commissioner Theriault asked what the difference was between expansive and non-expansive soils.  Mr. Lui said that expansive soils would be things like alluvium or soil deposited by water, such as bay mud.  Mr. Lui stated that sand is not expansive soil technically, but sand can liquefy depending on where the water table is.  Mr. Lui said that non-expansive soil is soil laced in bedrock, not pure rock.  Mr. Lui stated that in Telegraph Hill the rock had a lot of soil in it, so something like that would be non-expansive as opposed to pure rock.  Commissioner Theriault asked when does the Blume Report date back to.  Mr. Hanson Tom said that the Blume Report dates back to approximately 1970.   

 

Commissioner Sattary stated that there are many cases that require geotechnical investigation for a project, and in his experience geotechnical investigation is done for many projects except for the simplest cases.  Commissioner Sattary said that the level of detail in these investigations varies from a cursory review of the underlying soil strata to a more detailed investigation of the stratification of the soil.  Commissioner Sattary asked if there was any distinction when a geotechnical investigation was required or any distinction for hill slides or sites susceptible to land slides.   Mr. Lui stated that Commissioner Sattary was absolutely right, but the scale is really not specified that clearly but it is identified in Chapter 18 which states when a geological report needs to be produced. 

 

Director Hasenin said that he noticed that the Department needed expertise in this field.  Director Hasenin stated that he would be going into this year’s budget to request a geotechnical position in order to have internal expertise so the Department could revisit all of these different policies, past maps, etcetera, and try to come up with a comprehensive approach to this issue.

 

Commissioner Murphy stated that he thought Director Hasenin had a great idea, and that this was a step in the right direction.  Commissioner Murphy said that he had an experience involving soil reports and a new building in Noe Valley where one year after the building was finished three old houses to the right of it slid down the hill.

 

7.

Discussion and possible action to approve the Director of Building Inspection’s professional committee memberships.

 

President Walker said that the Commission has the benefit with the Director being a member of state wide organizations that are working to reevaluate codes and keep up to date, so the Director wanted to come and speak to the Commissioners and make everyone aware of his commitment to that and make sure that the Commission is supportive of his involvement.  President Walker asked Director Hasenin if he could give an estimate of the time commitment, so that everyone would be aware of it. 

 

Director Hasenin stated that the Building Commission typically meets every other month for one day, and once in a while there are two day meetings if there are a lot of code changes.  Director Hasenin said that the ICC Committee has conference calls, and has one or two meetings that are in line with some other activities like the ICC Annual Code Hearings which he would typically be attending as a building official.  Director Hasenin stated that the ICC could meet the weekend before and the weekend after, and he mentioned that a lot of business gets done through e-mail reviews and conference calls.  Director Hasenin said that there was another meeting he had only once a year and the group sends the members documentation that he would review on his own time to prepare for the meeting. Director Hasenin stated that the chapter meeting is once a month for about four hours.

 

Director Hasenin said that it is a legal requirement to have the Commission’s approval.  Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, stated that Director Hasenin should mention the organizations that he is a part of and ask the Commission to approve his involvement.  Director Hasenin stated that he was Vice-Chair of the California Building Standards Commission, Member of the International Code Council (ICC), International Accreditation Service (IAS), Building Department Accreditation Committee, and holds local membership in the International Code Council (Peninsula Chapter).

 

Commissioner Sattary asked Director Hasenin how his travel expenses were covered.  Director Hasenin said that the organizations he belonged to pay for his travel expenses. 

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz thanked Director Hasenin for being a member of all the committees.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that it was wonderful to have someone who is a Director and is so committed and informed on all these matters.  Mr. Karnilowicz applauded Director Hasenin and said that he was doing a great job.

 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sattary to allow Director Hasenin to participate in various organizations. 

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 027-07

 

Discussion regarding possibility of changing BIC meetings to a day other than the first and third Monday’s of each month.  [President Walker and Director Hasenin]

President Walker said that she and Secretary Aherne have been working with City Hall Building Management and SFGTV to find different meeting dates.  President Walker stated that according to the BIC rules there is no requirement except for having monthly meetings.  President Walker said the most recent decision made by the Commission was to move the meeting from the first Wednesday of the month at 1:00 PM in Room 408 to the first and third Wednesdays, with the caveat that the second meeting be cancelled if the Commission determined there was insufficient business.  President Walker stated that along the way the meetings changed to Mondays.

 

Secretary Aherne stated that the meetings were switched to Mondays in order to be televised.  Secretary Aherne said that Mondays were the only time slot available, so the change was voted on at one of the BIC meetings to be held on the first and third Mondays of each month.  President Walker stated that Secretary Aherne had done some preliminary work to see what is available and it seems like the only time that is available to get a room as well as have the meeting televised is on the third Wednesday of each month, any time between 9:30 and 2:00 PM, in Room 416.

 

Secretary Aherne said that the Commission could probably get Friday afternoon, which would probably be just as bad as Monday morning.  President Walker stated that she just wanted to bring this issue up for the Commission to have a preliminary discussion about the meeting change,  allow commissioners to talk about what their feelings are, and to hear from the public.  President Walker said that if there is a consensus after the discussion then they could put the item on the next agenda with the specific time and place. 

 

Secretary Aherne stated that she would like to let the Commission know that she has not had any problems in the past getting a room around budget time.  Secretary Aherne said that the budget has to be heard twice, but the Commission has held Special Meetings and has been able to secure a room and be televised.  Secretary Aherne stated that sometimes the BIC gets preempted from SFGTV by the Board of Supervisors around budget time, but the meetings are shown later.  Secretary Aherne said that she did not want the Commission to think that there could not be Special Meetings if necessary. 

 

President Walker said that the concept is to have one meeting a month on Wednesday and the Commission could have Special Meetings, and commit to doing so on days that it could be televised with good advance notice.  Commissioner Theriault asked if the charter requirement is for a monthly meeting, and the BIC is not able to meet on that Wednesday or are unable to reach a quorum, are they obliged to reschedule another meeting before the end of the month to fulfill the monthly requirement.  Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that he would look into that and give a response at the next Commission meeting. 

 

Commissioner Lee asked if the Wednesday time was solely for being televised live, and if the meetings were held on a different date could the meetings be taped and played on the air.  Secretary Aherne said that the BIC can not meet at another time, since there are so many commissions now that getting a room is difficult, along with the fact that SFGTV only has two control rooms.  Secretary Aherne stated that having one meeting a month would give the Department a month to get the agenda items to her sooner.  Commissioner Grubb said that one meeting a month is a better use of staff time.  Commissioner Murphy stated that it was a good idea to have one meeting a month.  President Walker said that this item would be agendized to vote on at the next BIC meeting, and if it passes the Commission would start meeting once a month in June.

Commissioner Theriault stated that at the last meeting he raised the issue of outreach to the immigrant communities regarding the city sanctuary status.  Commissioner Theriault said that the sanctuary policies would allow immigrants to come forward without reprisals and not have information passed along to the immigration and customs enforcement agency.  Commissioner Theriault stated that he encouraged staff and the Commissioners to talk to Wade Crowfoot in the Mayor’s Office regarding this issue.

Director Hasenin said that he has a document that he recently received from the Mayor’s Office to develop such a policy for the Building Department, in terms of insuring that in DBI’s communications and interaction with the public that DBI complies with the provisions of that act. Director Hasenin stated that the Department would be developing a policy statement for this and said he would have an update at the next meeting.  President Walker asked if Director Hasenin could possibly expand that through the Department’s CEOP program, which does community outreach with landlords and tenants.

 

Secretary Aherne read the following list of future agenda items:

• Report on 311 program 
• Joint Meeting with the BIC and Planning Commissions in a couple of months. 
• Look at DBI staff emergency demolition issues. 
• Discuss the meeting change. 
• Legislation on immigration policies. 
• Staff inquiry regarding the Controller Study and the Form 700s being compared with the office files. (Report was scheduled to be complete in January.)

President Walker said that when the Commission gets the report regarding the Form 700s, that they would put this item on the agenda.  Director Hasenin stated that he was not sure if the Department would be prepared to report on the emergency demolition item in three weeks, but said it would be more practical to agendize it for a later date.  Director Hasenin said that he had an item to add for the next meeting, and that would maybe be under the Director’s Report, but he would be giving a presentation about the assessment of the Department over the last two months or so, and what potential changes he may be proposing.

 

President Walker asked Secretary Aherne to work out a potential new schedule of when the Abatement Appeals hearings could be calendared, so that the Commissioners could all make sure that they would be able to attend.  President Walker said that there would probably be an update at the next meeting regarding the Access Appeals Committee, the Board of Examiners, the Code Advisory Committee, and the Unreinforced Masonry Board.  Secretary Aherne stated that she has received some resumes, and also some of the people who have been on the sub-committees before have sent their resumes in.  Secretary Aherne said that if the Commissioners know of anybody who is interested to please let her know, because the deadline is April 18, 2007. Secretary Aherne stated that she would arrange a meeting with the committee members before the next BIC meeting.

 

(1)      responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2)      requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3)      directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.  (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

Commissioner Romero made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grubb to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 028-07

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,


______________________
Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

Edited by,


______________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary