2.

President’s Announcements.

President Walker congratulated and thanked DBI staff for the great summit that recently took place. President Walker stated that she had attended and hoped that a lot of the Commissioners were able to attend. President Walker said that this was the Department’s second annual summit, which provided workshops on a variety of subject matters to educate the public and the industry with special attention paid to the new codes coming out in January.  President Walker stated that it was wonderful being at the summit with the Director and talking about working with CAPSS and SPUR.

 

3.

Director’s Report.  [Deputy Director Ray Lui]

a.   Status of MIS.

Director Hasenin said that the Department is continuing to work with the MIS staff and operating division staff to make determinations as to the best way to proceed and meet DBI’s automation needs. Director Hasenin stated that he expects that during the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) final report staff would decide how to proceed; whether or not to go with the modifications or enhancements to the existing automation system or initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP), and solicit input from vendors as to what system should be used for the automated tracking process.  Director Hasenin stated that he would have more information by the next BIC meeting in November and would also have the recommendations of the BPR.

b.   Financial Report.

Director Hasenin called on Diane Lim, of the Administration & Finance Division to present the financial report. 

Diane Lim, Administration & Finance Manager, stated that she was presenting a year to date August report which included two months of the fiscal year; at the end of two months, the Department’s revenues are at $6.5 M.  Ms. Lim said that the projected year end amount is $43.6M, which is about a $3.2M surplus of the annual budget.  Ms. Lim stated that at the end of August the Department shows a $5M savings on the expenditure side, but many of the expenses have not yet posted.  Ms. Lim said that this brings the budget to about $44M which is approximately $2.8M less than the annual expense budget.  Ms. Lim stated that in combination with the revenue surplus and expense savings, the Department is hoping to realize a $6.1M year end surplus at the end of the two year projection.

President Walker asked if there was a surplus.  Director Hasenin said that he did not think that July and August could be taken as indicators for the entire year.  Director Hasenin stated that it is a surplus in terms of the budget, because the budget relied on DBI dipping into its savings in advance so it is not a true surplus.  Director Hasenin said that if the Department would continue to work to contain expenditures and increase revenues. Commissioner Murphy asked if there has been a downward trend in applications.  Director Hasenin said that there is an agenda item coming up, 3-d, which deals with trends.  President Walker said that the Department is looking a lot better than when the Commission first started this discussion.  Director Hasenin said that DBI was holding its expenses down as much as possible.  Director Hasenin stated that there are numerous vacancies that have not been filled because the Department needs to be cautious and make sure that only the positions that are absolutely needed are filled.    Commissioner Murphy said he thought that Director Hasenin was doing an incredible job in keeping balance of the ‘bucks’ at the Department.  Director Hasenin said that perhaps when he does the monthly report he will also bring the vacancy rates and report on that as well.

c.   Update on interdepartmental coordination meetings and recommendations.

Director Hasenin said that DBI staff continues to meet with the Planning Department and other Departments throughout the BPR process and regular meetings are held with the Planning Director and the Fire Marshall to discuss common issues and challenges. Director Hasenin stated that he was looking forward to working with the new Planning Director who should be starting in January.  Director Hasenin said that there are some exciting opportunities for streamlining between the two departments which would be good for everyone. 

d.   Update on permit activity and trends.

Director Hasenin presented two charts to the Commissioners based one month-to-month and one on annual revenues to show how the Department is doing.  Director Hasenin stated that for example a line diagram showed FY ’03 all the way to this year indicated an increase in revenues; the Department is projecting $43M again this year, but that is only based on two months.  Director Hasenin said that there has been a little increase in activity but not much.  Director Hasenin stated that the other chart listed quarters of the year since DBI’s business is not only cyclical in terms of year to year, but also the season and month of the year.  Director Hasenin said a good comparison would be to look at the quarterly end compared to that same period of the previous year, so for example April through June indicated that the Department has had a steady increase of revenues from FY ’03/’04 to FY ‘06/’07 looking at it in this quarter.

President Walker asked if over the last two months the Department was reversing a downward trend to possibly go upward.  Director Hasenin said that was exactly right and is a better comparison than the straight line projections because it was compared to the same period last year.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department would continue to chart this and bring the BIC a revised report every month.

Commissioner Theriault said that the cover letter to the financial report seems to indicate the upturn in revenue is primarily from inspection services, and not permits which are less than projected.  Commissioner Theriault asked if there had been a recent turn around of permits that is not reflected in the longer term financial report.  Director Hasenin stated that permit activity is where the increase has been, however the Department has had a decline of 30% or so of its inspection/permit revenues over the last couple of years; this increase is compared to the average revenues and in many cases there can be one, two, or three major projects that can skew the numbers.  Director Hasenin said that DBI is seeing a couple of big buildings that are coming through so staff will continue to monitor and see if this continues as a trend.

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

Director Hasenin stated that this is a question of office space and where the Department could be best located in terms of physical location to best serve its customers.  Director Hasenin said he is looking for a location which has a good working environment for staff and to be able to gather a true permit center where all of the city-wide permit related activities could be in one location.  Director Hasenin stated that the building that the Department of Building Inspection is currently in is not as suitable as he would like for a permit center so the Department is looking at multiple options and one is arranging to look at other buildings. Director Hasenin stated that staff has done some initial visits and looked at some initial numbers to see if they are workable.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is in the early stages and said that as things progress he will report back each month.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked if parking had been taken into consideration.  Director Hasenin stated that one requirement is that there must be parking for the customers that would be designated for DBI customers only.  Director Hasenin said that people would still have to pay, but it would be exclusively reserved for DBI customers.  Director Hasenin stated that the second requirement and his preference is to have the Department’s operation on two or three floors maximum, because having six floors for what is done with numerous customer contacts is not very conducive to doing business.  Director Hasenin said that DBI wants to be located in the general vicinity of City Hall.

 

President Walker asked if there was a lease obligation or a date where it makes sense to transition. Director Hasenin said that fortunately for the Department there is no a lease obligation, and 1660 Mission Street is a City owned building with DBI paying rent to the Real Estate Department.   Director Hasenin stated that the Department was working closely with Real Estate to make that determination of where to go, and said that there are other City agencies that would come in and take over the space DBI has, so the Department would not be paying rent on two buildings.  President Walker asked if staff was looking at other City owned buildings as a priority.  Director Hasenin said that DBI was looking at available space and unfortunately in the area staff is looking at, as far as they have heard from Real Estate  there are not that many City owned buildings that would meet the Department’s needs.  Director Hasenin stated that if DBI moves forward with the proposal he expects it would be twelve to eighteen months to get through the process.

 

4.

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

Mr. Rodrigo Santos, former President of the BIC, said that over a month ago Mayor Newsom requested resignations of hundreds of high ranking City officials and different department heads. 

Mr. Santos said that this bold and controversial move may appear to be unnecessary to some people, but stated his support of Mayor Newsom.  Mr. Santos said that he thought that Director Isam Hasenin has done an impressive job and said he hoped that the Mayor would not accept the Director’s resignation.  Mr. Santos stated that he believed Director Hasenin’s integrity as well as his ability to oversee the process is what certainly led the BIC to choose him as the new leader of DBI.  Mr. Santos said that he wanted to announce the formation of a new group in San Francisco, the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG), formed with the intention of ensuring the responsible growth of San Francisco.

 

Mr. Luke O’Brien stated that he is the inaugural President for the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth, and said he and the other members were present to announce the organization to the world.  Mr. O’Brien asked all of the members of the organization to stand.    Mr. O’Brien said that there was quite a show of support and that the SFCRG was formed because of a perceived disconnect between people that are citizens and those that hold office as members of the government.  Mr. O’Brien stated that the organization feels there is a lack of representation at the government level for a broad range of businesses in this community.  Mr. O’Brien said that the SFCRG wants to do something about that and the members come from all ranges of life, but share common goals and ideas that include everyone.  Mr. O’Brien said that this organization’s goal is to make San Francisco a better place to do business for everyone.  Mr. O’Brien stated that they encourage everyone’s participation which is in the acronym for the name itself, and announced that the organization’s website is www.sfcrg.com. 

 

Mr. Simon Kwan said that he was an architect and a member of SFCRG.  Mr. Kwan stated that he was looking for an organization to share and expand his experiences with and he said he thought that the SFCRG will be the one for him.  Mr. Kwan said that he agrees with Mr. Santos and thinks there is a vast improvement from before, and he encourages the Commission to maximize the potential of the system and include other departments like Planning, the Health Department and the Redevelopment agency.  Mr. Kwan stated that he wanted to suggest the possibility of re-defining the current demolition policy because it is so one-sided, and one set of rules cannot be applied to all projects in San Francisco. 

 

Mr. John Keogan stated that Director Hasenin has gotten praise with some justification, because he has heard through the grapevine that people who use DBI’s services now feel like customers and not a nuisance to be gotten rid of.  Mr. Keogan commended the Commissioners for taking the time and effort to find and appoint the Director.  Mr. Keogan said that he wanted to comment on a couple of points:  Small business and workforce housing.  Mr. Keogan stated that he joined SFCRG because it is going to address the needs and concerns of all stakeholders in San Francisco. Mr. Keogan said that this type of broad based representation has been lacking in the City.  Mr. Keogan stated that there are already many in the group and one of their goals is to make San Francisco a great City in which to do business.  Mr. Keogan said that it goes without saying that SFCRG needs to keep people here in the City and stop the trek to the suburbs.  Mr. Keogan stated that SFCRG will work closely with the Mayor and other politicians and individuals who want to see that trend reversed so that many of the City’s police, fire staff, teachers, nurses, and other essential workers can remain here with their families.  Mr. Keogan said that SFCRG will support and seek out policies to encourage small businesses to prosper and grow their employment base, and the organization will pursue the American dream of homeownership for more than the 39% that can afford it now.

 

Ms. Kelton Finney said that she wanted to lend her support to the new Director of DBI and commend Director Hasenin on his success in reorganizing the Department and his efforts and vision to streamline the permit process by making it more transparent and accessible to the public.

Ms. Finney stated that the Director has done a great job and deserves everyone’s accommodation, and said that she wanted to speak as a member of this new organization to say that she hopes that through the combined efforts of the SFCRG, working with the Director, and politicians that everyone can move beyond the politics that have stagnated efforts in San Francisco and move forward to better this City.  Ms. Finney said that she wanted to speak specifically about the de facto demolition issue and how it ties in with public safety, and how to preserve safe housing.  Ms. Finney stated that right now the City does not do much to encourage people to strengthen their buildings or the physical integrity of those buildings.  Ms. Finney said that while this policy may be designed to try and keep affordable housing, which is a commendable goal, but it goes against the public protection in many ways. 

 

Mr. Bob Noelke stated that he was a retired employee of DBI and was glad to be a member of SFCRG.  Mr. Noelke said that he wanted to address the issues of small property owners and bring the problems into focus and to the Commission’s attention.  Mr. Noelke said that he appreciates the BIC listening and said that the Director has been very helpful to the small property owner’s by coming to speak with them.  Mr. Noelke thanked the Director for the opportunity to serve and lend his expertise. Mr. Noelke stated that the Chief Housing Inspector as well as the Deputy Directors have all reached out to help small property owners and said that the SFCRG is a further way of improving this.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz said that he joined SFCRG because it is not just for developers and builders, but is a transparent organization where anyone can join, such as: artists, homeowners, etc.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that he thought that this organization was going to be a voice for everyone and make a better City for everybody to live in.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that he was at DBI and had submitted plans with structural calculations and it was a large amount of calculations so he was hoping to get a plan check over-the-counter, but the plan checker said it was going to take more than an hour so it had to be logged in.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that he was pleasantly surprised that he got the plans back in about one week.

 

Ms. Patty Woods stated that she was a realtor who lived in the City and said that she would like to think of herself as a younger demographic of the SFCRG.  Ms. Woods said that something that excited her about the group was that the organization would bring hope to those first time home buyers and would try to bring members to San Francisco instead of having them move out to Sacramento and other places.  Ms. Woods stated buying a house in San Francisco is unattainable for many of her friends who are third, fourth, and fifth generations of San Franciscans and love the City and support the S.F. Giants and the S.F. 49ers, but are not able to buy a house in the City.

 

Ms. Anna Domingo said that she works in the real estate business in the City, and is a person that had to move out of the City because of the affordability of the housing.  Ms. Domingo stated that she is unable to afford living in San Francisco and is excited to be a part of the SFCRG.

 

5.

Discussion and possible action regarding the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) [Director Hasenin]

Director Hasenin introduced those members of his Executive Management Team that were present:  Ms. Vivian Day, Manager of Permit Services Center; Mr. Raymond Lui, Manager of Plan Review Services; Mr. Jeremy Halisey, Assistant to the Director; and Mr. Sean McNulty, Manager of Inspection Services and temporary Manager of Housing Inspection and Code Enforcement Divisions.  Director Hasenin stated that the managers performed the following duties:

• Vivian Day manages permit intake, applications and issuance, over-the-counter processes, and related services.
• Raymond Lui manages plan checking for the Building Code, Mechanical Codes, and all associated services
• Jeremy Hallisey is the latest addition and he will be Assistant to the Director managing the inner agency department operations and cooperation and implementation plan for the very aggressive BPR with those recommendations coming out in a month or so.
• Mr. Sean McNulty is an “old timer” that agreed to come back and manage the Inspection Services for the Department: Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, & Electrical.  Mr. McNulty is also currently serving as the temporary manager for the Housing Inspection and Code Enforcement Divisions.

Director Hasenin stated that the Department has a strong Executive Management Team and said that he looked forward to working with them and the Commission on the improvement and streamlining of the Department.  Director Hasenin said that the Department is continuing to work on the BPR and that there was a Steering Committee meeting that afternoon to hear the recommendations from three of the sub-committees.  Director Hasenin said that the Steering Committee is working on recommendations for the BPR, and said that he should be able to give the BIC a report and presentation at the November meeting.  Director Hasenin stated that he would be asking that the BIC give the BPR their recommendation of approval, and would then be forwarding it to the Mayor for his approval as well.  Director Hasenin said that once this is done the Department will hopefully have its road map for the next two or three years to continue the process of improving and streamlining the permit process.

 

President Walker said that she has had the opportunity to sit in on some of the BPR meetings and said that it is an amazing process.  President Walker said that she wanted to applaud the staff.  President Walker said that this was a huge undertaking and to reiterate some of what was heard from the public, the processes within the Department are improving and customer service is being provided in a way that it has not been in a while.  President Walker stated that it was impressive that the Director was restructuring the process each day, and making the customer service better.

 

Director Hasenin stated that he had received tremendous support from over 100 staff members that participated on different committees and gave input and feedback.  Director Hasenin said that a number of partners in the industry and the community have participated and have come to the committees and invested a tremendous amount of time. President Walker said other departments that are key in the BPR process are the Planning Department, DPW, and the Assessors Office.  Director Hasenin stated that everyone has come to the table ready and prepared to look at other ways of doing business.  President Walker asked if the Planning Department had modified their routines to address some of the processes that DBI is going through.  Director Hasenin said yes there have been ongoing separate tracks, but now there are recommendations that are coming out for implementation to see if there are areas that need to meet improvements.  Director Hasenin stated that Planning has been supportive and cooperative and there have been a few changes made that have had a tremendous impact on the customers.  Director Hasenin said that for example there was a previous signer/planner currently with DBI performing different functions.  Director Hasenin stated that the Planning Director agreed to let him approve Planning issues without having to send the plans to the Planning Department.  Director Hasenin said that the staff continues to look at items for immediate improvement.

 

Commissioner Grubb said that the Director has done an incredible job, and when everyone looks at where DBI was with the whole I.T. project this time last year and where the Department is today it is nothing short of breathtaking.  Commissioner Grubb stated that Director Hasenin getting the involvement and the buy-in and engaging the staff in designing this process is going to be critical to its working well. Commissioner Grubb thanked Director Hasenin and the DBI staff for all of their efforts, and said that he has gone through this process himself and it is a big chunk of time out of everybody’s busy schedule but it is such a critical and necessary step in this process.

6.

Discussion and possible action to respond to the Small Business Advocates’ letter dated September 5, 2007 regarding Executive Orders from Mayor Newsom to accommodate small business owners.

President Walker stated that she requested this item to be agendized because she thinks it is really an important area of attention as some of the public mentioned earlier to make sure that small       businesses are kept here in San Francisco instead of moving outside of the City.  President Walker said that the Mayor has clearly made this a priority and said she thought that there are already ongoing things in the Department that are assisting small businesses but she would like to see if the Commission could get an overview of what the Department is doing in response to this to make sure that DBI is helping out the small business employers in the City. 

 

Director Hasenin said that this was two-fold, DBI being a department of the City that is complying with the directive in terms of how to contract services that are used from the outside.  Director Hasenin stated that DBI follows all the procedures in the City and part of that is encouraging small business.  Director Hasenin said that as a permitting agency DBI is looking at small businesses as a key component of the City and a stakeholder that typically needs more help with the process.  Director Hasenin said that they are typically not familiar and may do it once in their life on a small budget and time is of the essence for them, so for all these reasons it is typically helpful to have a process in place to help them navigate. Director Hasenin stated that one of his goals is to have a small business liaison that would act as a help when customers run into permitting issues or challenges.  Director Hasenin said that one of the assignments of the Assistant to the Director is to coordinate in terms of how to better serve the small business community.  Director Hasenin stated that he takes this very seriously and knows it is an area that needs help, especially in San Francisco where previous speakers said that there are a large number of small businesses in the City.

 

President Walker stated that she is a member of the Arts community and a lot of her fellow artists are small businesses, and often times do not have the ability or the opportunity to do work in the Building Department so it is really important to have a common place to come when a person initially has questions.  President Walker said that she knows it is a real big deal in that community so she appreciates it, and she knows there is interest.  President Walker stated that she believes there is interest, in the election cycle, to create a Small Business Commission specifically because of all the permit requirements; not just in DBI but just getting a license to do business and sales tax.  President Walker said that there are many different places someone has to go to get up to speed to do business in San Francisco, so anything DBI can do to help would be good.  President Walker stated that she thinks the BPR is aimed at the individual user to make sure people have equal access to the Department’s services.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that DBI is privileged to have a Director that understands small business owners, and said that it seems that the Director has surrounded himself with people that know “where the rice grows”.  Commissioner Murphy stated that he would like to see that in the Planning Department, because they do not understand small business or small homeowners at all.

 

Commissioner Theriault asked if there was a liaison to small businesses.

 

Director Hasenin said that there was not, but stated that he was waiting for the BPR to conclude and then his goal is to have a designated supervisory level staff within DBI to be a single point of contact for small business when it comes to challenges or difficulties.

 

Commissioner Theriault asked if it was the Director’s perception that, that same person would fulfill the outline of the liaison on an ongoing basis.

 

Director Hasenin stated yes that person would coordinate.

 

President Walker said that one of the things she has been talking with people about is the greening of the construction industry and said that small businesses that are probably less connected with those projects.  President Walker stated that it would be interesting as the City moves towards that exciting field of green construction.

 

Commissioner Theriault stated that having heard the Director’s assurances that he is waiting for the BPR to establish a liaison for the Small Business Commission position, he is not looking for an action date but he is looking forward to seeing the outcome of that process.

 

President Walker said that she thought in the interim the new Assistant to the Director might be able to answer some of the Commissioners questions.  President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz stated that he had a couple of words to say about the idea of small businesses.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that he thinks it is wonderful and he commends the Department for doing this.  Mr. Karnilowicz stated that he is the President of the South of Market Business Association, and owners and so many businesses have a difficult time understanding the process of permits and what it takes, so this is a great thing to do and a good step forward.

7.

Update on the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) to include discussion and possible action regarding the UMB/Seismic Safety Loan Program and converting the money to the Soft-Story Program. [Deputy Director Lui]

Deputy Director Ray Lui said that he and the Director were excited about re-instatement of the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS), and on October 11^th they met with the soon to be reconstituted Core Group Advisory Committee.  Mr. Lui stated that everyone was excited about where CAPSS will go since it is getting started again, and said that he and Director Hasenin will be negotiating with Applied Technology Council (ATC), the vendor for this project, in terms of scope and cost and will bring that information to the advisory committee.  Mr. Lui spoke about CAPSS in coordination with other programs occurring in the City, and one of those is the Soft Story Wood Frame Program which would tie in with the San Francisco Urban Research Association (SPUR).  Mr. Lui said that SPUR has initiated committees to discuss emergency response, mitigation, and recovery and Kris Poland is leading the effort for the mitigation program.  Mr. Lui stated that some of SPUR’s efforts are mirrored by the original plan of the CAPSS Program, so DBI needs to coordinate and combine this information.  Mr. Lui said that he has started to inquire about the UMB Seismic Safety Loan Program, and is trying to find out how much money was appropriated and how much is left over. Mr. Lui stated that with the help of the City Attorney’s Office he is trying to figure out if the money is transferable. 

 

President Walker stated that it was wonderful to have the CAPSS group get together, and she has also been involved in some of the SPUR discussions, primarily the mitigation groups.  President Walker said that it is an exciting time and a lot of people in the industry are anxious for CAPSS to get going.  President Walker thanked Director Hasenin and Mr. Lui for shepherding the coming together of these processes.  President Walker stated that she hoped the Department could use the UMB funds, but it may have to go back on the ballot and could be a cumbersome process.  President Walker said that she and the Commission are supportive of the collaborative efforts of DBI in relation to the CAPSS Program, and asked for any Commissioner’s suggestions.

 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy that the Building Inspection Commission could make a general recommendation that any leftover funds from the UMB Seismic Safety Loan Program be moved forward to other seismic uses.

 

President Walker stated that the BIC could probably entertain a motion to that effect in order to make sure that the Commission empowers the Department. 

 

Commissioner Sattary said that he was still trying to understand the big picture of CAPSS, since Deputy Director Lui said there was a meeting and everybody has an idea of how to move forward.

Commissioner Sattary asked what are the next milestones or benchmarks that the Department wants to reach.

 

Deputy Director Ray Lui stated that he was not sure if he could give Commissioner Sattary milestones, but he could present the big story of CAPSS:

• CAPSS Program started in 2000 and there was a draft report done.
• The first milestone would be to complete the report.
• Seismic repair triggered after an event (establish guidelines such as what is the trigger mechanism needed in order to require a full seismic upgrading of the building).
• Recommendations for additional seismic retrofitting if necessary for certain types of buildings.
• In early drafts of the CAPSS report one of the recommendations was for soft story buildings.
• CAPSS looked at several recommendations and how to implement such programs.
• Recommendations or incentives to help the soft story program.
• Scoping issues are still under discussion with ATC.

 

Director Hasenin commended President Walker for getting this group together and moving CAPSS forward, and said that they are in the process of reinstituting an advisory committee that worked on CAPSS and DBI is looking forward to their cooperation and input towards getting to the next phase.  Director Hasenin clarified that CAPSS ties into other efforts taken on by other groups in the City such as: SPUR, and other committees that have related issues so the Department is trying not to duplicate efforts.  Director Hasenin said that he would come back to the Commission in the next few months with a more concrete proposal. 

 

President Walker reiterated points about SPUR and other organizations’ discussions about transparency, expectation of a building’s performance, different committees, and so on.

 

Commissioner Sattary said that the BIC has updates on CAPSS every month or so and staff discusses it as far as DBI’s involvement, but the BIC does not have control over what private groups are doing.  Commissioner Sattary stated that he wants to make sure that CAPSS is funded and has growth moving ahead without duplicating efforts from other groups.

 

Commissioners went on to discuss the following points: 

• DBI has been trying to re-start the CAPSS Program and outreach needs to be done to people with smaller buildings.
• Issue of small businesses coming up with money.
• It is one thing to reinforce concrete buildings but apartments where tenants are involved are hard to gain access to.
• The City implemented the UMB Program a long time ago.
• The tenant and landlord community got together to come up with a plan for the tenants that were going to be displaced when work was done.

 

Director Hasenin stated that people need to become members of the advisory groups so that they can have representation of apartment builders, tenants, etc.  Director Hasenin said that he already has a commitment from the Mayor’s Office and discussions on how they would help and support DBI to go back to the voters and redirect those moneys to a different program, but the Department is nowhere close to finalizing that.  Director Hasenin stated that this is a big item and DBI needs to move cautiously to ensure success of any program that would be proposed. 

 

President Walker said that she asked some organizations that already work through the CEOP Program to sit on the committees to represent the tenant and building owner communities to help form certain policies, since they would be dealing with a large inventory in the City.

 

President Walker stated that there is a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Theriault that the Commission give a general recommendation that the UMB funds be moved forward to serve for the other programs coming out of the CAPSS Report.  President Walker called the motion.

 

The motion passed unanimously.

 

BIC RESOLUTION NO. 058-07.

 

8.

Discussion and possible action regarding the Code Enforcement Outreach Program (CEOP) to review expiring contracts and discuss changes to accommodate other focuses. [President Walker]

President Walker said that the Code Enforcement Outreach Program (CEOP) is a very successful program that has been run by the Department for many years.  President Walker stated that the Commission currently needs to recommit these programs, and the BIC has talked about other activities, especially the implementation around the CAPSS Program but also emergency preparation that might make sense as a connection.  President Walker said that Jamie Sanbonmatsu, the Department coordinator of the CEOP Program, would discuss this as a separate issue.

 

Mr. Jamie Sanbonmatsu said that the CEOP Program has been around since 1966, and it has assisted tens of thousands of tenants and landlords to work through issues of housing and code compliance.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu stated that communication and understanding between these two groups is difficult to achieve and this program mediates the serious issues staff face everyday.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu said that CEOP represents the diverse groups of the City in seven languages and provides housing inspectors where difficult issues beyond their purview can be dealt with, so the Department is in the process of reviewing or renewing the program.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu mentioned that the pictures he was going to show the Commission involved communication with owners and tenants problems.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu showed several slides and pictures of serious code violations.

 

Mr. Sanbonmatsu said that the partnership with the Housing Inspection Division helped to make sure everything was addressed in a timely manner, and the CEOP Program was successful. 

 

President Walker stated that she has sat on the Litigation Committee for a while and at those meetings the Commissioners discusses these unresolved problems in multiple resident buildings. President Walker said that the success of the CEOP Program is that they do resolve some of the problems so the Department does not have to litigate them, and if the issues get resolved then the violation goes away because of the counseling between tenants and landlords.  President Walker stated that it is not uncommon to have tenant/landlord issues and it really helps that CEOP can mediate some of the problems because it takes a lot of time, energy, and money to litigate.  President Walker asked how people were referred to the CEOP Program.

 

Mr. Sanbonmatsu said that people usually go to community centers or other programs and those organizations contact CEOP. 

 

Commissioner Sattary asked what was the outreach aspect of the CEOP Program, and if they went to tenants since some of them may not speak the language or be afraid of coming out and raising questions. Mr. Sanbonmatsu stated that the community centers are in various neighborhoods and staff in the program work in these different areas and are available when people need help.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu said that there are organizations in each of the different areas such as: Chinatown, Mission, South of Market, and places with dense population.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu stated that as an example there is a special outreach in Russian that is held in the Orthodox Church in the Richmond district, and the CEOP staff has Asian, Russian, and other language interpreters.  

 

Commissioner Murphy asked if CEOP took the other side into consideration, and questioned what would happen if a landlord came to report that a tenant had a dirty kitchen and bathroom.

 

Mr. Sanbonmatsu said that the San Francisco Apartments Association represents landlords, and said that CEOP would respond to the landlord’s complaint.  Mr. Sanbonmatsu stated that there have also been problems where the landlord tries to fix something and the tenant will not let them have access to the unit, so CEOP uses a couple of different things to try and get that issue resolved. 

 

President Walker stated that the contracts are expiring and her understanding is that the BIC was going to go forward and go through the process of recommitting to the CEOP Program.  President Walker asked if the BIC could entertain a motion of support for the CEOP Program, and Commissioner Theriault said that he would second it.

 

Director Hasenin said that he was not certain why this was something that had to be voted on by the Commission, and asked how the CEOP Program was different than any other contracts that exist in the Department.

 

President Walker stated that this program was initially created by interest of the Commission and it is a matter of ongoing support for it, and said she thought it was the Director’s discretion to issue the contracts but it is just a matter of the BIC voting in support of that.

 

Director Hasenin said that he is in support of the CEOP Program, but just wanted to know who was responsible for what.  Director Hasenin stated that he was concerned that if the Commission votes for this contract he would not want to then have to bring the thousands of things he does everyday to the BIC for a vote.

 

Commissioner Sattary stated that the general parameters of this is a very good program, but once it goes to contracts he did not think any of the Commissioners know the details of the requirements that are involved, so if the issue is to endorse one way or the other about the contracts he would rather leave it to the Director.

 

President Walker said that the issue is not about contracts, but the effectiveness of the program. President Walker stated that the program would not be approved by the Commission but they would just be saying they support it.  President Walker said that she is not meaning to hamstring anything and the Commission is not recommending a specific contract with a specific group, but just showing support for the program the same as they are doing for the Unreinforced Masonry program.

Director Hasenin stated that based on the explanation he did not have any reservations.

 

Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that Director Hasenin was correct in stating that he reviews and approves the contract and her understanding is the Commission was just voicing support for the concept.

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Sean Pritchard of the San Francisco Apartments Association and liaison in the CEOP Program thanked the Commission for their support and said although it is a vote of support and not a judgment call, he thought that what his organization does is important and effective even though they do not have any enforcement power or the ability to punish anyone since that is DBI’s job.  Mr. Pritchard said that the San Francisco Apartments Association are the lighter side of what the Department does and said he appreciates the Commission’s faith in them.

 

Ms. Sarah Short of the Housing Rights Community of San Francisco said if nothing else this has the landlord groups and tenant groups working together so DBI can applaud itself for that. Ms. Short stated that she represents some other tenant groups as well that are not in attendance such as:  St. Peter’s Housing Committee, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, and the Chinatown Community Development Corporation.  Ms. Short said that they all do the CEOP and what it means for them is that when tenants come in with habitability complaints they have some strength in what they do.  Ms. Short stated that they could enlist the Apartment Association to address the issues and talk to the landlords in their language and work with them to feel comfortable in resolving their problems and the tenant’s problems.  Ms. Short said that their organization can use the Department of Building Inspection and its inspectors and they work really well together trying to prevent problems from becoming lawsuits, and also from becoming DBI responsibilities as President Walker mentioned earlier. Ms. Short said that they are able to talk directly to people in the community in their languages, because they have groups that speak Chinese, Russian, Spanish and other languages.  Ms. Short stated that people are comfortable coming to CEOP rather than dealing directly with a government agency that maybe intimidating or hard to access.

9.

APPEALS PURSUANT TO SECTION D.3750.4 OF THE CITY CHARTER

Appeal by Valentino Fazzari - Represented by Joe Alioto Veronese

regarding property located at 770 Powell Street, Permit Application #200105239812 and Director Isam Hasenin’s decision to grant an extension to file for an extension.

• Report, discussion and possible action regarding the Building Inspection Commission’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section D3.750-4 of the City Charter over this appeal.
• Presentation by parties including witnesses.
• Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission.

 

Senior Inspector Ed Sweeney of the Building Inspection Division reported on 770 Powell Street.

Some of the items covered are as follows:

• On May 23, 2001 there was a permit filed to erect a 7 story building, 9 residential units.
• Site was approved in 2004 and $7,100,000 was the cost of the permit.
• Total amount of permit fees have been paid to date
• Under a site permit no work may be started until construction plans have been approved on a $5 million to $20 million project.
• It took 36 months to complete the building permit; it was issued on November 4, 2004 and the applicant would have until 2007 to have all the work completed under the building permit.
• Senior Inspector Sweeney read a portion of the SF Building Code to explain why the extension was allowed.
• Referred to sec. 106.4 of SF Bldg Code & Sec. 106.4.4.7.   
• July 2, 2007 letter sent to previous owner by mistake asking them to file for extension.
• Aug 9, 2007 current owner was sent letter asking them to file for extension

The Commissioners and Director Hasenin discussed the following points:

• Appellant was sent notices that their permit was going to be expired.
• How the six-month date was calculated.
• Work can not be started on a site permit; applicant has to wait until building permit is issued.
• The history of permits on this project.
• Work can only start on the components that have been approved for the project.
• Requirements of the Mechanical Division and Streets Use & Mapping.
• Department is in the final stages of approving the addendums and super structure.

Director Hasenin stated that the term permit is used but the way it works in the Code for San Francisco is there is a site permit, and once that is issued it is not for construction but it is a building permit for the project.  Director Hasenin said that in fact all subsequent actions DBI takes to approve the different phases of construction are called addendums, for example: Foundation, Code Check, Mechanical, and Structural. Director Hasenin stated that these are not actually called permits, but they are all part of this building/site type permit.

 

Mr. Joe Alioto Veronese represented Mr. Valentino Fazzari and he addressed the following points:

• This project has been in its application for 21 years, and Mr. Veronese’s family used to own the building years ago.
• On May 28^th Mr. Veronese sent a letter to the Director asking the permit be expired.
• The Director wrote a letter responding to Mr. Veronese.
• The question is did the permit expire under the law.
• Mr. Veronese asserts that the Director and DBI acknowledged that he was correct in the law, and the permit should have been expired since no work has started.
• The project sponsors are working with lawyers that know the law, and know that if work did not begin by February 23^rd that the permit would expire:  They could have applied for an extension.
• Another Commission in the City has its eye on this property, and wants to hear the case, because of an old environmental impact report
• The building is an important part of City, and it is one of the few single family residences on Nob Hill.

 

Mr. Ki Yun Hwang represented the property owner in this case.  Mr. Hwang discussed the following points:

• The current owner bought the property in 2004 and immediately after buying it obtained a site permit.
• In November 2004 the site permit was obtained and in the last 12 months Mr. Fazzari has filed three separate objections.
• In November Mr. Fazzari wrote a letter to the Zoning Administrator suggesting that the conditional use permit was improperly issued and the Zoning Administrator said it was nonsense and rejected that objection.
• The above rejection was appealed to the Board of Appeals in January 2007, and they upheld the Zoning Administrators action.
• Mr. Veronese said the facts and law support his client, but the letters and facts contradict what he says.
• The permit holder has submitted three separate addenda to the site permit:  Addenda #1 is for excavation & shoring. Addenda #2 is for the foundation, super structure, exterior, architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing.  Addenda #3 is for fire protection and fire alarm.
• When the project first started Y.Y. Chiu was the plan checker and he approved most of the addendas, but he was replaced by Howard Zee who told the owner to re-submit everything previously done so they went from almost being complete to starting from ground zero.

 

Commissioner Theriault said that Inspector Sweeney stated that extensions are fairly common in the history of the Department, and asked if an extension of this sort has ever been contested before and if so what the results were. 

 

Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes replied not to her knowledge, but said that she was not the most knowledgeable person on this topic.  Ms. Barnes stated that she could not dispute the facts from the staff but since the adoption of the charter amendment D3.750-4 the Building Inspection Commission has the authority to enforce the Building Code and that is what the Commission is being asked to do.  Ms. Barnes said that the BIC is being asked to determine whether or not the Director has the authority to allow an application for an extension, and in that regard in addition to all the language that was heard regarding the Building Code itself.  Ms. Barnes stated that she wanted to remind the Commission that City law provides that in the revocation of any permits the permit issuing department has wide latitude; that is in the Business & Taxation Code, Section 26.  Ms. Barnes said that this general exercise of sound discretion is something superior courts repeatedly ruled is proper and within the discretion of DBI in issuing or revoking permits as with any other department in the City;  in addition to what is in the Building Code every permit is discretionary and not strict liability.

 

President Walker said that she appreciates that DBI’s computer system is going to be able to give a little more immediate data so that staff can properly notify customers when expiration dates are coming up.  President Walker asked when there is an expiration that occurs does the Director still have the ability to renew it even after the expiration date. 

 

Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes stated that the question is whether or not that date occurred and took away any rights of the Director.  Ms. Barnes asked President Walker if that is what she was trying to say.

 

President Walker said that she thought there was a law about when things expire so she asked if a permit expires because the date is valid or does it occur when the Director does it.

 

Ms. Barnes stated that she would suggest the BIC has the ability to say the latter and she would suggest when the Commission looks strictly at what they think in the absence of any exercise or discretion there was apparently an appeal to the Board of Appeals which would have had the effect of tolling certain rights under permits.  Ms. Barnes said that she thought there might have been a CEQA appeal that was ultimately unsuccessful but said she was not certain of that.  Ms. Barnes stated that other factors where the City itself did not act expeditiously could be seen as stopping the City from counting those dates.  Ms. Barnes stated that when you say yes there is a certain date – it is hard to know if that can even be calculated.

 

Commissioner Romero asked Ms. Barnes if she could show him the part of the law that is discretionary so he could read it for himself. Ms. Barnes said that she was talking about the Business & Taxation Code, Section 26. Ms. Barnes handed Commissioner Romero a copy to review.

 

Commissioner Theriault stated that the appellant raised some issues that may be in the purview of Planning, and asked if it is within the ability of the Planning Commission to take this project back under review at this point. 

 

President Walker asked if that only happened if a permit expires, because the issue was brought up about some of the provisions of the Planning approval possibly being stale or expired. 

 

Mr. Veronese stated that he and his client did go to the Planning Commission since they thought it could be resolved there, because of the conditional use issue.  Mr. Veronese said that the Planning Commission wanted to act on this but it was not in their jurisdiction because of this issue, so they advised him to come to the Building Inspection Commission, and a couple of the Commissioners said that they wanted the conditional use issue back in front of them.  Mr. Veronese stated that during that meeting, even though it was not in their jurisdiction they asked the Director specifically to please not act on this permit until it came back to them.  Mr. Veronese stated that he is in front of the Commission six months later because of how the process is, and said he was asking the BIC as the City Attorney stated to not allow or set precedence by allowing the Director or any member of the Department to disregard entirely what is in the law because that is the message that would be sent today.  Mr. Veronese said that the statute of limitations of the permit expires at a certain time and if the BIC says anything else they open the door to have this go the same direction with every permit.

 

Secretary Aherne stated that Mr. Veronese had a chance to answer the Commissioner’s question, but he would have three minutes for a rebuttal because it sounded like he was giving his rebuttal.

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he still has not heard the City Attorney’s answer. Ms. Barnes stated that she did not have the facts about all the entitlements for this project, but it sounded like it was a conditional use permit that was issued and contested.  Ms. Barnes said that the Board of Appeals made a ruling and she was not exactly sure what it was, but it sounds like the conditional use permit remains in place.  Ms. Barnes stated that Commissioner Theriault could perhaps ask the project sponsor whose entitlements these are. Commissioner Theriault said that he recalled a specific case that came before the Commission in the last couple of years where the site permit had been issued but they had not proceeded to construction, and Planning did come and resume control over the project.  President Walker stated that this was because the permit was cancelled then the Planning Department wanted to take it back to review it because of a historical district that was put in place.  Mr. Hwang said that during the hearing before the Board of Appeals that case was discussed, but that project sponsor had a site permit and that was eight or nine years old and no work was done and no proposals were submitted, so the Board of Appeals differentiated that case from his case.

 

Commissioner Murphy stated that he was a little confused about what Mr. Veronese said about Planning wanting this back after the BIC rules on it, and asked why they would want it back.

 

Mr. Veronese said that because the environmental impact report is 21 years old and Planning sees that the conditions have changed during that time, but it was not in their jurisdiction because of the site permit. Commissioner Murphy asked if this had anything to do with the extension. 

Mr. Veronese stated that it had to do with many extensions were granted, actually not this extension because it had not happened at the time.  Mr. Veronese said that they knew this extension was in the works because he sent the May 28^th letter and he believes the Planning Commission meeting was in July or August, and they requested that the Director not act and not grant the extension until they had an opportunity to see the permit again, and basically what that means is allowing it to expire by law.

Mr. Veronese covered the following points in his rebuttal:

President Walker asked Deputy City Attorney Barnes to prepare findings for this appeal.

 

10.

Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

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

Commissioner Grubb asked about discussing the results of the Litigation Committee and what actions have been taken in respect to that.

 

President Walker said that the Litigation Committee is being advised by the City Attorney that they can not discuss the actions taken because generally the cases are not disclosed after they are discussed because it is a Closed Session in Litigation.

 

Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said that she can look at the Sunshine Act and said she believed it requires the actions taken to be disclosed at some point where would not do harm to the Department’s litigation.

 

Commissioner Grubb asked if the Litigation Committee members could not disclose the information to the other Commissioners.

 

President Walker said that she did not think so; unless the Commissioner is a member of the Litigation Committee, but the BIC would get advisement from the City Attorney for the next meeting.

 

Ms. Boyajian stated that she would talk to Deputy City Attorney Alex Tse and Deputy City Attorney John Malamut to figure out a system where the full Commission would understand what is going on, without having the specifics of the cases.

 

Director Hasenin said that maybe the full Commission could have a Closed Session on the update of the Litigation Committee. 

 

President Walker stated that she believed the BIC can have a Closed Session on that item, but asked Secretary Aherne to follow up and make sure.

 

 

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

President Walker said that the next regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission would be on Wednesday, November 21, 2007.

 

11.

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

The Brown Act forbids a Commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment the Commission is limited to:

 

(1)

responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

 

(2)

requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

 

(3)

directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.  (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

 

There was no public comment.

 

Adjournment.

 

Commissioner Grubb made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Sattary.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

 

BIC RESOLUTION NO. 060-07.

                                                  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

__________________

Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

Edited by,

 

 

__________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary