Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, October 18, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
ADOPTED November 1, 2000
MINUTES
In the absence of President Fillon Vice-President Hood called the meeting of the Building Inspection Commission to order at 2:00 p.m.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alfonso Fillon, President, excused
Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Mark Sanchez, Commissioner, excused
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner
Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner
Esther Marks, Commissioner
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
Amy Lee, Assistant Director, excused
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Ann Aherne, Secretary
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:
Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney
2. President’s Announcements.
Vice-President Hood reported that she had no announcements.
Director Chiu had left the meeting room for a few moments and Vice-President Hood proceeded to Item #4 awaiting his return.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that during the appeals process Mr. Kevin Dill had come forward and spoke about 2135 Greenwich. Ms. Vaughey said that this is the same developer that built the penthouse at 2844 Greenwich on Christmas Day last year. Ms. Vaughey stated that she had already written a report on 2844 Greenwich. Ms. Vaughey said that on May 5th, the Planning Commission told the developer he had to tear down the penthouse and that he could not apply for permits until the Bureau of Building Inspection signed it off. Ms.
Vaughey said that in the meantime the developer has applied for and received seven permits. Ms. Vaughey said that one of the permits is for expansion to the same building. However, the roof is still not repaired and there was a Planning commission hearing regarding this on November 2nd . Vice-President Hood asked if the penthouse has been removed. Ms. Vaughey said that the walls have been removed, but the roof has not been put back to its original condition. Ms. Vaughey said that she just wanted the Commission to know that this guy is blatantly slapping the Building Inspection Department in the face with both of these cases. Ms. Vaughey said that Tina Huie and Bob Noelke have been denied access to the 2135 Greenwich Street location for the last two and one-half months to do an inspection. Ms. Vaughey said that it took the Planning Department three and one-half weeks to go up and inspect the 2844 Greenwich Street property and the developer has an excuse a day. Ms. Vaughey said that this is not right for the Department, it is a waste of time and Ms. Vaughey stated that she wanted the Commission to know that both of these cases are inter-related. Ms. Vaughey thanked the Commission.
Vice-President Hood asked Deputy Director Wong to look into the situation and said that she would also refer this to Director Chiu. Vice-President Hood said that because of the continuing problems with this developer, she would like this item agendized. Vice-President Hood asked Deputy City Attorney Boyajian if the Department is continuously denied access to a property, does the Department have the ability to go to a judge to get a warrant to gain access. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the City Attorney would have to go to the court, but the Department would get an Administrative Warrant to allow the Department to search. If the inspectors were still denied access, the Department would get a Forcible Entry Warrant. Vice-President Hood said that she would like the secretary to work with the City Attorney’s office to do that. Commissioner Walker said that since this was not an agendized item, the BIC could not take any action at this time. Vice-President Hood said that the BIC could not take any action, but she could ask for something.
Ms. Vaughey said that she would also like to bring up that this kind of situation dives into the economics of the Department every time this has to be done. Ms. Vaughey said that the Department has to pay out $2,000 to the City Attorney’s Office for these warrants. Ms. Vaughey said that she takes offense to this; the fact that someone has forced the Department to shell out money to get their own inspectors into a property. Ms. Vaughey said that she doesn’t think this is right. Commissioner Walker asked if the address were 2844 Greenwich. Ms. Vaughey said that 2135 Greenwich is the property where they have denied the Housing Department access. The Building Department is also involved because the backyard has been built into. Commissioner Walker asked if it were 2135 to 2139 and Ms. Vaughey said that it is the whole lot, the front and back sides.
Ms. Vaughey said that she had another case that the Commissioners would be receiving a copy of on Friday. Ms. Vaughey said that she would like the Commission to take a look at it. Ms. Vaughey said it was a case that she mediated between four neighbors who disliked each other intensely and it took the architect and she three months to get mediation on what would go on this lot. Ms. Vaughey said that right after the mediation was signed off the contractor came in and bulldozed the two historical buildings without permits and without signoffs from the Department to even start the work. Ms. Vaughey said that she thinks this is an egregious case. Ms. Vaughey stated that the complaints and everything would be coming in on Friday and all of the Commissioners would see the information at one time.
Vice-President Hood said that she would also like to have a report on the permits that have been issued for the other property while the Planning Department had a hold on it. Vice-President Hood said she would like a history of what has happened.
Vice-President Hood asked if there were any other members of the public who wished to speak. There were none and Vice-President Hood stated that since Director Chiu was present the Commission would return to Item #3.
3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]
Director Chiu apologized for being outside when the meeting began.
a. Update on I.C.B.O. training/certification for Housing Inspectors.
Director Chiu said that the purpose of Item #3a was to follow up on Commissioner Roy Guinnane’s inquiry into additional training and certification of the Housing Inspectors. Director Chiu said that recently he was made aware that I.C.B.O. does have a new Housing & Property Maintenance Inspector’s Certification Program. Director Chiu stated that in the past, all I.C.B.O. had certification for was Plan Examiners, Building Inspectors, and Electrical and Plumbing Inspectors; all of the other trades, but not Housing and Property Maintenance. Director Chiu said that he briefly looked at this Certification Program.. Director Chiu said that he believes that this is something the Housing Inspectors need to obtain. Director Chiu said that just like with any certification program, normally what the Department does is bring in a consultant or instructor to train on the Codes or how to prepare ourselves to be certified and then implement this plan and make it part of the requirements for future Housing Inspectors within a year. Director Chiu said that under State Law, all inspectors or plan checkers, including himself, are supposed to have obtained a certification within one year after employment with the City. Director Chiu said that he would recommend that DBI pursue this certification for the Housing Inspectors. Director Chiu stated that all other inspectors are certified or in the process of getting themselves certified. Director Chiu said that this is just one step, but said he understood that one of Commissioner Guinnane’s concerns was to provide more technical training for Housing Inspectors. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to work with Lesley Stansfield and Commissioner Guinnane to determine what kind of training is needed for the Housing Inspectors.
Commissioner Guinnane said that regarding Housing Inspectors that are going to be hired in the future, why couldn’t they be hired under the same criteria as Building Inspectors are hired, the same qualifications. Commissioner Guinnane said that the existing Housing Inspectors should take the courses. Commissioner Guinnane said that there are two sets of standards for coming on board with the Department and why not have just one, as it is the same salary and the same function. Director Chiu said that Civil Service has actual control over the MQ (minimum qualifications) and what not. Director Chiu said that this does not mean that the Department does not have any input, but for the last few job announcements, the Department has been trying very hard to bring the Housing Inspectors qualifications to par with the rest of the inspectors. Director Chiu said that the way the MQ is now written, it does allow for two years of inspection experience to qualify as a Housing Inspector. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Guinnane had previously asked why health inspectors are being qualified. Director Chiu said that this is something that the Department needs to work on with Human Resources to demonstrate that the Housing Inspectors job and duties have changed, and the Department needs more technical people. Director Chiu said that working with DHR does take time and in working with DHR for the past six or seven years, today’s MQ is much more stringent than in the past. For example, seven or eight years ago the Department would allow someone to be able to compete for the position merely with a certification of an inspector with no previous technical experience. Director Chiu said that today this is no longer permitted. Director Chiu said that he agrees that the Department needs to continue to push hard to bring the Housing Inspectors into par with the other inspectors. However, the nature and the business of a Housing Inspector, their major responsibility is to look at maintenance issues. Director Chiu said he knows sometimes the Housing Inspectors issues overlap into other areas and this is something that the Department needs to continue to work on with the Commission. Director Chiu stated that if the Department cannot work with DHR, then maybe it is time to go to the Civil Service Commission to push harder at that end as well. Commissioner Guinnane asked how long this process was going to take to actually get accomplished. Commissioner Guinnane said he has been on this issue for the past eight months. Director Chiu said that certification is the first step and this is something ready to be implemented. Director Chiu said that for future Housing Inspectors it is time to start talking to DHR people and start negotiating with them to target date this for future recruitment. Director Chiu said that DHR should look into the Department’s recommendations.
Vice-President Hood said that the incident that led to Commissioner Guinnane’s request was when a Housing Inspector had been out to a property and looked at wood rot and had misidentified what the condition was. Vice-President Hood said that Housing Inspectors go to a property to look for housing code violations, but because they are there, they also look for other code violations and there is a gray area between the two. Vice-President Hood said that people who have had construction experience end up seeing a lot more than those inspectors who have not. Vice-President Hood said that some sort of field experience should be included in the requirements or training that involves being out in the field and seeing these different conditions. Vice-President Hood stated that she did not know who would provide that, but it might be that some of the people who are Building Inspectors, who are from a building background, might be good teachers of this information. Vice-President Hood said that anything that could be done to get the construction aspects of it where people really know about the code would be very helpful. Commissioner Walker asked if this could be agendized so that the Commission could talk about it in terms of scheduling, so that it does get implemented. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission could talk about it right now and make any suggestions to Director Chiu. However, Vice-President Hood said that it could be listed as an action item so that it does get done. Commissioner Walker said that she agreed with Commissioner Guinnane that it would be great if there were some sort of roll out schedule so that the Commission could know when this was going to happen, and not be frustrated about the training. Commissioner Walker said that she felt the certification should have field experience in it and there should be some training so that inspectors know what they are looking at if they don’t have a technical or construction background. Commissioner Walker said she agrees and she would like to see some sort of schedule. Vice-President Hood said that in the past she worked with Director Chiu on a MQ or a job description and it is like pulling teeth over at HRC. Vice-President Hood said it like it is carved in granite and the amount of documentation that is needed to change something is very cumbersome. Commissioner Walker said that maybe the information could be sent along with a vote of the Commission if there is something on the agenda, sort of a timetable, to show Commission support to expedite the process. Vice-President said that perhaps Director Chiu could make a list of the timelines and the impediments to getting something done and then the Commission could talk about how to deal with it. This should be agendized with possible action. Director Chiu said that he would recommend that he bring a draft of an ideal MQ for Housing Inspectors for future recruitment. Director Chiu said he could start that along with implementing the training for certification. Director Chiu said that a draft of the MQ and a training schedule could be forwarded to DHR strongly stating that the Department wants to work with DHR to change the MQ. Director Chiu said that changing an MQ takes review and approval would be needed from the unions and so forth. Commissioner Walker said that if a draft were agendized, then the draft could go to the different unions for input. Vice-President Hood said that requiring stiffer qualifications would justify the Housing Inspector’s salary and she could see how this could be presented to the unions so that it would be favorably received. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to do that. Commissioner Marks asked if there was a discrepancy in salaries between a Building Inspector and a Housing Inspector. Director Chiu said that there is not, but many years ago there was about a 20% difference in salary meaning that Housing Inspectors were paid less. However, they were able to demonstrate that they were not empowered with the other inspectors. Director Chiu said that he would bring a draft of what an ideal MQ would look like to the next meeting. Director Chiu said the Commission could talk about it and he liked the idea of discussing this with the union reps and discussing the pros and cons of the proposal.
Vice-President Hood asked for public comment. There was no public comment.
b. Update on status of 1660 Mission Street building expansion.
Director Chiu said that some of the Commissioners were briefed many months ago about the expansion and saw a floor plan, or schematic drawings, of the proposed annex. Director Chiu said that he wanted to brief the Commission on where the project now stands. Director Chiu stated that the Department actually filed for a permit many months ago, but DBI has to go through Planning Department review. Director Chiu said that if it can be said that plans go quickly through the Planning and Building Departments, this is certainly one of the projects that the Department cannot be proud of. Director Chiu said that the Department had to ask for a variance for on-site parking, but everything else with the Planning and Building codes have been met. Director Chiu said that because on-site parking cannot be provided, the Department was asked to lease additional space a block away from the building. Additionally, during the review process, Planning’s staff or the union have made demands for 14 or 15 items, such as more bicycle racks, open space and shower facilities in the building. Director Chiu said that Planning staff had previously addressed the Commission about their concerns. Director Chiu stated that DBI staff and the Bureau of Architecture
under DPW have worked very hard to address these concerns. Director Chiu said that the Department felt very good about being able to address these concerns except for the on-site
parking. However, as of today the Planning union has filed an appeal and the Zoning Administrator cannot approve the project the way it is proposed. Director Chiu stated that DBI has to wait and see what the decision is going to be regarding the request for variance.
Vice-President Hood said she had a question about the design. Vice-President Hood said that right now the first level of the expansion is occupied by parking. Director Chiu said that was correct. Vice-President Hood said that it seems to her that a number of other spaces could be picked up on the first floor if there was just a single exit out rather than the two exits, one for staff and one for the public. Vice-President Hood said she wondered what the plans were for that ground floor level within the new proposal. Director Chiu said that currently there are about seven spaces on the ground floor open space. Director Chiu said that the idea was to try to keep the existing parking spaces, but lease more spaces elsewhere. Director Chiu said that he did not believe there was any way to improve for additional parking. Vice-President Hood said that she could show the Department how to gain some spaces. Director Chiu said that the Department would be willing to seek input as to how to provide more spaces and maybe, with her help, DBI would not have to go through the Planning Department appeal. Director Chiu said that the current status is that the Planning Department union is appealing the project and this has to be dealt with. The Department’s goal had been to break ground by October, which is today. Vice-President Hood asked if the appeal was before the Board of Permit Appeals or before the Planning Commission. Vice-President Hood said if it is before the Board of Permit Appeals she would like the Commissioners notified so that they can come and support the Department.
Ms. Lois Scott introduced herself as being with the union, Planners Chapter of Local 21, Professional and Technical Engineers. Ms. Scott said that she would briefly summarize the appeal and perhaps should give the Commission a copy of the appeal. Ms. Scott said that the union is very concerned with the parking issue. They are concerned with the number of cars that are used by the public that come in, and by the inspectors that have City vehicles. Ms. Scott said she thought there needs to be a very formalized approach as to how those cars should be parked, and scheduling for parking, particularly the City cars. Ms. Scott said there has been a big, big gap over the years in implementing something that was supposed to be a condition of approval for the building, the Transportation System Management Plan. This was to include a shuttle that was to be available to City employees. Ms. Scott stated that she hoped that DBI developed its budget this year to include this item, as it has been required for eight years. Ms. Scott stated that the Planners and others have been very frustrated that service is not available particularly with the extent of development that has gone on around 1660 Mission Street. Ms. Scott said that both Planning and DBI customers are getting frustrated in that they sometimes cannot find a place to park to come into the building to transact business. Vice-President Hood asked if Ms. Scott could get the Commission a copy of the shuttle requirement, as this was the first she had ever heard of it, and it has not been in DBI’s budget proposal. Vice-President Hood said that if it were a requirement for the original occupancy of the building she would like to see it and thinks a shuttle is a great idea. Ms. Scott said that it was a requirement. Vice-President Hood asked if the shuttle would be available to members of the public who wanted to go to 1660 Mission from downtown. Commissioner Walker said it would be from wherever the parking is. Ms. Scott said that originally the whole project was part of a planned unit development and the adjacent building, in which DBI has some leased space, actually has a shuttle and it operates during peak times. The shuttle goes to the major transportation hubs and employees in this adjacent building can sign up for it. Ms. Scott said that she did not know if the shuttle picked up any other persons who were not employees of the building. Ms. Scott said that she often jealously looks at that van going in and out carrying people to Cal-Train and to other points of public transportation. Vice-President Hood asked if Director Chiu could look into this situation and agendize this item for another meeting. Director Chiu said that the Department, at this point, has agreed to all of the conditions that have been imposed. Director Chiu said that this is something that was brought to his attention recently in the process of filing for the new permit application and he was not aware of the previous commitment. Director Chiu said that once the Department was made aware of these concerns, he instructed his staff to incorporate this and go ahead and do it. Commissioner Walker asked if this were part of the plan that is before the Planning Commission. Director Chiu said that this has already been incorporated as one of the items that DBI agreed to do. Vice-President Hood said that there is a shuttle that runs in her building and they do take on other passengers and it is great. Ms. Scott said that other issues have been employee areas and open space and yes, there has been an attempt to create that space, but the Planners union believes that given the pattern that has been around the building, other new buildings, other City buildings, that it is very substandard. Ms. Scott said that this would be developed more during their appeal. Ms. Scott said it is a very tight building and people are working in very crowded conditions. Ms. Scott said that those employees who are not out in the field are hunched over computers for many hours a day in a sealed building and they really think there needs to be consideration of fresh air and some space for employees to get away from their cubicles. Ms. Scott stated that the Planners union would bring further information to the appeal process. Commissioner Walker requested a copy of the appeal.
Ms. Scott said that she understood that the bidding process was being delayed due to the appeal. Director Chiu said that certainly, just like any other project, his understanding is that when somebody initially submits their bid, that contract is only good for a certain time period. As a result of the appeal, there may be a great impact as to whether the contractor who was being awarded the contract, or came in the lowest, will be still interested in doing the job for the same amount of money. This is a great concern for the Department and the last thing DBI wants to do is to resolve these issues and then have to start all over with the bidding process, which would cause another five or six month’s delay. Director Chiu said the Department is behind on its construction schedule, but at the same time realize that these employee’s concerns need to be addressed. Director Chiu said that DBI is working very hard to accomplish this. Commissioner Walker asked if there were meetings scheduled to try and resolve the outstanding issues. Director Chiu said that a couple of meetings have already been held and that the Planners Union had initially filed their wish list and the Department feels that it is doing its best to accomplish all of the items including the open space. Director Chiu said that the proposals may not be to 100% to the staff’s liking, but he felt that the Department had addressed the open space issue as well. Director Chiu said that initially there was no open space provided, but once it was brought to his attention and the attention of Gerald Green, they both met and made a decision that they wanted to do what they can to accomplish and meet all of the demands that have been made by the staff. Director Chiu said that he felt all of the concerns were met. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to go over the demands that were made, and item by item, point out how he felt the Department had accomplished them so that the Commission can be fully informed. Vice-President Hood asked that if when the Secretary distributed copies of the appeal, Director Chiu could attached the item by item response, then if the Commission felt this needed to be agendized they could do so.
c. Update on payment of fine for building code violations - Sainez case.
Director Chiu said he wanted to give the Commission an update as to the actual fine that was levied against the Sainez case. Director Chiu said he was sure the Commission had read in the paper that the owner has actually handed the check to the City. Director Chiu said that according to his staff the total check made out to the City is $967,853. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Roy Guinnane, former Commissioner Jamie Sanbonmatsu and, at the time under the leadership of Vice-President Hood, the Department pushed very hard not to settle the case, but to fight very hard to get as much money as possible. Director Chiu said that with the help of the City Attorney’s Office they did a great job in demonstrating to the judge that the property owner needed to pay for the damage that was done to the tenants. Director Chiu said at that time the settlement amounted to about $750,000, but with a couple of years delay, the added interest now brings the amount up to $967,000. Director Chiu said that as of today, the actual amount that will come to DBI is about $776,000 with $98,000 being paid to the City Attorney’s staff and there is a debate as to who gets to keep the approximate $190,000 in interest that was collected. Director Chiu said that his staff, Taras Madison and Amy Lee will work with the Controller’s Office to try to get as much as possible. Commissioner Guinnane asked why there would be a debate on who gets the interest on the total amount, as the money is due the Department and obviously it should go to the Department. Director Chiu said that he agreed and felt that the Department should keep the entire $967,000, but some of the money will go to professional and business code violations as imposed by the City Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there could be a complete breakdown of the money by the next Commission meeting. Director Chiu said that he would certainly keep the Commission informed, but the good news was that the Department was going to get about $700,000. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to congratulate the City Attorney’s Office, the Department and the Commission who fought so hard for this and it is gratifying that now the City has this money in its hands. Vice-President Hood said that this is such a victory after much persistence. Vice-President Hood said that everyone deserved a pat on the back because it sends a message to those scoff lords out there who repeatedly, in all of their buildings, ignore the Housing Code.
5. Discussion and possible action to reconstitute the BIC Litigation Committee.
[Commissioner Guinnane]
Commissioner Guinnane said that the reason he wanted this item on the calendar was that originally there were three Commissioners on this Committee and now he is the only one left. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he wanted to go back to where the Committee was before when they met with the City Attorney every month or month and one-half to look at all of the cases and see if the cases could be resolved. Vice-President Hood said that this was a fantastic idea as the Committee had been very successful. Vice-President Hood asked if Commissioner Guinnane had thought about whom else he would like to serve on the Committee. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought about Commissioner Rodrigo Santos coming on board with him. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he had talked to Commissioner Santos regarding his schedule and it would work out. Commissioner Guinnane said he did not like being on his own and making ultimate decisions for the Commission. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to be on the Committee if it is a three person Committee. Vice-President Hood said that she would have to talk with the head of the Committee. Commissioner Guinnane said that it would be fine, absolutely.
Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to nominate Commissioner Santos, Commissioner Walker and himself for the Legal Committee.
The motion carried unanimously.
[RESOLUTION NO. BIC-060-00]
There was no public comment on this item.
6. Report on Code Enforcement Incentive Program and Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program. [Lesley Stansfield, Chief Housing Inspector]
Ms. Lesley Stansfield introduced herself as Chief Housing Inspector and Sergio Salvetti as a Senior Housing Inspector. Ms. Stansfield said that she and Mr. Salvetti were invited to attend a meeting by the State Department of Code and Standards for Housing and Community Development because there is legislation that has been passed that was introduced by Lowenthal, who is a Congressman from Southern California, Long Beach. Ms. Stansfield stated that Congressman Lowenthal’s jurisdiction has implemented a Code Enforcement Program and a Community Program that seems to mimic or be based on some of the Code Enforcement Outreach and Code Enforcement Programs that DBI is doing. Ms. Stansfield said that apparently this is working very well in Long Beach and Congressman Lowenthal believes that local jurisdictions should also get an opportunity to expand or initiate programs within their jurisdiction. Ms. Stansfield said that $5M is going to be set up to be distributed in grants. Ms. Stansfield said that there are two programs. One of them is for Code Enforcement itself, it is the Code Enforcement Incentive Program and the second one is the Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program. Ms. Stansfield said that the money would be split approximately equally between the two programs with limits of the lowest amount applied for being $200,000 and the most that can be applied for being $1M on the Code Enforcement Program. On the Community Program it is $200,000 to $450,000. Ms. Stansfield stated that there would be a number of grants given where the local jurisdiction needs to distribute a certain percentage of the money. Ms. Stansfield said that the suggested amounts would be, since it is a three year grant, 75% of the money would be given in the first year with the local jurisdiction contributing 25%. Ms. Stansfield corrected herself saying that it was not 75% of the money, but that the distribution of the money for the program would be 75% from the State, 25% from the local jurisdiction in the first year; 50/ 50 the second year; and the third year it would be 25% of the cost from the State and 75% from the local jurisdiction with the object that the local jurisdiction would be able to carry on and be self sufficient. Vice-President Hood asked if this were something that has already been passed by the State. Ms. Stansfield said that it has already been passed and the applications will be going out probably around November 1st. Vice-President Hood asked if the Commission could get a copy of the legislation and was informed that it was in the Commission package. Commissioner Walker asked if this program ties into the existing Code Enforcement Program or would this be an additional push. Ms. Stansfield said that it would be an additional push. Ms. Stansfield stated that if DBI wanted to apply for this grant, the Department would apply to either expand the existing program or to start some new programs. Commissioner Walker asked if the Department would have to then ask for an increase in the budget to represent the 25% that is needed to participate. Ms. Stansfield said, either that, or there are a lot of different options. This is not in the current budget so the Department would have to come up with the money in some fashion, either redistribution of the current program, or there are a number of different ways of doing it as it is not set in stone. Ms. Stansfield said that the objective was this 75/25, 50/50 and 25/75, but the State said that it is not rigid as far as that is concerned. Ms. Stansfield said that the deciding factor for who would get the grant, based on the proposals, would be made in January. Ms. Stansfield said that she was sure that they would not expect the program to start as soon as the grant was decided. Ms. Stansfield said that there would probably be enough time if the Department wanted to set up a new program to put it in next years budget, if DBI were selected. Commissioner Marks said that from what she read, it looks as if there are matching options, not a set 75/25. Ms. Stansfield said that was what she just said, it is not set. Ms. Stansfield said that was what was conceived initially as the ideal scenario. Ms. Stansfield said it would depend on how it was put on the program and the State would be reviewing all of the different programs from all of the different local jurisdictions to select the one that work best as far as their criteria is concerned. Commissioner Marks said that she could not figure out by reading the information if the money has to be new money, or can it be just a designation in the existing budget. For example, if there is X number of dollars currently used for enforcement, can the money then be designated for one or both of the programs and this would be considered a legitimate matching. Ms. Stansfield said that there is an exemption from certain administrative legislation, which she believes was the portion that says you don’t already have to have the money designated in the budget. Ms. Stansfield said she believed the answer was yes, that you could redesignate some money that is already in the budget to go towards this program. Commissioner Marks asked if this could be money that was actually being used for enforcement. Ms. Stansfield said yes, because it does not necessarily have to be mimicking what you already have or it doesn’t have to be a completely new program, it could be an expansion of an existing program, with elements that the State are interested in using as a model. Ms. Stansfield said that the State wants the selected programs to be a model of the best programs in the State. Commissioner Walker said that the Department could technically take some of the administrative budget money that is already being allocated to Code Enforcement and use it as its contribution. Ms. Stansfield said that if the Commissioners wanted to ask more specific questions about the differences between the two programs, since one is a Community Program, she thought Sergio Salvetti could make a brief presentation on those if the Commission was interested. Ms. Stansfield said that she thought it would be a good idea for the Department to make an application because San Francisco is already one of the more innovative local jurisdictions in the State as far as the Code Enforcement and Community Outreach Programs are concerned. Ms. Stansfield said that it would be great if the Department could get recognition through this grant project. Ms. Stansfield stated that it was also mentioned that this grant would not necessarily be based on need. Since some of the jurisdictions are more economically needy than San Francisco, which would not necessarily exclude San Francisco from being selected.
Senior Inspector Sergio Salvetti said that he wanted to give a few examples of Code Enforcement scenarios that the Department may be able to use these grants for. One would be a FTD expansion to identify taxpayer status for the Code Enforcement taskforces that are now in place. Another would be emergency repair, an emergency displacement program that would be DBI exclusive. Mr. Salvetti said that DBI is often interfacing with BBR and DPW on emergency orders and sometimes there is a snag and things don’t happen as fast as the Department would like in an emergency situation. Mr. Salvetti said that would be a good example to use a code Enforcement Incentive Program for. Commissioner Marks asked what the initials Mr. Salvetti used stood for. Mr. Salvetti said that BBR is the Bureau of Building Repair under the Department of Public Works. Anytime there is a situation where there is an emergency the Department will issue an Emergency Order, then the Department has to go out and execute the order once the Emergency Order is recorded through DPW. Then DPW has to come out and investigate. Mr. Salvetti said that sometimes this takes a lot of time and under emergency conditions it would be beneficial to have an inside taskforce with funds to implement an emergency scenario. The Department could then assume control quickly and get the emergency taken care of more efficiently. Mr. Salvetti said that the Department could also use funds to increase communications with the home office when inspectors are out in the field by having laptops or field computers. Another example of how funds could be used would be to have an in-house City Attorney investigator inside of DBI to help the Department interface with possible scenarios that need to be referred to the City Attorney. There could also be funds used for Planning Department interface. Mr. Salvetti said that was some examples of the Code Enforcement Incentive tools that the Department could use to expedite emergency orders and make DBI more affective with funds for the incentive program.
Mr. Salvetti said that the Pilot Program was geared more toward funds that do not need any matching and would strictly be for an individual or an individual task to help the Department with interfacing with the Community. This could overlap with the types of programs that were mentioned for the other program. Mr. Salvetti said that the Pilot Program does not call for any matching funds. Mr. Salvetti stated that the funds are available and he felt that it would be beneficial to apply for these funds for the City. Commissioner Walker said that she thought it would be good to put together an application. Commissioner Walker asked when the deadline for the application would be. Ms. Stansfield said that she and Mr. Salvetti were involved with getting the draft application in process and submitted some verbal comments to the State about what issues might have been missing from the State’s original draft. Ms. Stansfield said that what the Commission received was a draft of the programs. Ms. Stansfield said that the State will not be mailing out the applications until November and then the proposals will be due a month and one-half after that. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to encourage the staff to prepare an application that the Commission can review, at some point on the agenda after the Department receives it. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to see how this would augment what the Department is already doing in that application. Vice-President Hood said that the way this item is agendized, the Commission couldn’t vote on any action. Vice-President Hood said that she thought that this is a wonderful opportunity to deal with the egregious scofflaws who have a number of buildings and don’t maintain them and have repeated violations. Vice-President Hood said would like
some creative thinking from everyone as to how to deal with this and use this program to get a more creative approach to this issue. Vice-President Hood stated that one of the things she has been struck by is how much publicity changes how someone may feel about fixing their property up. Vice-President Hood said for example, if there was a readily available website where you could go and once someone had enough violations, they would get on that website. Vice-President Hood said that if someone were thinking of selling that property or doing something like that, this website would be updated. Vice-President Hood said she did not know how this would be sorted, as she was sure there are issues that are froth with peril at the City Attorney’s Office, as far as publicizing this kind of thing. Vice-President Hood said she recently saw something like this for restaurants. For years, restaurants with code violations would be buried somewhere in fine print in the newspapers and there was no way that anyone who was making a reservation could check them out. Vice-President Hood said that now there is going to be a new website where all of the restaurants are listed and the public can look up restaurant and see how many Health Department violations are against them. Vice-President Hood said that this is something that will give people an added incentive to respect the Department’s efforts to make the Code work better, and this is what she wanted the Commission and the Department to think creatively about.
There was no public comment.
7. Update on the status of Management Information Systems (MIS) related issues. [Marcus Armstrong, MIS Manager]
Marcus Armstrong introduced himself as the Manager of Information Services for the Department of Building Inspection. Mr. Armstrong stated that Director Chiu asked him to come to the meeting to give the Commission an update on the latest happenings in the MIS Division at DBI. Mr. Armstrong said that he was going to open with some of the uglies that the Department has experienced recently. Mr. Armstrong said he would like to put all of those out on the table. Recently, the Department has experienced some e-mail communication problems that lasted intermittently for about two weeks. Mr. Armstrong said that troubleshooting that particular problem was quite difficult because the way the e-mail system is structured, there is connectivity to DTIS and their e-mail system for external e-mail or Internet mail, and then DBI has its own internal system. Within the internal system, in the past year and one-half there has been one down day. However, from the external system, or gaining access to e-mail through the Internet there has been roughly, over a year’s period of time, about three weeks of problems where the Department was down for portions of the day, or did not get transmissions until the next day. Mr. Armstrong said that the result was that mail sent today was not received into the mailboxes until the following day. Mr. Armstrong said that part of this problem is because DBI and DTIS are on different systems. DTIS maintains the old cc-mail system and DBI has moved forward to the new MicroSoft Exchange System. Mr. Armstrong stated that those systems talk to each other and are backwards compatible and it works until someone on one end tries to upgrade and does not make a phone call to the other group, to let them know that they need to make changes on their end. Mr. Armstrong said that when this happens, it is only a bunch of phone tags to get things in place. Mr. Armstrong said that it turned out that DBI’s problem was the simple synchronization of a password. Mr. Armstrong said that this problem was resolved two weeks later.
Mr. Armstrong said that another thing he would have to admit to as being his fault, is that since most of his information technology comes from the private sector, in building the network that he set out to build about a year and one-half ago, he overbuilt it. Mr. Armstrong said that this network is actually built to serve a Department ten to fifteen times DBI’s size and with that there is a manageability problem. Mr. Armstrong stated that it is hard to maintain staff that can manage a network, and he ends up managing the network because he is familiar with those systems. The Department has to sometimes outsource the pros to come in and augment his skill set. Mr. Armstrong said he apologized up front for overbuilding the network. However, the Department is up, running and stable in that sense, but as far as staff getting a handle on it and feeling comfortable with taking on the controls, the Department is still going through some knowledge transfer and ramping up to be on auto pilot.
Mr. Armstrong said that he was going to talk about the good things. Mr. Armstrong stated that some of the things his Department has been working on for some time, now that DBI has moved off of those nasty systems like Motorola, has been to develop a dream machine where a stable platform can be built to go into Managerial Reports. Mr. Armstrong said that now the Department can get detailed Managerial Reports unlike the stagnant twenty-six reports that could be retrieved from Motorola. Mr. Armstrong said that now DBI could provide for any reporting, of any variable, that is captured within the system. Mr. Armstrong said that his staff is very comfortable with that and those reports are pretty easily generated. Mr. Armstrong said those are moving forward and in fact the Department is doing out of scope managerial reports, meaning the managerial reports that DBI set out to do in the first design, or initial model, are now complete and working. Mr. Armstrong stated that the Managers are happy with these reports and now the staff is working with new development. Mr. Armstrong said that some people are spoiled so now they are dreaming up new reports and this is very time consuming.
Mr. Armstrong said that based on negotiations on the front end with Intel who is providing the switch fabric or the backbone, which is where the computers are plugged into, one of the things that was negotiated with Intel was to have a Technology Assurance Program. Mr. Armstrong explained that this means if Intel were to come out in a specified period of time with new equipment that fits DBI’s solutions, that is faster and better than what was originally bought, they would then provide for it at no charge for installation of that equipment. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI would be finishing a redesign of the network, simplifying it from his initial design and it has been scaled down to a network of about fifteen hundred people. Mr. Armstrong said that Intel would be assisting with that project and that is coming up within the next month and one-half.
Mr. Armstrong said that another goody that the Department has is the on-line permit program that was discussed some time ago. That is still in process. Mr. Armstrong said that the Citywide e-commerce solution is going forward and he is working with Bay Area Interactive and the City Treasurer’s Office. Mr. Armstrong said that the Department has made some great progress. The Department has a beta model that is in production at present, being tested with a small group of contractors in the electrical and plumbing industries. Mr. Armstrong stated that the Department is near completion of the Building Permit module, a simple non-discretionary building permit, to be able to provide that online. Mr. Armstrong said that the online permitting module is going to include the ability to download applications and some other inquiries regarding complaints and status of permits. Mr. Armstrong said that those things are moving forward and so far the testing of those modules has been pretty successful.
Mr. Armstrong said that the Oracle Systems that have been put in place are forever growing. Mr. Armstrong said that and as he mentioned before, now that the Managerial Reports are in place and the Managers are happy with them, certain managers are asking for new reports. Mr. Armstrong said that there are new developments with Housing that are taking place daily and that the Department has already started to develop a new lead module into the PTIS System. Mr. Armstrong said that the Department is moving forward to remove the rogue databases, that being electrical and plumbing, and Records Management Division into the PTIS system so everyone can validate off the same control points. Those control points are being addresses, which is based on the Assessor’s information and also complaints.
Vice-President Hood said that previously it had been discussed that since now the Department will have permits that are digitally drawn, there is the opportunity to have these things delivered digitally and be stored. Vice-President Hood said that when people want to bring up these digital drawings they are as clear as if they were freshly minted. Vice-President Hood said that there is the opportunity to save customers the burden of carrying around big drawings through the building and microfilming them. Vice-President Hood said she wondered if when DBI switches to a more central form, would the system for the fifteen hundred employees be able to handle electronic drawings. Mr. Armstrong answered that simplifying the network would not hinder speed, performance or any of the Department’s productivity. It would actually increase it and it will mainly increase the productivity of MIS staff to handle and manage that network. Mr. Armstrong said that the bandwidth is great and video can be run to the desktops so pushing down digitized drawings is not an issue in either design of the networks, either the overbuilt design or the simplified proposed design. Mr. Armstrong said his concern was jumping into that "Ferrari" until all of the kinks are worked out. Mr. Armstrong said, not necessarily all of the kinks, but until the Department is at a point to move forward comfortably to incorporate that type of system into the flow. Mr. Armstrong stated that he thought DBI needs to apply a real sound strategy. Mr. Armstrong said that it is one thing to provide some quality to our services by adding technology to it, but the back office administration of some of the work flow process is what is lacking, so it is a people issue. Mr. Armstrong said that managing a new flow for people who were very used to doing a certain process with Motorola and when new systems came on board, there was some resistance and it is very hard to break people onto a different path. Mr. Armstrong said that although the new path may be more efficient and less time consuming, there is still the issue of back office administration of the systems. Mr. Armstrong said that flow and that process need to take place with more managers being involved than just himself. Mr. Armstrong stated that he could not dictate from MIS that things have to be done a certain way. Mr. Armstrong said that when those systems come on board, and they are being looked at and the technology can be done, the Department should be able to take care of all the new requests without too many problems.
Director Chiu said that just about an hour before the meeting he spoke with a potential developer, as everyday he is looking at new technology for all of these things. Director Chiu said that while the Department is looking into stabilization of the network, he is also looking into all types of possibilities for making the Department more efficient. Director Chiu said that there are three ways to make an application with plans. One is the regular way with paperwork. The other way is that the designer transmits it digitally; the diskette way and now there is a way to send it on the web. Director Chiu said that the Department is looking into all of the possibilities and someone happened to knock on his door and he gave two hours of his time listening to the potential of what could be done with the system. Director Chiu said that all of the things that Vice-President Hood talked about are within the Department’s plans, but the Department does want to stabilize the system and work out all of the bugs. Director Chiu said that it is just a matter of time before DBI can implement all of these options. Vice-President Hood said that she understood the problems and it seems easy to the lay person, but the more knowledgeable a person is, the more difficult the solutions. Mr. Armstrong said that from a systems standpoint, it is very straightforward for what it takes to implement this type of technology. Mr. Armstrong said he did not want to beat to death the issue of stabilization because he believes the Department has accomplished that, but there is also going to be a change with simplifying the network which is going to require some looking at, to make sure that new system is stable and there are no problems. Mr. Armstrong stated that there are issues with the Oracle servers where he would like to get all of the applications, or all of the databases, rogue databases, into one place having a central point of backup, a central point of administration and a central point of failure. Mr. Armstrong said that there is a failure server set up and a disaster recover. Mr. Armstrong said at least if something is broke, staff will know where to look. Mr. Armstrong said that those things need to be looked at and the Department should not go crazy into the dream machine until it is very comfortable with what exists. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI is getting the reporting that is needed and that new reporting has been developed. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI has been able to incorporate road modules and able to develop new modules. The backbone that the Department is sitting on is very strong and the issue is to make it more stable and manageable for staff. Mr. Armstrong said that the Department has also discussed the projects that MIS has in front of them this fiscal year and those are pretty big projects. One of them is the online project and it would be good to get through those things before DBI gets to new systems and the Department has to take a look at the overall work flow.
Vice-President Hood thanked Mr. Armstrong for the very helpful report and said the Commission is looking forward to being kept informed as to the new developments in the system. Vice-President Hood said she hoped all of things being talked about would soon become a reality. Mr. Armstrong stated that staff and management have become spoiled because everyone remembers the old system when the Department was down between four and six hours per day, every day and now there is an outstanding uptime. Mr. Armstrong said that some times the system is down, but the Department can still take in money and issue permits and this is light years ahead of what DBI had before. Vice-President Hood said she appreciated the work that was being done.
Vice-President Hood asked for public comment.
Ms. Barbara Kugay stated that she had used the Motorola System as a Plan Checker and said she would like to commend Marcus Armstrong on the new system, as it is great stuff. Ms. Kugay said that now as a member of the public she would like to bring a matter to the attention of MIS. Ms. Kugay said that when a member of the public needs to develop a report of permit applications, it is necessary to go to several screens to print the information needed. Ms. Kugay said that the public has to go to one page to see when the application was filed and another to gain other information. Ms. Kugay said that she would like to request that the Department work on getting all of the information for an application on one page. Ms. Kugay said that City Planning has a much easier module and she was asking if it were possible to create similar reports on Oracle for DBI where all of the information on a property can be on one page. Mr. Armstrong thanked Barbara for her kind words about his staff and said that he liked this kind of a complaint. Mr. Armstrong said that the information Ms. Kugay is requesting has been captured and this was part of the big hurdle that the Department went through during the conversion, making sure that all of the information was converted. Mr. Armstrong said that this is something that is being worked on and these are the kinds of complaints he wants to hear. Mr. Armstrong said he wants to hear complaints about the public wanting to change the color of the screen from to purple from the color that it is. Those things mean that the Department has gotten over the functional, problematic bugs that were being dealt with, and these are the kinds of things he likes to address. Mr. Armstrong stated that one of the things that has been looked at with the particular report that Ms. Kugay spoke about was that right now the report would have to be printed on an 11" x 17" sheet of paper and DBI did not want to go there. Mr. Armstrong said that this is in the works and DBI is working on public reports. Mr. Armstrong said that right now the Department is providing only basic screen prints. Both Vice-President Hood and Commissioner Walker stated that they hoped a solution to this problem was a priority. Mr. Armstrong said that it is a priority, but there are other things that have to be looked after problematically and one of the items is that there is not a ton of Oracle programmers on staff. Mr. Armstrong said that the Department has to work out the functional program bugs. Again Mr. Armstrong said that he is happy to hear things kinds of requests, where it is a simple issue of a report or the changing of buttons. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Armstrong for an estimate of time as to when this could be accomplished, as this is one of those outreach programs to the public. Commissioner Walker said that the public needs to know how good MIS is and it is important that the public get that one piece of paper with all of the information about a property; all of the other stuff does not matter to the public. Mr. Armstrong said he was reluctant to give a time frame due to the fact that he has to coordinate
with his developers and he does not like speaking for them until he knows their schedules. Commissioner Walker asked if by the next meeting the Commission could have some sort of timeframe. Mr. Armstrong said that he would provide that information for the next meeting. Mr. Armstrong stated that the new permit form has already moved to a single form; there is no longer a multiple part impact form as the printing has been moved to a single form, front and back. Mr. Armstrong said he forgot the impact of savings on doing that, but the cost of the toner to print that permit is also a savings. Mr. Armstrong said the Department is moving more toward single forms and goals that were discussed in the past, and the same information technology can be applied to the public reports. Mr. Armstrong said those are the type of concerns he is glad to hear about.
There was no further public comment.
8. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.
a. Letter from Mr. Don C. Conley to Director Chiu regarding 759 - 37th Avenue.
b. Letter to Ms. Lisa Bass from Director Chiu regarding 39 Boardman Place, #205.
c. Letter to Ben Greene, Manager of Commercial Plan Check from Director Chiu regarding Over the Counter approval for commercial permits.
d. Memo from Taras Madison, Manager Administration & Finance to Director Chiu regarding City Attorney Billing for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Fourth Quarter and FY 1999-2000 Enforcement Litigation Revenue.
e. Letter of commendation received from the public regarding DBI employee and Director Chiu’s letter of response to the public.
f. DBI Newsletter.
Vice-President Hood said that all of the communication items have been available to the Commissioners and there are copies available to the public. Vice-President Hood said that unless there are items that the Commission or the public want to address, these items are just informational and the Commission could move on. Several of the Commissioners said that they wanted to discuss some of the items.
Vice-President Hood proceeded to read item 8a. Commissioner Walker said that she would like Department staff to give some sort of report on this item maybe at the next meeting about what is going on here. Director Chiu said that he could give a brief report as he was made aware of this particular property on October 10th and then he asked for a meeting with members of his staff. Director Chiu said that his understanding was that this project undermined the adjoining property’s foundation and there is an ongoing civil suit between the property owners as to the cost of fixing the problem. Mr. Chiu said that the job had been stopped, and the project sponsor filed for plans to proceed with the work above the ground floor, with the understanding that the undermining of the foundation still needs to be fixed. Director Chiu said that the project sponsor’s insurance company is trying to work out a settlement with the owner of the damaged property. Mr. Chiu said that the owner feels that the work should not proceed until his foundation is fixed. The project sponsor has installed a large beam to carry the load of the bearing wall so that the project can proceed above the damaged foundation. Director Chiu stated that he met with his staff to determine if the Department should allow the project to proceed. Director Chiu said that the Department has asked the project sponsor to give the Department a plan, within seven days, that would assure everyone that the project is safe. Director Chiu said that if it is not safe, the project sponsor has to come up with a plan to make it safe to try and solve this issue. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the documentation, this problem has been going on for over a year. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the only way to put pressure on the project sponsor and the insurance to find a solution to this problem, is to stop the job until the damage that was caused is fixed. Commissioner Guinnane said that is obvious that the applicant caused the damage. Director Chiu said that essentially this is what the Department has done by issuing a correction notice, or NOV yesterday, giving the project sponsor seven days to respond, or else the job will stop. Director Chiu said that this was the intention of his staff, to put pressure on both parties to settle this. Commissioner Guinnane said that the contractor should put up a bond or something to ensure the property owner and State Farm insurance who are concerned about soils movement. Vice-President Hood said in these cases of lot line development the person who is damaged typically goes after the insurance company and the code does not describe the Department’s role in these kinds of matters. Vice-President Hood said that when someone has damaged someone else’s property she is not sure where it is written down that the Department should stop construction. Vice-President Hood said she did not know either of the property owners, but recognized Mr. James Lee as being a former DBI employee. Vice-President Hood said that in her very first project she got into a similar situation, but the insurance companies handled the problem. Vice-President Hood said that perhaps the Department could help move the insurance company along, but typically insurance companies do not want to settle until a lawsuit is filed. Vice-President Hood said she was questioning what the Building Department’s role is in this kind of situation, as the Code just defines what the Department is supposed to do to insure that it is a good building, but it does not say what DBI is supposed to do when somebody damages another persons property. Vice-President Hood said that these seem to be legal issues and not necessarily Building Code issues. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the Building Department has to be concerned about the safety because that is in the Code, but the Department should also consider that by issuing a permit allowing the developer to proceed, the property owner claims that he cannot get to his property to fix the damage. Ms. Boyajian said that there are legal issues, but the Department is responsible for the safety of the building. Vice-President Hood said that she was not sure that was true at all because a property owner has to able to fix his own property. Vice-President Hood said that suppose this building was already there and there was a problem, the owner would have to be able to fix his own property from his own side. Ms. Boyajian said that the property owner could go to court and get an order. Vice-President Hood said that she understood that this is a court matter rather than a Department matter. Ms. Boyajian said that Commissioner Hood had asked for her opinion and she does agree that this is a legal situation, but the Department does have some responsibility. Vice-President Hood said that this seems to be just a temporary fix. Ms. Boyajian said that the Department does need to assess the hazards and it sounds like they have. Commissioner Marks said that it concerns her that it is clear that the work that was done did undermine the foundation of the neighbors and yet the Building Inspectors permitted work to resume. Vice-President Hood said that there is a peculiar law in California that she has dealt with many times and that is that the owner next door is responsible for the first ten feet; in other words the property owner of the building next to the new project is responsible for the first ten feet of support when the excavation occurs next door. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that this is in the Civil Code and is actually repeated in the Building Code. Vice-President Hood said that is why she thinks this is a complicated legal issue. Commissioner Walker said that it still doesn’t address the issue, which is that the work being done was continued. Commissioner Guinnane said that if there is excavation work going on a proper notice has to be given to the neighbor. Commissioner Guinnane asked if proper notice was given to adjoining property owners. Director Chiu said that in fairness to the project sponsor, and in fairness to staff the goal is to resolve this issue and the project has been stalled for over a year. Director Chiu said that staff was allowing the project sponsor to proceed with the upper portion of the project and the ground floor would remain exposed for future remedy work to be done. Director Chiu said that the project sponsor states that they have provided temporary shoring in order to proceed with the project, but Director Chiu said that as of today he has asked the project sponsor to prove to the Department that the temporary shoring is acceptable. Director Chiu said that the Department hoped that this would put more pressure on the project sponsor to seek a solution with the property owner and the insurance company. Commissioner Santiago asked if the project sponsor were going to define that temporary shoring. Director Chiu said that if the project sponsor can show proof that the property is safe, as the Department’s main concern is that there is no danger, than the issue becomes a legal one.
Mr. Don Conley introduced himself as the owner of the property whose foundation was undermined and said he would like to clarify some issues. Mr. Conley said that his attached property is uphill from the property where construction is taking place. Mr. Conley stated that currently there has been no lawsuit filed, but he has retained an attorney who is working with the attorney’s for the insurance company of the property owner next door. Mr. Conley said that they are in negotiations and the insurance company has come up with a couple of bids. Mr. Conley said that he does not feel comfortable with either of the bids that have been submitted. Mr. Conley stated that the Outer Richmond area is very sandy and he had his own structural engineer look at the damage to his property. The structural engineer ascertained from looking at it that the footing needed to be replaced and also said that it was very important to do a special kind of engineering where the slab underneath can be held stable before removing the undermined foundation. Mr. Conley said that so far the insurance company has not addressed these issues. Mr. Conley said that this has been a very difficult year for he and his wife, but they have been working toward a resolution. Mr. Conley said that he is just looking for a bid that they can accept. Mr. Conley said that something the Commission needs to know is that since this last building permit was issued in early September, the structure, from what he has observed, seems to be completely framed up to two stories. Mr. Conley said that what is happening at the ground level adjacent to his undermined footing, he cannot see. Mr. Conley stated that his concern is that he always believed, and it has always been talked about very openly, that he needed to have access from Mr. Kwok’s property to do the work to the damaged foundation. Mr. Conley said that lacking that access, he would have to dismantle a lot of existing living space in his home to do the work and then have that living space replaced. Mr. Conley said that this would be a great expense to somebody and this is why he wanted to have that access. Mr. Conley stated that he was very concerned that the access no longer existed. Mr. Conley said that a new permit has been issued and building is going on every day, 7 days a week, and a great deal has been done in a very short period of time. Mr. Conley said that he cannot imagine how any contractor can go in there with the amount of equipment that they are going to need, the crews they are going to need and have the daylight needed, as the daylight is gone. Commissioner Santos asked Mr. Conley if he had been inside the new construction to see what has been done. Mr. Conley said that when the problem was first discovered, Mr. Kornfield came out and issued a Stop Work Order. Mr. Conley said Mr. Kornfield instructed the general contractor to establish a temporary support structure. Mr. Conley said the contractor did use large sheets of plywood supported by 2 X4’s placed on a 45 degree angle. Commissioner Santos asked if temporary kickers were installed. Mr. Conley said that is exactly what was done and that was in place until February last year and was then removed without his knowledge. Mr. Conley said that the way he found out it was removed is that his foundation began to slip again. Mr. Conley said that when it was removed some underpinning was done, the very type of underpinning that has been talked about, which was supposed to be done at Mr. Conley’s expense. Mr. Conley said that had he been properly notified about what was going on he could have taken care of it. Mr. Conley said that this then opened up this whole property. Mr. Conley said that what he did not realize at the time, was that this was all part of the general plan to then get a permit and continue to build. Vice-President Hood said that it is the Building Department’s jurisdiction to make sure that things are safe and if it is not safe, to stop the construction, but the Department cannot become involved in who is responsible for what. Vice-President Hood said she did not believe the Department was the right "court" for this as the Commission does not have any authority to do anything about it. Mr. Conley said that he did not know if the Commissioners had read the package that he supplied, but before this incident ever occurred, Mr. Conley was already concerned about this happening. Mr. Conley said he spoke with the owner of the property and asked him to please send out the contractor, James Lee. Mr. Conley said that he called Mr. Lee before any work was done and Mr. Lee told him that his property was his problem. Mr. Conley said that his wife spoke to Mr. Lee in Chinese. Vice-President Hood asked if Mr. Conley was saying that there was notice given to him. Mr. Conley said that no notice was given to him, but he observed removal of soil from next door in a very aggressive manner, with tractors. Mr. Conley said there was stucco falling off the side of his house and he was basically worried that his foundation was going to be undermined, just by observing what was going on. Vice-President Hood thanked Mr. Conley for his information. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Conley if there was construction going on at present. Mr. Conley answered yes. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought the Director should put a Stop Work Order on this property right now. Director Chiu said that this is what the correction notice was requiring, an explanation of the work that has been done. Commissioner Guinnane said that work should be stopped until the contractor puts Mr. Conley’s house back the way it was before they started. Mr. Conley stated that the insurance company for the owner of the property has already acknowledged responsibility, and they are going to replace the foundation and have said so in a bid. Mr. Conley said it is just a matter of getting all of the engineering fine points ironed out so that he can say yes, let’s do it. Mr. Conley said that his only objection is that the owner is going forward and building the project. Mr. Conley said he is in the dark about this as much as the Commission is. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the project is stopped, the contractor could put pressure on the insurance company to get this resolved. Director Chiu said that Mr. Conley also has to come into the Department and file an application for the foundation work. Director Chiu said that technically speaking, because of the damage to his property, Mr. Conley is in violation. Commissioner Guinnane said that Mr. Conley was never put on notice; the contractor went ahead and underpinned his building without permission. Director Chiu said that he understood that Ron Tom put Mr. Conley on notice verbally. Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that Ron Tom talked to Mr. Conley and told him that technically speaking the Department would have to issue him a Notice of Violation. Mr. Conley said that he never met Ron Tom until the middle of this year, but his foundation was undermined on October 29, 1999. Commissioner Walker said that what the Director is saying is that a permit needs to be applied for by Mr. Conley for the work on his house. Commissioner Walker said that even if the owner’s insurance company reimburses Mr. Conley, he still needs to get a permit. Commissioner Marks said she is concerned and agrees with Commissioner Guinnane that construction should stop. Commissioner Guinnane asked why Mr. Conley should have to go out and hire an engineer and spend money for somebody else’s problem. Director Chiu said that he understands Commissioner Guinnane’s concern, but property owners are responsible to secure their property and who is paying for that is not under DBI’s jurisdiction. Director Chiu said that in order to resolve both issues, Mr. Conley needs to submit an application because he is the property owner and James Lee or Mr. Kwok cannot come in and falsify themselves as the property owner. Commissioner Walker said she thought Mr. Conley understands that, but the problem is that by allowing construction on the property next door, it is going to inhibit the fixing of his property. Director Chiu said that as he had stated before, construction is taking place on the upper floors and the ground floor is exposed. Commissioner Walker said that it sounds like there is still some construction going on. Director Chiu said that construction is taking place on the upper floor, but the ground floor is still exposed for work to be done. Vice-President Hood said that there are enough gray issues about this problem that she would like to ask Commissioners Guinnane and Santos to go out to the property and bring back a report to the Commission. Vice-President Hood said that any information they could provide that would help toward a speedier solution would be appreciated, as the rains are here and this project needs to be completed. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu if the underpinning that was done on Mr. Conley’s property by the contractor was done with permit. Director Chiu said that no permit was applied for or issued, and this is why a correction notice was given, to find out how the underpinning was done and if it is safe. Commissioner Marks said that for the interim, until the Commissioners can go out to the property, she felt that all work on the project should be stopped. Vice-President Hood asked if it would be possible to stop construction until the two Commissioners had inspected the property. Commissioner Santos asked Mr. Conley if he could provide him with a sketch from the contractor’s bid as to what is proposed for the site. Mr. Conley said there was a detailed report, but no drawing. Commissioners Guinnane and Santos agreed to meet Mr. Conley on Friday at 2:00 p.m. at the property. Mr. Conley will provide a copy of the report requested by Commissioner Santos.
The next item discussed was item #8b, 39 Boardman Place. Commissioner Marks asked for an update. Director Chiu said that he finally received a phone call from the owner, Ms. Lisa Bass and she is now concerned about the Department looking at the property. Commissioner Walker asked if Ms. Bass were concerned about more construction or safety issues. Director Chiu said that she is concerned that there may be 10,000 items of violation on the property. Director Chiu said that it is the Department’s job to site the property for all violations. Director Chiu said he wanted the Commission to be aware of Ms. Bass’ concerns, but he did inform her that the inspectors needed access to her property. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to report the outcome of the inspectors’ investigations.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to commend the Department for doing a good job on item 8c.
Commissioner Guinnane said he had a question about item 8d and the last page of that document. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Deputy City Attorney Boyajian could speak on this issue. Ms. Boyajian said she had no idea what this report was about. Taras Madison, Manager of Administration and Finance said that this was a report on money that the City Attorney obtains for the Department through litigation for Code Enforcement. Ms. Madison said that this last page summarizes what is received. Ms. Madison said she tried to highlight addresses when available, but in fiscal year 1999-2000, the City Attorney’s Office was able to get $221,792 back for the Department for legal fees. Commissioner Guinnane said that he is concerned about the amount of $221, 000 because he could site three cases, the Hyatt for $150,000, one with Jimmy Jen for $60,000 and another one called Pacific Heights for over $100,000. Commissioner Walker asked if this was for 1999. Commissioner Guinnane said yes and he does not see that money listed. Ms. Madison said that the money goes to several places, but this report just captures the City Attorney litigation, but in addition to that there is an additional $193,000 in another account. Ms. Madison said looking at everything the City Attorney captures for the Department; it is $417,000. Ms. Madison said she reported only on sub-object number 61168 as that is what is usually captured on the Commission’s reports, but she could supply a breakdown of the entire amount. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to see a report for all of the money captured with just one number. Commissioner Walker asked what the difference was between sub-object #’s 61165 and 61168. Ms. Madison said that 61168 is mainly City Attorney Litigation and 61165 also includes Code Enforcement. Commissioner Walker thanked Ms. Madison.
9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of September 20, 2000.
Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the minutes of September 20, 2000 be accepted.
The motion carried unanimously.
[Resolution No. BIC-061-00]
10. 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.
Commissioner Walker asked if an announcement could be made at meetings to have everyone turn off any electronic devices, such as cell phones and pagers.
Vice-President Hood said that there is an issue that she would like to have agendized for a future meeting. Vice-President Hood said that several times she has been at Office Max or Costco and she has noticed that the second story level steel racks are not braced and unattached to the ceiling. Vice-President Hood said that secondly, the items on the shelves are stacked very high and these could be refrigerators or stoves. Vice-President Hood said that just below that there are people pushing babies in strollers and this is very dangerous. Vice-President Hood said that this must be dealt with or someday there is going to be a tragedy as these stores are growing and popping up all over. Commissioner Guinnane said that this problem has been very well publicized recently on TV especially with Home Depot and he believes it is Cal-OSHAthat handles the complaints. Vice-President Hood said that maybe the Commission could get a report stating that it is the responsibility of Cal-OSHA and not DBI, as she does not want DBI to be held accountable for this in the future. Vice-President said that she would be interested to know if these stores are inspected, as the public seems to be totally unaware of the danger. Vice-President Hood said that perhaps the Commission could write a letter to Cal-OSHA expressing concern. Director Chiu said he would look into who is responsible.
Commissioner Walker asked if she could have a report on the recent reorganization in the Department and get flow charts.
Commissioner Marks said that she had brought up at the last meeting an issue about what assurances a homeowner has when a property has been inspected by the Building Inspectors and what the responsibilities of the inspectors are. Director Chiu said that there are about 12 to 15 items that the inspectors use as a guideline and Director Chiu said that he would be happy to have that at the next meeting. Vice-President Hood said that there is a certain element of "buyer beware" and the buyer should hire his or her own inspector as waterproofing is one example of things that are not covered under the code.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like a breakdown of the money collected from the Sainez case and also a breakdown of account #’s 61165 and 61168, money recovered by the City Attorney’s Office.
Commissioner Guinnane asked for a report on 759 - 37th Avenue.
Commissioner Guinnane said that six months ago the Commission worked on legislation about changing the tax bills and including the larger number of rooms and units in hotels and apartments. Commissioner Guinnane asked if this was in corrected on the new tax billings that were sent out the day before. Director Chiu said that the bill was signed by the Board of Supervisors and was to become law on September 17, 2000. Director Chiu said he did not know if the change was reflected on the current bills, but would look into the situation.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like the information about the training and certification of the Housing Inspectors included on the next agenda.
11. 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.
12. Adjournment.
Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously.
[RESOLUTION NO. BIC-062-00]
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
2135 & 2844 Greenwich St. Report on properties & 7 permits issued since May 5th Planning Commission determination. - Vice-President Hood. Pages 1 & 2
Timetable for training and certification of Housing Inspectors to include draft of an ideal MQ to be reviewed and for submittal to DHR. - Vice-President Hood, Commissioners Guinnane and Walker Pages 3-5
Planners Union Local 21 appeal on expansion of 1660 Mission Street. Copy of appeal and Department’s responses to conditions. Information on Shuttle requirement .- Commissioner Walker Pages 6 & 7
Breakdown of monies received from the Sainez case & sub-object #’s 61165 & 61168 - Commissioner Guinnane Pages 7 & 8, Page 23
Draft Application for State Code Enforcement Incentive Program and Community Code Enforcement Pilot Program (applications to be mailed out around November 1st and are due 1 1/2 months from receipt.) - Commissioner Walker Pages 9-12
MIS report on timetable to make application information available on one page. - Commissioner Walker Page 16
Update inspection of 39 Boardman Place. - Commissioner Marks Page 21
Information as to responsibility for inspection of warehouse type stores (Costco, Office Max, etc.) as to shelving and storage of heavy merchandise at high levels. - Vice-President Hood Page 22
List of what items Building & Housing Inspectors check when doing an inspection. - Commissioner Marks Page 22
Recent reorganization of DBI and flow charts. - Commissioner Walker Page 22
Report on 759 - 37th Avenue - Commissioner Guinnane Page 23
Legislation change to include larger number of room & units in tax bills - Was change reflected in current bills? - Commissioner Guinnane Page 23
Prepared by: Ann Aherne
p:\mgb\minutes\10-18-00.doc