2.

President’s Announcements.

 

President Walker said that she wanted to thank the Department for coordinating a lot of the functions that took place to commemorate the 1906 earthquake last month, especially those functions that educated San Franciscans about the ongoing threats of earthquakes and what the Department is doing.

 

3.

Director’s Report.

• Update regarding signage/ billboards.

Acting Director Lee said that this item was going to appear on the agenda in the future, but said that she wanted to give a recap of recent happenings.  Ms. Lee said that DBI along with the Planning Department received a lot of complaints regarding illegal billboards.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department is working with Planning and with Supervisors Peskin’s Office on two key pieces of legislation.  Ms. Lee said that DBI has eleven cases in all and three have been forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office for litigation as they pose structural hazards.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department is working with the Planning Department until Planning decides the legal use of the billboards in terms of the Planning Code review; DBI wants a mechanism to be sure the signs are structurally sound and if needed, to issue building permits to deal with the structural issues.

 

• Update on DBI’s recent activities.

 

Ms. Lee thanked Laurence Kornfield, Vernon Takasuka, Ron Tom and other key staff for their activities with the earthquake centennial and said that it was a great opportunity for the Department to educate the City of San Francisco and make the public realize how important DBI is in case of such an event.   

 

Ms. Lee said that she would be giving an oral report on what the Department has been doing over the last couple of weeks.

 

Ms. Lee reported that she attended a high level meeting with the Mayor, State, Federal and other City Officials on Home Land Security Activities that was coordinated by Ann Marie Conroy of Office of Emergency Services (OES).  Ms. Lee stated that the participants took part in three scenarios that included emergencies involving viruses, terrorist’s attacks and earthquakes and the City’s response to those happenings.  Ms. Lee said that this would be an ongoing project. 

 

Ms. Lee said that the Department had been very busy the past couple of weeks because of all the rain and said that the Department was monitoring several properties, but had only red tagged one building and an adjacent property received a yellow tag.  Ms. Lee stated that DBI had met with several homeowners to try and stabilize a hillside and to help them with building better retaining walls for the future.

 

Ms. Lee said that the Department had three requests for emergency demolitions and said that one would probably come before the Commission in the near future as an appeal and said that staff was working with Planning to expedite the demolition of the other two because of the heavy rains.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that regarding the report about the 911Security what should have been mentioned was that the City came in for criticisms in the press and said that holding meetings is not enough.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that San Francisco is not ready for a disaster and said that San Francisco got the highest budget of any City or State in the entire Country.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it started with $9M, then went to $14M and then to $21M.  Mr. O’Donoghue aid that audits have shown that all is not well and good here as the public safety is at issue.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that having meetings with meaningless scenarios carried out is not the answer, as the City has to do more hands on with the private sector, PG&E and union leaders.

 

4.

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

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz thanked Silvia Thai for having a sufficient person on staff to handle a problem he was having with a special inspection.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association (RBA) said that prior to the seating of this Commission over the last eight or ten years on every calendar there was an item regarding correspondence that was received by the Commission since the last meeting.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that now this item has disappeared from the agenda and said that this was a control of information.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that one of the things when this Commission was structured was that the public had a right to know and a right to be informed as to all aspects of how this Department and Commission was functioning.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that controlling information is a disaster that happens in a democracy.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that maybe this item disappeared because one of the letters that came in critiqued an item that would be on the meeting later.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is bad enough that San Francisco is running government through headlines in the newspapers and now there is an attempt to control what is said in Commissions.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that this is a bad thing for the people of San Francisco.

 

5.

Discussion of contract terms and questions from Controller’s Office; possible action to approve contract regarding the BIC’s search for a permanent Director of DBI.  [President Debra Walker] – continued from April 3, 2006

 

President Walker said that the process for the choice of a permanent Director for DBI began last year as the previous Director stepped down and at that time the Commission appointed Amy Lee as Acting Director.  President Walker stated that there were many action items in the process of going through this search including job description, and the drafting and choosing of a contractor; the contractor was chosen by the previous Commission and the terms were laid out.  President Walker said that those terms were actually not met as the Commission was going to go through a four-month process last year and that timeframe has long gone.  President Walker said that this process was now before the Commission and said that since the Department is undergoing a lot of reformation, especially relating to the computer system she wanted to look at the timing of this contract and when the Commission wants to begin and end it.  President Walker called on the Commissioners for comments.

Commissioner Hirsch said that it had now been fourteen or fifteen months since this issue has been in the works and said that he did not want to see any more delays.  Commissioner Hirsch said that the timeline would have to be changed because there was only two months left on the contract.  Commissioner Hirsch said that other than that he could see no reason to delay the signing of the contract with Bob Murray & Associates. 

 

Commissioner Theriault asked if any contract had been signed and if the dates would be correctable.  Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said no contract had been signed so the timeline could be changed.  Commissioner Theriault asked what the timeline for the Information Technology (IT) revamp for the Department would be.  Ms. Lee said that she expected it to start by the end of the year.  Commissioner Theriault stated that he was inclined to allow the IT process to move farther forward before engaging in a search for a potential replacement.  Commissioner Theriault said that he would entertain a delay in the contract. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that he would respectfully disagree as he felt that this issue has been going on for some eighteen months and said that he thought the search for a permanent Director could move forward while the IT was being put in place.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he was not casting any aspersion or opinion on Ms. Lee as Acting Director, but stated that the Department needed a permanent Director. 

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he did not agree with Commissioner Theriault or Commissioner Hirsch as this contract was for $40,000.  Commissioner Murphy said that the Department is in need of cars and $40,000 could purchase two cars.  Commissioner Murphy stated that there are qualified people within the Department and anyone coming into the Department from Seattle or New York would need two or three years of catch up time to know for what is going on in San Francisco. Commissioner Murphy said that there were half a dozen qualified people working at DBI that are capable of running the Department.  Commissioner Murphy stated that this was his personal opinion.

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that this was his attitude fifteen months ago, but for some reason the Commission wanted to hire and now wants to start all over. 

 

Commissioner Romero said that he was on the Commission from the beginning of this process and said that he hates starting a process and then dropping it.  Commissioner Romero suggested moving the start date of the contract to June 1, 2006 simply because nothing would happen for at least a month. 

 

Commissioner Grubb said that as far as the IT project he was going to be involved in the process and said that he thought the Department could maintain continuity regardless of who the Director might be. 

 

Commissioner Lee stated that he thought that the Commission should go ahead with this contract to see how others on the outside compare with those people who are qualified within the Department and to get the best person to lead the Department.  Commissioner Grubb said that by doing a national search it would give credence and credibility to the person that is selected for this position.  Commissioner Hirsch said those were exactly the reasons that were set forth in hiring an Executive Search Firm in order to go beyond the Department’s inner circle.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that this was just more drama.

 

President Walker said that she wanted say that she was in support of doing a national search for a permanent Director, but her issue is the timing of the search.  President Walker said that she believed that the leadership of DBI and the morale of the Department are better than they have been in a number of years under the current leadership.   President Walker said that she would propose to put the contract off for six months.

 

Secretary Aherne reminded the Commission that public comment should be heard. 

 

Commissioner Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Theriault that the Commission sign the contract with Bob Murray & Associates in six months.

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he and Commissioner Murphy were in agreement that the Department was running well and said that he looked forward to the process of a National search, but said he would be willing to let the process in place run longer before engaging in that search.

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that he had not heard any good reason for delaying this process and said that at this point Bob Murray & Associates would probably take a walk and then the Commission would have to start all over again in six months.

 

Secretary Aherne stated that she had been keeping Mr. Regan Williams of Bob Murray & Associates in the loop about what was happening at the BIC and said that hopefully the Commission would not have to go through that process again.

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that by putting this off for six months means that it is now two years since this process started and said that he just did not get it.

 

Commissioner Lee said that he agreed that morale in the Department is better and said that there are more people attending Commission meetings and communicating with the Commission.  Commissioner Lee said that he believed that was because the Department has a good Acting Director in place.

 

Commissioner Romero said that he wanted to be sure that this item was not going to come up again in six months to be voted on and revisited at that time.

 

President Walker said that the contract could be signed now with a start date certain in six months.  Commissioner Romero said that he would prefer that.

 

Commissioner Murphy agreed to an amendment to his motion.  The motion was to sign the agreement with Bob Murray & Associates as soon as possible with a start date of November 1, 2006 and an end date of May 1, 2007.

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said when the Mayor announced a change in leadership he gave the public the assurance that a new Director would be appointed within four months and now six months is being added to this process that has taken over fourteen months.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Director of DBI should have a degree in Engineering and several years of Plan Check experience as the Building Officials in other large cities do.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission was playing Russian roulette with the lives and safety of the citizens of San Francisco by not having a qualified person in place in case of a disaster as an inexperienced or unqualified person would not be able to make the tough decisions.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that political decisions are impacting the safety of this City.

 

President Walker called for a vote on the amended motion.

 

The Commission voted as follows:

 

              President Walker                               Aye

              Vice-President Lee                             Aye

              Commissioner Grubb                        Aye

              Commissioner Hirsch                        Nay

              Commissioner Murphy                      Aye

              Commissioner Romero                      Aye

              Commissioner Theriault                    Aye

 

The motion carried on a vote of six to one.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 024-06

 

President Walker announced that she had asked Commissioner Theriault to be the point man for this project.  Acting Director Lee stated that Ms. Taras Madison would be the contact person for DBI.

 

6.

Rehearing Request regarding appeal heard before the Commission on March 20, 2006 by Regan Carroll, Trustee, Trust of Regan Carroll – Represented by Mr. Thomas Lippe, Attorney for the appellant regarding 1179 – 1189 Tennessee Street.

 

Mr. Lippi said that before this item began his client would like to request a change of order of the agenda.  Mr. Lippi said that his client had three items on the agenda and wanted item #7 heard before item #6 so that nothing discussed in item #6 would affect the findings on 1169.  President Walker said that she could see no reason to change the order of the agenda. 

 

Mr. Lippi said that he wanted to make another request and said that the last time he appeared before the Commission no witnesses were sworn and said that he would like that to be done if that was the normal practice of the Commission.  Deputy City Attorney Barnes said that it was not legally required for those testifying to be sworn.  

 

Mr. Lippi said that there were a couple of basis for a rehearing with the primary reason being that he believed there was a legal error because the Commission was operating under the assumption based on legal advice from Ms. Barnes that the Commission could not apply the doctrine of estopple in issuing a permit that did not comply with the Planning Code.  Mr. Lippi said that if that was the Commission’s understanding he wanted the Commission to think about the fact that this is wrong.  Mr. Lippi stated that the BIC has the authority to apply estopple to the issuance of a permit even if it does not comply with the Planning Code.  Mr. Lippi cited a case involving an auto wrecking license, referred to as the Woody Case, in making his argument. 

 

Mr. Lippi said that another reason for a rehearing was the amount of money that Mr. Carroll had spent on this project.  Mr. Lippi said that the records showed that real money, $182,000, was spent after the article (Dogpatch Historic District) took effect in 2003.  Mr. Lippi said that other evidence showed that Mr. Carroll was operating in the same building envelope that the previous owner Mr. Strickland was and Mr. Carroll’s project respects the boundaries of the original agreement that Mr. Strickland had with the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association.  Mr. Lippi said that he had new facts and new law and said that on that basis he would like the Commission to grant a rehearing or at least to be in a position to fully and fairly apply the doctrine of estopple. Mr. Lippi said that estopple “trumps” technical compliance with the Planning Code.

 

President Walker asked for comment from Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes.

 

Ms. Barnes said that she disagreed with both the characterization of the advice that she gave the Commission at the last hearing and the characterization of the law of estopple when it is asserted against the government.  Ms. Barnes stated that estopple is an extraordinary remedy especially when it is asserted against the government and can only be successful when there is a strong public policy in favor of what is being estopped.  Ms. Barnes said that zoning is adopted for the benefit of the public so it is difficult to assert an estopple against existing zoning laws.  

Ms. Barnes referred to case law regarding estopple against the government.  Ms. Barnes stated that she did not think that there was anything presented in this instance that was extraordinary.

Ms. Barnes said that the BIC did not have any specific rules about rehearing and said the Commission could grant a rehearing if the Commissioners thought there was merit to rehearing it again or if the Commission thought that they might come to a different conclusion or that an error had been made.  Commissioner Grubb asked about the appellant’s assertion that the Planning Code did not apply to this particular property because it was new construction. Ms. Barnes said that it is not within the jurisdiction of the BIC to decide how the Historic District zoning laws apply to this project.  Ms. Barnes stated that it was up to the BIC to determine whether a permit was or was not issued for improper reasons.  Ms.. Barnes said that the status right now was that zoning was looking at whether the Historic District lot applies, but zoning was reviewing that issue and that is zoning’s decision and not the BIC’s.  

 

Ms. Barnes explained that the difference with estopple and damages is that there might be a circumstance where damages are appropriate because the City misled someone, but damages do not mean that someone would end up with a building that does not comply with City zoning. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch asked if this was the project that was ready to be issued and after hours Planning came and pulled the application.  President Walker said that was correct as this was the permit that the Building Inspection Department said that it would issue and then the Planning Department pulled it back because of the zoning issues.

 

Mr. Lippi said that he was not in disagreement with Ms. Barnes, but said that he was asking the Commission to actually apply the document of estopple as opposed to ignoring it based on the assumption that it was not an available doctrine because of technical non-compliance with the Planning Code.  Mr. Lippi stated that granting the rehearing would not mean that the Commission would be issuing the permit.

 

Mr. Carroll submitted copies of plans to the Commission.  Mr. Carroll stated that the Zoning Administrator issued a determination that purported to decide that the Historic District did apply, but did so without having done any of the analysis that is required through the process.  Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Lippi focused on the law which is clear, but said that Ms. Barnes focused on estopple and the existence of extraordinary circumstances.  Mr. Carroll said that extraordinary circumstances do apply here and said that he was going to focus on another point, which was the unclean hands of the Department.  Mr. Carroll submitted copies of departmental e-mails relating to this project for the Commission’s review.  Mr. Carroll stated that it was clear from the beginning of this process that all actions by the Department were initiated at the behest of the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association.  Mr. Carroll said that during the approval process of the project he was directed to seek the approval of the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association and said that it was clear that Mr. Corrette was seeking to find a way to throw out this project based on the variance that was approved for Mr. Strickland.

 

At this point in the meeting, President Walker allowed Mr. Carroll an additional minute of time to speak.

 

Mr. Carroll said that on one of the e-mails Mr. Purvis of Planning states that his projects predate the Historic District and that it was Mr. Purvis’ belief that the Historic Ordinance could not be applied.  Mr. Carroll said that then Mr. Corrette issued an e-mail to Ms. Johnson letting her know that the permit was issued on that day.  Mr. Carroll said that Ms. Johnson’s reply was that Planning needed to take this permit back before it went out the door.  Mr. Carroll said that he was never notified by CPB or Planning that there was any problem with his permit and said that it was only when he went to pick it up after having paid the school fees that he was told his permits were taken.  Mr. Carroll said that he thought he had provided sufficient grounds for a rehearing. 

 

Commissioner Grubb said that he thought that this issue should be playing out between the Planning Department and the owner via the Board of Permit Appeals.  Commissioner Murphy asked if anyone was present from the Planning Department to answer questions.  Mr. Mark Luellen of Planning said he would be happy to answer any questions.

 

President Walker asked what the current status of the permit was.  Mr. Luellen said that he was not sure where it was, but said that Planning is reviewing it and does think that Article 10 applies, as any new construction within a Historic District would require a Certificate of Appropriateness.   Acting Director Lee said that she thought this was a Planning issue.  President Walker said that she thought the issue before the Commission was whether or not DBI issued the permit in the first place.  President Walker said that she did not find anything in what was presented that would change her mind.

 

Commissioner Murphy said that he was still uncomfortable with the whole thing as someone got the Building Department to jump into the middle of this issue.  Commissioner Murphy said that builders look forward to getting their permits, but then it came down to the last minute, the school tax was paid and then this contractor was denied his permit. Commissioner Murphy stated that he thought this was ridiculous.

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that he would agree and said that he was troubled by the back door way that this was done.  Commissioner Hirsch said that this permit was ready to be issued and after hours somebody from Planning goes into the Building Department and pulls the drawings back.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he did not like this kind of behavior particularly when it the project seems like it complied with the previous zoning requirements. 

 

President Walker said that the question is whether DBI issued the permit or not.  Commissioner Hirsch said that the question was whether or not to grant a rehearing.  President Walker said that the rehearing has to be based on facts presented today. 

 

Commissioner Romero said that he really hesitated rehashing a meeting where this was discussed and voted on before and said that the issue in his mind was whether or not there was new evidence that was compelling enough to change the vote that the Commission took previously.  Commissioner Romero said that in his mind there was not enough new evidence to warrant a rehearing. 

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he did not think that the Commissioners were in a position as the Building Inspection Commission to make case law with regard to estopple and said that he did not think that the Commission should accept the appeal.  Commissioner Lee said that he thought that the owner’s issues are with the Planning Department and not DBI or the BIC. 

 

Commissioner Murphy asked if the appellant had any new evidence or if a rehearing was granted if it would be the same argument.  Mr. Lippi said that the plans that were submitted were new evidence and showed that there is not a difference in terms of the basic concept for what the building will look like.  Mr. Lippi said that there was also the question of estopple and said that estopple applies the concept of fairness.  Mr. Lippi stated that at the previous hearing the appellant did not have the cost figures to show the amount of expense that Mr. Carroll had incurred. Mr. Lippi said it was not an issue about if the permit was issued, but should it have been issued.  Mr. Lippi said that Mr. Carroll had spent $182,000 because he relied on the City’s process for all these years and then the permit was pulled at the 11^th hour when he was told that Article 10 would apply.  Mr. Lippi said that he thought the Commission should at least agree to apply the concept of estopple.  

 

Commissioner Hirsch made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy that the Commission grant a rehearing. 

 

President Walker asked for public comment.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that he was not involved in this case, but said that politics have played a role in this case as it has in many cases.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the same thing happened with tenants in the Western Addition where a number of tenants were going to be evicted until the RBA got notified.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA did not come before the Building Inspection Commission with that issue because the Housing Division through the Building Department had created this problem.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the tenants went before the Board of Supervisors and got special legislation enacted.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that another eviction was happening on McAllister Street.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the BIC is not a court of law, but should look at public policy and look at the amount of expense that this contractor had expended.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this Commission was set up with experts so that those Commissioners with less experience could rely on their expertise; the expertise of a structural engineer, an architect and a builder.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that if it were a tenant issue the Commissioners would rely on Commissioner Grubb because that was his expertise and said that the rest of the Commissioners were not qualified and said that this Commission had broken the rules of how the Commission was set up.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this Commission was now a political Commission and a sham.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he was truly bothered because he thought that DBI should not have allowed Planning to come over and withdraw the application.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that the appellant got a call from CPB to pay the school taxes and then come and pick up his permits.  Mr. Karnilowitz said that had that fee been able to be paid at DBI the appellant would have his permit in hand, but as it is set up the school fee has to be paid somewhere else.  Mr. Karnilowitz urged the Commission to grant the rehearing. 

 

Commissioner Murphy asked how much time elapsed between the time the school tax was paid and the applicant came in to pick up his permit.  Mr. Carroll said that he paid the school fee on December 2, and as soon as he received the notice from Central Permit he went in to pick up his permit.  Mr. Carroll said that he understood that the permit had been taken by Planning some two weeks earlier, but said that he did not know anything about that until he went to CPB to obtain his permit. 

 

Commissioner Romero said that Commission should not be rehearing things that were brought before the Commission at a previous meeting, but should be voting on the contents of the issues today.

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he did think that the appellant was badly treated and said that he believed the appellant had a valid grievance.  Commissioner Theriault stated that he did not think that this was the appropriate body to hear that grievance.  Commissioner Theriault said that he did wish the appellant luck.

 

President Walker called for a roll call vote on the motion to grant a rehearing.  .

 

The Commissioners voted as follows:  

 

                     President Walker                               Nay

                     Vice President Lee                             Nay

                     Commissioner Grubb                        Nay

                     Commissioner Hirsch                        Aye

                     Commissioner Murphy                      Aye

                       Commissioner Romero                      Nay

                       Commissioner Theriault                    Nay

 

The motion failed on a vote of 5 to 2.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 025-06

7.

Discussion and possible action by the Commission to adopt findings regarding 1169 – 1177 Tennessee Street.

 

President Walker said that there was a revised addition dated April 28, 2006.  Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes said that there were two sets of findings for 1169 – 1177 Tennessee Street one that was an eight-page document prepared by the appellants which cites back to the evidence that supports the theories that he brought before the Commission.  Ms. Barnes said that the other set of findings was prepared by the City Attorney’s Office and said that she believed that these reflected the analysis that the Commission made in making their decision, which is essentially a sufficient road map between the facts and the Commissions conclusion.  Mr. Barnes stated that the Commission was free to adopt what findings it thought accurately reflected the analysis.   

 

The following are the findings submitted by the appellant.

4.The Lower Potrero Hill Neighborhood Association (“LPHNA”) appealed the demolition permit to the Board of Appeals (“BOA”), which denied the appeal.  (Exhs. 4 and 5).  At the appeal hearing, LPHNA also objected to issuance of the Site Permit, but BOA ruled that the appeal related only to the demolition permit and did not include the Site Permit. (Exhs. 5 and Exh “A” attached to Exhibit 8).

 

 

reinstate the permits at the Central Permit Bureau (“CPB”).

 

7.The Site Permit provided that work must be started within 90 days and completed within 36 months. (Exh. 3). These dates for the Site Permit were approximately December 21, 1999 and September 22, 2002, respectively.

 

8. Starting on or about December 16, 1999, Owner demolished the existing building and subsequently spent $30,000 dollars underpinning the foundation on the adjacent property at 2572-80 3rd St. as the first steps to implement the Site Permit.  (Exh. 43).  Since the demolition permit is incorporated into the Site Permit, the demolition work started the commencement of work on the Site Permit.

 

10.On July 11, 2002, Owner submitted his application for the Final Plans Site Permit Addendum (Application No. 9906330S-1).  (Exhs. 2, 3 and 46).

 

The provisions of this Article 10 shall be inapplicable to the construction, alteration or demolition of any structure or other feature on a landmark site or in a historic district, where a permit for the performance of such work was issued prior to the effective date of the designation of the said landmark site or historic district, and where such permit has not expired or been cancelled or revoked, provided that construction is started and diligently prosecuted to completion in accordance with the Building Code.

 

 

14.On October 24, 2004, DBI issued the Final Plans Site Permit Addendum (Application No. 9906330S-1 submitted on July 11, 2002).  (Exhs 2, 3 and 46).  The time to complete work under the Final Plans Site Permit Addendum is 24 months, which date is October 24, 2006.

 

17.In July 2005 and prior to July 27, 2005, Owner began work on the foundation.  On October 14, 2005, Owner requested and DBI issued a second extension of the Foundation Addendum, which extended the completion date (but not the start date since work had already started in July 2005) to January 27, 2006.  (Exh. 14).  Owner then continued working on the foundation until November 3, 2005.

 

There is an empty lot that has started construction on Tennessee Street in the dead end section.  Excavation has begun on Regan Carroll’s empty lot with no permits posted.  As you might remember, Regan Carroll owns two empty adjacent lots.  The smaller lot is where the old Italian-ate was torn down.  I found that original file. The address is 1167 Tennessee.  This is the site where he has already started to excavate with no posted permits.  However, the lot that has the renewed permits is for the adjacent lot  - 1189 Tennessee. This is what I saw on the planning Dept. Web site.  The planner for 1189 Tennessee was Jon Purvis. What can the neighbors do to make sure he is doing this work in compliance with the codes, as we think he is working on a site without the proper permits and those two lots have not been turned into one lot.   What might you know or suggest we do to make sure this is all on the up and up.  (Exh. 24, p.14 [DP 0013]).

 

21.Also, on November 4, 2005, Owner went to DBI to renew the Site Permit.  He went to the first floor counter for intake processing and was sent to the third floor for further processing.  A senior inspector on duty that afternoon began processing the renewal for the Site Permit (Exh. 16) at which time he found a “block” on the computer placed by DBI Chief Building Inspector, Carla Johnson.  (Exh. 36).  Ms. Johnson refused to renew or further process the Site Permit and told Owner that the Revision application was being returned to the Planning Department for review.

 

23.On January 5, 2006, Ms. Lee again wrote to Owner’s attorney stating her determination that DBI would not issue a renewal of the Site Permit or issue the Revision Addendum unless and until Owner submitted to the Planning Department review of these applications pursuant to Article 10, Appendix L and Section 312 of the Planning Code. (Exh. 27).

 

 

25.On January 20, 2006, Owner timely appealed DBI’s determination to this Commission.  The appeal presents the issue whether the Site permit “expired.”  This issue is within the Commission’s jurisdiction pursuant to:

 

26.This Commission hereby finds that the Site Permit was issued on July 6, 1999 and became effective on September 22, 1999, prior to the effective date of Appendix L of Article 10 of the Planning Code.

 

 

Findings of the Building Inspection Commission

Regarding Appeal for 1169 – 1177 Tennessee Street

 

On March 20, 2006, this appeal by 1169 – 1177 Tennessee Street, Inc. (“Owner”) of the Department of Building Inspection’s decision that the Site Permit for the project at 1169 – 1177 Tennessee Street “expired without work having been started or completed within the required time frames,” came before a duly noticed hearing of the Building Inspection Commission pursuant to Section D3.750-4 of the City Charter.

 

Having heard all of the public testimony and reviewed the record on this matter, the Building Inspection Commission hereby grants the appealand overturns the Department, based upon the following findings:

4. At some time after the 2003 Permit was issued and before July 15, 2004, then DBI Acting Director Jim Hutchinson and Senior Building Inspector Ed Sweeny authorized a change to the 2003 Permit, changing the valuation of the work remaining from $300,000 to $300,500 ("Revised 2003 Permit").  The authorized revision was made by striking out the valuation information on permit holder’s copy of the permit, and inserting and initialing the larger value on the face of the permitholder’s copy of the permit- but DBI did not have a copy of the Revised 2003 Permit in its permit records.  The effect of increasing the valuation of the work to be performed under the Revised 2003 Permit was to increase Permitholder’s time for completion of work from 12 months to 24 months, or until August 22, 2005.

Now therefore, we hereby find, conclude and determine, that:

Ms. Barnes said that she usually discusses the City Attorney’s findings with the appellant’s Attorney, but did not have a chance to do so and did not know if he agreed with those findings or not.

 

President Walker said that she thought that the City Attorney’s Office reflected the discussion that the Commission had to support the appellant’s appeal. 

 

Mr. Lippi said that a more important point was in Paragraph 5 where it refers to amending the permit in the 2003 permit by striking out and initializing a change in valuation and failing to obtain a copy of the revised permit did not conform to procedures and was an irregular means to extend the time.  Mr. Lippi stated that he did not believe that this statement was supported by the facts and the findings are supposed to be from evidence.  Mr. Lippi said that he had a transcript of the hearing and that was never stated.  Mr. Lippi said that there was no evidence that the Department failed to retain a copy of the amended copy and said that the statement that there was no process for amending it under DBI procedures was not supported.  Mr. Lippi asked for Mr. Carroll to speak.

 

Mr. Carroll urged the Commission to adopt the findings prepared by his council as they accurately and completely recite facts and the basis that were required to have the Commission make the decision that it did.  Mr. Carroll said that he thought that Ms. Barnes’ findings were inadequate in many counts.  Mr. Carroll thanked the Commission.

 

President Walker said that she recalled that the striking out and initializing of the application was not in the staff report, but was in the evidence submitted by the appellant and was brought up for the first time in the hearing which was a material fact and a material issue that was determined.

 

Acting Deputy Director Carla Johnson said that she prepared the staff report based on the official records that were at DBI along with microfilm records and computer records.  Ms. Johnson stated that she had an opportunity to watch the tape of the hearing and listened to all testimony.  Ms. Johnson stated that she recalled both Director Amy Lee and Deputy Director Wing Lau discussing that permit and how it was unusual.  Ms. Johnson said that the document that was submitted with the appellant’s package was new information and said that the Department did not have copies that the appellant provided to the Department about the extension in time and increase in value. 

 

Acting Director Lee said that normally the Department would have copies of these documents and said that she was not saying that because the Department did not have a copy that it was not valid. Ms. Johnson said that she would be in agreement with that.

 

Commissioner Grubb asked if Ms. Barnes had time to review the appellant’s proposed findings.  Ms. Barnes said that she did, but said that she did not believe that the Commission made its decision on any theory, but made the decision on the argument that the permits stayed in effect the entire time.  Ms. Barnes said that the 2004 permit was not a site permit, but was a revision permit. Ms. Barnes said that this was mischaracterized and said she was not saying that this was intentional. Ms. Barnes said that she created enough evidence that the work started before the end of the prior permit and that is why finding number six is included in her findings.  Ms. Barnes said that once the permit is issued it is the Department’s practice that once works starts an applicant can continue the site permit without new approval from Planning. 

 

Commissioner Theriault said that he looked over the proposed findings of Mr. Lippi and said that there were indeed doctrines in there that were not part of the Commission’s discussions.  Commissioner Theriault said that he understood why Mr. Lippi wanted these findings dealt with before asking for a rehearing. 

 

President Walker called for public comment.  There was none. 

 

President Walker called for a vote on the motion.

 

The Commissioners voted as follows:

 

                       President Walker                   Aye

                       Vice-President Lee                 Aye

                       Commissioner Grubb            Aye

                       Commissioner Hirsch            Aye

                       Commissioner Murphy          Aye

                       Commissioner Romero          Aye

                       Commissioner Theriault        Aye           

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

12.

Discussion and possible action by the Commission to adopt findings regarding 1179 – 1189 Tennessee Street.

 

President Walker said that Item 8 would not be applicable anymore.  Deputy City Attorney Barnes said that the Commission did not grant a rehearing so the findings would need to be adopted.  Secretary Aherne stated that the only findings received on this item were from the City Attorney. 

 

The following findings were submitted by the City Attorney:

 

City Attorney’s Proposed Findings

Regarding Appeal for 1179 – 1189 Tennessee Street
May 1, 2006

 

On March 20, 2006, this appeal by Regan Carroll of the Department of Building Inspection’s refusal to issue the Site Permit and Addendum (BPA No. 9902819) for the project at 1179 – 1189 Tennessee Street came before a duly noticed hearing of the Building Inspection Commission pursuant to Section D3.750-4 of the City Charter.

 

Having heard all of the public testimony and reviewed the record on this matter, the Building Inspection Commission hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Department of Building Inspection, based upon the following findings.

 

2. Appellant Carroll pursued the project sporadically over the course of the next four years as his personal circumstances, including the illness and eventual death of his mother, permitted, consulting with the local neighborhood group, Dogpatch Neighborhood Association, and working on a series of revisions with necessary City departments.  Although Appellant had an application pending during that time period, the City has not yet issued a building permit to Mr. Carroll.

4. On or about November 14, 2005, DBI's Central Permit Bureau sent Appellant Carroll a Notice that his permit was ready for issuance upon proof of payment of applicable school fees. 

 

 

6. The Planning Department acted properly in reasserting its jurisdiction over the permit because, under San Francisco Building Code Section 106.4.3, a building permit issued in violation of the Planning Code - or any City Ordinance- would not be valid.  The Planning Department is the City agency charged with determining whether building permits comply with the Planning Code.

Now therefore, we hereby find, conclude and determine, that:

1. The Appeal is without merit because DBI's Central Permit Bureau never issued the site permit for the Project.  No permit was delivered to the Appellant Carroll or his agent.  Sign-offs by various City Departments on Appellant's final plans and other structural details that are needed before a permit can issue are not "issuance" of a permit.

2. Notification by DBI's Central Permit Bureau that a permit is ready for pickup upon payment of fees or any other reason does not constitute "issuance" of a permit.  City departments are not estopped by such notification from performing their statutory duties to ensure that a contemplated permit complies with City law prior to delivery of the permit, and any permit issued in violation of City law would, in any case, not be valid. 

 

Commissioner Grubb made a motion, seconded by Commission Romero to accept the City Attorney’s findings on 1179 – 1189 Tennessee Street. 

 

Mr. Lippi said that these findings do not address that there is an equitable estopple, vested rights or permit estopple by discrimination and said that he thought that it would not be right for the Commission to vote on this until those claims that were appropriately before the Commission.  Deputy City Attorney Catharine Barnes said that she did not understand why Mr. Lippi that that it was not proper.  Ms. Barnes said that the Commission had a decision and made a decision and were now adopting the findings in accordance with Administrative Law. 

 

President Walker called for a vote on the motion.

 

The Commission voted as follows:

 

                       President Walker                      Aye

                       Vice-President Lee                    Aye

                       Commissioner Grubb               Aye

                       Commissioner Hirsch               Aye (reluctantly)

                       Commissioner Murphy             Aye

                       Commissioner Romero Aye

                       Commissioner Theriault           Aye

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 027-06

 

13.

Discussion and possible action regarding the DBI Cost Services Study (fee analysis) performed by the Public Resource Management Group. [Chief Administrative Officer Taras Madison]

 

Chief Administrator Officer Taras Madison said that in January 2005 the Controller’s Office issued an RFP to hire a company to perform a cost recovery study for both DBI and the Planning Department.  Ms. Madison said that in March 2005 the Public Resource Management Group (PRM) were selected to conduct this study and had been working on this for well over a year.  Ms. Madison stated that today representatives from PRM would be providing a summary and then there would be a discussion as to what the next steps should be.  Ms. Madison turned the presentation over to representatives from PRM.

 

Mr. Brad Wilkes said that he was with Public Resource Management Group and was joined by his partner Erin Payton.  Mr. Wilkes said that he was going to explain an overview of the study so that when Erin presented the results the Commission would have an understanding of how the results were reached.  Mr. Wilkes explained that PRM had done studies such as this for many cities.  Mr. Wilkes said that it was important to identify the full costs, both direct and indirect costs to supply City services and said that the report focused on staff members that provide the particular services for DBI.  Mr. Wilkes stated that according to State law fees should not be set higher than the cost of providing the service.  Mr. Wilkes said that costs from City Hall, payroll, DHR and other departments were included in this report as costs spent by DBI.  Mr. Wilkes said that the methodology that PRM used was not new for City and Counties in the State and is commonly accepted in the State. 

 

Mr. Wilkes introduced Ms. Erin Payton from PRM. Ms. Payton said she would focus on page 8 of the report that contained a summary of the findings and notes on methodology.  Ms. Payton stated that PRM took a look at about sixty different services provided by DBI, fee related and non-fee related, and compared costs and revenues for those different programs.  Ms. Payton reported that PRM looked at the total annual cost and current annual projected revenue for fiscal year 2005/2006 and added additional layers of overhead costs, including: building rent and maintenance, equipment depreciation and an annual technology refresh lease.  Ms. Payton said that then PRM studied a proposed model of the same information for fiscal year 2006/2007.  Ms. Payton stated that for fiscal year 2005/2006 PRM was projecting an 86.24% cost recovery level and for fiscal year 2006/2007 a 96.02% cost recovery level.  Ms. Payton said that this report was just presenting the results of the analysis and said that PRM did not make any recommendations for fee adjustments at this point.

 

Acting Director Amy Lee said that with the 2006/2007 proposed model the Department will be closer to recovering its costs as the turn around time backlog days should be reduced from 45 to 20 days for large projects.  Ms. Lee said that she was reluctant to propose any fee increases or decreases at this time, as there are several factors to look at.  Ms. Lee stated that she would hope to recruit new engineers, but it has been very difficult to recruit this past year so there is no guarantee that the Department will have the additional staff needed.  Ms. Lee said that this Department is cyclical in nature and there are many high-rise buildings being proposed right now, but that could change in a couple of years and the Department’s revenue would be decreased.  Ms. Lee said that she would like time to look at the trends of past revenues and said that the Mayor’s Office, the Board of Supervisors and particularly the Budget Analyst know that the Department now has detailed information and might be pressing to move forward faster with fee changes.  Ms. Lee said that she would be reluctant to do so at this time. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that there was a breathtaking reduction in the unrecovery cost in the proposed model and asked how realistic Ms. Lee thought this was.  Ms. Lee said that it would depend on the budget process.  Commissioner Hirsch asked what the changes were going to be from the 05/06 to the 06/07.  Ms. Taras Madison said that the reason recovery had increased over the two years is that the Department has a higher proposed annual revenue.  Ms. Madison said that for the revenue projects for next year there are many big projects included.  Ms. Madison cautioned that the budget for fiscal year 06/07 had not yet been finalized and said that there may be cuts or additions or other changes that happen.  President Walker asked if this amount included any fee increases.  Ms. Madison said that it did not.

 

Deputy Director Wing Lau said that he wanted to clarify that the Department collects fees for plan check services and fees for inspections.  Mr. Lau said that the fees are collected when the permit is issued, but on big projects it could be three to four years before the inspections services have been performed and that money is a deferred credit.   Acting Director Lee said that the deferred credit report is done every six months. 

 

Commissioner Grubb asked the consultants if the survey details showed what areas in the Department are being subsidized by other revenue producing areas.  Mr. Wilkes said that sixty categories were studied at DBI and said that DBI keeps revenues in a fee for service category program-by-program or fee-by-fee.  Mr. Wilkes stated that rarely was there a corresponding set of time reports from employees that kept time with those exact categories so PRM was left to make judgments.  Mr. Wilkes stated that this is typical of all cities in California.  Acting Director Lee said that one of the difficulties was figuring out what DBI’s direct and indirect costs are associated with each activity.  Ms. Lee said that she wanted to commend PRM because DBI does a lot of work with staff that is not related to the permit fee.  Ms. Lee said that a large portion of the work done at DBI is talking to customers, neighbors and tenants and said that PRM tried to distribute those costs.  Ms. Lee stated that it is the Department’s intention to have a better way of capturing people’s time.  Commissioner Murphy said that he did not think that Commissioner Grubb’s question had been answered.

 

Mr. Wilkes referred to the report and said that there were eight categories that show where the revenues for some divisions are low and some are high.  Commissioner Grubb said that this would show what areas needed work.  Commissioner Grubb asked if PRM made any recommendations for cost recovery improvement.  Mr. Wilkes said that no recommendations were included as this study focused on the cost and the current revenue and how DBI is doing there.  Mr. Wilkes said that this information was provided so that the Commission and the Department could use that information to determine what should be done with fees. 

 

Acting Director Lee said that the Department would be engaging in that discussion and would try to submit any recommendations to the Commission before the budget is submitted to the Mayor’s Office on June 1, 2006.  Ms. Lee said that the Department would be looking at the deferred credit funds because it is not surprising that DBI was under collecting because the Department was using its surplus funds.  Ms. Lee said that the Department would also be looking at a three-year trend and would try to get a commitment from the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors to commit to DBI’s budget proposal.   Ms. Lee stated that DBI is often treated as a General Fund Department and when the General Fund departments are told to make cuts, DBI is included and that does not make any sense. Commissioner Grubb said that he hoped that something like this report will give the Department the ability to go to the Mayor’s Office and show that DBI is funding General Fund activities for the Mayor or whatever departments that are coming out of fees that are being paid by people taking out permits.  Commissioner Grubb said that it should be a lot easier for the Mayor’s Office to see how much DBI does that basically donates to the General Fund.  Ms. Lee said that this report would be particularly helpful with the Budget Analyst.  Acting Director Lee said that issue would be agendized for a future meeting along with a discussion regarding fees.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders said that as a member of the industry that is funding this entire Department this report is an excellent step, but it is like filing a tax return just showing someone’s income and cost.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was no information that would show how someone arrived at the conclusions and said that this report is just a formula for fee increases.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that as fees increase in the City the delays are also increasing and customer service is declining.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there should be an analysis showing how San Francisco compares with other cities in terms of cost, personnel and the productivity.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there needs to be detail in terms of what the indirect costs are and said that this report was unacceptable in its present form.

 

14.

Review and approval of the minutes of the February 6, 2006 meeting.

 

Vice-President Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Grubb that the minutes be approved.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 028-06

 

15.

Review and approval of the minutes of the March 6, 2006 meeting.

 

Commissioner Hirsch abstained from voting on this item, as he was not present at the March, 6, 2006 meting.

 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee to approve the minutes. 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 029-06

 

16.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

• 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 Hirsch said that he would like a report at the next meeting on an item that was in the paper and brought to his attention by a resident of that district about a project in the Western Addition.  Commissioner Hirsch said that this project dragged through Planning and the Building Department and was rejected by the Building Department because of the narrow street width that would be okay for condos, but not for a rental project.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he did not have an address on the property; Ms. Lee said that she believed that it was Ellis Street.

 

Commissioner Grubb said that he had one question for Ms. Boyajian regarding the BIC’s minutes, which he thought, were painfully detailed and asked if this was tradition or a necessity.  Ms. Boyajian said that it is tradition that the Secretary does very detailed minutes even though it is not legally required, but the public has come to expect this detail.

 

Secretary Aherne said that she recently listened to a discussion on this issue with the Taxi Commission who had this as an agenda item because she wanted to hear what the public had to say about minutes.  Ms. Aherne said that from that discussion it was determined that every public speaker has to be acknowledged and the gist of what that public speaker has to say has to be recorded in the minutes.  Ms. Aherne said that she would be perfectly happy to cut down on the minutes, but said that the public and DBI employees have come to expect the detailed minutes.  President Walker said that people have commented to her on the efficiency of the minutes and said that people who do not come to the meeting can definitely read the minutes and keep up with the BIC.  President Walker said that there is a problem with paraphrasing.  Ms. Aherne said that the minutes have been cut down substantially as there was a time when the minutes were almost 40 pages.  Ms, Aherne said that now that the Commission meetings are televised the minutes would not have to be as detailed, but said that she had gotten comments from many people that they do not have access to the meetings since the BIC was moved to Channel 78 and that the subsequent showings of the meeting on Channel 26 are on very late at night; many people say that they keep up with the meetings through the minutes.  Ms. Aherne said she was happy to do whatever the Commission wanted. Commissioner Grubb said that if the Commission meetings were not televised he thought that more in depth minutes might be merited.  Commissioner Grubb said that he thought shorter minutes would allow staff more time to get through this process.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he did not understand the objection and said that he thought it should be left up to the Secretary and her staff as to what can be provided.  Secretary Aherne said that she would try doing less detailed minutes, but still try to get the gist of what the public and the Commissioners want to come across.  President Walker said that she wanted to go on record to say that the Secretary does a great job with the minutes.  Commissioner Hirsch said that he sees minutes from other Commissions or Boards and the BIC’s are superior.  President Walker said that the Secretary had the Commission’s encouragement for brevity. 

 

Commissioner Hirsch said that an issue was raised earlier in public comment about communications received by the Commission, but not appearing on the agenda.  President Walker said that it is not a requirement to put the communication items on the agenda.  Commissioner Hirsch asked how the Commissioners receive the communication items.  Secretary Aherne said that she sends them to the Commissioners.  President Walker said that a Commissioner could request any communication item to be on the agenda.  Commissioner Murphy asked if this had always been the case with the communication items.  Secretary Aherne said that when she first started with the Commission the Communication items were listed as a general item and were brought to the meeting in a binder for viewing by the public and if there was a particular item they wanted to discuss it could be done at that time, but no action could be taken on those items.  Secretary Aherne said that in February 2000 President Alfonso Fillon wanted the communication items listed separately.  Secretary Aherne said that this then became an issue because people were using the communication items as agenda items and the Commission would get into long discussions about letters, etc.  Secretary Aherne said that if there were any member of the public that wanted to request all communication items she would be happy to send them either via e-mail or by U.S. Mail.  Secretary Aherne said that she would do whatever the Commission decided.

                                  

• 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.

 

Vice-President Lee asked for an update on the status of hiring a Communication’s Officer for the Department.  President Walker requested on-going updates on the CAPSS projects.  President Walker asked Deputy City Attorney to be prepared to have a discussion on the possibility of moving the UMB Loan Program approved by the voters to a ballot measure to use that money for some of the buildings as determined by the CAPSS program.  Acting Director Lee said that there was a significant amount of money left in that fund and said that the Department had been looking into this issue. 

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that he would disagree with Madam Secretary that the communication items were being used to protract discussions at the hearings.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that very seldom was their discussion on the communication items.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the listing was extensive and it allowed people an opportunity to know what was happening in other parts of the City.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that obviously this is part of the blackout and it is the same way with the blackout of the minutes; this is the new agenda of this Administration, blackout, blackout, blackout.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that since the meetings went from Channel 26 to Channel 78 the public has less access now compared to what they had before.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the past there was full access to the letters of communication here and it was excellent when they came on the calendar.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the calendar was sent to people and the public could comment on that communication item without coming to a meeting; now the public has no access to that and that is avoidance.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is a sham and is restricting information to the public.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the reason this Commission was created was for the public as they are the taxpayers and need to know what is happening, but this Commission is suppressing free speech. Mr. O’Donoghue said that that is why the RBA members are leaving San Francisco.

 

13.

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

 

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that another fact that has recently heated up and resulted in evictions and not surprising the RBA stood up representing in a good manner those that were evicted.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that these evictions had occurred at Golden Gate and Lyon Streets. Mr. O’Donoghue said that his Commission should investigate this issue and said that he had brought this issue up about six weeks ago.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there were Housing Inspectors, intentionally or unintentionally; issuing a report that gave the landlord or a land speculator the right to come in on a building that was purchased in January to evict the tenants, one of who was in her 80’s and also an elderly black lady and man.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the RBA worked with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic to prevent those people from being evicted.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was happening because the Housing Inspectors were going out and issuing Notices of Violation which then gives those speculators the legal right to evict those tenants and the speculators avoid going to Planning which is what happened in this instance.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he has been complaining about this for the past three years and said as a result of this process the entire industry gets a bad reputation. Mr. O’Donoghue said that neither DBI nor the BIC have taken any action to do something about this or to even put it on the calendar.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was asking formally for the BIC to put this on the calendar to find out why the Housing Inspectors did what they did; were they operating in collusion with the landlords.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not know the answer to that, but said that the public and the tenants have a right to know what is happening.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the RBA had made a proposal to the Board of Supervisors to put all evictions under the Ellis Act subject to the new Code in terms of parking and all of that and that would take the profit out of the evictions.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Peskin legislation that deals with this from another aspect does not take the profit out, nor does it take the profit out of the Tenant’s In Common (TIC’s) or condo conversion.  President Walker asked Acting Director Lee to give her a report on this issue.

 

There was no further public comment.

 

17.

Adjournment.

President Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero, that the meeting be adjourned in honor of the immigrants who made America, America and in honor of all who work in the construction industry.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 030-06

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:29 a.m.

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

______________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary