Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, February 16, 2000

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

Approved March 1, 2000

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:18 by

President Fillon.

1. ROLL CALL - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Alfonso K. Fillon, President Roy Guinnane, Commissioner

Esther Marks, Commissioner Mark Sanchez, Commissioner

Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner Debra Walker, Commissioner

Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President - excused

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Frank Chiu, Director

Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Operations

Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector, Technical Services Division

Ann Aherne, Interim Secretary

Tuti Suardana, Secretary

CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:

Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

2. President’s Announcements.

President Fillon said that he did not have any formal report for this meeting. However, since there was a large number of the public present, he reminded everyone to keep public comment to three minutes per speaker.

3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

1. 825 - 831 Scott Street [Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson]

Director Chiu reported that at the last BIC meeting, as a result of a written request received by Commissioner Marks, Director Chiu had asked Deputy Director Hutchinson to research the revocation of a permit for 825-831 Scott Street. Director Chiu asked Deputy Director Hutchinson to report on the findings.

Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that this matter came to the attention of the Departmentaround December 30, 1999 as the result of a permit that was filed November 10, 1999 to construct a carport. The permit was issued on December 17, 1999. Attached to the permit were conditions as a result of a variance from the Planning Department. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the conditions that were brought to his and Todd Huntington’s, Chief Building Inspector in charge of Residential Plan Check, was that the permit was issued in error. The permit did not comply with one of the conditions. Subsequently, after reviewing the records and checking the permit that was specifically issued for a carport, it was determined that Item #4 in the variance dealt with concurrence by Department of Parking & Traffic (DPT) that the permit meet the requirements for maneuvering space. The October 15^th variance for 825-831 Scott Street, Item 4 states, "The project applicant and/or his architect shall submit the proposed carport plan to DPT for its review and determination that the proposed carport plan has adequate maneuvering space to meet DPT standards." Deputy Director Hutchinson explained that on December 30^th, Attorney Alice Barkley came to DBI to say that this permit was in violation of that condition. Mr. Huntington then spoke with Katherine Kelon of the Planning Department who had approved the permit. At that time, a letter was found that had been sent by DPT to Planning stating that the project did not meet their requirements. Based upon that information it was determined that the revocation/suspension was appropriate. Mr. Hutchinson stated that DBI has spoken to the applicant and there is now a submittal to revert the project to a three car carport. Mr. Hutchinson said that he will review this new application, but Planning Department will be the first step to determine what the overall scope of this project will be.

Commissioner Marks said that she received information from Claire Pilcher, the Attorney for the applicant. Commissioner Marks said that when she read the determination from DPT it did say that if the project was changed to a three car carport it would be in compliance. Commissioner Marks asked if the architect should have been contacted to change the plans rather than revoke the permit. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that the Code allows that if a permit is in process and has not been issued, revisions may be submitted. In this case, the permit had already been issued for four car parking, so any change will require a separate permit. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that this is an unusual building. There is a tunnel that is driven through to the rear yard. Because there were some changes to the exterior exit there are some code issues that need to be reviewed. Specifically, when exiting the rear of the building people will have to walk down the driveway and the Code requires that there be a protected passageway. There are things other than the three car parking that will have to be looked at once a new application is filed. Deputy Director Hutchinson said that the biggest issue is for the Planning Department to look at the application and see if it is correct according to their regulations.

Commissioner Marks said that filing a new permit seems very cumbersome and asked if the approval process would be very localized to the issue for which the old permit was revoked. Deputy Director Hutchinson answered that at the present time the Code does not allow for this action. If a permit is out the door and then changed, a new permit must be filed. That is for everyone, it is not special to this case. The intention is that if an inspector goes into the field, a change may seem minor, but in fact that change may become a major issue. Commissioner Marks asked again why the focus was not on the area that needs to be addressed. Deputy Director said that it will focused on that area because a new permit will be filed for a three car carport rather than four car. The permit will then be evaluated and it is localized from that standpoint.

Roberta Caravelli, President of Citizen Review, said that to her it sounded like the project was all done without permit. Ms. Caravelli asked how the permit got issued and said that the Department has some real problems and that this issue was just one example. Ms. Caravelli said she was speaking to the new Commissioners as the old Commissioners have proven that "no one is home". Ms. Caravelli said that DBI constantly issues illegal permits. Permit review expires after six months under the California Building Code. Ms. Caravelli stated that permits sit on people’s desks for seven years and are then issued. Ms. Caravelli said that all of these boondoggles happen because of special interests where projects are pushed through and nobody has adequate information at the time of review. Ms. Caravelli said that she hoped that those who were at the meeting for the public interest will look into this situation. Ms. Caravelli stated that issues can be raised as to the corruption that is going on in the Department. Ms. Caravelli said that the site permit process should not be allowed for alterations or for simple residential construction. It is a process for multimillion dollar skyscrapers. Ms. Caravelli said that she hoped these were issues the Commission would look into and that she was glad that some people were present for the public interest.

Alex Kelpetta, Architect for the project, said that there was not a site permit for the project. It was a variance process that was approved and then drawings were submitted to the Planning Department that did not require a site permit submittal. Mr. Kelpetta stated that there was a review of the plans when they were submitted and the same drawings went to the Building Department. Mr. Kelpetta said that DPT were invited to the process, he believed unwillingly, and applied a very rigorous, bureaucratic standard to a residential parking situation. Mr. Kelpetta stated that he believed that the Planning Department had all of the information needed to approve the permit. Mr. Kelpetta said he had been through parking variances before where DPT was not asked for their opinion. Mr. Kelpetta said that after he had received the letter from DPT he had gone to the Planning Department with additional information which included a video that showed how the parking worked inside of the space. Mr. Kelpetta stated that he had a copy of the video if anyone wanted to include it as public record. Planning Department visited the site and made an assessment that the parking was adequate, but did not write that information onto the permit. Mr. Kelpetta said he felt the issue of revocation was extreme in this case and that the complainant should have asked for review by the Board of Appeals instead of insisting on a revocation on the spot. The letter requesting revocation was dated December 30^th and the revocation was issued on December 30^th. Mr. Kelpetta said that he has verbal commitments from Gerald Green and Ms. Kelon of the Planning Department that the three car parking is acceptable to them and that no modification of the variance to accept three car parking is required and that they will approve it. DPT has also verbally agreed to this and Mr. Kelpetta stated that he was expecting this information in writing. Mr. Kelpetta stated that he was never asked by anyone in DBI or the Planning Department to do any revisions. Drawings were submitted that substantially complied with the variance and at no point was he asked to revise anything.

Alice Barkley said that she represented the adjacent property owner in this issue. Ms. Barkley said that she requested revocation of the permit because it had been unlawfully issued. Ms. Barkley said that the variance stated that the permit would have to meet the maneuvering conditions of DPT. This is standard in all buildings and in this building it did not meet these requirements. Ms. Barkley said that this was the first time she heard that Mr. Green of Planning had promised the applicant anything and stated that she would be sending Mr. Green a letter. The variance that was granted is a rear yard variance to do away with the rear yard open space requirement to build a carport. Ms. Barkley said that she will be asking the Planning Department if a new variance will be required. Ms. Barkley stated that she had made it very clear to the Department that she wanted immediate action on this matter because the deadline for filing to the Board of Permit Appeals was due to expire on the New Year’s weekend. Ms. Barkley stated that she was worried that with the holidays this issue would not be taken care of and she would miss the deadline to file an appeal. In addition, Ms. Barkley stated that she discussed other violations of the plans with DBI, as the plans submitted did not meet the requirements for pedestrian access. Ms. Barkley said that a safety exit is required and this was not reflected on the plans.

Mr. Jeff King, one of the owners of 825-831 Scott Street, said that the property was built in 1890 and has historically had the driveway through the middle of the building. Mr. King stated that there has been parking structures in the rear yard since the day the building was built. First it was a carriage house and then there was a carport such as the one that the owners are proposing to build. The carport was torn down without a permit making the parking illegal. Mr. King said that he understood that if the old carport was replaced in kind, it would again make the parking at the rear of the building legal. Mr. King stated that the complainant in this case is Mr. Joe O’Donoghue and his partner Shari Matza. They are the immediate neighbor of the property and are concerned about noise from the carport. Mr. King said that it was Mr. O’Donoughue’s suggestion that this carport be built and he has kept Mr. O’Donoghue informed about the project from the beginning. Mr. King stated that he had sent plans to Mr. O’Donoughue and asked for his help in getting the plans approved. Mr. King said that Mr. O’Donoghue essentially dropped the matter by not communicating with him. Mr. King said that the building has had parking since 1890 and in 1939 the carport shows up on the Sanborn Maps. At that time the tax records show five car parking. The passageway that the cars pass through is two hour rated construction, as the interior is one hour rated, and the exterior is one hour rated with stucco. It is an existing passageway and the only way that pedestrians have gotten from the rear of the building to the front of the building. This is an existing situation. Mr. King wanted to point out the amount of hardship that he has gone through. The process started in June 1999 with the variance and being an existing situation should have been easily handled. The carport should have been built by now. Mr. King asked the Commission to expedite the reissuance of this permit.

Mr. George Tsang stated that he took exception to what the architect said about parking. Mr. Tsang stated that he is a civil engineer and has a traffic engineering certificate. Mr. Tsang said that he worked for the Planning Department for two years and one of his main jobs was to review plans for traffic maneuvering. Mr. Tsang stated that one concern was cars backing out into the street and that is why the maneuvering is so important. Mr. Tsang said that he did not believe the permit should be issued.

Mr. Michael Klestoff said that he wanted to clarify that there is a letter from DPT stating that three cars can be maneuvered fitting their guidelines. Mr. Klestoff said that variances are issued to allow people to continue to do what has been done historically when codes were different. Mr. Klestoff stated his support for issuance of the permit.

Commissioner Walker said that her issue with this project is one of process. Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to inform the public that there was an item on the agenda about theprocess of issuing permits, public notice, response and what people are supposed to do if something happens beyond the scope of a project or illegally. Commissioner Walker said that her concern was that the applicant seemed to rely on advice from the Department and that something happened internally that caused the permit to be issued illegally. Commissioner Walker stated that when the Commission talked about process she hoped it would address a process that treated everyone equally and fairly. Commissioner Walker stated that she knew of cases where there was not such diligence in revocation when the violations were more egregious. Commissioner Walker said that in this case the Department erred in issuing the permit and she would hope that the Department would aid the applicant in expediting the new permit.

Deputy Director Hutchinson said he wanted to clarify what happened in this situation. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that usually the Department is criticized for being too slow and this case was handled on the same day. The simple fact of the matter is that the Chief Inspector went to the Planning Department . Planning Department had not provided DBI with the letter that showed that this project needed a variance. This letter was kept in the Planning Department’s files. Deputy Director Hutchinson stated that when this letter came to light, it was a very simple decision to make to revoke the permit.

Commissioner Walker said she appreciated that this happened so quickly and that she hoped this kind of action would be taken with any public complaint.

President Fillon said that the Department has procedures in place and that the letter of the law must be followed. Unfortunately, a mistake was made and President Fillon asked what was going to happen now. Director Chiu said that the revised plans would be taken in and routed to the Planning Department. Director Chiu stated that DBI would help the applicant expedite the process once a new application for permit was filed. Commissioner Walker asked that this item be reported on at the next meeting. Commissioner Santos asked if the new permit would also be subject to appeal. Director Chiu said yes, that was the prerogative of the neighborhood.

Ms. Yavanopoulos asked to make public comment, but the Commission had already moved onto Item 3b.

b. Report on judgement upheld by a state appeals court regarding code violations on 387-391 South Van Ness Avenue - Sainez case.

Director Chiu referred to an article in the Chronicle regarding a judge upholding the fine that was imposed on the property owner of 387 - 391 South Van Ness Avenue. Director Chiu said that he wanted to thank the Commissioners, his staff and the City Attorney’s staff for their outstanding work in demonstrating that if property owners, particularly slum lords, do not maintain their property, there are consequences to be paid. Director Chiu said that he wanted to congratulate his staff and particularly Commissioner Guinnane for pushing hard to make sure that the Department stuck with their assessment of the penalties. This was a victory for the Department and the City as well, and the message is clear that code violations will not be tolerated.

Randy Shaw, Director of Tenderloin Housing Clinic, said that the City Attorney’s Office should make the published decision in the Sainez case available to Commissioners interested as it was avery important case that set many legal precedents. Mr. Shaw said that, in particular, the $1,000 per day penalty that was upheld will have a tremendous impact. Mr. Shaw said that when Commissioners read articles in the paper that landlords are getting off with a slap on the wrist and no one is paying attention, to please remember this case. Mr. Shaw referred to other cases such as the Velasco case that was referred through the Commission to the City Attorney. Mr. Shaw said that prior to the formation of this Commission these cases were not being prosecuted and that often no one hears about the rigorous housing code enforcement being done by the Department and only negative things are published. Mr. Shaw said that every legal challenge was made to the $1,000 per day penalty and they have all been rejected in a published decision. Mr. Shaw said that the Department deserved great credit for this enforcement.

Roberta Caravelli, President of Citizen Review, said that what was interesting to her in all of this bragging is that the codes and penalty provisions had just been changed. Ms. Caravelli said that she believed that some discretion was inserted into the code so the Sainez case may be the one and only case where these penalties were imposed. Ms. Caravelli stated that the Sainez case was based on a different set of codes than the ones the Commission is functioning under now.

Commissioner Walker said she would like clarification on the previous comments about code changes. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that at the time of the Sainez case, the penalties were mandatory, and in the last code revisions the penalties are discretionary with the court. Deputy City Boyajian stated that this does not mean that the court will not impose it. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that she believed the court would have imposed the penalties in this particular case as the violations were so serious and numerous. This gives more discretion to the court. Commissioner Walker asked if it gave more discretion to the City Attorney’s Office in prosecuting. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said no, the full penalty of $1,000 per day could still be asked along with fines under the Business and Profession’s Code. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian stated that would not say that the Sainez case was not a great precedent for the Department. President Fillon said that he disagreed with comments that had been made. Even though the codes are different, the means of code enforcement have not necessarily changes. Commissioner Walker asked why the code was changed. Randy Shaw said the published decision addresses the new statute and the old, and that there was a question even at the time of the Sainez case that there could not be an automatic $1,000 per day penalty. To make it a stronger statute for legal challenge the code was changed. Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to comment that this was good work and she wanted the Commission to continue to do this kind of good work.

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

Patricia Vaughey said that she told President Fillon at the last meeting that she would come back with some reports for him, but she is behind on them. Ms. Vaughey stated that one of the cases is over 200 pages long and she wants to do a thorough report before she submits anything. Ms. Vaughey said that there is a problem with DBI’s computer. Ms. Vaughey gave the example of a case filed on December 23, 1999. This case appears on the DBI computer, but not on the Planning Department’s as of the 14^th. Ms. Vaughey said that the address is 500 DivisaderoStreet. Ms. Vaughey stated that one of the problems with the new computer is that it does not give the date on which information was printed out. On the DBI computer there is no record of where the plans are, however she said they were in the Planning Department. Ms. Vaughey said that when she looked up this particular project, there was no record of when the permit was applied for or what the use is. Ms. Vaughey said this happens to be a Burger King, but the computer shows an application for a new kitchen and bathroom. Ms. Vaughey said that the owner/builder, contractor and construction lender areas are all blank on the computer. Ms. Vaughey said that whoever is feeding the computer is not feeding it with all of the information that is supposed to be on the application forms. Ms. Vaughey said that this is an easy thing to correct. Ms. Vaughey said that August 28^th complaints from the Planning Department, and November 12, November 10, and October 5^th Notices of Violation are nowhere to be found in DBI. Ms. Vaughey stated that the Department cannot find any of the files on this case except for the 1998 files. Ms. Vaughey said that she just wanted the Department to be aware that there are some glitches and she was not saying that anyone was bad, but wanted the problem solved. Ms. Vaughey said that she gave copies of the items she mentioned to Peter Burns of DBI. Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu to respond to Ms. Vaughey’s complaint. Director Chiu said that he was not aware of this particular incident and would look into the situation for a future meeting. Commissioner Walker said that this is a situation where if there were permits issued or if they were issued in error why weren’t they handled as expediently as the Scott Street issue. Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to work toward a uniform set of rules that is applied to everybody so that things get dealt with. Director Chiu said he agreed with Commissioner Walker and will look into the issue.

Sue Hestor stated that she had appeared one month ago to report about the disfunctionality of the Department’s computer and said that it still stinks. Ms. Hestor said that the public has to be able to retrieve information from the computer. The computer system is not accessible to the public. Ms. Hestor said the computer works if there is one precise bit of information needed, but if someone has to go on to multi-tasks it does not tell you how to get there. Ms. Hestor said that the people on the counter do not know how to explain how to use the computer and that she was instructed to go back to Windows 95 each time she began a new search. Ms. Hestor stated that she needs to know if a permit has been applied for and that she cannot get information anymore. Ms. Hestor said that when there are multiple addresses and she does not know the exact address she cannot retrieve any information. Ms. Hestor suggested that the Department have someone stationed at the first floor permanently until everyone understands the new system. Ms. Hestor said that she had to turn over a list of 50 projects that she wanted to check to the Director’s Office and she finds this unacceptable, as she wants to be able to do this research herself. Ms. Hestor said she has not been able to retrieve information since January 3^rd and asked how much money had been spent on this computer system. Ms. Hestor challenged each Commissioner to walk into the Department and try to retrieve information from the public computer. President Fillon asked Ms. Hestor for a list of the information she was trying to retrieve. Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu to respond to Sue Hestor’s comments. Director Chiu stated that there is an ongoing training program taking place and it is his understanding that each day the system has improved, but he would look into the Customer Service people who are at the front counter to make sure they are all fully trained. Director Chiu said that he would assign an MIS person to assist customers at the counter. President Fillon asked who designed the system. Director Chiu said that there were several contractors involved in the entire system upgrade. Director Chiustated that now that a new system is in place, the staff needs to be fully trained. President Fillon asked if there could be a phone available to the public to be able to seek assistance. Director Chiu said that there is staff on the ground floor that should be able to help the public. Director Chiu said that he will inform staff that if something is beyond their expertise they should call in-house people for assistance. Commissioner Walker said that until the problems get resolved it might be helpful to have an MIS person available. Commissioner Walker suggested that the Department get information from the public who use the system to make it more user friendly. Director Chiu said he appreciated comments from the public letting the Department know what is happening. Commissioner Walker said that a meeting with the MIS manager and some of the public who use the system frequently might be helpful. President Fillon suggested a public workshop.

Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that in permit tracking the old system was better. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she agreed with Patricia Vaughey that having the date on the top of the sheet was important. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she was not able to pull up permit tracking by address.

Ms. Yovanopoulos said she made a package for each Commissioner showing who was on the Code Adivsory Committee. Two members at large are still missing from the Code Advisory Committee, one residential contractor, one remodeling contractor and one disability access advocate. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she wanted to bring it to the Commission’s attention that there are five slots open on the Code Advisory Committee.

Ms. Yovanopoulos said that in the 1995 print out of the code section, 105.4 it states what the Code Advisory Committee (CAC) is, and in the 1998 print out there are some changes. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that there are changes in the functions. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the CAC is supposed to be able to look at things that also pertain to Charter Sections D 3.750-2 and D 3.750-4 and this section is not in the 1998 code. This is a change that makes a difference as to what the function of the CAC is. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that under functions there is a wrong citation for Building Code Section 104.2.1. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that the most interesting change is the function being that the CAC can look at which code section can remain in effect and which should be canceled and now includes which section can be modified. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that these items were not caught in the last rewriting of the code.

Mr. Robert Adler said that he submitted a report to the Commission about a year ago about experiences he had with unscrupulous DBI staff. Mr. Adler stated that he wanted to talk about corruption generally and how it undermines the proper functioning of the organization. Since 1998, Mr. Adler said he had been conducting an independent investigation of allegations made by many local residents regarding malfeasance and worse, at the hands of DBI staff. Mr. Adler said many people who have made complaints are stunned when they discover seeming complicity by some of the Senior DBI managers. Mr. Adler stated he had followed up on some of the complaints, examined the supporting documentation and interviewed many of the people involved, as well as members of DBI staff and lawyers at the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Adler said that his evidence shows malfeasance by all ranks of officials in every step of the permit and inspection process. Although the vast majority of activity is clearly honest, Mr. Adler said that he has uncovered many instances of Notices of Violations and permits being issued fraudulently,property owners and tenants being threatened and harassed, public documents disappearing from files, computer files being deleted and high officials giving false testimony in administrative and legal proceedings. Additionally, Mr. Adler stated that the evidence shows that Senior Managers either participate in or cover up these activities. Mr. Adler said that time would not allow him to enumerate all that has been found. Mr. Adler said that the issue of corruption is only one of the problems facing the Commissioners. However, Mr. Adler stated that he believes it is one of the most serious. Mr. Adler stated that results of investigations corroborating these findings conducted by the City Attorney’s Office and by the Department itself are available to the Commissioners. Mr. Adler said that individual corruption is very harmful to the smooth operation of any Governmental Department, but it can almost be expected in an organization as large as DBI. Mr. Adler stated that what he finds appalling about the present situation is the apparent evidence that some Senior Managers are involved. By continuing to participate in this corruption, Senior Managers encourage cynicism in the populous and in the DBI workplace. Mr. Adler said that corruption in the Department discourages voluntary compliance of the Building Code and decent people’s desire to play by the rules. The Government requires high ranking officials to act impartially. Mr. Adler reminded the Commissioners that they have the duty to see that the Department is run correctly. DBI Senior Managers that participate in this questionable activity should be dismissed and/or prosecuted. Immunity laws make it very difficult for average citizens to sue DBI officials in civil court even if malfeasance is proven. For these reasons, Mr. Adler stated that he has turned to the criminal justice system for relief and has filed a complaint with the FBI. Mr. Adler encouraged anyone who might have direct knowledge regarding these matters to contact the federal authorities and said that he was told that this could be done anonymously.

Mr. Randy Shaw, Director of Tenderloin Housing Clinic, said that he did not come to Commission meetings often, but wanted to meet the four new Commissioners. Mr. Shaw stated that he was the author of Proposition G which created the BIC and thinks that the Commission has been an astonishing success. Mr. Shaw said that it is great that we live in a democracy where people can come and accuse anyone of wrongdoing in a public arena. Mr. Shaw stated that when a consumer survey was conducted of users of the Department of Building Inspection, the approval rate was over 90% which is higher than any other Department within the City. Mr. Shaw said that if the Commission spoke with tenant groups, landlord groups, builder groups, every constituency involved with DBI gives it high marks. Mr. Shaw stated that the Commission took the bull by the horns in 1995, refocused the Department and said in all the years the Commission has functioned, the votes on issues tended to be unanimous or close to it. Mr. Shaw said that rarely had there been any divisive issues, even in the voting of the landlord and tenant representatives. Mr. Shaw stated that the only problem he has seen in the past few years was when Supervisor Kaufman appointed a tenant representative who appeared to be hostile to the tenant organizations. Mr. Shaw said that there has always been support for staff and in hearing these accusations of corruption he recommended that the Commissioners go to the Department and meet with the staff. Mr. Shaw stated that two of the top leaders of the Department are Asian; the head of the Housing Inspection is a woman; there is as much diversity as any City Department. Mr. Shaw said this diversity gives every constituency a feeling that they have a say in the Department and that the public’s needs are being met. Mr. Shaw stated that he believes DBI is probably the most consumer friendly and responsive Department in the City. Mr. Shaw cautioned the Commissioners who have just come on board. Mr. Shaw asked that when theCommissioner are told by people who are not directly involved on a day to day basis that there is corruption and cheating, and that there are backroom deals going on, to call him. Mr. Shaw stated that if an inspector does not follow up with a complaint, the Manager of Housing Inspection Services needs to know that. Mr. Shaw stated that every time an employee in such a large organization does not do his/her job or makes a mistake, it is not malfeasance at the top. Mr. Shaw said that this attitude is very alienating and reactionary because it feeds into the right wing anti-government agenda. Mr. Shaw said that the Department has a lot of hard working employees who deserve the support of the Commission who need to get there concerns met, but that the record of the Department has been outstanding. Mr. Shaw asked if all of these people are getting mistreated why there are no articles in the newspapers. Mr. Shaw stated that he believes the new Commissioners are coming into a great operation that obviously needs some improvement in areas, such as the computer system. Mr. Shaw said that the problem with the computers is twofold. The companies contracted for the new system still have problems to solve and the Department in 1995 was heavily populated by people who do not have a great deal of computer skills. Therefore, the retraining is very difficult and time consuming. However, Mr. Shaw said that there is no agenda to deny the public any access. The Department is working toward the computer system operating efficiently.

Roberta Caravelli, President of Citizen Review, stated that Mr. Shaw was a hard act to follow. Ms. Caravelli said that in regard to the changes in the penalty provisions in the Building and Life Safety Codes, they are not directed to the judges, they are just changes in the discretion language. Ms. Caravelli stated that the code does not say the judge has discretion, but everyone else has to do their job. As far as the people in DBI doing their job, Ms. Caravelli said that a lot of them do and if she mentioned who they are the Department would lose them. Ms. Caravelli said that many people do not do their jobs.

Ms. Caravelli stated that under the Brown Act there cannot be an unagendized discussion. Ms. Caravelli said that the Commissioners may answer questions such as what there names are. However, if the Commission wants to have a discussion about an issue raised by the public it should be put on a future agenda, but there cannot be a discussion about an item that is not on the current agenda. Ms. Caravelli said that, for instance, Mr. O’Donoghue might want to have a representative present. Ms. Caravelli said that it is cheating people who cannot give their input on a subject that is discussed and had not been agendized. Ms. Caravelli stated that all of the special interests get cheated. Ms. Caravelli said that the Commission should just follow the law and understand that when the Commission’s City Attorney representative misadvises the Commission it is not the Deputy City Attorney who breaks the law, it is the Commissioners. A violation of the Brown Act when the Commission has been warned is a misdemeanor and is a criminal offense. Ms. Caravelli said that it is the Commission’s responsibility to learn the laws under which it functions. Ms. Caravelli stated that she has babysat the Commission for two years and that she would not be attending many meetings, but she wanted to express to the Commission that it is their responsibility to do their jobs under the constraints of the law because if you want to talk about process, it needs to be on the agenda. Ms. Caravelli said that she appreciated the Commissions interest and concern and said that she did not want to squash it, but to direct it into legal channels. Ms. Caravelli asked about the City Attorney’s Office setting up training for the conflict of interest presentation and other information for the new Commissioners. Ms. Caravelli stated that this Department, regardless of what the godfathers sayand claim, is not functioning well and she hoped that the Commission can make changes to get the Department more into the public interest.

President Fillon asked that everyone stay with items that are on the agenda and asked that comments from the audience be made only at the podium.

Mr. Bruce Bonacker, National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) said that he wanted to support Ms. Hestor’s concerns about the public computers. Mr. Bonacker said that she is not the only one that has been having problems. Mr. Bonacker stated that his problems did not seems to be as severe as Ms. Hestor’s, however he has had problems with the public computer. Mr. Bonacker stated that he did like Commissioner Walker’s idea of getting an MIS employee down on the first floor to sit and monitor the public computer. Mr. Bonacker said that MIS people do not usually like to deal with the public so he believes that the issue would be solved in about two days. Mr. Bonacker stated that if there is to be a discussion between the public and MIS, the Public Advisory Committee (PAC) would be the ideal place for this to happen. Mr. Bonacker said that he was asking, just as the BOMA representative had done previously, to please reinstate the PAC. Mr. Bonacker said that this would eliminate a great deal of the public comment at the BIC if there was a PAC in place.

Jimmy Jen said that he was at the meeting to respond to a public complaint that was brought up by Patricia Vaughey at the previous meeting. Mr. Jen said that there was reference to potential corruption between a designer and some inspectors and contractors being linked to organized crime. Mr. Jen stated that he wanted to clarify the issue. Mr. Jen said that he is an engineer in practice who works very hard to make a living and stated that he did have some previous employment with the City. Mr. Jen said he wondered if this was why he was being targeted for years and that the situation has been getting worse for the past four or five years. Mr. Jen said that any property he has or any project he has been involved in, has been targeted. Mr. Jen stated that he did not have the time to present evidence, but he does have solid evidence to prove that he has been targeted. Mr. Jen said he has no problem with Code Enforcement, but that he has problems with selective enforcement. Mr. Jen stated that he has paid a tremendous amount of penalties, even though he does not agree, on some of the legal procedures incorporated by an individual from DBI with the City Attorney’s Office. Mr. Jen said that he has been promised by three Deputy City Attorneys that they are going to conduct the same type of enforcement against any other similar violations. Mr. Jen said it has been over four years and nothing has happened. Mr. Jen stated that this individual has ignored for years, the proper procedure within the Department, and has harassed many Building Department employees. Mr Jen said that this individual has asserted improper pressure whenever any employee has raised a complaint. Mr. Jen asked the Commissioners to look into this situation and said he wanted to apologize to any property owner who may have been victimized by this employee, as Mr. Jen says he is the target. President Fillon said that it is very hard for the Commission to follow up if Mr. Jen does not provide more information. Mr. Jen said there is a list of properties that have been signed as final inspections that is way beyond this inspector’s duty. Mr. Jen stated that there have been properties that have nothing to do with Code Enforcement and the employee has been acting as an investigator. Commissioner Roy Guinnane asked Mr. Jen for the name of the individual he was speaking about. Mr. Jen stated that he was talking about Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil, Senior Building Inspector. Mr. Jen said that he understands that Mr. Torres-Gil has been relocated andsaid that he believed this was the best thing to happen in the Department. Mr. Jen said that this individual has been a shame to the Department

Mr. Robert McKern said that during the Spring of 1999 he purchased two pieces of property on a lot in the Bay View/Hunters Point District of San Francisco. Mr. McKern stated that when he purchased the property, it was a drug house with crack heads and drug dealers operating on this property. Neighbors had complained and there were abatements and write-ups on the property in 1998. Immediately, upon purchasing the property, Mr. McKern said he began to clean the property up and to contact neighbors and the Police Department to assist him in getting rid of the drug problem. Mr. McKern stated that he proceeded to remodel the property with permits, paid the fines and got the abatements cleared. Mr McKern said that three or four months later, a Code Enforcement Officer by the name of Rafael Torres-Gil called him more than a dozen times on the phone and harassed him. Mr. McKern stated that he felt Mr. Torres-Gil abused his authority and the power he had with the City and took advantage by contacting his lender directly. Mr. McKern said that Mr. Torres-Gil told his lender that there were many violations against the property and an equity line loan that he was attempting to obtain was canceled. Mr. McKern said he has a great deal of respect for DBI as a whole, but as with any large organization there are going to be bad apples. Mr. McKern said that this individual must be dealt with as he is using tax payers money to take advantage of tax payers for no reason. Mr. McKern said that this is not the only situation that has occurred recently. Mr. McKern said that Mr. Torres-Gil treated this property as if it were an emergency situation. Mr. McKern said that because of Mr. Torres-Gil his property is vacant and that 99% of the violations and write-ups are not true. Mr.McKern asked the Commissioners to take a look at this situation and deal with it. Mr. McKern stated that his dealing with DBI as a whole has been fine, but that Mr. Torres-Gil is a bad apple.

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu what authority Mr. Torres-Gil had to go directly to a lender. Director Chiu said that he was not directly involved with this particular case, but when there is a Code Enforcement case the Department is supposed to notify all interested parties of the property and this might be the case. Director Chiu said that he has received a written complaint about this individual and is investigating the matter. Commissioner Guinnane asked for a report at the next meeting about the property and this individual. Director Chiu said that he will respond to this particular complaint and not get into the personnel matter. Director Chiu said he would look into the process of who was notified and if this notification was done correctly.

Pastor Chad Riddit, Pastor of the Church next door to Mr. McKern’s property, stated that he is very familiar with this particular property as he has been with the Church for the past eight years. Pastor Riddit said that the property was an eyesore and hindered the attendance at his worship services because not only did drug addicts use on the steps of the property, but they would roll dice. Pastor Riddit stated that he had gone to the police several times to complain and the police told him that this property was one of the worst spots in Bay View/Hunter’s Point for drugs and drug usage. Pastor Riddit said that people were making donuts at the intersection of Newcomb Street and when Mr. McKern purchased the property he immediately went to the Police Department and informed them of what he was trying to do. Pastor Riddit said that Mr. McKern was working for the betterment of the community by trying to develop this property and stated that Mr. McKern put barricades around the steps of the property which deterred the drug usersfrom using on the steps. Pastor Riddit said that this helped a great deal. Pastor Riddit stated that he received a letter that Mr. Gil wrote to Mr. McKern and one of the complaints was that the second building was not a two story building. Pastor Riddit showed a picture of the building and stated that he was not a building contractor, but that the height of the building was obvious to him. Pastor Riddit stated that the debris around the building was so high at one time that the church could not paint their property. Pastor Riddit said that once Mr. McKern cleaned up and remodeled the building, he was able to finally paint the Church. Pastor Riddit said that Mr. McKern is very conscientious about doing things according to the law as he is a licenced contractor. Pastor Riddit said that the attendance and membership of his Church has increased since Mr. McKern has made the improvements on this property.

Mr. Michael Powers, a sex club owner/operator in San Francisco, stated that he has been in business for approximately five years. Mr. Powers said that he appeared before the Commission about a year and one-half ago to make a complaint against Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil. Mr. Powers said that approximately five years ago he was involved with Supervisor Ammiano’s Office in writing legislation to legalize these clubs. Mr. Powers said that at that time Mr. Gil and Deputy City Attorney Janine Marie Victoire took him to Superior Court and cost his business a great deal of money and almost put him out of business. Mr. Powers said the reason he appeared at the meeting is because he complained a year and one-half ago and had not heard anything from anyone at DBI, but had heard that no action had been taken. Mr. Powers stated that he still has a property at 960 Harrison Street that is open and waiting for some issues to be concluded. Mr. Powers said that he feels he has gotten no response and he understands that this individual is still out there committing what he would call injustices against the community in terms of his service or improper service that he is rendering. Mr. Powers stated that he had documentation from the Bay Area Reporter regarding other issues Mr. Gil acted improperly towards. Mr. Powers mentioned Daddy’s, a gay bar in the Castro. Mr. Powers stated that he believed Mr. Gil may have perjured himself in Superior Court by making accusations that were untrue. Mr. Powers said that film footage that was taken by KRON and KTVU of his business provides proof that many of the accusations made by Mr. Gil on November 13^th in Superior Court were inaccurate and untrue. Mr. Powers said that because he was a student trying to finish his Bachelor’s Degree he did not have time to obtain that film footage, but said that if the Commission were interested in seeing proof that Mr. Gil was lying, in his actions and under oath, he was sure this film footage could be obtained.

President Fillon said that he did not wish this meeting to turn into a witch hunt and asked if Director Chiu could look into this situation and get back to the Commission.

Mr. Jamie Jamerson said that he would like to see Mr. Bob McKern’s complaint followed through and would like to see some kind of response from the Commission. Mr. Jamerson stated that he was aggrieved by an article he read in the Independent by Columnist Hinkle. Mr. Jamerson asked who Commissioner Marks was representing. Mr. Jamerson said that he thought the Commissioners were representing the people and this is not what he understood from the article.

Mr. George Tsang said that he was a Building Commissioner two years ago who was appointed by Supervisor Kevin Shelley and that he is the Director of a San Francisco Association that has7,000 members. Mr. Tsang stated that if he was on the Commission now he would have to excuse himself from the discussion about Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil as he knows the individual and has worked for the Department. Mr. Tsang said that the Department is doing a very good job. Mr. Tsang asked if a Building Inspector or any official of the Building Department can buy condemned property. Mr. Tsang asked if the Director could answer that question and President Fillon said that he thought the question was inappropriate. Mr. Tsang stated that he would like Mr. Randy Shaw to investigate six properties owned by Mr. Torres-Gil. Mr. Tsang gave the following addresses: 918 Capp Street; 975 Carolina Street; 969 Rhode Island; 179-182 8^th Avenue, 1447 - 20^th Street; 4519 Mission Street; and 598 Paris Street. Mr. Tsang said that he wonders how a store turns into a restaurant without the proper permits.

Ms. Mia Lord of 174 Majestic asked the Commission to discuss and take action on a communication item which she sent since the last meeting. Ms. Lord advised the Commission that since February 10^th she has been living at the Broadmoor, 1499 Sutter Street, San Francisco 94109. Ms. Lord said that she has been exposed to noise for so long she finds any noise intolerable. Ms. Lord said that she had to move from the Granada Hotel because of the noise and that the rates are higher at the Broadmoor. Ms. Lord stated that she fully expects DBI or the BIC to pay for her room and board. Ms. Lord stated that she is 88 and has suffered from noise for a long time and was ordered out of her home by her doctor for fear that she would have a heart attack. Ms. Lord urged the Commission to discuss her situation so she can go on to be 89.

5. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.

Commissioner Marks said that information had been provided by Ms. Yovanopoulos about fire sprinklers and she was not sure what the purpose was. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she has compared the Building Code and it does not correspond with the Housing Code as to sprinklering. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that at a Sub-Committee meeting of the Housing Committee an ordinance was given to her by Mr. Noelke. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she wanted to point out that there has been a number of housing units depleted because of fires and the Building Code does not address it. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she included the ordinance from 1986 that was passed by the Supervisors about sprinklering in hotels. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she included the Code ruling which was something that DBI adopted after the 1986 ordinance came out and parts of it were included in the Code. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she addressed a situation in her letter about a Code ruling about sprinklering which was deleted from the package that was given to the Commission on August 19^th. Ms. Yovanopoulos said at that time she asked Mr. Kornfield why this particular item was taken out of the Code and he told her to ask Mr. Alan Tokugawa. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she has never been told why this section was taken out, but said she believes the Fire and Life Safety Sub-Committee did not know about this and should have taken it into account when they looked at Fire and Life Safety for residential units. Commissioner Walker asked for some response from the Director of Housing Inspection Services. Roberta Caravelli said that legally this could not be discussed. Commissioner Walker said that this was a communication item that was received and she would like a response.

Ms. Caravelli said that an agenda item has to be specific as to subject so that anyone interestedcould be at the meeting to address the item. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that this was an agenda item as it was included in communication items and the communication items are available to the public as Agenda Item 5. Ms. Caravelli said that the item has to be specific as to subject so that a person may pursue more information. Ms. Caravelli stated that if the Agenda Item is not specific as to subject then it is not a legal Agenda Item. Ms. Caravelli stated that Ms. Boyajian does not break the law, the Commission does.

Chief Housing Inspector, Lesley Stansfield asked that Commissioner Marks repeat her question. Commissioner Marks said that Ms. Yovanopoulos had submitted documents that showed a discrepancy in the Code that was adopted in 1998 and the 1987 Code as it relates to Fire Sprinkling. Ms. Stansfield said that she did not believe there had been any change since 1987 in the sprinkler ordinance and that it was still in the Housing Code. Ms. Stansfield said there was no change.

President Fillon said that he would like to recognize the DBI employees who had received commendation letters from the public. President Fillon thanked and congratulated Ms. Crystal Pearl, Ms. Carol Roseman, Mr. Ivan Sarkany and Mr. Vernon Takasuka.

6. Discussion and possible action to waive the annual cost schedule adjustment for permit fees. The proposed January 2000 cost schedule reflects an average construction cost increase of approximately 5% over the January 1999 cost schedule. [Laurence Kornfield,Chief Building Inspector, Technical Services Division, 1650 Mission Street, 3^rd Floor, 558-6244]

Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector of Technical Services Division said that this item had been continued from a previous meeting at the request of Commissioner Bobbie Sue Hood. Commissioner Hood had requested that Mr. Kornfield do a side by side comparison of the old valuations and the new valuations. Mr. Kornfield said that he had compared the most common items in the City and gave sprinkler systems per square foot for certain areas going from $1.87 to $2.10 per square foot as an example. Mr. Kornfield said that the valuations are not used unless there are issues of discrepancies between the Building Department and the applicant. The Department does not have time to go thru each building and figure square footage and add per elevator and per bathroom. Mr. Kornfield said that the Department likes to keep current on valuation as it helps the Department to maintain equity with other cities and provide information that feeds into local, regional and statewide data. Mr. Kornfield said that if the Department were not to adopt a valuation change, the next time a valuation change came along in a year, the Department would be that much further behind and it would be hard to catch up. Mr. Kornfield stated that since this is not used on a regular basis it would have little effect on the permit fees or plan check fees, but the Building Code does state that the valuation adjustment can be waived by the Commission should they choose to do so. Director Chiu stated that it was his recommendation that the Commission adopt this as it important to keep the valuation for construction in the City current. Director Chiu said that the valuation figures have an impact on the Assessor’s Office. Director Chiu said that the intention is not to increase fees, but it is important to keep construction data current. Mr. Kornfield said that the Commission does not need to approve the valuation schedule. The only action that might be taken would be to waive itfor the year. If the Commission chooses not to waive it, then the valuation will be issued as the Code directs. Director Chiu said that his recommendation was not to waive the fee increase, but to keep it current. Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to make sure that Commissioner Hood had received the commission package as she was the one who requested the comparison. Director Chiu said he spoke with Commissioner Hood and she had no concerns about the valuation comparison or any other item on the agenda. Commissioner Walker moved that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Department. Commissioner Santos seconded the recommendation.

Patricia Vaughey said that she supported the acceptance of the valuation fees, but wanted to make a comment that it is very difficult to estimate on the square footage of a kitchen or a bathroom. However, Ms. Vaughey stated that on UMB and other buildings where there is a high cost of construction and the Department should be more careful in checking what the contractors are putting on the application form and for accuracy. Ms. Vaughey said in some of the cases that she is looking at she has noticed great discrepancies on what the contractor claims the project is going to cost and what actual constructions costs are. Ms. Vaughey said that this disturbs her as it takes money from the Department.

Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that at the January 19^th meeting, this was Agenda Item #8 and Commissioner Hood requested the side by side figures. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that Agenda Item #6 had numbers in parenthesis and she was not sure whether the figures were substituted for the ones that are printed in the first column or are there notations on the side. Ms Yovanopoulos asked if there is going to be a whole new document with different figures. Ms. Yovanopoulos asked for clarification. Mr. Kornfield stated that there was a note on the first page that said that the numbers shown in parenthesis are values from the January 1, 1999 schedule.

President Fillon asked for a vote on the item on the floor.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Department regarding valuation fees.

The motion carried unanimously.

[Resolution No. BIC-12-00]

At this time, 3:00 p.m. the Commission took a break.

The meeting resumed at 3:20 p.m.

7. Discussion and review of the current San Francisco Building/Housing Code requirements regarding routine inspections of single-family and 2-unit buildings . [Lesley Stansfield, Chief Housing Inspector, 1660 Mission Street, 6^th Floor, 558-6002]

Lesley Stansfield, Chief Housing Inspector stated that at this point routine inspections are done on the licensed apartments and hotels. Single and two-family dwellings are addressed through the complaint process. Ms. Stansfield said that there are sixteen District Inspectors making inspections of both complaints and routines; two Inspectors that are assigned to specialassignments outside of the districts; three Senior Inspectors and one Chief. Routine inspections are done on R-1 properties which are apartments and hotels. Ms. Stansfield reported that there are 20,0000 buildings that are apartments and hotels. There are approximately 1,000 of those that are hotels and 500 of the 1,000 are residential hotels. Ms. Stansfield said that there are 95,000 single family dwellings and 16,000 duplexes in San Francisco and service for the inspection of complaints are provided to those. Ms. Stansfield said that, for the most part, the Department does not address owner/occupied single family dwellings unless there is a hazard present, such as a fire or lead paint hazard. Any hazards that would be a problem for safety or health would be addressed. Commissioner Walker asked if these inspections were done as a result of a complaint. Ms. Stansfield said that was correct, and that the complaint could come from a tenant, a neighbor or other interested party. Commissioner Sanchez asked how many complaints were received. Ms. Stansfield said that there are approximately 5,000 complaints per year and said that she did not have them broken down into R-3 which is single family and duplex, and R-1 complaints. Ms. Stansfield said that approximately 25% of the complaints are for R-3 buildings and 75% for R-1, apartments and hotels. Commissioner Marks asked what is the record keeping of inspections that are done. Ms. Stansfield said that every inspection is entered into the computer and on complaints the inspector would either write a Notice of Violation or abate the complaint, if the complaint was unjustified. Ms. Stansfield said that the same procedure is followed for routine inspections. Every inspection is entered into the computer. Once a Notice of Violation is abated that information is entered into the computer. Commissioner Marks asked if Housing Inspection Services had worked with MIS in developing a data base for recording and billing purposes. President Fillon said that this was not an agenda item. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the discussion would have to stick to the agenda item which is routine inspection of single family and two unit buildings. Commissioner Marks asked if in terms of keeping a directory of inspections up to date had the Department worked with MIS to keep this information current. Ms. Stansfield said that this information is currently up to date. All inspections are entered into the computer and there are records of all of the inspections. Commissioner Marks asked if there were any way that this information could be made available to the Commissioners, not individually, but in terms of activities and what happens to the inspections. Ms. Stansfield stated that HIS provides monthly statistics and quarterly statistics to the Director’s office regarding how many inspections are made and how many cases are abated. This information is already provided and is public record. Ms. Stansfield said that the annual report is a summary of those statistics. Director Chiu asked if he could clarify Commissioner Marks’ questions. Director Chiu asked if Commissioner Marks wanted to know if out of the 5,000 complaints that are received per year, how many are R-1 versus how many are R-3. Director Chiu gave an example of receiving 2,000 complaints from single or two-family dwellings, and asked if Commissioner Marks wanted to know how many of those cases are abated. Commissioner Marks said that was the information she was seeking. Director Chiu said that he would work on that breakdown for the next quarter. Director Chiu said that Housing Inspection Services is consistently meeting the goal of responding within two days to 95 - 100% of complaints received. If someone complains, the Department is responding within two days to visit the property and start an investigation.

Roberta Caravelli, President of Citizen Review, said that it was interesting that the Commissioners were going to get information on abatements. Ms. Caravelli said that abated is a really funny word. Ms. Caravelli stated that she watched a neighbor behind her finishing off theunderneath of a deck and construct a whole new portion of the building by extending it by 15 feet. Ms. Caravelli said that Housing has never been able to figure out that this is new construction. At the time she filed a complaint, the Department did not know whether the complaint should go to Housing or Building, as it was residential. Ms. Caravelli said that her complaint went to Housing and that apparently the inspector drove by the front of the building and said there was no complaint and said it was abated. Ms. Caravelli stated that she went back to Housing and again her complaint was abated because the inspector said that the extension had been added years ago. Ms. Caravelli said that she does not understand what abated means. Ms. Caravelli stated that, to her, it means that the Department has wiped out information on their records that there was ever any complaint or violation. Ms. Caravelli said that as far as tracking down a violation, the word abated cannot be trusted to mean that. Ms. Caravelli said the Department is not doing anything about the creation of and complaints about illegal units, particularly in single and two family dwellings. Ms. Caravelli said that two family dwellings are very interesting as when a third unit is added to a two family dwelling, the Building and Fire Code require that the building be sprinklered and a secondary means of egress is required. Ms. Caravelli said that when there is a two unit building with an illegal unit put in, it does not meet these standards. Ms. Caravelli stated that she keeps hearing about some legislation that the Board of Supervisors is trying to pass about illegal unit amnesty. Ms. Caravelli said that this is keeping the problem in abeyance. Ms. Caravelli said that this is not law yet and the Department has the Building Codes and the enforcement is not happening. Ms. Caravelli said that illegal units consume off street parking, and always bring at least one more car. Ms. Caravelli said that she has had fifteen cars towed out of her driveway in six days and parking is a real issue.

Ms. Vaughey said that she wanted to compliment the Department regarding a building that was torched about two years ago after she won a case in the Planning Department. Ms. Vaughey said that seventeen people almost died, but one of her tenants is paranoid schizophrenic and would not allow Ms. Vaughey into the apartment to paint, clean it up and get the smoke damage out. Ms. Vaughey said that the furniture was piled high in the room and when the tenant was out of town they were able to get into the unit and make repairs, except for being able to repair the heater. When the tenant returned she complained about the heater, but would not move any of the junk out of the apartment. The tenant then turned Ms. Vaughey into Housing Inspection Services. Ms. Vaughey said that she was thankful that a nice Housing Inspector that told the tenant she was not going to get a heater unless she moved things out. Ms. Vaughey said she wanted to relay this good experience.

Randy Shaw stated that the issues of priorities of Code Enforcement were discussed at length in 1995 and it is obviously an ongoing process. If a sprinkler ordinance is proposed the Commission will have to review its priorities for Code Enforcement. A decision was made in 1995 not to focus on single family and two family dwellings. Mr. Shaw said that he was surprised to hear Ms. Caravelli speak about the evils of in law apartments, as there was a broad consensus that it is nobody’s interest to evict tenants and deprive owners of income by zealous policing of in law apartments when there has been an attempt to legalize them. Mr. Shaw said that it has been complicated to legalize in law apartments. Mr. Shaw said that Inspectors who work in places such as Visitation Valley where there are a lot of single family and two unit buildings, can attest to the fact that one of their biggest problems is neighbors turning in other neighbors for in law apartments or people saying that there are too many people living in thebuilding. Mr. Shaw said that there is a lot of racism out there and those kind of inspections have had a very negative impact. Mr. Shaw said that it is tough because an Inspector is required to answer complaints and everyone loses because a spiteful neighbor complains. Mr. Shaw said that is why the priorities have been residential hotels and the Mission District in particular. Mr. Shaw stated that the Mission District is getting more attention now than it was five years ago. It is a heavily focused area along with the residential hotels. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Shaw what would happen to the City and County if all of the people were displaced from the existing illegal units. Mr. Shaw said that there would probably be 5,000 more homeless people. This is the reason that poles show that the majority of the public would like to legalize the in law apartments, but it has been difficult. Mr. Shaw said that the Commission would be blamed for increasing homelessness.

Commissioner Walker said that this is a very complicated issue, but her concern is about safety issues. Commissioner Walker said that there is a balance that has to be put on the Department that safety issues come first, as the Commission will also be blamed if there is a loss of life. Director Chiu said that the Commission has always been concerned that when a complaint is filed, regardless of whether people are living in an illegal unit or a legal unit, the first issue is always safety. Commissioner Guinnane said that in particular there was a case on Third Avenue with an in law unit at the back of the building that met all of the Codes except for a few items. Commissioner Guinnane said there was a grill on the back window, the door coming into the garage did not have a closer and the Commission gave direction to the owner of the property to correct these items. Commissioner Guinnane said that it has been the policy of the Commission to work with homeowners, but has never turned a deaf ear to safety.

8. Discussion and review of the San Francisco Building Code Section 103 regarding penalties levied for work done without permit or outside the scope of an existing permit.

Director Chiu said that one of the Commissioners requested information as to how the Department routinely determines if a person is doing work without a permit or exceeding the scope of a permit and what are the resulting penalties . Director Chiu said that the Code is very clear that if work is done without permit this triggers a penalty of 9x, plus the cost of the permit. The Code is not as clear when the scope of work is exceeded. Director Chiu said he believes that further interpretation is needed and said that the staff needs guidance as to when 2x, as opposed to 9x, penalty should be imposed. Director Chiu said he is looking forward to working with the Commission to issue an administrative bulletin giving some examples or guidelines to the staff as to what is an appropriate penalty. Director Chiu said that he will work with staff to come back to the Commission with a draft of an administrative bulletin to make sure that the Department applies penalties uniformly when work exceeds the scope of a permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that if someone goes out and does work without a permit, for instance putting an addition on the back and they get caught, it is clearly 9x. Commissioner Guinnane said that if someone goes beyond the scope of the work in the same area as the permit is issued, for instance increasing the size of a bathroom when a permit for a bathroom has been issued, is a minor offense. However, if someone applies for a permit to add a bathroom and then adds on a room at the back of the house, this is clearly a more serious offense. This should constitute a penalty of 9x. Director Chiu said that he agreed with Commissioner Guinnane and that this is why an administrative bulletin needs to make clear what the staff’s guidelines shouldbe. Commissioner Marks said that she agreed that this issue needs to be more clearly defined. Commissioner Walker said that an issue came up before as to the cure. Commissioner Walker asked if the wrongdoer is just fined, or is the permit revoked and the applicant has to start the process over again. Director Chiu said that anytime someone does work illegally or exceeds the scope of the permit, the process has to be started again. Director Chiu said that the question is whether the fine should be 9x or 2x. Commissioner Walker said that it should be more than just the fine. Commissioner Walker said that this ties in with misstating the prior use which starts the process with the wrong premise. Commissioner Walker said that this basically creates a false permit. Director Chiu said he agreed that if the applicant misstates the application, the permit is automatically suspended or revoked which would then require them to submit a new permit to start the process. Director Chiu stated that this is very clear in Section 106.4.7 which addresses additional permits required. Commissioner Sanchez said that another side issue was repeat offenders who purposely go beyond the scope of a permit and than only being fined 2x if they are caught. Director Chiu said there is a process if the Department feels there is a repeat offender. The Department can notify the State Contractor’s License Board of the offender’s actions if the work is done by a licensed contractor. If the work is done by a homeowner chances are very slim that anything can be done. The contractor or the property owner that is fined has a right to appeal, to the Board of Permit of Appeals, the Department’s determination whether it is a 10x or 2x penalty. The Board of Permit Appeals then has the right to reduce the fees to 2x. There is a way for the Department to handle the repeat offenders. Commissioner Sanchez asked if the Department does this. Director Chiu said that occasionally the Department does this, but not routinely. However, Director Chiu said that there does not seem to be a widespread problem of repeat offenders. The Department does try to work with the public. President Fillon said that the Sainez case that was discussed earlier was an example of repeat offenders that were prosecuted. President Fillon asked where demolition comes into the penalty issue. Director Chiu said that if Planning and DBI could not approve a project then the project would have to be demolished. Director Chiu said there have been cases where projects have had to be torn down, as there was no way that the project could meet the Codes. President Fillon asked about unlawful demolition and Director Chiu said that this was a separate issue and going away from the agenda item.

Commissioner Walker said that she is concerned that if people know that they can take the risk of building something without going through the proper process, and all that happens is they get slapped with two times the fine, it is easier than going through the proper process. Director Chiu said that he will start working on an Administrative Bulletin and work with staff and the Commission to come up with something that is fair for everybody. Director Chiu stated that he did not think he could have this done by the next meeting, but will work on it. When an Administrative Bulletin is issued the Department works with the Code Advisory Committee members to get their input. Commissioner Walker said she would like an update at the next meeting.

Patricia Vaughey said that the Department is being discretionary about who gets their project torn down and who does not. Ms. Vaughey said that recently she was on the bus with someone who was ranting and raving because a job was stopped because he did not have enough plugs and she had a job stopped because she had too many. Ms. Vaughey said that both she and the other contractor had to do a tear out and replacement on their projects, but someone can build a penthouse the size of the Fairmont and they get allowed to go and apply for a permit for thelarger entities. Ms. Vaughey said that in regard to repeat performers, there was a case at the Code Enforcement hearing, where a neighbor testified that they had seen the contractor and developer tear off the Stop Work permits and continue to work and build apartments that were not on the permit. Ms. Vaughey asked what happens when this is a blatant offense against the Department. In one of the other cases that Ms. Vaughey had previously mentioned, a garage was built without a permit; there was a Stop Work Order and two days later the offender came into the Department and applied for a garage door for an existing garage and obtained it. Ms. Vaughey said that sometimes there are offenders that are blatant and are hurting it for the rest of the applicants that are coming in and trying to work with the process fairly. Ms. Vaughey said there has to be a standardized rule whether it is interior or exterior work and it depends on how blatant the offense is. Ms. Vaughey said that when it comes to repeat offenders and the 10x fine, in one of the cases she just checked, it was a UMB building. The building was seismically upgraded. Ms Vaughey said the building was about 3,000 square feet and the applicant stated that to seismically upgrade this building it would cost only $19,000 plus putting in a kitchen. Ms. Vaughey said that 2x the fine on this example is nothing and falsification of permits as to how much it costs reduces the fine. Ms. Vaughey said that she is checking another case where someone came into DBI and applied for demolition of one wall, then came in and about a week later and applied for demolition of another wall until finally there was no building and he had four permits. Ms. Vaughey said that she is going after the people who are the blatant offenders and she wants the Commission to look into this. Ms. Vaughey asked who is responsible when someone applies for a permit, is it the person behind the counter or the inspector who determines if the valuation amount is correct? Ms. Vaughey said she has gotten two answers and said that it needs to be verified who checks for this. Ms. Vaughey said that she is concerned that now there is a Planning computer and a DBI computer, and the computers are not checking each other. President Fillon asked who determines valuation. Director Chiu said that the valuation is determined by a Plan Checker based on what was submitted at the time. Director Chiu said that Ms. Vaughey and the staff are right as the Department relies on both the inspectors and the plan checkers. When valuation is initially determined, it is based on what is shown solely on the plans. Therefore, at the beginning it is the Plan Checkers responsibility. However, if the Inspector goes to a job site and finds something that the plans do not cover then the Inspector should discover it. There are times when an Inspector will issue a correction notice to the property owner or contractor stating that they have undervalued the cost of a project. Commissioner Santos asked if the applicant is then required to get a new permit for the amendment or do they go back to the original application and pay the difference. Commissioner Santos asked how complicated this was. Director Chiu said it is not complicated, a new application is filed that states that it is filed only to adjust the fee, as per the Inspector’s request. If the scope of the work has been exceeded than that is a different issue. Commissioner Walker said that sometimes contractors will do small projects that accumulatively would have required something different. Commissioner Walker asked if that would be a combination of Plan Checkers and Inspectors discovering any discrepancies. Director Chiu said that this is correct. Director Chiu stated that one of the security checks built into the new computer system is that it will not take unauthorized addresses, so this will force the property owner to submit proper addresses.

Commissioner Santos said there is a self checking process. As an example, he said that if he were applying for a permit to remove a wall, that automatically will trigger some sort of Planningreview because it is going to be a modification to the exterior appearance of the building and neighbors would have to be notified. Commissioner Santos said that the process does work as

it triggers Planning notification. Commissioner Walker said that the example given of the four walls being removed did not trigger any review. Commissioner Santos said that it would depend on what kind of walls were removed. Commissioner Santos stated that interior walls may be a non-bearing wall that has no Planning implications and involves no one other than the person working on the project. This case should not have anything to do with the notification process.

Director Chiu said the Department is mindful that even with interior walls a project may be referred to the Planning Department to make sure a project is within their guidelines as well as DBIs. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Santos is correct in that any exterior modification triggers notification by the Planning Department.

Commissioner Santos said that Commissioner Walker would be surprised at how complicated it is to get a permit and how involved the process is. Commissioner Santos stated that he thinks the process works quite well and he submits 30 or 40 permits per month.

Roberta Caravelli, President of Citizen Review, said that the problem starts in plan checking. For instance, the permit application may state that a bathroom is being remodeled, but the plans attached to the application show a forty square foot addition to the bathroom. Ms. Caravelli said that permits are constantly being issued with contradictions and ambiguities. Ms. Caravelli said that Mr. Jen who testified earlier, actually was infamous for the ambiguities that were cropping up in his permit applications. Ms. Caravelli said that where the problem comes in as to excess in the scope of a permit or work without a permit, begins with the poor process in the plan checking. Ms. Caravelli stated that she has seen three sets of plans with three different dates, three iterations, all stamped approved. Ms. Caravelli asked what set of plan the Building Inspector is going to follow. Ms. Caravelli said that there is a very sloppy process in permit processing and there is a huge amount of pressure to issue a specific amount of permits per minute or hour. Ms. Caravelli stated that the Plan Checkers are working under a quota system and that is where the mess starts. Ms. Caravelli said that then the Building Inspector has to try to correct for the Plan Checkers. Ms. Caravelli stated that Commissioner Guinnane in building some apartment buildings on Geary, put in that he was going to put in storage rooms, which somehow all turned into apartments which is why Mr. Guinnane has so little problem with illegal units. Commissioner Guinnane said that Ms. Caravelli should get her facts straight before she comes up and speaks. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he never had any storage facilities in any of his buildings and told Ms. Caravelli that if she followed up with her facts she would see that he had a permit for 25 units, with four floors of occupancy, seven, seven, seven and four. Commissioner Guinnane said he built the units as four sevens with parking for 40 cars. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he took out electrical and plumbing permits and his only violation was zoning density. Commissioner Guinnane said that Ms. Caravelli should get her facts straight. President Fillon asked that the agenda item be adhered to. Commissioner Walker reminded the public and everybody that everyone needed to be respectful and not make personal attacks. Attacking the process is fine.

Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that the process starts with the persons intent and what they plan to do. Ms Yovanopoulos said that some people have good intentions and some people have not so good intentions, and that gets reflected in their application. Ms. Yovanopoulos used her landlordas an example. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that in his application it states that bathroom renovations were going to be made in one unit, but the remodeling is upstairs and not in her unit as listed. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she called an inpsector and found out that the landlord was knocking down a wall, so what is put in the text of the application is that all of the work is being done in one bathroom which is not true. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that somehow a plan never got put into place and when the permit itself is approved the owner will show a different spot in the house. Ms. Yovanopoulos said this has happened several times and this is a repeat offender. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she does not see anything being done about this situation and sees this as a problem.

Commissioner Walker said she thinks the process can be improved and that rules should be applied equally to everyone. Commissioner Santos said that Commissioner Walker had been exposed to a very negative presentation and said that as an individual who works within the system, he is very impressed by the system. Commissioner Santos stated that the system is self-checking. Commissioner Walker said that it is not working for some people. Commissioner Santos said it may not, but some of the explanations that were given are not typical, but are unusual details of a specific project. Commissioner Santos said that if Commissioner Walker were to go and analyze a particular project there, are probably reasons behind what has happened. Commissioner Walker stated that she believes this issue came up because there is enough input to many of the Commissioners that there is room for improvement .There is a need to improve the process so the public is served, both builders and the public. President Fillon said that the process is not perfect and there is always room for improvement. President Fillon stated that with the current building environment and the heavy work load, he is impressed by the attempts of DBI to continue to look for improvement.

9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Budget & Organization Committee Meeting of January 25, 2000.

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

[Resolution No. BIC-13-00]

10. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of February 2, 2000.

Deputy City Attorney Boyajian stated that she had a correction to page three where the minutes read that she said that no public comment need be taken. The minutes should read that Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that no additional public comment need be taken.

Patricia Vaughey had stated that she wanted to modify page 8, the second paragraph 2 where it states that President Fillon said that this issue should go through the proper channels and the Department should have a shot at solving problems before they are brought to the Commission. Ms. Vaughey said that at that time she stated that she had used the addresses she had cited as examples of repeat offenders. Ms. Vaughey said that she corrected President Fillon by saying that the intention of her speech was to give those addresses as examples of a repeatoffender.

Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos that with the above corrections the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously.

[Resolution No. BIC-14-00]

11. Commissioners’ 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.

President Fillon reminded the Commission to keep to quick questions and answers. Commissioner Walker said she wanted to make sure that the item about the water sprinkling issue is agendized. Commissioner Walker stated that a report of what the current ordinance is and how it might differ from what was approved would be helpful. Commissioner Marks said that the issue was that when the 1998 ordinance was adopted it differed from the 1987 ordinance. Commissioner Marks stated that Ms. Yovanopoulos had previously said that before 1987 there was a fire wall used in residential hotels that was considered adequate for fire protection and now there is a sprinkler system required. However, the older buildings were exempt from requiring the sprinkling system. Commissioner Marks stated that in the general public’s mind there is now a problem of certain residential hotels not being adequately protected. Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to agendize the current status of sprinkler requirements versus 1987.

Commissioner Walker said that at the last meeting she had asked about Management Audits that are due from last year for all of the different divisions. Director Chiu said that the last audit that was done has not yet been completed. The Department has not yet received a report of the audit from the Controller’s Office. Director Chiu said that this is an ongoing audit and as soon as the results are given to the Department, the Commissioners will be given a copy.

Commissioner Marks said that another issue she wanted agendized was the issue of Advisory Committees and that Director Chiu had said that he wanted direction from the Commission. Commissioner Marks asked if there could be a report on the status of the Advisory Committees and what Director Chiu would recommend. Director Chiu said that with the new Commission, the new reorganization and new workload he still fully intends to reinstate these meetings. Director Chiu said that he has been meeting with each Manager in the Department to set new goals and challenges for the next three years. Director Chiu said that when he has completed these meetings he will revisit the issue of reinstating these committees. Commissioner Walker said that as an agenda item she would like the Commission to look at the vacancies on the various Committees, such as Code Advisory, UMB Task Force, etc. Director Chiu said that he is working on applications for the various committees.

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

Commissioner Marks asked if the Commissioners could get the Commission packages for the meetings the Friday before the meetings so the Commissioners can do a thorough review. President Fillon asked if the communication items could be listed on the agenda. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the communication items could be listed under the agenda item.

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

Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she had a complement for Director Frank Chiu and thanked him for giving her the opportunity to speak with him and having an inspector come out to her house.

Patricia Vaughey said that previously there was a speaker that mentioned her speech at the last meeting. Ms. Vaughey stated that she is not coming to the Commission meetings to pick on any one person. Ms. Vaughey said that she is still concerned with Greenwich Street which is the penthouse. 2254 Bush happens to be an illegal demolition of a case that Ms. Vaughey says she negotiated with four neighbors who hated each other. Later, a set of drawings were designed and a contractor came in and demolished all of the existing buildings. Ms. Vaughey said she has five or six other addresses that she mentioned earlier. Ms. Vaughey stated that even though Commissioner Santos has had an easy time bringing in applications to the Department, this is not the case for everyone. Ms. Vaughey said that the Department does do a lot of things well. However, Ms. Vaughey said that she knew of a contractor, who used to be an inspector in the Department, that it took a year for him to get a bathroom permit. Ms. Vaughey said that she wanted everyone to be treated equally.

13. Adjournment.

There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Guinnane, seconded by Commissioner Walker the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

The motion carried unanimously. [Resolution No. BIC-15-00]

______________________________

Ann Marie Aherne

Interim Commission Secretary

Prepared by: Ann Aherne

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Follow-up on permit 825-831 Scott Street, variance and permit for 3 car carport. - Commissioner Walker	Page 5
Follow-up on 500 Divisadero, Burger King. - Commissioner Walker	Page 7
Follow-up on Newcomb Street property and notification process. -Commissioner Guinnane	Page 12
Breakdown of HIS Complaints received and abated, next quarter. -Commissioner Marks	Page 17
Draft of Administrative Bulletin regarding penalties levied for work done without permit or outside the scope of an existing permit. -Commissioners Marks, Walker and Guinnane	Page 19 -20
Current status of sprinkler requirements versus 1987 - Commissioners Walker and Marks	Page 24
Vacancies on the various Committees, such as Code Advisory and BOE - Commissioner Walker	Page 24

p:\mgb\minutes\02-16-00.doc