2.

President’s Announcements.

President Lee announced that there will be a Special Meeting on Monday, April 28, 2008 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. in room 400.

Secretary Aherne said that she wanted to remind the Commissioners and the City Attorney that since there is a Special Meeting on April 28^th, there will not be a Litigation Committee Meeting, on that day; the Commission will set another date for that meeting.

 

3.

Director’s Report.

 

      a.   Status of MIS.

 

Director Hasenin stated that the MIS staff continues to work on the existing PTS system, and to make enhancements and improvements; at some point there will be a demonstration of the changes for the Commissioners.

 

 b.   Financial Report.

 

Director Hasenin said that the Department is monitoring the budget to ensure that the expenditures are staying low and stated that revenues are a little higher than was conservatively estimated.  Director Hasenin stated that hopefully the Department will not have to dip into the surplus as much as anticipated in the budget, and that amount is probably going to be $1M instead of $7M.

Director Hasenin said that over the last year the Department has been having meetings with all affected departments in terms of process development review; the Mayor’s Office has been taking the lead with Planning and DPW to look for ways to streamline and better coordinate the process.

Commissioner Walker stated that she was at a neighborhood meeting with Director Hasenin and one of the public members brought up unlawful demolitions.  Commissioner Walker said that the definition of unlawful demolition is disjointed between DBI and Planning and suggested addressing it in the BPR by forming a committee to try to solve this issue one more time. Commissioner Walker said that this should be a topic at the next Joint Meeting.

Director Hasenin said that this was one of the issues that came out in the BPR process, and said that there is a lot of interest from different groups and stakeholders to try and have a consistent definition and procedural process for demolition. Director Hasenin stated that he was made aware of the difficulties the group faced in looking at this issue a few years back, but said that the Department made a commitment to set up the task force including Planning, Building, and other stakeholders.  Director Hasenin said that this is definitely an item that will be addressed in the BPR implementation.

d.  Update on the overall plan for the reconfiguration of DBI.

Director Hasenin stated that the cost of moving DBI to another location was too high, so now the Department is looking at the existing building and doing major remodeling to get a better working environment for staff, and better space for customers to get DBI through the next few years.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is still working with the City to look at other options for a better location in the future, but for now staff is working together to come up with floor plans to start the remodels of each floor. 

Commissioner Walker said that Director Hasenin invited her to the meeting to discuss the building remodel and said that she thought that this approach was a good move and more realistic in this economic environment.

Vice-President Murphy asked if Director Hasenin had any idea about the cost of the remodel.

Director Hasenin said unfortunately he did not have a cost estimate yet, but said that the Department is trying to do the remodel as economically as possible while still providing a better environment for staff. Director Hasenin stated that this is not going to be the ultimate solution because over the next three to five years the Department may be looking at something different.  Director Hasenin said that DBI needs to reutilize the two empty floors and said that staff is on top of each other on other floors, but said that the Department was trying to be economical.

Vice-President Murphy said what it would be good if the Department could have open, interior stairs where all of the floors could be linked together because there is a problem with the elevators being slow.

Director Hasenin stated that the issue of the elevators was one of the driving factors to rethink how DBI wanted to handle the remodel.  Director Hasenin said that staff thought the most cost effective approach would be to use the existing now empty fourth and fifth floors to do operations and handle staff and customer issues, but the elevator was one thing that posed a problem.  Director Hasenin said that the elevators are way too slow for all contacts to be taken to the fifth floor.  Director Hasenin stated that the fifth floor will be more of a plan check staff area and the plan check staff from the second floor would be moved to the fifth floor.  Director Hasenin said next DBI would start the remodel of the first and second floors to provide for over-the-counter/ customer service type operations. Director Hasenin said that he still has the option of putting a stairs somewhere, and said that he would look at that option if the cost came in at a reasonable amount, but if it is too expensive then staff will try to work out a more permanent solution.  Director Hasenin said that he will keep the Commissioners informed and may ask for help with the major decisions.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI is confined to using City resources, City staff, and have to follow a certain process but said that everyone has been very helpful and cooperative.

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

Director Hasenin said that the Department continues to meet with the CAPSS Advisory Board on a monthly basis, and are almost to the point of getting the contract signed.  Director Hasenin stated that unfortunately there is fine tuning and getting signatures from different City agencies and departments before DBI can release ATC to start the work on the next phase of CAPSS.  Director Hasenin said that he would bring the Commission updates every few months to report on what ATC has come up with and what components of their recommendations DBI can start working on.  Director Hasenin said that the Department would not wait for ATC to finish the entire project before implementing some of the recommendations.

 

Director Hasenin said that there are no changes to the contract, but it is just the process of getting it to the point of DBI being able to basically write checks to start the detailed work plan.

      f.  Update on fee study.

Director Hasenin stated that the Department is in the final stages of completing the fee study.  Director Hasenin said that the fee consultants have finished their analysis and are looking at cost of service for individual components.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department was reviewing the final analysis, going back and forth by fine tuning the details and the said that he  anticipates a report to be done in the next few days.  Director Hasenin said the report would basically show how much of a deficit DBI is running and what it would take to recover costs of the services.  Director Hasenin stated that over the next two weeks the Department is going to the Mayor’s Office, Aaron Peskin, all of DBI’s stakeholders, community groups, and industry groups to lay out the plan of what the Department is proposing, and to get their feedback, input, and support for the proposal.  Director Hasenin said that in two weeks at the Special Meeting he hopes to have everything done so the Department can present the fee study to the Commission and get their support so that the fee study could move forward to the Board of Supervisors.

 

President Lee called for public comment.

 

Ms. Bonnie Bridges said that she represented the American Institute of Architects (AIA) San Francisco chapter and she was on the Board this year.  Ms. Bridges stated that she also represented the architectural firm, Bore Bridges Architecture and she said the AIA supports the work done by the Director.  Ms. Bridges said that the AIA has been involved in the process and it has been a very community-based process that has gone very well.  Ms. Bridges stated that as an architect practicing in the City the last 20 years she has seen a noticeable change in the Department specifically about the way employees approach the customers.  Ms. Bridges said that as a customer of the Building Department this change has been fantastic and said that the AIA was present to support the work of Mr. Isam Hasenin.

 

4.

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

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that there have been a lot of changes at DBI for the good of customer service.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that there have been some changes regarding scheduling inspections, so that now there is one number to call and the only frustrating thing about it is when a person calls for inspection they can request a certain day but are not sure if they will get it until they get a call back from that particular division.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that the customer will not know when the inspection is until the day before or even the day of the inspection until they get a phone call saying the inspector is coming out between three and four and then the person has to scramble to reorganize their calendar to make the inspection appointment.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that it would be great if the customer could call in and get a date and time right then and there.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that this has been very frustrating.

 

Ms. Sue Hestor said that she wanted to discuss 1250 Missouri Street (near Cesar Chavez/Army Street).  Ms. Hestor asked who pays attention when a building is being constructed as industrial, and then changes during construction to being clearly residential. Ms. Hestor said that this building was addressed at a Planning Commission hearing and went through Planning where the owners changed the use to industrial condos and could not be used for dwelling or residential units, but said that now fireplaces are being installed, and full baths are there.  Ms. Hestor said that this is a mess like the old live/work units, and said that when this project went through the Department in September 2000 no Fire Department review was required, so no Fire Department review of this property has been done at all.  Ms. Hestor stated that there are residential units that do not meet the handicap access requirement, and said that even the bathrooms are inaccessible.  Ms. Hestor showed pictures of the building on the overhead projector; the pictures showed the project as it evolved through the process and as it was being constructed.  Ms. Hestor asked if the Building Department decides whether the building is residential or industrial since DBI has inspectors, and the Planning Department does not send out inspectors.  Ms. Hestor said that this building was counted in the residential inventories but said that there is no affordability, accessibility, and no Fire Department inspection.  Ms. Hestor asked whose job this is, and said that she would make copies of the paperwork she has and give them to someone in the Department even though the records are from DBI’s and the Planning Department’s files.

 

Mr. Keith Goldstein said that he operates a construction company on Missouri Street, and is the head of the Potrero Hill Merchants Association with 140 business members.  Mr. Goldstein stated that he was disturbed and distressed to see this residential building constructed in an industrial protection zone.  Mr. Goldstein stated that he stopped by and saw fireplaces and realized industrial condos were not being built there.  Mr. Goldstein said that he did not understand how someone was able to completely circumvent the rules and regulations and get away with this activity.  Mr. Goldstein stated that there are large buildings and all the other ones around are classic PDR industrial buildings such as his construction company.  Mr. Goldstein stated that someone is trying to backdoor in 24 or 30 condos and he said that he finds this very disturbing.

 

Mr. John Bardis said that he heard an excellent presentation by the Director at a meeting with the S.F. Coalition for Neighborhoods, and said that it is encouraging to hear about the reforms the Director is proposing, and those that are underway.  Mr. Bardis stated that of course “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”.  Mr. Bardis said that in the meantime the Commission still has work to do in terms of DBI performing its role.  Mr. Bardis stated that the public would like to see more quality of performance by the Department than has been seen in the past.   Mr. Bardis spoke about serial permitting and said that it has become standard practice by professional architects and attorneys because the Department accepts serial permitting that has resulted in projects going over the scope of the permits issued..  Mr. Bardis stated that the problem is now with the Department and not the contractors.

 

Mr. Tony Kelly stated that he was President of the Potrero Boosters Neighborhood Association.  Mr. Kelly said that it was argued at a Planning Commission meeting in 2001 that this Missouri Street project was live/work under another name and the lawyer and proponents insisted this was a light commercial or industrial building.  Mr. Kelly said that this is conversion of a commercial to residential building under the very inattentive noses of the Department of Building Inspection.  Mr. Kelly said that about 25% of the City is planning to be re-zoned right now and one of the tricky points is how to introduce housing and other uses into former industrial lands while preserving industrial uses.  Mr. Kelly asked how industrial uses could be preserved if there is no way to maintain those through DBI once the plan is approved. 

 

President Lee asked Director Hasenin to look into 1250 Missouri Street, and later report back to the Commission.  Commissioner Walker said that this brings up the issue of DBI’s responsibility verses the Planning Department’s responsibility, and stated that this is something that can be discussed in the interdepartmental meetings.  Director Hasenin stated that staff would research this issue and report back to the Commission.

 

5.

Discussion and possible action regarding the purpose, roles and responsibilities of the existing Nomination Committee and Litigation Committee of the BIC. - continued from March 19, 2008 meeting.

President Lee stated that he was the only Commissioner left on the nomination committee so he would discuss the purpose, role, and responsibilities.  President Lee said that essentially the role of the nomination committee is to search and recommend people for the Commission to appoint to the three sub-committees under the BIC:  The Access Appeals Commission (AAC), the Code Advisory Committee (CAC), and the Board of Examiners (BOE). The AAC has five members, the CAC has seventeen, and the BOE has eleven.  President Lee stated that this committee does the outreach and reviews submitted resumes to fit people to certain categories on certain committees pertaining to their expertise.  President Lee said that the candidates are then recommended to the overall Commission then the members vote and the candidates are appointed.  President Lee asked the Commissioners if the process should be kept the same way. 

 

Commissioner Walker said that she thought the process worked well, and said that recently the previous nomination committee went through a large process of trying to update all the positions. Commissioner Walker stated that the Commission just filled all of the seats, but vacancies do come up periodically and previously the committee did not do outreach in the interim to get people interested in advance of expiration of the seats.  Commissioner Walker stated that she hoped that the committee could continue to do outreach to communities that are not represented.

Commissioner Walker said that she knows there is one committee that does not have any women on it at all, and said that it is important to do outreach in advance when there is a deficit of representation of the community.

 

President Lee said that Commissioner Walker was correct as the committee had done a lot of cleaning up last year.  President Lee stated that the committee revamped or refilled every seat on all those three committees so there are no expiring seats this year, but the first would be in 2009. President Lee stated as Commissioner Walker said, the BIC wants to keep this committee formed just in case there are some vacancies this year.  

 

Commissioner Walkermade a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova to continue having the nomination committee.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 021-08

 

Commissioner Walker  discussed the purpose, role, and responsibilities of the Litigation Committee.  Commissioner Walker said that the Litigation Committee meets on a monthly basis to discuss problem cases that have been unresolved by staff.  Commissioner Walker stated that    the Litigation Committee meets with staff, the Director or a representative of the Director’s Office, and this is the last effort on behalf of the Department to get code violations resolved.  Commissioner Walker said that Alex Tse, the City Attorney for the Litigation Committee meetings, would also weigh in and speak today.  Commissioner Walker stated that the Litigation Committee reviews when the City is going to take action, and often times the first action is just a letter from the City Attorney saying the Department is about to take action and many cases are resolved by that letter.  Commissioner Walker said that there are Code Enforcement Outreach Programs including representatives from the tenant community that have interfaced with DBI staff trying to resolve the issues presented.  Commissioner Walker said that she thinks the Committee is effective and has actually ended up resolving a lot of cases and getting settlements, as well as being paid for the staff time.  Commissioner Walker stated that the cases the committee reviews usually have pretty bad living conditions and said that the Litigation Committee is an effective tool to make housing livable and safe. Commissioner Walker said that the Litigation Committee meets in Closed Session since it involves legal action.  Commissioner Walker stated that she thinks the goal of the Committee is to represent the policy, criteria, and desires of the entire Commission.  Commissioner Walker said that there is really no formal way of bringing back reports to the entire Commission, though some Commissioners have wanted to get updates.  Commissioner Walker stated that the Litigation Committee has had successful results from this process, and have been able to get numerous cases resolved.

 

Vice-President Murphy said that he has been on the Litigation Committee for two years, and he thinks over the past year the members have worked together pretty well, but the first year he was on the Committee it seemed like the cases were really anti-landlord and anti-homeowner.  Vice-President Murphy stated that it seemed like a “nail them to the cross” sort of attitude, and he is glad that has softened out in the last year.  Vice-President Murphy said that he would want everyone on the Committee to remember to be fair and look at all sides. 

 

Commissioner Romero stated that he knew what Vice-President Murphy was referring to in terms of issues brought before the Litigation Committee.  Commissioner Romero stated that when cases come before the Litigation Committee they are usually the most egregious violators of the Building Codes in San Francisco, so they are pretty bad by the time they get to the Committee.  Commissioner Romero said that he could see where it seemed there is a lack of objectivity in the way some of the cases are presented, but said that the Litigation Committee has been able to avoid creating an undue hardship for folks who might not know how to pursue getting their buildings and facilities in compliance with the Building Code.  Commissioner Romero stated that there are some businesses in San Francisco that he was very familiar with where you just know that in terms of what is presented that there is really no malicious intent.

Commissioner Romero said that some people are just not following up and complying, and he thinks it is helpful to have an objective committee reviewing these cases. 

 

Director Hasenin said that he was going to offer the Department’s perspective and stated that staff appreciates having the Litigation Committee in place.  Director Hasenin stated that it is another step to give the Department a second set of eyes for cases that have to come that far.  Director Hasenin said that staff prepares the cases and administers the process, and there are some people for whatever reason that need another level before they will comply.  Director Hasenin stated that before the cases are referred to the City Attorney’s Office, the Department would like to use the Litigation Committee to bring the cases before the Commission.

 

Commissioner Sattary asked if the Litigation Committee only meets with the Department and the Code Enforcement agents or if they also meet with the property owners and tenants.  Commissioner Walker said that it is a discussion with staff about recommendations, and as far as her involvement for as long as she has been on the Committee the committee does not get involved in negotiating directly with either party.

 

Deputy City Attorney Alex Tse said that he stepped into his role on the Litigation Committee in January of 2007.  Mr. Tse said often times cases resulted in an opportunity for the City Attorney’s Office to dialogue with the property owner, not necessarily run out and file a complaint but instead to elevate the level of enforcement that the Department had tapped out on.  Mr. Tse stated that he views it as the City Attorney’s role to come in and do a heavier examination of the cases. Mr. Tse said that at his first Litigation Committee Meeting a property owner made a pitch to resolve their problem during public comment, so there is actually still an informal opportunity for the property owner to dialogue with the Committee to attempt resolution.  Mr. Tse stated that this Committee provides yet another effort to resolve issues without litigation, and he thinks everyone is in agreement that litigation should be reserved for those cases that do require enforcement but do exhibit an example of a way to truly enforce the Codes in San Francisco.  Mr. Tse said that he thinks it is an opportunity wasted if the City Attorney’s Office does not take the cases that should be enforced, because it serves to remind the public that the Commission is out there. Mr. Tse stated that it also reminds the public that the City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Building Inspection are doing their jobs.  Mr. Tse said that he thinks the Litigation Committee offers an opportunity to collectively brainstorm a strategy on how to enforce in those necessary cases.

 

Commissioner Walker said that there have been some pretty good examples, such as the AIMCO Project where people were getting sick because of mold infestation and the landlords did not respond to the notices from the Department.  Commissioner Walker stated that the Litigation Committee along with the City Attorney were instrumental in getting that case resolved, and there are similar cases across the City where it really is a health or safety issue.  Commissioner Walker thanked Mr. Tse for the work he does.

 

Rosemary Bosque, the Chief Housing Inspector, stated that she has done some background research on the history of the Litigation Committee for today’s meeting.  Ms. Bosque stated that when the Commission was formed back in 1995 there were a number of cases at the City Attorney’s Office; by resolution; the Commission decided they wanted to look at those cases and have some say, specifically in those cases that involved notorious slumlords.  Ms. Bosque said they started to meet on a regular basis and she has been attending since about 2001, and one of the things they did was to formalize the process.  Ms. Bosque stated that in 2001 instead of a formal discussion, staff actually came up with a staff report, photographs, updated information on the inspections, and any information with respect to contact with the property owner or agent. Ms. Bosque said that there are situations where the property owner may have a problem dealing with Code compliance, relatives, and adult protective services and all of that type of information is given to the Commissioners sitting on the Litigation Committee.  Ms. Bosque stated that staff always gives the Committee the best possible information and has never brought a case to them unless they thought it was right to move forward.  Ms. Bosque said that the bulk of the cases were primarily from the Housing Inspection Division, but they did not always ask for there to be litigation.  Ms. Bosque stated that the Litigation Committee sought the City Attorney’s assistance for cases which they thought required assistance for Code compliance.  Ms. Bosque said that there were letters of receivership in some cases where property owners had diminished capacity, and there were also Code violations to be addressed for that particular property.  Over the years staff has provided the Commission with the most recent and thorough information available.

 

Commissioner Hechanova said that he had a question regarding the Housing Authority and the inventory of housing that the City owns.  Commissioner Hechanova stated that at times he has read that some of the worst violations come from those, and asked if there is some level of tracking those complaints that are filed, and what level of follow up there is. 

 

Chief Housing Inspector, Rosemary Bosque, stated that this is a different question than the Litigation Committee but the current complaints on the Housing Authority properties is currently part of an MOU executed between the DBI and the Housing Authority.  Ms. Bosque said that there is a tracking log and at any given point staff can tell you the complaint, and what activity or action has been done.  Ms. Bosque stated that this particular MOU describes the actions of DBI receiving the complaint as well as the actions of the Housing Authority responding and timeframes involved. 

 

Commissioner Walker said that this is something that happened last year, and is a really big step forward as DBI does not have the same authority over government owned property as it does over privately owned houses.  Commissioner Walker stated that the Housing Authority has signed an agreement stating that they wanted DBI’s help in prioritizing and pointing out the violations.  Commissioner Walker said that she does not know what the Department could do if they do not comply, but it is a different issue.

 

Ms. Bosque stated that this MOU was about to be executed about the same time that Director Hasenin joined the City Team.  Ms. Bosque said that she wanted to commend the Director because he was dropped into the middle of this negotiation and has been very supportive of staff responding to, keeping track of, and complying with this agreement between both parties.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she understands these are challenging budgetary times, and the City Attorney’s cost has been an issue so she asked if the City Attorney’s office could compile an Excel spreadsheet that shows the money the Department has recovered, which would be helpful at least to counteract some of the concerns about the cost.

 

Deputy City Attorney Alex Tse said that he would speak briefly about the process.  Mr. Tse stated that prior to every Litigation Committee Meeting his office prepares a BIC Report that itemizes all the active cases as well as those the City Attorney’s office is monitoring in litigation. Mr. Tse said that the report is attorney work product and contains a candid discussion about details and strategy in many of the cases, so that report is not available for public consumption but it is distributed to the three Commissioners on the Litigation Committee.  Mr. Tse stated that at each Litigation Committee Meeting he goes through the cases and has dialogue with the Commissioners, answers questions, and gives them an update on particular cases active in that month.  Mr. Tse said that he thinks that process should continue in terms of providing the report, and also there has been discussion about how often the Committee should meet and there has been a suggestion to meet every other month.  Mr. Tse stated that he would support that if the Commission feels that is a more appropriate use of time and he thinks it would be equally effective. Mr. Tse stated that just because his office achieves successful results in a case with a judgment does not mean the owner pays the sum, and often they have to litigate further to get the money and the City Attorney’s office is willing to do that.  Mr. Tse said that it is easy to generate a report on how much money the City Attorney’s office is bringing in as a result of cases. Mr. Tse stated that he would talk to Deputy City Attorney John Malamut regarding the appropriate procedure for presenting items back to the full Commission on what transpired in the Litigation Committee meeting.  Mr. Tse said that perhaps he would be able to present a quarterly report to the full Commission once a complaint or case has been resolved.

 

President Lee said that when cases arrive at the Litigation Committee, the Commissioners can debate the merits of whether the City Attorney sees it or not or take other intermediate steps to try and resolve the case.  President Lee stated that probably in the past the responsibility of sending the case to the City Attorney rested solely on the three Commissioners on the Committee, and he asked if the Commission wants to keep it this way or if those Commissioners should make a recommendation to the full Commission.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she believes the responsibility is the Director’s and the Commissioners basically vote to support the decision of the Department.  Commissioner Walker stated that the Litigation Committee votes to support or refer, but the ultimate authority is with the Director.

 

Mr. Tse stated that the practice now is that the Director through the Department makes an official referral to the Commissioners, presents the case through case study; Ms. Bosque comes to the meeting and fully prepares all of the documentation and presents it to the Commissioners, they discuss the cases, and ultimately the Commissioners vote on whether or not to refer the cases to the City Attorney’s Office. 

 

Commissioner Walker stated that after she read the minutes and discussion about the formation of the Litigation Committee, she understood that it is a referral determined by the Director and supported by the Commission.

 

Ms. Bosque stated that generally Director Hasenin will be reviewing these cases and having a discussion with staff before they go to the Litigation Committee.  Ms. Bosque said that from that standpoint any discussions that will occur or if any action is to be taken it would happen at the Litigation Committee.  Ms. Bosque asked the Director if that was a correct statement of the direction to staff.

 

Director Hasenin stated that was correct and said he wanted to take a more active role.  Director Hasenin said that he wanted to make sure that the Department has exhausted all of its remedies, and cases are well prepared and if they go to legal prosecution that they have a chance at success otherwise it is a waste of everybody’s time. 

 

President Lee said that the point he is raising is if the BIC wants the three Commissioners on the Litigation Committee to speak for the entire Commission on these matters or if the BIC wants the Committee to make recommendations to the full Commission.  President Lee stated that the Commissioners would have to weigh the time element as well.

 

Ms. Bosque stated that looking at the minutes historically what the Commission decided was that three people could act more quickly, and if there was something real critical they would have the opportunity to bring it back to the entire commission if necessary.  Ms. Bosque said that over a period of time it became clear that monthly meetings of a sub-committee worked well, and stated that it was a good idea to give the full Commission a quarterly update.

 

Commissioner Sattary stated that he thinks it is a good idea to include a provision that periodically the members of the Litigation Committee give a general synopsis so the Commission as a whole knows what is going on.

 

Commissioner Mandelman stated that he would be interested in hearing a periodic report from the Litigation Committee and the City Attorney’s Office, but he does not think the BIC wants to have a Closed Session each month where everyone weighs in on every Code Enforcement action.

 

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova that the Director refer the cases to the City Attorney’s Office and that the Building Inspection Commission will rely on the Litigation Committee to make a decision for the entire Commission.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 022-08

 

6.

7.

Discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation for the Director. -  continued from March 19, 2008 meeting.

a.  Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.
Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that considering the turbulent waters the Director has to navigate, he commends him for not throwing in the towel.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that the Director was doing a marvelous job, and aid he has done well for what has been going on at DBI.

b.  Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova to convene in Closed Session at 10:18 a.m.

The motion passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 025-08

c.  CLOSED SESSION:  Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957(b) and the San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).
Director of the Department of Building Inspection – Mr. Isam Hasenin

d.  Reconvene in Open Session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.10(b).

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova to reconvene in Open Session at 12:40 p.m., and to disclose the information agreed upon in Closed Session.

The motion passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 026-08

8.

Review and approval of the minutes of the February 20, 2008 meeting.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Murphy that the minutes be approved.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

9.

Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

 

President Lee announced that there will be a Special Building Inspection Commission meeting on April 28, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in room 400.

 

Commissioner Walker asked President Lee if he could contact the President of the Planning Commission as well as Director Hasenin to try to agendize a Joint Planning Commission and Building Inspection Commission meeting.  Commissioner Walker said that some agenda items could address issues raised by the BPR.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he and some of the other Commissioners have recently received some anonymous letters and there should not be a reason for people to send them anonymously, because if the authors are sending the letters this way for fear of retaliation or retribution he wants to reassure them that none of the Commissioners have either the desire or the power to retaliate against them.  Commissioner Sattary stated that when the letters are not signed, no action can really be taken and if the person leaves a way for the Commissioners to get back to them then that puts the burden on the Commissioners to either accommodate their actions or explain them better.

 

Commissioner Mandelman stated that he agreed with Commissioner Sattary’s comments.  Commissioner Mandelman asked if 1250 Missouri Street would be one of the agenda items for next month’s meeting.

 

Director Hasenin said that 1250 Missouri Street would be addressed at next month’s Regular BIC meeting.

 

Commissioner Mandelman said that he would like to get more information on the CAPSS Program since he is new to the Commission.

 

Director Hasenin stated that while the Commissioners were in Closed Session, he received an email from staff giving him the good news that the CAPSS Contract is signed.  Director Hasenin said that he sent an email back to Laurence Kornfield to get going and to start working with the Applied Technology Council (ATC).

 

Commissioner Walker said that perhaps there could be an update at every meeting on the CAPSS Program when the Director feels it is necessary to get the Commission’s input.

 

Commissioner Mandelman stated that he would like to discuss the MOU for the Housing Authority and Code Enforcement.

 

Commissioner Walker said that she would like to discuss how DBI could get funding from the Federal Government for the work that the Department is doing.

 

10.

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

There was no public comment.

 

Adjournment.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:46 p.m.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 028-08 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

__________________

Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

 

 

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary