2.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker said that this was the last meeting of the year and said that the Commission was in a unique situation because four of the Commissioners had handed in letters of resignation as requested by the Mayor and the terms of the three Commissioners appointed by the President of the Board of Supervisors were ready to expire.  President Walker thanked all of the Commissioners for working together over the past challenging and changing year and talked about the accomplishments of the Commission including:

• Reform of the Computer Systems and the Business Process Reengineering with other departments.
• Focusing on upper Management and hiring a permanent Director
• Changing the status quo of the Department
• Forwarded major ethics reforms including the Statement of Incompatible Activities, and Conflict of Interest
• Turning around public opinion of the Department, by working to be more efficient with services applied equally to all customers
• Restarted the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS)

President Walker said that with accomplishments come challenges and said that major reform always challenges the status quo.  President Walker stated that there are many long time employees at DBI and said that the Director was learning about San Francisco’s culture; San Francisco is a very politically active community and people want a say in what is built in the City.  President Walker said that authority must be earning and said that there have been some bumps along the way, but said that she was confident that the changes that are being made will become changes that will serve everyone, from the Commission to DBI Staff and to the citizens of San Francisco.  President Walker stated that the Commission, the Director and Management in the Department were working toward better communication which is needed to move forward to make dynamic changes in the City and to make everyone proud of DBI.  President Walker thanked all of the Commissioners for their hard work and dedication, and in particular Commissioner Sattary for his work in seismic issues and tall buildings. 

President Walker called on Mayor Newsom to say a few words.

Mayor Newsom thanked everyone who worked so hard over the past several months to improve the permit system in the City and County of San Francisco.  Mayor Newsom said that everyone had to work together to de-silo the old institutions and to build collaborative and cooperative fundamental change.  Mayor Newsom stated that the process that the Department has been working on has been remarkable and has included hundreds of individuals and organizations that have now made 180 recommendations for change through the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) program.  Mayor Newsom said that now it was a challenge for the Commission to convince its colleagues on other Commissions and in other Departments to come on board to support these changes.  Mayor Newsom asked that the BIC and DBI be sensitive to the dynamics and unique characteristics of other departments such as the Planning Department that will soon be getting a new Director and the Fire Department that has significant, legitimate concerns with some of the recommendations of the BPR.  Mayor Newsom said that he had great expectation that this process would be starting in real time and said that he did not want to see this report collect dust, but wanted to see it implemented.  Mayor Newsom stated that there were many new Directors in the different departments and urged everyone to work together.  Mayor Newsom said that this was something that could not have been done three years ago and urged the Commission and DBI to call him if other departments were not cooperating or helping with the implementation of the BPR.  Mayor Newsom said that in reading the BPR it is not about consolidation, but is about collaboration and said that he hoped that people would take the report and read it and not get caught up in attacking the report without reading it.  Mayor Newsom thanked Director Hasenin for the fresh perspective he has offered and his willingness to stand up for the changes recommended as that was the reason he was hired.  Mayor Newsom asked that the Department always be respectful and to work with the colleagues in the Fire Department and other departments. 

President Walker thanked Mayor Newsom for his comments.

Mr. Kevin Hughes stated that he was representing the Electrical Worker’s Union Local 6.  Mr. Hughes thanked the Commission for their work on the BPR and said that he wanted to express his support for reform and an expedited process in DBI and Planning.  Mr. Hughes said that he felt that the reform outlined in this document would allow for fair and equitable treatment for all customers of DBI.  Mr. Hughes stated that on behalf of the Electrical Inspectors in the Department and for those end users who come into the Department everyday he wanted to thank the Commission and the Department for their efforts.

Mr. John Darmanin said that he was a former resident of San Francisco, a current member of the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), but was speaking as a private citizen.  Mr. Darmanin said that he noticed that there were many members of the SFFD who work at DBI and also the President John Hanley of the Fire Fighters Union Local 798, along with several officers of the union present at this meeting.  Mr. Darmanin said that the Mayor mentioned collaboration versus consolidation and said that he thought that these were key words as it is important for the two departments to respect each other both historically and currently to make sure that the departments do not lose site of those tasks mentioned earlier in President Walker’s announcements.  Mr. Darmanin stated that President Walker mentioned that Director Hasenin is still in the learning process when it comes to San Francisco politically as it is much different from San Diego, but said that he thought that the Director was doing an excellent job.  Mr. Darmanin said that he was looking forward to working as a collaborative team, not as a consolidated team, and thanked the Commission for their time.

 

3.

Director’s Report.

a.  Status of MIS

Director Hasenin said that the Department was continuing to make changes to the Permit Tracking System (PTS) and would be finalizing the Request for Proposal (RFP) in the next few months.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department was still working to determine whether to go with an outside vendor or to improve the exiting system.  Director Hasenin said that in the meantime the Department was working to provide additional services such as automated corrections and automated inspection scheduling.

b.  Financial Report

Director Hasenin reported that the Department continues to monitor expenses and revenues and said that there has been a decline in revenues; as a result, the Department is only filling vacancies as needed.  Director Hasenin said that he hoped to end the year with a better financial picture than anticipated.  Commissioner Walker asked if there was a change in the number of permits.  Director Hasenin said that there was no tremendous change in the number, but most permits are for smaller jobs that take more time and do not generate as much money.  Director Hasenin said that there are some big projects on hold, but said that there are some new projects in the pipeline.

Commissioner Murphy asked for a comparison of applications submitted this year and the same time last year.  Director Hasenin said that he would be happy to provide that information, but thought that there would not be much of a difference.

Commissioner Theriault said that he wanted to congratulate the Director on closing the gap in the budget and said that he saw that some vacancies had not been filled and asked if the Director could comment on that.  Commissioner Theriault asked if DBI, being an enterprise department, would be asked to make the same budget cuts as other departments in the City.  Director Hasenin said that over 80% of DBI’s budget is personnel related so in trying to keep expenses down that is the place to do it so the Department has a 7% - 10% vacancy rate.  Director Hasenin stated that as far as cuts the Department would not be impacted because it is not a general fund department, but the impact could come as a result of other departments cutting back and then those displaced employees being able to bump into DBI.

c.  Update on interdepartmental coordination meetings and recommendations.

Director Hasenin said that he continues to work with the Fire Department and Planning Department on issues that are common to the departments and stated that he was looking forward to working with the new Planning Director in January.

d.  Update on the overall plan for the reconfiguration of DBI.

Director Hasenin reported that the Department is waiting to hear from a private entity regarding a building that DBI is interested in moving to, but this is not even close to happening.  Director Hasenin said that he was hoping to have a proposal to bring to the Commission in the near future, but said that in the meantime the Department would be cleaning up the 4^th and 5^th floors with painting and carpeting and moving staff from 1650 Mission back to 1660.  President Walker asked where the new location would be.  Director Hasenin said that it was a building near City Hall with parking and close proximity to public transportation.  Commissioner Sattary said that since the move would take 18 – 24 months he thought that some attention should be given to make the current facilities better for the employees.  Commissioner Sattary said that it was mentioned in the Employee Survey that staff would like to have some sort of employee lounge or a place to eat lunch.  Commissioner Sattary requested that even though the Department did not want to spend a lot of money on a short term change, he would request that such a facility be provided.

e.  Update on Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).

Director Hasenin stated that he was committed to do this survey when he started at DBI, but said that it took time to get through some of the technicalities to make sure that the survey was web based, confidential and geared to the concerns and issues of staff.  Director Hasenin said that he looked forward to working with staff on issues to provide a greater working environment.  Commissioner Murphy said that with 300 employees working at DBI he thought that the 76 who completed the survey was a very small percentage.  Director Hasenin said that typically a 1/3 response to a survey was good, but said that there are other ways to do it and the Department could hire a private company to do a survey.  Director Hasenin said that the Department did its best to make sure that the responses were confidential and no one knew who responded back.  President Walker suggested that since it was such a small representation that perhaps the Controller’s Office could do a survey.  Commissioner Murphy stated that it would be nice to know how the majority of employees feel about issues.  Commissioner Sattary said that there is nothing to compare this survey to so no one knows how this compares to two years ago or how it will compare in the future.  Commissioner Sattary suggested that this type of survey, if it does not require too much capital, be done on an annual basis.  Director Hasenin said that it would probably still be affordable for the Department to do an employee survey annually and have it done by the Controller’s Office which might project more of a sense of safety and higher participation.  Commissioner Theriault said that he thought that in a Department that was going through so many changes that this survey was generally positive.  Commissioner Grubb said that he would agree and said that there was a wide range of opinions, but thought that it would be helpful to have this be a yearly survey. 

Commissioner Grubb said that one employee asked about intranet for the Department.  Director Hasenin said that this was something that he was definitely interested in doing as it would be a great vehicle for staff to include policies and procedures and would improve communications.  Commissioner Grubb said that he thought this would be great for employees to utilize and would also give employees a greater sense of control. 

Vice-President Lee said that he thought that the survey was a good benchmark to use for the future.  President Walker said that she was concerned that 2/3’s of the employees did not reply.

Mr. James McMullen introduced himself as the retired California State Fire Marshall and referred to a Director’s report dated December 3, 2007.  Director Hasenin stated that this was not an item on the agenda.  Mr. McMullen stated that he would speak on Item #4.

Captain Tom Harvey of the SFFD said that he was on vacation and speaking on his own behalf, but said that he had worked with DBI since 1991 when it was still the Bureau of Building Inspection.   Captain Harvey stated that at that time the Fire Marshall was Richard Condon and the Superintendent of then BBI was Larry Litchfield and said that the two departments had a great working relationship.  Captain Harvey said that there was a document dated December 3, 2007 that spoke to consolidation of all of the Fire Department’s employees, revenues, construction plan review and construction inspection being under DBI and Director Hasenin.  Captain Harvey said that the communication of this was not done very well to the current Fire Marshall.  Captain Harvey said that he thought that it would be much better if this issue were up front and out there and not to have the Fire Department find out about this report after the fact.  Captain Harvey stated that the Fire Department was trying to work with everybody and said that he had heard the “silo” mentality being mentioned that people were afraid of change and responsibility and said that the Fire Department has never been afraid of any change or responsibility that they felt they owned or that was requested from the Department of Building Inspection.  Captain Harvey said that having the two departments work together assures the balance of fire and life safety issues and said that the Fire Department has spoken up in the past to make decisions for DBI whether those issues were politically or business oriented and SFFD were always supportive of DBI.  Captain Harvey closed by saying that the SFFD was supportive of the BPR, but said that most important any changes had to be up front and honest.

Mr. John Darmanin said that he was assigned to the Bureau of Fire Prevention working at DBI on behalf of the Fire Department at DBI, but said that he was speaking on his own behalf.  Mr. Darmanin said that he was speaking on items c and f of the Director’s report.  Mr. Darmanin stated that he was concerned that there was not a greater reflection of employees in the survey and said that he had not been asked to participate but would like to do so in the future.  Mr. Darmanin said that it is often hard for a new employee, or any employee to be critical for fear of retribution.  Mr. Darmanin stated that San Francisco is a strong union town and said that employees stand up for their rights and as participants in the process. Mr. Darmanin said that the Fire Department has a similar focus to DBI when reviewing plans and doing inspections, but their focus is somewhat refined in that the SFFD is focused on life safety and on the safety of these buildings when firemen and women respond to emergencies and have to go into these buildings; along with rescue the Fire Department is concerned about saving properties.  Mr. Darmanin said that he hoped that the interdepartmental cooperation and communication between DBI and all City agencies, especially the Fire Department, is strengthened in the future.

4.

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

Mr. James McMullen said that his concern was the transferring of functions from the San Francisco Fire Department to the Department of Building Inspection and said that the California Legislature in Section 13145 and 13146 clearly states that at the local level the local Fire Marshall’s regulations, under the Fire Chief, shall be enforced by the Fire Department.  Mr. McMullen stated that in 1986 he had asked the Attorney General’s opinion on these sections and the finding was that the Local Fire Chief shall enforce regulations with his/her staff and said that the law clearly states that this is the responsibility of the State Fire Marshall.

 

Mr. Brendan O’Leary stated that he was the Director of Local 795 the Fire Fighter’s Union, and a Captain assigned to the Bureau of Fire Prevention.  Captain O’Leary stated that he has been with the Fire Department for 29 years, 18 of those with the Fire Prevention Investigation unit and currently over the high rise Inspectors.  Captain O’Leary expressed his concerns over the reorganization and the umbrella approach stating that there is a diversion of authority between DBI and the SFFD in order to allow for checks and balances to make sure that the Health and Safety Code is adhered to.  Captain O’Leary said that surveys have been taken and a model has been presented, but stated that the Fire Department is the model as 90% of the applications that are reviewed by the Fire Department at DBI are done over the counter in one day so the SFFD has no backlog and is not creating any bottleneck in approving permits.  Captain O’Leary said that the firefighters look at the plans for a building keeping in mind the safety of the occupants, but also bring to the table the concerns for safety for the firefighters that might someday have to enter those buildings in case of a fire or other emergency. Captain O’Leary stated that this plan has been proposed before and said that he, Bill Mitchell the Captain from Plan Check and Lieutenant Joe Cuff the Supervisor of District Inspectors had just returned from spending two days in San Diego and said that the Fire Marshall and the Assistant Fire Marshall in San Diego explained the shortcomings of this plan to them.  Captain O’Leary said that the San Diego Fire Department wanted to bring the program back under the Fire Department as it was not successful.  Captain O’Leary said that this new plan would result in changes to working conditions for Fire personnel and in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration there needs to be more dialogue about where the Fire Department fits into this plan.

 

Mr. John Hanley introduced himself as a Firefighter with Engine #6 in the Castro as well as the President of the Firefighter’s Union.  Mr. Hanley thanked the Commission for the work that they do and thanked Mayor Newsom for coming to meeting to clear the air of any rumors.  Mr. Hanley said that these Firefighters are the best and brightest in the Department because they are dual trained.  Mr. Hanley stated that he was present to remove any speculation that these Firefighters would go to another department as it is clearly illegal by State Law and also said that he had met with the Mayor and Director Hasenin who are both on board with this.  Mr. Hanley said that he wanted to emphasize the value of the Firefighters who are also qualified Building Inspectors as these Firefighters go to training on their off time and to other jurisdictions learning the expertise of building inspection; in addition, in an emergency these Firefighters respond to fires and other emergencies.  Mr. Hanley said that for the cost of these Firefighters/Inspectors the City and County of San Francisco is getting a deal as these employees take a great deal of pride in their work.

 

Mr. Steve Courier, President of the Outer Mission Residents Association said that this issue was discussed at an Ingleside Police meeting with neighbors and said that he was present to let the Commission know that people are uncomfortable with the idea of the Firefighters/Inspectors not being at DBI to do these inspections.  Mr. Courier said that he hoped that the dialogue between the Fire Department and DBI would continue.

 

Mr. John Darmanin said that he wanted to clarify that he and other Firefighters present had no intention of saying that they would be replacing Building Inspectors.  Mr. Darmanin said that Fire personnel are involved in very specific plan reviews and fire inspections as mandated by State law even though there are many areas where responsibilities are overlapping.  Mr. Darmanin stated that there have been past FBI, Grand Jury and other reports where allegations were made that were not totally unfounded and said that he understood why there was so much concern by the Mayor, the Commission, the Department and the public to shake things up in a good way.  Mr. Darmanin said that he commends the Director for his fresh ideas and said that the Fire Department wanted to participate in many of these new ideas, but said that there are limits.  Mr. Darmanin said that the Fire Department plays an important role in fire plan review and inspection and said that these checks and balances are very important.  Mr. Darmanin said that the Fire Department is a big component of DBI’s goals especially when it comes to safety and said that the Fire Department would like to continue to help DBI improve efficient and fair service to San Franciscans.

 

Mr. Mark Hayes introduced himself as a Firefighter with 17 years experience and said that he did not work at DBI, but was present to support those Firefighters who do plan check and inspections. Mr. Hayes said that the Firefighters at DBI do important Code work that translates to safety for those Firefighters that have to go into buildings for a fire or other emergency.  Mr. Hayes stated that a great deal had been said about the law and past practices, but there has to be a little common sense used.  Mr. Hayes said that when a Firefighter out in the field sees a problem they can pick up the phone and call one of their colleagues at DBI and make something happen immediately for the safety of the public and all Firefighters.  Mr. Hayes asked that everyone think long and hard about keeping these Firefighters at DBI.

 

Mr. Dennis Carlin introduced himself as Vice-President of the Building Inspectors Association and said that Inspectors at DBI do not want to take Firefighters jobs, but want to work with the Fire Department and the Director, whom they support, to make changes for a more efficient Department.  Mr. Carlin said that Mr. Hanley stated that the Firefighters were qualified Building Inspectors, but said that he wanted to clarify that the Firefighters are not qualified Building Inspectors, but are qualified Fire Inspectors.  Mr. Carlin stated that the Building Inspectors have had their issues with the Director, but said that the Director has had an open door policy for the Inspectors to talk with him.  Mr. Carlin said that he hoped that cooperation would continue with Electrical, Plumbing, and all divisions within the Department and the Fire Department to make the City more efficient.  Mr. Carlin said that in the past he had been a general contractor so he understands the issues from both sides.  Mr. Carlin said that everyone working at DBI was very professional and competent and dedicated to working with the Code for the safety of the citizens of San Francisco.

 

Mr. Mario Ballard introduced himself as a resident of San Francisco, a retired member of the San Francisco Fire Department after 32 ½ years, 13 of those years having served as the Manager of the Plan Review Division at DBI.  Mr. Ballard stated that he worked for three different Directors and retired shortly before Director Hasenin came on board.  Mr. Ballard said that during the 13 years that he worked at DBI the Fire Department and DBI had a wonderful working relationship and said that the sort of collaboration between the two departments was rarely seen in other jurisdictions.  Mr. Ballard stated that this working relationship was a unique benefit for the citizens of San Francisco and said that as the old saying goes “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

 

5.

Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Department of Building Inspection’s Business Process Reengineering Report (BPR). [Director Hasenin]

Director Hasenin said that this process was taken on a few months ago to look at the nuts and bolts of the processes of the Department to identify areas of improvement, deficiencies, overlapping of work and unnecessary steps.  Director Hasenin stated that the BPR took six months and said that over 200 people participated including DBI staff, the industry, organizations, other departments and customers.  Director Hasenin offered a PowerPoint presentation which explained the BPR Process including:

Director Hasenin said that this process was taken on a few months ago to look at the nuts and bolts of the processes of the Department to identify areas of improvement, deficiencies, overlapping of work and unnecessary steps.  Director Hasenin stated that the BPR took six months and said that over 200 people participated including DBI staff, the industry, organizations, other departments and customers.  Director Hasenin offered a PowerPoint presentation which explained the BPR Process including:

• What is a BPR?
• Steps of the BPR, explaining the acronym “SWOT” for the identification of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats impacting DBI.
• Gathering and analyzing existing data.
• Creating Process flow Mapping: “As-Is” and “To-Be” mapping.
• Developing Recommendations.
• The goals of the BPR.
• Participants including key decision makers from the Mayor’s Office, city departments, and stakeholders from the public.
• Subcommittees that were established and their purpose. Four subcommittees were established:  Plan Review and Permit Issuance; Inspections; Automation; Performance Measures.
• 180 Recommendations are included in the report.
• Key findings of the report by subcommittee.

Director Hasenin thanked DBI who agreed to take on the additional responsibility of chairing and facilitating the BPR initiative, as well as those who participated on the subcommittees.  Director Hasenin gave special thanks to the industry subcommittee co-chairs: John Schlesinger, John O’Connor, Tony Sanchez-Corea and Gabriel Metcalf.  The Director thanked DBI customers, representatives of industry and community groups and other City department staff who took time from their busy schedules to assist DBI in this invaluable endeavor.  Director Hasenin announced that the entire BPR along with a condensed version is available on the DBI government website.

 

President Walker thanked everyone for their participation in this tremendous endeavor.

 

President Walker said that she had a few questions regarding the BPR and said that one of her concerns is that the term discretionary review is used in the BPR and said that this might be somewhat confusing as Planning actually has a process identified as a Discretionary Review for the neighbors.  President Walker asked that the DBI BPR make some distinction between the two. President Walker stated that she would like something included that would help to verify conditions that are stated on applications such as conditional use, slopes, geography, etc.; these items are usually dealt with by outside departments such as Planning, DPW or Fire, but it would be good to have someway to visualize this before permitting occurs.  President Walker asked Director Hasenin if he could speak to changes regarding the terminology of site permits.

 

Director Hasenin said that new automation system would create and place holds or conditions on a permit during the process from other departments as the departments would be able to share information so this would aide in verifying conditions.  Director Hasenin stated the only thing that is being done with site permits is that the Department is eliminating the difference between junior site permits and regular site permits because they are all the same, but the process will remain the same as this has been in practice for a long time and is in the law and the Code.

The Commissioners had concerns, made comments and asked many questions about the BPR including: (Director’s abbreviated responses appear in parenthesis)

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grubb, that the Commission direct the Director to implement the changes outlined in the BPR with the caveat that an implementation plan be presented at the next meeting.  

 

Captain Tom Harvey of the SFFD said that the Fire Department is ready to implement the changes outlined in the BPR as the Fire Department recovers 95 - 100% of its cost for construction inspection and plan review; the Fire Department has increased its staff at DBI by 25%.  Captain Harvey stated that the Fire Department is in favor of the BPR.

 

Mr. Luke O’Brien, President of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG) commended the Director for undertaking this task and for doing it in such a short amount of time. Mr. O’Brien asked the Commission to trust the Director to get the job done and to support the Director in the changes as outlined in the BPR.

 

Mr. Patrick Otellini of ARS and Associates said that he served on one of the BPR committees and said that during the process several controversial issues came up that were referred to as “Parking Lot” issues.  Mr. Otellini asked that after the BPR has been implemented that those who worked on the BPR get together again to discuss and solve some of these important issues.

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of BOMA said that he applauds the process and that BOMA supports this report.

 

Mr. Larry Mazzola Jr. said that he was representing the Plumbers Union Local 38 and said that he supported this report.  Mr. Mazzola stated that Local 38 would support any process that would help the citizens of San Francisco.

 

Ms. Lois Scott of the Professional and Technical Engineers Union Local 21 said the she appreciated that the unions were involved in the process of this BPR.  Ms. Scott stated that the implementation of this report will result in changes in working condition and therefore will have to go through the meet and confer process with the unions.  Ms. Scott spoke about several concerns the union has with the implementation of the BPR and how it will affect its members.  Ms. Scott suggested that there be a Labor Management Committee to work on the implementation and to have an open dialogue between the unions and DBI.

 

Mr. John Keogan said that he wanted to support the motion and to say that this plan would be good for DBI customers.

 

Mr. John Schlesinger said that he was co-chair of one of the subcommittees of the BPR and said that it was an extraordinary experience.  Mr. Schlesinger said that he was happy to see all of the support for this document and said that he looked forward to implementation.

 

Director Hasenin presented Mr. Schlesinger with a certificate of appreciation for all of his work on the BPR.  Director Hasenin also presented a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Sean Keighran of the Residential Builders Association for Mr. John O’Connor who was not able to be present at the meeting. 

 

Mr. Tony Sanchez-Corea said that he appreciated being part of the BPR process which was a very transparent process and allowed for a tremendous flow of information.  Mr. Sanchez-Corea said that the construction standard in San Francisco is probably the best in the United States and said that now he hoped the permitting process would be as well. 

 

Dr. Bhatia of the Department of Environmental Health said that he was in support of the BPR report.  Dr. Bhatia stated that the Department of Environmental Health had a mechanism to recover fees and offered to have someone from his Department at DBI to help with the permitting process when Environmental Health is involved.

 

Mr. Ken Cochrane thanked everyone for having the foresight to move forward with the BPR and said that he felt that San Francisco would now have the best building department in the country.

 

Mr. Angus McCarthy said that today was a very enjoyable day and said that he was looking forward to the changes outlined in the BPR.  Mr. McCarthy said that this could never have happened without the foresight and leadership of the Director.  Mr. McCarthy thanked everyone involved especially the rank and file and the Department and said that this report is not perfect, but it is a start.

 

Mr. Richie Harte of the Residential Builders said that it was incredible that so much work was done in four months.  Mr. Harte said that in the spirit of cooperation he hoped the Commission would adopt the report unanimously so that the process could now move forward.

 

Mr. John Pollard of S.F. Garage Company, 512 and Mercury Engineering said that one of the things that was amazing about this process was the cooperation of all of the different groups, including private industry, the different departments, the stakeholders and staff at DBI.  Mr. Pollard stated that time is money and the process needs to get better for everybody.  Mr. Pollard urged the Commission to support the motion.

 

Mr. Leo Cassidy of the RBA said that there would be a lot of changes as there were 180 suggestions that came out of this BPR.  Mr. Cassidy stated that by doing this BPR in-house the Department saved approximately $3.8M.  Mr. Cassidy thanked everyone involved and said that he supported the motion.

 

Mr. John Darmanin of the SFFD said you get what you pay for and said that this BPR was a good document based on what he had read in just a few minutes.  Mr. Darmanin said that he counted some 14 Fire Department participants in the BPR and said that the BPR was not a consensus document and was certainly not endorsed by all of its participants.  Mr. Darmanin stated that the report did not include any of the oppositions to some of the items and said that some of the controversies were left to the Director and his staff.  Mr. Darmanin said that this was not necessarily a bad thing, but cautioned the Commission to be wary of that.  Mr. Darmanin said that the Fire Department personnel that have spoken are not in fear of losing their jobs because they have someplace else to go, but are present because they are passionate about the role they play in the plan review process. 

 

Mr. Sean Keighran of the RBA said that he was glad to see some common sense in this report.  Mr. Keighran said that the general public wants a simpler process.  Mr. Keighran stated that when he looks at the 180 recommendations he does not see anything new or revolutionary, but sees best practices from other jurisdictions across the United States. 

 

President Walker called for a vote on the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 064-07

The Building Inspection Commission took a break at 11:53 a.m. and reconvened at noon.

 

6.

Discussion and possible action regarding Supervisor Maxwell’s proposed legislation in Clerk of the Board of Supervisors File No. 071009.  Ordinance amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 106.3.2.6 to require implementation of dust control measures for any demolition or construction project that has the potential to create dust and with specific provisions for projects that will expose or disturb soil, with provision for waiver by the Director for construction activities on sites less than one quarter acre that are unlikely to result in any visible windblown dust; amending the San Francisco Health Code by adding Article 22B to require, for projects over one quarter acre, that the project sponsor obtain approval of a dust control plan from the Director of Public Health unless the Director waives these requirements and to charge fees to defray the costs of implementation; adopting findings.

President Walker said that this item was on last month’s agenda, but additional information was requested by some of the Commissioners.

Director Hasenin asked Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield to speak on the issue.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department had been in contact with Dr. Rajiv Bhatia of the Health Department and said that Dr. Bhatia could speak to the issues raised at the last meeting.

Dr. Bhatia said that he was present to address questions raised by the Commission and the public at the last BIC meeting regarding this ordinance.  Dr. Bhatia said that the main point that he wanted to convey was that fugitive dust from construction activity does contribute to human exposure to particular matter and this exposure is strongly associated with mortality, respiratory diseases and lung development in children.  Dr. Bhatia stated that San Francisco is a very dense City and people live where construction is happening; this construction is taking place in close proximity to homes, and schools.  Dr. Bhatia said that many people do not know where to complain about this dust or feel that no action is taken by government agencies.  Dr. Bhatia stated that the downtown area of San Francisco has the worst air quality because of traffic.

Dr. Bhatia gave a brief description of how dust could be controlled and said that most contractors follow best practices.  Dr. Bhatia explained that at present the Planning Department does not typically require the submittal of a dust control plan, but does require developers to submit monthly reports on dust control activities as part of legal requirements for mitigation monitoring.  Dr. Bhatia said that he would argue that this ordinance would lessen the bureaucratic burden on contractors and developers as projects that are under ½ acre should already be doing best practices that are already in effect and the requirements for large projects would be less burdensome.

Dr. Bhatia said that the Health Department would be available to provide any assistance needed by DBI as would Michael Cohen of the Mayor’s Office who sends his support of this ordinance.

ommissioner Murphy said that his suggestion would be to move the threshold of this ordinance from ½ acre to 2 acres.  Dr. Bhatia said that there would not be too many 2 acre sites in San Francisco and said that there have been some flagrant mishandling of dust issues in several projects and talked about a development at 10^th and Market.

Commissioner Sattary asked if the problem at 10^th and Market was because there are no dust regulations or because the current regulations are not enforced.  Dr. Bhatia stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has rules, but does not have the capacity to enforce them as enforcement is complaint based and there is no proactive mechanism.  Dr. Bhatia said that this ordinance would in a very consistent way simplify the CEQA process and said that the rules would apply to small projects, but a small project would not have to have a dust control plan.

Commissioner Murphy asked how many complaints are received by the Building Department regarding dust issues.  President Walker said that DBI currently receives 35-40 complaints per year as outlined in a memo written by Dr. Bhatia. 

President Walker stated that she would support this dust ordinance as she feels that the dust issue is real and this would be a place to start with enforcement. President Walker said that there is a need to focus on how to remediate this.  Dr. Bhatia said that DBI is the strongest hook when it comes to enforcement and said that this ordinance would make developers pay more attention to this serious dust issue. 

Commissioner Sattary said that he could see the benefits in this proposal regarding good practices and the power of enforcement, but asked what the impact would be to reduce particulate matter and what is the cost or cost benefit of this ordinance.  Commissioner Sattary said that the Commission has a responsibility to know how this would affect the resources of the Department.  Commissioner Sattary expressed concern over the public being able to complain about construction through this ordinance and shutting down jobs for no real cause other than being against construction in general.  Commissioner Sattary stated that then an Inspector has to act as a mediator between two feuding parties.  Commissioner Sattary said that to create a Code change in San Francisco he would have to see an ordinance that would have some very concrete reasons for doing so. 

Dr. Bhatia said that he thought that he had significantly explained the health benefit of this ordinance and said that the data on how current dust controls are working does not exist and would be a huge undertaking to determine.  Dr. Bhatia stated that he did not believe that with the current regulations enforcement was workable and is not happening and said that the cost of enforcement of this ordinance would be negligible or zero.

President Walker said that currently there are rules and laws in effect about this and the Department receives complaints about people who do not comply with those laws.  President Walker said that if the developer agreed to this up front when submitting plans she thought that it would reduce complaints.  Dr. Bhatia said that he thought that current complaints are referred to the Air District. 

Vice-President Lee said that he does not believe that the method of enforcement by complaints has never been a good resolution because it causes adversarial relationships and said that he did not see anything different in this legislation than that which is already happening.  Vice-President Lee stated that there would be a cost to DBI, because DBI Inspectors would be responding to these complaints.  Vice-President Lee said that since a developer already has to submit a monthly report to the Planning Department regarding dust control he felt that there already was oversight and asked what happens with these monthly reports.  Dr. Bhatia said that he could not speak for the Planning Department, but said that the Health Department believed that a proactive rule linked to the building permit would increase compliance and decrease the number of complaints.

Commissioner Sattary said that he was in favor of any measure that reduces pollutants in San Francisco, but said that for the small contractor San Francisco already has a reputation for being a difficult place to do any construction.  Commissioner Sattary said for the sake of feeling good about the environment he did not want to support any legislation that has an unknown impact on a major part of the economy that benefits the average person.

Commissioner Grubb said that he wanted to hear how the public or the construction industry feels about this issue.

Commissioner Sattary asked if someone from the Department could explain the process as it exists for complaints regarding dust or noise.

Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield said that the Department has developed a very good working relationship with the construction industry when it comes to complaints of noise or dust.  Mr. Kornfield stated that there are only 30 to 40 complaints about dust received each year and when a complaint does come in an Inspector goes out and talks to the contractor; jobs are not shut down and the department and the contractor work cooperatively so that work can continue.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this legislation is not anticipated to be a burden on the Department as dust control is a very small number of the Department’s complaints. Mr. Kornfield said that there would be costs involved as the Department would have to make pamphlets available to the public about dust control and there would be costs involved in the mandatory report that is being requested.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department does do enforcement regarding dust, but tries to do it in a very cooperative way with the contractor.

Commissioner Romero said that he would support this legislation and said that he thought that ½ an acre is still a very large parcel in San Francisco.

Commissioner Theriault said that he was of mixed opinion about this issue and said that he wanted to hear more comment.

Commissioner Romero made a motion, seconded by President Walker, that the Commission support this legislation. 

President Walker called for public comment.

Mr. Joe Cassidy said that he has been a developer for over 25 years and has demolished hundreds of buildings in San Francisco.  Mr. Cassidy stated that 40 complaints is very minimal and said that the number of buildings on lots over ½ an acre are also very minimal.  Mr. Cassidy said that this legislation came about as a result of problems out at Hunter’s Point which according to Supervisor Maxwell and the BAAQMD are now solved.  Mr. Cassidy said that problems with dust are enforced by the BAAQMD and their fines are substantial.  Mr. Cassidy said that this legislation was purely political and urged the Commission to vote against this motion. 

Ms. Kelton Finney of SFCRG said that SFCRG was not in support of this legislation, but wanted to say that the organization was very concerned about particulate matter.  Ms. Finney said that in listening to the discussion it was clear to her that this issue comes under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD as they are the experts in this area and have been regulating dust control since the early ‘60’s.  Ms. Finney said that this is not an issue or regulation, but is an issue of lack of enforcement.  Ms. Finney said that she thought that this legislation was well intentioned, but not well written.  Ms. Finney urged the Commission to send this legislation back to the Board of Supervisors and to not support it.

Mr. Luke O’Brien, President of SFCRG said that he was opposed to this legislation as it was currently drafted and said that it would have been helpful if members of the construction industry had been involved in writing this legislation.  Mr. O’Brien said that changing Codes has huge implications and costs and could result in the abuse of Code enforcement rules.  Mr. O’Brien asked the Commission to enforce the existing rules and to not support this legislation.

Mr. John Keogan said that this legislation was well intentioned, but was not written with common sense.  Mr. Keogan stated that there are existing ordinances that address these issues and urged the Commission to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Simon Quan, an architect and member of SFCRG said that the method of enforcement in this legislation is irrelevant and asked that the Commission not support this legislation.

Mr. John Pollard of the San Francisco Garage Company, 512, and Mercury engineering said that enough scientific study had not been done for this legislation and that it should not be under the jurisdiction of DBI.  Mr. Pollard stated that he has always used Granite Construction for any demolition work and has never had a problem.  Mr. Pollard said that he believed that eventually this legislation would hurt the non-profits and small homeowners and asked that the BIC not support this legislation.

Mr. Leo Cassidy said that the BAAQMD people have been doing a good job for over 50 years and that this issue should be under their jurisdiction, not DBI.  Mr. Cassidy stated that this legislation would create further grid lock in building and asked that the Commission not support the legislation.

Mr. Ritchie Harte said that the BPR had been a great example of what can be done through cooperation.  Mr. Harte stated that the BAAQMD people should be present along with PG&E and the PUC to discuss this matter.  Mr. Harte asked that no hasty decision be made and that the BIC not support this legislation.

Mr. Sean Keighran of the RBA asked why the small contractor was being picked on and why issues such as barbeques, fireplaces, the airport and restaurant exhaust fumes were not being discussed.  Mr. Keighran said that this all started because of a problem with Lennar out at Hunter’s Point and has now become a political ploy.   Mr. Keighran asked that the Commission not support this legislation.

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia clarified some of the questions raised by the public and said that he did understand the process as he had built his own house.  Dr. Bhatia said that he had heard a lot of passion in the public comment, but no facts as this legislation is not politically or guilt driven, but said that this process was started long before the Lennar problem by the Asthma taskforce.  Dr. Bhatia said that this legislation is not dealing with hazardous materials as there are other enforcement procedures for those.  Dr. Bhatia stated that Lennar’s permit at Hunter’s Point was not suspended as Lennar was making reasonable adjustments to remedy the problem.  Dr. Bhatia said that no one from the BAAQMD was present at the meeting, but said that a letter had been sent to the Commission supporting this legislation.  Dr. Bhatia stated that he did not think that this legislation would add to complaints or to the cost of doing business for DBI.

Commissioner Theriault said that he had heard a general acceptance of the BAAQMD regulations and asked if there was anything that would preclude DBI from enforcing the BAAQMD regulations.  Commissioner Theriault also asked the City Attorney if these new regulations would provide relief from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations on dust mitigation.  Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that DBI has no ability, nor does any other agency have the ability, to enforce State regulations unless those are adopted or turned into a mitigation requirement on projects.  Mr. Malamut said that this does not have to necessarily be done by legislation approval as it could be imposed as a project condition, or through CEQA mitigation measures for projects that are reviewed under CEQA; the legislative tie is not necessarily the way to go, but there needs to be some City adoption action to impose those requirements.  Mr. Malamut stated that in terms of providing relief there is a “quirk” under the CEQA law that if there are specific regulations and laws in effect governing various procedures to address situations such as hazardous materials or other type things that those measures do not need to be imposed as a CEQA mitigation when a project is going through the CEQA Environmental Review process as they are simply legal requirements that a project must comply with.  Mr. Malamut said that there are likely many small projects that only need to address issues such as dust and there would have to be a more lengthy and thorough environmental review process to address the dust issue from a CEQA standpoint to impose mitigation.  Mr. Malamut said that if there was an adopted piece of legislation the CEQA process would be simplified by simply referring to the legislation; an example would be the legislation for the handling and treatment of hazardous materials.

President Walker called for additional comments.  There were none.

Secretary Aherne said that Commissioner Romero made a motion, seconded by President Walker, to adopt this legislation.

The Commissioners voted:

 

The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 3.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 065-07

Commissioner Grubb said that originally he was in favor of this legislation, but after hearing the testimony it seemed to him that a State body is not doing its job and for DBI to have to take over this responsibility, especially with the budget constraints, would not be prudent.

Commissioner Sattary said that he did not intend to appear to oppose the improvement of air quality and asked that the Director have the Department supply as much information and guideline as possible to contractors about best construction practices for air quality.

Commissioner Murphy said that he wanted to congratulate the Commission for using common sense.

7.

Review and approval of the minutes of the September 19, 2007 meeting.

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by President Walker, that the minutes be approved.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 066-07

8.

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.

President Walker said that she would like the following to be on a future agenda of the BIC:

• Discussion about reevaluating fees.
• Update on any changed policies in the Housing Division particularly concerning complaint versus routine inspections.
• Update on the deck inspection projects and how it is progressing from the Housing Division.

Secretary Aherne said that the budget would be on the January agenda and that the BIC might have to hold some special meetings to deal with the budget.  Secretary Aherne stated that Commissioner Grubb had been asking for an item to be agendized about the Litigation Committee and said that it would have to be in February as Commissioner Grubb was not going to be present for the January meeting.  President Walker said that she wanted to have an update in February for all of the different committees of the BIC.

 

9.

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.

 

Adjournment.

 

Commissioner Sattary made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grubb that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously. 

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 067-07 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:18 p.m.

                                                  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary  

Update on any changed policies in the Housing Division particularly concerning complaint versus routine inspections. – President Walker

Update on the deck inspection projects and how it is progressing from the Housing Division. – President Walker