Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

 

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

 

Wednesday December 6, 2000 at 1:00 p.m.

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408

ADOPTED JANUARY 17, 2001

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by President Fillon.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Alfonso Fillon, President Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President

Debra Walker, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner

Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Esther Marks, Commissioner

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director

William Wong, Deputy Director

Ann Aherne, Secretary

Tuti Suardana, Secretary

2. President’s Announcements.

President Fillon reported that he had no announcements, but asked that all public comments be kept to three minutes.

3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

a. Update on permits for 598 Vermont Street.

Director Chiu said that he would give an update on the permit status of 598 Vermont Street. Director Chiu said that Mr. John Carney had appeared at the last meeting and spoke about his frustration with making inquiries about this particular project. Commissioner Walker had asked Director Chiu to look into this situation. Director Chiu stated that he would like to thank Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson for assisting Mr. Carney. Mr. Carney sent a letter to the Department stating that he was very happy with the issue being resolved. Director Chiu said that initially Mr. Carney was not happy with the process, but has since called the Department and wrote a letter stating that he was satisfied that Deputy Director Hutchinson had handled his problem.

b. Update on 1660 Mission Street annex appeal for parking variance.

Director Chiu said that Item 3b was a continuing update on the 1660 Mission Street annex project, and the appeal for the parking variance. Commissioner Walker had asked Director Chiu to continue to keep an open dialog going with the Planners Union, Local 21 and the Director’s staff. Director Chiu said that the Planners Union are very adamant about a roof garden as open space and Director Chiu stated that he had asked his staff to go back and look at the additional upgrade for seismic requirements. Director Chiu said that he was informed that if the roof were converted to open space, that would create floor occupancy that would exceed the 75’ limitation. Director Chiu said that if this would create a high-rise provision and this would trigger all of the life safety systems and it may not be feasible for the project to continue. Director Chiu said that the cost of all of these bells and whistles that would be required for the high-rise provisions would be astronomical. Director Chiu said that this is just from the financial impact, not even talking about the impact of existing staff working in the area during construction. Director Chiu said that he has not looked into this completely, but the Department would probably have to look into leasing another building in order to go through all of the additional construction to meet the high rise provisions. Director Chiu said that at this point, the Department is proceeding with the appeal at the Board of Permit Appeals, which would be heard later today at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Walker asked if Director Chiu had communicated the findings to the Union Representative. Commissioner Walker said that if the Union Representatives understood the scope of what would be required, perhaps they would offer a lesser requirement on their part. Director Chiu invited Mr. Steve Young to report the findings of the meeting with the Planners Union.

Mr. Young stated that on November 30, 2000 a meeting was held with City Planning Union Representatives, Lois Scott, Steven Shotland and Ms. Jill Slater. Also in attendance, representing DCP Administration was Constelino Hogan and Max Putra. Mr. Young said that the specific issues of adding a roof garden and what the impact would be, to both the existing building as well as the annex structure were discussed at the meeting. Mr. Young said preliminary studies were done and attached with financial figures and projections, which were at that time, still not complete as they were looking at ballpark estimations so that different scenarios could be considered. Mr. Young said that the Department was looking at scenarios that would fit into the budget of the building. Mr. Young said that at the end of the meeting, DBI allowed City Planning to do additional, more detailed studies regarding the roof garden. Mr. Young said that at the meeting it was made very clear by Mr. Friedman and himself to the Planning Union, what the impact would be of adding additional load up on the roof and how that may affect the existing structure all the way down to the building itself and down into the foundations, both for seismic requirement and drift of the building. Mr. Young said that this would have an impact on all of the occupants throughout the building. Mr. Young said that he went into peripheral discussion as to why the building would then become a high-rise building and there would be other exiting problems and minimum requirements. Mr. Young said that as the meeting was closed it was very apparent that the representative for Local 21, Lois Scott was very adamant that the only answer could be a roof garden. Mr. Young said that at the close of the meeting, Constelino Hogan had agreed to fund and provide for an additional study of a roof garden. Mr. Young said that this would have major impact over the scheduling of the project as well as the buildability. Vice-President Hood asked if it were possible to consider any other location for the garden. Mr. Young said that from a bidding standpoint, this had not been put on the board early so the entire basic concept of the building for the annex was in a clear, singular package that went out to bid. Mr. Young said that if the Department were to provide for the roof garden on the annex, that would increase and change the scope of the original request for bid and this was why it was decided to go with the existing building and treat it as a separate project. Director Chiu stated that whether there is a roof garden on the annex or the existing building, it would trigger the high-rise situation. Director Chiu said that earlier, there was discussion about having open space or terraces on the fifth and sixth floors. Director Chiu said that in looking at the Planning Code, there is no such definition that says that open space means it automatically has to go on the roof; open space just means open space, whether it is on the fifth floor or the sixth floor. Director Chiu said that this is not something that is required and the Department thought that the logical place would be the fifth or sixth floor as discussed at a previous meeting.

Director Chiu said that additionally, the Commissioners were talking about a transportation brokerage and the Department is proceeding with that. Director Chiu said that Mr. Steve Young had gotten an estimate of $56,000 per year; this would provide a 26-passenger bus that would do six round trips between DBI, City Hall and the surrounding area. Director Chiu said that this would proceed regardless of what happens with the annex project. Director Chiu said that eight or ten years ago there was a commitment made to provide this kind of service and the Department is going to do its best to find the money and get a contract moving for this project.

Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to make a suggestion that perhaps could be added as an add/alt in the current bid. Vice-President Hood said that the open space in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where the building has been set back on the ground floor and there are tables and chairs outside, is a very handsome thing. Vice-President Hood stated that she knew of many very expensive roof gardens in San Francisco that are not used because the wind is bad or the sun is too hot or the plants die. Vice-President Hood said that a roof garden sounds wonderful, but actually providing a successful roof garden is an on-going, challenging project. Vice-President Hood said she wondered if there were any alternatives, such as setting the ground floor back five feet and having tables and chairs along the sidewalk that could meet Ms. Scott’s and the Union’s concern for break space. Director Chiu said that the ground floor would not work as the new area is going right on top of the existing driveway and the driveway has to be maintained for vehicle entrance and exit. Vice-President Hood said that she thought there was a lot of wasted space in the parking facility. Vice-President Hood said that she has often noticed that the exit way out of the building does not work with the parking module. Vice-President Hood said she was just wondering if there was another solution. Director Chiu said that at one time he was thinking along the same lines of getting a variance from City Planning to allow DBI to put tables and chairs in the front of the building. Director Chiu said that the Department is continuing to look into solutions. Vice-President Hood said that the idea works beautifully at the museum and by pulling the entrance back five feet, it makes it comfortable enough to sit there, but if the building is not pulled back there is an exposed feeling. Vice-President Hood said that there is an even higher amount of traffic, both pedestrian and vehicles on Third Street where the museum is located than there is on Mission Street. Director Chiu said that the Department is willing to look at other alternatives and will continue to explore the open space on the fifth and sixth floors. Director Chiu said that at this point if the Department has to do a roof garden, it would have a major impact on the project and the existing office space, and the Department may not even want to continue. Commissioner Walker said that one of the things that was made clear was that there is concern that whatever open space would exist would transition back out of open space and into some other use. Commissioner Walker said that there was a desire on the part of the workers that there would be space to have a break. Mr. Young said that one of the issues that was put on the table, and the Department was talking about a matter of trust, was that the spaces are going to be handled such that they will be materials and method by which it will be inconvenient to turn the open space back into office space or any other use, other than an open tiled area. Mr. Young said that when there is this level of change and there are floor drains, the Department is making a commitment as to how this space is to be used and it was also made clear at this discussion that there are two departments involved and two departments that are very dependent upon this new structure to provide for some working space. Mr. Young said that the Department is cognizant that there has to be open areas, rest and break areas and made the commitment that when these areas get designed and put in, the area that will be designated for each department is going to be differentiated in terms of material and finish. Mr. Young said that these areas are going to be made far less usable and returnable to office space. Mr. Young said that the plans do not dictate the amount of space that needs to be used by the Department of City Planning because they need to accommodate the needs of their department. Mr. Young said that whatever City Planning’s confines are regarding where that space needs to be defined; DBI needs to look at that level of flexibility and provide for that level of assurance that this is going to be employee space. Mr. Young stated that this was made very clear in the meeting with City Planning. Commissioner Marks said that a problem with a set back at the first level would be the lack of privacy for the employees from the public. Commissioner Marks said that the public could be critical of employees taking, for example, 16 minutes for their break instead of 15. Vice-President Hood said that she had another idea, and it may be something that Director Chiu has already looked at. Vice-President Hood said that there is a beautiful curved skylight at the top of the building when the building was originally built that was open. Director Chiu said that the skylight was in the building next door. Vice-President Hood said that perhaps the Department should lease that space from AAA, as it is actually an atrium and would have the quality of being outdoors without the noise level and the wind which are problems especially in the wintertime. Vice-President Hood said she really supports this need and knows Ms. Scott will continue to be a strong advocate. Vice-President Hood stated that she would be happy to volunteer to do sketches or anything that would help. Director Chiu said that the Department would appreciate her design advice.

Ms. Patricia Vaughey stated that she agreed with Vice-President Hood on lost space. Ms. Vaughey stated that the first floor is probably the most ill planned office space she has seen in her entire life. Ms. Vaughey said that she did not know who planned it, but there could be twice the number of computers for the public if it were done in a different configuration. Ms. Vaughey said that there could be more storage room if it were done with proper cabinets and stated that there is one room that she never sees anyone in that is near the plumbing counter. Ms. Vaughey said that there could be a program to avoid the problem of files getting lost all of the time if that room were set up and a filing system done in numerical sequence, where the files would not be lost when they are being held for 15 days. Ms. Vaughey stated that there are a lot of things that could be done on the first floor that would increase the efficiency of both departments and the efficiency of the workers who have to go and look for these lost items all of the time. Ms. Vaughey said that the public would be happier, as there are not enough computers on the first floor and not enough microfiche machines as she has seen waiting lines there. Ms. Vaughey said that there are ways that the first floor could be reconfigured, particularly the left hand side where there is a lot of wasted space. Ms. Vaughey said that there are ways that it could be done better and if the Department is doing this expansion, maybe DBI should talk with some of the people who come into the building to see what ideas are out there. Ms. Vaughey said there should be a suggestion box and see what happens, as it is hard for everyone the way it is now. Ms. Vaughey said that it looks like a man organized it.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that Commissioner Marks brought up the point of people being able to watch what the employees do, but said that even worse, with the open space on the first floor there would be people making break time into office hours. Ms. Caravelli said that the public would have access to the planner on their project and would be able to interrupt employees who are on their break. Ms. Caravelli said this is not the kind of situation wanted for employees who are on a break. Ms. Caravelli said that another problem would be for employees who smoke as there could not be an enclosed area where they could take their break. Ms. Caravelli said that others may not approve of this, but it is the employees right if they want to, to have a space in which to smoke. Ms. Caravelli said that the Planners have asked for open space and that does not mean an open area in the building.

c. Update on schedule to form Budget Committee.

Director Chiu said that he wanted to discuss the schedule for the 2001-2002 budget. Director Chiu stated that the dialogue for the 2001-2002 budget has begun, but the Department has not yet received the actual instructions from the Mayor’s Office; however, word from City Hall is that, particularly for the General Fund of which DBI is not part, the Mayor’s Office is not interested in seeing any new increase nor any new enhancement programs. Director Chiu said that the Commission needs to start with Committee meetings and in the past there have been two or three Commissioners that have helped the Department put the budget together. Director Chiu said that the Commission would have to select a Committee to start working with staff. President Fillon asked when the Committee would have to be established. Director Chiu said ideally the first week of January. Director Chiu said that all of the Commissioners should be thinking of items that they want to address. Director Chiu said that as soon as a package is received the information could be sent to all of the Commissioners and then by the beginning of the year, have the Committee members meet with staff. President Fillon asked if January 19^th would be soon enough to have a first draft of the Department budget. Director Chiu said that by that time the Committee should already be in place. Director Chiu stated that he would give all of the information to all of the Commissioners for review. President Fillon said that in past years, the Commission were fortunate that one of the members was an accountant.

Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that one thing she would like the Commission to look at in the budget is the budget for more enforcement. Ms. Vaughey said that there have been many cases where the builder has gone beyond the scope of their permits and illegal demolitions. Ms. Vaughey said that she has figured out on those cases alone, with the middle of the road penalty, that it is $505,0000 per year that the Department is not getting. Ms. Vaughey said that there should be something put into the budget to try to crack down on people who are not following the rules. Ms. Vaughey said it $505,000 could hire a lot more inspectors, planners and workers for the Department. Ms. Vaughey asked the Commissioners to take a look at this situation.

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

Ms. Roberta Caravelli introduced herself as President of Citizen Review. Ms. Caravelli said that Citizen Review has an appeal that has been put on the agenda incorrectly, but according to the commission’s rules, all documents on this matter should have been in by the previous Thursday. Ms. Caravelli said that when she arrived, or the Secretary arrived, Ms. Aherne told her that the Department had handed her a document that has been prepared on her way over here. Ms. Caravelli said that this should have been submitted last Thursday, but apparently the Department waited to receive her document and have now created a rebuttal in writing. Ms. Caravelli said that she had no opportunity to even create testimony regarding anything that the Department was going to say because she has not seen the document yet. Ms. Caravelli said that the outrageous nature of this being done, the fact that the Department has not considered that in an adversarial situation the Department must walk a little bit carefully. Ms. Caravelli said that the Department has not considered that they are denying her constitutional rights of due process and are asking the Commission to collude with them if the Commission accepts the document as part of the record. Ms. Caravelli said that it is horrendous and hideous. Ms. Caravelli said that Ms. Aherne had to deal with her phone calls asking if anyone had turned in any documents. Ms. Caravelli said that she does not know if she is expected to sit down and read the document during the hearing in an attempt to rebut. Ms. Caravelli said that in addition, instead of suspending the decision that has been appealed as required by law; this has not been done. Ms. Caravelli said that the permit is continuing to be processed, so she could not really ask the Commission for a continuance because if the permit issues, the staff has essentially muted this appeal. Ms. Caravelli asked the Commission to think about fairness, not even about law or morality, just fairness. Ms. Caravelli asked the Commission to think about this when the item comes up and think about what is fair or if the Commission just wants to roll over her with a steamroller, which the staff has managed to do with this appeal since, she filed it. Ms. Caravelli thanked the Commission.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos introduced herself as a member of the community in Noe Valley. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she is distressed to once again hear about a hotel fire on the news. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the owners name was Patel and this was a brick building and a woman was killed. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that these types of brick buildings are the type that is most susceptible to fires. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that one of the occupants of the building was interviewed and said that there was no alarm or no fire sprinklers. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she knows there are some provisions in the Housing Code for inspectors to check on Residential Hotels, however, it is not bolstered by anything in the Building Code and this has been sorely needed since 1986 when Ordinance #30-19 was passed by the Board of Supervisors who thought that SRO Housing was the type of units that should be preserved in the City, as there is a need for them. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she would light a fire under any of the committees in the Department of Building Inspection to do something about this, but realizes that this is a political issue where there is money involved. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that Mr. Patel is the only one who makes out in this situation because he gets money from the fire insurance and the tenants end up out on the street. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that these people are constructively evicted. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she would appreciate it if the Department would make some effort to do something about this. Ms. Yovanopoulos thanked the Commission.

Mr. John Carney said that he was present at the last meeting and apologized for not being present during the discussion about 598 Vermont Street. Mr. Carney stated that he appreciated how fast DBI staff handled the problem once he got their attention. Mr. Carney said that he wanted to compliment the staff. Mr. Carney stated that, as mentioned at the last meeting, the Planning Department did not know where the records he was seeking were located. Mr. Carney said that it was not the fault of DBI and he appreciated the help.

Mr. Sean Gorman said that he had a very brief presentation to make regarding the San Francisco Building Code. Mr. Gorman distributed copies of code sections he would be using for reference. Mr. Gorman said that he was speaking of the issue of section 1004.2.3.7 of the San Francisco Building Code. Mr. Gorman stated that it is an amendment under exception No.7. Mr. Gorman said that he was asking the Commission to ask the City Attorney to draft legislation to modify the San Francisco Building Code. Mr. Gorman said that when the code was being modified for the current code cycle, there was about two years worth of effort that was put forth by the Citizen’s Code Advisory Committee, DBI staff and the Fire Department to essentially modify the Code to remove a number of amendments that were in conflict with the California Building Code and the UBC. Mr. Gorman stated that one of the sections that was proposed for change, and because of all of the changes that were occurring at the time and was left in, was this code section. Mr. Gorman said that it was intended by Department staff, Fire Department staff and the Citizen’s Code Advisory Committee to have this section removed. Mr. Gorman said that for the past year and one-half, since the adoption of the new code, CCAC and DBI staff and the Fire Department have re-reviewed this matter and have made a recommendation to the Director to have this section removed from the Code in accordance with what they originally intended to do. Mr. Gorman said that the consensus is that this code section should be removed so that the San Francisco code is conforming with the standards of the UBC and the California Building Code. Mr. Gorman said one of the reasons is the negative affect during remodeling work in the City and County of San Francisco and the construction of small residential buildings on uphill and downhill lots. Mr. Gorman said that the negative affect is enormous. Mr. Gorman read the code section stating, "not withstanding any of the exceptions about group R occupancy buildings shall be provided with not less than two exits from all stories that are more than 25 feet above exterior grade at any point." Mr. Gorman said that often what the developer runs into, for example on a single family house, is having on a downhill or uphill slope to provide a full second staircase for a master bedroom suite and if this is on an uphill slope, two full staircases would have to be provided which is normally not in single family buildings. Mr. Gorman stated that other local jurisdictions that have similar topography do not have this code section; they work with the UBC and with the California Building Code. This includes Oakland, Daly City and Marin. Mr. Gorman stated that the CCAC has made a recommendation to the Director and Mr. Gorman was asking that the Commission have the City Attorney draft legislation to modify the code to remove this particular exception. Mr. Gorman thanked the Commission.

Mr. Eamon Murphy introduced himself as a contractor and a landlord in San Francisco. Mr. Murphy stated that it was about time that someone spoke about a constructive suggestion regarding the Code about which Mr. Gorman spoke. Mr. Murphy said that this legislation should be drafted, as there are a lot of applications waiting for approval in San Francisco. Mr. Murphy said that Oakland and other cities do not enforce this particular section of this Code. Mr. Murphy said that in San Francisco most lots are 25’ X 100’ so there is no great street frontage as you would have in Oakland as some of the lots are 50’. Mr. Murphy thanked the Commission.

Mr. Andy Forrest introduced himself as a Civil Engineer in San Francisco. Mr. Forrest said that he had an unusual request and said he hoped that the Commissioners and staff could make the appropriate research and understand the spirit in which he is making a request. Mr. Forrest stated that he has an item further down on the agenda that will be discussed later and his request now is not a part of that. Mr. Forrest said that he would like the Building Inspection Commissioners and staff of DBI to consider a letter of reprimand towards Ms. Roberta Caravelli, as he believes that she has been abusive and is inconsiderate and demeaning to Building Department staff during the course of their duties. Mr. Caravelli stated that everyone knew Ms. Caravelli, as he has seen her in action at the Planning Commission and at the BIC for years. Mr. Forrest said that he has been involved in a project where Ms. Caravelli has teamed up against him and that is fine, but during the course of Plan Check, he has gotten feedback from the Plan Checkers and other personnel that she has abused them in public. Mr. Forrest stated that he hoped the Commissioners and staff could do a little research and consider a letter of reprimand towards her to remind her how to conduct her business at the Building Department. Mr. Forrest said that it takes very little to get by in this world, just two words, respect and consideration and Mr. Forrest said that Ms. Caravelli is abusing that towards staff.

Commissioner Walker asked if Director Chiu could follow up on the fire that happened at the residential hotel and provide the Commission with an assessment of the inspections and violations with respect to that building. Commissioner Walker said she has asked for this information in the past just to know what the history of the building is with DBI. Director Chiu said that he would see that Commissioner Walker would get a report.

Commissioner Marks asked if Director Chiu could respond to the suggestion of changing the Building Code to eliminate the requirement of two means of exits. Ms. Caravelli made a comment from the audience that the Commission was violating the Brown Act. President Fillon said that this item could be agendized. President Fillon stated that Director Chiu could respond to the question, but there could not be a full discussion. Director Chiu said that the Department agrees with the analysis that was presented and is working with the City Attorney’s Office to amend this section.

5. Demonstration of new DBI website. [MIS Manager Marcus Armstrong]

Director Chiu said that at a previous meeting the Commissioners were concerned about keeping the DBI website updated. Director Chiu said that MIS Manager Marcus Armstrong has taken the opportunity to revisit the entire website and would like to demonstrate what the new website would be covering. Director Chiu stated that the Department is open to suggestions for the new website that is not 100% ready, but is almost complete.

MIS Manager Marcus Armstrong introduced himself and proceeded to demonstrate the new website. Mr. Armstrong said that the website is complete, but the Department is waiting for some issues concerning content changes and are also working on the color scheme. Mr. Armstrong proceeded to demonstrate the website.

Commissioner Walker asked if the website were being loaded on DSL. Mr. Armstrong stated that there was no connection in Room 408 and he was using a laptop for the demonstration.

Director Chiu stated that one of the differences from the new website as opposed to the old is that now information can be downloaded. Director Chiu said that in the past Vice-President Hood has asked why applications could not be downloaded from the DBI website and this feature is now available. Director Chiu said that bulletins and information can now be read, but also downloaded to the customer’s computer. Director Chiu thanked Mr. Armstrong for his work on this new website and said he was looking forward to it being up and running.

Commissioner Santos thanked Mr. Armstrong for the presentation.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli introduced herself as President of Citizen Review and said that she was sorry that the website had been taken down as she has spent some time designing websites. Ms. Caravelli said that she does not consider herself a professional, but has some grave concerns because the presentation looked very fast and speedy, but Ms. Caravelli said that there are some fairly good size graphic capabilities and ideally this should load in 8 seconds. Ms. Caravelli said that frames have been added and frames are essentially a lazy way to program, as things do not have to be repeated, but frames also slow everything down. Ms. Caravelli said that one of the things about designing for the Internet is that things should be fast. Ms. Caravelli thanked the Commission.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she would like the website to have a hot button. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she would like this hot button so that customers could find out about when the next Commission meeting is or if there is something going on with the Code Advisory Committee. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that if there are meetings scheduled for one year, perhaps the meeting schedules could be posted. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that it would be helpful for each committee to post when their meetings are held so people can plan if they want to attend.

President Fillon asked how the Commission agendas and minutes were now being shown on the web. Mr. Armstrong explained that the way the meetings and agendas are working right now is that DBI’s customer service group correlates all of the meetings and agendas from the various groups who need them posted and they pass it off to Mr. Armstrong who then passes it off to DTIS. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI is the link and are generating the agendas and minutes. Commissioner Walker asked if it were required that all documents are posted on the website along with the agendas. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that documents are to be posted when feasible. Ms. Boyajian said that she would refer to the Sunshine Ordinance for clarification. Director Chiu said that the schedules for the meetings could be posted, as the schedule is predetermined. Mr. Armstrong said it depends on when he receives the data and if there is a deadline, the more lead-time that is available the better. Ms. Aherne said that she sends the information to the Webmaster and is informed when the agenda is posted. Commissioner Walker said that the more information that is accessible and downloadable to the public, the better. Commissioner Walker said that the attachments could be scanned. Mr. Armstrong said that the documents would be converted to a pdf file and would then be available. Ms. Boyajian stated that documents have to be available to the public, but the law reads "to the extent possible documents should also be available to the Internet site." Ms. Aherne said that there is a notice on the site that states that the Building Commission meets the first and third Wednesday of each month. Commissioner Walker said that the public needs to see what is on the agenda to see if they want to attend.

6. Update on distribution of interest being held by the Controller’s Office as a result of the Sainez case. [Commissioner Guinnane]

Commissioner Guinnane said that at the last Commission meeting the settlement from the Sainez case was discussed. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there was a judgment paid to the City and County of San Francisco of almost $1M and he had asked for a breakdown of how the money was paid. Commissioner Guinnane said that the breakdown showed an amount of $190,000 of interest that accumulated on the actual judgment while it went up to the first appellant level. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Commission was told that this $190,000 was going to go to the City Attorney’s Office and that this was on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he met with Mayor Brown two weeks ago and discussed this situation with him. Commissioner Guinnane said that Mayor Brown had no knowledge of this situation and in fact told him that what the City Attorney’s Office was doing was completely illegal. Commissioner Guinnane said that Mayor Brown got on the phone to the Controller’s Office and Mr. Harrington told the Mayor that Louise Renne was trying to get the $190,000, but there was no way that he could legally give it to the City Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Guinnane said that the outcome of the meeting was that the $190,000 belongs to DBI and it will not go to the City Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Guinnane said that concluded his report on the Sainez case. Commissioner Santos congratulated Commissioner Guinnane on his hard work.

7. APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION D3.750.4 OF THE CITY CHARTER AND CHAPTER 77 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

Appeal of Ms. Roberta Caravelli, President of Citizen Review, regarding Permit Application Number 9923677, site address 585 Laidley Street. Ms. Caravelli is appealing the Department of Building Inspection’s decision: 1) That the permit application’s review has not expired by limitation because Building Code § 107.4 has been revised by the San Francisco Building Code and replaced by San Francisco §106.3.7 and that § 106.3.6’s mandatory application cancellation doesn’t apply because notice has not been sent. 2) That AB-109 allows a fire escape as an equivalent alternative to the stairway required by the Building Code § 1004.2.3.2.

President Fillon said that before the appeal started he wanted to comment on the earlier public comment made by Ms. Caravelli about documentation being submitted today by the Department. President Fillon said that after conferring with the City Attorney, it would be best if the Commission not allow the items to be included. President Fillon said that if the items were critical, he would review the submissions individually.

President Fillon asked those who were going to be testifying in this case to please step forward to be sworn in. Ms. Levine swore in those persons.

President Fillon stated that the appellant would speak first and was allowed seven minutes for her initial presentation.

Ms. Roberta Caravelli introduced herself as President of Citizen Review. Ms. Caravelli said that she was unclear about the decision regarding the documents and asked for clarification. Ms. Caravelli said that Citizen Review was the actual appellant in this appeal and she was merely its representative. Ms. Caravelli stated that DBI is once again planning to issue a permit in direct violation of clear provisions of the Building Code. Ms. Caravelli said that Citizen Review wanted to give the Commission the opportunity to halt these illegal acts and the issuance of the thereby invalid permit. Ms. Caravelli stated that the appeal has two issues: the continued processing of stale dated permit applications months after the plan review has expired by limitation and operation of law, and ten full months since the application should have been cancelled under other provisions to the Building Code. Ms. Caravelli said that the Building Code also requires a second stairway as a secondary means of egress as an earlier testifier was pointing out when he was discussing the provision of the Code. Ms. Caravelli said that it is a stairway, not a fire escape and a fire escape is not equivalent to a stairway, and everyone knows this. Ms. Caravelli said that Citizen Review has repeatedly brought the practice of DBI’s continued processing of stale dated permit applications to the attention of DBI staff. Ms. Caravelli said that Citizen Review has made repeated requests that procedures be established to halt this practice, yet still it continues. Ms. Caravelli stated that the claims made by Inspector McNulty in his 10/6 letter to Citizen Review are clearly false and Ms. Caravelli said that this has been shown by the language of the Code provisions themselves. Ms. Caravelli stated that DBI continued to process the permit application and did not cancel it, as required by the Code and Administrative Bulletin AB033. Ms. Caravelli stated that San Francisco has not replaced California Building Code Section 107.4 as the wording of San Francisco’s amendment shows, San Francisco Section 106.3.7 is to also be considered along with the State’s Section 107.4. Ms. Caravelli stated that San Francisco’s Section 106.3.7 may not be used to impermissibly extend the life of an application past Section 107.4’s mandatory expiration. Ms. Caravelli stated that to accept Inspector McNulty’s claim is to admit that San Francisco has illegally enacted a provision which is less restrictive than the California Code. Ms. Caravelli said that this is not within San Francisco’s authority. Ms. Caravelli said that DBI has no authority to eliminate the requirements of both Sections 106.3.7 and 107.4 by simply failing to send the 106.3.7 notice. Ms. Caravelli stated that perhaps failure to send the required notice within a month might be considered error, or failing for two months could be argued to be simple negligence; however, this permit was forwarded to and logged into the Planning Department on November 10, 1999. Ms. Caravelli said that pursuant to Section 106.3.7 the applicant was required to submit all necessary information and changes and the Planning Department was required to approve or cancel on or around February 10, 2000. Ms. Caravelli said that ten months later the application is still being processed. Ms. Caravelli said that one or two months as stated could be argued to be error or negligence, ten months can only be seen as malfeasance. Ms. Caravelli said that moreover, once the problem was called to DBI’s attention in August, there is no reasonable excuse, which can be offered for DBI’s continued illegal processing of the application. Ms. Caravelli said to give Inspector McNulty some benefit of the doubt and not call his claims disingenuous and malfeasance just yet. Ms. Caravelli said to look at what happened after this expired permit application finally reached DBI. Ms. Caravelli said that the applicant was notified on 9/15 to submit a complete addendum package. Ms. Caravelli said that pursuant to Administrative Bulletin AB033, only one addendum may be submitted. Ms. Caravelli stated that if an incomplete packet is submitted or the addenda is not completed and submitted on time, the permit must be cancelled, the application must be cancelled; however, the applicant did not submit the complete packet. Ms. Caravelli said that the applicant left out the Title 24 energy calcs and DBI is still processing the permit. Ms. Caravelli said that Inspector McNulty says that 106.3.7 controls; however, Ms. Caravelli stated that it doesn’t and even when the Administrative Bulletin requires the cancellation of the permit, it still hasn’t been cancelled. Ms. Caravelli stated that by his own staff’s impermissibly processing this application, in direct violation of AB033 and Section 106.3.7, Inspector McNulty’s claim that 106.3.7 controls is shown to be false. Ms. Caravelli stated that all of the delays are the applicant’s own fault, as it was the applicant’s failure to submit an approvable plan to the Planning Department which delayed Planning’s approval. Ms. Caravelli said that the applicant, during his own self-inspired delay, also failed to file for an extension. Ms. Caravelli stated that the permit application has expired through no one’s fault, but the applicants. Ms. Caravelli said that nevertheless, DBI is ignoring its administrational duty and is ignoring the clear provisions of the Code and is continuing to process the application. Ms. Caravelli said that this is the case despite that plan review expired by limitation and operations law on or around May 4^th. Ms. Caravelli stated that DBI has claimed that it has followed the provisions of Section 106.3.7 instead of 107.4; however, the facts of this case show that this is not the case. Ms. Caravelli said that what is present is simple malfeasance; it is not error, as error could only be argued up to Citizen Review’s notification of the problem in August. Ms. Caravelli stated that what exists in this case is DBI’s staff and the applicant both opposing and resisting the clearly inescapable provisions of the Building Code, thus pursuant to the explicit provisions of the Building Code Section 103 what is present is persons who are all guilty of misdemeanors, in other words, criminals. Ms. Caravelli said that the last page of Citizen Review’s November 30^th package has the remedy that they have asked for; cancel the permit application. Ms. Caravelli thanked the Commission.

Director Chiu requested Deputy Director Wong to present the case for DBI. Director Chiu stated that he has reviewed the case and felt that staff had followed every rule and regulation in the book and would recommend that the Commission uphold the Department’s decision.

Deputy Director William Wong stated that he did supply the Commission Secretary with a report prior to the meeting and would be referring to his notes. Mr. Wong said that he had extracted information from the Citizen Review appeals package to give a chronology of what had occurred. Mr. Wong said that the permit application in question is #9923677S, which is a site permit. Mr. Wong said that this breaks the application into two parts, one being a site permit submitted for Planning review and after Planning reviews the site plan, the application comes back to DBI and an addenda is submitted for construction plans and this is a two phase process. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Wong to refer to the package submitted by Ms. Caravelli. Mr. Wong said that the copy of the permit application was Exhibit I and stated that the filing date was November 5, 1999. Mr. Wong stated that the Planning Commission took action on this application, as there was a Discretionary Review filed and Ms. Caravelli was a party to the Discretionary Review. Mr. Wong said that the Planning Department took action on August 24,2000 and approved it with conditions. Mr. Wong said that the Department of City Planning, at staff level, went ahead and approved the application on August 24, 2000 and sent that down to DBI on August 25, 2000, one day later. Mr. Wong said that he wanted to stop at this point and explain that from November 5, 1999 to August 24, 2000 the time when City Planning approved the application, this involved 9+ months. Mr. Wong said that when DBI received the application on August 25^th, the first review comment was sent out on September 14^th, approximately two weeks later and then the addendum was submitted by the applicant on October 12^th. Mr. Wong stated that DBI then reviewed the addendum and determined that additional information was still needed after reviewing the documents. Mr. Wong said that a second comment was sent out on October 25^th and then the applicant submitted the additional information as requested by DBI on November 6^th. Mr. Wong said that on November 6^th, having deemed that the application was complete and adequate; the DBI architectural plan checker approved the application on November 7^th. Mr. Wong said that from the time that DBI sent out the review comments in accordance with Section 106.3.7, to the time the application was actually approved, would be a total of 55 calendar days. Mr. Wong said that he wanted to walk the Commissioners through the relevant Code Sections. Mr. Wong said that 107.4 which is the UBC language that Ms. Caravelli made reference to, gives a total of 180 calendar days, no matter where the permit is and this is what she is arguing. Mr. Wong said, however, in San Francisco Building Code this Section 107.4 has been amended. Mr. Wong proceeded to read the Code stating "revise the section as follows: 107.4 expiration of plan review, see also Section 106.3.7", and stated that this is understood to mean that 107.4 has been replaced in its entirety to 106.3.7. Mr. Wong said that this Code Section, as shown in Ms. Caravelli’s initial submission, Exhibit A, page 3, 106.3.7 is the governing Code Section for this particular project and gives a table, which is based on the valuation of construction. Mr. Wong said that based on this valuation, the applicant has a certain number of days, a time limitation, in which to respond to these plan review comments. Mr. Wong stated that this project is over $100,000 so the applicant is allowed 90 calendar days, and Mr. Wong said that he reported earlier that from the time that DBI sent out the review comments, until actual approval was a total of 55 calendar days and this was well within the 90 days allowed. Commissioner Walker asked if Ms. Caravelli’s claim was that the time starts from the date of application. Mr. Wong said that Commissioner Walker was correct. Commissioner Walker asked if this would start in November 1999. Mr. Wong said that it is very clear that staff followed the Code and procedures in reviewing this application. Mr. Wong said that the other issue, with respect to the egress issue, the appellant has correctly referenced the Code Section and bulletin in her exhibits, which would be Building Code Section 1004.2.3.2. and also Administrative Bulletin AB019. Mr. Wong said that this allows DBI to approve a fire escape as a means of egress on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Wong stated that Ms. Caravelli was correct in stating this bulletin and the action that DBI took was prior to the application even being filed. Mr. Wong said that the applicant met with the Chief Building Inspector at that time, Mr. Huntington, and after determining the conditions of local equivalency which is outlined in that bulletin, all of those conditions were met at the pre-application meeting and the Manager allowed the fire escape that was approved as part of the application. Mr. Wong said that once again, in this particular aspect, staff has followed the procedures in approving a fire escape, as the building is very small. Mr. Wong said that the site is 30’ X 50’ and the applicant is adding a third floor, which triggered the second means of egress. Mr. Wong said the Department looked at the plans to see if it was feasible to put in a stairs, and based on physical constraints, the Department allowed the fire escape. Mr. Wong said his report was concluded and stated that he agreed with Director Chiu that the staff has followed procedures and the Code and recommended that the Commission uphold the determination made by Inspector McNulty in his October 6, 2000 letter.

Director Chiu said that the 180 days that were talked about is not even in the San Francisco Code and he did not want the Commissioners to think that there was a provision for 180 days to approve the permit. Director Chiu stated that Section 107.4 was amended entirely by the San Francisco Building Code and therefore this provision does not apply. Director Chiu said that the provision has been totally amended and DBI is well within the time and there is no such thing as 180 days from when the application is filed. Director Chiu said that this Section is not in DBI’s code. President Fillon asked if the amended code was less restrictive than the San Francisco Code. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that she would like to clarify the issue. Ms. Boyajian stated that 107.4 is in the Uniform Building Code and at the beginning of the Code there are matrix adoption tables. Ms. Boyajian said that 107.4 was never adopted by the State of California. Ms. Boyajian passed her copy of the matrix adoption table to the Commissioners for review. Ms. Boyajian said that the California Building Standards Commission or any other State agency never adopted this; it is not part of the California Building Code and does not apply. Ms. Boyajian stated that San Francisco does not have to follow this, as San Francisco has its own procedure, which is 106.3.7. Commissioner Walker said that technically there is no expiration and a building permit can sit for 50 years. Deputy Director Wong said that this is not true. Ms. Boyajian said that the only section that does apply in San Francisco is the 106.3.7, and 107.4 has no application in San Francisco. Commissioner Walker asked if someone applies at DBI and then the application goes to another Department for nine or ten months, then the only clock that DBI deals with is when the application is actually in the Department. Deputy Director Wong said that this was correct. Commissioner Walker asked if there was any expiration, as it could go by slow boat somewhere and stay active for 50 years. Deputy Director Wong said that he has not seen any application like this. Commissioner Walker asked if it could be one year or two years. Ms. Boyajian said that there is no State timetable, there is only the timetable in San Francisco’s Building Code and it clearly states that the time limits begin, or start when the applicant has been notified. Ms. Boyajian said that the time does not start from the date of the application. Mr. Wong said that the clock started on September 14^th when DBI notified the applicant. Mr. Wong said that would only be for that one station as the Department does not have any control over other departments and Planning Department may hold an application for Discretionary Review or conditional use. Commissioner Walker asked how the Department deals with something that is active for a long time and maybe subsequent changes are made in the rules or something becomes stale, life or safety wise, there is no provision that protects against something being open for a long time. Ms. Boyajian said that there are other section of the Code that talk about how long something can go on and in this case, it seems that the application was turned around in a very short time once it came back to the Department. Mr. Wong said that this particular case was in compliance with the Code requirements. Commissioner Walker asked if there was any notification that went out when an application is first transitioned to Planning. Commissioner Walker said that an application could be somewhere for a really long time and can appear stale. Commissioner Walker asked if notification was supposed to be sent out at the beginning of this application. Mr. Wong said that when the application is filed, the applicant is made aware that the first station would be City Planning. Mr. Wong said that notification was sent to the neighbors. Commissioner Santos said that he wanted to confirm the timetable and said that on November 5, 1999 an application was submitted and was sent to Planning where some notification occurred and it took about 9 months to get Planning approval, it was then sent back to DBI. Commissioner Santos stated that the applicant had issues related to a fire escape so he set up a pre-application meeting to discuss these issues with Mr. Huntington. Commissioner Santos asked when this occurred. Mr. Wong stated that the meeting was held on December 7, 1999 shortly after the application was submitted. Commissioner Santos asked if the applicant had a formal pre-application meeting. Mr. Wong said that the applicant planned the project very well, paid the fees for pre-application and discussed all of the issues up front. Commissioner Santos said that the applicant was very knowledgeable and waited until he got Planning approval. Mr. Wong said that in his opinion this application went very smoothly because when it went to the Building Department, it was submitted in a very timely manner and additional requests for information were also submitted in a very timely manner. Commissioner Santos said 55 days for full-blown approval is very timely and he would congratulate the Department in getting this application approved so quickly. President Fillon asked if there were any other questions of staff.

Mr. Andy Forrest introduced himself as a Civil Engineer who designed the project. Mr. Forrest said that he knows the permit processing well and did work for the Bureau of Building Inspection in the late 70’s and early 80’s for four years. Mr. Forrest said he was a structural and architectural plan checker. Mr. Forrest said that one Code Section that used to be in the Code was the section that pertains to the fact that whenever permits are being withheld by other bureaus or there is some sort of legal action pending, time limits are suspended. Mr. Forrest said that he was not worried about this, as clearly there was never an instance of this permit being in any jeopardy time wise. Mr. Forrest stated that he wanted to give the Commission a little flesh and blood, a little story behind this project. Mr. Forrest said that Manny and Sandra Alverenga, who live at 585 Laidley Street, are living in the building that is owned by their parents. Mr. Forrest said that they wanted to buy a home and had one child and have had another child born during this permit process. Mr. Forrest said that they are trying to get more space in this house that was owned by their parents, as they could not buy a house in this town. Mr. Forrest said that he and the Alvarengas proceeded to design the space and then got involved with Mrs. Geraldine Foster who lives next door and these issues were dealt with legitimately. Mr. Forrest said that he and the Alvarengas could not come to any remedy to address Mrs. Foster’s concerns and she filed for a Discretionary Review at the Planning Commission. Mr. Forrest said that this held the family up for over a year and they are still living in this house with a 30 square foot bathroom. Mr. Forrest said that Mrs. Roberta Caravelli jumped on the bandwagon and had to be dealt with at the Planning Commission. Mr. Forrest said that ultimately the issues were dealt with and they came up with a resolution, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to accept the revisions to the permit. Mr. Forrest said that this went the full route at the Planning Commission and was prolonged because of all of the conditions that Ms. Caravelli was raising with Ms. Foster. Mr. Forrest said that Ms. Foster had gratis consultancy to help her along with her protest. Mr. Forrest said that the whole reason this application was before the Commission today was based on vindictiveness and Mr. Forrest said you have to live and let live. Mr. Forrest said that the issues were worked out at the Planning Commission and now Ms. Caravelli is trumping up some Code Sections to stall this particular permit for no good reason. Mr. Forrest said that this poor family that lives in this house have been held up for over one year and want to get on with the remodeling of a property Mr. Alvarenga grew up in. Mr. Forrest stated that during the hearing Mrs. Foster even talked about things Mr. Alvarenga had done as a six-year-old boy in the neighborhood. Mr. Forrest said that all issues have been worked out with Planning and all revisions were submitted in the appropriate time and then this went to the Building Inspection Department. Mr. Forrest said that this is reflective of what he said earlier in his open notes to the Commission on actions by a certain person. Mr. Forrest said that he hopes that the Commissioners understand that there is a family behind all of this that wants to move along with this permit. Mr. Forrest said that he apologized for the iciness that he has because it is really frustrating that everybody has to deal with this situation.

Ms. Geraldine Foster said that she has not known Manny since he was six years old and would like to clarify that. Ms. Foster said that she is a resident of San Francisco who pays her taxes on time, stops at all red lights and when her books are overdue at the library, she pays her fines. Ms. Foster said that in dealing with the Planning and Building Department she has discovered that there are two classes of citizens in our City. Ms. Foster stated that there are ordinary residents like her husband and herself, and then there are the permit applicants and the City employees of the Building Department who refuse to follow or enforce the Building Codes. Ms. Foster said that the applicant filed a building permit application on 11/5/99 and pursuant to California Building Code Section 107.4; applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of the application shall expire by limitation. Ms. Foster said that as of 7/28/00, DBI had received no request for an extension, nor had any extension been granted. Ms. Foster said that she also understood that on 9/14/00, DBI requested from Mr. Forrest an addendum package containing detailed plans and related documents. Ms. Foster stated that Mr. Forrest was also told that if this information were not submitted in 30 days, the application would be cancelled. Ms. Foster said that as of 10/25/00, a part of this information had not been submitted; yet the permit application is still being processed. Ms. Foster said that what she did not understand and hoped that someone on the Commission could explain is why these laws are not being enforced. Ms. Foster said that at times she feels like making a sign and marching up and down in front of 1660 Mission Street. Ms. Foster said that the sign would say you don’t need to follow the Building Codes of San Francisco. Ms. Foster thanked the Commission.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos stated that Mr. Wong spoke about Exhibit I, the permit application, and stated that in looking at the notice the applicant had to submit more complete information, a change. Ms. Yovanopoulos referred to the document that stated that changes were made to the skylight and roof with no parapet; minimum five feet to property line or make fixed fire rated in one hour construction. Ms. Yovanopoulos read from the report about Section UBC 709.4. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that to her this looked like additional stuff that was not within the scope of the permit. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that what she has learned from going to meetings and public advisory and technical services is that if there is a change in the scope, then a new permit needs to be taken out. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that this seems like the applicant is adding to the original permit and stated that she believed it was the policy of the Department to require an additional permit be issued. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that even if the applicant made an addendum, he should have taken the next step and the next step is, if you have changes that are substantial, then you take out another permit and this fellow did not do this. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that this is called permit creeping and things that happen afterwards that the public does not have a chance to protest because the permit has not been applied for and then there is no fifteen-day window to make an objection. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that this is the way she feels about it and thinks that this applicant went beyond the scope of the permit.

Ms. Caravelli said that the Commissioners certainly got a load of malarkey. Ms. Caravelli said that she was passing around a page from the 1998 California Building Code that is quite clearly labeled and shows in the margins where California adopted amendments to the Uniform Code, and also shows all of California’s Codes. Ms. Caravelli said that 107.4 is highlighted and wanted the Commissioners to see it. Ms. Caravelli said that someone has ripped off the law library’s copy and it is getting harder and harder to get copies of the Code. Ms. Caravelli stated that it was clearly the California Code and clearly shows this section as part of it. Ms. Caravelli said that she was quoting Section 106.3.7 that states that during the processing of the application any corrections, additional information, plans or documents that are necessary to complete the processing by any of the enforcing agencies, Ms. Caravelli stated that this included Planning, shall be submitted and approved within the following time limitations. Ms. Caravelli said that for a project of $125,000, which is the estimated revised cost, it is 90 calendar days. Ms. Caravelli said that Administrative Bulletin AB033 states that failure to submit the complete package within the notice period will result in cancellation of the permit application. Ms. Caravelli said that the Title 24 calculations are not additional information, they are something that everybody knows has to go in with the permit and the plans, and in this case they did not go in with the original package and the plan checker had to ask for them. Ms. Caravelli said that it is incredible that personal attacks are allowed from a person who has not heard of the pertinent libel and slander laws. Ms. Caravelli said that she believes that the documents she turned in with her appeal show that stale dated permit applications are an item she has been fighting for a very long time. Ms. Caravelli said that she does not follow very many building projects, but when she does trip over and find one it is then brought to her attention. Ms. Caravelli said that she is tired of this practice and stated that Mao Joes was the worst, 524 - 28^th Avenue from 1991 to 1997, it sat in Plan Checking and then a permit was issued. Ms. Caravelli said that this case was no different and was just as illegal and invalid. Ms. Caravelli left copies of Administrative Bulletin AB033.

Director Chiu stated that the Department had checked with the City Attorney’s Office and determined that the ruling that Ms. Caravelli is quoting has not been adopted by the State of California and the Section that is within the City & County of San Francisco’s Building Code has been followed. Director Chiu said that both he and Deputy Director Wong have reviewed the process thoroughly and found no wrong doing on the part of the Department. Director Chiu said that he would recommend strongly that the Commission uphold the Department’s determination. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the status of the permit is at the present time and is it ready to be issued. Director Chiu said that the application has been approved by DBI and is ready to go to a different agency. Deputy Director Wong said that the permit had been reviewed by architectural plan check review and the permit was now in structural review. Ms. Boyajian stated that the sections that Ms. Caravelli were pointing out as having been amended by the State 107.1.1 and 107.1.2, and looking at the matrix adopted schedule that is in the front of the Building Code, the State did adopt those sections, as well as 107.6.1, but they did not adopt 107.4. Ms. Caravelli asked why the State printed this and Ms. Boyajian answered that it was on the same page. President Fillon asked if Mr. Forrest had any rebuttal.

Mr. Forrest said that when he grew up, he could never address, in a respectful way, using language that was stated at this hearing. Mr. Forrest apologized for Ms. Caravelli’s comment that the Commission was listening to a bunch of malarkey. Mr. Forrest said that the Commission needs to look at Roberts Rules of Order or the policy of the Commission and not accept this kind of talk at a Commission hearing. Mr. Forrest said that this has been going on for too long. Mr. Forrest said that in replying to Ms. Yovanopoulos’ comments about working out of the scope of the permit, the skylight and comments that were written back is a classic response by the plan checker asking for clarification or additional information based on the work shown to him on the plans. Mr. Forrest said that the plan checker asked for comments and there is a section in the Code that talks about distance of skylights from property lines. Mr. Forrest said that originally he had a skylight three feet away and based on parapets it is supposed to be five feet away. Mr. Forrest stated that when he submitted his revisions, he moved the skylights five feet away so there was no additional work whatsoever added to the scope of the permit. Ms. Yovanopoulos made a comment from the audience and President Fillon reminded everyone that he could not allow such outbursts to take place. Mr. Forrest said that after the interruption he wanted to clarify again that there was no additional work added to this particular permit and the applicant followed through on the permit processing totally appropriately. Mr. Forrest said that he apologized for the unusual issues that he was bringing up at this meeting, but felt that they needed to be addressed in the future. Mr. Forrest thanked the Commission. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Forrest for clarification that the skylight was on the original permit. Mr. Forrest answered that it was. Mr. Forrest said that the permit has been architecturally plan checked and is waiting for a structural plan check and when comments come out of structural plan check they will be addressed; then the permit moves on to energy plan check. Commissioner Santos asked Mr. Forrest about the appellant’s claim that the Title 24 information was not submitted with the original plan. Commissioner Santos asked Mr. Forrest if he waited for approval from City Planning to submit the Title 24 information. Mr. Forrest said that this is classic for anyone who understands the permit processing, which can be perplexing at times, to submit the Title 24 with the Addendum package. Mr. Forrest said that he did not want to embarrass the Department by stating that the Title 24 calcs were lost when he submitted it. Mr. Forrest said that he always holds back duplicates of all papers that have been submitted because they do get lost and this is what happened. Mr. Forrest said that everything was submitted. Commissioner Walker said that she does have some concerns about the confusion about Section 107.4 and said that she was basically taking Ms. Boyajian’s counsel that it has not been adopted. Ms. Boyajian stated that the Building Department would also back her up on this. Ms. Boyajian said that she could show Commissioner Walker the table showing all of the Sections that are listed and 107.4 is not there. Commissioner Walker said that she was basically taking Ms. Boyajian’s counsel that this is true, as she thinks this is misleading as to the presence in the State Code and even though the Department has something that is written, there is an assumption by some that the State Code has been adopted and it hasn’t been. Ms. Boyajian said that the process starts with the Uniform Building Code and the State adopts, not the entire Uniform Code, but section by section and if this section does not appear in the matrix, than it hasn’t been adopted. Commissioner Walker said she does have concerns about there being no end time limit on permits and perhaps this is something that could be addressed in the future. President Fillon said that there is the problem of DBI not having control over how long City Planning reviews a permit application. Commissioner Walker said that if something disappears between DBI and Planning and never gets to the next station, a permit could be technically not in the Department and still be active for many years. Commissioner Walker said that those are the kind issues that create problems out in the public that the Commission might want to talk about at a future meeting to deal with stale projects. President Fillon said this is also distressing to an applicant whose project is lost in bureaucracy. Commissioner Walker said that if the permit is a problem, then the project sponsor would more thank likely try to find out where the permit is before seven years passes. Commissioner Santos reminded Commissioner Walker that this permit was approved in 55 days. Commissioner Walker said yes, but it was applied for a full year before. Commissioner Santos said the DBI has no jurisdiction over Planning and the Commission can only deal with what complies with the Building Code and in that regard, it has been done in 55 days. Commissioner Santos said he was impressed by the speed and the presentation by Mr. Wong. Commissioner Santos said that the Department followed the rules and Mr. Forrest had to present his case here before the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane said that after listening to all of the testimony, he would move to uphold the Department’s decision. Commissioner Santos seconded the motion. President Fillon called for a roll count. The motion carried with 4 ayes to 0 nays.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-069-00

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu if this permit could be expedited as it had been going on for so long.

Commissioner Guinnane asked for a five-minute break. The meeting resumed at 3:15 p.m.

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. John C. Conley to Todd Thyberg, Esq. Of Valerian, Patterson, et al. regarding Conley v. Kwok et al. - Claim No. E8-217916.

b. Letter from Mr. Paul K. Kwok to Director Frank Chiu regarding suspension of Building Permit #9908189S at 759 - 37^th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121.

c. Letter from Ms. Heidi Holman to Director Frank Chiu regarding 110 Lundys Lane regarding location of gas/electrical service.

d. Letter to BIC Secretary Ann Aherne from Ms. Roberta Caravelli regarding process for future appeals.

e. Memorandum from Ms. Taras Madison regarding "City Attorney Billing for the Month of September 2000."

f. Copy of Ordinance No. 232-00 regarding "Changing and Establish Official Width of Sidewalk in Connection with the YBC Redevelopment Plan Amendment.

g. Copy of Ordinance No. 238-00 regarding "Changing Official Sidewalk Width - Ocean Avenue."

h. Copy of Resolution No. 860-00 regarding "Agreement to Convey a Portion of Jessie Street in Connection with YBC Plan Amendment."

i. Copy of Resolution No. 954-00 regarding "Endorsing Baylands Report and Restoration.

Commissioner Santos reported on items 8a and 8b stating that both Commissioners Santos and Guinnane had been in contact with Mr. Conley and were hoping to resolve the issue once and for all. Commissioner Santos said that a meeting had been set with Mr. Conley, the owner of the property whose foundation had been undermined; Mr. Kwok, the project sponsor and the insurance company on Tuesday, December 12^th at 2:00 p.m. at 37^th Avenue.

Mr. William Van Way, Mr. Kwok’s attorney spoke on behalf of Mr. Paul Kwok who is the project sponsor and the owner. Mr. Kwok was issued permit #887372 on August 28, 1999 and submitted revisions on October 29, 1999. Mr. Van Way stated that Mr. Kwok acknowledges that the project caused damage to the Conley residence at 755 - 37^th Avenue. Mr. Kwok has been trying to work with State Farm Insurance, his carrier to correct the problem. Mr. Van Way stated that Mr. Laurence Kornfield of DBI issued a Stop Work order in November 1999 and no work was done until April 2000 when Mr. Kwok was working on the project without working on the foundation problems. Mr. Van Way said that during all of this Mr. Kwok’s insurance adjuster has changed and once again a Stop Work Order was issued in October. Mr. Van Way stated that Mr. Kwok is a mall contractor and this is his primary residence. Mr. Kwok would like to be able to work on the structure that is not part of the problem with the Conley’s, as this is the rainy season and his property is being damaged.

Ms. Angela Conley said that she has concerns about the work being done from Mr. Kwok’s property. Ms. Conley said that Commissioners Guinnane and Santos have visited the property and agreed that the work should be done from Mr. Kwok’s side of the property.

Commissioner Santos said that he would agree with Mr. Van Way’s statement that some of the work could be done away from the foundation, but the stop order was imposed to put pressure on Mr. Kwok to settle this matter in a timely manner, and hopefully the matter will be settled at the meeting on Tuesday when a financial settlement will be agreed upon. President Fillon asked that Commissioners Guinnane and Santos continue to follow up on this matter. President Fillon stated that he was concerned about the Commissioners taking control of this situation. Director Chiu said that the Department does not get involved with civil issues and Mr. Kwok’s letter was referred to the City Attorney’s Office.

Commissioner Walker asked if the original work done on this property was unauthorized or done without permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that the problem was when the Conley’s foundation was undermined and then the project sponsor wanted to underpin the Conley’s foundation. President Fillon cautioned the Commissioners not to get too involved. Commissioner Walker urged the Department to keep the Stop Work Orders in place until this can be resolved. President Fillon said that the Commission would have to be careful not to get too legally involved. Director Chiu said that the Department should only get involved if there are violations. Commissioner Walker said it seemed like there were violations. Director Chiu said that the Conley’s property is also in violation because of the foundation. Commissioner Walker said that the developer caused the violation. Director Chiu said that this is a civil dispute and the Department has to use caution about getting involved in legal matters. President Fillon said that this might not be under the Commission’s jurisdiction. Commissioner Guinnane said that the problem should be solved by the next meeting. President Fillon thanked Commissioners Guinnane and Santos for their time.

9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of November 15, 2000.

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

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-068-00

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.

After discussion the Commissioners decided that the December 20^th regular meeting of the Commission would be cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 3, 2001.

Commissioner Walker asked for an update on 759 - 37^th Avenue at the next meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would let Director Chiu know of the outcome of next Tuesday’s meeting and when the Stop Work Order could be lifted. Director Chiu said that a decision would be made after the Commissioners met at the property, so as not to delay the project for another month while waiting for a Commission meeting. President Fillon said that staff needs to move forward on this issue.

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

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she would like to question the make up of the Commission. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that there are two Commissioners whose appointments were brought forward and have expired. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she was speaking of Bobbie Sue Hood and Roy Guinnane. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she also questions the Non-Profit Housing Developer Seat held by President Fillon. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there are still appointments that need to be made to the various boards and committees and the public is suffering because these appointments have not been made. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she felt that Ms. Caravelli was trashed at this meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos wished all of the Commission and the Department Happy Holidays and stated that the Department works hard and services the people very well. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she is very grateful for what the Department has done for her and her rental situation.

12. Adjournment.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by President Fillon that the meeting be adjourned.

The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC-069-00

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne

Commission Secretary

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Form 2001-2002 Budget Committee - President Fillon	Page 5
Legislation to amend Section 1004.2.3.7 of the San Francisco Building Code - Commissioner Marks	Page 8
Update on recent Residential Hotel Fire - Commissioner Walker	Page 8
Expedite permit for 585 Laidley Street - Commissioner Guinnane	Page 19
Update on 755 - 37th Avenue - Commissioners Guinnane & Santos	Pages 20-21