Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, April 5, 2000 at 1:00 p.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Adopted April 19, 2000
MINUTES
The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:20 p.m. by President Fillon.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alfonso Fillon, President Roy Guinnane, Commissioner
Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Esther Marks, Commissioner
Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner Debra Walker, Commissioner
Mark Sanchez, Commissioner - excused
DBI REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Marcus Armstrong, MIS Manager
Ann Aherne, Interim Secretary
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:
Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney
2. President=s Announcements.
President Fillon stated that he had no announcements for this meeting.
3. Director=s Report. [Director Chiu]
a. Update and possible action on DBI process of handling conditions/restrictions set by other Departments, Notices of Violation, or Director’s Hearing.
Director Chiu said that this subject was raised at the last meeting because of some concern about certain violations. If an inspector had issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) it was not getting onto the permit review process and Director Chiu said that during the transition from the Motorola System to the new Oracle System, the Complaint Tracking System (CTS) was not working. This system is now working and as soon as the District Inspector detects a violation or a NOV has been issued, the data is being entered, and the permit staff is bringing this information up as they are screening the project. The system can now be checked for NOVs.
Director Chiu stated that if a case reached a Director’s Hearing, or there is some problem with a particular project, these items are on the CTS as well. Therefore, routinely these cases do get reported to the proper staff. For example, they are referred to Housing Inspectors or to Code Enforcement for review of the project.
Director Chiu reported that for Planning conditions, it is Department policy that when the project is received, if it triggers Planning review, then the project is routed to the Planning Department. It is then up to the Planning Department to record or attach any reports to the application. One of the functions of the One-Stop Program is to do quality control. Before a permit is issued, it is part of their responsibility to make sure that any conditions stipulated by Planning, or any attachments, are included as part of the entire package before a permit is issued.
Director Chiu said that basically this is how the Department handles these issues.
Commissioner Marks said that the concern is that, if there are violations or conditions set by Planning, the Department is not inputting this information into the computer in a timely manner. Director Chiu stated that there was a period when the system was not working. Director Chiu asked if the Commission wanted MIS Manager, Marcus Armstrong to answer any questions, as there was a time when the Complaint Tracking System was not working. Therefore, it is correct that when a District Inspector would go out and site a property, because the process was not working, those projects were not detected. Director Chiu stated that sometimes the applicant responds to a NOV very quickly. An inspector may site a project and the applicant may come in an apply for a permit within an hour. Director Chiu said that it is very hard to detect those situations. The check and balance is that the District Inspector should catch any violations or discrepancies when he does an onsite inspection. Sooner or later the inspector has to physically inspect the property ,and that is when these items are caught, and the project sponsor or property owner has to deal with any NOVs that have not been corrected, and the fines or penalties as well. President Fillon asked if there was going to be an additional staff report from the computer person. Director Chiu said that another item was on the agenda that would be addressed by Mr. Armstrong.
Commissioner Walker said that one of the things that happens is, in dealing with Planning, a project may go through a discretionary review and there are conditions placed on that project. Commissioner Walker said that when that information goes back to DBI, it is one thing to make sure that this information is included with the plans package. However, Commissioner Walker said her concern is that this information is in a packet that goes out with the inspector, so that the inspector can check that those conditions are met. Director Chiu said that he agreed with Commissioner Walker. Director Chiu stated that most Planning staff will stipulate on the plans that there are conditions and will attach that information. Director Chiu said that it is his staff’s responsibility to attach that information for the inspectors. Director Chiu said that there was a period of time when, as Commissioner Marks stated, the Department did not have the capability to enter or catch the NOVs in a timely manner, and as a result some projects did get issued without addressing the NOVs. That has been corrected. Now when someone comes to the Department to apply for a permit, one of the first things that is done as part of the screening process, is to check for NOVs, conditions, etc.
Commissioner Walker stated that again, her concern was that even after this process, when construction begins the customer and the inspectors need to be aware of, and comply with any conditions. Commissioner Walker stated that this is not happening and that DBI is responsible for these situations. Director Chiu said that he agrees that the Department needs to do more training to make the staff aware of these issues. President Fillon asked if it were true that this was not happening. Director Chiu said he would not say that the staff does not look at these issues. Commissioner Walker stated that it happens a lot at the Planning Department where items are not included. President Fillon said that "a lot" is not a quantifiable number, and if statements such as this were going to be made, he wanted to see numbers and some sort of study. President Fillon stated that he did not want to hear any false allegations being thrown out against staff, as he is sick of that. Commissioner Walker said that she was not talking about staff, just about process. President Fillon said that it was the same thing. Commissioner Walker said, not really. Commissioner Marks said that she thought President Fillon was getting out of hand. President Fillon said he was not getting out of hand. Commissioner Marks said he was getting out of hand and she was shocked. President Fillon stated that he was not going to argue with Commissioner Marks about this. Commissioner Marks stated that she did not wish to argue either, but she did not think the Commission should tolerate the way President Fillon was treating Commissioner Walker. President Fillon said he was not treating anybody any different. Commissioner Marks said that yes he was, and she was sorry, but his behavior was totally unacceptable. Commissioner Walker said that the bottom line was that the public are involved in trying to make compromises in the process. Commissioner Walker said that the Department should encourage this so that if things happen, a compromise is reached. Director Chiu said there are times when the neighborhood, tenants or the owners sign their own agreements, non-binding agreements. Sometimes, those parties want the Department to help enforce those conditions and there is nothing the Department can do about them unless Planning staff makes them a requirement.
Commissioner Walker asked about when the Department gets an application transferred over from Planning, is there any indication on the computer that a project has gone through any conditional use or other restrictions? Commissioner Walker wanted to know how the inspector is alerted of any conditions. Director Chiu said he did not know how well this data was entered into the system, but said that from his experience, Planning is very good at noting this information on the back of the application. On the application that is issued and referred to on the job site, Planning stipulates any conditions or variances that were required or approved as part of the process. This alerts the inspector to make sure that these conditions have been met. Director Chiu said that he will continue to remind the inspectors to pay more attention to those areas.
Patricia Vaughey said that one of the questions that was not asked concerning this was the area between the Notice of Violations and the Director’s Hearings. Ms. Vaughey said that she has found that in several cases, i.e., 1676 Newcomb and 2675-77-89 Pine Street, that a violation has been issued along with a Stop Work Order. Two days later, as in the Pine Street case, a permit goes though in One-Stop for a garage door for an existing garage, and there was not a garage there before the building started. Ms. Vaughey said that her question was how this was going to be handled on the computer. Ms Vaughey stated that when the
Notice of Violations go out they have to be put on the computer on the same day because the next day, someone comes in and slips in another application. Ms. Vaughey said this is where some of the gaps exist. Ms. Vaughey said that this is what she wanted to point out. Ms. Vaughey stated that what came out at the Pine Street hearing was that a new permit was issued, even though there had already been a Stop Work Order. Ms. Vaughey stated that the project sponsor then said that he had the right to install a garage door based on the new permit. Ms. Vaughey said this is how some of the problems are happening and asked how fast the Notices of Violation are being input on the computer. Ms. Vaughey thanked the Commission. Director Chiu asked the Commission if they wanted him to respond to Ms. Vaughey’s questions. Vice-President Hood stated that she would request that the Commission hold all responses until the next meeting, as it becomes a matter of treating these questions as agenda items. Vice-President Hood said these should be treated as items to be reported on at the next meeting. Director Chiu said this may be covered in Item 3c. President Fillon asked that the secretary note this as an item for the next agenda.
Joe O’Donoghue, Resident Builders, said that he wanted to comment on one of the Commissioner’s statements and a rebuttal by another Commissioner. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he thought that when the Commissioners were appointed to the Commission, when this issue was put before the voters, the presumption was that, and this is why qualified people were asked for, each Commissioner would bring to the Commission, information ahead of time. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the assumption was that the Commissioners were not going to get educated at the taxpayer’s, builder’s or homeowner’s expense. Therefore, Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is time to stop statements such as Commissioner Walker’s that may have been inattentive or unintentional. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it is time to stop the broad allegations. If there is a statement to be made, a person is required to have specificity., Otherwise, someone is getting maligned as a result of those remarks. Mr. O’Donoghue said that is the reality and he said that he thinks it was perfectly right of the Commission President, and thinks that the Director himself should have responded to the remarks, that there is not numerous incidents. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that specificity needs to be given as to what is happening. Mr. O’Donoghue said that if he, as a representative of the builders, has to go and find information, he does not call the attorneys and ask them, he does his own research. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this is his obligation, not to use member’s money to educate himself or to get a graduate degree in common sense. Therefore, Mr. O’Donoghue said, with all due respects to Commissioner Marks, he thinks it is time to get specificity and get rid of the broad allegations. Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.
Mr. Ron Dicks introduced himself as Vice-President of IFPTE, which is the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21. Mr. Dicks stated that there have been a lot of allegations, brouhaha and dialogue in the paper, etc. about one of the union’s members, Rudy Pada. Mr. Dicks said that he wanted to say unequivocally that the union is totally behind Rudy Pada. President Fillon informed Mr. Dicks that he was off of the agenda. Mr. Dicks said that he thought this was the time for public comment. President Fillon said that public comment was only being taken on Agenda Item 3a. President Fillon explained to Mr. Dicks that there would be a section for public comment and Mr. Dicks said he would return at that time.
b. Update and possible action on calculation of permit fees and accuracy of valuations.
Director Chiu said he understood that this item came up as there was concern about how the Department properly assess the fee for a given project when someone applies for a permit. Director Chiu stated that the official document that is followed by the Department is the Marshall and Swift document, which was discussed and adopted at a meeting in January. Director Chiu said that on some remodeling projects, termite repair work or other projects the Department does not check the Marshall and Swift fees, but goes by gut feeling and/or experience. Director Chiu stated, that in line with Commission policy, the Department is not trying to make money on the permit fees. In the past, the Commission and Department have worked with what is reasonable as the Department is not here to make money on the permit fee. Director Chiu stated that as long as the project sponsor submits an application showing the scope of work, and a description of the project that the Department feels is reasonable, the project will be approved. Director Chiu said that once again there are checks and balances. When the District Inspector goes to the site, and if the inspector feels that the construction has been undervalued, he or she has the option to issue a correction notice and have the person come in and apply for another permit or adjust the cost. This is done routinely. Director Chiu said that one of the problems is with projects, such as a kitchen remodel. One applicant may remodel a kitchen for $2,000 and another kitchen remodel may cost $100,000. Director Chiu said that, particularly when no plans are required, it is very difficult for desk staff to estimate the cost of construction. Again, Director Chiu, stated that the Department will rely on the applicant. Director Chiu said that if a project sponsor comes in to do a horizontal or vertical addition, there are guidelines per square foot that are used to determine cost. This is when the Marshall and Swift document is used, but for smaller remodeling without plans, the Department looks at what is reasonable. If it is out of whack, the District Inspector can determine if the project sponsor needs to amend the permit or the valuation. Director Chiu said he believes this is the fairest way to do it.
Commissioner Marks said that the concern is when someone, for instance, put the value for work at say $10,000 and then the inspector goes out and it is considerably more than that. Commissioner Marks asked if, aside from having the person file a correction, is there any penalty to discourage this kind of activity? Director Chiu said that, as far as just undervalue, currently there is no penalty for that, unless the scope of work is exceeded. Director Chiu said that, for example, if someone came in with a project for a kitchen remodel for $10,000, and then another bathroom was remodeled, which is not listed on the application, that would be considered exceeding the scope of the permit. That portion of the work would be penalized. However, if someone applied for a permit stating that a kitchen remodel was going to cost $5,000 and the inspector discovers, that due to the use of different materials, the project is going to cost $10,000, the scope of work is the same. The Department would have the applicant come in to pay the difference in fees, but no penalty would be enforced because the scope of the work is the same. Sometimes a project sponsor may simply underestimate the cost.
Vice-President Hood stated that one of the things she has experienced is that a permit will be submitted with the cost being $100,000. However, on the basis of the square footage of the project, which has to be shown on the drawings before the permit is issued, the plan checker
will determine that according to the rule for the square footage, the valuation should be $300,000. The plan checker will then change all of the permit fees accordingly, even if the initial fee has been paid, and then that permit cannot be released without the higher fee being paid. Vice-President Hood stated that the change is made at the time of issuance and knows this has happened to a number of her clients. Vice-President Hood said that this happened before she was a member of the Commission, as well as after. Vice-President Hood said that there is a procedure for larger projects where rules of thumb can be applied more readily. Vice-President Hood said that for smaller things, such as kitchen remodeling, there is a great deal of variety in the amount of estimate that is declared. The smaller the project, the harder it is to have a rule of thumb. Vice-President Hood said that, as Commissioner Marks pointed out, if there was an obvious gap in the valuation submitted, the Department could refuse to issue a Certificate of Occupancy. Vice-President Hood said she understood that the Department always has the capability to come back and demand a higher fee because the project has been misrepresented. Vice-President Hood said that typically this is picked up in the plan checking.
Commissioner Walker said that when this item came up previously, it was because it did happen that a project sponsor submitted an application for a kitchen remodel, and then did an entire build out of residential units. The penalty issue was discussed, but clarification was needed. Commissioner Walker asked if the penalty is assessed on the real value or the declared value, if there is a penalty. Commissioner Walker asked if it was a 2X penalty if it is beyond scope or beyond a permit. Director Chiu said that Laurence Kornfield and William Wong of his staff have prepared a draft on this issue, but he had not gotten a chance to review it. Commissioner Walker stated that this is what she was concerned about.
Vice-President Hood said that, as a broad measure as to whether the system is working or not, the Department has been generating revenues to cover all of its costs and has done that for the past four years without raising any fees. The Commission has had a policy against raising fees and if the Department was consistently being low-balled by applicants, then this would not be the case. Vice-President Hood stated that what she believed to be more typical is that people tend to overpay their permits and subsidize the smaller projects. Vice-President Hood stated that is very typical, as evidenced from extensive studies about two years ago. Those studies came about as a result of questions by then Commissioner Hansen. Vice-President Hood stated that the study was to determine which projects generated the most revenue, compared to cost. What was discovered was that the larger the project, the more the cushion. Because they are related, the leveraging of the fees is related to size and cost, so the fees go up, the larger the project. However, the time for a very large project is smaller comparatively to the time for smaller project. Vice-President Hood went on to say that this does what a Socialist wants to happen, the rich subsidize the poor.
Commissioner Walker said that there was a situation, where the Commission reviewed photos, where a penthouse was built outside the scope of the permit. Commissioner Walker said that she believed that Vice-President Hood brought up the fact that the penalties assessed needed to be appropriate to discourage this kind of behavior. Vice-President Hood said she thought that was a different issue. Commissioner Walker said that it was assessment of fines. Vice-President Hood said that this was Item 3B and the fines are a totally different subject.
Vice-President Hood said that unfortunately she was not present when this item was on the calendar, but believes that the procedure is working.
President Fillon asked why this was on the agenda. Vice-President Hood determined that it was a question raised by one of the Commissioners at the previous meeting when she was acting President and, for clarification purposes, she suggested it be put on the agenda. Vice-President Hood said that it was not because she observed anything wrong that needed to be corrected, but she wanted people to understand that a project sponsor does not get away with stating that a job is $1,000 when it is really $100,000. There are checks and balances.
Joe O’Donoghue said that he stopped going to bars because this kind of conversation became the discussion at bars. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that everyone in town knows, that if they are caught doing work without a permit, the penalty is 9X earnings. Mr. O’Donoghue said he felt that this mindless, idiotic issue did not have to be put on the Commission calendar when all one had to do was look at the code book. Mr. O’Donoghue said that there has not been a permit fee increase in five years, which is indicative that the Department is being run fiscally responsible. Mr. O’Donoghue said he made the point earlier, but wanted to again say, that before this Commission ends up discussing issues, which he considers, excuse him for being blunt, stupid, mindless questions that any fool who has ever lifted a hammer knows. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Commission should not waste the staff or public’s time and money. If a question is put on the agenda for discussion, that is going to bore the public to death, at least have the basic facts, such as the amount of revenue lost and the number of people who underestimated their projects. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this came about because there was one building in which it was clear that wrong was done. The penalties can be calculated by knowing what the construction costs were and this is a simple book issue that any trained ape could understand. Mr. O’Donoghue said, that all due respect to the Commission, but he hopes this is going to be the end of this kind of discussion. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that an IQ test should be given for a minimum knowledge of experience in construction before any Commissioner is appointed. In fact, Mr. O’Donoghue said that he has long held that the Charter has been violated because on other commissions it says, "qualified". Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Charter has been circumvented by putting fools based on political knowledge or political whack on commissions and the Commission needs to go back to an IQ minimum of what qualified represents. Otherwise, Mr. O’Donoghue said there should be some mechanism, and stated that he will go after and see how there can be a mechanism, to judge the performance of Commissioners and how to get rid of Commissioners that are wasting the public’s time with foolish questions. Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.
Patricia Vaughey stated that she had great sympathy for the personnel on the first floor at DBI and the Planning Department. Ms. Vaughey said they are hit royally day in and day out. Ms. Vaughey stated that one thing that could straighten the fee factor out is the application form. Ms. Vaughey said that the form just states remodel kitchen when a description should be required. Therefore, the fees could be more accurate. Ms. Vaughey said that if someone is changing a stove, the application should read change stove or sheet rock, change cabinets, etc. Ms. Vaughey said that this would clarify the issue. Ms. Vaughey said that she feels sorry for the personnel at the counters as customers arrive with five, six and seven cases and
asks the staff to rush the process because they have other appointments. Ms. Vaughey stated that clarification on the application forms would help everyone. Ms. Vaughey thanked the Commission.
c. Update and possible action on Department’s current ability and future goals for online permitting and retrieval of information.
Director Chiu called on Marcus Armstrong, MIS Manager, to report on the status of where the Department is on computer capabilities and future goals for online permitting, permit tracking and complaint tracking.
Marcus Armstrong introduced himself as the IS Project Director for the Department of Building Inspection. Mr. Armstrong said he would present the progress of the PTIS development and go into some future developments, such as online permitting. Currently, the PTIS system has improved greatly in the areas of permit tracking, which includes the logging out of stations and the routing. Planning, Fire, Health and other multiple plan review departments or stations have been added to this routing and it is working fine. Managerial reports have been developed out of this particular module and those are coming out fine. DBI’s fee calculation module is in place and that is also working. Complaint tracking has been available on the Oracle platform for some time for Housing. The Building Division was using the Motorola based Complaint Tracking System. Mr. Armstrong stated that there was a conversion process that took place in January that did not work as well as it could have. The Building Division is now using the Oracle based tracking and the main bug that is still present is the inspection scheduling, and that is because of addresses that did not come over from the old system. Mr. Armstrong said that Complaint Tracking is set up in such a way that if someone goes to apply for a permit, the permit will not be issued if there is a complaint on that particular property. Complaints and multiple complaints may be queried by entering the address or permit application number. Mr. Armstrong said that regarding online permitting, the Department has been working with COIT, the Treasurer’s Office and outside vendors on a pilot program that is underway and going well. The Department has gotten input from Microsoft, Intel and Hewlett-Packard on this project and its use in other municipalities. Mr. Armstrong stated that the vendors come highly recommended. They are almost through with discovery and sometime in the near future, within the next six months, DBI should have online permitting. Mr. Armstrong said this would be mainly geared toward non-discretionary permits, which are electrical, plumbing and some of the low-end building permits, such as reroofing, signs and street use. Commissioner Santos asked if these would be permits that would have no drawings whatsoever. Mr. Armstrong answered, yes.
Director Chiu said that at the last meeting, Commissioner Santos had spoken about Palo Alto having online permitting. Director Chiu stated that, at that time, he was correct in saying that DBI is working with the same vendor as Palo Alto, and they do not have online permitting yet. Director Chiu stated that he has spoken to several vendors and everyone is looking for the same thing, online permitting.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he would recommend using caution when comparing online permit groups. Most cities are claiming to be online, however, at closer look, the process is
touching that permit twice. In Indianapolis there is a very nice module, but their process does not support the systems. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI is trying to break the process down from beginning to end, and not necessarily build a system based on the present human system. The Department does not want to be locked into its old model. For instance, in Indianapolis they have online permitting. The perception is that when someone gets in front of a computer at 11:00 p.m. and touches it, that person gets instant service and can then go out and start work the next day. Mr. Armstrong stated that their process is batch process. The information gets into a holding cue in the office and is then handled manually. This is no different than coming into DBI and waiting in line, and in some cases coming into the Department is faster. Mr. Armstrong said that DBI is looking at the process being complete, real time updates to a database, so that managerial reports or inspection scheduling are not affected. At that point, complaints are going to be a point of validation.
President Fillon asked if there was going to be public interface for retrieval with this information. Mr. Armstrong stated that the main interface would be as a web browser base and would be primarily released to contractors, as that will be the point of validation. The process will include contractors license, workman’s comp information, etc. and then move the customer through the system. At that point, it gets dicey to verify that members of the public have the qualifications to proceed with that work. As far as the public interface internally, the Department does plan on moving a simple query based interface, a browser based interface, to the public lobby terminals.
President Fillon asked if Mr. Armstrong could provide him with a communication item that would outline what services would be available. Mr. Armstrong said that he would provide information to President Fillon and stated that provided someone is a contractor, they would be able to take out a plumbing, electrical or building permit. President Fillon asked if there would be a charge for this service. Mr. Armstrong said that this is being worked out with the Treasurer’s Office, as they have a model in place right now with the Tax Assessor. There is a convenience or transaction fee that is in addition to whatever the normal charge is. That is based on a credit card transaction or the convenience fee imposed by the vendor who is facilitating the transaction. Mr. Armstrong stated that DBI’s fee structure will not change. In fact, the Department is working with the Treasurer’s Office and the vendor to see if they can absorb their transaction fees at some point, so the customer does not see any difference in fees whether they wait in line for a permit or come in online
Director Chiu stated that the ultimate goal is that everyone could stay at home and track the permit tracking system and one day file a complaint. If someone were doing work overnight or on a weekend, the complainant could log in online and file a complaint. Director Chiu said that at the same time, it is a goal of the Department, that the customer could then retrieve the status of their complaint. Director Chiu said that the plan is for the Department to start with simple online permits first and then build upon other features, such as inspection scheduling. Director Chiu said that in four to six months the Department should have a pilot program for plumbing, electrical and some type of over-the-counter permits.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to suggest that it would be helpful if the forms could be downloaded through e-mail because the forms change from time to time. It is a burden to keep multiple copies in the office and it would be very helpful if the form could be filled out on the computer and then downloaded. Vice-President Hood said that in her case, the forms could then be loaded into her computer system and e-mailed to other consultants on the project. Mr. Armstrong stated that downloading forms is within the scope of the current project.
President Fillon asked for a timetable on this current pilot project. Mr. Armstrong said it is difficult to give exact timelines for IS projects, but said that it should take approximately six months. Mr. Armstrong stated that at present, the vendors are ahead of the game and have gone through extensive discovery. The main things that are being worked out right now are fees structures, and form modeling. Mr.Armstrong said that the customer will not have to necessarily print out a legal size form every time. Mr. Armstrong stated that the Department is trying to get the form to fit on an 8 ½" x 11" sheet of paper. This moves DBI closer to its
single form goal.
Director Chiu said that the Department is working on trying to accept applications and plans online for more complicated projects. An imaging system is another project that the Department is embarking on within another 1 to 1 ½ years. This would help with misrouted or misplaced plans. Once those imaging plans are submitted into a system anyone could retrieve those easily. Director Chiu said that this is another long term MIS project. Vice-President Hood thanked Mr. Armstrong for his report and said it was great to see the work that is being done.
Patricia Vaughey said that there has been a great improvement to the computer system since these hearings have started and said she wanted the Commission to be aware of this.
4. Commissioner’s Report on structural inspection of 500 Divisadero Street. [Commissioner Santos]
Commissioner Santos said that he had prepared a report that was addressed to Commissioner Hood as she chaired the previous meeting when President Fillon was on his honeymoon. Commissioner Santos passed out copies of his report to the Commissioners and provided copies for the public.
Commissioner Santos said that he performed a structural inspection of the property located at 500 Divisadero Street on March 20th. Commissioner Santos stated that he met Deputy Director William Wong and Building Inspector Marvin Ruiz at the property. Commissioner Santos performed a visual inspection of the building as suggested by Commissioner Hood and wrote his conclusions and recommendations on it. Commissioner Santos said that he was able to analyze some of the structural conditions that have been implemented within the building. Commissioner Santos said he would like to begin by suggesting that a licensed structural engineer should perform a full-blown structural investigation. Commissioner Santos said that it was his understanding that the owner of the property has already obtained the services of a structural engineer and will be meeting with him tomorrow to come up with a comprehensive, structural repair scheme. Commissioner Santos said that as far as an emergency situation that was raised by members of the public, he did not think that there was any imminent danger of collapse of the building. Commissioner Santos stated that once some minor structural repairs were implemented, the building could be occupied. Some of the tilting and settlement of the building has occurred over time, as it is an old building. Some of the settlement may have been caused by vibration or improper drainage. The settlement is approximately 2 ½" which is not unusual within a building of this age and type of material. Commissioner Santos said that he would recommend that the comprehensive structural repair be implemented, and that may include the introduction of structural steel frames and other structural systems that would insure that once the building was shored and leveled, it would remain in that position. The other thing that Commissioner Santos noticed in his investigation is that the project sponsor has done a substantial amount of foundation work. Commissioner Santos said that there is literally a massive concrete foundation that has been tied and connected to the existing foundation. Commissioner Santos said soil has been
removed that would eliminate any contact between dirt and framing. Commissioner Santos stated that all of these things are adequate and are some of the things that he would have recommended had he been retained as the structural engineer. Commissioner Santos said that they had not done anything related to the exterior of the building, and in fact some of the siding is not connected to the framing. Commissioner Santos said there are other issues related to the historical significance of the building, and it is his understanding that no work can be performed on the exterior of the building, without triggering some sort of landmark restriction. Commissioner Santos said that he was pleased to hear that a structural engineer had been retained to oversee the project. Commissioner Santos stated that the owner of the building was present at the meeting and would perhaps like to say a few words about the project and what sort of schedule has been set up to make repairs.
Commissioner Marks asked Commissioner Santos about his document that stated there was a tenant in the lower level. Commissioner Santos said that there is no tenant in the lower level, but he made recommendations if there was to be a tenant in the future.
Mr. Antonio Castalucci introduced himself as the owner of 500 Divisadero Street. Mr. Castalucci stated that the original contractor, who did the massive foundation work on the property, has been retained again to finalize that particular permit. This work had not been done in the past. The contractor is assisting Mr. Castalucci by scheduling a meeting with a new structural engineer tomorrow. Necessary repairs will be made to the building to make sure it is not going to go anywhere. Mr. Castalucci said that the timeframe for that work is expected to be 30 days, including the work. Mr. Castalucci said that no one has lived in the lower level. There were some squatters that broke in and stayed for a period of time, but the police got them out of there. Mr. Castalucci said that he does have a tenant in the top floor, and he did not believe there was any emergency to vacate that unit at this point.
Mr. Paul Purdue said he represented the tenant in the ground floor level. Mr. Purdue said there is a tenant for the downstairs level that is awaiting permits to open up a restaurant, but the permits are on hold until these conditions are met at the property. Mr. Purdue stated that he wanted to make this correction for the Commission.
Vice-President Hood said that she wanted to thank the owner and lawyer for being present to inform the Commission about the building.
Patricia Vaughey thanked Commissioner Santos for verifying what she had stated at previous meetings, that some portions were not connected to the wall. Patricia Vaughey said her purpose was to get something done on this building and stated that she is glad that something is finally being done. Ms.Vaughey said that she wanted to clarify that there are some legal technicalities on the restaurant downstairs and it may not be able to get in. Ms. Vaughey stated that she would highly advise the Commission and the Department to make sure that everything gets done because the application that is in for the restaurant may not be legally feasible. Ms. Vaughey thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Walker said that she did not understand what Ms. Vaughey had just said and would like more clarification. Ms. Vaughey said that this case has been going on since 1997
and 1998 and was sent to Planning and the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals sent it back to the Planning Department and Planning Department denied this same restaurant. Ms. Vaughey said that this particular restaurant or any fast food may not be allowed into this building. Commissioner Walker said that this is a Planning issue.
5. Discussion and possible action to change members of BIC Committee to hire Commission Secretary.
President Fillon stated that at this time he did not wish to change this Committee and would like a motion to keep the Committee as was previously voted.
Commissioner Marks asked President Fillon why he changed his mind. President Fillon said that Commissioner Marks could ask, but he did not have any particular reason why. Commissioner Marks stated that in other words, someone had told President Fillon to change his mind. President Fillon said that he did not say that. Commissioner Marks said that by President Fillon not saying anything, she was assuming that he was told to change his mind. President Fillon stated that he did not have to tell anyone why he changed his mind. Commissioner Marks stated that she would conclude publicly that he was doing as he was told. President Fillon said that Commissioner Marks could conclude whatever she liked. Commissioner Marks said that she would like to speak what she has to say. President Fillon stated that he was free to have any opinion that he liked and did not have to explain his opinions to anyone, for any reason. Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to state publicly that she was assuming President Fillon had been told what to do. President Fillon said that Commissioner Marks was welcome to assume whatever she liked.
Vice-President Hood said that nobody has ever told her what to do and people who know her are aware of that. Vice-President Hood made a motion that the Commission keep the Committee as constituted. Commissioner Guinnane seconded this motion.
Commissioner Walker stated that she was somewhat confused as there was a previous discussion wherein everybody seemed to be in agreement. Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to repeat what she said at the time, which is that if the Commission intends to work as a group together, to do things without politicizing everything, than the Commission needs to start doing that and that was the intention of this. Commissioner Walker said that she was upset and said that obviously President Fillon had a right to his opinion, all of the Commissioners do, and she hoped they have one.
President Fillon called for a roll call vote on the motion.
The Commissioners voted as follows:
Commissioner Marks No
Commissioner Santos Yes
President Fillon Yes
Vice-President Hood Yes
Commissioner Walker No
Commissioner Guinnane Yes
The motion carried.
[BIC Resolution No.-022-00]
6. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission=s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Ron Dicks, Vice-President of Local 21, IFPTE stated that he was concerned with due process concerning one of the members of his union, Rudy Pada. Mr. Dicks has been an inspector and is currently a Housing Inspector, since 1986 and has had the pleasure of working alongside of Mr. Pada. Mr. Dicks said that Mr. Pada has been his supervisor, lucky him. Mr. Dicks stated that he has known Mr. Pada for a number of years and he is a member of the union. The concern is about due process for Mr. Pada and the union is concerned when they see Mr. Pada’s name in the paper attached to any kind of allegations of things that are not cool for an inspector do. Mr. Dicks stated that this is a very sensitive job, and periodically all of these allegations swirl around all of the inspector’s heads. Mr. Dicks stated that the union is concerned about having due process for Rudy Pada and are confident that he did not do anything that is going to bring any blame to the Department or the City. Mr. Dicks said, that on another level, he wanted to speak about Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson. Mr. Dicks said that once again, he has been in the Department since 1986 and has had the pleasure of knowing Jim for all of those years. Mr. Dicks stated that Mr. Hutchinson has worked diligently to try to facilitate an environment where people can come into his office and present problems. Mr. Dicks stated that Mr. Hutchinson has always perceived himself as a problem solver, and it is appreciated that Mr. Hutchinson occupies his position as he has been a line inspector. Mr. Dicks stated that Mr. Hutchinson knows and is very cognizant of what the inspectors experience out in the field, which is a plectra of different problems. Mr. Dicks said, that on a personal level and not as a union officer, last year he experienced a number of problems in his personal life. Mr. Hutchinson was there for Mr. Dicks and he wanted to state this unequivocally for anybody that can hear him. Mr. Dicks stated that Mr. Hutchinson was there for him and helped him through a very difficult time; he owes him and will always stand up for him. Mr. Dicks stated that Mr. Hutchinson is a very good man and any time his character is questioned, he will come forward and tell what his experience with Mr. Hutchinson has been. Mr. Dicks thanked the Commission.
Margaret O’Sullivan stated that she was present at the meeting to represent her parents. Ms. O’Sullivan said that yesterday her parents woke up to construction taking place at their neighbor’s home. They were not aware that there was a new permit issued and called the permit center. The permit center informed the O’Sullivans that there was no new permit issued and then the O’Sullivan’s called for a building inspection. A Building Inspector went to the property. Ms. O’Sullivan said that her question today is regarding the permit under which the this construction is taking place today. Ms. O’Sullivan said that this is a permit for an addition to a residential building that was issued is in December 1996. Ms. O’Sullivan stated that this permit has received seven extensions. According to the code, it states that, unless approved by the Director, no more than three extensions of time may be granted and that each extension of time shall not exceed specific time periods. Ms. O’Sullivan said that the code states further that the maximum time allowance for a Director initiated code compliance permit shall be twelve months for all permits exceeding $25,000 in total valuation. Ms. O’Sullivan said that this
process has been completely disruptive to her parents. The building is going on beyond normal working hours and Ms. O’Sullivan said that she would like to ask that the Commission investigate this, the City Attorney offer her opinion on this, and if indeed according to her interpretation of the code that this is beyond the code, then she would hope that the permit could be rescinded. President Fillon asked what the address was. Ms. O’Sullivan said the address was 2000 Ulloa Street. President Fillon asked Director Chiu to report back on this issue at the next meeting. Ms. O’Sullivan thanked the Commission.
Patricia Vaughey said that something that she heard today is that there are some issues that have come out and felt that everyone needed to keep level heads. Ms. Vaughey asked that everybody stay above board and stop making accusations of being dumb or stupid, whether it is to her or to the Commission. Ms. Vaughey said that everyone should be above this and try to solve some of these minor problems, so that people like her do not have to appear before the Commission.
Mr. Manny Flores introduced himself as being with the Carpenter’s Union, Local 22 of San Francisco. Mr. Flores stated that he wanted to go on record that his office would be monitoring and investigating the so-called allegations against employee or employees of Local 22. This is regarding Mr. Jim Hutchinson. Mr. Flores said that the union will investigate any allegations, true or untrue, because the union is here to protect their workers. Mr. Flores said that Mr. Hutchinson is a good man and a good worker, and the union must stand by their employees to see if any of the allegations are true or untrue. Mr. Flores stated that again he wanted to go on record as a member of Carpenter’s Local 22. Mr. Flores thanked the Commission.
Mr. Randy Shaw, Director of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, stated that he knows that everyone would like to put certain things behind us, but he was not at the last meeting to address this. Unfortunately, Mr. Shaw said that he thinks when false allegations are made in a widely circulated newspaper, attacking the character of well-respected employees like Rudy Pada and Jim Hutchinson, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Mr. Shaw said that first of all, there is a wide spread misconception that all inspectors are corrupt and this just confirms it. The fact that the allegations against Mr. Pada were disproved and shown to be completely without merit makes no difference because people never read the follow-up stories. Mr. Shaw said that anyone who has dealt with the media knows that is just the way it goes. Mr. Shaw stated that the Commission needs to look at the fact that there is an employee in the Department, Rafael Torres-Gil, an inspector, who is the single, sole, exclusive source of almost all of the controversy that this Department has engendered in the past ten years. Mr. Shaw stated that he wanted to be very clear. When the allegations came out about Mr. Torres-Gil’s real estate dealings several years ago, Mr. Shaw wrote a letter to Mr. Larry Litchfield, then head of BBI, and to the City Attorney stating that they were unfairly rushing to judgment against Mr. Torres-Gil and that it was only fair that he got due process, and was not being defamed in the newspapers. Mr. Shaw stated that he had defended Mr. Torres-Gil. Mr. Shaw said that when Supervisor Ammiano’s office was demanding Mr. Torres-Gil’s ouster for what was perceived in the media as homophobia, in his treatment of sex clubs, again the Department bent over backwards to not embarrass Mr. Torres-Gil, but to switch him to another Division. At that time, there was a great deal of pressure from the gay and lesbian community regarding Mr. Torres-Gil. Mr. Shaw said he wanted to make the point that there is one individual in a large institution that continues to make defamatory statements about others, and that person has access to a City Attorney. Mr. Shaw said it is
shocking to him, if anyone was at the hearing regarding musical rooms with Supervisor Newsome, is trying to get the City Attorney to stop landlords from illegally evicting low income tenants, this same City Attorney does not have time to prosecute those cases, is spending all of her time with an inspector seeking information against the Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson. Mr. Shaw said this is very curious and he wishes that everyone could say, let’s just forget this and let bygones be bygones, but there is a person who has put all other inspectors and all other staff in this Department at fear that next he will attack them. Mr. Shaw said that he did not know if the Commission knew that six weeks prior to Mr. Torres-Gil telling the Chronicle that Mr. Pada was involved in some shenanigans, that he saw Rudy Pada in a public street and yelled at him. Mr. Pada filed a grievance after this incident and now there are people in the Department living in fear of one employee. Mr. Shaw stated that Jim Hutchinson has stood up to Mr. Torres-Gil and will not be run over. He is not afraid of him and Mr. Shaw said that Mr. Torres-Gil is now saying that he has to get rid of Mr. Hutchinson, and that is what this is all about. Mr. Shaw said that as much as he knows the Commission wants to do more productive things, the only controversy in this Department, is not from landlords, tenants, builders or developers, but from one employee. Mr. Shaw thanked the Commission.
The next speaker was Mr. Chris Dolan of the Mission Agenda on 16th Street. Mr. Dolan said that this group put together yesterday’s agenda item that was heard before the Housing and Social Policy Committee, for what they call musical rooms. This is a widespread, illegal practice that many hotel operators in the City engage in, which forces people to vacate their rooms after two or three weeks before they get rights of tenancy. Mr. Dolan stated that his group has been working very hard to figure out a solution to this issue, and the first step to that solution was the hearing that was held yesterday. Mr. Dolan said that it is clear, at this point, unfortunately the role that the Department of Building Inspection can play in this issue, is a minor one based on the jurisdiction that the Department has, given the Residential Hotel Ordinance. Mr. Dolan stated that he had met with Ms. Stansfield, Manager of Housing Inspection Services last week. Mr. Dolan said that he would like to work with the Department, but unfortunately in order to have any impact on the musical room practice, in order to end it, rigorous enforcement from the City Attorney’s Office is going to be needed. Mr. Dolan stated that the response from the Code Enforcement Division of the City Attorney’s Office was not positive, and they need to allocate more resources to this problem. Mr. Dolan said that he would like to think that this illegal practice, where last night some hotel operator perjured himself on the nightly news, that if the City Attorney stepped up to do this enforcement, it would have a serious impact on a lot of people’s lives. Mr. Dolan said that to the extent that the City Attorney’s Office could stop spending so many resources such as the Department issue that Randy Shaw spoke about, and instead put their resources, time and energy into prosecuting something that really needs to be prosecuted. Commissioner Marks stated that this issue was not under the jurisdiction of the Commission and said she was sorry. Mr. Dolan stated that he will continue working with the Department on this issue and hopefully there will not be as much departmental finger pointing. Mr. Dolan said he wanted to work together on coming up with some real solutions that would positively impact people’s lives that really need help right now. Mr. Dolan thanked the Commission.
President Fillon stated that Commissioner Marks was correct in stating that this issue is not under the jurisdiction of the BIC.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue, Residential Builders, said that the point that Randy Shaw was making is that it is one of allocation of resources. The City Attorney’s Office has a designated numerical number of employees. At this point, Commissioner Walker interrupted Mr. O’Donoghue. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he should not be interrupted, point of order, while he is speaking. Commissioner Walker said that this issue, the City Attorney’s Office, was not relevant. President Fillon stated that Mr. O’Donoghue should be allowed to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Commissioner Walker asked if he should be allowed to speak about the City Attorney’s Office. President Fillon said that he would see where Mr. O’Donoghue was going with this. Mr. O’Donoghue said, exactly, and he was speaking about a matter of allocation of resources. The City Attorney has a finite amount of staff and there is an infinite amount of money based on Building Departments and based on the priorities that different departments bring before the City Attorney. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if the City Attorney believes, in her wisdom, that it is more important to go after some issues in the Department of Building Inspection, with the limited amount of staff that she has, based on the case that was presented. Mr. O’Donoghue said that this means that she is not able to address the issues which tenants, who are having a problem in the SROs in the Tenderloin , have. Mr. O’Donoghue said this is wherein the problem arises. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that what Randy Shaw was pointing out is that there is a lack of wisdom or misinterpretation of the facts by the City Attorney in terms of where she should designate her resources. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Shaw gave forth an important case in question that needs the City Attorney’s attention. The issue before this Department is that Rafael Torres-Gil is a person that some how or other has been able to present his case in such a manner that it has brought attention. Mr. O’Donoghue said that this attention is not wanted. At this point, Commissioner Marks interrupted Mr. O’Donoghue saying that he was totally out of line. Mr. O’Donoghue started to respond regarding his right to speak on a point of Robert’s Rules of Procedure. President Fillon asked Commissioner Marks to let Mr. O’Donoghue continue. Commissioner Marks stated that she wanted to say that President Fillon tried to cut off discussion by Commissioner Walker on an issue that he felt was inappropriate. President Fillon asked that Commission Marks please let Mr. O’Donoghue finish, as he was a member of the public. Commissioner Marks stated that Commissioner Walker was an individual that should have been allowed to speak, and said that President Fillon was saying that members of the Commission did not have any rights. President Fillon asked for Deputy City Attorney Boyajian to give her opinion on this interruption. Commissioner Walker stated that this is a personnel issue. Ms. Boyajian stated that she thought Commissioner Marks was right that how the City Attorney allocates her resources within her department is not within the subject manner or jurisdiction of the BIC. President Fillon said that this is relevant in dealing with the Rudy Pada, Rafael Torres-Gil issue. Ms. Boyajian said that President Fillon asked for her opinion and she gave it. Commissioner Walker said that the Deputy City Attorney has suggested that Mr. O’Donoghue is speaking on a matter outside of the BIC jurisdiction. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he was not saying that the City Attorney, all due respects to Ms. Boyajian, was right or wrong. However, Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Department presented a case either inadequately or not adequately enough. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he is not in the management business and understands management’s right of prerogative, as a union representative for years, he understood that and respects it. Mr. O’Donoghue said that was not the question. The point that he was making is, that the case of Rafael Torres-Gil who Randy Shaw represented years ago, when Mr. Torres-Gil was under attack by the City Attorney’s Office for alleged malfeasance in office, Randy came forth. Mr. O’Donoghue was again
interrupted and stated that this was part of the public comment and it was his right. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he would send everyone a copy of Robert’s Rules of Procedure that the Commission could study, with all due respect. Commissioner Walker ,said that she did not need a copy. Mr. O’Donoghue said that obviously she did. Commissioner Walker stated that this was a personnel issue that is not; Mr. O’Donoghue interrupted her and said it was not a personnel matter. President Fillon asked Mr. O’Donoghue to wrap up his comments as he had 12 seconds left of his 3 minutes. Mr. O’Donoghue asked if the interruptions were counted and stated that he would like the time of interruptions added onto his time. Mr. O’Donoghue stated the he, like Randy Shaw, defended Rafael Torres-Gil when he was under investigation some years ago by the City Attorney’s Office, similarly with Laurence Kornfield. In fact, Mr. O’Donoghue said this was one of the reasons he went forward with the Building Commission so that citizens like him, Patricia Vaughey or Margaret Sullivan would have a forum in which they could present their case. Mr. O’Donoghue said that now he is finding out that there is no forum to present his case, and this is absolutely ludicrous and he was glad to see this was caused by, the so called progressive Commissioners, who are rudely interrupting, who are afraid of hearing the truth, who could not answer a question, and who obviously called for sensitivity. Mr. O’Donoghue said that these Commissioners were going to get the sensitivity that is given to the public, which is zero. Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Walker said that she would encourage anyone who had information ,that there are several investigations going on and rather than stand up and blast and character assassinate that people talk to the proper authorities. Commissioner Walker said that she would suggest that. At this point, Commissioner Marks interrupted to ask President Fillon if this was the proper way that the public should hear about - Commissioner Walker interrupted to state that this is a personnel issue. Mr. O’Donoghue continued to make comments from the audience. President Fillon said that this behavior was not going to happen at this meeting and asked for the next member of the public to come to the podium. There was no further public comment.
7. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.
a. Copy of letters from Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to Mia Lord and Mia Lord’s response regarding 174 Majestic.
b. Thank you letters by Frank Chiu sent to citizens who wrote commendation letters to DBI staff.
c. DBI Newsletter.
President Fillon asked if there were any items that the Commissioners would like to discuss. There were none. President Fillon said that the Commission would move onto Item #8.
8. Selection of Committee to review applicants and recommend appointments to the Access Appeals Commission, Board of Examiners, Code Advisory Committee and UMB Appeals Board.
President Fillon said he would suggest that two committees be formed and each committee deal with two of the boards that need to have positions filled. President Fillon suggested that the committees be one Committee for Access Appeals Commission and Board of Examiners and the other Committee handle the Code Advisory Committee and UMB Appeals Board.
Commissioner Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane that the Committees be formed as follows:
Committee I - Access Appeals Commission and Board of Examiners
President Fillon, Commissioner Hood and Commissioner Walker.
Committee II - Code Advisory Committee and UMB Appeals Board
President Fillon, Commissioner Santos and Commissioner Sanchez (upon his acceptance as he was not present at the meeting, but was recommended by Commissioner Marks)
The motion carried unanimously.
[BIC RESOLUTION NO. 023-00]
9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of March 15, 2000.
President Fillon stated that he had not been present at this meeting so would not vote on the approval. Interim Commission Secretary reported that on page 3 in the last paragraph she used the wrong form of eminent, the correct word should be imminent. Commissioner Marks said she had a correction on page 7, the last sentence states Mr. Robert McCurn, owner of 1676 Newcomb Street. Commissioner Marks stated that the records presented at that Commission meeting showed that the owner is Nancy Jen and not Robert McCurn. The Secretary said that Mr. McCurn introduced himself as the owner and Commissioner Marks said that Mr. McCurn is not the owner of the property. Commissioner Hood said the minutes have to record what happened at the meeting, not what the Commission thinks might be the truth. Commissioner Hood suggested that the secretary add the words Mr. Robert McCurn, who said he was the owner.
Commissioner Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane that the minutes be approved as correct. The motion carried unanimously.
[BIC RESOLUTION NO. 024-00]
10. 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.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he had an inquiry to the City Attorney’s Office regarding the issue with Rafael Torres-Gil. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there was a report done years ago as to ownership of properties and such and Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to get a copy of that report. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that the report of the City Attorney’s investigation is an Attorney Work Product, and the City Attorney is not willing to release it. Commissioner Guinnane asked why it could not be released to the Commission. Ms. Boyajian said that she would ask the City Attorney. Commissioner Walker asked if the inquiry was concluded. Ms Boyajian said that the investigation was concluded. Commissioner Walker asked if a determination was made. Ms. Boyajian answered yes. Commissioner Walker asked what the determination was. Ms. Boyajian said that Mr. Torres-Gil was found not guilty of any wrongdoing. Commissioner Guinnane asked who paid the City Attorney for the investigation. Ms. Boyajian asked Commissioner Guinnane to clarify his question. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the money came out of the Building Department, in other words, who was the client. Ms. Boyajian said the client was the Building Department. Commissioner Guinnane stated that he felt the Commission was entitled to the file. Ms. Boyajian stated that the case was referred over by Mr. Litchfield and she would ask the City Attorney about releasing the file to Commissioner Guinnane.
President Fillon asked if there was any further discussion on this item, but stated that since this was a personnel issue it should be discussed in a Closed Session of the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane and Commissioner Walker agreed. Ms. Boyajian stated that an Attorney Work Product is the work product of the Attorney and not of the client, but said she would ask the City Attorney, tell her that the Commission requested it and report back. Ms. Boyajian stated that she was not sure if this issue was appropriate for Closed Session as it is not an item that falls within the Brown Act and is not a personnel matter that is within the Commission’s jurisdiction, as the Commission is not the appointing or disciplining officer for Mr. Torres-Gil. Ms. Boyajian stated that at this point she did not see where it would fall within a Closed Session. Commissioner Walker asked if this issue was appropriate to put on the agenda, period. Ms. Boyajian said she did not believe so. The personnel issue should be resolved by the Department head and not debated in front of the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Torres-Gil had immunity from the City Attorney’s Office. Ms. Boyajian asked Commissioner Guinnane for clarification of his question. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Torres-Gil had immunity as a whistle blower or any kind of status. Ms. Boyajian said, not that she knew of.
Vice-President Hood said that she was very concerned about talking about any employee of the Department of Building Inspection in this forum. Vice-President Hood said that believed that the Commission has heard a number of complaints about one employee today and as she understands it, the Commission has no say in any employee being hired or not as a result of their job performance except for the Director, according to the City Charter. Vice-President Hood said that she believed the Commission could ask the Director to give a report on how he is handling this matter and asked if this could be done in a Closed Session in order for the Director not to have to violate that person’s privacy or right to be heard in private. Ms. Boyajian said that she thought the Commission, in its overview of the Director and the Department can inquire as to how he is performing his job and that can be in a Closed Session. Part of the inquiry could be how the Director is handling investigations. Vice-President Hood suggested that the Commission proceed that way. Vice-President Hood said she thought the Commission did need to deal with these allegations by so many different people, even if they would prefer not to. President Fillon said that he did not want to continue this issue in
front of an open forum where so much character assassination was taking place. Commissioner Walker stated that she would like all of the various investigations dealt with, rather than the specific ones that have been brought before the Commission today, because people are coming up and putting blanket complaints through, as well as the complaints from the press. Commissioner Walker said that the Commission has to get into this fully, or not at all, and she is hearing from the attorney that this is a personnel issue and the Commission may not be the body to investigate it. Commissioner Walker asked what was the point of having a Closed Session to discuss either Rudy Pada, Jim Hutchinson, or any other of the allegations that the Commission has been hearing against staff, as it is not within the Commission’s venue or jurisdiction.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he would disagree and would like to have a Closed Session as he is getting tired of listening about all of the allegations. Commissioner Guinnane said that there have been allegations of fraud, different alias’, buying property, selling it and intimidating the public with notices and he would like to bring it to a head, once and for all. Commissioner Guinnane said the only way to do that is behind a Closed Session and stated that he had about fifteen questions for the City Attorney at that time.
Commissioner Marks said that she would like to support the City Attorney’s recommendation as she has confidence that the Director will handle the matters appropriately. Commissioner Marks said that she feels that at this point, that the comments made about certain of the staff members represents harassment and does not feel it is productive for the Commission to get into it. Commissioner Marks stated that she felt every confidence that the Director will handle personnel matters.
Commissioner Guinnane said he would like to put the issue forward to a vote. Vice-President Hood said that she would first like to hear from the Director and the public on this matter. Commissioner Walker stated that this was not an agenda item. Vice-President Hood said that she understood that this was Agenda Item 10 a, inquiries to staff and that is the agenda item she was under. Commissioner Walker said that the Commission could not really have a discussion about it. Vice-President Hood stated that she was asking the Director a question. President Fillon said that he was trying to get a professional opinion on whether or not the Commission can pursue this issue. Vice-President Hood said that the issue has come up about allegations from various sources, including the press about various staff members, and asked if the Director would be comfortable addressing the follow-up to those allegations under his direction. Director Chiu stated that he takes all types of allegations seriously and stated that it was his duty to look at all allegations, whether they are verbal or in writing. Director Chiu said that it is his duty, and he will continue to look into any allegations about any of the employees in his Department. Vice-President Hood asked if the Director thought it would be worth while to have a Closed Session to hear about what the Director is doing about the situation. Director Chiu said that he wanted to defer to Ms. Boyajian. Ms. Boyajian said that she would say it would be an evaluation of Director Chiu. Vice-President Hood said that she understood that, but would put it as a question and not something that she is advocating. Commissioner Walker said that she would say that it is very iffy to get into this. Commissioner Walker stated that if the Commission had the authority to make personnel decisions, it makes sense, but she would ask if the Commission could get some sort of determination that Director Chiu is doing something. Vice-President Hood said she did not need a Closed Session to know that. Commissioner Walker stated that the Commission does not make decisions about personnel, as interested as she is to know what is going on, the Commission either does or does not make these decisions and that is her feeling
about it. Commissioner Walker stated that she does not know how to deal with people coming up and making allegations, except to say that it is out of the Commission’s jurisdiction and to direct people to whatever investigations are going on.
Commissioner Guinnane stated that he would strongly urge a Closed Session, as this has been going on for years, these allegations. Commissioner Guinnane said that, furthermore, he has been hearing all kinds of allegations with the City Attorney and Mr. Torres-Gil and he would like to ask a lot of questions, and the only way to ask them is in a Closed Session. Commissioner Guinnane emphasized that he wanted to get a look at the prior report that was done. President Fillon said that this would also give a history as to what has been going on over the years. However, President Fillon said he was not comfortable with discussing this in an open forum and a Closed Session would be a special meeting and would not waste the time of a regular meeting. Commissioner Marks stated that she felt that the Closed Session would become a gossip or witch hunt session and would like to end this, as it is getting to the point of harassment of staff. Commissioner Marks said that she wanted to make a motion that she has confidence that Frank Chiu is handling personnel matters and it is none of the Commission’s business, and would like to make a motion that there not be a discussion in Closed Session. Mr. O’Donoghue made reference to Robert’s Rules of Proedures from the audience. Commissioner Walker stated that she was not sure whether a motion could even be entered at this time. Commissioner Walker said she believed that the Commissioners could ask information from staff, but cannot vote on what goes on the agenda, but can ask for agenda items. Commissioner Walker stated that this was not an agenda vote. Ms. Boyajian stated that she thought the Commission could take a vote on the procedural question of putting an item on the agenda, but that should come under 10b. Ms. Boyajian stated that she would like to go back and research the Closed Session question issue and it may turn out, that even though the Commission would dearly love a Closed Session, it may not be possible. President Fillon asked Ms. Boyajian to research this issue and get back to the Commission. Ms. Boyajian said she would.
President Fillon asked Ms. Boyajian to look into the issue of Commissioner’s conduct during public comment and get back to him with whatever information she could find. President Fillon stated there were some things that happened at today’s meeting which he would like verified, as he believes it is his prerogative to allow a member of the public to speak. President Fillon stated that this has always been allowed by this Commission, no matter how crazy it is whatever somebody is saying, a member of the public should have their three minutes. President Fillon asked Ms. Boyajian to look into what kind of repercussions could be taken against Commissioners who cross the line. Ms. Boyajian asked if President Fillon wanted her to report back at the next meeting, or just give him a call. President Fillon said to just call him.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that he was referring to Item 10a and the discussion. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he was getting perturbed over the tendency of this Commission to begin now to go into matters of secrecy on questions, which are properly before the general public and already have been in the newspaper. Mr. O’Donoghue said these issues have also been included in radio discussions and television. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that at the last meeting, he requested and stated before his request, that the press has the right to know what is going on. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that things cannot be held on a unilateral basis. Mr. O’Donoghue said that today, he was not surprised to see his right to be uninterrupted under public comment, be denied and said that he would be willing to go to jail for that, as he has done so in the past. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he considers it a point of honor
because the questions of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech was already challenged by an Irishman called spitting Matt Lyne. Mr. Lyne was the first person jailed under the alien sedition laws upon which when he challenged it in court. He was found to be Constitutionally proper and the President of this country and the Congress were found in derogation of the Constitution. Mr. O’Donoghue said he was not surprised, coming from the source from which it came from. Mr. O’Donoghue said that we all come from different cultures, he where he challenges authority, where he would spit in the eyes of emperors and kings. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he would do the same here today. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he put a question to the Director at the last meeting and nothing was put on the calendar, and also the City Attorney’s Office could be involved in a cover up. Therefore, Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was requesting that the Commission look into this issue as a Commission, but it may have to go to outside counsel, which he stated he has already sought. Mr. O’Donoghue asked what has happened to a full report on the report that was leaked to the press, which was subsequently to Mr. O’Donoghue’s understanding, found to be a fraudulent report. Mr. O’Donoghue asked what is happening to the three people who countersigned that report, and what action is being taken against them. Mr. O’Donoghue said this is the proper subject, of inquiries to staff and about staff. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he did not care that the City Attorney says that this is not a matter for the Commission because people already have been defamed in the public. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that one of the Commissioners, herself, made a statement to the public saying that the Commission would get to the bottom of this, and make sure that things like this are not happening. Mr. O’Donoghue said the debate is already on and said that he believed Commissioner Guinnane is right and said that the Commission made his day because the subject was free speech and said that he is coming full bore down the hill, whether Commissioner Marks likes it or not. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he understood Commissioner Marks’ whole tendency to be Madame Empress, but she was not going to be allowed this without challenge. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he takes flam from the press and they have the right to flam him. Mr. O’Donoghue said he has never criticized the press for it, but gets in their face over it, just as he gets in the Commission’s face. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if you cannot take the heat, get off of the Commission.
Commissioner Marks said that she had a comment to make. Commissioner Marks stated that she felt upset about the fact, first of all, that President Fillon tried to cut off discussion by Commissioner Walker, claiming that she was making unfounded allegations about personnel. However, Commissioner Marks said that President Fillon interrupted individuals that were making public comment by saying that the comments they were making were out of the jurisdiction of the Commission. Commissioner Marks stated that she certainly respected the second. However, she did not respect the fact that President Fillon would permit someone, like a Joe O’Donoghue, to stand up and make unfounded allegations, go beyond his three minutes consistently, make comments that are totally out of the Commission’s jurisdiction, and not interrupt him. Commissioner Marks said that President Fillon permitted Joe O’Donoghue a different treatment, than he permitted even the treatment of the other Commissioners. President Fillon said he did not agree with Commissioner Marks.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to say that the Commission needs to stick to the calendar and that Item 10b was future meetings and agendas. Commissioner Marks stated that she was giving direction to President Fillon about future conduct at meetings. President Fillon said he was not accepting her direction. Commissioner Marks said that she would like President Fillon to treat members of the public fairly.
Vice-President Hood stated that she would like to have a future agenda item be a review of how meetings are conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order and the Rules and Procedures of the BIC. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to have a consultant present at the meeting to go over these rules and especially to address issues that have been a problem, and if necessary to add or change some rules that include one Commissioner not interrupt another, and for Commissioners not to speak unless they are addressed by the Chair. Vice-President Hood said that in the past there has been a more relaxed form of conducting the meetings, but there is an underlying animosity on some of the agenda items, which makes civil discourse much more formal than has been the case. Therefore, Vice-President Hood said she believed the Commission needed a review of the Rules and even to tighten them up further, if necessary. Commissioner Walker stated that it might be prudent, at the same time, to address what is the jurisdiction and reach of the Commission and what if the information that is being presented is beyond that.
b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.
Commissioner Guinnane asked if there could be an opinion back from the City Attorney regarding the Torres-Gil report and an opinion on a Closed Session.
Vice-President Hood asked if she could get together with the Secretary sometime between now and the next meeting to go over Robert’s Rules of Order so the Commission would not be starting from point zero. President Fillon said that Robert’s Rules, and conduct of meetings and rules of City Commissions are in booklets and asked the Commissioners to read them themselves. Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted this to be an agenda item because she felt the meetings were going badly. President Fillon said there could be a short discussion, but felt it was a waste of time. Vice-President Hood stated that she felt the Commission needed to really formalize this issue. President Fillon said he did not want to waste time teaching people how they should act, and what proper conduct is. Vice-President Hood said that the rules need to be enforced more stringently, as the meetings are not going smoothly. President Fillon said it was up to the Deputy City Attorney to enforce those procedures. President Fillon stated that it was up to the Commissioners to familiarize themselves with City procedures, and if those procedures are not followed then to suffer the consequences. Vice-President Hood stated that in the past, one of the rules and procedures that has been enforced, is that any member of the Commission may request an item to be put on the agenda and that the President is obligated to put that item. Vice-President Hood said she was requesting that this item be put on the agenda. Vice-President Hood stated that she would also point out, that in the past, when new Commissioners have come on board, there has been, on an annual basis, training in these items and it has lead to more cordial meetings and a greater level of congeniality. Vice-President Hood said this needs to be done in order to have meetings that run smoothly, and to present opportunities for the public to speak freely. Vice-President Hood pointed out that it was very bad that Mr. O’Donoghue was allowed to be interrupted, but she does not have the answer to the questions that has been rightly asked of the City Attorney’s Office. Vice-President Hood stated that the Commission needs to go over these things and a refresher course is needed. Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to add that any other Commission meeting she has attended, the Commission Chair does not allow
personal attacks from anyone and said that it would go a long way toward changing the tenure of the Commission’s behavior if this is not allowed. President Fillon stated that it is very difficult when someone is making a complaint, with the nature of this Department where someone is making an allegation of wrongdoing by some party to interrupt the public. President Fillon stated that, as Commissioners everything should be based on fact and not on broad terms. President Fillon said that the Commissioners have more information than the public and more of a legal responsibility, so there is more pressure for the Commissioners to have their facts straight. Commissioner Walker said, absolutely, but she also thought that one can attack the process and question how it went through the Department without it automatically carrying on or being talked about as if it were a personal attack against anyone in particular. Commissioner Walker stated that she thought the jurisdiction of the Commission is about the processes that are carried out through the Department, but not about personnel and there is a difference. President Fillon said that the Commissioner was off of the agenda.
Vice-President Hood stated that she would like to include as an agenda item that the Commission add as one of the rules and procedures, the rule that, at least as Commissioners, no disparaging personal comments are made about any people speaking or about each other. Vice-President Hood said that this is very good policy and it has existed at the Board of Permit Appeals which deals with the same issues that this Commission often has to confront. Commissioner Walker said that this is also requested of the public and a statement is made about this issue at the beginning of the meeting. Vice-President Hood said this information is printed on the materials that are handed out to the public at the Board of Permit Appeals and it makes for a more cordial hearing. Commissioner Santos said that the President had already requested that he receive information about Commissioner’s conduct from Ms. Boyajian. Vice-President Hood said this was a different matter, about what you can say about another person that is on a personal level. Vice-President Hood stated that the Commissioners could criticize what someone was doing, but cannot cast dispersion. Vice-President Hood said she has seen the Board of Permit Appeals well conducted and felt that a refresher course needs to be done.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said he was going to save his comment, until he found out that there was no second public comment on the agenda. Mr. O’Donoghue said that previously there was public comment at the beginning of the Commission calendar and again at the end. This suddenly disappeared. Mr. O’Donoghue asked if he was going to be out of order because he was questioning where that second public comment went to, or is this another indication of paranoia, or a constraint on the freedom of comment or freedom of speech.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to put on the agenda an item that looks at the number of public comments that appear on the agenda and thought that there might be a rule stating that there needs to be two public comments. Commissioner Walker said that there need be only one item for public comment. Vice-President Hood said she thought it might have been dropped inadvertently. Ms. Boyajian said that only one public comment item was legally required. This issue was discussed after the previous meeting.
Mr. O’Donoghue said that only one may be legally required, but the Commission should still be required, before any calendar change is made, to go through a process of full public discussion on that item. Ms. Boyajian said that she knew that, but was just giving the Commission some legal advice. Mr. O’Donoghue said that everyone knows that only one is legally required, but his questions is does
he have a right to public comment today on this matter even though it does not appear on the calendar. Ms. Boyajian said that she did not who was going to stop Mr. O’Donoghue. Vice-President Hood stated that she believed that question could be raised under Item #10b, future items and agendas.
Mr. O’Donoghue said that on the item of public comment, he was commenting on the commenting. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Board of Permit Appeals runs great meetings and it is a fact that they have asked the public to put a constraint on their remarks. Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is hard for the public to put a constraint on their comments, and there has never been an outburst on the Board of Permit Appeals. However, the same cannot be said of that Commission when Commissioner Marks was on the Board of Permit Appeals, and that is not a personal remark, that is a matter of historical fact. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was never interrupted, except once when he challenged the Commission at the Board of Planning, when a member of the public, Bok Pon, who is one of the founders of a neighborhood organization out in the Sunset, was interrupted during public comment. Mr. O’Donoghue said at that time he stood from the audience and stated that President Bierman was out of order and told her that she could not interrupt the speaker, just as you cannot interrupt someone on the floor of Parliament. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this is not done. The Commission may not like what someone is saying, but Mr. O’Donoghue quoted Voltaire, who said he disliked everything that was said about Zola, but defended his right to say it. Mr. O’Donoghue said if you can’t take the heat, and no personal remarks have been made directed toward the Commissioners, except in response to when the Commission drops the ball, either unintentionally to the press and it impacts, as it has done, the reputation of the Department, employees and the public, then the Commission is going to get a fast ball directed at them verbally. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he verifying this in case someone says that O’Donoghue threatened someone with a bomb or a grenade or something else. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if Commissioner Marks went back to the record, she would find out that very, very rarely has he ever exceeded the three minutes. Mr. O’Donoghue said he has it down to a science and he can load more crap into three minutes than the Commission can in three hours and he acknowledges that. Mr. O’Donoghue said it might seem like three hours, and by heavens there is going to be a lot of it in the future. Mr. O’Donoghue thanked the Commission.
11. Adjournment.
Since there was no further business to be discussed, Commissioner Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.
[BIC RESOLUTION NO. 025-00]
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
_____________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Interim Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS | |
Timeliness of Notices of Violation being entered into the computer for Department and public use. - President Fillon |
Page 4 |
Communication from Marcus Armstrong, MIS Manager to President Fillon regarding MIS services, present and future, and a timeline for when those services will be available. - President Fillon |
Page 10 |
Update on 2000 Ulloa Street, Permit issuance and working after hours. - President Fillon |
Page 14 |
Advice from Deputy City Attorney Boyajian regarding release of Personnel File and the issue of having a closed session to discuss same - President Fillon |
Page 21 - 23 |
Review of conduct at meetings, Roberts Rules of Order and BIC Rules - Vice-President Hood |
Page 24 - 25 |
Number of public comment items on the agenda. - President Fillon |
Page 25 |