2.

Action to swear in Ms. Alyce Brown for the Access Appeals Commission for the seat of a person with physical disability (reappointment), term to expire 11/01/09.  [President Debra Walker] – continued from June 20, 2007 meeting.

President Walker stated that the Building Inspection Commission voted in a new seating of members to the Access Appeals Commission, of which Alyce Brown is a part.  President Walker thanked Ms. Brown for being willing to serve again.  President Walker administered the Oath of Office and Alyce Brown was sworn in.  Ms. Brown thanked the Commission for reappointing her, and said that she really appreciated the appointment.

3.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker said that she attended a breakfast that Director Hasenin arranged with the Business Journal; the representatives of the Business Journal were very complimentary of the Department of Building Inspection.  President Walker stated that she wanted to thank the staff again for all of the work that they are doing to reform DBI and focusing on customer service, because it is very appreciated by the customers of the Department. 

Director Hasenin stated that he wanted to second President Walker’s comments regarding the breakfast arranged by the Business Journal this morning, as well as some of the positive comments made by the attendees, especially the Mayor.  Director Hasenin said that he wanted to commend the staff for their hard work, and said that the Department has been making a lot of changes over the last four months, and is in the process of making more.

4.

Director’s Report.

     a.   Status of MIS.

Director Hasenin said that the Department is continuing the process of reviewing its MIS needs, and are waiting for an RFQ to be issued.   Director Hasenin stated that the Planning Department and the Building Department have decided to go with a joint RFQ to see what is on the market in a more expeditious way.  Director Hasenin said that DBI is also making improvements to the existing system to accommodate some of the immediate needs for example: Piloting and testing a modification that the MIS staff made to the Permit Tracking System (PTS) to allow for online comments.  Director Hasenin stated that this would be standardizing the correction sheet that DBI issues to the customer that will accomplish two things:  First it can give guidelines of corrections for staff to use while checking plans, and when corrections are made those corrections will be printed automatically and will be legible and ready to be issued to the customer.  Second, when the customer comes back with those corrections, staff will be able to go online to approve each comment individually.  Director Hasenin said that it would show who approved the plans on what date, and a person would always have a running list so at that any point they could go online for that project, find out what comments are, what has been signed off and what is left to be signed off.  Director Hasenin stated that he could do the plan review himself if the need arises, and the goal is better customer service when it comes to those aspects. Director Hasenin stated that DBI is combining the process of how inspections are scheduled and recorded for all of the different disciplines.  Director Hasenin said that in the past the Department has had different systems accommodating building, plumbing, and electrical, but said he wants to combine all of the different ways of doing business to make sure it is all consistent, uniform and efficient so the customer understands and follows the same process.  Director Hasenin stated that staff is working on this right now and it should be ready in the next couple of months.

Director Hasenin said that at the last BIC meeting he described Q-Matic, the automated customer tracking system, which would allow better customer flow in the building.  Director Hasenin stated that the Q-Matic system should be implemented within the next month or so and the Department is excited about this.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is not able to move the permit center to 1640 Mission Street sooner than January, then DBI will implement Q-Matic at 1660 Mission Street.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI is working with the Mayor’s office and others to see if the next door remodel can be expedited; hopefully this will be done in the next two or three months so that staff from the Permit Center could move and the Department could install the Q-Matic system at the same time. 

Vice-President Lee asked Director Hasenin if he could expand a little on the online tracking updates, and wanted to know if comments for each project could be viewed by the general public.  Director Hasenin said that right now it is not a web-based service; it is just an electronic service for the staff to review.  Director Hasenin stated that the system will limit who can approve different corrections depending on each division; for example:  A structural plan checker can not approve mechanical corrections because it is not their discipline.  Director Hasenin said that the future phases would be the web based services, and DBI will have to deal with the issue of private vs. public records.  Director Hasenin stated that when it is a work in progress, corrections can not be shown to everyone.

President Walker asked if this could be done before DBI does the major changes to MIS. Director Hasenin said that was correct and said the Department is moving in two parallel tracks, since there is staff that are experienced with the system and have technical expertise and the time to make enhancements and changes to the PTS as it exists today.  President Walker said that she heard from people that more than anything they want to know the status of where their project is in the system, even if they are just waiting for approval, because they would know what is going on.  Director Hasenin stated that he believes the current system would allow the Department to proceed on this rather quickly, with a few modifications to the policies and procedures.  President Walker said that Director Hasenin should let the Commission know if he needs support in getting this done.  Director Hasenin stated that he was working with the Mayor’s Office and maybe a letter from the Commission would also help to expedite things.

Commissioner Sattary asked how much staff re-training was required to make the change to the on-line or electronic based tracking system.  Director Hasenin said that he would not say that re-training is required, but possibly an hour session to show the engineers where the screen is, display the correction sheets, show them the index, and say this is how you do it.  Director Hasenin stated that the person would just pick, check off boxes, and type any additional comments that they may want to add and this should be easy.  Commissioner Theriault asked if there was a way to verify the approval was done by the individual listed.  Director Hasenin said that there are multiple levels of security within the system, and the bigger issue in the past was that there was not appropriate use of user IDs so that has already been changed. Director Hasenin stated that every individual has a user ID and password and only that individual should know the ID and password since it is not appropriate or acceptable for staff to give their password or user ID to someone else.  Commissioner Murphy said that he is very excited about the progress at DBI, and in talking to customers they are also excited and very positive; this is a move in the right direction. 

b.        Financial Report.

Director Hasenin stated that business is still slow at DBI, and it is continuing at the same pace, but it did not continue to decline from the past report.  Director Hasenin said that the Department has to continue to monitor its expenditures and revenues to ensure that at some point if business continues that way the Department might need to go back and look at all of its resources such as fees.  Commissioner Murphy asked Director Hasenin if he ever got data from the Planning Department regarding the intakes of applications, as to whether they were up or down.  Director Hasenin said that the application intake has been average, yet there is some slow down because the process is taking longer and there have been some resignations at the Planning Department.  Director Hasenin stated that this has caused the workload to increase which obviously means that DBI is not getting those projects yet, but said he anticipated that things will be picking up.  Commissioner Murphy said that structural engineers are usually a very good indicator of how business is going to be in the next six or twelve months, and any of them that he has talked to are basically slowing down so the Department should not overspend.  Director Hasenin stated that he agreed with Commissioner Murphy that the tendency in the marketplace is that there is a slowing down so the Department will have to be careful.

Director Hasenin, President Walker, and Commissioner Sattary discussed the following points about the budget:

• Director Hasenin’s memo indicates the budget as projected would require approximately $6.5 million from the Department’s fund balance, and next year’s expenditures would be revised accordingly.
• In the present budget, which is for the fiscal year starting in July DBI anticipated to have used about $8.4 million of the fund balance for the previous year that ended June 31^st.
• There is a good amount of money left in the fund balance but Director Hasenin does not plan on using much or any of it because DBI can not keep doing business the same way or the Department is going to run out of money.
• DBI needs to start looking at staffing levels & fees coming in to see where the breakdown is; a fee adjustment may be necessary. 
• Director Hasenin gave a brief explanation of how the budget was done using different methods and the most conservative of predictions.
• The Department needs to reduce the line of projections for those major buildings since business is slowing down and people are putting projects on hold.
• Has there been any success at finding other sources of revenue in the form of grants regarding the seismic work that staff is doing?  The response was no there was nothing new to report.
• The Department is going to look at the process of issuing site permits and addendums.

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

Director Hasenin stated that he and President Walker had a meeting with some of the interested parties about a month ago on the CAPSS issue.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is trying to determine what the next best step is for the City as a whole, and DBI basically wants to reassemble a group of interested parties, community members, and others who participated in the first phases of CAPSS to see where it is today and what has been accomplished.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI has done some additional work by initiating the soft story program.  Director Hasenin said in addition there has been some work done by other parties in the City such as SPUR, the Mayor’s Office, and others so DBI wants to look at the big picture to see where the Department fits in all of this. 

President Walker said that she was recently at a SPUR meeting and they are very excited about how the Department is moving forward, and are putting together a list of suggested participants, some of whom were involved in the first group.  President Walker stated that some of the SPUR members are assessing the information they have so far for the first meeting agenda, and should be giving DBI a list of people and then the Department can send out the announcements about the date and so on.  President Walker said that SPUR has done their own report along with a set of recommendations about preparation, response, and recovery that is pretty extensive.  President Walker stated that SPUR has done a lot of studies and research to present the information.

Commissioner Murphy stated that there is a lot of money spent on studies by different groups, but the Department of Building Inspection needs to educate the public as far as the two and three-unit buildings, as well as single family soft stories.  Commissioner Murphy said that it would be a good idea to tell people when they are doing a major remodel or just something as simple as a new kitchen or bathroom, that it is to their advantage to put in some sheer wall, additional sheet rock on the floor above their garage, and drop down some tie-down rods, at minimum cost rather than be told later on when it is more expensive.  Commissioner Murphy stated that a lot of the public do not know this and he suggested that Technical Services could possibly put something on Channel 26 to show the public how to do this.

Director Hasenin said that the Department has been moving forward with the subcommittee work, and most of the subcommittees have finished putting together the benchmarking and stakeholder questions.  Director Hasenin stated that staff would be visiting various cities to ask them certain questions about how they do business, what performance measures they have and so on.  Director Hasenin said that next week the different subcommittees will be going through the “as is” process mapping, which means the committees would spend two to four hours of multiple sessions going through every step of how DBI does business today, starting from point A which is an application going all the way to final occupancy.  Director Hasenin stated that the BPR process is basically done to identify any breakdowns in the system and to work towards correcting them.  Director Hasenin said that about three weeks after the subcommittees review the results they will begin the “to be” process mapping, which is based on the results of the “as is” mapping process, and this will ideally be how business will be in the near future.  Director Hasenin stated that he commends the DBI staff for spending hours per week on the BPR process while still handling the day to day business.  Director Hasenin said that the Department has had great participation from industry groups, customers, stakeholders, community groups, and other city agencies and should be able to come up with real good ideas and recommendations to improve the process. 

Commissioner Grubb said that the BPR process is very time consuming, but critical to the Department functioning in the future and the Commission is supportive of staff’s efforts.  President Walker stated that DBI is forcing the other departments to reengineer as well, and it is good that DBI is leading this process.  Vice-President Lee said that this process does not always have to be negative, and it also empowers the people that want to change things and make them better.

Director Hasenin said that it has been three or four weeks since the Department implemented the service on the fourth floor of the building, and said he believes there has been a vast improvement in operation and processing of over the counter permits.  Director Hasenin stated that he wanted to commend Tony Grieco, the acting manager who led this process and helped get it off the ground.  Mr. Grieco introduced himself as a Senior Building Inspector and said that it was a pleasure to report on something that is a positive activity, and covered the following points in his presentation:

• DBI implemented the expanded over the counter plan check process on June 18, 2007.
• About 84% of permit applications that contain plans & without plans are consistently approved in the same day.
• More time is allowed for a plan review and building, mechanical, and fire plan checks are done at the counter and customers can spend up to an hour with any one of the disciplines.
• Staffing level is different in that there are teams made up of a combination of inspectors and engineers working collaboratively.  There is more cooperation between staff.
• The exchange of information among staff is really a delayed benefit that everyone is going to see, including staff, the public and stakeholders.
• There is a more relaxed atmosphere on the 4^th floor due to greater time for plan reviews and more space.
• When using the computers each staff person does an individual log in keeping track of their reviews for the day.
• Customers have shorter wait times, no longer than 15 minutes, and various staff (engineers, etc.) is always available throughout the day.  
• There is a more open environment on the 4^th floor and the permit coordination division is now located there as well.
• There has been positive feedback from the design community and contractors.
• The MIS staff has been great in getting the computers working properly on the 4^th floor.
• There has been more interagency cooperation in general, and the fire staff has been outstanding.
• There is more space to review plans. Since more plans are reviewed over the counter this frees up time for engineers to do major projects and the backlog should be reduced.
• Housekeeping issues have been improved and staff is working on establishing quality checks along with a good comprehensive review.

Commissioner Murphy said he visited the Department and saw the fourth floor operation and was very impressed with staff starting from the Director, the managers, and Mr. Grieco.   Commissioner Murphy stated that things seemed to be moving smoothly, and in the past there were bottlenecks on the first floor but now staff seems to be working together as a team.  Commissioner Murphy said that he was impressed because the new process is taking some of the power away from some of the “Prima Donna” engineers who in the past held blue prints hostage for a week or two, and some may not have known how to check them.

Vice-President Lee asked if the Department was documenting feedback from users of the program.  Mr. Grieco said that there are specific customer service surveys that are being captured, and they have been collected by DBI’s public information group.  Mr. Grieco stated that the plan checkers have been giving the sheets to everyone soliciting their feedback, whether it is negative or positive.  Commissioner Sattary asked Mr. Grieco if he had any idea what percentage of the total workload that comes to the Department is handled with this one-stop operation.  Mr. Grieco stated that this question is exactly the question DBI is looking at to really identify and answer correctly.  Mr. Grieco said that he did not really have that data, but he could compile it and do a breakdown of the percentage of permits.

Director Hasenin said that there are reports that contain information in terms of what is coming in over the counter, and the Department monitors the percentage of how much of the overall workload is going through the counter.  Director Hasenin stated that he believes it was a weekly report and DBI processed 84% to 87%, and said that this is a tool for him to gage how much work is pushed through that process.  Director Hasenin said that now that staff has two or three months “under our belt” the Department can later give a better assessment of that. 

Commissioner Theriault asked if that was figured by the number of projects or value of projects.

Director Hasenin said that there are different percentages, for example:  One is just the number of permits, 1,000 came in this week and out of those 800 went through the over the counter operations versus the other 200 that have to be submitted and reviewed in the back room.  Commissioner Grubb said that if word of this gets out he thinks DBI will probably see an increase in over the counter permit applications as once people hear that they can get a permit over the counter then they might actually apply for one.

Director Hasenin stated that he wanted to go on record to recognize and acknowledge the efforts of the DBI staff, the Intake staff, Public Services staff, Central Permit, Plan check staff, Building Inspectors, and many, many more because everyone has stepped up.  Director Hasenin said that he had to change what staff does and everybody is accepting that, and there is better staff communication which will enable the Department to do a much better job overall.  President Walker stated that she thinks the new process will increase the work at DBI, because the public will feel secure that they could come in to get a permit.  Director Hasenin stated that his goal is to have a packet of information available for customers that explains the over the counter process, and staff can hand this out when they meet with community groups, industry groups, small business owners, and contractors.  Mr. Grieco said that he observed customers going through the new process and they are served more quickly, even though some were frustrated about the new changes, yet once they understood the process they were very receptive to it.

5.

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

Mr. Steve Atkinson from the firm of Luce-Forward Hamilton, & Scripps said that he was representing the State Bar of California, the owner of 180 Howard Street.  Mr. Atkinson said the firm presented a letter to the Commission expressing their concerns about a proposed addition to 120 Howard Street, and in particular about the peer review process.  Mr. Atkinson stated that he would like to summarize the letter, and said that a few years ago the State Bar completed a voluntary seismic upgrade of its building costing almost $300 million so they are very sensitive to seismic concerns.  Mr. Atkinson said that when they heard about the plans to add four stories on top of 120 Howard Street, a 1970’s office building, without making any significant structural upgrades of that building, the State Bar was concerned.  Mr. Atkinson stated that they asked their engineer, West, Janney, Elsner Associates (WJE), to take a look at those plans and were advised that WJE was very concerned about the seismic safety of that addition.  Mr. Atkinson said that the State Bar appealed the CEQA exemption for 120 Howard Street to the Board of Supervisors, and withdrew that appeal only after receiving assurances from Hanson Tom at DBI that the State Bar and its engineers would be allowed to participate in the peer review process of 120 Howard.  Mr. Atkinson stated that this commitment has not been met, and referred to Attachment C which is the letter recording that commitment.  Mr. Atkinson said that the DBI peer review has never communicated with the State Bar and WJE about the review, and they were never allowed to participate or even advised that the peer review meetings were taking place.  Mr. Atkinson stated that in fact Mr. Tom assured them that nothing was happening on peer review, and finally they found out just a couple of weeks ago that without any word to them, the peer review process had been completed and DBI was preparing to accept the peer review report.  Mr. Atkinson said that he would like to draw the Commission’s attention to the attachments to their letter, and in particular Exhibit D which expresses WJE’s concerns, as presented in the letter to Mr. Tom.  Mr. Atkinson stated that Exhibit E has a chronology of their efforts to participate in the process which were rejected, and based upon these issues they ask the Commission to place this issue on the agenda of their next meeting.  Mr. Atkinson asked that the State Bar be given a copy of the peer review report and said that so far the officials at DBI have refused to share that report with them.  Mr. Atkinson asked that WJE have an opportunity to evaluate the peer review report and present its comments to the peer review and DBI, and asked that DBI be required to provide an accurate summary of the peer review meetings that took place, who attended those meetings, and when they were held.  Mr. Atkinson asked the Commission to require that the site permit for 120 Howard not be issued until the Commission has had an opportunity to review this matter.  Mr. Atkinson stated in closing, that WJE knows that the representatives of the 120 Howard Street project have been telling everyone, including people at DBI, that the State Bar’s issue is not seismic but that its real issue is view blockage, but said he could assure the Commission that this is not the case.  Mr. Atkinson said that the State Bar’s concerns and WJE’s concerns are real, and they are about the safety of the addition to 120 Howard and in fact the only entrance to 180 Howard is across a narrow alley.  Mr. Atkinson stated that he can assure the Commission these are real seismic concerns and that need to be addressed.

President Walker thanked Mr. Atkinson for coming and said that the Commission was not able to discuss this item since it was not on the agenda.  President Walker stated that she could ask the Director to research this and get back to the Commission, and asked Director Hasenin if he knew what the status was since Mr. Atkinson requested that the site permit not be issued.  Director Hasenin said that the Department has been dealing with this issue and have had the peer review.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI’s standard process is to deal with the applicant, but that does not mean the Department does not receive or take into account issues and concerns or questions from any member of the public.  Director Hasenin said that DBI did take into account the issues that were raised in the previous communications; however the question of involving someone else’s engineers in the peer review is not something that he would support.  Director Hasenin stated that as far as putting a hold on the issuance of the site permit he is not sure if he has the authority to do that once the applicant satisfies the requirements.  Director Hasenin said that he understands there is a Planning Commission issue with this and the Planning Commission withheld their decision on this case until they received some assurance regarding what is happening with the peer review.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI has finished the peer review and are satisfied with the results so the Department is going to send a letter back to the Planning Commission indicating so, and as far as a direction to put a hold on the site permit he is not sure he has the authority to do that.  President Walker said that the BIC could not discuss this, so the option is to have the Director meet with the State Bar and then come back and have it on the agenda of the next meeting. 

Mr. Terry Paret said that he was a senior member of WJE and has worked closely with Sig Freeman who the Commission would hear from in a few minutes, for over 20 years including in 1992 as Deputy Project Manager for WJE’s peer review of the seismic retrofit of San Francisco City Hall.  Mr. Paret stated that current examples of WJE’s work include a stem to stern safety audit of the fourteen and a half billion dollar Big Dig project for the state of Massachusetts, seismic evaluation of the United Nations Secretariat building in New York City, and evaluation of the recent MacArthur Maze freeway.  Mr. Paret said that the 120 Howard Street project involves determining if an existing 8-story building designed in 1972 is sufficiently robust seismically to support a multi-story, vertical addition that will increase its height by 50% without seismic strengthening as the project sponsors propose.  Mr. Paret stated that the current San Francisco Building Code requires for the vertical addition to be permitted, the entire building must either comply or be made to comply with today’s seismic requirements for new buildings.  Mr. Paret said that WJE assigned four experienced engineers in making this determination, including a former commissioner of the California Building Standards Commission, with the express understanding that they would be invited to participate in the peer review process, further explain their findings, and be provided with the analysis prepared by the engineer of record.  Mr. Paret stated that WJE transmitted a brief description of their findings to Hanson Tom at DBI; to date they have not been notified of any peer review meetings or provided with any relevant information.  Mr. Paret said that repeated calls to DBI about the peer review process were unanswered and despite the announcement at the June 20^th Planning Commission meeting for the peer review’s acceptance of the project, they were told that just one week prior Hanson Tom told the Building Department that the peer review process had not even begun.  Mr. Paret stated that WJE has concluded that the proposed 120 Howard project is seismically deficient with respect to numerous seismic requirements to the Building Code.  Mr. Paret said that the deficiencies have major potential impacts with respect to earthquake safety, yet the proposed project does not include correction of any of these deficiencies or any seismic strengthening that WJE knows of, save for a single column line in the basement.  Mr. Paret stated that among the important deficiencies are:  This is a classic short column building with characteristics that have been proven hazardous in earthquakes around the world; Its perimeter concrete moment frame columns are entrapped by slurry exterior stem walls constructed of reinforced concrete or grout core and solid brick and masonry 17 inches thick; The stem walls are anchored to the slabs and the columns; The stem walls force the plastic hinge regions of the columns into sections that are unconfined with only 12 inch hoop spacing; Typical columns are sheer critical a result of tie spacing that does not even satisfy the D over 2 spacing requirements in non-seismic regions; As importantly the frames exhibit strong beam, weak column behavior once the influence of the stem walls is considered.  Mr. Paret said that this by no means exhausts WJE’s concerns and they respectfully request that the Commission allow this important seismic safety issue to be heard.

Mr. Sig Freeman said that he is a structural engineer with WJE, and was at one time a member of the Building Inspection Commission.  Mr. Freeman welcomed the new Director. Mr. Freeman said that he was very interested in the CAPSS Project since he was involved earlier and said he hopes that when the project gets started again that he would be considered as a committee member.  Mr. Freeman said that he was mainly present to address 120 Howard Street.  Mr. Freeman stated that he reviewed the work done by the office even though he was out with some spine surgery so he has not been as active the past couple of months, but he has thoroughly reviewed this case and there are serious concerns.  Mr. Freeman said that the practice of ductile concrete was just in its beginnings at the time of this building, and the engineer in charge of it was on the forefront of doing this type of construction, but things have changed a lot and there are a lot of concerns that WJE learned from other earthquakes, and the things that Terry Paret brought up are certainly serious and should really be addressed.  Mr. Freeman stated that it bothers him that these are legitimate issues, yet WJE has had no response as to why DBI seems to have neglected, or rejected their concerns and not at least explained it to them.  Mr. Freeman said that he hopes WJE could get more information if this item is put on the next agenda.  Mr. Freeman stated that in addition to what Mr. Paret mentioned, they are adding 50 percent in height, 25 or 30 percent of weight, and this is all going to the top so the building becomes more top-heavy.  Mr. Freeman said that WJE heard that the base sheer, total force, because of the way the dynamics work, is not much different or  higher than it was in the original design, however in looking at the top stories of existing buildings you are now putting a bunch of force up at the roof that was never there before.  Mr. Freeman stated that the distribution of forces is much different, in addition there is increased overturn of the overall building and unless some of this was taken into account in the initial design it seems there should be some concerns to see how that is addressed.  Mr. Freeman said that there are some dynamic things and he is not sure how it works because they have not been given any information, and he hopes if the Commission needs back up, especially Commissioner Sattary, WJE has some drawings and illustrative sheets that will back up some of their concerns.

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that he is a frequent user of DBI and has also been a customer on the fourth floor.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that it has been really great to have this nice, big, open space and initially when this was implemented the one stop services on the first floor was where the intake coordination was being done.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that this area is where there was a bottleneck, and said that he is glad that Director Hasenin noticed this and within a week he moved the operation to the fourth floor which is a much better location. Mr. Karnilowicz stated that customers now go to the intake at the fourth floor, and walk across the other side to process their application.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that he is not just speaking for himself, but many of the other regular customers at DBI are quite happy with what is going on right now.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that it has taken a little bit longer to get the permits processed and approved at the counter, but at least customers do not have to log them in so it is much better and quicker in the long run.

Commissioner Sattary spoke regarding the public comment for 120 Howard Street, and said that not knowing anything about the details of this project, but based on the general description of it being a 1970’s concrete building it is a significant design project.  Commissioner Sattary stated that he agreed with Director Hasenin’s decision to involve the peer review panel because this kind of building requires it.  Commissioner Sattary said that the members of the peer review team should be selected at the Director’s discretion based on their qualifications and expertise, but the peer review process has one small flaw and that is that the team may not have been given all the information on the project.  Commissioner Sattary stated that peer review teams always greatly benefit regarding the issues that they review when they are given a full spectrum of information from various departments. Commissioner Sattary asked Director Hasenin when he reviews this to please verify that the peer reviewers had access to the information from WJE, and perhaps their engineers might be given the opportunity to present their findings or conclusion to the peer review team.  Commissioner Sattary said that the Department should make sure that the safety of the entrance to 180 Howard Street is not jeopardized by this project.

Director Hasenin said that he would be happy to look into those comments and go back and review them with staff.  Director Hasenin stated that Ray Lui led the effort for the peer review.  Director Hasenin said that he was not sure if the Commission wanted an update right now or if they wanted to wait until next month.  President Walker stated that it would be good to put this item on the agenda for the next meeting and then come back to the Commission with a report.   Director Hasenin stated that he would look into this as he would any other job, and the process is that even though the peer review is done DBI still has its own review to perform.  Director Hasenin said that if something came up that DBI was concerned about they would not approve the project until staff was satisfied with it, however if the Department gets to a point where they felt from a structural and engineering standpoint that everything was okay then he would not have the legal authority to hold up the permit.

President Walker said that she agreed with Director Hasenin and she thought at some point if people want to, permits can be challenged and they may have the ability to appeal the permit issuance at the Board of Appeals.  President Walker stated that she thinks the Department has an obligation to try and accommodate the project sponsor since some important issues have been raised.

6.

Discussion and possible action to establish goals, objectives, and evaluation criteria for the Director of Building Inspection.

The Building Inspection Commissioners discussed the following points regarding the evaluation criteria for the Director of Building Inspection:

• Secretary Aherne compiled the information from the Director’s evaluation criteria and converted it to the standard DHR form, and this is a standard format for performance and appraisals for the City & County of S.F.
• Director Hasenin came up with the evaluation criteria based on information from the BIC’s interview process as well as his own goals and objectives.
• The Commission plans on doing a six month and an annual review.
• One objection was that there are certain jobs that can not be quantified or measured in a consistent and objective way, so the Commission would have to fall back on subjective analysis of the employee’s performance.  As a result this practice could negatively affect the employee.
• The Director should provide the BIC with a verbal or written report of his accomplishments at the time of the review.  The Director should provide status updates on items such as: Assess the permit tracking system for enhancements, productivity, and a higher level of customer service, improved coordination with Planning & Fire Depts., and Challenges facing the Department.
• Evaluation of the Director should not be of the same nature as regular employees, it has to be based on his overall performance.
• There is overall performance in customer satisfaction that has to be taken into account.
• How the Department is improving under the direction of the Director should be part of the evaluation.
• This evaluation form should be looked at as more of a guide, rather than a hard and fast form the BIC should follow; the BIC can make additions to this form.
• Some Commissioners think an employee survey is a good idea for evaluating the Director, and others do not.
• One item that indicates employee satisfaction in a department is to look at the number of disciplines that occur and grievances that are filed, since it is an indication of what is going on in the department.
• The Director’s evaluation will take place in a Closed Session since it is a personnel issue, and it will be scheduled in September.
• The Commission should set some goals that are specific and measurable.

Director Hasenin said that he initiated this list of evaluation criteria, and this is a unique arrangement of management and supervision that is still new to him.  Director Hasenin stated that he reports directly to the Commission, not to the Mayor.  Director Hasenin said that he generally knows what he needs to do because the Building Department is what he does for a living, however the Commission has seven members and everybody comes in with their own expectations, so what he wanted to do was have some clear guidelines to work on for the next year.  Director Hasenin stated that he wanted to have some guidelines from all of the Commissioners so he would know what their specific priorities are for him to work on, and he does not want to go along for a year thinking he is doing a great job and then at the evaluation be told that he did not meet a certain goal or objective.   

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee to approve the form and criteria discussed for evaluating the Director of Building Inspection. The motion passed unanimously.

7.

CLOSED SESSION (ACTION ITEM)
Public Employee Appointment:  Discussion and possible action on the Director of Building Inspection’s recommendation; three affected employees – Assistant Director and two Deputy Director positions.

There was no public comment.

Vice-President Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grubb to convene in Closed Session.  The motion carried unanimously.

BIC RESOLUTION NO. 047-07

The Commission went into Closed Session at 10:47 a.m.

d.   Reconvene in Open Session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussion held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.12).

The Commission reconvened in Open Session at 11:18 a.m. 

President Walker announced that the Building Inspection Commission took an action in approving the Director’s appointment of Ray Lui as Deputy Director, and she congratulated him.

Commissioner Grubb made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sattary, not to disclose any discussions held in Closed Session.

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.

President Walker said that she and Ed Sweeney met with some members of Supervisor Alioto-Pier’s office regarding medicinal cannabis dispensaries and how it affects our Department.  President Walker stated that she would like an update on this item.

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.

Secretary Aherne said that at the next meeting the Cod Advisory Committee (CAC) would be presenting the new Code. President Walker asked if this would be the International Code.  Director Hasenin said that it would be the next edition of codes.  Secretary Aherne said that at the next meeting people would probably be sworn in for the other sub-committees.

9.

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

The Brown Act forbids a Commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment the Commission is limited to:

(1)

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

(2)

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

(3)

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

There was no public comment.

Adjournment.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 049-07

The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________

Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

Edited by,

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary