2.

President’s Announcements.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that regarding the Mayor’s visit he believed that the Mayor made an announcement that there was going to be a 1,000-foot high-rise tower built downtown.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Mayor was bragging of the reality of the future, or the fantasy of the future.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the reality was that when Mayor Brown left office there were 23,000 units in the pipeline and that is very important to DBI because based on what is in the pipeline DBI will measure its financial expenditures and revenue.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the reality is that many of these buildings that have been approved are not going to be built.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the bragging of the Mayor, at that great visit to the Department, was a fanciful speculation that is not going to happen.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that projects in Oakland have been cancelled and said that many times what is being put out the public in headlines is a mere sham.   Mr. O’Donoghue said that the public needs to know this because if there are employees working within the City someone has to pay the bill.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there are not going to be surpluses in the future and there will be layoffs or there will be an increase in fees like with the Public Utilities.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA saw this coming and its members have left the City and are building out of State. Mr. O’Donoghue said that it takes too long to get a permit through in San Francisco.

 

3.

Director’s Report.

a.  Update on emergency supply issues.

 

Acting Director Lee said that the City is in negotiations with certain vendors for emergency materials to be supplied to staff and to residents of SRO’s because of their economic position.  Ms. Lee said that the City was trying to get one cost for the entire program.  Ms. Lee said that there will be discussion through the Disaster Council and the Mayor’s Office on what categories of residents in San Francisco would receive the materials.  Ms. Lee stated that along with SRO residents there is a need with seniors or other groups that would also need emergency supplies.

 

b.  Update on Public Utilities Commission (PUC) capacity impact fee.

 

Acting Director Lee said that this fee was called the wastewater capacity charge and said that she was reporting on this because she felt that the public wanted more information.  Ms. Lee stated that this is a Public Utilities fee and the PUC is in charge of implementation, but DBI is going to collect the fee so that it is easier for the customers.  Ms. Lee said that the water capacity charges’ legislation was imposed July 1, 2005 and said that while the PUC is still working on the logistics she believed that the PUC had the authority to charge projects effective July 1, 2005 of last year.  Ms. Lee said that this was a charge for existing customers to incorporate new building and new usage on the current system so that it can help with the infrastructure.  Ms. Lee said that in the past when new housing units came on line there was no fee collected by the PUC to absorb the higher demand on their system and that the system is deteriorating.  Ms. Lee said that for residential if someone is adding a unit the cost is a $2,604; if someone is building a one-hundred unit building they will be charged one hundred times $2,604.  Ms. Lee stated that this is a set fee and will be collected by PUC staff that will be situated at DBI, but the customer would only have to write one check that will be collected by CPB and then forwarded to the PUC.  Ms. Lee said that the non-residential was still in draft form and the PUC is working to finalize that draft.  Ms. Lee stated that the non-residential costs would depend on the type of use such as offices, food/beverage or retail sales.  Ms. Lee said that the highest cost would be to food/beverage sales as that has more impact on the public utilities and these non-residential fees would have a square footage multiplier.  Ms. Lee said that PUC staff would be working with the customer looking at the plans and determining the cost. 

    

c.  Status of Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) Program.

 

Acting Director Lee said that previously Supervisor Daly had an inquiry on this issue and that information had been supplied to the Commission.  Ms. Lee said that there were a total of 1,948 buildings that were identified as UMB’s and to date there are 288 that are incomplete in terms of the finished work.  Ms. Lee stated that some 270 cases have been referred to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) and said that the Department is meeting with the CAO weekly to see if certain properties have made efforts to hire an Engineer or to see what various stages these property owner’s are at before deciding to move forward with litigation.  Ms. Lee stated that the CAO is working with the property owners to discuss how they can become compliant, but to date there are 288 out of compliance. 

 

President Walker asked if the UMB Committee that the BIC created was still meeting and said that she was contacted by the person chairing that sub-committee about vacant seats.  Deputy Director Wing Lau said that there are still cases to be brought before the UMB sub-committee and hearings would be scheduled.  President Walker said that the Committee that meets to review possible appointees to the UMB should be aware that there are three vacant seats.  Secretary Aherne said that the Sub-Committee had met and had discussed appointees, but said that President Walker wanted the entire Commission to review the appointments. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that the documents showed that there was no Code requirement that the buildings be vacated for missing time lines per table 16A, but said that there is a timeline for the work to be done.  Ms. Lee said that this is what the City Attorney’s Office has been working on as many cases have been referred.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if there was any breakdown available in addition to the risk category as to the type of retrofit being done as there are three different methodologies.  

 

Deputy Director Wing Lau said that there are only 23 buildings that have never submitted any application for building permit. Acting Director Lee said that the Department could supply a list of the remaining buildings.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he would like a list of how many of the 1,948 buildings did their work under the bolts plus category.  Commissioner Hirsch said that speaking as a Structural Engineer and having seen the bolt plus retrofits he thought that is was a mistake to have that in the Code in the first place as he felt it was inadequate. 

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that on the PUC item he thought that there would be a big stink when notices go out because this is retroactive from July 1, 2005 and a lot of people will not expect this and will get a bill in the mail to pay the fees.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that there was no way to appeal these fees.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that he would commend DBI for collecting the fees at DBI and not having to go to the PUC as it is done with the school district; each time someone has to pay the school district fees they have to go to the school district and give them a cashier’s check before a permit is issued.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that this is a good thing, but said that he hoped that before bills are sent out there is a mechanism for people to appeal this. 

 

Mr. Karnilowitz said that he wanted to comment that the Department is backlogged in structural and fire and said that he was hoping that more people could be hired as soon as possible as structural is at least a month behind, and fire is probably even more behind. 

 

President Walker asked if there was a date for a hearing at the PUC.  Acting Director Lee said that there was no date for a hearing, but said that DBI met with PUC staff at DBI’s Public Advisory Committee and said that the PUC is working on some sort of appeal process. 

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that this fee should have been discussed at this Commission even though it is a PUC function.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this Commission should have requested it because it is an increase in the cost of housing.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the school fee was a State law that was implemented without any discussion, but was accepted by the industry, but the PUC fee is a sewer charge tax and builders already pay a sewer charge tax to the PUC.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that bonds were passed to update the inadequate system that is now failing.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is another case of bureaucracy coming in and imposing fees on the industry, which is driving the industry out.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there would be, as there was in the 1970’s and mid 1980’s, a depression in the industry because the industry has moved to other locations.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the fact that the RBA has exited this City is an indicator that the City is going to run into deficit problems and will have a surplus of employees.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that once again the government is playing games with the public and the public will be the losers; as the costs go up and businesses exit and taxes increase then the quality of services will diminish.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the PUC should have been requested to come before this Commission, because this involves a direct cost to builders, to justify why this is not a tax.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the school fees are now under challenge in San Francisco and said that the City has already lost every single issue in court.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that a class action lawsuit was filed two years ago and appeals were made to the appellate level where the filer of the complaint was asked by the City Attorney to negotiate an out of court settlement, but by principle the appellant is not going to do that.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the school fee will be set aside as an invalid tax.

 

4.

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

 

Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was commenting for the benefit of the public and not the benefit of the Commissioners and said that he wanted to criticize this Commission on the way meetings are being held.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this Commission is going through a process that the public is catching on to, a sham process.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the BIC had decided not to meet for the whole month of August.  President Walker said that it was not yet decided.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was a comparison made that the Planning Commission does not meet during August so the BIC would not meet.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Planning Commissioners meets from 1:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. and it takes the Commissioners about twenty hours to prepare for those meetings as it does for the Board of Permit Appeals.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this Commission is not meeting on a regular basis and said that this Commission did not have a very good attendance meeting record compared to the record of the BIC over the last ten years.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the records would show that what he was saying was accurate.     

Mr. O’Donoghue said that the BIC calendar has not shown the productivity of the permit process and said that at the last meeting there was a report that was totally inadequate.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is a suppression of the reality as to what is really happening in the Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there are now more Permit Expediters in the history of the City despite the hearings at the Board of Supervisors because it is taking longer to process permits.

 

5.

Commissioner Hirsch said that he had been asked by a member of the public to ascertain why this project had taken allegedly over a year plus or minus to go through the permit process with the issue being that of narrow streets, which would have been legal under a condominium project, but if these were individual houses, the streets would be illegal.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he understood this was a project that was favored by everyone, including the Mayor’s Office and yet, it dragged on at great costs to the developer.  Commissioner Hirsch stated that this issue also appeared in the newspaper as one of these high profile issues and he wanted to have a report on how things go through the Department on a project like this.

 Deputy Director Wing Lau outlined some of the issues that the Department was working on with the City Attorney’s Office regarding this property.  Mr. Lau said that this project included thirty single-family houses being developed on a single lot and said that the project owner had to deal with subdivision and easements.  Mr. Lau said this was difficult because this development was not condominiums, but single-family houses and minimum street widths had to be met in accordance with Fire Department rules.  Mr. Lau said that there had to be a public right of way and sidewalks.  Mr. Lau said that Willy Yau was one of the experts in the Department in dealing with subdivisions and said that Mr. Yau had spent a lot of time and effort to deal with this project.

Commissioner Hirsch said that he had been told that allegedly this project was signed off as okay for the narrow streets and the project manager would not have gone ahead if assurances had not been given; and then it was changed.

Mr. Willie Yau said that he was the Plan Checker on this property and said that initially the Department thought that this project was going to a condominium project like others that have been routinely approved by the Department with driveways and would be a gated community.  Mr. Yau stated that the project was not going to have individual landlocked lots.  Mr. Lau referred to his written report and referred to the section regarding criteria governing the dimensions and grades of City Streets.  Mr. Yau read “alleys shall have a minimum paved width of 25 feet and a minimum sidewalk width of 4 feet on each side.  An alley with a sidewalk on only one side may be allowed only by variance to these regulations.”  Mr. Yau continued with “Private Street shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet if it is a through street.  A dead-end private street shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet.  Any variation thereof, resulting in less than the minimum width, must be concurred by the Fire Department.”  Mr. Yau stated that the developer proposed private streets ranging from 21 to 15 feet wide.  Mr. Yau said that it was his understanding that the project manager went for a pre-application meeting with the Fire Department and that at that time the project was going to be condominiums.  Mr. Yau stated that the project manager did not have total condominium plans at that time and said that he thought the developer had the impression that he could subdivide the property into 30 different lots with 19 of them being landlocked lots without private streets.  Mr. Yau said that, in light of that, DBI worked out what it thought would provide the better of two worlds for the developer and this was negotiated with the Captain of the Fire Department.   Mr. Yau explained the requirements of the Fire Department in terms of access by the fire trucks and being able to service this property.

Mr. Yau said that this project was delayed because of the private roadway issues as a lot of time was spent with trying to figure out how the developers wanted to increase the feet of the roadway to comply with the subdivision regulations.  Mr. Yau stated that the subdivision regulations are in place since 1982 by Director’s Order.  Mr. Yau said that this project was one of kind and said that it is the general practice of the Department to discourage people to use easements to satisfy the Building Code unless it is an existing hardship situation in which the public might benefit by the use of such easement.  Mr. Yau said that reason for this is that the Department does not have a very good way to track easement’s use.  Mr. Yau said that this would be something that DBI would have to work closely with Planning on in order to make changes to the Building and Planning Codes regarding easements.  Mr. Yau said that he would be happy to answer any questions from the Commissioners.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked if Mr. Yau was looking for 28 feet.  Mr. Yau said that was correct, as it was 20 feet wide and then 4 feet for each of the two sidewalks.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if the final approval was for 15 feet wide.  Mr. Yau said that it was not approved for 15 feet.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if there was a final map on the project.  Mr. Yau said that the final approval was for 28 feet wide, but said that the map was not in the Commission package.  President Walker said that Commissioner Hirsch asked for this to be agendized to see what took so long.  Commission Hirsch said he wanted to see what the development wound up with.  Mr. Yau said that the developer pushed the buildings back, which created a smaller backyard for each property.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if the developer applied as a condominium project and not as private homes.  Mr. Yau said that the developer that it was understood at a pre-application meeting that these were going to be type 5 non-rated three-story buildings.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked how many feet were needed to get a fire engine in and out.  Mr. Yau said that it would be 20 feet in one direction.  Commissioner Murphy asked if the developer had brought a new proposal with new dimensions.  Mr. Yau said that as he mentioned the developer had pushed the buildings back and made the backyards smaller in order to comply with the requirements.  Mr. Yau said that he worked with the Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment Agency had no issues with the smaller backyards.  Commissioner Hirsch said that if this development were condominiums instead of single-family homes the buildings could be exactly the same, but the street width requirements would be different.  Mr. Yau said that he has seen developments with 20-foot wide streets with no sidewalks, but these would usually be gated communities.  Mr. Yau stated that the Department did not know that this was going to be gated until the very end of the process and said that the Fire Department was allowing an 18-foot gate.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the developer had sat down and worked it out with the Department yet.  Mr. Yau said that the grading permit was issued a couple of weeks ago and the construction addendum for structural was issued last week.  Acting Director Lee said initially when Commissioner Hirsch asked about this project the permits had not been issued, but have been since his inquiry. 

 

Mr. Bob Lelanne introduced himself as the Developer and said that he wanted to give a brief chronology of events.  Mr. Lelanne said that he was a native San Franciscan and said that he had been developing in the City for 25 years.  Mr. Lelanne stated that the property was originally the Gold Lane Market on Eddy and Webster Streets and was a large parking lot that became the drug-dealing haven for the Western Addition.  Mr. Lelanne stated that when he bought the property he went before the Redevelopment Agency Commission and not City Planning because it was in an A-2 District.  Mr. Lelanne stated that before the project went to the Redevelopment Agency in October 2004, which is when he got his approval, the Agency asked him to get the Fire Department to approve the site plan for Fire Department access.  Mr. Lelanne stated that he complied with those conditions and said he had a copy of a letter signed by Mario Ballard of the Fire Department dated September 22, 2004 stating that the site plan attached met all the requirements for Fire Department access.  Mr. Lelanne displayed a drawing showing a 20-foot wide driveway with a path of travel for the fire trucks.  Mr. Lelanne said that he also received a letter from Larry Badiner, the Zoning Administrator, because the Redevelopment Agency wanted to know if this was a City Planning project would City Planning grant this project a reduction in the minimum single-family home lot size and Mr. Badiner did allow it.  Mr. Lelanne said that this was approved as a single-family, 30 home development. 

 

Mr. Lelanne stated that when he submitted the plans he had a pre-application meeting with the Building Department and went over all issues associated with new construction of 30 single-family dwellings.  Mr. Lelanne said that the meeting addressed site access, ADA requirements, Fire Department issues and it was done, but then the Building Department changed its mind.  Mr. Lelanne said that the site permit was submitted and the Redevelopment Agency signed off on it in May 2005.  Mr. Lelanne stated that then when the project went to the Building Department for Plan Check he got a call in June that the Building Department was saying that it did not care about the pre-Plan Check meeting and that every single family home had to meet the requirement that it has to front on a public right-of-way.  Mr. Lelanne said that he knew that, but said that he had spoken with the City Attorney and John Martin at the Department of Public Works (DPW) and said that this had been done many times n the past.  Mr. Lelanne showed pictures of buildings that were very similar to his design.  President Walker announced that Mr. Lelanne’s public comment time was over.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked Mr. Lelanne to pass the pictures he was showing to the Commissioners. 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that he would stay within his three minutes.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that as President, Commissioner Walker could have allowed Mr. Lelanne to testify.  President Walker stated that she could not as it would be unfair to others speaking at public comment who were only allowed three minutes.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that President Walker would not allow anyone to critique or criticize this Department and said Mr. Lelanne should get an award for wanting to build 30 houses in this area as it is not a safe area to walk through in the daytime let alone at night.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Lelanne was not a member of the RBA, but said that LeRoy King of the Redevelopment Agency who Mr. O’Donoghue meets with every Sunday was very proud of this project.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this man had all of the approvals in 2004 that were required, but then this project came into this dark hole of Calcutta into this Department and was held up because of ineptitudes.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if this project is built now the cost is going to be higher and will probably go out for rental because this Department is now worse than Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that after the earthquake permits were approved within five weeks, in Las Vegas permits are approved in ten days and one of the RBA members had three high-rise buildings approved in Oakland within nine months.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Lelanne was building in an area that is unsafe and previously this project would have gone to the Director and the Director would have approved it, but this was not done because the Acting Director does not have the engineering experience or the administrative knowledge of what can be approved and what has been done in the City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that was why he was saying that this process is a sham.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he would request that Mr. Lelanne be given an additional six minutes of testimony.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that any developer that would come before this Commission would not get a hearing and said that he would offer his condolences to Mr. Lelanne.

 

President Walker thanked the Department for the report on this item and said that the Commission would not be taking any action on this issue.  Commissioner Hirsch said that this was not an action item, but said that he would have liked to have heard the entire response.  Commissioner Murphy said that he would also like to hear the whole testimony.  President Walker said that this was public comment and had to be limited to three minutes and said that there have been issues about public comment and giving equality to all of the public.  Commissioner Theriault asked if it would be appropriate for those Commissioners who wanted to hear more to ask questions.  President Walker said absolutely. 

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he had been in a similar situation thirty years ago in the Western Addition with a project and was told that he was insane to go into that area and spend money.  Commissioner Murphy said that he did sympathize with Mr. Lelanne going into the Western Addition, investing money and getting no answers.  Commissioner Murphy stated that he wanted to get some answers as to what happened. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that Mr. Yau told the Commission that this project was submitted as a condominium project and the Developer was saying that it was submitted as private homes.   Mr. Lelanne said that the project was approved for thirty single-family homes and said that the pre-application meeting specified single-family homes.  Mr. Lelanne stated that he had two options, one to build condos and the other to building single-family houses and he chose to do the family housing because that is what the City needs.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if these units could be called condominiums.  Mr. Lelanne said that for insurance reasons and other issues he did not want to build condos, as people want to buy a house.  Mr. Lelanne stated that if these are single- family homes and the party walls are like the Sunset District he could build them as condos and if they were condos he would not have to build double walls; as submitted it could have been a condo project.  Mr. Lelanne said that there were some issues that came up with the Fire Department about a gate, but before the Redevelopment Agency approved this as thirty homes it had to be approved by Mario Ballard of the Fire Department and it was.

Commissioner Grubb referred to an exhibit and asked about an attachment showing 21 feet.  Mr. Lelanne said that he did not do that and said that he did not know where the drawing came from as he had twenty feet and a 4-foot, 3 ½ foot wide area on either side of the street, but it was one elevation just like Fulton Grove.  Mr. Lelanne stated that there was a cobblestone street that was 27 feet wide, but the Building Department said that there had to be sidewalks and that took the landscaping out of the project.  Mr. Lelanne said that the project had to be reengineered because of curbs which the Building Department says meets ADA requirements.  Mr. Lelanne said that originally when the project was approved in the pre-application meeting he was told that the project did not have to meet ADA requirements.  Mr. Lelanne stated that the project had been approved and said that he had his addenda one approved for the foundations, but said it has been complicated because originally everything was approved by Fire and the Department in the pre-application meeting and then when the project got to Plan Check the deal changed. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch asked Acting Director Lee why there had been a change of heart between the pre-app meeting and the final approval.  Ms. Lee said that she was not privy to that.  Mr. Willy Yau said that it was not a change of heart, but said he believed it was a change of information from Planning to DBI.  Mr. Yau stated that numerous projects have come through the Department as condominiums with this type of construction.  Commissioner Hirsch said that the Commission was just told that this project came in as private houses.  Mr. Yau said that there was no indication on permit applications filed that this was anything but a single lot construction.  Mr. Yau gave an explanation of single lot with multiple family houses and a subdivided lot which would require frontage to the public street.       

 

President Walker asked if Mr. Yau was saying that even if this project was proposed as thirty single family houses the Department was looking at it as one lot and not thirty separate lots.  Mr. Yau said that was correct.  President Walker said that once it is divided into thirty separate lots a different requirement for street width comes in.  Mr. Yau said that this was his understanding of the Code. 

 

Commissioner Murphy asked if Mr. Lelanne had gone through the variance process.  Mr. Lelanne said that he did and that DPW approved it.  President Walker said that the plan review comments that she had from the Department said that the project was on a single lot with thirty buildings. 

 

Mr. Yau said that he wanted to clarify that each building has its own building permit and reflects the number of building structures, but not necessarily the way the land is going to be subdivided.  Mr. Yau stated that he believed this case was more of a sub-division issue rather than a Building Code issue. 

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he did not understand where the understanding that these were going to be condominiums came from.  Mr. Yau said that in the past it has been the Department’s policy not to allow landlocked lot lots without street frontage and City Planning had been going along with that policy.  Mr. Yau stated that lately City Planning from time to time changed their minds and allowed developers to have landlocked lot lots.  Commissioner Hirsch said that was not the question; the question was at what point the Department thought this was a condominium project as the applicant says that he never submitted a condominium project. 

Mr. Yau said that he was not involved in the pre-application process.

 

Commissioner Grubb said that there was a pre-application letter that showed thirty separate lots and thirty single-family homes.  Commissioner Theriault asked if this went through the Planning Department.  Mr. Lelanne said that the project went through the Redevelopment Agency.  Mr. Lelanne said that the Redevelopment Agency asked him to get a letter from the Zoning Administrator Larry Badiner saying that if this project was before Planning, that Planning would approve it because the A2 Redevelopment Area is expiring in two years in the Western Addition. Mr. Lelanne stated that he received that letter from Mr. Badiner and with that letter and a letter from the Fire Department; the Redevelopment Agency approved the development for thirty single-family homes. 

Deputy Director Wing Lau said that this was complicated because the right parties did not get together for the pre-application meeting; it should have included all agencies, Building, Planning and Fire and apparently it did not. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that he wanted to bring this issue before the public and said that what disturbed him the most was that an applicant does his best to get preapproval for a project and then all of a sudden things flip.  Commissioner Hirsch stated that he hoped the Department would take heed of this and said that if something is approved, unless there are real legal grounds, people should not be dragged though such a process. 

Acting Director Lee said that this is a good example of many of the cases that the Department is currently facing.  Ms. Lee stated that in the past few years pre-application meetings did occur and the desires of the project sponsor were represented to staff in a certain way.  Ms. Lee said that staff, whether they meant to or not, agreed to certain interpretations of the Code.  Ms. Lee said that the Department was now finding that many of these interpretations were incorrect.  Ms. Lee said that pre-application meetings are one of the big challenges the Department is going to face this year.  Ms. Lee said that this was not an isolated case and said that in many other cases where there have been pre-application meetings there were serious deficiency issues at the time of permit issuance.  Ms. Lee said that there was a recent project that had gone through the pre-application process, but could not be issued because the design was structurally unsafe.  Ms. Lee said that she could not say that she would honor all of the agreements that the Department has done in the past and said that staff needed to be better trained.  Ms. Lee said she was working with senior staff to do the pre-application meetings because they have more expertise and said she has asked that the meetings be documented in writing with no verbal agreements.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department has to address the inconsistencies of Building Code interpretation. 

 

6.

Update on 531 Grove Street resulting from public comment at June 5, 2006 meeting. [Acting Deputy Director Carla Johnson]

Acting Deputy Director Carla Johnson said that she would be brief and concise.  Ms. Johnson said that two weeks ago the property owner of 531 Grove Street approached the Commission during the public comment part of the meeting.  Ms. Johnson said that the owner expressed her frustration with the permit process.  Ms. Johnson stated that she was going to explain where the Building Department did the right things and the wrong things.  Ms. Johnson said that this case went back to a complaint that DBI received from a neighbor regarding a deck that was under construction without the right permits in November 2005.  Ms. Johnson said that when the Department investigated the complaint the property owner made an attempt to get a permit for deck replacement, but learned that the existing deck she was replacing was not legal and was previously built without permits.  Ms. Johnson stated that a Notice of Violation was issued in November and in December the property owner contacted the District Building Inspector and asked for an extension on the permit deadline.  Ms. Johnson said that the owner was given an additional thirty days which would get the building permit filed in January; on February 21, there was a second Notice of Violation issued.  Ms. Johnson stated that the property owner had filed for a permit on February 13, but failed to meet the original deadline as well as the extension deadline. Ms. Johnson said that it is a discretionary decision by the Building Inspector if they want to take a case to the next level so it was within the Building Inspector’s authority to issue that second notice.

 

Ms. Johnson said that she has had a discussion with her Senior Inspectors in the Building Inspection Division to ask them to specifically look at these types of circumstances and decide whether second notices should be issued. 

Ms. Johnson said that it turned out that the original deck, not only was built without permit, but needed a variance because it was going further into the yard than the standard Planning Department rules would have required.  Ms. Johnson said that the application for permit was in the Planning Department for over two months until late April.  Ms. Johnson stated that many members of the public confuse Planning and DBI and said that this is understandable because it looks like it is one permit, one City and one department, but is two very separate processes.  Ms. Johnson said that the permit cleared in April, but the plans were filed by a Contractor and not an Engineer and did not show much detail in the plans.  Ms. Johnson said that plan review sent out plan review comments, which the property owner probably thought of as more roadblocks.  Ms. Johnson stated that after this matter was brought to the Department’s attention in the Commission hearing Deputy Director Wing Lau and a Plan Check Engineer looked at the nature of the comments to see if they could be addressed by having the person who prepared the plans come into the Building Department to make notations as opposed to submitting additional plan comment sheets.  Ms. Johnson said that this meeting did take place and the plans were approved and a building permit was issued last Friday. 

 

Ms. Johnson said that in this whole Code Enforcement process there was a Director’s Hearing that took place in April and said that she contacted the property owner and agreed to waive the assessment fees in this instance.  Ms. Johnson stated that the Department did not charge a nine times penalty on the permit and said that DBI was trying to make the bitter pill go down a little sweeter.  Ms. Johnson thanked the Commission for bringing this to the Department’s attention.  Commissioner Murphy thanked Ms. Johnson for her decisions. 

 

Acting Director Lee said that this was another example of a very complex issue and said that it was very stunning when the complainant came forward and alleged corruption or incompetence.  Ms. Lee said that this was an example of the difficulties and challenges that the Department faces and said that hopefully when the computer systems are upgraded the Department will be able to do a better job by accessing more information regarding Planning and that will weigh heavily on decisions with Notices of Violations. 

 

Ms. Lee said that she was asking the Commission to help her address these real obstacles and said that the Department needs to have better training, but unfortunately while staff is being trained it takes away from counter time and then there are complaints about the turn around time.  Ms. Lee said that these issues affect the Department’s effectiveness and productivity.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that with training it would be good to get input from people, such as this customer, who actually go in and try to pick up permits and unnecessarily get delayed for eight or nine months.  Acting Director Lee said that she would agendize this for a future meeting as there are things that staff are working on right now that she would like to get more publicity about.  Ms. Lee said that there is a customer survey that the Department utilizes and also a Public Advisory Committee that meets regularly.  Commissioner Murphy said that it would be good to get a couple of Architects, Contractors and homeowners to sit down with staff and give them some feedback. 

 

Vice-President Lee said that he thought DBI could do a better job of clarifying to the public the difference between a Planning permit and a Building permit as this is a prevailing confusion.  President Walker said that this would be something to discuss when there is a joint meeting between the Planning and Building Inspection Commissions.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that this Commission was created, when it was put on the ballot for the voters of San Francisco with the required 70,000 signatures, to eliminate a complex system.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that bureaucrats always find an excuse for delays.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is an over-the-counter process that was working well with previous administrations and said that this lady was talking about a deck that was only 10’ x 10’ or 18’ x 18’.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that she should have been told to submit an application to do repairs, as a repair would not have required plans.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this demonstrates that there is a Department that is malfunctioning. 

 

Mr. O’Donoghue said that this problem was so grave ten or twelve years ago that builders were going to subcontract the engineering functions out to the private sector because Engineers in the Plan Check were complicating the process and no one could get a permit through; it had nothing to do with Planning.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that at that time he was telling his members to do work without a permit, but to do it to Code.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the same thing is happening again and people are doing work without permits because of the complexities at DBI and because of the Administrative malfunctioning by new staff and new leadership. 

7.

Review and approval of the minutes of the May 1, 2006 meeting.

 

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

8.

Review 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.

 

Vice-President Lee said that regarding the proposed Natural Gas Piping Legislation he wanted a timeline of all the procedures that the Department and Commission would have to go though to get this legislation enacted.  Vice-President Lee said that he had heard that some neighboring counties had already enacted legislation and asked if the Director could find out about what legislation was passed and if the Commission could get some comments from those other jurisdictions.  Vice-President Lee said that he thought that it was Alameda that only required an excessive flow activated shut off valve instead of a motion activated valve.  Vice-President Lee said that he wanted to know why Alameda required only one and not both of these shut off valves. 

Secretary Aherne announced that the next meeting was scheduled for July 3, 2006.  Commissioners Hirsch and Romero said that they would not be present.  President Walker said that the Commission would meet to adopt the findings on the decision made during the Abatement Appeals hearing.  Commissioner Theriault asked if the Commission would adopt those findings as the BIC or if it would be under the Abatement Appeals Board.  President Walker said that it would as the Commission.  Secretary Aherne said that she would check with the City Attorney’s Office for clarification.

 

9.

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

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association said that in 1988 he appeared before the Planning Commission because the process had broken down and delays were terrible at both Planning and the Bureau of Building Inspection.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he spoke about an essay written by Charles Lam, which was a dissertation on roast pig.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was advising people that it was taking twelve months to two years to get a permit and it was very costly because of delays and people had to hire expediters in order to get their permits through the system. Mr. O’Donoghue said that when the law breaks down and government breaks down people will take the law into their own hands and in the dissertation roast pig was a sacred animal and people could not roast a pig so they burned down buildings.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that then the government allowed the roasting of pigs.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was used this analogy because the system had broken down and there was a housing shortage, but people could not get their permits through and were putting in in-law units and creating multiple units in single-family homes.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that Planning listened and made some changes and it was decided not to enforce violations against those in-law units because they created affordable housing.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the same thing is happening today, not in Planning, but at DBI as was evidenced by Mr. Lelanne’s testimony today and by the lady regarding the deck at the last meeting.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA does not do remodeling, but does advise homeowners and said that he would advise them to do work without a permit because there is little probability of getting caught, but said that homeowners should make sure that it work is done to Code.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there is not excuse for delays.

 

10.

Adjournment.

 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grubb that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 037-06

The meeting was adjourned at 1:04 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,


______________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary