Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 1:00 p.m.
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
ADOPTED December 6, 2000
MINUTES
The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by President Fillon.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Alfonso Fillon, President Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President, excused
Debra Walker, Commissioner Mark Sanchez, Commissioner
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner
Esther Marks, Commissioner, excused
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Ann Aherne, Secretary
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:
Deputy City Attorney Audrey William Pearson
2. President’s Announcements.
President Fillon reported that he had no announcements.
3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]
a. Report on transportation/shuttle requirements for 1660 Mission Street.
Director Chiu said that he was giving a brief report on the transportation and shuttle requirements for 1660 Mission Street as requested by one of the Commissioners as a result of a presentation at the last BIC. Director Chiu stated that at that time the Department gave a report on the status of the construction to be done at the annex next door to 1660 Mission Street. Director Chiu apologized that the documentation on this item was not ready when the meeting package was distributed. Director Chiu said that he would go over a few of the items that are required by the Zoning Administrator as DBI is seeking a variance for parking. Director Chiu stated that essentially, it related to transportation and a shuttle requirement. The Zoning Administrator is urging that DBI and Planning staff be encouraged to use telecommuting programs to reduce employee commute trips and traffic congestion on weekdays. Additionally, the Departments are being encouraged to use Muni and transit alternatives and at the same time all employees are encouraged to utilize flex time, and carpooling and vanpooling from the major transportation hubs to and from the jobsite. Director Chiu said that the Department intends to implement all of these items as requested by the Zoning Administrator. Director Chiu said that this concluded his report.
Commissioner Walker asked when the hearing for the variance was going to be. Director Chiu stated that it would be sometime at the beginning of December. Commissioner Walker said that the Commissioners could review the documentation and discuss this further at the next meeting.
Ms. Roberta Caravelli introduced herself as President of Citizen Review. Ms. Caravelli said that there is no place to park and Discount Builders Supply has put in a guard so the public cannot sneak in and park in their lot. Ms. Caravelli said that she believed that Smart and Final, which is down around the corner, has also got an employee babysitting their lot, so no one can park there. Ms. Caravelli said that as far as the variance, and this nonsense, it would be hard to imagine how efficient it is going to be to send Building Inspectors to sites using a van as sort of a commuter system. Ms. Caravelli said that the Planning Department has been playing these games since 1955 and it is not working. Ms. Caravelli said that anyone who tries to drive the streets could tell this. Ms. Caravelli said that it is now getting to the point, and she realizes that the Department does not want to expand the garage as it would be very costly, etc., etc., etc., but there is no parking in that garage. Ms. Caravelli said that everytime she has come to the building, the sign on the building has said full and the Department is not going to get there with this fantasy about Building Inspectors going in groups to their job sites and etc. Ms. Caravelli said that the contractors want to come down and get their permits approved and are going to come in their trucks; members of the public need to come and be able to look at files and public records, etc., etc.; the realtors need to call up the 3-R reports; all of these are people with time constraints. Ms. Caravelli stated that shuttles are not going to work and this also has to be dealt with at the Planning Department, but the BIC should consider that the customers cannot get to the Department, whether they are the ones wanted or the ones not wanted. Ms. Caravelli thanked the Commission.
Lois Scott introduced herself as the Vice-President of the Planners Chapter Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21. Ms. Scott said that item 12 on the variance decision has been a pet cause of the Planners to have a shuttle; not for the Building Inspectors doing their work, but for employees, including Building Inspectors or Planners who are getting to the building to begin their work day or to end their work day. Ms. Scott said that these conditions are already conditions of approval and prior approval for the project including an earlier variance for the occupancy of the building itself by Building Inspection and Planning. Ms. Scott said that item 12 where it says that shuttle service shall start in conjunction with conclusion of the proposed project; the Union would like it to begin in the next budget cycle, in the next fiscal year. Ms. Scott stated that cost estimates for 1650 Mission were obtained; it has a shuttle that operates everyday and it costs about $45,000 a year to fund. Ms. Scott said that it is very subscribed and DBI employees who work at 1650 Mission have tried to get on and it is full. Ms. Scott stated that the union would like a shuttle to be expanded and be available to the 1660 employees as it is very unfair that those 1650 employees actually have the option to use the shuttle system and other people don’t. Ms. Scott said that all employees of the City and the Department of Building Inspection have a special need and her group has been pushing on this issue for a long, long time and this is why the wording in this variance is as strong as it is. Ms. Scott said that it could be stronger and she hoped that as the Commission and the Department considers the budget, funds for the shuttle are definitely included as well as funds for these other measures.
Director Chiu said that he has already instructed his staff to look into this program because as soon as he was made aware of this situation he felt that if the previous administration had committed to do something, if the Department can do something, it should. Director Chiu said that he has told his staff to find a way to implement this particular item. Director Chiu stated that the Department would do this as soon as possible, maybe even before the budget cycle. President Fillon asked if the Director would keep the Commission informed of any progress.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that she had recently put together a shuttle for the Presidio Trust to the Chestnut/Lombard corridor and it has been quite successful. Ms. Vaughey said the shuttle started with one day and now they are going for seven days. Ms. Vaughey suggested that the Director might want to talk to the Presidio Trust to see how they implemented it. President Fillon asked Ms. Vaughey what the name of the trust was. Ms. Vaughey answered that it was Presidio Trust, 561-5300 and Kim Overton or Dick Tiermus was the person to contact.
Commissioner Walker asked Ms. Scott if the issue of open space had been negotiated or talked about as there were some problems. Ms. Scott said that her group would very much welcome a chance to discuss this issue with the project architects and with Director Chiu, if they were invited to do so. Commissioner Walker said that she knew this was an issue from the last meeting and said that she thought all of the Commissioners wanted to encourage a dialog. Commissioner Walker said that she would still like to encourage a dialog.
b. Report on DBI Organizational Chart.
Director Chiu said that a draft organizational chart for DBI was included in the Commission package at the request of Commissioner Walker. President Fillon asked if Director Chiu could point out any major changes on the chart. Director Chiu said that there no major changes, but basically the Department of Building Inspection is always looking at ways to rotate the staff to provide continued training from plan check to inspection. Director Chiu stated that any time he had the opportunity to move somebody from one program to the other, it would be done. Director Chiu said that the Department does have an ongoing rotation program whether an employee is with the inspection group or plan check group so this particular organization chart shows, as previously reported, an additional staff member at the management level; Ms. Amy Lee who is overseeing the entire Administration. Director Chiu said that was one item that was not on the previous organizational chart. Director Chiu said another major change was that Deputy Director William Wong and Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson have switched roles from Plan Checking and Inspection. Director Chiu said that in looking at staffing, again there is always an ongoing, two or three year rotation of the programs. Director Chiu asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Walker said she had no questions, but just wanted to see what was going on. Commissioner Santos asked what was the previous role of Residential Plan Check Manager, Sean McNulty. Director Chiu said that Mr. McNulty has served as a Building Inspector for a number of years and was also in Commercial Plan Check. Director Chiu said that recently there was a vacancy as a result of another manager taking a long leave of absence to work with another department. Director Chiu said that created a vacancy and as a result of open competition, Sean McNulty was appointed as the Manager for Residential Plan Check. Director Chiu said Mr. McNulty does have a great deal of experience in field inspection and plan checking.
Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that this was very nice, and very bloated. Ms. Caravelli said she did not know if the Commissioners received a copy of her letter of a few weeks ago relative to difficulties in accessing public records. Ms. Caravelli said that she sees all this wondrous staff and said that she still has not gotten a response to that letter from Mr. Chiu as far as what training and operational things were going to be put in place so that the public does not have to stand there and have an argument with the Plan Checker at the counter about whether or not the member of the public can look at the plans. Ms. Caravelli said that she is curious and she sees that there is a real abundance of staff and she is wondering if Mr. Chiu might tell which of these people know that the public has to have access to public records and which are set up to expedite that access to public records. Ms. Caravelli said that this issue has been ongoing for five years with this Department so she thought she would raise it since this thing shows such an abundance of staff.
Commissioner Walker asked if that person would be Rich Rovetti. Director Chiu said that was correct. Ms. Caravelli said that the public should just be able to go where the public records are and look at the public records. Ms. Caravelli said that if the public has to ask for a specific person than that person is going to have to go and find the records. Ms. Caravelli said that this can be the biggest thrill, trust her, at the Building Department. Ms. Caravelli said the Department has a mezzanine in alternative reality where they lose records. Ms. Caravelli said that this doesn’t work; that clause says that public records shall be open to public inspection during normal business hours. Ms. Caravelli said that anything that closes that and has the public running around a building trying to find out who to ask for a public record and then that person has to go find the public record, it doesn’t work. Ms. Caravelli said that the public has to be able to walk up to a counter and ask to see this and then do whatever you have to do to see it, not spend half an hour or forty five minutes chasing around after the record, or after a specific person. Commissioner Walker asked if this process had been checked out with the City Attorney as far as compliance to the new Sunshine Ordinance. Director Chiu said that what Ms. Caravaelli brought up was exactly what was in place many years ago. Director Chiu stated that as a result of the new Sunshine Ordinance, in working with the City Attorney’s Office, it was that office that instructed the Department to have a uniform, singular point of contact rather than have the public run around to try to get answers from the various agencies. Director Chiu said that in the past the Department did not have a centralized, one contact person. Everybody just tried to look for the answer themselves. Director Chiu said that what is implemented now was as a result of the new Prop G, or Sunshine Ordinance in conjunction with working with the City Attorney’s Office. Director Chiu said that the City Attorney’s Office were the ones that instructed the Department to have a singular, competent, point person rather than having the public running around trying to get answers and this is why the Department has implemented this program. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a timely requirement, or a period of time, in which the Department is supposed to respond to the public so there isn’t the appearance that the Department is unable to supply the information. Director Chiu said that Prop G spells this out, and if the Department cannot get the information as quickly as it would like to, then the Department notifies the person requesting the information explaining why the record cannot be obtained. Director Chiu said in response to Commissioner Walker’s questions, the answer is yes. Director Chiu stated the Department is meeting its requirements.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that the response time has been pretty good, but at times the files are found and she has not been notified that they have been found. Ms. Vaughey said that there needs to be a policy whereby an e-mail, a fax or a phone call is made getting back to the public.
c. Report on proposed legislation [Woodburning Fireplaces] File 001945 introduced by Supervisor Alicia Becerril.
Director Chiu said that this item was to give the Commission a head start about a new proposal that is to go before the Board of Supervisors concerning banning wood burning fireplaces. Director Chiu said he had a note from Laurence Kornfield, Chief Building Inspector in charge of Technical Services, who is also a liaison between DBI and the Code Advisory Committee, and his report states that the Committee members are concerned with this particular legislation. Director Chiu said that the Committee did not have a chance to invite all of the designers, developers and property owners to get their input. Director Chiu said that the Committee asked him to relate to the Commission that they have great concern about this particular legislation and urged the Commission to take great consideration before rendering a position one way or the other, or supporting or not supporting this particular legislation. Director Chiu said that in taking a look at the legislation proposed by Supervisor Alicia Becerril, it is almost banning any wood burning fireplace for any remodeling or new residential building. Director Chiu said that in his opinion it would have a great impact on design and the development of new residential construction and he would echo the CAC and their concerns about rushing to judgment or supporting or denying this legislation without a full discussion with public members. Director Chiu said that he would recommend that this item be publicized to invite various interested parties to have a discussion as to whether the Commission should support or reject this particular proposal. President Fillon said he agreed with Director Chiu and would not want to rush into anything with this proposal until the Commission heard from the community. President Fillon stated that he felt it was a good intentioned piece of legislation, but he would like to have further discussion on the item. Commissioner Walker said that she agreed and would like to hear more from the public. Director Chiu said he would like to invite the Supervisor’s aide to a meeting to explain the background of why they felt this legislation is necessary, and at the same time the community or various interested parties should be invited to have a discussion on this item.
President Fillon said that this is a piece of legislation from one of the Supervisors recommending that wood burning fireplaces be done away with completely in new construction. President Fillon said that any public comment would be very valuable to the Commission.
Mr. John Carney said that he felt that this would be solving a problem that the Commission did not want to get into. Mr. Carney stated that most people do not put fireplaces in and the next question would be whether they were gas fired and in trying to decide what would be allowed this would be opening a can of worms. Mr. Carney said that he would be scared to touch it as what would happen with the existing fireplaces. Mr. Carney said there would be questions about where the fire wood was obtained and other questions and the Commission might be wise to just let this die.
Ms. Maria Galatti said that she would like to comment on this item. Ms. Galatti stated that there is ongoing technology on fireplaces even to the point where they have zero clearance. Ms. Galatti said that if some legislation like this were put forth, it would be closing the door to what may be, in the future, quite desirable. Ms. Galatti said that the fireplaces that she is familiar with burn pellets, for example and those pellets are made from recycled material. Ms. Galatti said that there is room for products that will help the environment rather than pollute it and stated that she did not like the idea of closing the door. Ms. Galatti thanked the Commission.
d. Update on 39 Boardman Place.
Director Chiu stated that this case was brought to the Department’s attention sometime in August and it made the papers about voluminous violations. Director Chiu said that the Department has been trying to contact the individual who brought this issue to DBI’s attention and according to the Department’s records there has been several forms of telephone and written communications, but on October 5, one of the property owners of 39 Boardman Place met with DBI staff to go over some of the issues. The owners have applied for a permit to do some of the exterior stucco repairs, but the fundamental issue still remains that the Department needs to gain entry to the property in order to do an inspection to determine what the problems are with the building. Director Chiu said that as of this date, the Department has not had the opportunity to arrange for an inspection. Director Chiu said that the Commissioners had a copy of a letter that was drafted two or three days ago by Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson again asking for help to gain entry so the Department could do the inspection that was initially requested by the owner. Director Chiu said that at the same time, the owner has retained some consultants to do inspections for which she has reports and for some reason the Department has still not obtained copies of the reports to find out what are the problems with the building. Director Chiu said he was concerned because the property is probably in violation and staff wants to get into the property and do an inspection as soon as possible. Director Chiu said he thinks that the Department may have to work with the City Attorney’s Office to see if the Department needs to get a special warrant or to just let this die. Director Chiu said that the Department’s policy is that once it is brought to DBI’s attention that the property has problems or Code Violations, it cannot be ignored. Director Chiu said that the Department is in limbo as to whether to go ahead with a special warrant or keep on asking for permission to enter the building. Director Chiu said that the Department has not sought advice from the City Attorney’s Office yet, but felt that the Department probably should. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would assume that there is a homeowner’s association in place at the property, but this one owner is the only one who has signed any correspondence that has been coming into the Department. Commissioner Guinnane said he wondered who runs the association, and if there is one in place, perhaps the Department could find out what unit the association is in and send the correspondence to the Association directly instead of to her. Director Chiu said that this was good advice and that perhaps the Department should work with the Association as a whole, rather than her individually. Director Chiu said that in response to Commissioner Guinnane’s question, the Department is waiting for the owner to contact the Department for entry to the building. Commissioner Guinnane asked how long ago Boardman Place was built. Director Chiu said he did not know exactly, but it was about two or three years ago. Commissioner Guinnane suggested that somebody from the Department call the State of California and get a copy of the corporate filing for the homeowner’s association and see who signed on as President or Vice-President and who is the person for service. Commissioner Guinnane said a letter should be sent to that person. Director Chiu said that this was a good idea and the Department should work with the Association rather than an individual.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that the Department could not now call and request the information suggested by Commissioner Guinnane and unfortunately the information had to be requested in writing from the State. Ms. Vaughey said that it took about three weeks to receive this information.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought there was something that could be accessed through the Internet. Director Chiu said that he thought that the information might be accessible through the Tax Assessor’s Office and they may list the association. Commissioner Guinnane said that it would only come out as 39 Boardman Place on the Assessor’s records and only show the owner as they are billed out separately as condominiums. Director Chiu said that perhaps the Department should notify all of the owners.
Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that she believed a portion of the Attorney General’s website over public trusts and charities has that information for viewing. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu to follow up and see if that information could be accessed online.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Ms. Virginia Maki stated that she was present to respond to the situation at 2254 Bush Street. Ms. Maki said that this started in February 1999 and in April of 1999 there was a variance decision that was passed by Mr. Robert Passmore. Ms. Maki said that starting in September of 1999 there was a violation; after the variance decision was made the violations of the demolition of the building adjacent to her property started. Ms. Maki said that the contractors not only went beyond the scope of the work, they entirely demolished the building next to her, which caused damage to her residence. Ms. Maki said that in September of 1999 she started calling Kelly Pepper, the offices of Mr. John Aires, Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Chiu and Mr. Rovetti. Ms. Maki said that for several weeks she tried calling all of these people and never had the courtesy of a phone call back and said that she was stonewalled. Ms. Maki stated that finally, about two weeks ago she appeared before the Board of Permit Appeals and said she came to that meeting with photographs showing that the contractors removed the main piling in her patio and she has not been able to use her deck for over a year. Ms. Maki said that she felt the contractor basically broke the law. Ms. Maki said that what was allowed at the variance decision, none of that happened and the contractor violated from the very beginning by doing an illegal demolition, coming on to her property and damaging her building. Ms. Maki said that at the Board of Permit Appeals Hearing there was no fine imposed. Ms. Maki said that what she thought should happen is that there should be a Director’s Hearing and said she was asking what fines are being imposed for the violations because at the Hearing no fines were imposed. Ms. Maki said that she was present to voice her opinion that something really needs to be done with this property that is trying to go in next to her; the contractor is trying to get a retroactive permit to demolish a building that is no longer there and it has caused damage to her building.
Commissioner Guinnane asked what Director Chiu what jurisdiction the Commission had over this situation regarding fines since it has already gone to the Board of Permit Appeals and could there still be a Director’s Hearing. Commissioner Walker asked what was the action that the Board took.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey stated that the Board of Permit Appeals could not take jurisdiction because there had not been a Director’s Hearing and could not impose fines because no hearing had been filed according to the rules of the Department of Building Inspection. Ms. Vaughey said that the only thing that happened, or came out of the Hearing, was that the Board of Permit Appeals informed the developer and his construction partner that they had to hire an engineer, that was acceptable to Mr. Rose the neighbor to do a study on the possible damage to the foundation. Ms. Vaughey said that since then, Mr. Sanger their attorney has written a letter saying that he has hired Mr. Santos without any permission of the next-door neighbors and stated that he wants entrance into the building immediately. Ms. Vaughey said that they have not followed the rules of the Board of Permit Appeals either. Ms. Vaughey stated that Mr. Rose has written Mr. Sanger back stating that they would like to have an outside engineer, that has not been involved with the project at all, such as Levin Mishkin or Emanuel Puns to come in and evaluate this situation as an outside person. Ms. Vaughey said that in the meantime, no fines have been imposed and no Director’s Hearing was ever called.
Director Chiu said that in response to Commissioner Guinnane’s question about fines and penalties, he has directed staff to look specifically into what types of work and how much the scope of work was exceeded and the Department will definitely impose penalties as soon as this information is obtained. President Fillon asked that Director Chiu report on this at a future meeting.
Ms. Vaughey said that she would like to finish on this subject. Ms. Vaughey said that due to the fact that Mr. Wong, when he came back as Code Enforcement Officer, was never given this file to do a Director’s Hearing from Mr. Hutchinson, and due to the fact that there was not a Hearing called, she requested that Mr. Chiu and Mr. Wong handle this case themselves. Ms. Vaughey said that she would like them to oversee this case as neither Mr. Wong nor Mr. Chiu were directly involved through this process. Ms. Vaughey said that to give somebody jurisdiction over this case that has already bypassed the process is hurting the Department. Ms. Vaughey said that she thought Mr. Chiu and Mr. Wong, who have experience in inspection services, should be responsible for this project to follow up and keep everything clean for the Department. Ms. Vaughey said that this is what she was requesting and none of this should have happened, period, and she said she was tired of having to come up and talk to the Commission about it. Ms. Vaughey said that it just should not have been bypassed. Ms. Vaughey thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Guinnane said that in speaking for himself, he asked if Director Chiu had a problem with William Wong handling this issue and reporting back to the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane asked that Mr. Wong come up with a fine structure for this property once all of the facts have been determined. Director Chiu said that he had no problem with having William Wong revisiting the project and seeing what needs to be done. Director Chiu said that without looking at the case, he was not so sure that a Director’s Hearing is required. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to have William Wong take a look at this case and give his opinion as to whether a Director’s Hearing is needed, or not and then if one is needed the Department would report back to the Commission and Director Chiu said that at the same time the Department would report back as what the penalties and fines are. Commissioner Guinnane asked that Director Chiu report back as to what was approved initially for the permit regarding the alteration permit versus what was done. Commissioner Guinnane asked for a report back as to what work was done beyond the scope of the actual permit itself. Director Chiu said that he would happy to direct Deputy Director Wong to investigate, revisit, the project and report back. Director Chiu said that he thought that the report should also include what types of penalties and fines should be imposed.
Ms. Roberta Caravelli said that recently she filed an appeal of a Department decision to this Commission. Ms. Caravelli said that she was put through the wringer. Ms. Caravelli said that part of the problem is ignorance on the part of the Commission Secretary. Ms. Caravelli said that the ordinance, however, which guides and controls over the appellate powers are probably over a year old now and there are forms that have been required. Ms. Caravelli said that those forms do not yet exist. Ms. Caravelli said that the Commission Secretary forgot that Frank Chiu was no longer her boss; she also didn’t quite understand that if somebody files an appeal of the Department decision she cannot give Frank Chiu authority to say, reject the appeal. Ms. Caravelli said that her appeal was filed on October 25th and despite the very explicit provisions of the law, she finally got the appeal accepted and the hearing dated in a letter yesterday and Ms. Carvavelli said she filed October 25th. Ms. Caravelli said that moreover, the Department is playing games with the suspension of the decision. Ms. Caravelli said that she would suggest and was asking, with all due respect, as she does not know whether the Commission Secretary is receiving erroneous instructions, or if she hasn’t bothered to read the law, but Ms. Caravelli said she would suggest that this Commission form a sub-committee and get the forms created that should have been created pretty much right after the ordinance was passed. Ms. Caravelli said that there are five forms to be created, a checklist that clearly specifies to the Secretary where her authority resides and where it doesn’t. Ms. Caravelli said that the Secretary so exceeded her authority in every step through the process and Ms. Caravelli said that the thing is and why she suggests this, is because when this stuff happens to her, she can at least fight it and the same with Ms. Vaughey. Ms. Caravelli stated if she can’t get public records she can raise a stink, but unsophisticated and inexperienced members of the public should not go through this nor, should for instance, a contractor be required to hire a permit expediter just to get through the process. Ms. Caravelli said that the Secretary needs to understand that Frank Chiu cannot sensor what appeals get to the Commission and do not get to the Commission and this is just facial. Ms. Caravelli said that she would suggest to the Commission to agendize that somebody create a sub-committee and try and get this appellate process straightened out so that it works so that people don’t have to climb Mount Everest just to file an appeal. Ms. Caravelli thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Guinnane asked Ms. Caravelli what was the address and what was the basis of her appeal. Ms. Caravelli said that it has been accepted now. Commissioner Guinnane said that he was trying to find out what it is and he would like an answer. President Fillon said that Ms. Caravelli’s appeal was going to be heard on December 6th. Ms. Caravelli said that she did not want to waste her appeal dime to talk about process because that is always what happens in this City; it is so screwed up about process.
President Fillon asked if there was any further public comment.
Mr. John Carney said that he had sent a letter to a number of people regarding 598 Vermont Street. Mr. Carney said that this is a property that was at one time a store and was converted back to a residence and then converted back to a store again. Mr. Carney said that part of the subdivision of the lot that this property is on was supposed to be converted back to residential, but the Planning Department, when they inputted the decision of the Planning Commissioner decided that they did not put all of the stuff in the computer so they missed it and they appear to have issued a permit to build a coffee shop in a residential area. Mr. Carney said that the only reason he got interested is that he heard rumors that the coffee shop was going to be converted to office space and it appears that the Building Inspection people have jurisdiction over this. Mr. Carney said that he wrote a letter and gave Frank Chiu a new copy of it today. Mr. Carney said that the letter has been on hold and nobody will talk to him and the letter has been assigned to Jim Hutchinson for four weeks and he does not know what the status is. Mr. Carney said he thought that there is a permit that should be stopped. President Fillon asked Mr. Carney if he was saying that the Building Department has jurisdiction over change of land use. Mr. Carney answered yes. President Fillon said that this was not actually correct; the Planning Department has jurisdiction. Mr. Carney said that the Planning Department told him to come to the Building Inspection Commission to appeal the issuance of the building permit. Commissioner Walker said that this was true. Mr. Carney said that it is really a Byzantine type operation and the problem is that the information that is needed is not in the computer, but is in the actual document. Commissioner Walker requested that the Director look into this. Mr. Carney said that the Director is looking into it, but Mr. Carney said that he thinks this is a communication problem. Mr. Carney said that staff at the Department of Building Inspection should have an hour a day that they answer their telephone and stated that he did not care what hour it was, but just one hour that they don’t refuse to answer their telephone. Mr. Carney said that then the public could talk to someone, and not an answering machine, as he has tried to call five times now and never gotten a call back. Mr. Carney said that for all of the things that the Department is doing this is probably a minor item, but it is frustrating. Mr. Carney passed out additional copies of his letter.
Director Chiu apologized for not being able to respond directly to Mr. Carney’s letter, but since it was now brought to his attention, Director Chiu said that he would be happy to look into this situation himself and report back at the next meeting. Mr. Carney said that he came to the meeting to expedite this matter.
Commissioner Santos said that he had a comment to make regarding 2254 Bush Street. Commissioner Santos stated that he was not aware of the fact that he was supposed to be the structural engineer to review the condition of the adjacent property. Commissioner Santos said that he is the structural engineer at 2254 Bush, which is the controversial issue that was discussed, but Commissioner Santos said he had not been retained, nor would he want to be involved in doing a structural investigation, for the adjacent property. Commissioner Santos said that he would suggest that some other structural engineer do that.
5. Report on training, certification and review of minimum requirements for Housing Inspectors. [Director Chiu, John Marquez, DBI Personnel Officer & Betty Thomas, Principal Personnel Analyst Department of Human Resources Representative]
Director Chiu said that this item was at the request of Commissioner Roy Guinnane as to revisiting the job announcement for Housing Inspectors. Director Chiu said that in the Commission package there were copies of previous job announcements for Housing Inspectors and Commissioner Guinnane’s concern was that future hires should be more technical in construction rather than generic inspection. Director Chiu said that he thought the best place to start was to invite personnel people from DBI and Betty Thomas from DHR to explain about how the Department goes about changing the Minimum Qualifications for a certain class, or group. Director Chiu said that some staff members were also present to express their views and concerns. Director Chiu introduced DBI Personnel Officer John Marquez and Betty Thomas of DHR to give a presentation as to how the Department would go about changing the description of the classification.
John Marquez introduced himself as Personnel Office for the Department of Building Inspection. Mr. Marquez said that he had invited Betty Thomas who is a Principal Analyst from the Department of Human Resources to the meeting. Mr. Marquez stated that he wanted to go over the process and the constraints that the Department has to work under. Mr. Marquez said that he would review what the current requirements are for a Housing Inspector in comparison to what, as he understands the issue, the Department would like to attain and what has to be done, plus implications on current staff and he would answer any questions regarding the process. Mr. Marquez said that Ms. Thomas is the Principal Analyst who is the team leader at Human Resources who conducts most of the examinations, develops the exams, does classification actions and is DBI’s liaison. Mr. Marquez said that, as he understands the issue, what the Department is looking at is whether Housing Inspectors can be qualified to perform some of the functions that are related to the structural issues rather than habitability issues. Mr. Marquez referred to job announcements included in the Commission package for the 6270 Housing Inspector; the last time that it was announced in September of 1999 and the announcement that was issued in January of 1997. Mr. Marquez asked the Commission to focus on Minimum Qualifications, the Minimum Qualifications on the prior announcement, the 1997 announcement, asked for two years of experience in housing, building, fire, health inspection or the enforcement of a variety of housing, building and fire codes. Mr. Marquez said that it was similar on the last announcement of two years ago, but the only difference or distinction on the last announcement was that there was a provision that people who are hired from this announcement who had passed an examination, may be required to be certified as receiving International Conference of Building Inspectors certification within one year of appointment. Mr. Marquez said that the means by which these qualifications are established are through a job analysis, which is established by Civil Service Commission Rules, by Department of Human Resources Practice and Policies under the guidelines of Federal Selection and as a merit system there are certain processes that have to be followed. Mr. Marquez said that the minimum qualifications are based first on the requirements to perform the job; what is necessary to come in and be minimally qualified to carry out a particular function. Mr. Marquez said that Ms. Thomas’ teams conducted the analysis, at that time, with input from subject matter experts both from other jurisdictions, as well as the majority from DBI. Mr. Marquez said that based on those requirements, the examination was developed and once a person had passed that examination, hired from that eligible list. Mr. Marquez said that he believed that the Department hired from the current list according to a ranked, actually it was a rule of the list, which meant that anybody who met these qualifications could be hired. Mr. Marquez said that there is no rule of three like most examinations. Mr. Marquez said that the list was adopted by the Civil Service Commission in December of 1999, it is a 24-month list and it has one more year to go, which means that it will expire December 13, 2001. Mr. Marquez said that anyone who has been hired under the provisions of this examination, or for the forth coming year, there are 23 people still remaining on the eligible list who could be hired under the conditions of this list. Mr. Marquez stated that anyone who is currently working for the Department was hired, for the most part, under the 1997 announcement or something prior to that. Mr. Marquez said that he did not know what the requirements were before that, but believed that at least the 1997 and any prior announcements did not even address the I.C.B.O. certification. Mr. Marquez said that in essence if the Department started to require people to have the I.C.B.O. certification, it would be his opinion that there would be a meet and confer issue based on the fact that people came in under certain working conditions at that time. Mr. Marquez said that he believed that maybe three people have been hired under the new list so the majority of the people in the Department, approximately 20 Housing Inspectors, would have been hired without that requirement for certification. Mr. Marquez said that in the least, even though he is not legally qualified to say what the implications would be, the Department should have some input from the labor team from the City Attorney’s Office, as well as from the Department of Human Resources Employee Relations Division regarding potential impact on current staff. Mr. Marquez said that, not to say that it is impossible to impose these kind of requirements, but the Department does have to go through a rigorous process to establish those requirements to make sure that they are justifiable and could then stand scrutiny that they are legitimate, bonafide requirements of the job. Mr. Marquez asked Ms. Thomas if she would like to make any statements regarding the process.
Ms. Thomas said that she believed that Mr. Marquez had explained everything very comprehensively and very clearly and had no additional comments.
Commissioner Guinnane said that his concern over this for the last seven months is that the Housing Inspectors and the Building Inspectors are both at the same pay level and the Housing Inspectors are coming in under a lighter requirement. Commissioner Guinnane said that he noticed that a lot of the Housing Inspectors are coming in from the Health Department and that he did not know what the requirements were for being a Health Inspector versus a Housing Inspector, but he sees a lot of this happening. Commissioner Guinnane said that another problem he was having with this issue is that when a Housing Inspector goes out and cites a building or cites a deck, there are concerns that the Housing Inspector really does not have the qualifications to know what they were looking at. Commissioner Guinnane said that over the past few years there has been problems with decks collapsing and things like that and this is where his concern is coming from. Commissioner Guinnane said that some of the decks have been cited and then when the work is complied with, or a new deck is built, the Housing Inspector has to bring out a Building Inspector with him so there are two inspectors going out looking at the same job and doing the same function. Commissioner Guinnane said that this was his biggest concern; as Building Inspectors have enough inspections to make besides having to go out and do Housing Inspections as well. Commissioner Guinnane said that what he wanted to do was to have inspectors that are on board be certified or take classes or get some on the job training regarding defective decks and things to look for. Commissioner Guinnane said that you didn’t need to be a genius to go out and inspect a deck and tell if it has fungus or dry rot and the same when it comes to signing it off. Commissioner Guinnane said that if there is a drawing and it is built according to the drawing, the inspector should have the authority to sign it off. Mr. Marquez said that he did not think that there were any constraints in terms of getting people qualified, it is just that at the time that they were originally hired those requirements were not in place, and the Department would have to go through some kind of process to get the by in, by the membership and the Housing Inspection Group represented by Local 21. Mr. Marquez stated that the Department could definitely provide training, but as he sees it, where the Department starts to establish legal requirements such as through the job analysis, the Department may be able to phase it in and make it a requirement to have a certification. Mr. Marquez said that one of the principles that guide the merit system is that, if people are brought in under certain prior criteria, the Department does not want to phase them out of a job by virtue of raising the ladder. Mr. Marquez said that the Department has to have that consideration. Mr. Marquez said that the relationship of salaries is more a function of the collective bargaining agreements as both groups are represented, Building Inspectors by Local 22 Carpenters and the Building Inspectors Association and Local 21 for Housing Inspectors. Mr. Marquez said that this is a separate process. Commissioner Guinnane said that what he wants to do and does not know how long it takes, but he has been talking about it for seven months, is to change the minimum qualifications for new Housing Inspectors coming in. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know what needs to be done to do this, but he wanted to take out the provision about having two years as a Health Inspector as he does not know what a Health Inspector does. Mr. Marquez said that historically, but he did not know how this was first established, before there was a Housing Inspector’s classification, the Department would draw very strongly on Health Inspectors. Mr. Marquez said that he supposed the rationale was first of all that they had done inspections under a particular code at that time, brought a set of skills to the job and were able learn the inspection codes. Mr. Marquez said that the Department currently has a Chief Housing Inspector that was formerly a Health Inspector and she has done very well. Mr. Marquez stated that some of the newer employees have also come from that field as well and stated that it gives the Department a good influx of both women and minorities, bilingual people who can perform the job well, at least under the way the job exists right now. Mr. Marquez said that whether it is still applicable or current, an analysis would have to be done to see if the Department can raise the minimum requirements. Mr. Marquez said that the Department can decide what it wants to do, but must do an analysis to make sure that it is something that can be done. Mr. Marquez stated that if the Department determined that they want to have certain requirements, they could be imposed as long as DBI goes through this analysis. Mr. Marquez said that currently the examination list is good for at least one year so very often what Ms. Thomas’ team tries to do is to anticipate an old list expiring and then do an analysis. Mr. Marquez said that at that point the Department would have to have input in terms of changing the Minimum Qualifications and said that he thought it would be a policy decision as to what types of standards are going to be imposed at that particular time. Commissioner Guinnane asked what date Personnel would need the changes by for the new list, before the end of the year or the beginning of next year. Mr. Marquez said that he would say two or three months prior to expiration of the current list or sometime in July 2001. Mr. Marquez said that Ms. Thomas would get input from whomever the Department would get as job experts, but as it exists now DBI is restrained by the current list. Ms. Thomas said that she would like to point out that what DHR looks for when a new examination is planned, is a Department’s projected vacancies as well as the status of any current, existing eligible list. Ms. Thomas said that she would like to go back to the information that Mr. Marquez presented. Ms. Thomas said that it was the policy and procedure that when a new examination is being planned to meet with subject matter experts who are typically from the Department, who are permanent employees in the class or their supervisors. Ms. Thomas said that the goal is to find out what the job really does so that they find out what tasks or activities are performed; what people need to know, what knowledge, skills and abilities they need to possess to do those job functions. Ms. Thomas said that typically DHR looks at what the job is doing at the point in time that there is a job analysis meeting because the goal is to make all of the examinations valid, job related and legally defensible. Ms. Thomas said that departments have the ability to organize and reorganize so they can assign work as they choose based upon any type of organization or reorganization they decide to do. Ms. Thomas said she would like to emphasize that first of all, they look at what the job is doing and proposed changes. Ms. Thomas said that she wanted to make the Commission aware of some issues that occur when and if a new announcement is issued, it is subject to a protest period. Ms. Thomas said therefore, if there are people who believe that this perhaps might be infringing on some function that is currently assigned to another classification, union officials or employees could certainly have the ability to file protests. Ms. Thomas said, at the same time, the existing class specification also needs to be amended which again describes what the essential functions of a job are, just as the examination announcement does. Ms. Thomas said that the Minimum Qualifications are on the Class Specification and again that notice is published and is subject to a protest period as well. Ms. Thomas said she would just like DBI to be aware of the fact if there are those people, union officials or employees, who believe that any changes are infringing upon the work that they are doing, mirroring their work, they may choose to file protests. Ms. Thomas said that at the Department of Human Resources where she works, they do meet with anyone who files a protest with the Department and they attempt to resolve the protest. Ms. Thomas said that usually this works out, however, if protests cannot be resolved, they then go to the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission does make the final decision. Ms. Thomas said this is the same for a protest of an examination announcement of the minimum qualifications or any special requirements, which in this case if it requires a certification, would be called a special condition. Ms. Thomas said that this would be the same for the class specification. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Marquez that since now he has spoken about all of the protests wouldn’t it be proper to come up with new requirements in January of 2001 instead of July 2001. Commissioner Guinnane said that if there were going to be protests, the Department could get through the protests within that six months period. Mr. Marquez said that if he said July, he meant January, immediately after the current list expires, or in anticipation of the current list expiring. President Fillon asked what the first steps would be to start the process. Mr. Marquez said that the Department could request through the Department of Human Resources that they have it as a priority to develop that examination immediately upon the expiration of the current list. Mr. Marquez said that there could be job analysis meetings in anticipation of that and have input in terms of what types of performance and essential functions that the Department wants its Housing Inspectors to perform. Mr. Marquez said that it is a fairly standard process, which the Department goes though for most of its examinations, particularly those exclusive to the Department. Mr. Marquez said that DBI is the only Department, with the exception of one or two that uses Building Inspectors; DBI is the only Department that uses Housing Inspectors so the exams are done with all of the Department’s input. Mr. Marquez said it is hard to get input from other jurisdictions because there are no equivalent Housing Inspectors in other jurisdictions so it is pretty much as dictated in house. Mr. Marquez said that he wanted to clarify on the special condition, that maybe as an interim remedy, there could be certain positions designated as requiring a certification so that the employee is qualified to perform the types of structural analysis needed. Mr. Marquez said that the problem is that the person may not be on-site at the moment and that person would still have to be called in for special cases. Mr. Marquez said that he thought this would be a slow process.
Commissioner Walker said that she is still not clear about what Commissioner Guinnane’s issue is and it seemed to her that Commissioner Guinnane is not clear about not knowing what the requirements are for another department. Commissioner Walker said that she was not sure what Commissioner Guinnane was trying to fix. Commissioner Walker said that she knew there was one occasion where somebody identified some fungus or mold that ended up not being there, which doesn’t seems worthy of changing the whole structure. Commissioner Walker stated that she is somewhat unclear of what the specifics are because it seems like the system in place is if a Housing Inspector identifies something that is a structural issue, a Building Inspector is called in to look at it and he has the qualifications. Commissioner Walker said that it seems like a system that on some level works and would suggest that before the Commission goes forward she would like something a little more specific presented as to what the Commission is hoping to fix that might be broken. Commissioner Guinnane said that what he is hoping to fix is that a lot of the Housing Inspectors go out and make inspections and they don’t even know what they are looking at out there. Commissioner Guinnane said that this is what he is trying to fix. Commissioner Guinnane said these Housing Inspectors don’t have any outside experience in the construction industry. Commissioner Walker said that she felt that the Commission needed something more specific than Commissioner Guinnane saying that. Commissioner Walker said that she needed examples of what Commission Guinnane was talking about that isn’t dealt with by actually calling in a Building Inspector. Commissioner Walker said that she thought there were things that the Housing Inspectors look at that is different than things that Building Inspectors look at. Commissioner Walker said that they don’t go out and inspect as a Housing Inspector on all things that Building Inspectors look at. Commissioner Walker said that she thought that there is a real difference in what the inspectors do. President Fillon said that this item was not agendized for possible action and stated that he would like this put on a future agenda in order to be able to take some action and move forward with this process. President Fillon said that there would be a chance to vote on this issue at that time. Commissioner Walker said that she was unclear and would like information as this is being reviewed, what exactly is the problem that the Commission is trying to address and is this the best way to address it. Commissioner Walker said that she would also like to hear from Union Reps and some of the staff about it. President Fillon asked if there was any other questions or discussion about this item.
Commissioner Santos asked Mr. Marquez what would be the net effect of eliminating one of the requirements on item 1 of the job announcements and just going to item 2. Commissioner Santos said that the requirements would be that the Housing Inspector would need four years of field experience or would have to be a civil engineer or an architect. Commissioner Santos asked if that would be a dramatic modification to the qualifications. Mr. Marquez said that in doing a quick assessment it looks like it would eliminate a lot of potential input and restrict the job to the trades. Mr. Marquez said that it would be almost identical to what the Building Inspector’s requirements are, but that was just his first assessment, in that it would eliminate at least one source of candidates from an entirely different group of candidates. Commissioner Santos asked if there would be any applicants. Commissioner Santos asked if the Department ever gets a Civil Engineer or an Architect that applies for a Housing Inspector’s position. Mr. Marquez said not that he was aware of, but he did not look at every single application. Mr. Marquez said that what he looks for is if the applicant meets the qualifications as stated or if they exceed the qualifications, he can’t really say as it is mostly his staff that reviews the applications to say that they meet the qualifications or in this instance, it is Ms. Thomas’ staff that looks at it and DBI then gets the referrals from the eligible list. Mr. Marquez said that he is sure that there are people that exceed the qualifications, but he did not know what proportion of the current staff would meet those criteria. President Fillon asked if once this procedure of analysis is stated if Mr. Marquez had a feeling for how often, if ever, the process gets stopped. Mr. Marquez asked if President Fillon meant once the requirements are already established or when going through the process of analysis. President Fillon said he was asking about going through the review of the position and if that review were ever stopped. Mr. Marquez said that there is always the potential that the announcement will be protested. Mr. Marquez stated that the announcement can be protested within seven days after posting. Mr. Marquez said that anyone who is a potential applicant and if the ladder is raised too high and they are no longer qualified, this is the person who will be prone to protest. Mr. Marquez said that the Union could protest if they feel it is an inappropriate raising of the qualifications and the Department would then have to demonstrate that it is legitimate and that it is necessary to do the requirements as of now as opposed to three or four years ago. Mr. Marquez said he did not think that there were any protests the last time, of this particular examination. Ms. Thomas said that she did not recall any protests. Mr. Marquez said that it differs from classification to classification. President Fillon said that once the change is made it is pretty much done and he was just trying to get a feel for what happens. Director Chiu said that two or three years ago, he personally worked with one of the Deputy Directors to try to change the Housing Inspectors qualifications and this was done. Director Chiu said that at that time he spoke with some Housing Inspectors, including the Chief Housing Inspector, to approach the idea of dropping the realtor and appraiser as one of the qualifications. Director Chiu said that he was testing the waters to see whether this would be objected to and his discussions with staff was that they did not have a problem with this issue and then the Department proceeded with the changes. Director Chiu said that there were no protests. Director Chiu said that this kind of dialogue is good and since Commissioner Guinnane is raising the issue now it is a good time to ask the Union and staff if there is a problem with the changes that are being suggested. Director Chiu said that Commissioner Guinnane keeps asking about the Health Inspectors and perhaps one of the questions that should be asked is would anyone have any objections to dropping Health Inspectors from the qualifying criteria. Director Chiu said that if there are objections to dropping the Health Inspectors then the Department needs to do research as to how the Health Inspector qualifications are relevant to what is needed to be a Housing Inspector. Director Chiu said in looking at the other qualifications, he did not know how the experience of two years as a Housing Inspector could be dropped. Director Chiu said that regardless of how someone got hired as a Housing Inspector that person is already serving as a Housing Inspector, whether on a temporary basis or other jurisdiction as a Housing Inspector, it is very tough for the Department to say that the person could not take the test because they are not from the trade. Director Chiu said that perhaps the only issue to be discussed today would be dropping the Health Inspection experience and see if the Union has problems with that as a starting point. President Fillon asked if there was a Union Rep present.
Mr. Ron Dicks introduced himself as Vice-President of Local 21 and as a Housing Inspector. Mr. Dicks said that he was one of the old guards since he has been a Housing Inspector since 1986. Mr. Dicks said that the dialogue is interesting regarding the Health Inspectors. Mr. Dicks said that there is a real historical precedent for that and said that he did not know if this meeting was the proper form to discuss how this evolved. Mr. Dicks said that the Housing Inspector position is a constantly evolving model. Mr. Dicks said that the Union does not stand opposed and even encourages more training. Mr. Dicks stated that when he first became an Inspector in 1986, the Housing Code was very small and it has grown; the Building Code was only one volume and it has now grown to two and the position is a constantly evolving model. Mr. Dicks said that this is something that always has to be remembered. Mr. Dicks said that the second thing that has to be remembered is that there is no perfect system. Mr. Dicks said that the Union definitely stands for more training and are interested in having a dialogue with the Department and the Commission, as they are interested in improving the position. Mr. Dicks said that unfortunately, given the context of the environment that has been experienced in DBI in the past year, with the plethora of articles that have appeared in the newspaper, this creates an environment where people get very emotional. Mr. Dicks said that people get very tense as they think that the Department is going to go back and reinvent the wheel. Mr. Dicks said that he would suggest that it is very necessary to have some kind of dialogue to look at how DBI has incorporated the Health Inspectors. Mr. Dicks said it may be very possible that this issue needs to be revisited and it may need to be changed, but that model came on the fact that there were very few women or minorities in this Division and Health Inspectors were perceived as being qualified in certain areas that would allow them to make a very smooth transition from the Health Department to the Building Department and that was very effective at the time. Mr. Dicks said that there was an environment at the time where Building Inspectors were very reluctant to get involved in tenant/landlord issues and that was the nexus that created Housing Inspection Division. Mr. Dicks said that this was a group of people that were willing to take on that pink elephant. Mr. Dicks said that he wanted to offer the services of the Union, as they are always willing to talk about this, but it is a constantly evolving model and this has to be kept in the minds of all involved.
Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Dicks would do him one favor by checking with some of the other counties such as San Mateo or Berkeley, some of the larger ones, and dig up the qualifications of a Housing Inspector and what those counties require to see if DBI is way off course. Mr. Dicks said that what Mr. Marquez said was very true, as even when the Housing Inspectors are involved in collective bargaining negotiations with the City and try to find another classification in terms of salary, Housing Inspectors do not fit into any classification. Mr. Dicks said that there are none in the surrounding areas, as a lot of the municipalities have gone to a model of combo inspector, where one inspector comes in and does electrical and plumbing and many different things. Mr. Dicks said that none of these were a match for the San Francisco Housing Inspectors who are rather unique. Commissioner Guinnane said that San Mateo has a Building Inspector that goes out and a Housing Inspector that goes out. Mr. Dicks said that what the Housing Inspector does is very different from what the San Francisco Housing Inspectors do. Mr. Dicks said that he has inspected decks without a Building Inspector going out after him, so there are instances where Housing Inspectors do go out and there has not been any problems with decks and such. Mr. Dicks said that there are always going to be problems and sometimes it is institutional and sometimes it is just the individual. Commissioner Guinnane said that his concern was that when the Housing Inspector went out and cited the building, he wanted the Inspector to be able to go out and look at the job when it is finished and sign it off without having to bring out a Building Inspector. Commissioner Guinnane said that this is what he is trying to accomplish. Mr. Dicks said that he would agree with Commissioner Guinnane and stated that this situation would be easier for everybody. Mr. Dicks said it would be easier for the Division, the Department and the public. Mr. Dicks said that Commission Guinnane was right that this is creating another level of bureaucracy that is completely unnecessary. Mr. Dicks said that he would like to work with the Commission to see that this happens.
Mr. John Kerley introduced himself as President of the Housing Inspectors Association and a Housing Inspector. Mr. Kerley said that he wanted to concur with Mr. Dicks that the HIA is not opposed to training. Mr. Kerley said that he has only been with the Deparment for a couple of years, but came from the trades and understood what Commissioner Guinnane said about it being easier to have only one Inspector go out to a site. Mr. Kerley said that at this point the Association is open to any discussion and he was present to answer any questions. Mr. Kerley said that there is concern among some of the Inspectors that have come from other Divisions or Departments that do not have any practical training. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted to ask Mr. Kerley a question and was not intending to put him on the spot, but said that Mr. Kerley did an inspection over on Clipper Street. Mr. Kerley stated that it was a corner building at Clipper and Douglas. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Kerley what he found at the building. Mr. Kerley said that when he first started with the Department he was assigned to the South East Division of the City and also did some routine inspections. Mr. Kerley said that he remembered this property very well; it was 610 and 660 Clipper right at the top of Clipper and Douglas. Mr. Kerley said that the property was built in the early 60’s, probably 1959 or 1960 and there were two buildings, a 20 unit and a 25 unit building. Mr. Kerley said that he did a walk through on these motel type structures with exterior walkways and concrete pre-fab stairs. Mr. Kerley said that there was major, major dry rot from top to bottom and when he walked the stairways to the roof, the ceiling lid, a ceiling soffit lid had fallen and there was exposed I-beams that were as thin as paper. Mr. Kerley said that he immediately wrote a violation. Mr. Kerley said that his Supervisor also visited the property, as he wanted to evaluate Mr. Kerley, and the Supervisor concurred with his findings. Mr. Kerley stated that this was a big job that went on for a long time, as it required building permits and plans. Mr. Kerley said that the job lasted for over a year as there was no way to get the tenants into the units, as the only second means of egress was fire escapes at the rear of the building and it turned into a big project. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Kerley his opinion of how many years went by for that amount of damage to occur on these properties, two years, maybe three or ten years. Mr. Kerley said that it was probably some time as it is a very heavy fog area around Diamond Heights, but it had to be some time since anyone had done an inspection. Mr. Kerley said he did not check any records to see when a previous inspection had been done. Mr. Kerley said that the owner had been very negligent and had not done any painting or upkeep on the property. Mr. Kerley said that when he spoke with the property owner several times, the owner said that he had purchased the building and it was in bad shape at the time. Mr. Kerley said that the damage would not be noticed from the street, but in doing an inspection on the walkways the damage was very obvious and Mr. Kerley said he was concerned that some of the walkways might collapse. Commissioner Guinnane said that what he was trying to drive home and why he picked that particular building is because Mr. Kerley worked in the trades and he knows what to look for and obviously somebody in the Housing Division went out to that building over the years and didn’t see anything. Mr. Kerley thanked the Commission.
Ms. Maria Galatti said that her avocation is construction and stated that she would like to address herself to Commissioner Walker. Ms. Galatti said that what she thought Commissioner Guinnane was trying to say was that if you don’t know how to build something, you don’t know how to inspect it to find out if it has been done properly. Ms. Galatti said that when there is a lateral transfer, either from transportation or the health department to the Building Inspection, San Francisco is unique. Ms. Galatti said that there are difficulties in San Francisco that are different from any other State. Ms. Galatti said that if lateral transfers are allowed even from other counties, employees will come in and think that their Code is applicable to San Francisco and they will allow contractors to do less than what is required. Ms. Galatti said that people from outside of San Francisco don’t realize that San Francisco is tough and for good reasons. Ms. Galatti said that then the homeowners or condo dwellers are the ones who are stuck and then appear before the Commission complaining that a job is not done correctly. Ms. Galatti said that these people do not have a notion of good construction materials and are building garbage. Ms. Galatti said that these things happen because a so-called Building Inspector did not know what he was looking at. Ms. Galatti said that she has experienced this scenario herself. Ms. Galatti said that there were lateral transfers allowed in the City from transportation into HUD and said that the public was talking to someone who was "qualified" for the job and they did not know the difference between a bus and a foundation. Ms. Galatti said that she concurred with Commissioner Guinnane, that plain and simple, a Building Inspector has to know how to build before he can inspect. Ms. Galatti said that the inspectors should have experience in architecture, engineering or general contracting. Ms. Galatti said that Commissioner Santos asked if people with these qualifications ever apply for Building Inspection and she would answer, only in tough times when there is no other work.
Commissioner Walker said that there is a different qualification when someone goes out to inspect as a Housing Inspector rather than a Building Inspector. Commissioner Walker said that the current status is that they are inspecting different things.
Director Chiu said that essentially the major responsibility is a little different. Director Chiu said that a Housing Inspector tends to do more maintenance inspections versus permitted construction inspections. Director Chiu said that he thought that what Commissioner Guinnane wanted to bring up was that in some instances there is overlapping work. Director Chiu said that generally speaking, the Housing Inspectors major concern in looking into existing housing stock rather than new or construction activity.
Mr. Bill Fiore introduced himself as a Representative for Local 21 and stated that he represents the Housing Inspectors. Mr. Fiore said the process for changing a job announcement is quite a detailed one and it usually comes to him first. Mr. Fiore said that unfortunately there is a seven day notice that has to be responded to and the Union usually calls the people in the Department right away and run the amended job announcements by them. Mr. Fiore said he thought it was automatic that it is seven days, but wishes that it were longer, as often times it is a knee jerk response on his part to put in a meet and confer request, just so the Union does not lose the time limit. Mr. Fiore said that the situation is usually rectified using the input of the people working on the job and the input of DHR. Mr. Fiore said that with a lot of positions, HR recruitment is a problem. Mr. Fiore said that the history of the Housing Inspectors goes back to recruitment, to women and minorities that are relating to problems of maintenance versus Building Inspectors that are dealing with contractors. Mr. Fiore said that these people definitely do two different sets of work. Mr. Fiore said he understood why the Department does not want to see duplication happen and said that he was sure that the inspectors did not want this as well. Mr. Fiore stated that Mr. Dicks committed to the Commission that the Union would work with trying to solve any problems and he would help as well.
Mr. Richard Zarlow introduced himself as a Housing Inspector. Mr. Zarlow stated that he has been working as a Housing Inspector for the past eighteen years and was a journeyman carpenter associated with the Carpenter’s Union and had a B-1 license. Mr. Zarlow said that until recently he was an I.C.B.O. certified Building Inspector. Mr. Zarlow said that he wanted Commissioner Guinnane to know that he was deciding whether or not to recertify as it came up and after reading Commissioner Guinnane’s angry statements and a lot of things that he did not think were correct, Mr. Zarlow said that he decided not to recertify. Mr. Zarlow said that he thought this was totally useless and a waste of time for him and the Department. Mr. Zarlow said that his opinion is that training and certification is good, but it should be in the right areas. Mr. Zarlow said that he personally thinks that there is no category in the I.C.B.O. group of certifications that really suits the Housing Inspectors and said he would urge Commissioner Guinnane that if he really wants certifications and wants to make sure that people meet minimum requirements, the Department should develop its own training program that specifically address issues that are dealt with in the City.
President Fillon said that this item should be agendized as an action item. Commissioner Guinnane said that he did not know how the Commission could take action, as there have been no good ideas yet. President Fillon said that the Commission could start action and did not think that anything could be started without the Commission taking a vote. President Fillon said that more information and input was needed. President Fillon said that in terms of training, the Commission needed to decide how to go forward. President Fillon said that right now, with good economic times, there is not a very competitive market and in different times, these jobs are very hard to get. Director Chiu said that it sounded to him that nobody is objecting to additional training. Director Chiu stated that he would like Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson to work with the Housing Inspection groups to determine what types of training is needed. Director Chiu said that the Department certainly did not have to wait until next year to start the training, as training is always beneficial. Director Chiu said that training could solve a lot of the issues that were talked about today and training seems to be a great deal easier than trying to change the minimum qualifications of the job announcement. Director Chiu said that this training could start while the Department continues to research the concern about Health Inspectors and so forth. President Fillon said that inspection is a judgment call and it is sort of a gray area as to when a Building Inspector needs to be called in.
6. Report on BIC Litigation Committee. [Commissioner Guinnane]
Commissioner Guinnane reported that last week he met with the Deputy City Attorney regarding setting up the Litigation Committee with three members. Commissioner Guinnane said that he told the Deputy City Attorney exactly what the Committee would like to have, and that was a list of all of the legal proceedings going on with the Department, a breakdown of each case, an update of the settlement negotiations and any offers that were outstanding on the table. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Deputy City Attorney was going to get a list of all those items to him and then a date would be set up and start off with the new Committee in place. President Fillon asked if the Committee had met and Commissioner Guinnane said that he had the initial meeting alone with the Deputy City Attorney to go over the requirements for setting up the Committee meeting. Commissioner Walker said that she had not been notified of any meeting. The Committee agreed to meet on December 1st at 2:00 p.m. at 1660 Mission. Commissioner Guinnane said that if the meeting was to take place on December 1st, the Deputy City Attorney said that he would furnish all of the material about three days in advance so that the Committee could review the cases before the meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that the Deputy City Attorney gave him information on two cases. Commissioner Guinnane said that on one case the Department had obtained a judgement for over $1M and another one there is a judgement in place for $660,000. Commissioner Guinnane said he was not aware of these cases until he met with the Deputy City Attorney last week. Commissioner Guinnane said that these cases would be furnished to the Commission.
7. Update on progress of 759 - 37th Avenue. [Commissioners Guinnane & Santos]
Commissioner Santos said that there was nothing new to report as Commissioner Guinnane and himself had a meeting with the property owner about a month ago. Commissioner Santos said he wrote a report at that time and suggested that there be one final meeting to define the total cost and to submit for a new permit, but Commissioner Santos said there was nothing new to report unless Commissioner Guinnane had any comments. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had nothing new to report at this time. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had spoken with Mr. Conely and had urged him to get in touch with the insurance adjuster for Farmers and the lawyer and meet out there to come to a final resolution. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is $50,000 on the table from Farmers to resolve this problem once and for all.
There was no public comment on this item.
8. Review of Communication Items. At this time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.
a. Letter from Mr. Don C. Conley to Mr. Todd Thyberg, Esq. Of Valerian, Patterson, et al regarding Conley vs. Kwok et al, Claim No. E8-217916, 755 - 37th Avenue.
b. Letter from Mr. Cameron Falconer of Hines requesting appeal of Building Permit Fees on Site Permit Application #20000121819, 560 Mission Street Project to be heard on December 6, 2000.
c. Letter from Mr. Cameron Falconer of Hines requesting documentation regarding fees with respect to Site Permit Application #20000121819, 560 Mission Street.
d. Letters of commendation received from the public regarding DBI employees and Director Chiu’s response to the public.
e. DBI Newsletter.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to discuss items 8 b and c as they are related. Director Chiu said that the latest correspondence received was from Hines and Associates who had retained Marshall & Swift, the company that sets the fee evaluation for construction for the Bay Area. Director Chiu said that they came back with a proposal for construction of $121M. Director Chiu stated that DBI staff had estimated construction at $165M, but said that originally when the permit was applied for the customer came in with a valuation of $85M. Director Chiu said that there are three sets of numbers and he had directed Deputy Director Wong to take a look at the numbers and see if Marshall and Swift’s data includes what was proposed. Director Chiu said that in his opinion if everything is included, the Department will accept Marshall & Swift’s data of $121M and hopefully there will not be an appeal. Director Chiu said that a tentative date of December 6th has been set for the Hearing to consider this case. Director Chiu stated that he was hoping to resolve this issue and see if there can be a solution by adopting this Marshall & Swift estimate at $121M. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was $121M on the Marshall & Swift report and asked when was the last time the Department raised up to the new rates. Director Chiu said that there has been no rate increase and stated that Commissioner Guinnane brought it to the attention of the Commission about a year ago. At that time, it was decided that there would be no increase until the Commission directed the Department to do so. Director Chiu said that he could not recall when the last time the Department raised the Marshall & Swift rates, but it was not recently. Director Chiu said that there are three different sets of figures in front of the Department. President Fillon asked what the applicant came in with. Director Chiu said that the applicant came in with $85M and staff calculated the project at $175M - $180M and then when it was decided to change it to $165M. Director Chiu said that the customer wanted to get the project started so the $165M was agreed to with the understanding that the customer could protest later on. Director Chiu said that this was to be revisited and the customer went ahead and hired Marshall & Swift to do a detailed estimate and they came back with $121M. Commissioner Guinnane asked why there was a difference of $44M if the same index is being used. Director Chiu said that for any type of construction there are different types of quality of material; for instance, a kitchen can be remodeled for $2,000 or $60,000 depending on the construction. Director Chiu said that staff needs to go back and look at what the difference is between its calculations and Marshall & Swift’s calculations. Director Chiu said that if it is reasonably close, the Department would accept one number. Commissioner Guinnane said that he is concerned that if the Department starts messing around with fees, other developers will come in to San Francisco and do the same thing by attacking the fee schedule. Director Chiu said that he was concerned about this too, but wanted to make sure that the Department and the Marshall & Swift data is reasonable, rather than have an appeal. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Department had initially come up with $180M - $185M. Director Chiu said that was correct. Commissioner Guinnane said he would like to know how staff came up with $185M and would also like to follow what the Assessor’s Hearings do when they have a Commission hearing and someone asks for a deduction. Commissioner Guinnane said that the decision can go both ways, the fee can go down or it can also go up from the initial number. Commissioner Guinnane said he would like to follow this same format. Commissioner Guinnane said he wanted the Commission to have the ability to go back up to the higher number. President Fillon said that there was quite a large difference in the numbers. Director Chiu said that was why he was having Deputy Director Wong take a look at the data received from Marshall & Swift to see if it is reasonable and if it is pretty close than he would recommend that the Department go with that number. Commissioner Guinnane asked if this was for the shell of the building or if tenant improvement was included. Director Chiu said that TI was not included and it was his understanding that this was for the core and shell. President Fillon asked if the scope of the project had changed. Director Chiu said that everyone is supposed to be looking at the same project. President Fillon said that there usually are changes as the project goes along. Director Chiu said that the rule of thumb is that if a customer comes with a reasonable price, normally the staff does not change the figures, but if someone comes in low ball then that prompts the staff to look at the project with more detail. Director Chiu said that generally speaking if a customer comes in with a reasonable valuation, staff does not spend a lot of time trying to figure out what it is. However, in this particular case when the applicant initially came in with $85M, it prompted the staff to go into detail and calculate the project. Director Chiu said that this might prompt the valuation to come out on the higher side. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu why he made the decision to give the customer the permit and allow them to appeal it. Director Chiu said that they obtained the permit under protest because they did not want to waste time debating over the fees and pulled the permit with the understanding that they wanted to protest with more data. Director Chiu said that he kept asking for proof of their $85M figure. Director Chiu said that his staff was able to break down and show why the valuation should be $165M. Director Chiu said that they wanted a chance to prove to the Department that it was not $165M and Director Chiu said he felt this was reasonable at the time. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to address this particular issue later on, this particular issue of doing that in the future. Commissioner Guinnane said that they pay the fee and take the permit otherwise they don’t get the permit. Commissioner Guinnane said this would eliminate a lot of these problems. Commissioner Santos said that the Department could still hold the Certificate of Occupancy. Director Chiu said he liked Commissioner Guinnane’s idea of take it or leave it better. Commissioner Santos said that most people would be so delighted to obtain a permit for a high rise in that area that they wouldn’t argue about it, and this is an unusual case. Director Chiu said that the customer felt that they made a commitment to the developer at that cost, and were not willing to eat the difference in the permit fee, so they want to fight it. Commissioner Guinnane said that it would be very interesting to check the title and see what kind of financing is on this property. Director Chiu said that they claim that the bank is only financing $85M. Commissioner Guinnane said that he would be interested to see that. Director Chiu said that they claim it can be built for $85M, but as with any construction this probably does not include change orders. Director Chiu said that a contractor can come in with a low ball figure and they always have a way to come back with change orders. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to come back with a report at the next meeting, but is hoping that this can be resolved if Marshall & Swift data is reasonable. Director Chiu said that if the Department has made a mistake, he would like to go with that figure and if not there will be an appeal on December 6th.
President Fillon said that there were several DBI employees who received letters of commendation and he wanted to read out the names for the records. President Fillon proceeded to read the names of Martha Yanez, Alan Whiteside, James Lee, Gloria Sanbonventura, Tony Fong, Jamie Sanbonmatsu, and Dennis Dang. President Fillon said he wanted to thank these employees for a job well done.
There was no public comment on these items.
9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of November 1, 2000.
Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos Guinnane, that the minutes of November 1, 2000 be accepted.
The motion carried unanimously.
[Resolution No. BIC-063-00]
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.
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 Fillon said that Commissioner Mark Sanchez would be leaving the Commission as he won election to the School Board. President Fillon thanked Commissioner Sanchez for the time he served on the Commission and said it was a pleasure working with him. Commissioner Sanchez thanked the Commission and said he had enjoyed every minute of being on the board, as it was a great learning experience for him. Commissioner Sanchez said that he had never served in any capacity such as this before and had learned a lot and would bring what he had learned to the School Board.
Commissioner Walker said that she did not know if her question should be directed to Director Chiu, but regarding the issue brought up by the member of the public earlier about the appeals project, she was not sure what the issue was, but an appeal was made to the Commission and Commissioner Walker wanted to know what the Secretary needs to do with appeals and understood that the appeals need to go directly to the Commission. Director Chiu said that it was certainly not fair for the public member to direct her frustration to the Commission Secretary. Director Chiu said that the blame should be put on him because this person was trying to file an appeal on one of his staff’s determinations regarding the particular process of a project. Director Chiu said that he felt that if anybody wants to file an appeal, they should come to the Director first to give him an opportunity to look at the situation before it is sent on to the
Commission. Director Chiu said that he felt this is reasonable, particularly since the decision was not coming from a Deputy Director, but was coming from one of the Managers, the Residential Plan Check Manager responding to her letter. Director Chiu said that when the Commission Secretary brought the appeal to his attention, he asked for the chance to solve the issue and maybe there was no need for it to go before the Commission. Director Chiu said he was trying to resolve the issue and when the public member heard this, she was not happy with this and that is why she was saying that Director Chiu had no right to deny her appeal. Director Chiu said that he was just trying to see if he could resolve this issue and now there will be no answer until December 6th. President Fillon said that he would always prefer the Department to try and solve issues rather than having them come before the Commission as an appeal. Commissioner Walker said that maybe the City Attorney could help, since there are directions under the Sunshine Ordinance or the Ordinance that created the Building Inspection Commission. Director Chiu said that it is not clear, as the way that the Charter reads is that it is a Department determination, which is kind of broad, but in looking at the existing BIC Commission procedure, it is the Director of the Department’s determination. Director Chiu said that he always encourages people to talk with a Supervisor or Manager before it comes to his level and he would hope it would be the same for the Commission. Director Chiu said that the Commission would not want everyone to come and complain about what they were told by a clerk and then file an appeal with the Commission. Commissioner Walker said that if there is a process that is directed, and maybe Judy Boyajian could review this, if an appeal comes in, it does have to come directly to the Commission.
The Commission Secretary explained that one of the reasons the appeal is being heard is that she did not send the letter of rejection by registered mail and that is in speaking with Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian. The Secretary stated that the letter was not sent by registered mail as the appeal came in with a P.O. Box Number and registered mail cannot be sent to a P.O. Box. The Secretary said that because she did not send the letter by registered mail within five days and it is a clerical and technical error on her part. Commissioner Walker said that she just wanted to make sure the procedures were being followed. The Secretary said that she took full responsibility for the error.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like to bring up a subject that was being worked on by former Commissioner Sig Freeman and that is illegal demolitions. Commissioner Guinnane said that houses are being torn down with total disregard for the plans and the permits issued. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is a property out on Tenth Avenue right now that went beyond the scope and tore the whole place down with an alteration permit. Commissioner Guinnane said that there is the one on Bush Street and he did not know how many others are going on around the City. Commissioner Guinnane said he would like to agendize this and get a couple of members together to come up with some sort of structure on fines and a percentage if they go beyond the scope of the work. Commissioner Guinnane said then if they go beyond a certain amount the Department should impose the five year ban on the development of the project. Commissioner Guinnane said that he thought this would put a stop to what has been going on. Commissioner Guinnane said he wanted to look at what the fines are as it is not stopping this from happening. Commissioner Guinnane said that people are going out with an alteration permit and tearing the whole building down and then starting back up again. Director Chiu said that he had recently met former Zoning Administrator Bob Passmore and Director Chiu said that he and Mr. Passmore have been talking about this same issue for the past ten years. Director Chiu stated that Mr. Passmore said that now that he has more time, he would be happy to come in and help look at the process and the fines. Director Chiu said that three or four years ago the former Commission agreed to head up this issue and the Department met with a lot of neighborhoods and could not come up with a solution because everybody had a different idea; there was no real consensus as to what is reasonable and what is the proper process. Director Chiu said he looked forward to working with Commissioner Guinnane on this. President Fillon said that in today’s market, the fines mean nothing. Commissioner Santos said that the five-year ban would be substantial. Commission Guinnane said that there needs to be a percentage in place for that five-year ban to kick in. Director Chiu said that it is not just the fines, but what triggers an illegal demolition and it is confusing for City Planning and DBI. Commissioner Guinnane said that he has seen a couple of cases and they are not confusing at all; the developer gets an alteration permit because they come out better with a new building rather than going in for a brand new building and then wreck the whole thing down and say it was just a mistake. Director Chiu said that the issue is how much is left to consider it an unlawful demolition. Director Chiu said he looks forward to working with Commissioner Guinnane and his positive thinking that this is clear-cut.
Commissioner Guinnane said that he would like, in the future, that any projects that come in and there is a problem with the fees, before the permit is issued maybe it should come before the Commission. Commissioner Guinnane said that he does not like issuing permits and working it out later on; either they want the permit and they pay for it, or they don’t get it. Commissioner Guinnane said that if this is started with one person then everyone is going to be doing the same thing and it will also be done with Tenant Improvements. Director Chiu said that this particular case is very unusual. Director Chiu said that the Department issues 57,000 permits a year and this rarely happens, but in this particular case the applicant felt very strongly about what their fee was and that is the problem. Commissioner Walker said that she would agree with Commissioner Guinnane that if this is done other people will expect it to be done also and this is a precedent. Director Chiu said that he agreed and he is concerned about this coming to appeal. Commissioner Guinnane asked what the fee to the Department would be on the $45M less, just a rough guess. Director Chiu said it is about $150,000 - $200,000 difference and to them it is worth fighting. Commissioner Guinnane said that it was worth fighting for this for the Department.
11. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
There was no public comment.
12. Adjournment.
Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously.
[RESOLUTION NO. BIC-064-00]
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS | |
1160 Mission Street annex, transportation, parking and other variance issues to be discussed before variance hearing. - Commissioner Walker |
Pages 2 & 3 |
Proposed legislation [Woodburning Fireplaces] - further input from CAC and public. Input from Supervisor’s office - President Fillon, Commissioner Walker. |
Page 5 |
39 Borardman Place - Deal with Homeowner’s Assn. rather than individuals. Update on violations and gaining entry into property. - Commissioner Guinnane |
Page 6 |
Fines and penalties to be imposed on developers of 2254 Bush Street - Commissioner Guinnane & Commissioner Walker |
Pages 7 & 8 |
Director Chiu to look into situation at 598 Vermont Street. - Commissioner Walker |
Page 9 |
Possible action to begin process to change Minimum Qualifications on job announcement for Housing Inspectors. - President Fillon |
Pages 10 - 19 |
Possible action to begin training of Housing Inspectors - President Fillon |
Page 19 |
Update on Litigation Committee. - Commissioner Guinnane |
Page 19 |
560 Mission Street - update on permit fees. - Commissioner Guinnane |
Page 21 |
Illegal Demolitions, setting fines and establishing criteria for five-year ban. - Commissioner Guinnane |
Page 23 |
Prepared by: Ann Aherne
p:\mgb\minutes\11-15-00.doc