City and County of San FranciscoDepartment of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission


2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 


     

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, November 1, 2000 - 1:00 p.m.

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

ADOPTED November 15, 2000

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, absent

    Debra Walker, Commissioner Mark Sanchez, Commissioner

    Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, 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

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:

      Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

2. President’s Announcements.

    President Fillon reported that he had no announcements.

3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

    a. Reports on 2135 Greenwich Street & 2844 Greenwich Street.

    Director Chiu reported that these two properties came up at the last Building Inspection Commission meeting as a result of a public members’ concern about this particular property owner. Director Chiu said that as a result of that, the Commission asked for copies of the case files, background, copies of the permits and Notices of Violation. Additionally, Director Chiu said that his staff had prepared a brief chronology of these two cases. Director Chiu stated that the same person owns both properties and both have a lengthy history of violations. Director Chiu said that in looking at the chronology and copies of the violations, the Department has continued to monitor these properties to make sure they are in code compliance.

    Director Chiu said that regarding 2135 Greenwich, there was a Director’s hearing held and as a result of the property owner’s illness, an extension was granted; in a couple of weeks there will be an on-site inspection to make sure that the issue of illegal dwelling units is addressed

    Director Chiu said that the second case has a similar issue about work started without permit, mainly the penthouse that was constructed. Director Chiu stated that the property owner tried to legalize it and Planning Department disallowed it. The owner then applied for a permit to demolish the penthouse that had been installed without permit. Director Chiu said that the penthouse had been removed and other permits were issued for remodeling. The Department is continuing to monitor this project to insure code compliance. Director Chiu said that was the end of his report and asked if there were any questions from the Commission. Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Wong was also present to answer any questions.

    President Fillon asked for any public comment on this item.

    Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that she wanted to start with 2844 Greenwich, as that was her baby to begin with. Ms. Vaughey said that the walls are down, but yesterday she found out that under inspection by the Planning Department, the walls are still on the roof. Ms. Vaughey stated that the roof has not been totally repaired, just the patch where the penthouse was. Ms. Vaughey said that the interesting thing concerning the interdepartmental procedures, which was pointed out blatantly in the Commission package, was that on April 14, the Planning Commission informed the owner that the penthouse had to been torn down and there could be no permit to expand until the demolition was signed off. Ms. Vaughey said that the final wording for that motion was on May 4. On May 3, the owner applied for a portion of the expansion, even though the penthouse had not been torn down yet, nor had they applied for demolition of the penthouse. Ms. Vaughey said that there have been other permits in the meantime that have been applied for that shouldn’t have been. Ms. Vaughey stated that she thought it was an interdepartmental problem of when a motion is made by one Commission, maybe it doesn’t get to the people at the front desk that there is a problem with a case.

    Ms. Vaughey said that what interests her is that in calling for the inspections for 2135 Greenwich, she happened to be at DBI at the same time as Kevin Dill and was with Mr. Noelke and Ms. Huie. Ms. Vaughey said that Mr. Noelke has a property next door to the first one. Ms. Vaughey said that it was pointed out by that the Department has a note from a doctor stating that the owner could not meet because he was sick, but Tina Huie was calling him at is office where he was working. Ms. Vaughey said that there are some things that are going on that concern her. Ms. Vaughey said that there is a hearing going on tomorrow at the Planning Commission. Ms. Vaughey stated that she did not know how to solve the problem when one Commission makes a decision and the other department doesn’t know about it. Ms. Vaughey said that there is a communication gap. Ms. Vaughey said that the entire penthouse is down, but it is not off the roof and the roof has not been repaired. Ms. Vaughey stated that the owner is telling the inspector that he is going to do the roof when he is doing the expansion and that is not the deal that was made in the first place.

    Commissioner Guinnane said that there was an approval process for plans when they came to DBI and asked if that process had not been followed. Director Chiu said that he did not know what the public member was talking about. Director Chiu stated that all of the subsequent permit applications to do additional work have been referred back to City Planning for approval. Director Chiu said that regardless of conditions set by Planning, all of these things need to be addressed and the Department cannot ask the property owner to speed up work. Director Chiu stated that essentially there was a penthouse that was done without permit and according to the District Inspector’s report that has been demolished. Director Chiu said that DBI couldn’t help it if the property owner is going to wait a few more weeks or a few more days to complete the roof. Director Chiu said that the Department’s records show that they have permits to address most of these issues.

    Commissioner Walker said that her understanding was that the Planning Commission said that they could not expand until the violations were cured, meaning the penthouse. Ms. Vaughey said that in listening to the tapes of the Planning Commission hearing this was also her understanding. Ms. Vaughey said that the owner was instructed to tear it down and agreed to do so. Ms. Vaughey said that when the penthouse was removed, then the owner would be allowed to apply for other permits. Ms. Vaughey said that in the meantime, before the last motion was even signed, part of that expansion was already applied for. Commissioner Walker asked if permission for expansion was given. Ms. Vaughey said that yes, it was given. Ms. Vaughey said that this would be brought up at the Planning Commission tomorrow. Commissioner Walker said that the BIC has brought up this issue before. When the Planning Commission has conditions on a project often times it doesn’t come back and there is a lack of communication and DBI issues permits which do not necessarily take into consideration what the Planning Commission has conditioned. Director Chiu said that he would respectfully disagree. Director Chiu stated that in this particular case, since the Planning Commission disapproved the penthouse, the owner was asked to apply for another permit to remove the penthouse. Director Chiu said that this was done. The owner had a permit to demolish the penthouse. Director Chiu stated that after the penthouse was demolished the owner had to apply for another permit to raise the roof to match the front. Ms. Vaughey said she was speaking of the time before that. Director Chiu said that permit was before City Planning and that was not a case of miscommunication. If Planning Department chose to approve that particular project then DBI should not be penalized or have claims of negligence against the Department. Commissioner Walker said that it was more about how the information gets back into the Department from the Planning Commission if something is subsequently disapproved. Commissioner Walker said that the permit was applied for and then the Planning Commission met the next day and cut it off. Ms. Vaughey said that technically it had been voted on for months beforehand, but the final wording was three weeks later and in the meantime the owner applied for part of this permit. Ms. Vaughey said that this shouldn’t have happended and she wanted the Commission to be aware of what was going on.

    b. Report on Building Code requirements for shelving and storage racks.

      Commissioner Guinnane said that this was Vice-President Hood’s items regarding Home Depot and Commissioner Guinnane said that he had commented that it might be a State issue instead of a City problem. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there had been a lot of deaths as a result of racks and pallets falling over. President Fillon asked if this was about anchoring the shelving. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was about tying them off and making them safe, for instance in an earthquake, to prevent them from falling over on people. President Fillon asked how the Commission found out about this problem. Director Chiu said that Vice-President Hood was concerned about high rack and shelving at these warehouse stores such as Costco and Office Max. Director Chiu said that his staff did some research and essentially any racks that are over 5 ft. would require a permit for the integrity of the structure. Director Chiu said that the concern that was raised by Bobbie Sue Hood wasn’t the integrity of the shelving, but she was more concerned about the high racks with equipment and products stored up high. DBI has no jurisdiction over what is stored or how the products are carried up for storage to those racks. Director Chiu said that Cal-Osha has responsibility for making sure that the safety of the occupants and the employees is addressed. President Fillon said that the safety of the shopper would also be a concern. Director Chiu said that all installation of shelving or racks over 5 ft. high requires a permit demonstrating that they could withstand structural integrity based on the Code. Commissioner Santos said that this is normally done with a Tenant Improvement application. If shelving is done, there is a set of structural drawings for the main shelves and the racks. Director Chiu said that this was correct. Director Chiu said that the main concern was not about the racks or the shelving, but more about the housekeeping and how the merchandise is stored. Director Chiu said that Cal-Osha responds to specific complaints about a particular supermarket or warehouse. Director Chiu said that people should be made aware that they should complain to Cal-Osha and not DBI. Director Chiu said that if the Department does receive any complaints, the concerns would be referred to Cal-Osha.

President Fillon asked if the Commissioners felt that Vice-President Hood’s concerns had been answered. Commissioner Guinnane said that Vice-President Hood had brought up the issue of the racks and Commissioner Guinnane said that he had expressed that he felt it was a State, Cal-Osha issue. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the State should be well aware of this issue as there have been a number of lawsuits filed over this type of injury. Commissioner Guinnane said that there have been deaths, not from the shelves falling over, but from the actual contents coming off the shelves.

There was no public comment on this item.

    c. Report on Building Code inspection requirements.

    Director Chiu said that this item was at the request of Commissioner Marks and her concern about Department inspection requirements and how DBI responds to and gives assurance to the consumer. Director Chiu referred to Section 108.5 of the Building Code that stipulates the minimum required items that need to be inspected. Director Chiu said that he would go over these items briefly. Director Chiu stated that before a foundation is poured, all of the excavation, steel placement and the size and tying of that steel is inspected before any concrete covers them up. Additionally, there is concrete slab and under floor inspection. Director Chiu said then there is framing inspection whether there is floor, roofing, walls and partitions and there is lathe and gypsum board inspections making sure there is the proper size thickness of sheet rock or gypsum board for fireproofing. Director Chiu said that lastly there is a final inspection unless the project is unusually designed or the developer uses different materials or methods, then the Department could impose special inspections. Director Chiu said that in that case, the Department could demand that the project sponsor hire additional personnel with expertise to augment the inspection personnel of the Department. Director Chiu said that the Department had also attached a copy of the job card that shows the various requirements of the inspections with the dates of inspections and sign offs. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Marks was concerned about a particular case that involved water leaks and so forth. Director Chiu said that he did not know any way of making sure that when a property is signed off that the roof is not going to leak or that there won’t be wall leaks, as this is not something that the Department does. DBI checks plans based on what was proposed to make sure that they comply with the Codes and sometimes there is concern about materials. Director Chiu said that those materials have to be specified on the plans and part of the inspector’s job is to make sure that the developer uses the proper materials as stipulated by the plans. Director Chiu said that this item was brought up as a result of 39 Boardman and as of today, the Department is not clear on what went wrong with that particular project, but essentially the Code is very clear as to what is inspected. Director Chiu said that before the Department signs off on a project, all of these inspection items need to be followed. Commissioner Marks said that as a layperson looking this over, it looks pretty comprehensive as to what is inspected. Commissioner Marks said that Vice-President Hood mentioned, at the last meeting, that there is an old saying "buyer beware" which is basically that there is no guarantee of anything. Commissioner Marks said that it seems to her that if the structure is inspected as outlined by the requirements that the buyer should be pretty confident that what they are buying is a good product. Director Chiu said that when the Department inspects a project, it basically says that yes the Department certifies that this project complies with the Code. Commissioner Marks said that the project should comply with the Code, but also there are certain materials requirements, safety requirements and it seems pretty comprehensive to her. Director Chiu says that the Department checks what the Code calls for. Commissioner Marks asked what could have happened with the Boardman place when in theory there were problems inherent in the way it was constructed.

    Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to answer Commissioner Marks’ question. Commissioner Guinnane stated that if you buy a window, there are different manufacturers of windows, and insulated panels fail, or they leak. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Building Department looks at the installation of the window and how it is flashed and counter flashed, but they don’t guarantee the window itself from leaking. Commissioner Guinnane said it is the same with the siding that is made by Weyerhouser or whoever the company may be; it has to be installed according to the plan, if that was a requirement of Planning. Commissioner Guinnane said that the inspector has no way of knowing about the material itself. President Fillon stated that he is currently working on projects that have large glass curtain wall systems in the design uniquely for a particular building. President Fillon said that there are tests that shoot water at the wall to see if any moisture is getting through. President Fillon said that there are no inspectors, or the City is not responsible for that system working, it is the manufacturer that is responsible. President Fillon said that the City is only responsible that the system meet the Building Code requirements. President Fillon said in looking at the Code, the requirements are not comprehensive at all as there are new things coming on the market everyday and cannot be covered individually in the Building Code. President Fillon stated that the Code is actually very broad and mainly covers safety. Commissioner Walker said that she also thought that at Boardman there was at least the claim that there were materials used that were not up to Code. Commissioner Walker asked if the Department had gone to the property yet. Director Chiu said that at this time he did not think that anyone should be speculating about the property. Commissioner Walker said that this was the allegation and asked that Director Chiu follow up on this with a report at the next meeting. Director Chiu said that he finally communicated with the property owner and set up a date to inspect the property, but he had not yet gotten the inspection report back for his review. President Fillon said that understood that it was not the installation of the material, but that there was a problem with the product that had malfunctioned. Director Chiu said that this was part of what was being investigated, but he did not want to speculate. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to report back as soon as he received a staff report.

    There was no public comment on this item.

    d. Update on one page report/per application from MIS.

    Director Chiu said that this item was communicated at the last meeting by one of the public members. Director Chiu said that the public member requested a one-page summary of a particular application status rather than having to go to two or three computer screens. Director Chiu said that what was included in the package was a one-page summary created by Marcus Armstrong, the MIS Manager. Director Chiu said that hopefully this is what the public is looking for and just wanted to report that the Department has the screen already in place.

    There was no public comment on this item.

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

    Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that she supposed everyone read the papers this morning and said that she was going to talk a little bit about 2254 Bush. Ms. Vaughey said that she was the neighborhood person who mediated the neighbors and the developer on this issue. Ms. Vaughey stated that this was a very interesting case because everybody really wanted a project. Ms. Vaughey said it was a case of let’s see what we can come up with. The problem was that the neighbors had discrepancies among themselves and some of them had to be solved. Ms. Vaughey said that on the Bush Street side, it was a cut and dried thing; no lot line windows were going to be lost. Ms. Vaughey said that the cottage was going to be raised, putting a garage below it and there was to be floor above it. Ms. Vaughey stated that Debbie Levy had done a good design; it went through very quickly. Ms. Vaughey stated that it was the Wilmoth side that was the problem. Ms. Vaughey said that there were two historical buildings on either side with lot line windows. The Starsiacks did not want their lot line windows, but wanted the building moved over to the Maki/Weiss building and Virginia said, "hey wait a minute, we want to share the wealth here". Ms. Vaughey said that almost after two months, Tobi and her went out there on a Sunday and sat there by themselves, and realized that there was a 43 ft. building across the street on Wilmoth. Ms. Vaughey said that they narrowed the apartment on top of the garage so no lot line windows were lost, but the project went higher and created a very unusual design. Ms. Vaughey stated that she was really proud of this, but came back a few weeks later and found the whole thing demolished. Ms. Vaughey stated that this really took the wind out of her. Ms. Vaughey said that one thing that has disturbed her more about this case than anything is the lack of response from the Department. Ms. Vaughey said in checking with the neighbors she has dates, times and hours of telephone calls that were not returned. Ms. Vaughey stated that after John Aires wrote up the Notice of Violation, no one, City Planning, herself, Toby Levy or the neighbors were called. Ms. Vaughey stated that John Aires said that it was taken out of his hands and that he was told not to talk about this case. Ms. Vaughey said that Marvin Ruiz also stated that it was taken out of his hands and he didn’t know where the case was, but thought it was on Andy Greene’s desk. Ms. Vaughey said that Andy Greene stated that he didn’t know anything about it, and to check with Hutchinson. Ms. Vaughey said that Hutchinson did not return calls to John Rose, Maki and another one of the neighbors. Frank Chiu spoke with Mr. Starsiack and said he would look into the issue, but never called Mr. Starsiack back. Ms. Vaughey said that this may not have had to go the Board of Permit Appeals, it could have been solved if a few people could have gotten around a table and tried to have a Director’s hearing to work it out. Ms. Vaughey stated that the Planning Department called DBI. Ms. Vaughey stated that David Lancy called in front of her and he couldn’t find any answers out. Ms. Vaughey said that it sat on a desk for ten months and this could have been solved; now it is in front of the Board of Permit Appeals and there was no Director’s hearing called. Ms. Vaughey said that she did not know what was going to happen, but wanted everyone to know that it didn’t have to happen this way. Ms. Vaughey thanked the Commission.

5. Report on distribution of funds due DBI as a result of the Sainez case.

    [Taras Madison, Manager Administration & Finance]

    Ms. Taras Madison introduced herself as Manager of Administration and Finance. Ms. Madison said that at the last meeting there was a question concerning the Sainez case and the settlement, actually the judgment. Ms. Madison stated that at that time there were only preliminary figures as no information had been received from the City Attorney or Controller’s Office. Ms. Madison said that since then she had a chance to check with them again and checked the online financial system to see what had actually been credited to DBI’s account. Ms. Madison referred to a report that was included in the Commission package. Ms. Madison said that the total judgment collected was $967,855 and of that the Department received approximately 80%, $776, 933. Ms. Madison said that the bulk of that was allocated to actual Code Enforcement, revenue sub-object of 61165 and basically that is Code Enforcement revenue that is captured off of penalties. Ms. Madison said that the additional $110,000 was allocated to DBI’s second Code Enforcement revenue that is actually the DBI litigation costs. Ms. Madison said that finally, what has happened is that, to date, before we received the settlement the Department had received about $30,000 in payments. Ms. Madison said that about $25,000 of it was already captured last fiscal year. Ms. Madison said that she would be going over another report that showed for 387 South Van Ness, the Department received a series of $2,000 payments every month, so some of this had already been paid. Ms. Madison said one portion that was of interest to Commissioner Guinnane was the 20% interest that had been allocated to the City Attorney. Ms. Madison stated that she did speak to the City Attorney’s Office and the Controller’s Office expressing concern over the interest not coming back to the Department and the Controller’s Office said that this was a policy decision of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to determine where that interest would go. Ms. Madison said that the way the settlement stands now is that the Department received 80% of the total judgment.

    Commissioner Guinnane asked if that policy was just put in place for this particular case or has this been a policy in the past for all other cases. Ms. Madison said that she asked the Controller what normally occurred and was informed that it was on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Guinnane asked why the money went to the City Attorney’s Office and not just into the General Fund. Ms. Madison said that once again, that was the way the Controller decided to allocate the funds; the General Fund did get $53.00. Commissioner Guinnane said that he could not believe that the City Attorney was going to get $190,000 on the judgment when the Department should have actually gotten it. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the judgment was in the paper of the Department receiving the settlement, not the City Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Guinnane said it was DBI that spent the money and collected on this. Commissioner Walker said that she supposed that the Department could go before the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors and suggested that Commissioner Guinnane could call them if he wanted. Commissioner Walker asked if it were possible to pursue this. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was troubling because it was on a case-by-case basis, so obviously there is nothing set in stone. Commissioner Guinnane said he would like to follow-up on this money. President Fillon suggested that this follow-up be part of the Litigation Committee’s duties to check into City Attorney’s fees making sure the Department is not overcharged. President Fillon asked if the Committee had been able to meet yet. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Committee had not yet met yet, but he wanted to meet as soon as possible to get information about the caseload and who was handling them. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to meet every six weeks and get a list of all the caseloads and where they are at with settlements, etc. President Fillon said that the Commissioners would meet first as a Committee and then bring back suggestions to the full Commission.

    There was no public comment on this item.

6. Report on monies recovered for DBI by the City Attorney’s Office for 61165 Code Enforcement/Code Violations and 61168 Code Enforcement/DBI Litigation [Taras Madison, Manager Administration & Finance]

    Ms. Taras Madison said that this was also a follow-up from the last meeting. Ms. Madison stated that at the last meeting she presented the figures for the 61168 that’s included in the normal City Attorney’s monthly billing statement. Ms. Madison said that now she had included all of the money that was collected by the City Attorney in fiscal year 1999-2000. Ms. Madison said that the total of that was $426,379 and once again this money goes to the two revenue sub-objects that she keeps referring to. Ms. Madison said that the first one is actually 61165 which is the actual penalties that are collected and 61168 are the actual DBI litigation costs that are recovered. Ms. Madison referred to the package attachments that show the addresses and the amounts collected for each. Ms. Madison said that 387 South Van Ness was the Sainez case, and about $21,000 had already been collected in that fiscal year. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was one case that he was looking for, and that was a case that was a settlement that was made between the City and County and the court for $150,000 last year with the Hilton. Commissioner Walker asked what the address was. Commissioner Guinnane said there is only one Hilton Hotel in San Francisco. Commissioner Guinnane stated that it was an ’88 compliance case and they settled for $150,000. Commissioner Guinnane stated that this was agreed to in the judges’ chambers and he has not seen any record of receiving the $150,000. Ms. Madison said that the way it works normally is that the Department gets receipt sheets from the City Attorney’s Office and the receipts will have a page that will show 61168 and 61165 that will have an amount and the attachments will have the addresses listed. Ms. Madison said that for fiscal year 1999-2000, these are the only addresses that are listed. Ms. Madison said that she could go back and speak with the City Attorney and ask about that specific settlement. Ms. Madison stated that the Department did not normally see the entire settlement, but just the way the money trickles in; so every month for instance, maybe one case, 1445 Selby, $3,000 one month and $3,000 the next month. Commissioner Guinnane said that there was another case that settled for $60,000 and the party in that was Jimmy Jen regarding a sex club. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he did not see that settlement listed either and that it was settled and paid last year or early this year. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to follow-up on these two cases, but his understanding is that maybe these cases were prior to this fiscal year. Director Chiu said that he remembered the Hilton Hotel was about 2 ½ years ago so the money was probably deposited last year. Commissioner Guinnane said that over time he has checked on this because the fund was so low, he kept asking, especially on the Hilton and was told that the Department was still in negotiations with them. Commissioner Walker asked Ms. Madison to check on the status of those two cases. Ms. Madison said that perhaps the money was in 1998-1999, but she would check into it.

    There was no public comment on this item.

7. Report on the appeal filed with the Board of Permit Appeals by the International Federation of Professional & Technical Enginners, Local 21 regarding expansion of 1660 Mission Street. [Steve Young, Manager of Permit Processing Services]

Mr. Steve Young introduced himself as the Coordinating Manager for the 1660 Mission Street annex project. He introduced Mr. Neil Friedman as the DBI Project Manager and Mark Dorian representing the Bureau of Architecture. Mr. Young handed the report over to Mr. Friedman. Mr. Friedman said that he would give a brief history of what has happened with the project over the last couple of months. Mr. Friedman said that on July 19th the Department asked the Bureau of Architecture, in particular Mr. Mark Dorian, to come up with three options for open space within DBI’s building. Mr. Friedman said that this was at the request of the City Planners and is also part of the determination in the variance that was received from City Planning. Mr. Friedman stated that on August 10th, the Zoning Administrator formally requested the open space requirement and asked for some proposals. Mr. Friedman said that while that was going on the Department was rapidly approaching the bid award date, which was September 25th. Mr. Friedman said that the Department started to realize that they might not be able to make it, and in fact City Planning did not put out the actual variance until the 29th of September, which was already four days past the bid award date. Mr. Friedman said that the Department asked the low bidders to hold their bids good for an additional 90 days, which the two lowest bidders have agreed to do. Mr. Friedman said that on October 10th an appeal was filed with the Board of Appeals about the variance that was given to the annex project and at the moment, that is going to be heard on December 6th and until that time the Department does not know whether the project will move forward or not. Mr. Friedman said that the Department has an additional 90 days to award the bid from September 25th, which will be approximately Christmas time. Mr. Friedman said that at that time, the Department will have to make a decision about whether it can ask for an additional 90 days to award the bid or if that will be the end of the project. Mr. Friedman introduced Mark Dorian to give some architectural aspects of the project and the open space designs that were suggested as part of the variance requirements. Commissioner Guinnane asked when the actual appeal was filed. Mr. Friedman said that the appeal was filed on October 10th. Mr. Friedman said that the Commission had received a package that probably showed the 18th, but that was just the date when the Appeals Board sent the package out. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was any way to get the December 6th hearing date expedited. Mr. Friedman said that as far as he knew there was no way to get an earlier date as it was out of the Department’s hands.

Director Chiu reminded the Commissioners that the Department was only required to obtain a parking variance and he did not want the Commissioners to think that all of these things were required by the Code. Director Chiu said that the Department has addressed almost every concern that has been raised by the Planning Staff and the Unions. Director Chiu said that DBI is not only talking about the transportation and parking issue, but staff wants shower facilities, open space and other things that are not part of the Code requirements. Director Chiu said the Department felt that this is what the staff wants and DBI is trying to give it to them. Director Chiu said that he felt that all of the concerns had been addressed. Director Chiu asked Mark Dorian to give an update from the Bureau of Architecture, particularly with regard to open space. Commissioner Guinnane asked if in addressing all of those items, there was not a way to come to a compromise. Director Chiu said that at a previous meeting a member of the Planning Staff reported that they felt that what was proposed was not good enough.

Mr. Mark Dorian introduced himself as being with the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Architecture. Mr. Dorian said it has been his pleasure to be on this project from its inception. Mr. Dorian stated that he would show the Commission a few drawings of the basic project and would be happy to answer any questions about the project and the proposed mitigations to the traffic variance. Mr. Dorian showed pictures of the project, which included a picture of the actual addition to the annex building, an elevation of the existing building with the addition and a picture of the addition itself. Mr. Dorian said that it was basically and very simply five stories of occupancy over a ground story accessible parking drive through as it is now, all over a ground floor parking area. Mr. Dorian said that this is basically designed like a spec office building; it is a shell, frame and skin. Mr. Dorian said that the tenant improvements were not included at this time. Mr. Dorian said that the BOA had taken the program from the client, DBI, and assessed it, did Code review and developed this design. Mr. Dorian stated that some of the important features of the design include no additional restrooms or core elements as it was determined through the Code analysis that the existing building could function as the main entry, accessible entry, elevator, rest rooms and other facilities. Mr. Dorian showed a floor plan showing the added space, a typical floor above grade. Mr. Dorian stated that the project was designed to extend all occupied floors horizontally and without change in elevation. Mr. Dorian said that one other interesting feature about the building is that it spans from the existing South wall of the building all the way to the adjacent property so there are no intervening columns. Mr. Dorian said that this was necessary, not only for the above and occupied spaces, to clear them with any structure, but to maintain the existing parking that is on the ground floor and basement. Mr. Dorian said that he would move into construction issues, as some of them were important to understand. Mr. Dorian said that the duration of the project was to be one year. Mr. Dorian said that sequentially work could start in the basement under the addition area to enhance the foundations and minor column enhancement that needs to occur to support the work above grade. Mr. Dorian said that after that the structural frame would go up and actually before any of the work occurred above grade, a protective construction wall was going to be erected inside the existing building along the south wall. Mr. Dorian displayed a drawing explaining that the existing column structure of the existing building is inside the curtain wall of the existing building. A protection wall was to be built inside on that column line at the very outset to protect all of the occupants inside. Mr. Dorian said that a recommendation was made that all the work areas and office along this wall be vacated during the construction as an added measure of safety, noise abatement and dust control. Mr. Dorian said that there was also an air quality program in the contract that will be maintained by the Contractor, monitored by the City and its consultants for dust control and other air quality issues. Mr. Dorian said that it was discussed about handling the existing building’s systems to help mitigate any kind of infiltration or impact that would be detrimental to the occupants from the construction, specifically talking about the HVAC system. Mr. Dorian said again, this air quality monitoring system is in place for not only the installation of the protection wall, but went on for a few months and sporadically if needed throughout the project.

Mr. Dorian said that when the zoning variance was heard and the Zoning Administrator’s determination came out, certain elements were included. Mr. Dorian stated that one of the issues was an open space requirement that was not actually in the Code for this project. Mr. Dorian said that DBI had BOA look into what were the possibilities for some kind of open space. Mr. Dorian said that they investigated three things; a roof top garden or deck; secondly, a community room on the sixth floor, somewhere on the existing building, actually anywhere on the sixth floor on the existing or new building; or a third option which were some view terraces on the new part of the construction. Mr. Dorian stated that they thought this was a pretty good suggestion as it could be incorporated in the new construction without impacting the existing facility. Mr. Dorian said that those three options were studied, evaluated and costed in terms of very ballpark measurers. Mr. Dorian said they did not go very far into this without knowing what was acceptable through the process. Mr. Dorian said his presentation was complete and he would answer any questions.

President Fillon asked Mr. Dorian to compare the cost of the three options. Mr. Dorian stated that the most viable option was to have the view terraces in the new facility on one or more floors. President Fillon asked what the impact of this would be to useable office space. Mr. Dorian said that it would take away approximately 500 square feet minimum up to 750 square feet or whatever was acceptable to the Union. President Fillon asked what the space was based on. Mr. Dorian said that the open space is based on a requirement for downtown type of development which is basically one square foot per 50 square feet which would actually make it about 2500 square feet for the entire building.

Commissioner Marks asked what was wrong with the roof top design alternative. Mr. Dorian said that initially, there is nothing wrong with it; it was just not included in the original program because it wasn’t necessary. Secondly, the cost was of the highest magnitude of the three options. President Fillon asked if this was because of the ingress and egress. Mr. Dorian said that it had nothing to do with the egress and ingress or access, but it has to do with the structural improvement to the roof, sixth floor, fifth floor and even fourth floor. Director Chiu said that staff did raise a concern about the impact during construction, during work hours. Director Chiu said that if there had to be an open roof deck, because of the seismic upgrading and also the elevators, the construction could probably not be done during normal office hours. Director Chiu said that this would have a greater impact on the existing office if a roof deck was chosen without even addressing the additional cost for seismic safety and elevator concerns. Director Chiu said that open space that is dealing with the new annex alone would have less impact on the current occupants in the existing building. Director Chiu stated that this is why the third option of an open terrace on the various floors was chosen. Commissioner Marks asked what specifically the monitoring system for dust and noise was going to be. Mr. Dorian said that the BOA employed the Bureau of Construction Management Site Assessment and Remediation Division in the Department of Public Works. Mr. Dorian said that they deal with hazardous materials in City contracts, not only the contracting information, but the requirements for the contractors on site. Mr. Dorian stated that interior air quality is a concern in many projects, and most often the exterior air quality is in question for dust control and noise to other adjacent properties. Mr. Dorian said that when a project like this is under construction where building is going on adjacently and then blow through on the wall, it has the potential for discomfort to the occupants. Mr. Dorian said that the program itself entails taking base level readings in the existing building and establishing a base means for any kind of affect from the construction. Mr. Dorian said that it will include not only the protection wall, but air quality monitoring devices which get down to certain levels of air blowing substances. Mr. Dorian said that kind of equipment is set up, all of the constructible ways are put in place first, and the equipment is placed and then monitored by a professional hygienist, a certified industrial hygienist. President Fillon asked if this cost were figured into the bidding process. Mr. Dorian said that this issue came up pretty much after the bids, just before bids were received in June. Mr. Dorian stated that it is his understanding and his experience that biweekly design meetings were held throughout the project for over a year and for the most part, a City Planning representative was there. Mr. Dorian said that the actual issues as to the degree of protection did not come up. Mr. Dorian stated that the concern was not made until after the job was out to bid.

Commissioner Santos said that in describing the structural system, Mr. Dorian had stated that there was going to be a column free space due to the parking requirements, about 45 feet or so, and asked if there was going to be spanning. Mr. Dorian said that was correct. Commissioner Santos asked what kind of foundation system the 1660 annex building would have as there is a new building across the street and the foundation was requiring piles. Mr. Dorian said that there is an existing foundation because the parking is down below already and there would just be a little bit of augmentation to the structure which entails connecting the footings below the parking slab. Mr. Dorian said that the footings along the existing south wall of the building would be connected to the footing that exist next to 1680 Mission, which is the adjacent property. Commissioner Santos reiterated that there would be no piling at all. Mr. Dorian said that was correct and the columns will come into bear directly on the columns as shown in the drawings. Mr. Dorian said it would be very clean in terms of not a lot of excavation. Commissioner Santos asked who the soils engineer was. Mr. Dorian said that the soils report from the existing construction was used. Treadwell and Rollo reviewed this report. Commissioner Santos said that piling would have been very expensive and this was a major savings.

Commissioner Walker asked about the parking policy. Mr. Dorian deferred to Mr. Freidman to answer questions about this item. Mr. Friedman asked Commissioner Walker what specifically she wanted to know about, as this was a very complicated issue. Commissioner Walker said that it seems that what the Union representatives are asking for is some sort of guarantee to adherence to a policy it seems has not been adhered to before. Commissioner Walker said that in reading this, obviously it is one side of the story, but she would agree with the concerns about it. Commissioner Walker said that her issue about this whole thing is that she would hope that the building is what the people working in it wants. Commissioner Walker said that she really supports major attempts to try and deal with this other than at the Board of Appeals as far as coming to some sort of agreement, other than drawing a line in the sand to try and accommodate both open space and some sort of guarantee of parking compliance since there is a variance. Director Chiu said that he would address this concern. Director Chiu said that this is a policy issue and he could not speak for what had happened in the last 8 to 10 years and why some conditions were not met. Director Chiu said that he could guarantee that if the Commission is concerned that the Department would start moving in before all conditions are met, this is easy to address. Director Chiu said that DBI could say that no one will be moved until all conditions are met. Commissioner Walker said that one of the things she is concerned about, and has actually seen happen to some private developments South of Market. A lot somewhere else satisfied the parking requirement because there was some sort of agreement of rental. Commissioner Walker said that subsequently those lots have been developed into something else so the parking requirement disappears and that is creating major problems and that is one of the concerns that she sees here. Commissioner Walker said either that has happened with a lot, or could happen because there is no guarantee that the lot will exist into the future. Commissioner Walker said that this is happening a lot South of Market, which she said she was sure everyone would agree with, the lots that satisfy requirements as conditions of a project are not there any more. Director Chiu said that in this particular case, his understanding is that the lot that is being leased is from Cal-Trans and these parking spaces are right next to the freeway. Director Chiu said he doubted if that freeway was going to be removed. Commissioner Walker stated that there is an argument from the Union that that is not true, that the lot is part of a private development. Mr. Friedman said that the lot in question is split into two parts, one is used for other purposes and one is dedicated to DBI from Real Estate. Mr. Friedman said that DBI has control over that lot. Mr. Friedman stated that this is somewhat in contention right now, but the Department is coming up with documentation to prove that DBI pays for the lot through its lease. President Fillon asked if there was going to be an increase in parking spaces. Mr. Friedman said that there is not going to be any change because currently the Department has 100 spaces in the Cal-Trans lot, additional spaces in the adjacent Cal-Trans lot and 60 spaces on site. Mr. Friedman said additionally the Department has implemented a traffic engineer study to see if the lot that is being leased from Cal-Tran can be restriped to get more cars in there. Mr. Friedman said he doubted that the Department could make the requirement of 230 spaces without a variance, but the number of spaces can certainly be increased. Commissioner Walker asked if there was any possibility of negotiating on the open space issue. Commissioner Walker said that she knows it has been looked at, but again she would like to see the workers needs met and it is a requirement in private development to have that kind of open space. Commissioner Walker said she wondered why the Department’s workers were being treated different. Mr. Friedman said that the open space has not been ruled out and as part of the variance the Department was asked to study it. Mr. Friedman said that it is still on the table. Mr. Friedman stated that figures were not mentioned before, but the roof garden would be extremely expensive; the other two options are more in the realm of what might be acceptable, although money has not been allocated for it. President Fillon asked if the roof garden would be just in the new construction or in the building overall. Mr. Friedman sated that it would be considered just in the newer building, but there would have to be a second egress and the Department would have to go back to a means of a secondary stairs in the existing building. Mr. Young said that he would like to add something at this point in regards to clarifying the basic requirements. Mr. Young stated that in looking specifically at DBI’s request and application for variance, this is speaking in regards to parking issues and the mitigations against that and transportation and all those mitigations that have to be put in place. Mr. Young said that the Department has agreed, in full faith, to go forward. Mr. Young said that now there are issues outside of the particular minimum Code requirements in this part of Market Street. Mr. Young said that the building is South of Market, but the Department is entertaining additional open space, speaking to and addressing possible design differences for roof gardens, terraces, etc. which are not part of a minimum requirement for building a building South of Market. Mr. Young said that he gets passionate about things and goes into the question that the Department has to meet more requirements than the general public has because DBI is supposed to be holding different standards. Mr. Young said that he is looking at meeting requirements that if a project was North of Market, they would have to meet, but if a private citizen were developing the same thing at the 1660 Mission Street location, they would not have to meet. Mr. Young said that the Department has to look at this issue and also look at the bottom line. Mr. Young stated that commitments were made to the Capital Investments Committee and got X amount of dollars to spend. Mr. Young said Kaufman looks him in the eye and says, you got the money now build it, you are the Building Department and how long is it going to take you. Mr. Young said he projected that it would take 24 months, and Kaufman said that it had better be done in 18. Mr. Young said that the Department has commitments all the way down the line and would like to build a building that is comfortable for all. Mr. Young said that the Department would also like to build a building that is reasonable within its financial requirements and its particular commitment to the citizens of San Francisco. Mr. Young said that there is $5.7M and the Department has already gone over budget. Commissioner Walker thanked Mr. Young for his passion. President Fillon said that he is concerned that in walking through the building now, it is already pretty cramped. President Fillon said that he would like to see as much office space available as possible, but urged the Department to continue to work with the Union to come to a speedy solution. Commissioner Santos said that the building was a very efficient structural design and wanted to commend those responsible for it.

Ms. Lois Scott of the Planning Department said that she thought that a very interesting presentation was given. Ms. Scott said she would like it noted that over a year ago, the Union very much wanted to sit on the biweekly building design committee and was denied access to that committee. Ms. Scott said there was a representative from the Planning Department who was a fiscal person and did not necessarily represent the views of the Union. Ms. Scott said that she certainly would like to do some further work with the Bureau of Architecture and with Mr. Young on working out the problems. President Fillon asked if Ms. Scott were a representative of the Planning Department. Ms. Scott stated that she is the Vice-President of the Planners Chapter of Professional and Technical Engineers and is the person that is signatory on the appeals that are in the agenda packet. Ms. Scott said that in 1992 when the building was occupied there was an employee area that was supposed to be a lunchroom; eventually that space was subsequently converted into meeting areas for the Department, Room 2000. Ms. Scott said that employees watched that disappear and that has lead to the employee’s hesitancy toward interior terraces or rooms that in a crunch will be preempted. Ms. Scott said that the Union feels equally passionate, as Mr. Young that there needs to be some adequate breakout areas for employees. Ms. Scott said that Mr. Young stated that it isn’t a South of Market requirement, but the argument for having reduced parking is that the building is in fact so close to downtown that the building is going to be more representative of downtown buildings and have much lesser parking. Ms. Scott said that if the downtown standards are being used to justify the parking, legally the standard of one square foot for each fifty square feet of occupancy should be used as a rational for the open space. Ms. Scott said that the Union is equally passionate about wanting to have that space. Ms. Scott thanked the Commission.

8. Update on Commissioner Guinnane and Commissioner Santos’ site visit to 755 - 37th Avenue. [Commissioner Guinnane and Commissioner Santos]

Commissioner Santos said he had prepared a brief report that he proceeded to distribute to the Commissioners. Commissioner Santos said that the meeting took place a couple of weeks ago at the site on 37th Avenue. Commissioner Santos said that the claim that an excavation had occurred adjacent to this property was reviewed. Commissioner Santos said that he walked into the excavated area with Commissioner Guinnane and confirmed the fact that undermining had occurred on the foundation system at 37th Avenue; beyond that the existing foundation had tilted and shows severe signs of deformation. Commissioner Santos said that he and Commissioner Guinnane felt that the deformation should be replaced and a set of structural drawings should be submitted defining that condition. Commissioner Santos stated that the property owner, Mr. Conley, visited his office a couple of days after the meeting and showed Commissioner Santos a set of structural drawings that had been developed by his own structural consultant, Mr. Udo Vierman. Commissioner Santos said that Mr. Conley also had a copy of the construction project for the new foundation system. Commissioner Santos said that he reviewed those documents and stated that they appear to be in general compliance with proven construction practices. Commissioner Santos said that he felt it would be important that a new foundation is implemented and to do that sort of process as quickly as possible. Commissioner Guinnane stated that after meeting out at the site, he put a call into Farmer’s Insurance Company the following day and spoke with the claims adjuster. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the claims adjuster agreed to put up $50,000 at that point to resolve the problems. Commissioner Guinnane said that he told the adjuster $50,000, which would address the foundation, sounded good, but there was some discussion about the minor damage upstairs. Commissioner Guinnane said that hopefully all parties could meet at the property and come to a final number, as this issue is very close to being resolved. Commissioner Santos said that the construction estimate that he had was $53,000 and that assumed that the work to the foundation was more substantial than what is actually required so there is some room there on the structural costs and some of that money could be used to repair the minor damage upstairs. Commissioner Santos said that the damage upstairs is quite minor and there is nothing significant there. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the minor damage upstairs the problem with this house is that it is lathe and plaster, and there is no canvas on the walls. There are some hairline cracks that existed and there are some new ones there. Commissioner Guinnane said that the house might have settled a quarter, maybe less and to fix all of that, patch the cracks and paint the walls, it would probably cost between $3,500 and $4,000. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought this would be ample to cover any problems upstairs. Commissioner Santos said that if this amount were taken from the foundation cost, he thought the $50,000 would be able to cover the damage. Commissioner Santos asked if it were Commissioner Guinnane’s intention to have one final meeting with the property owners on 37th Avenue. Commissioner Guinnane said he wanted to have one final meeting out there with Commissioner Santos, the property owners, the builder and the insurance company, which is Farmers Insurance, along with any contractors that would be out there doing the work. Commissioner Guinnane said he would like all parties to come to an agreement and get an agreement in place where they would do the work from the adjoining property. Commissioner Guinnane said that this would make it more accessible and in turn cheaper.

Commissioner Walker asked what were the penalties and did Commissioners Guinnane and Santos figure out how all of this happened. Commissioner Santos said that it was a very clear case where the property owner excavated adjacent to Mr. Conley’s foundation and they went beyond the property line and undermined Mr. Conley’s foundation. Commissioner Walker asked if this was done with permits, or without permits. Commissioner Santos stated that there was a full set of drawings that defines the condition, but it is vague as to the sequence of construction and how they were going to do it. Commissioner Santos said he supposed they could have done it without any damage if the job was done in sections and this may have prevented some of the tilting. Commissioner Santos said that the developer decided to excavate in one phase. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a claim that this was done without permit. Commissioner Santos said that there was a claim made that potentially they had underpinned the adjacent foundation without permit, but there was no underpinning done; there was some shoring done, but that is entirely on the neighbor’s foundation. Commissioner Santos said that nothing had been done to Mr. Conley’s foundation except the fact that some of his soil had been removed.

Commissioner Marks said that Mr. Conley reported concerns that apparently the Stop Work Order was lifted and the construction that resumed was further undermining his foundation. Commissioner Marks asked if that was correct and what Commissioner Santos’ assessment of that was. Commissioner Santos stated that the adjacent property owner had taken some precautions in shoring Mr. Conley’s property and there was no additional work that had taken place next to Mr. Conley’s foundation. Commissioner Santos said that it was all exposed and one of the advantages of that is that the new foundation system can be implemented from the neighbor’s side and that will simplify and expedite the process. Commissioner Santos said that this would potentially be a good gesture from the neighbor to remedy this situation that he caused that he will allow his property to be used as means of passage in implementing the new foundation. Commissioner Santos said that the neighbor was quite willing to do that and seemed generally sorry that this had happened. Commissioner Guinnane said that there had also been a Stop Work Order issued back on that property so everything is at a standstill. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the reason behind that is that he and Commissioner Santos felt that if they could put some pressure on the contractor that caused that problem, being stopped, that the contractor could then put some pressure on his insurance carrier to resolve this problem. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had spoken to Mr. Conley earlier in the day and Mr. Conley was waiting to hear back from the attorney that represents Farmers at this point. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is no statute of limitations point at this time, as it is three years and he was concerned that it might only be one, so that is covered. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to resolve the issue, get the problem fixed and move on. Commissioner Walker asked if the Stop Work Order was in effect until such remedy comes about. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was still in effect and hopefully this could be brought to a conclusion very quickly. Commissioner Walker asked if it would stay in effect until something was fixed. Commissioner Guinnane said that was their intent at this point, but if the parties cannot agree then he doesn’t know where this will go. Commissioner Santos stated that the City Inspector was present and it is quite clear that the next step should be that there needs to be agreement about the new foundation system, implementing that and then restarting the project.

    There was no public comment on this item.

9. 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. Copies of 3 letters from Mr. Don C. Conley to Mr. Todd Thyberg, Esq. Of Valerian, Patterson, et al regarding Conley vs. Kwok et al, Claim No. E8-217916, 755 - 37th Avenue.

    b. Letter from Lois Scott, Planners Chapter, Professional and Technical engineers, Local 21 regarding parking variance application for the 1660 Mission Street building expansion, and shuttle and transportation requirements.

      c. Letter from Roberta Caravelli regarding the Continuing Inaccessibility to Public Records.

    d. DBI Newsletter.

      Ms. Lois Scott of the Professional and Technical Engineers, Planners Chapter stated that she was asked to give some background on the transportation requirements for the building. Ms. Scott stated that her letter (Item 9b) gave some background on the previous attempts to work on that question. Ms. Scott said that she wanted the Commission to be aware of the fact that the Planners Chapter wanted the Department to put sufficient money in the next budget, sufficient money for the shuttle and for complying with the transportation measures. Ms. Scott stated that Director Chiu said that things that happened eight years ago were not under his watch, but now there is much more of a commitment to go ahead. Ms. Scott said that everyday when she sees the shuttle pulling out from the adjacent building and people getting on and off, she is reminded how much the employees at 1660 Mission would appreciate and need that same kind of service and it certainly is a part of the package of mitigating the scarcity of parking. Ms. Scott said that the letter was there to give some background and had been requested by Commissioner Bobbie Sue Hood at a previous meeting. Commissioner Walker stated that she certainly would support that and said that she thought all of the Commission supported transit alternatives like that.

10. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of October 18, 2000.

    Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker, that the minutes of October 18, 2000 meeting be accepted.

    The motion carried unanimously.

    [Resolution No. BIC-063-00]

11. Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

    a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

    b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.

    Commissioner Guinnane said that there was one question he asked at the last meeting regarding property tax bills, room count versus apartment count, if that had been changed on the new bills. Director Chiu said that in talking to staff, the room count versus the apartment count had been incorporated into the new tax bills.

    Commissioner Walker said that she would like to see if she could get a new employee flow chart into the next package. Director Chiu said that it was still in draft form and he would like to get it formalized by the next meeting.

    Commissioner Walker said that she would like to formalize a way to make communication between Planning and DBI better around conditions set forth, especially as DBI is rolling out its computer system. Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to work on finding some way to better communicate conditions put on through the Planning Commission on projects into DBI’s files so that DBI is current as new applications come in on a project. Commissioner Walker said that maybe it would be a good idea to have some sort of joint meeting with Planning to try and better communicate or create a better communication system between the two departments.

    Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to continue discussion on certification of Housing Inspectors versus Building Inspectors.

    Commissioner Guinnane said that he would report on 37th Avenue at the next meeting.

    Commissioner Walker asked for a report on Boardman.

    President Fillon asked if the Litigation Committee had met yet. Commissioner Guinnane said that they would be meeting in the next week or two.

12. 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 noticed that in the last minutes there was no consensus and a letter was going to be written about some legislation of Mark Leno and Ms. Yovanopoulos asked what the ground rules were if there was no consensus. Ms. Yovanopoulos asked if the Commission still writes a letter if there is no consensus.

    Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the second thing she wanted to comment about was that she did not know if the Commissioners now knew what the Mission Statement is of the Commission. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she had a feeling that a certain hodgepodge of agenda items get thrown this way, but she asked if the Commission were really sticking to what the Mission Statement is.

13. Adjournment.

      Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to adjourn.

      The motion carried unanimously.

    [RESOLUTION NO. BIC-064-00]

    The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

          _______________________

          Ann Marie Aherne

          Commission Secretary

            SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

            Update on 39 Boardman. - Commisisoner Walker

            Page 6

            Update on monies received from settlements, particularly the Hilton Hotel and Jimmy Jen sex club settlements. - Commissioner Guinnane

            Page 9

            DBI Organizational Chart. - Commissioner Walker

            Page 19

            Suggestion of joint meeting with Planning Department. - Commissioner Walker

            Page 19

            Certification of Housing Inspectors. - Commissioner Guinnane

            Page 19

    Prepared by: Ann Aherne