BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Department of Building Inspection (DBI)
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Adopted October 1, 2003

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 2:20 p.m. by President Fillon.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

2.     President’s Announcements.

President Fillon had no announcements.

3.     Director’s Reports. [Director Frank Chiu]

a.     Update on the interim policy for processing Major Alteration/Residential Unlawful      Demolition permits. (Building Code 103.3.1)

Director Chiu said that Item #3a was to give the Commissioners a heads up regarding an interim policy he would like to work with staff on in trying to do a better job in processing potential unlawful demolition projects.  Director Chiu stated that one of the reasons this had been put off for a while is because the Commission had started to come up with a policy and at the same time Supervisor McGoldrick tried to take a stab to come back with some kind of language to solve this problem.  Director Chiu said that there has been talk for two or three years, but nothing has happened.  Director Chiu said that last month there were three of four projects that the Department encountered that the Department had to slow down and take a look at what went wrong with those three or four projects.  Director Chiu stated that he would give an example of a project and why some neighbors were upset about the notification process. 

Director Chiu said that a typical project involved with a vertical addition of an existing one story or two story building where the applicant is adding one or two more stories, in this situation, nine out of ten times, the site permit will show that almost everything that is existing will be kept.  Director Chiu stated that on the surface Planning takes a look at that and so does DBI and determines that there is no problem because most of the existing structure is going to be maintained. Director Chiu said that the architectural drawings even show that existing walls are going to remain, but then in looking at the structure in detail regarding the foundation and the structural plans it tells a different story.  Director Chiu stated that even sometimes the structural plan will call for the existing structure framing, but by the time construction actually starts the neighbors start calling saying that they knew there was going to be an addition, but did not know that the Department was allowing demolition of 95% of the existing structure.  Director Chiu said that this has always been a problem and said that when someone comes in for and applies for a horizontal addition or a major alteration only three or four people get notified; the people adjacent to the property and the neighbor across the street.  Director Chiu said that on these kinds of projects sometimes this is deliberate and sometimes it is just and accident.  Director Chiu stated that sometimes by the time the Inspector is made aware of a problem sometimes 90 – 99% of the existing structure is already gone and the neighbors are upset about notification.  Director Chiu said that with this kind of problem, one of the things he has been talking to his staff about is that the current Code talks about if two thirds is exceeded a demolition permit is needed.  Director Chiu said that technically speaking a demolition permit is only triggered when the entire structure is demolished, but the intent of why a demolition permit is required is because of more notification.  Director Chiu stated that without changing the rules or changing the law he was trying to follow the law under the intent by saying if there is going to be a project proposed that would trigger two thirds of more of the existing structure then maybe the Department should ask for an additional set of plans and then determine if the notification should be for a 300 foot radius. Director Chiu said that this would let the neighbors know that there is a proposed horizontal or vertical addition and the project would be removing 80% of the existing structure.  Director Chiu said that then the neighborhood would know up front what the project would be.  Director Chiu stated that the problem has been that the Department is not notifying enough people to let them know that the existing structure is essentially being removed.  Director Chiu said that he intended to speak with Judy Boyajian and then come back to the BIC with a written policy or interim policy so that the Department does a better job of informing the neighborhood. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu what was the penalty for an unlawful demolition.  Director Chiu said that the penalty could be set in two or three ways.  Director Chiu stated that anybody who violates the law could be subject to a fine of $5,000.  Vice-President Hood said that they would also not be able to use the property for five years.  Director Chiu said that was correct. Director Chiu said that the violator could revert back to the same site with the same number of dwelling units, but in order to keep what was proposed that could not be done for five years. 

Commissioner Guinnane asked if Director Chiu knew where Junipero Serra and Ocean Avenue were.  Director Chiu said that he did.  Commissioner Guinnane said that going down Junipero Serra, going South about one-half of a block down the left hand side of the block, there is a job going on there right now.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that this is a single-family dwelling and a permit was put in to put an addition on top of the house.  Commissioner Guinnane said that this house is completely torn down and all rebuilt with the whole lower floor pushed up about two feet.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that if this doesn’t qualify as an illegal demolition, he would not know what does qualify.  Commissioner Guinnane said that he goes by that job everyday and sees how it is all boarded up, bit by bit he has watched how sly this was done.  Director Chiu said that the project was 425 Junipero Serra and was one of the projects he got called on by the neighborhood association along with one on 27^th Avenue.  Director Chiu said that when the plans show existing what they have is no existing wall, but they build a brand new wall and then go back and use those scab two by fours and toenail them back.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the question is where is the Building Inspector while this is going on.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that they are not that over loaded out in that area and said that when he sees a job that is completely boarded up, he gets very inquisitive and would watch it more closely.  Director Chiu said that his only explanation is that on this type of project the project sponsor did not call for a framing inspection yet, but they probably got the foundation inspection.  Director Chiu said that now the neighborhood is jumping up and down and called him directly so he took Wing Lau, himself, Jim Hutchinson and Ken Cleaveland to look at this particular project.  Director Chiu stated that this particular project is a classic example.

Commissioner Guinnane stated that the existing law is very vague and said that he could understand that, but this project would take no brain power because it is a total, complete demolition as it was all torn down and it is gone.  Commissioner Guinnane said that it was taken down bit by bit from one side to the other side.  Director Chiu said that in going inside 95% of it is brand new, but there is a portion way in the back, a one-story structure in the back that is still maintained.  Director Chiu said that if the Department goes back later, that portion might be gone. Director Chiu said that as of today, there is still a portion of the existing building left, but Commissioner Guinnane is right because 95% of the structure is brand new.  Commissioner Guinnane asked what was the permit for and was it to put a story on top and did not say anything about moving up the floor down below or tearing it all down.  Director Chiu said that it showed a few areas to be removed, but what they claimed as an existing wall is a wall that was completely rebuilt.  Director Chiu said that the existing ceiling height was eight foot and the proposed construction was for ten foot high ceilings; therefore the existing bearing walls are two foot short already, but they tore all of these things down and put in brand new two by four foot studs at ten foot high and went back and picked up some of the old studs and nailed them back and called it existing.  Vice-President Hood asked what the Department did about this.  Director Chiu stated that the job had been stopped and the Department was planning to have some kind of hearing with the owners.  Vice-President Hood asked if they had been fined.  Director Chiu said that the Department is going through the process and said that Wing Lau and himself are going to go over the project with the project sponsor to see how this could happen.  President Fillon said that this was very suspicious because there is an eight-foot wall all around the property.  Commissioner Guinnane said that his position is that this is an unlawful demolition.  Commissioner Guinnane asked who the contractor on record was or who was the engineer.  Director Chiu said that he did not know and said that perhaps Wing Lau would know that information.  Commissioner Guinnane asked for a full report on this project at the next meeting.  Director Chiu said that there have been two or three more of these complaints in the same month.

Vice-President Hood said that she would like to see the Department go for the $5,000 fine.  Commissioner Guinnane said that the $5,000 fine was way to easy.  Vice-President Hood said that perhaps it should be restored to what it was because it is so egregious.  Commissioner Guinnane stated that he felt that the only way to put a stop to it is to put the five-year moratorium on it because $5,000 is nothing.  Director Chiu said that there is going to be a hearing, but in the past the Department has held these hearings and then the project sponsor has the right to go before the Board of Permit Appeals and most of the time the Department gets overruled.  Director Chiu said that this is what is frustrating the neighborhoods because the law has been violated and DBI sets up a hearing and finds that those buildings have been an unlawful demolition, but most times the Department has lost at the BPA.  Vice-President Hood said that even if the Department loses at the BPA, the Department and the Commission could stand up and say that these were sent over to the Board of Appeals and the neighbors should go talk to them.  Vice-President Hood said that all DBI could do was to keep its own house straight.

Vice-President Hood said that she recently found out that even if there is a small horizontal addition in the back there has to be a 150-foot radius map for notification.  Vice-President Hood stated that another argument for the 300-foot radius map is that the copies are made on a machine and one of the objections when the Committee was meeting was that the Planning Department would have more work.  Vice-President Hood said that since they are already doing the 150-foot radius notification the people could just get additional labels and pay an extra fee to the City to get these things copied and mailed out, but it shouldn’t increase any Planner’s time. 

Director Chiu said that at the next meeting in September he could come back with a written letter of procedure, not trying to amend the law, but to work with the existing rule and come up with more procedure to cut down on these unlawful demolitions.  Vice-President Hood asked if this project was on hold while the Department is waiting to have the hearing.  Director Chiu said that it was his understanding that this particular project is on hold and the Department is waiting for the project sponsor to respond to the Department’s concerns.

President Fillon asked what the interim was now, what was the percentage of work that triggers having to submit a demolition permit.  Director Chiu stated that he thought that the Department should stick with the Code because he did not want to do something that would amend the current Code that talks about removing two-thirds or more of the building envelope as described by the Code section and said the Department should stick with that.  Director Chiu said that in response to Commissioner Hood about a three hundred foot radius the Code sort of says that this should require a demolition permit anyway.  Director Chiu said that there is a conflict between issuing the actual demolition permit because it is not really demolishing 100%.  Director Chiu said that he was thinking about calling it an alteration demo, but then using the intent of the demolition permit and notify the 300-foot radius.  Vice-President Hood said that she thought this was a great idea and the Committee could not get this passed because it got undermined by somebody in DBI before, but that was exactly what the Committee was recommending to do.  Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Code right now was two-thirds.  Director Chiu said that the Code says two-thirds of the principal portion of the building.  Commissioner Guinnane said Director Chiu made a statement that he felt that there was 95% of the original house gone so obviously this would fall under the two-thirds.  Director Chiu said technically yes, but the way the Code is it would trigger a demolition permit and once the project sponsor got a permit and just removed that portion then they would be legal.  Director Chiu said that the Department might allow 95% removal, but the project sponsor had to be honest up front and tell exactly what they would be removing and then all 300-foot radius would be notified.  Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the actual permit application and what was listed under the description didn’t state what has been done out there so that is clear, fraudulent activity.  Director Chiu said that he would agree with Commissioner Guinnane.  Director Chiu said that this project clearly violates the intent of the law because putting back existing studs is not an existing wall to him. 

Vice-President Hood asked Wing Lau if this project was still under construction and what exactly was going on out there.  Mr. Lau stated that the project had been stopped for about three weeks since himself and Director Chiu went out to the site.  Mr. Lau said that the existing height of the first story ceiling height was eight feet, but the proposed is ten feet.  Mr. Lau said that there is still some existing studs there, but that is evidence that these were taken down and then put back later on.  Commissioner Guinnane said that putting the top floor on would have no bearing on the height of the studs on the lower floor because they are stacked over each other and they are down in the foundation.  Mr. Lau said that when there is a one-story house that someone is putting two stories above the studs have to be changed and this project just tried to come up with some technicality in putting back some of the old studs.  Vice-President Hood said that she hoped the Department could really stop this sort of thing by fining this project severely.  President Fillon asked how this project sponsor could have structured the application to be in compliance.  President Fillon asked if they should have applied for a demolition permit with the height of the ceiling.  Director Chiu said that they should have been up front because there is no way to do that, maintaining the existing wall while the plan called for brand new bottom plates and top plates and increasing the height by two feet.  Director Chiu said that someone would almost have to be a Houdini to hold the studs while new are installed.  Director Chiu said that the neighbors are saying that at some point all of the walls came down and the new walls were put up and then those existing studs were put back later on.  Director Chiu stated that this is clearly the removal of existing walls.  Vice-President Hood said that she has known of projects where people have actually held the studs up in the air and then built under it.  Director Chiu said that the Department might allow such a thing, but the project sponsor has to be honest about how much is to be removed so that the Department could notify the neighborhood. 

President Fillon asked about the situation that Mr. Lau was talking about where someone is adding some upper stories and the existing studs are two by fours and they say they are going to keep these existing walls, but obviously structural comes along and the depths of the studs have to be upgraded and does that count as a new wall.  Vice-President Hood said that they could actually by three by fours so there is the same dimension wall and they are just put next to each other and a little filler is put in above the short one.  President Fillon asked if all of the plaster and everything else would be taken down.  Vice-President Hood said yes, but a project sponsor could still do that. Director Chiu said that the point is that the project sponsor has to be honest as to what is reasonable.  Director Chiu stated that if somebody is going to do a new foundation and change the top plate and bottom plate, obviously the whole wall is going to be removed so the project sponsor should say that they are going to remove that portion.  Director Chiu said that then the Department could say that a certain percentage is going to be removed and if it adds up to more then two-thirds then the project sponsor would be required to notify the 300-foot radius and state exactly what is going to be added or taken down.  Director Chiu said that everyone would know up front what was going to happen. 

President Fillon asked what the notification process was regarding Junipero Serra.  Mr. Wing Lau said that on the addition, generally what the Building Code would require the project sponsor to notify the adjoining neighbors, the one in the back, both sides and the one in front.  Mr. Lau said that the Planning Code, Section 311would require150-foot radius notification.  Mr. Lau stated that in talking about a lot size of 25 feet, the notification might only reach six or seven houses down below on each side, but in areas such as St. Francis Woods or Balboa Terrace those lots are generally 50 feet wide, so only about three or four neighbors are notified on each side.  Commissioner Guinnane said that with the project on Junipero Serra, he did not know where the Department could get six-foot headroom from because there was living area on the ground floor of that.  Mr. Lau said it was eight feet as the original building had eight-foot ceilings, but right now they are trying to change it to ten-foot ceilings.  Mr. Lau said that he would agree with Director Chiu that for a one-story building and adding another one sometimes the foundation is okay and can support another story, but in talking about adding two more on the top it is almost impossible for the project sponsor to keep everything because of the foundation requirements in the Code.

Commissioner Santos said that the attempt now would be to notify as many people as possible so at the very least the notification process is covered.  Vice-President Hood said that the simple way would be to just get rid of 3.11 and make it all 3.12 and then it would be easier.  Director Chiu said that the Department was keeping the same rules, but instead of just notifying the neighbors that there is going to be a one-story or two-story addition, but also to let them know approximately how much is going to be removed.  Director Chiu said that hopefully when Supervisor McGoldrick comes up with legislation, the Department and the Commission will have the opportunity to provide input, but in the meantime the Department needs to make sure that it does a better job in screening these projects.  Director Chiu said that he would come up with a draft proposal and run it by the Commission and the City Attorney’s Office.  Director Chiu said that he did not want to stall this for another year or two.  Vice-President Hood said that she was heartily in favor of that. 

Commissioner Marks said that the only thing is that the Committee started this whole process because of the difficulty in identifying percentages.  Commissioner Marks asked if intent of the legislation would enable the Department to act where someone might say that it is two feet short of two thirds, but because they violated the intent in order to avoid the demolition law then the Department could act.  Director Chiu said that the Department wants the project sponsor to be very honest and to come clean with what they are intending to do and showing up front what they are going to remove because people are not doing that.  Director Chiu said that the 300-foot notification would go out if it looked like the project was going to trigger the two-thirds removal by the Code.  Director Chiu said that hopefully this would help the neighborhoods.  Commissioner Santos said that he noticed that the applications that included a vertical or a horizontal addition have now been taken to the sixth floor for review and asked if this was part of the assessment that the Director was doing now.  Director Chiu said that last week when two or three cases came in at one time, he took the liberty to have staff send him all of the projects that could potentially trigger this and ended up with one-hundred forty projects.  Director Chiu said that he sent about sixty down on Monday and when Hanson Tom came back he turned the rest of those projects over to him to make sure the Managers are checking them more carefully.  Director Chiu said that he did not want to stop the projects or the process, but wanted to make sure that there were no more potential problems.  Commissioner Santos asked if Director Chiu has instructed the Plan Checkers when they get a set of plans, architectural and structural need to correlate and if they don’t Management would be notified.  Director Chiu said that right now he had not instructed staff not to take in any projects, but said that the Department would take it in and if it would trigger this two-thirds then it will be looked at more closely.  Vice-President Hood said that one of the things that the Planning Department does is that they have a checklist down at the front counter so when a permit is ready to be turned in the Planner at the front desk checks off all of the requirements because they are very lengthy.  Vice-President Hood said that this is a handout that is given to the customer so that they can check before they submit their plans that everything is in order.  Vice-President Hood said that something like this might be practical for DBI in order to screen out the first people and when the permit is submitted it would be a much cleaner document. 

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

There was no public comment.

5.      Presentation on the One-Stop Permit Coordination Program.  [Acting Manager Augustine Fallay]

Director Chiu said that this item was requested by a couple of the Commissioners who wanted to know what was happening with the One-Stop Coordination Program.  Director Chiu stated that this program was created four or five years ago with the goal of trying to coordinate the review of projects that had multiple agency review requirements.  Director Chiu said that this division was to do more parallel plan checking and coordination, but for some reason the division never adhered to just one major mission to coordinate projects and somehow it got involved in reviewing the initial intake and checking plans.  Director Chiu said that now the division is going to be focusing on what the main mission statement is.

Mr. Augustine Fallay introduced himself as the Acting Manager of One-Stop and as the Director has mentioned the Commission was very familiar with the One-Stop Program.  Mr. Fallay said that the main mission statement was “to facilitate the coordination of interdepartmental review”.  Mr. Fallay gave the Secretary handouts to be passed to all of the Commissioners to summarize the goals and the restructuring of the program.  Mr. Fallay said that this Program was to facilitate the coordination of interdepartmental review time into half.  Mr. Fallay said that now the Program is trying to expand this coordination phase to include tracking backlogs and checking permit application cancellation.  Mr. Fallay stated that, as a result of that one of the things that it was decided to change was the name and said that the Program will now be renamed “Permit Coordination Division.”  Mr. Fallay said that the idea behind that is to make sure that people know exactly what the division is about based on the expanded coordination function that has been added. 

Mr. Fallay referred to goals that were listed on the second page of his summary.  Mr. Fallay said that the primary goal would be that the division is going to be coordinating department review in the parallel manner; the second is the “tracking” of all permits in the Plan Check division in order to reduce potential backlogs and to clear backlog inventories; the third goal is to coordinate plan review for the City and all of the City-sponsored projects and the fourth goal is to perform quality control checks of all permits that have been reviewed by the Plan Check divisions prior to permit issuance. 

Mr. Fallay referenced a third page of his report and stated that it would show how the Permit Coordination process was going to work vis-à-vis the Serial Permit Application Process.  Mr. Fallay said that the permit coordination program would save substantial time over the Serial Plan Check Process and would cut the time down to between five and seven weeks.  Mr. Fallay stated that anyone who had a permit that had to go through at least three review processes could apply to go through the Permit Coordination Process and once the division receives that permit about four or five sets of plans are submitted and they are sent to all of the divisions that are required to review that permit.  Mr. Fallay said that all of these divisions would then review these plans within five to seven weeks and return them to the Permit Coordination Division so that they can be issued. Mr. Fallay said that a project sponsor could choose to go through the Serial Permit Application and these permits do not usually require extensive review and people still wait about twice the time of the Parallel Plan Check process.  Mr. Fallay said that people could go through whichever process they choose.  Mr. Fallay said that the important thing to remember is that all of these plans would go through one desk which is the DBI Counter Plan Check and from there the Counter Plan Checker will give the customer the two options.  Mr. Fallay said that if the permits have to go through three divisions of review the Department would let the customer know that they qualify for the Parallel Plan Check Process, but if it were not going through three processes then it would go through the Serial Plan Check Process.  Mr. Fallay said that the customer, even though they would qualify for the Parallel Plan Check review, could still choose to go through the Serial Plan Check review.  Mr. Fallay said that the division is trying to create awareness for the public so that they can make an informed decision about the program. 

Mr. Fallay said that now added to the Permit Coordination Division’s Mission Statement is to make sure that all backlogs that are currently within the system are tracked by permit coordinators who will work with Division Chiefs in order for them to ask what is responsible for backlogs and try to clear them.  Mr. Fallay said that staff will be calling the owners of the projects or the developers to go to the people to tell them that the projects are being tracked and to find out what happened as sometimes there are people that have problems with their agents and they don’t know what is going on.  Mr. Fallay said that these are the kinds of new things that are going to be added to the Permit Coordination Process.  Mr. Fallay asked for any questions.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had one question about the division’s fourth goal which is to perform quality control checks of all permits that have been reviewed by the plan Check divisions prior to permit issuance.  Commissioner Guinnane said if this is done it would hold up the projects from being issued because there was a problem in the past where quality control was checking over and over again so there was a big backlog.  Director Chiu said that this was a separate quality control that does not go into the detail of the actual plan review to make sure that they comply with the Code, but this is more of a catchall to make sure that if the Planning Commission had a variance condition it would actually be attached to the plans since there could be four or five sets of plans that were distributed.  Mr. Fallay said that this is something that the division does every morning and it is usually complete by ten o’clock.  Commissioner Santos asked if this would mean that if there were marks on the drawings it would be on all of the sets.  Mr. Fallay said that was correct.

Commissioner Santos said that Mr. Fallay mentioned that even if a customer was qualified under the Parallel Plan Check Process they could still choose to go through the Serial Plan Check process and asked why someone would choose that if it would take more time.  Mr. Fallay said that he could not read people’s minds, but said that sometimes a person might not have the required number of sets of plans at that point.  Commissioner Santos said that the project sponsor might not yet have a mechanical set of drawings or a set of drawings for fire and then might choose the Serial Plan Check Process.  Mr. Fallay said that it usually happens because people are not sure what Planning is going to do with their permits and it creates a flexibility for them because after Planning makes a determination the project sponsor can transfer to the Parallel Plan Check Process because it will more than likely go through more than three divisions before it is issued.

There was no public comment.

6.     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.      Memorandum dated August 8, 2003 to Director Frank Chiu from Dermott J. Sullivan, President of the San Francisco Building Inspectors Association regarding Chief Building Inspector positions.

b.      The BOMA San Francisco Advocate dated August 13, 2003.

President Fillon said that he had a question regarding Item #6a, the memo from Dermott Sullivan regarding Chief Building Inspectors’ positions and asked if those were frozen at this time.  Director Chiu said that there were several vacancies particularly in Permit Plan Check and mostly in Deputy Director Wong’s operation.  Director Chiu stated that there were a couple of retirements and one death in this particular program.  Director Chiu said that currently there is no list or no examination so the Department needs to deal with that.  Director Chiu stated that he had arranged for a meeting with the Union to go over that issue soon.  President Fillon said this would be to backfill some of those positions and asked if existing employees had a better chance for those positions or would it be wide open.  Director Chiu said that it is a promotive line for people who have some experience as a Senior Building Inspector so internal people would have an opportunity to be promoted.  Director Chiu said that at this point the Department is looking to fill positions as allowed within the permit, but the Department needs to start the process.  President Fillon said that before the Department was trying to save the money for a rainy day, but the only thing that happened in trying to save the money was that it was taken away so he would suggest that the money be used to fill those positions before it is all gone. 

7.      Review and approval of the minutes of the August 6, 2003 meeting.

Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner D’Anne that the minutes be approved.  The motion carried unanimously.

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 theCommission.

c.       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. 

110.     Adjournment.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner D’Anne that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously.