2.

Discussion and possible action to reappoint/appoint and swear in members to the Code Advisory Committee as recommended by the BIC Appointments Committee. [President Debra Walker]

a.  Jerome Cunningham - Registered Fire Protection Engineer

b.  Marc Cunningham - Public Member - continued

c.  Ilene Dick - Public Member

d.  Ira Dorter - Public Member

e.  Edgar Fennie - Major Projects Architect

f.   Fredric Freund - Commercial Property Owner/Manager

g.  James Guthrie - Major Projects Structural Engineer - continued

h.  Stephen Harris - Small Business Civil Engineer - continued

i.   Henry Karnilowicz - Residential Projects Contractor

j.   Arnie Lerner - Historical Preservation Architect

k.  Zachary Nathan - Small Projects Architect

l.   Lee Phillips - Disability Access Advocate

m. James Reed - Electrical Contractor - continued

n.  Tony Sanchez-Correa - General Business Community

o.  Kevin Wallace - Remodel Contractor

p.  Phillip Williams - Major Projects Contractor

President Walker said that it was an honor to swear in the new and returning members of the Code Advisory Committee as this Committee always has a lot to do in looking at all of the suggested Code changes. 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion to accept the appointments and swear in the new and returning members. 

There was a question about the seat that Stephen Harris was being appointed to which will require clarification from the City Attorney.  Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that he would check into the question of this seat by the next meeting.

Mr. Edgar Fennie said that the seat that Mr. Harris would occupy is one that has not been filled for a long time and therefore it is difficult to get a quorum for the Structural Sub-Committee.  Mr. Fennie urged the Commission to fill that civil engineer seat as soon as possible.

President Walker called for a vote on the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 049-07

All candidates were sworn in except Marc Cunningham, James Guthrie and James Reed who were not present and Mr. Harris who is awaiting a determination from the City Attorney’s office.

President Walker stated that the Commission was looking forward to working with all of the CAC members.

 

3.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker announced that there would be a joint meeting of the Building Inspection Commission and the Planning Commission on Thursday, August 30, 2007 from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers to follow up on some of the discussions of the previous joint meetings.  President Walker stated that DBI will be holding the second annual “Meet the DBI Pros” Summit at the Bill Graham Auditorium on October 11^th and 12^th from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.  President Walker said that this was very successful last year and is a good way for staff to interface with the public.  President Walker said that she had the opportunity to attend one of the focus group meetings that included different key stakeholder, the public and the construction community who met to give feedback to the Department about how DBI is doing and to help with the Business Process Reengineering (BPR).  President Walker said that this was a really good process and thanked the staff for all of their hard work.

President Walker said that Commissioner Sattary had asked to speak about a comment that was made at the last meeting and said that she thought this was the appropriate time to do so.

Commissioner Sattary said that at the BIC meeting on July 18^th one of the Commissioners referred to the attitude of some “Prima Donna” engineers at DBI.  Commissioner Sattary said that he was sure that the Commissioner was just expressing his frustrations with some of DBI’s operations.  Commissioner Sattary stated that he did not want this comment to be misinterpreted by DBI employees as there are some 30 engineers in the Department working as Plan Checkers, Managers, Inspectors and Building Officials who are part of the review and approval process for construction projects.  Commissioner Sattary said that these engineers provide a very important service to San Francisco and that the City is a leader in advanced engineering techniques and innovations.  Commissioner Sattary said that he did not want anyone to misinterpret the Commissioner’s remark as a lack of confidence or as criticism of DBI’s engineers.  Commissioner Sattary stated that there are fewer qualified students going into the engineering profession and said that this would be detrimental to the vitality of the United States industry.  Commissioner Sattary said tat he wanted the BIC to go on record to acknowledge the positive contribution of DBI’s engineering staff.  Commissioner Sattary asked that DBI’s Deputy Director empower the engineering staff to exercise their best judgment and professional training in the conduct of their work.

There was no public comment on this item.

 

4.

Director’s Report.  [Deputy Director Ray Lui]

Deputy Director Ray Lui said that before starting his report he wanted to thank the Code Advisory Committee for all of the work they do on behalf of DBI.  Mr. Lui said that he was delighted to make two announcements regarding appointments to the executive team, the first being Sean McNulty, Manager for Inspection Services who has over 20 years experience with the Department.

Mr. McNulty said that this was a special honor for him as he was coming out of retirement to come back for a couple of years and said that he would help the executive team in anyway that he can.

Mr. Lui stated that the other appointment was Ms. Vivian Day as Manager of the One Stop Permit Center; Ms. Day comes to the Department from the City of Alameda and will be starting on August 20^th.  Mr. Lui said that Ms. Day has over 30 years of experience in both the public and the private sector, is a certified building’s plan checker and has managed the day-to-day functions of the counter.

Mr. Lui announced that the DBI Summit will be held on October 11^th & 12^th for two half days at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium and said that the Department will be participating in the West Coast Green Conference on September 20^th through the 22^nd.  DBI will have booth #20 at this event and have staff available to answer any questions.

a.   Status of MIS.

Mr. Lui said that the Department is still making adjustments to the exiting Permit Tracking System and has taken the lead role in preparing a RFQ that incorporates DBI, Planning and other related department’s needs.

b.   Financial Report.

Mr. Lui reported that the financial report was for July 2006 through June 2007 and said that the operating revenues were $41M as opposed to the budgeted amount of $50M; the operating expenditure was $47M so there was a shortfall of $6M which will be covered by the Department’s fund balance. Mr. Lui stated that the fund balance is now $10M.  Mr. Lui said that the reason for the shortfall was less than anticipated collections.  President Walker said asked that the Department continue to monitor expenditures.

c.   Update on interdepartmental coordination meetings and recommendations.

Mr. Lui said that he wanted to thank all of the various departments and people that have been coming to the BPR Meetings and said that these meetings have helped each department understand what the others are doing.  Mr. Lui stated that this has resulted in better coordination between various departments.  President Walker said that it was wonderful to see staff, the public and the construction community coming together for this exciting project. 

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

Mr. Lui stated that the Department has been working with the BIC President and others to determine the composition of the Advisory Committee for the CAPSS Program and said that this should be done soon.

e.   Update on Business Process Re-engineering.

Mr. Lui said that he again wanted to thank all of the people who are participating in this process.  Mr. Lui reported that all of the “as is” mapping has been completed for both Plan Review and Inspection and next week the Committees will be starting the “to be” mapping process.  President Walker said that it was wonderful to go into the Department and see the great big diagrams where groups of people have pulled apart how DBI does business.  Mr. Lui thanked DBI staff for facilitating meetings and all the hard work that has been done on the BPR.  President Walker said that she wanted to commend Laurence Kornfield’s art work on the diagrams.

f.   Update on Expanded Over-the Counter Plan Check Services.

Mr. Lui said that DBI now has over the counter service on the 4^th Floor where the Department is providing plan review services that require an hour of plan review.  Mr. Lui said that 60 permits with plans are being reviewed per day at the counter and approximately 50% of those are approved; 80 permits with no plans for work such as roofing and window replacement are also being approved each day.

g.   Update on the overall plan for the reconfiguration of DBI including 1640, 1650 and 1660 Mission Streets.

Mr. Lui reported that DBI has been continuing its dialogue with the Bureau of Architecture, but unfortunately the anticipated opening date is slipping.

h.   Update on 120 Howard Street.

Mr. Lui stated that the Department was asked to look into this issue at the last meeting and said that the project was to add four stories on top of an existing eight story building.  Mr. Lui said that he believed that there were two concerns with this project; one being the process and the second being the technical results of the process.  Mr. Lui said that DBI had been convening structural panels for many years to help evaluate the structural aspects of places such as City Hall and said that San Francisco is fortunate to have so many renowned engineers and geologists to provide guidance to DBI staff.  Mr. Lui stated that this PEER Review process is an extension of the plan check process and is used at the Director’s discretion typically for technically challenging projects.

Mr. Lui said that the technical results of that process in this particular case was for the PEER Review Panel to determine if the design criteria used by the engineer of record conforms to the intent of the Building Code, whether or not the addition was structurally feasible and whether or not the final built structure conforms with the Building Code.  Mr. Lui stated that the site permit had not yet been approved the Planning Department and said that the Building Department had not actually seen the final drawings.  Mr. Lui said that the Department had seen an analysis along with the PEER Review panel and is in agreement that the proposed addition is structurally feasible, but the Department has yet to complete a thorough plan check review of the project.  Mr. Lui said that he wanted to make the point that the Department is not finished with the review.  Mr. Lui asked Hanson Tom, DBI’s Principle Engineer to come forward to address issues raised by the neighbors.

Mr. Hanson Tom said that this project was referred to DBI in December, 2006 and the engineer of record requested a PEER review because it is a complex project due to the existing structure’s systems.  Mr. Tom said explained that the existing building is an eight story old concrete frame system built in 1972 and the new permit would allow a vertical addition that would require the building to meet the 2001 Building Codes.  Mr. Tom said that the technical aspects of this design was beyond the capabilities of DBI staff and that was why outside experts were brought in to review this project.  Mr. Tom said that there were three Code Sections that gave DBI the authority to consult the PEER Review Panel; those were Building Code Section 104.2.8, Section 16 and the section for designs using non-linear time history analysis.  Mr. Tom spoke about the alternative methods that can be allowed to make sure that the building design is satisfactory and complies with the provisions of the Code that the material method of work offered is for the purpose intended, and is at least the equivalent of the Code in suitability, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, safety and sanitation.   Mr. Tom stated that the two Engineers involved in this PEER Review were Professor Ted Zsutty from San Jose and Mr. Navin Amin, both well respected and qualified engineers.

Mr. Tom reported that DBI’s design team worked with the engineer of record beginning in February through meetings and site visits and did not reach any conclusive recommendation until the very end of July.  Mr. Tom said that the PEER Review recommended that the project is feasible, the design criterion is acceptable and they recommended issuance of the site permit. 

Mr. Tom said that in March of this year he received a call from the adjacent neighbor at 180 Howard Street regarding issues related to the design of this project.  Mr. Tom said that the PEER Review Panel worked on this project from March until July as there were some very tough issues and finally came to the conclusion that the design criterion is acceptable, but at this stage that does not mean that DBI’s review process has ended.  Mr. Tom said that the Department did not ignore any requests to attend PEER Review meetings because there were no conclusions reached until the end of June.  Mr. Tom said that the Department would continue to look at ways to resolve the column issues.  Mr. Tom stated that the Department documented every interaction regarding engineering issues in the PEER Review process.

President Walker asked the Deputy City Attorney if it was a requirement that these meetings be open or not; if the Department gives assurances and then does not honor them, is that a problem; and does anything have to be done about this?  Deputy Director John Malamut said that the City Attorney’s Office had a meeting scheduled with the Director when he returns from vacation to thoroughly go through and vet this issue as it not something that has been resolved.  Mr. Malamut said that he would report on this at the next meeting.  

Mr. Tom said that Mr. Paret of WJE called several times regarding this issue and said that Mr. Paret was welcome to come into the Department to review the plans, but because of copy write issues no one can be given a copy of the plans.  Mr. Tom said that DBI was working on an ordinary permit review until the PEER Review panel was able to come to some agreement with the project sponsor and in fact, DBI is still in the middle of this process. 

President Walker said that the Commission does not really have any jurisdiction over this issue at this point and said that this item is for information only.  President Walker stated that the Commission would hear an appeal if someone appealed the Director’s decision, but there has not been a decision made yet.  Mr. Tom said that this was correct as the site permit is still in City Planning.  President Walker said that she wanted to make sure that the Department had not given WJE any assurances that made them give up an administrative recourse in the Planning Department and then did not follow through on what DBI agreed to.  Mr. Tom said that the study had not been concluded yet and said that he had sent an e-mail to WJE saying that there had been no meeting.  

Commissioner Grubb said that the State Bar still had rights to appeal this permit when and if it is issued. 

Commissioner Sattary said that he was involved in some of the discussions about this project and spoke about how valuable the PEER Review Process is to DBI and the citizens of San Francisco. 

Commissioner Sattary said that this particular PEER Review has been going on for nearly six months and during that time five or six meetings took place between the PEER Reviewers, DBI staff and the engineer of record resulting in a log of 60+ review comments.  Commissioner Sattary stated that concerns raised about the design were conveyed to DBI staff, were reviewed and then passed on to the PEER Reviewers.  Commissioner Sattary said that some of those comments were sent to him by email and said that he found the comments very thoughtful and relevant and merit careful consideration and response.  Commissioner Sattary said that based on the review to date, he understood from the PEER Reviewers that they had notified DBI that, in their opinion, the proposed design generally meets the intent of the Code and that this determination is only limited to the site permit as far as the feasibility of the project is concerned.  Commissioner Sattary said that, in other words, the PEER Reviewers think that it is feasible to add a four story addition on this building, but the full scope of what needs to be done to the base building is a matter of detailed design and review which has not been done to date; this is still on-going.  Commissioner Sattary stated that it was his opinion that the PEER Review process is appropriate and is sufficient to determine whether the proposed design should be approved or not.  Commissioner Sattary said that he would applaud the foresight of DBI staff that correctly assessed the complexity of this project.  Commissioner Sattary said that the review process is appropriate and the Commission has to trust the expert opinion of DBI staff and the PEER Review experts and support their product whatever the conclusion might be.  Commissioner Sattary stated that if the Commission wanted to alter the review process for any project in order to accommodate a third party interest, the overall impact on the DBI operations would be to introduce chaos. 

Commissioner Sattary said that there had been some statement made in the Attorney’s letters opposing this project sating that the PEER Review is a Structural Advisory Committee envisioned in the Code.  Commissioner Sattary said that the PEER Review is separate from the Structural Advisory Committee although there are certain similarities; the PEER Review has a much narrower focus and is primarily used as an aid to the plan checking process in certain complex projects.  Commissioner Sattary stated that PEER Reviewers do not approve a project; they only present their findings to DBI for the Department’s consideration.  Commissioner Sattary said that the Structural Advisory Committee is a public entity that has a broad scope of responsibility and membership on the Structural Committee requires that the members live in the City; this requirement would severely limit the resources for PEER Review Panels; noticing requirements would also hinder the process.  Commissioner Sattary asked for his fellow Commissioner’s support for the PEER Review Process as it stands. 

President Walker said that the Commission was just trying to clarify what the status of this project is and make sure that the Department is careful about communication and setting people’s expectations.  President Walker said that it sounded like this is on going and there are still opportunities for people to get involved at Planning. 

President Walker called for public comment on items under the Director’s report.

Mr. Patrick Buscovich said that he would be speaking on the 120 Howard issue and stated that he was not a party to this project, nor was he being paid by anybody.  Mr. Buscovich said that people need to be aware that in San Francisco performance-based buildings are being designed and no one is doing cookie cutter prescriptive standards.  Mr. Buscovich said that as larger buildings are being built higher levels of analysis is being done and this requires the Building Department to go outside of its staff and pick the brightest brains available.  Mr. Buscovich stated that San Francisco is blessed with some of the top engineering brains in the nation and there are people who specialize in steel or in high rise welded joints.  Mr. Buscovich said that he felt that is critically important for the Building Department to continue to use PEER Review and to strengthen the process because the products that come out of the Building Department will be much better.

Ms. Karen Erickson said that she works at Catholic Charities CYO, a tenant at 180 Howard Street. Ms. Erickson stated that she did not know all of the technical aspects of this project, but said that she was concerned about safety.  Ms. Erickson said that 180 Howard Street recently went through a retrofit to keep staff and the 40 clients a day that come into the building safe; many of the clients are disabled adults or immigrants.  Ms. Erickson said that Catholic Charities wanted to support their landlord, the Bar Association in whatever process it takes to keep everyone safe.

Ms. Alice Barkley said that she was representing the California State Bar and thanked the Commission for putting this item on as an informational item.  Ms. Barkley said that she agreed that this project needs PEER Review, but was concerned about the process as there are different levels of PEER Review.  Ms. Barkley stated that she has sat in on PEER Reviews where the adjacent neighbor or concerned neighbors are allowed to participate.  Ms. Barkley said that this process cannot be a totally closed process when talking about a high rise building in an area with a lot of people passing by and people going in and out of a building.  Ms. Barkley asked that the Commission allow another engineering firm to look at the calculations and said that when Wiss, Janney, Elstner & Associates (WJE) asked to look at the calculations they were not allowed to.

Ms. Sheri Pearl introduced herself as the Director of Rural Property Operations for the State Bar of California, the owner of 180 Howard Street that houses their headquarters.  Ms. Pearl said that the State Bar has on average 30 to 40 people each day visiting the headquarters, many of whom are disabled or elderly.  Ms. Pearl said that uninterrupted and safe access to the building is critical to the Bar and its tenants and for this reason in 1986 the Bar performed a voluntary seismic retrofit.  Ms. Pearl said that while the PEER Review process for the voluntary seismic retrofit of 180 Howard Street followed all City protocols she said that it appeared that the process for 120 Street was different.   Ms. Pearl pointed out that that three PEER Reviewers are required, yet for 120 Howard Street there were only two and said that she could not help but wonder why this established process was circumvented and why serious and valid concerns about the structural integrity of 120 Howard Street are being deliberately ignored.  Ms. Pearl said that the State Bar of California respectfully requests that DBI staff conduct an appropriate PEER Review Process prior to the issuance of any building approval for 120 Howard.

Mr. Terry Paret of WJE said that he was pleases to hear that DBI is continuing its review and pleased to hear that Hansom Tom is taking the wheel.  Mr. Paret stated that he had a letter from the PEER Review panel that says that the process is complete and the building is compliant.  Mr. Paret spoke of WJE’s many accomplishments and said that their experience is unparalleled.  Mr. Paret stated that 120 Howard exhibits serious seismic deficiencies that will lead to structural failure during a major earthquake; these deficiencies are not the result of the proposed addition, but will be made worse by it.

Mr. Sig Freeman introduced himself as a Structural Engineer and a Principle of WJE.  Mr. Freeman said that he participated in the review of this project as part of WJE’s review team and said that he happened to agree with Mr. Paret.  Mr. Freeman stated that using a computer program is not performance-based engineering; performance-based engineering is knowing how a building works and to understand how it will respond in an earthquake.  Mr. Freeman said that a computer is a good check on performance and said that if a computer does not agree with his initial calculations he checks the computer first because he is usually right.  Mr. Freeman stated that ductile concrete is one of his specialties and said that he was glad that there was going to be more checking to resolve these issues.

Mr. Kent Sasaki said that he was a structural engineer for WJE and further listed his qualifications and accomplishments as an engineer.  Mr. Sasaki said that he had walked through many earthquake damaged buildings and said that most of the failures occurred because of short columns such as those present at 120 Howard Street.  Mr. Sasaki stated that WJE’s calculations and non-linear time history analysis show that 120 Howard Street does not meet FEMA 356 requirements.  Mr. Sasaki said that 120 Howard Street even without a vertical addition is severely deficient and needs a substantial seismic retrofit.

Mr. Ivan Reisnikoff stated that he is the owner of a UPS franchise located in this building.  Mr. Reisnikoff said that he has seen the design of the building and thinks that it would greatly enhance the appearance of the building and the neighborhood.  Mr. Reisnikoff expressed concern over the seismic safety issues raised by WJE.  Mr. Reisnikoff said that he wanted this project to be built, but said he was in favor of it being built the right way.

Mr. Bob McPhail introduced himself as a member of the State Bar and a shop steward for Union SEIU 1021.  Mr. McPhail said that he spends forty hours a week in 180 Howard Street and said that all of the employees are concerned about a project of this magnitude occurring so close to where they work.  Mr. McPhail said that he thought that the residents of 180 Howard Street should have the same rights as any citizen in San Francisco to be heard on this project.  Mr. McPhail urged the Commissioners to carefully consider the PEER Review Process and review the concerns expressed by WJE.

Mr. Michael Gammil said that he was the structural engineer for the 120 Howard Street project.  Mr. Gammil stated that his firm Nabih Youssef & Associates evaluated the existing structure’s seismic performance using the most state-of-the-art analysis and methodology.  Mr. Gammil said that Nabih Youssef & Associates used the same performance based design at the Westfield/San Francisco Center, the UCSF Cancer Research Lab, the Los Angeles Cathedral and City Hall, as well as dozens of others in the last decade.  Mr. Gammil said that they started with simple hand calculations and then moved on to simpler models and ultimately on to the most complex computer models available.  Mr. Gammil said that 20% was being added to the weight of the building and said that in testing the piles determined that they could support the additional 20% and then proceeded with the analysis.  Mr. Gammil stated that during the PEER Review Process DBI forwarded him WJE’s concerns and all of those concerns were considered very seriously.  Mr. Gammil said that the structural review will continue as part of the plan check process which has not yet started and will continue the PEER Review Process.  Mr. Gammil said that ultimately everyone’s primary concern is that a seismically safe building is constructed and said that his client has the desire and moral obligation to do so.

Mr. Andrew Junius said that he agreed with Commissioners Sattary’s comments with respect to the PEER Review Process, which is an impartial process.  Mr. Junius stated that this process should not be open to public meetings.  Mr. Junius thanked Hansom Tom, the Director’s Office and Mr. Lui for all their help and guidance on this technical and challenging process.  Mr. Junius said that the PEER Review Process is a valuable tool in San Francisco and the process should be supported and strengthened.  Mr. Junius said that the State Bar can still challenge this project and said that the State Bar had already been at the Planning Commission vehemently opposing this project; when the building permit comes out the State Bar will have the opportunity to appeal the building permit to the Board of Appeals.  Mr. Junius said that WJE are advocates and are being paid by the State Bard to come before the Commission and oppose this project.  Mr. Junius asked that the process be allowed to complete itself and asked that DBI be allowed to continue to do their job as they have described and discussed today; let the impartial experts do their job and bring their decisions to the Department that is charged with that responsibility.

President Walker said that she supported Commissioner Sattary and others and has faith in the Department’s system of PEER Review, 100%.  President Walker said that she appreciated staff letting the Commission know what is going on, but said that the Commission has no jurisdiction over this issue at this point.  President Walker said that hopefully the Department and the Commission will continue to communicate with both parties on this as this project moves forward.

Vice-President Lee said that he wanted to reassure the public that DBI will allow the public to review any documents available, but said that the Department would not be able to copy documents because of copy write issues. 

Commissioner Sattary asked if all of the comments and calculations from WJE had been made available to the PEER Review Panel.  Hanson Tom said that the Department had not received any calculations, only the letter of concern dated March 20^th and some information that was given to him when he met with WJE two weeks ago.  President Walker said that she would concur with Commissioner Sattary that if there are calculations or concerns that are being brought up that it would behoove the Department to look at them in this process. Deputy Director Ray Lui said that the Department would be happy to review them if WJE wishes to share those.

Mr. Terry Paret of WJE said that an engineer cannot write everything down in terms for calculations and expect someone else to know what he is thinking and said that the best PEER Review Process is one that takes place face to face.  Mr. Paret said that he would appreciate a face to face meeting. 

Commissioner Sattary said that if the neighbor’s consultants want to discuss this with the Building Department they always have that option, but the question would be whether this can be opened up to a larger forum with the PEER Reviewers present and that needs more consideration. 

Commissioner Theriault stated that the Engineers are known to the Engineers questioning this project; their phone numbers are available to the public and a one-on-one meeting outside of the PEER Review Process is certainly possible. 

Commissioner Theriault stated that he thought this conversation should be about process and said that he believed the process is working exactly as it is supposed to and  to include the neighbors in this process would be too clumsy.  Commissioner Theriault said that WJE had been provided all the appropriate documentation when it has been requested and have been provided that documentation at every stage of things. Commissioner Theriault stated that there are not structural drawings yet and the process is not complete; there will be more that the public can review when the time comes.  Commissioner Theriault aid that he did not believe that the Commission should  at any point consider an alteration of the PEER Review Process, but should encourage the openness of the Department to provide information to those that request it. 

Commissioner Grubb said that he would agree with Commissioner Theriault that it is a little premature for some of these issues that have been raised and said that these are structural issues that are certainly not anything that the Commission is capable of dealing with save Commissioner Sattary. Commissioner Grubb stated that the Department has clearly delineated that it is following the PEER Review Process in this case and said that he believed that the Director had taken a look at his issue and is comfortable with the Department’s actions.  Deputy Director Lui said that the Director is very much behind the PEER Review Process that has been in place and continues to be in place. 

Commissioner Romero said that he would concur that the PEER Review Process should stay as it is as his concern is that opening the process up to advocates is that these advocates are being paid by someone.  Commissioner Romero stated that he understands the duty of these advocates, but said that he is aware that ultimately someone is not going to be satisfied.

President Walker said that the Commission was done with this issue, but would get an opinion from the City Attorney on the requirements for the PEER Review Process regarding making it public.  Commissioner Theriault asked if the City Attorney could clarify if the membership of the PEER Review Committee has a requisite of three members or would two be acceptable.  Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that as comments from the Department have indicated this is a fairly complex and unique issue.  Mr. Malamut stated that there are special facts to this case that the City Attorney’s Office will be looking at with the Department to determine what kind of panel was assembled and under what provisions of the Code. 

5.

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

Ms. Alice Barkley said that she wanted to address the larger issue of how the Department decides what goes to PEER Review and what is the magnitude of a project that would trigger a Structural Review Committee.  Ms. Barkley said that she did not think that the public has a clue about what the standard is and what the demarcations are and asked that the Commission address that so there is a clear process.

Mr. Andrew Junius said that he was under the impression that if the Director based on the facts before him feels that a Structural Advisory Committee is appropriate the Director would appoint one; otherwise there are other provisions of the Code that apply. 

Mr. Charles Marstellar said that in about six months there will be a number of major projects coming through the pipeline that will probably come to the attention of the general public as never before because many of those projects are going to be very tall buildings.  Mr. Marstellar stated that he was concerned because the CAPSS process has not moved faster.  Mr. Marstellar said that the process came to a halt in 2003 and seems to be moving very slowly.  Mr. Marstellar stated that he believed that the public has the sense that the Department is on top of the new Code revisions and that the CAPSS process is underway, but will soon realize that in looking at seismic implications of these tall buildings that the 1999 standards were never implemented and the CAPSS process was stalled.  Mr. Marstellar said that this would be a major issue in about a year when people see that there are going to be scores of these tall buildings in the City and the CAPSS revision has not moved forward.

Mr. Kevin Hughes of the Electrical Workers Local 6 said that he wanted to say that Alan Tokugawa performs an excellent service for the Department.

.

 

6.

Report, discussion and possible action to approve Code amendments to the 2007 California Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing and Housing Code and recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors. [Chief Building Inspector Laurence Kornfield, Technical Services Division]

President Walker said that this was very important as there is a new set of Codes coming into effect and called on Laurence Kornfield to come forward.

 

Mr. Kornfield said that he had to start by saying that Alan Tokugawa is just great as he is the Secretary to the Code Advisory Committee.  Mr. Kornfield said that for over six months the Code Advisory Committee has had to review each and every one of the San Francisco Building, Housing, Electrical, Plumbing and Mechanical Code requirements to see what the new California Code requirements are and to try to integrate them.  Mr. Kornfield said that as a result, that is what is before the Commission to be adopted as the 2007 San Francisco Codes.   Mr. Kornfield stated that this is done every three years, but this new Code cycle is the first time that the State has adopted an entirely new model Code for the Building Code.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Building Code is the primary Code that was being discussed and said that it was previously based on the Uniform Building Code; the new 2007 California Building Code, which was published this year and becomes effective January 1, 2008, is based on the International Building Code.

 

Mr. Kornfield said that the International Building Code chose the least restrictive Codes that still resulted in life safety under the Code. Mr. Kornfield stated that there has been a substantial relaxation or change in some of these Code provisions which will make construction and development easier in San Francisco especially in tenant office spaces where sprinklers are allowed to provide alternatives for lots of other types of construction. 

 

Mr. Kornfield explained the schedule for the adoption of San Francisco’s new Codes which become effective January 1, 2008.  Mr. Kornfield said that after action by the BIC the Codes go to the Board of Supervisors and get placed on a thirty-day wait before they become effective; it is a very tight schedule that the State applies.  Mr. Kornfield reported that San Francisco is only permitted to make amendments under State law if San Francisco’s amendments are no less restrictive than the State law and they have to be based on three features: climate, topography and geology.  Mr. Kornfield stated that this was not true for the Administrative provisions or the Housing Code provision for which San Francisco has greater latitude under the State.  Mr. Kornfield said that sticking very strictly to those State law provisions and trying to meet those goals of time, Alan Tokugawa has convened endless meetings including a series of public meetings. 

 

Mr. Kornfield spoke about a memo before the Commission where he highlighted a few of the note worthy changes for the Building Code including new housing classifications; changes to how many plumbing fixtures are needed; the State did not adopt administrative provisions, but left it up to individual jurisdictions to do that.  Mr. Kornfield said that San Francisco carried forward entirely the current 2001 San Francisco Building Code Administrative provisions just correcting the titles and section numbers so that things like unlawful residential demolition or permit requirements or fees have not changed at all; the same was done with Plumbing, Electrical and Mechanical Codes.  Mr. Kornfield explained that the Housing Code is not an adopted code by the State of California, but is a compilation of pieces of the California Health and Safety Code as well as local provisions to regulate existing housing and these were also carried forward.  Mr. Kornfield said that there were a few very minor amendments to the 3-R to delete categories that the Department does not keep records on and cannot properly report on.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department was looking at revising the 3-R procedures. Mr. Kornfield stated that heat detectors on the outside of buildings were deleted and said that Fire Marshall Barbara Schultheis was present.  Mr. Kornfield thanked Ms. Schultheis and the Fire Department for their hands on participation and support of the Codes.  Mr. Kornfield said community kitchens were now covered in the Housing Code and that the Electrical and Mechanical Codes were virtually the same with little or no change.  Mr. Kornfield stated that there were some changes to the Plumbing Code so that now materials used conformed to State Code.  Mr. Kornfield introduced Fire Marshall Barb Schultheis.

 

Fire Marshal Schultheis thanked Laurence Kornfield, Alan Tokugawa and the Code Advisory Committee for the numerous amount of hours that went into the Code process.  Ms. Schultheis said that the Fire Department was involved in every step and urged the Commission to approve these Codes as there is a very tight timeline for approval; it is her understanding that fees could not be changed if the Codes are not adopted in a timely manner.  President Walker thanked Ms. Schultheis for her help and for the cooperation of the Fire Department.

 

Mr. Kornfield introduced Ms. Lee Phillips who is the current Chairperson of the CAC.  Ms. Phillips thanked the Department and especially Laurence Kornfield and Alan Tokugawa.  Ms. Phillips thanked the entire CAC and said that this was a difficult process as normally everyone knows what the last Code was, but this was a completely different document.  Ms. Phillips said that the State anticipates that there will be many amendments to this document so this is an ongoing process.  Ms. Phillips thanked the BIC for appointing/reappointing the members to the CAC and said that this group had built up a level of expertise that was invaluable to the City.  President Walker asked that Ms. Phillips carry the thank s of the BIC to the entire Code Advisory Committee.

 

Mr. Laurence Kornfield said that he wanted to thank Lou Aurea who is responsible for the technical compilation of these Codes and Mr. Ned Finney who have been tremendously helpful with this process.  Mr. Kornfield said that as the Department moves this process to the Board of Supervisors and the publisher there will be some minor changes to the numbering system and other minor changes that will not affect the actual Code and asked if the Commission could include the acceptance of those minor changes in any motion that would be made.

 

Vice-President Lee said that in general the new Code is very similar to the old Code except in the way it is arranged.  Vice-President Lee said that he would advise staff and others who are going to use this Code to start with a blank slate and to take their minds away from the old Code and just work with the new one. 

 

Vice-President Lee made a motion to adopt the Code.

 

President Walker asked if there was going to be an educational process that people might look towards.  Mr. Kornfield said that training had already begun in house and that for the last four or five months there has been in some cases a full day of training every week.  Mr. Kornfield said that at the DBI Summit there would be training for the public.  Mr. Kornfield stated that he believed that there would be a half day training for building owners and managers about provisions of the new Code that might affect them.  Mr. Kornfield said that then there will be two full days of training for Architects and Engineers coming up where the Department is sponsoring the training and is hiring an outside person to talk about the State Code.  Mr. Kornfield stated that DBI staff would be talking about the San Francisco amendments.  Mr. Kornfield said that if anyone had any questions about training they could call the main number at DBI and ask for information or call Technical Services at 558-6205.

 

Commissioner Sattary asked about Chapter 34 of the Building Code that deals with existing buildings and in many cases refers people to Chapter 16 where requirements reside for structural work and structural updates.  Mr. Kornfield said that the CAC did its best to carry forward the provisions as they are and did not want to combine major Code changes with the Code adoption cycle in order not to delay it.  Mr. Kornfield said that the Department wants to have open public discussion without being faced with a tight time constraint. 

 

Mr. Kornfield stated that the State of California has adopted the International Code with very few amendments, but does recognize regional differences and local differences; it has similar, not identical seismic zones.  

 

President Walker asked if Vice-President Lee would amend his motion to allow non-substantive administrative adjustments as necessary.  Vice-President Lee agreed to the amendment.  Commissioner Grubb seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 050-07

 

Mr. Alan Tokugawa thanked everyone for the accolades, but said that it was a joint effort and thanked the Fire Department, Lou Aurea, Laurence Kornfield and the entire CAC for the thousands of hours that went into this process.  Mr. Tokugawa thanked the members of the Sub-Committee for Appointments for their hard work in filling 15 of the 16 seats on the CAC.

 

7.

Review and approval of the minutes of the June 20, 2007 meeting.

Commissioner Theriault said that he had one correction on Page four, and said that Mr. Bosa’s first name should be Nat, not Matt. 

 

Commissioner Grubb made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee that the minutes be accepted as amended.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

8.

Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

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

 

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.

President Walker asked for an item to be put on the next agenda regarding the PEER Review Process and the criteria for determining when to use it.  Commissioner Sattary said that he had been hearing a lot about the proposed designed for the high rise at the Transbay Terminal and asked if DBI had been involved in the selection process or had a chance to participate by outlining the Department’s requirements on these types of buildings.  President Walker said that this could be on a future agenda. 

 

Commissioner Grubb said that he was in the Department and went to the fourth floor with a Code question.  Commissioner Grubb said that nobody knew who he was and said that people were almost falling over themselves to look up the information and get him the right answer.  Commissioner Grubb said that he received very good customer service. 

 

President Walker said that the Director’s six-month evaluation would be on the next agenda. 

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he would not be at the next meeting, nor at the August 30^th Joint Meeting between the BIC and Planning Commission.  President Walker stated that Commissioner Murphy would only be present for the very beginning of the meeting on September 19^th.   Vice-President Lee said that he is scheduled to be out of town for the regular meeting in October.

 

Secretary Aherne said that the meeting in October is scheduled for the 17^th and reminded the Commission that the DBI Summit will take place on October 11^th and 12^th and that the BPR is due to be presented to the Mayor on the 15^th.  Ms. Aherne suggested that the meeting be moved to later in October because last year at the time of the Summit an agenda was sent out, but staff was too busy with the Summit so the meeting had to be subsequently cancelled.  President Walker said that she would keep that in mind, but wanted to have all of the regularly scheduled meetings. 

 

President Walker reminded everyone that there was going to be a Joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the BIC on Thursday, August 30^th from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the Board Chambers at City Hall.

 

9.

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

 

There was no public comment.

Adjournment.

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

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 052-07

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

                                                  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary