Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, January 19, 2000 at 1:10 P.M.
Approved February 2, 2000
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
MINUTES
The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:10 p.m. by Vice-President Vasquez (acting Chair).
1. ROLL CALL - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Armando Vasquez, Vice-President Bobbie Sue Hood, Commissioner
Roy Guinnane, Commissioner Esther Marks, Commissioner
Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner Debra Walker, Commissioner
Mark Sanchez, Commissioner
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
Jim Hutchinson, Deputy Director for Operations
William Wong, Deputy Director for Administration
Marcus Armstrong, Management Information Services Division
Lesley Stansfield, Housing Inspection Division
Amy Lee, Administrative & Finance Division
Laurence Kornfield, Technical Services Division
Ann Aherne, Executive Secretary to the Director
Carolyn Jayin, Secretary
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:
Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney
2. President’s Announcements
Vice-President Vasquez, as acting Chair of the Commission welcomed the newly appointed Commissioners. Vice-President Vasquez thanked the previous Commissioners: Sigmund Freeman, Sharon Marks, Mona Cereghino and former President Alfonso Fillon for their valuable time serving the Commission. Vice-President Vasquez asked the new Commissioners to introduce themselves.
Commissioner Walker introduced herself as the Residential Tenant Representative of the
Commission. Commissioner Walker resides and is employed in the Mission District. Commissioner Walker expressed that she is looking forward to working with the Commission and DBI staff.
Commissioner Marks is the At-Large Representative of the Commission. Commissioner Marks said that she is familiar with many of the staff and the City Attorney’s Office due to her service with the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Sanchez is the Landlord Member of the Commission. Commissioner Sanchez stated that he lives in the Mission District and teaches fourth grade at Paul Revere Elementary School in Bernal Heights. Commissioner Sanchez expressed that he is looking forward to working with the Commission.
Commissioner Santos introduced himself as the Licensed Structural Engineer of the Commission. His business is located in San Francisco and he is a Principal of Santos & Urrutia Structural Engineers. Commissioner Santos expressed that he is very excited and proud to be a member of the Commission and looking forward to working with everyone involved.
3. Director’s Report
Director Chiu wished the Commission a Happy New Year and welcomed all the new Commissioners on board. Director Chiu expressed that he is looking forward to working with the Commission in the year to come. Director Chiu mentioned that key staff were in attendance to discuss and present items on the agenda. Director Chiu thanked the previous Commissioners for their hard and dedicated work.
a. Announcement of Board of Examiners vacancies due to the retirement of Mr. Dan Kennedy, Building Trades Council Representative and the death of Mr. Aldo Lara, Electrical Contractor.
Director Chiu announced the Board Examiner vacancies. There is a total of five vacancies for the Board of Examiners. Director Chiu stated there are technical seats due to the retirement of Mr. Dan Kennedy, Building Trades Council Representative and the death of Mr. Aldo Lera, Electrical Contractor. Director Chiu stated that last year the adoption of the new Building Code allowed for an increase of three more members to the Board of Examiners to consider high rise sprinkler requirements. Therefore, there is actually a total of five vacant seats. Director Chiu said the High Rise Sprinkler System seats are vacant for two Fire Protection Engineers and one Building Owner.
Director Chiu recommended that the Commission agendize this item for the next meeting in order to fill the vacancies and begin reviewing cases.
Vice-President Vasquez asked if notices had been sent out to advertise the openings. Director Chiu said at the present time no notices have been sent. Director Chiu said he would like the Commission’s guidance on how to proceed with the process. Commissioner Marks said that she was surprised that the Commission is in the process of filling the BOE seats. Commissioner Marks asked if the hiring was a responsibility of the Director to proceed and what is usually done. Director Chiu said that at one time it was the responsibility of the Director. However, since the charter has changed, the Commission has the authority to fill the vacancies. Director Chiu said there are other subcommittees, such as the UMB Appeals Board under the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Commissioner Walker asked if there are vacancies on the Code Advisory Committee and the Access Appeals Commission.
Director Chiu said there is a total of three Boards or three Commissions that have vacancies. For example, the Disability Access Commission has some vacancies. Director Chiu said that the Commission needs to look at other Boards and Commissions to start filling those vacancies as well.
Commissioner Walker asked if there was one vacancy on the Access Appeals Committee and five on the Code Advisory. Commissioner Guinnane stated that there might be two vacancies on the Access Appeals Committee or one member was not attending meetings.
Director Chiu said that some member’s terms have expired but they are serving as a hold over. Director Chiu said for the Board of Examiners there is a total of five and for Code Advisories there are possibly three.
Vice-President Vasquez agreed to agendize the item so that the Commission can begin the process to fill the vacancies. Director Chiu thanked the Commission.
b. Report on Y2K compliance and new Permit Tracking System.
Director Chiu reported on the progress of Y2K compliance and the new Permit Tracking System. Director Chiu said that the Commission and the Department have been working for months to bring the system into the new Oracle Permit Tracking System. Director Chiu announced that as of January 1, 2000, with January 3, 2000 being the first working day, the old Motorola tracking system had been retired and that the new Oracle-basedPermit Tracking System is on the network. Director Chiu admitted that the first business day there was a "hiccup" of the new system due to the Motorola system crashing during data transfer. Director Chiu stated that as a result, one to two weeks worth of data was not transferred to the new network and that it needed to be entered manually to access the information. Director Chiu reassured the Commission that the Department is working closely with staff in regards to training. The Department is enhancing the system as users provide feedback as to what is needed.
Director Chiu then asked Marcus Armstrong, Manager of the Management Information Services, to present a more detailed report on the status of the new system.
Marcus Armstrong presented an Executive Summary which included highlights from the past year pertaining to the development of the new PTIS system and upgrading the network to be Y2K compliant, stable and secure. Marcus Armstrong thanked the Commission for helping organize an Executive PTIS Steering Committee which consisted of two Commissioners, Executive Management teams within DBI and MIS, along with the vendors for their assistance in giving direction to achieve their goal and to steer away from the old Motorola system.
Marcus Armstrong reiterated Director Chiu’s statement regarding Motorola crashing while in the process of converting the remaining data into the new Oracle system. Marcus Armstrong stated that the data had been caught in the pipeline before Motorola died. At first there appeared to be approximately 11,000 records that would have to be manually entered in the new system. However, as of January 19, 2000, the problem was worked out using an automated script that will assist in transferring the data by Friday, January 21st.
Marcus Armstrong outlined the positive aspects that had come about from this project. The Motorola System is now retired and DBI has adopted the new Oracle platform which is manageable, secure and stable. Marcus Armstrong said that there could be resistance to change because of the new system, due to staff training and retention issues. However, these issues are being dealt with and were anticipated.
Marcus Armstrong pointed out some good features of the new system. The security, audit reporting and managerial reports were built in based on input from Harvey Rose’s Office and various audits. The system is much more secure and each user is accountable for their transactions. Motorola was wide open and the Department was unable to track transactions making it difficult to hold up in an audit. However, these features may be viewed as an impediment when users are used to dealing with a system that is wide open, and can be manipulated. Such a system appears to be customer/user friendly, but in fact there are no controls in place. The new system has those controls built in and because ofthis there are still issues of training and retention.
The stability of the network infrastructure and new server farm has been outstanding. DBI has severed ties with Planning Department, at least being on the same software backbone. This presented several problems before the implementation of the new network. Once those issues were resolved and ties were severed, the Department has gained great stability and security on the network. What is now in place is a completely new server farm which is Y2K compliant, fast, and secure. This new server farm resides on totally new wiring.
Marcus Armstrong stated that DBI has issued more than 500 permits on the new system. Marcus Armstrong personally assisted in the processing stages of 47 permits. The Department is looking at benchmarks. While operating on the old Motorola System, it was taking 10-15 minutes to process a Form 8 report. On the new system, at present it is taking about 10-12 minutes. However, with an experienced user or with the assistance of a trainer, the permit can be processed in five minutes. The Department hopes to get staff to that level of service which goes back to the issue of training, repetition and use of the new system.
Marcus Armstrong stated that there is still work to be done on the further enhancement of core modules and maintaining a high profile when it comes to training and customer support at all counters.
Commissioner Guinnane inquired as to why it has taken three weeks to transfer the 11,000 files over from Motorola to the Oracle system.
Marcus Armstrong explained that the data needed to be reconstructed from scratch and manually transferred to Oracle. Motorola is very archaic Cobalt-based system and it crashes during the transfer. The 11,000 records have been a challenge, and MIS staffs have been working on them until the late hours of the night. Marcus Armstrong said that as he stated before the staffs have finally come up with a solution to automate that process. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were staff who were familiar with the Oracle system or Oracle staff working with the Department while the transfer was occurring. Marcus Armstrong stated, yes. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was an outside contractor from Oracle or employee of Oracle helping with the transfer. Marcus Armstrong said there is a consultant team that is onboard helping with training, troubleshooting, help desk and further development of the system.
Vice-President Vasquez asked how the new system was working out with regard to Planning Department. Marcus Armstrong said that Planning Department and DBI IS Departments have met on several occasions and have worked closely with theinterconnection between the two groups. The departments did sever ties approximately two and a half months ago, meaning they are not sharing the same network. A port was provided to Planning Department to provide input into DBI’s new PTIS system to issue a permit. Planning Department workstations have been increased by 400%. When Motorola was in use Planning Department had five workstations that could be used to input data to DBI’s system. The workstations have been increased to 20.
Commissioner Walker asked if there was any feedback from the public regarding the ease of use on the new system. Marcus Armstrong stated that he was involved with the AutoCAD 11 and 12 roll-outs, which at the time was the fifth largest software company in the world. He is very used to customer feedback, but admits it is very different when it comes to the construction crowd. Marcus Armstrong said he has received some very positive and some very negative feedback. However, most of the feedback is based on how we are working at the counters. The staffs are not properly trained or have been trained but issues arise that are different from the textbook training. Because of these issues, the customer perceives it as the system not working. Marcus Armstrong explained that we will go through this for a while, because staffs are used to the old system and process. However, the system appears to be customer and user friendly.
Commissioner Hood asked when the training program began and how wide spread it was. Marcus Armstrong said that training started approximately three and a half weeks prior to January 1, 2000. There were two training sessions per day held at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The training included the various counter staff, back office staff and inspection groups. A training program was incorporated with Planning Department. The issue of training was viewed as an overview. The Department went through training on three previous occasions and those were premature. Staff was being trained on a system that was not yet released or completed and in the middle of the training the system changed. The screen staff were trained on one day, would look different in a month. Marcus Armstrong said the Department went over the basic functions such as the F7 and F8 keys to go through the permit process. This was viewed as an overview rather than a full blown training.
Commissioner Hood asked if training staff was available to counter staff during the process in order to maintain a level of customer service. Marcus Armstrong assured Commissioner Hood that training staff was maintaining a high profile during the first week. There were key people who knew the system that helped with acceptance testing of the new system. Trainers are very familiar with the system. The Department has instructed users to call training staff when they have problems. Resources are limited, but training staff can be reached by cell phone, pagers, etc. Trainers have been lending a hand at the counter for staff who are having trouble in certain instances. MIS staffs continue to check periodically, especially with the CPB counter, for any trouble and toget status on how the system is working out for staff and customers.
Vice-President Vasquez asked for any public comment on the last two issues.
Anastasia Yovanopolous stated that on October 4, 1999, she filed complaint number 9901543 with the Building Inspection Division. Building Inspector Carla Johnson then went to the job site issued a Notice of Violation for work without permit. The work done was the installation of an automatic garage door. Ms. Yovanoupolous then requested a copy of the complaint. The Department was unable to obtain a copy and Building Inspector Edward Greene told her that it was not in the system. However, Ms. Yovanoupolous did have the complaint number and a copy of the record which the clerk had given her. Ms. Yovanoupolous said that this issue may be something she could discuss with Marcus Armstrong.
Marcus Armstrong asked if there were any other questions. Vice-President Vasquez asked for any further public comment. There was no further public comment on this issue. Marcus Armstrong thanked the Commission. Vice-President Vasquez thanked Marcus Armstrong for his report and said the Commission is looking forward to future reports on training and enhancements to be completed.
Director Chiu thanked Marcus Armstrong. Director Chiu said he is looking forward to start working on developing online permit and complaint tracking. Director Chiu said as the Commission goes over the budget this will be an issue that will be discussed. Director Chiu stated that his goal is to start issuing, processing, and in-taking some permits online in order for customers to conduct business from their home or office.
c. Status on Draft Job Announcement BIC Secretary.
Director Chiu reported on the status of the job announcement for the BIC Secretary. Director Chiu said that DHR had requested the hiring be put on hold as DHR is doing research on the position of Commission Secretaries Citywide. As a result, Director Chiu spoke with John Marquez, DBI Personnel Officer, and asked him to speak with DHR in order to speed up the process to fill the position. DHR has not completed their research, but advised that a secretary could be hired. Director Chiu referred to the draft copy of the job announcement for the Commission Secretary and asked if the Commission had any comments or questions so that the announcement can be finalized and move forward.
Commissioner Walker asked Deputy City Attorney Boyajian about the process for filling the vacancy. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian was aware of how the process worked in the past and stated the Commissioner Hood was involved in the last interview process forprospective candidates. At that time, resumes were received, a committee reviewed them, and the full Commission voted on the recommendation. There is a problem with forming a committee under the new "Sunshine Ordinance" as meetings are open to the public. This creates a privacy issue. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said the Commission needs to do some creative thinking as to how to approach screening resumes, developing a short list of candidates and interviewing and selecting a secretary. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian was unable to give any more details at the moment.
Commissioner Walker asked if there was some training the Commissioners will receive regarding the Sunshine Ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said the City Attorney’s Office will be scheduling several training sessions for Boards and Commissions.
Vice-President Vasquez said this issue had previously arisen resumes need to be kept confidential. Vice-President Vasquez asked the Commission to explore ways to make sure a Secretary is hired in a way that is inclusive. Commissioner Walker wanted to clarify the process. She asked if one Commissioner could review the resumes and pass them along to the next Commissioner. Commissioner Hood said multiple copies were usually done. Commissioner Hood asked whether or not that is still permitted because she was not fully aware of the requirements of the new Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Hood asked if any documents such as resumes, that are sent to the Commission become documents that can be put in the public realm if multiple copies are made. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said she does not believe so. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian stated that there are exceptions under the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance regarding personnel matters. Hiring a Secretary would be a personnel matter. The identities of the applicants for the job are confidential because only one will be selected, and the other candidates should not be named. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian stated that the Commission is allowed to make multiple copies to review. However, the problem comes with how to discuss and achieve a short list of candidates without having a meeting.
Commissioner Hood stated that perhaps the Commissioners could get copies of the resumes and review them without discussion. Commissioner Hood then asked if a closed session could be scheduled to determine which of the resumes to discard. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that yes, she thought an initial screening could be done. However, she would like to confirm this. Commissioner Hood asked if after the initial screening one person could interview candidates. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said yes, as long as there is no committee formed. Commissioner Hood said that the Commission could designate one person to take the list, interview candidates and limit the selection to a short list. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian would like to further investigate if there could be a closed session of a committee for personnel. Commissioner Hood said that would solve a lot of problems.
Commissioner Marks asked if it was correct that as long there is not a quorum it would not even be considered a committee. A group of three Commissioners could review the resumes as well as interview the potential applicants because of the Brown Act. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said it would comply with the Brown Act, but not the Sunshine Ordinance. It would be considered a passive meeting body and may be open to the public. Commissioner Marks stated that it would be preempted by the Brown Act. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said there can be restrictive requirements than the Brown Act, and more public disclosure. Commissioner Marks asked if this was true even in the area of personnel matters. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said she needed further investigation on the issue of a closed committee for the purpose of personnel.
Vice-President Vasquez said the approach would be to form a committee of Commissioners interested in reviewing resumes and meet in closed session. This being a personnel matter, Vice-President Vasquez said he hoped there was a way this could be done properly without disclosing the identities of the applicants. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian sensed that the Commission would like to proceed in the committee direction, so she will continue to investigate and report back to the acting President on what her research reveals.
Commissioner Hood asked if it was a good time to comment on the draft. Commissioner Hood said that under the "Desirable Qualifications" it states, "the ability to learn the codes in a quick manner." Commissioner Hood said she had been studying the codes for 30 years, and she is unable to learn them in a quick manner. Commissioner Hood suggested the language be changed to "understand how new codes are written, organized, interpreted and applied by technical staff," because the Commission are not looking to find a Secretary who is an expert in the codes. Commissioner Hood said that would be very hard to do, and there may not be a candidate with all those qualifications.
Vice-President Vasquez said the Commission will continue looking at the draft and make comments. Commissioner Walker asked if the Commission could agree on a time frame or if the issue needs to go back to the Human Resources. Director Chiu recommended that the Commissioners review the draft, incorporate their comments, and work with DHR to finalize the job announcement. Director Chiu said that the City Attorney’s Office will advise the Commission on how to proceed with the actual process. Director Chiu said he liked the idea of having a time frame for comments in order to finalize the announcement. Director Chiu asked the Commission if in a week or two, comments could be turned in so that he could work with DHR. Vice-President Vasquez asked that this item be put back on the agenda for the next meeting. The Commission agreed. There was no public comment on this issue.
d. Report on status of complaint/routine inspections from Housing Inspection Services.
Director Chiu reported on the status of complaint/routine inspections from Housing Inspection Services. At the request of some of the Commissioners, Director Chiu explained what HIS does and how responsive they are in complaint inspections versus routine inspections. There was a perception that Housing Inspection Division only responds to complaints and were not doing routine inspections. Last April, the Commission directed the Housing Inspection Services to start routine inspections as well as complaint driven inspections. Director Chiu provided figures from the last six months. Housing Inspection Services have conducted a total of 8,900 total inspections: 3,130 routine inspections and 5,770 complaint inspections. Director Chiu said that he could further discuss the goals and priorities of HIS at a later date if the Commission chooses to, but Director Chiu wanted to clear the issue and let the Commission be aware that the Department is doing routine inspections throughout the City. Director Chiu said that Chinatown has a history of not calling for complaints. As a result, it frees up the Inspectors to focus on routine inspections. For the Chinatown area, approximately 90% of routine inspections have been completed. However, for Citywide, the Department is responding to more complaint driven inspections which are a priority. As a result, Director Chiu commended Lesley Stansfield, Chief of Housing Inspection Division, for achieving the goal of more than 90% response within two days. Director Chiu said that routine inspections are important, but there is a greater need and urgency to respond to the actual tenants and neighbors needs. Director Chiu urged the Commission to continue to make DBI’s complaint inspections a high priority while maintaining routine inspections under the guideline to achieved within three to five years. At this time, the Department is on target.
Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu how many more routine inspections are left before completion. Director Chiu stated that percentage-wise, HIS has completed 25%-30%. Given the time frame, this percentage is ahead of schedule as the routine inspection program began only six months ago. Commissioner Guinnane asked about the rating number on inspections. For instance, a building with numerous violations would be inspected more often than a building with no violations. Director Chiu said that as the Department does baseline routine inspections, apartment buildings or SRO buildings are rated according to their condition. If a building is given a poor rating, it would be inspected more frequently or annually. However, if other buildings are being maintained and have no problems, then a less frequent inspection routine would be followed. Director Chiu said that the Commission has set a good goal, policy and priority and he would like to maintain the 48-hour response time to complaints while achieving the goal of maintaining routine inspections. Director Chiu thanked the Housing Inspection groupfor doing a wonderful job.
Commissioner Guinnane inquired whether or not there was a breakdown of what rating was assigned to each property among the 25%-30% completed inspections. Director Chiu said he does have a district by district report and would be happy to share the data with the Commission at a later date.
Vice-President Vasquez provided the new Commissioners with some background and said that the Commission was trying to address routine inspections according to quality as opposed to routine by nature. When a building is inspected, the inspectors get a sense of its general condition. It may need to be inspected more often if it is in a state of disrepair or less often if it is well maintained. This will allow the Department to concentrate its efforts on buildings that really need attention.
Commissioner Hood applauded the Department’s response time to get to complaints within 48 hours. Commissioner Hood said that five years ago there was a tremendous backlog, and there was a feeling among landlords that they did not need to pay much attention if they received a notice because there was no follow-up. However, with the prompt response to calls from tenants and neighbors, there is no longer that feeling between landlords and especially those that tend to have bad buildings. The Department has been more aggressive about pursuing landlords who have a number of bad buildings in the courts. Commissioner Hood said she was glad that the Department has such a good performance.
Director Chiu agreed with Commissioner Hood’s comments. Prior to creation of the Commission, the Department focused on routine inspections and people felt that tenant complaints were not being addressed. Because staffs were instructed to focus on routine inspections, DBI was viewed as not being sensitive to complaints. Director Chiu said he applauded the leadership of the Commission in guiding staff’s priorities. Tenants are happy with the responsiveness given by the Housing Inspectors. However, the Department’s goal is to achieve a 100% response time to complaints within 24 to 48 hours.
Commissioner Walker said the numbers are encouraging and asked if the staff was sufficient to respond to complaint and do routine inspections. Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield said that HIS staff will be sufficient when a full staff is in place. Lesley Stansfield mentioned openings for both Senior Housing Inspectors and Housing Inspectors. Once a full compliment of Senior Housing Inspectors is on board, there will be a need for five more Housing Inspectors. Lesley Stansfield said she believes that the goals for routine inspections can be accomplished along with maintaining the investigation of complaints within 48 hours.
Commissioner Walker asked what type of communication goes back to the complainant as to a cure. Lesley Stansfield said that the policy is that upon every inspection, whether a routine or complaint driven inspection, the building is posted with a Notice of Violation or a copy of the complaint is given to the complainant or manager on the premises. A copy of the notice is given immediately at the time of the inspection. A routine inspection is also done when the inspector responds to a complaint inspection in order to maximize the utilization of staff and accomplish both goals.
Commissioner Walker asked about the cure to the complaints. Lesley Stansfield said that staff informs the complainant at the time of inspection if there is a violation. Depending on the nature of the violation, there are set guidelines for the time periods that are allowed for correction. If the Notice of Violation states that correction must be done in 7, 15 or 30 days. The notice also states when inspectors will be following up with a re-inspection to check if the work has been completed. If there is a complainant, the complainant is called to see if the work has been completed. The complainant is encouraged to call the inspector to tell them whether or not the work has been completed.
Commissioner Hood inquired about landlords who do not turn on the heat. Commissioner Hood asked if they are required to turn on the heat immediately. Lesley Stansfield said for severe complaints such as no heat, there are shorter time periods for correction. The Notice of Violation will then state 24, 48 or 72 hours. For heat, 72 hours is the requirement.
Commissioner Marks inquired as to when the inspection report is posted for routine inspections. Are routine inspections done on multiple units or on single family residences? Lesley Stansfield said that routine inspections are only done on buildings with three apartments or more and six hotel guest rooms or more. Duplexes and single family dwellings are exempt from routine inspections, but the Department does investigate complaints.
Vice-President Vasquez opened the floor to public comment on this issue. Anastasia Yovanopolous from Noe Tenant’s Association and the San Francisco Tenant’s Union asked about routine inspections. Ms. Yovanopolous referred to Director Chiu’s comments in regards to Chinatown residents being reluctant to make complaints, and asked what is done on a routine inspection. Ms. Yovanopolous asked if the inspection includes the outside of an apartment. Lesley Stansfield explained that a routine inspection consists of investigating all public areas. Some buildings do not have an interior public area if their doors are on the outside. In this case, the inspection would be an exterior inspection of the stairways, the garbage areas, etc. On buildings with large public areas, such as interior stairways and the inspectors investigate from the basement to the penthouse and the roof to make sure there are no Housing Code violations in any ofthese areas. The heating system is also inspected.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Mrs. Lord of 174 Majestic Avenue wished the Commission a Happy Millennium. Mrs. Lord asked if President Alfonso Fillon was in attendance. It was explained there was no President and the Vice-President Armando Vasquez was the acting Chair. Mrs. Lord went on to say that she had written a letter dated January 12, 2000. Mrs. Lord stated that former President Fillon advised her to file a claim for damages. A claim was filed on December 6, 1999, and the City Attorney turned down her claim. Mrs. Lord said her residence has 45 code violations and has been condemned. Mrs. Lord has received a lifetime moratorium, but the code violations are not her fault. Mrs. Lord said she was not even in this country when her house was built. Mrs. Lord requests the help of the BIC to rebuild her house to code, put her in a place to live, pay the rent and place the furniture into the flat and the rest in storage. Mrs. Lord said the code violations are not her fault, but the fault of the builder and designer who were given a permit without having a license. Mrs. Lord said the Department failed to exercise their jurisdiction to examine the house that was being built to make sure it complied with administration standards. Mrs. Lord said she bought the house when she came to this country from England in 1982. She decided to buy a house because the rent was too high. The house was not advertised as having any code violations. A year later it was condemned, then granted a lifetime moratorium. Mrs. Lord continues to protest all these issues. Mrs. Lord continues to write letters to the Department of Building Inspection. Mrs. Lord asks the Commission’s help. Mrs. Lord listed her enclosures and again asked that the Commission take action.
Vice-President Vasquez said that this item was not on the agenda and could not be discussed in detail. Vice-President Vasquez stated that the Commission has all the information that has been submitted. Mrs. Lord said she will be in attendance at the next meeting for the Commission’s response. Mrs. Lord thanked the Commission.
Patricia Vaughey, Cow Hollow Neighbors in Action handed a before and after picture to Commissioner Guinnane of a penthouse that was built at 2844-2846 Greenwich Street on Christmas without permit. Ms. Vaughey said that the day after Christmas, the Department of Building Inspection and Planning Department came out to the site. Ms. Vaughey stated that the developer/owner refused access to the building. Ms. Vaughey said that the building was red-tagged, but construction was continued on December 27th through December 30th. Ms. Vaughey stated that the inspectors came out at least four times telling the workers to stop work. Ms. Vaughey said that on New Year’s Eve, theinspectors came out with the police to close the job down. Ms. Vaughey stated that the picture she submitted illustrates how bad a job the addition to the existing structure is. Ms. Vaughey’s said that her problem is that she is caught between Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection. Ms. Vaughey said that Department of Building Inspection told her to go to Planning Department. Ms. Vaughey stated that Planning Department has stopped the project as drawings that were submitted were unacceptable to the neighbors. A discretionary review was filed in order to compromise. Ms. Vaughey said she does not think that the enforcement on developers who do this is strong enough. Ms. Vaughey feels that the Department should require that the addition be torn down, and the developer should pay a fine, and have to go through the proper permit process. Ms. Vaughey stated that the neighbor was a repeat performer and that other issues came about from this case. This gives the builders a bad name and it causes a lot of personal strife. Mrs. Vaughey said that DBI fined the owner twice. However, she feels two times is nothing but a slap on the wrist. It should have been nine times minimal and the addition should be torn down. Ms. Vaughey said that it now the year 2000, not 1999 anymore and DBI needs to start nipping these guys in the bud or there will be people coming up and wasting the Commission’s time with their complaints. Mrs. Vaughey does not think situations like this are fair to the Commission or to the neighbors.
Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu what knowledge he had about this addition. Director Chiu apologized that he was not familiar with this particular case, but he said he would be happy to look into it and report back to the Commission at the next meeting.
Commissioner Hood asked Vice-President Vasquez to agendize this item and asked the Department to look into the $2,000 fine. Commissioner Hood asked if people are caught building without a permit can they be required to tear it down and forbidden to build again for five years. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian said the five-year ban is only when someone demolishes a residential unit without a permit. Commissioner Hood said she might have the situation confused, but the Commission needs to look at this area of the code. Since property values have gotten so high, $2,000 is nothing. It is like half of one month’s rent. Commissioner Hood believes the Commission needs to look at this issue carefully.
Commissioner Guinnane asked Mrs. Vaughey if she knew who the builder of the project was. Mrs. Vaughey said it was G 2 Sommaya and that he had built without permits before. This was not the first time. Vice-President Vasquez asked that the item be put on the agenda.
Ms. Vaughey said that the Commission should make builders tear down additions that are done without permit. If it costs the builders money, it may deter them to do it again. Mrs. Vaughey thanked the Commission.
Tom Loganson of Noe Valley Community Work Group presented his comments. Mr. Loganson thanked Deputy Director William Wong for doing his job and watching out for code violations. Mr. Loganson is referring to the proposed temporary shelter to take place on Church Street, and he wanted to provide the members of the Commission a copy of the Administrative Bulletin concerning this issue. Mr. Loganson referred to a document dated April 14, 1997, from Brian Cassidy Construction stating that the proposed site on Church Street was a single family dwelling. Mr. Loganson stated that he would forward a copy to Deputy Director Jim Hutchinson. Mr. Loganson thanked the Commission.
Commissioner Hood thanked Mr. Loganson and said it was great to hear commendations of staff. Commissioner Hood said the Commission very often only hears about problems, so it was a pleasure to hear otherwise. Commissioner Hood commended Deputy Director Wong and Deputy Hutchinson for their good work.
Sue Hestor, said that she is a frequent user of the public computers on the first floor. Ms. Hestor said she was glad to hear the report that things are getting better. However, she said it was terrible the first couple of weeks as the public computers were unusable. She stated that she had not been to DBI in the past week. Ms. Hestor stated that for the past six months she has asked the Information Counter staff for a better printer for the public computer. Ms. Hestor said that the Department has the worst printer assigned to the public computer. It is a dot matrix computer. Ms. Hestor stated that she has sat at the public area for two hours waiting for printouts because it is so slow. Ms. Hestor complained that this is particularly annoying when trying to do 30 or 40 printouts. Ms. Hestor said that the Department has upgraded everyone else and asked if the public printer could be replaced. Ms. Hestor asked the Department not to wait for the budget, but to just do it. Ms. Hestor stated there was one printer that works and one was a dot matrix. Unless everyone who staffs the public desk knows how to help the public, the public computer does not work. Ms. Hestor hopes that it is not crashing as much as it used to. Her experience was that she could not log on for a portion of the day on the public computer because it was the lowest of the low - 99th on a list of 99 in terms of priority, so if everyone else was using the computer, the public computer was not available. Ms. Hestor said she would go to the Department and try to call up the printouts she has been trying to get for the past two weeks. However, there is a time line for appeals and if information is not available, the date may be missed and it would be too late to appeal a project. Ms. Hestor said she has been trying to locate permits that were supposed to be applied for to legalize an illegal conversion and has not been able to find any information. Ms. Hestor suggested that the members of the Commission go to DBI acting as a regular customer to search for information using the public computers. Ms.Hestor thanked the Commission.
Director Chiu said that this issue is part of an ongoing upgrade and is not a budget item. Director Chiu said he spoke with Marcus Armstrong a month ago to replace the customers’ equipment once the new system is taken care of. A new computer and printer will be provided.
Commissioner Hood said in keeping with the policy of good customer service, this issue should be a number priority.
Anastasia Yovanopolous presented her public comment. Ms. Yovanopolous thinks it is great that the public can have access to the records. Ms. Yovanopolous understands things come up such as glitches, so sometimes customer relations get frayed, but said she is glad that DBI has a Commission that the public can come to with their concerns. Ms. Yovanopolous gave a special thank you to Mr. Wong and staff for being responsive to her needs. She appreciated a letter from Director Chiu in 1999. Ms. Yovanopolous thanked the Commission for all their help.
Vice-President Vasquez asked if there was any additional public comment. There was no further public comment.
5. Review of Communication Items. At his time, the Commission may discuss or take possible action to respond to communication items received since the last meeting.
Vice-President Vasquez asked for discussion on the communication items. There was none.
6. Discussion and possible action to amend San Francisco Building Code Section 110, Table 1-P to change the method of calculating the annual apartment house fees from number of rooms to number of units.
Director Chiu stated that this item was requested by the Commissioners directing the Department take a look at the way fees are calculated for apartment and hotel licensing. Director Chiu said that the Department has been working closely with the Deputy City Attorney’s office in trying to change the building code amendment regarding the fee structure. Director Chiu requested Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield to give a status report.
Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield stated that the Department is currentlycharging the apartment house and hotel license fees based on the number of rooms. The process of collecting the license fee has been automated to be placed directly on the property tax. This is the third year that this process has taken place which has accounted for an easier collection method and has reduced the amount of delinquencies dramatically. However, there have been some problems in billing apartments where no room count is available. The Department has done a great deal of work in trying to reduce the number of entries that do not have that information. After reviewing this specific fee schedule it was determined that it would be more appropriate to charge the license fee based on the number of units rather than the number of rooms. There are certain buildings that have large apartments, and there are other buildings that have very small apartments. The size of the building and the amount of time spent on the inspection seems to be more related to how many units are in a particular building rather than the number of rooms. This would eliminate the problem of buildings where there is no accurate room count. The Department has done extensive calculations in determining the number of buildings that are in different categories. The first type of building charged a license fee is three units. The first classification for fees would be for 20 rooms. The fee would increase upwards to 60 rooms and once there is a 60-room building, there is no more fee increase. Currently, if a building has 800 rooms, it would pay the same amount as a building with 600 rooms which does not seem particularly fair. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said it was Commissioner Guinnane who had asked Housing Inspection Services to investigate this possibility of changing from room count to unit count. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield stated that in using three units as a guideline, there were approximately 5,500 buildings. The unit count would increase with 4-6 units being the next category, then 7-10, 11-15, 16-25, 26-50 and the final category would be more than 50 units. When the calculations were figured, she determined how much revenue the Department would receive. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said it would be approximately the same amount now received. The current amount being received $3,261,441.49. The proposed amount of revenue would be approximately $3,340, 480.00 which is fairly close. There is about an $80,000 difference, but there are some buildings that are not being picked up. Taking condominiums into account, it would almost the exact same amount of money that would be received. The amount of service that would be provided would be the same. It would just clarify the way that the fee is collected. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield asked if the Commission had any questions on this issue.
Commissioner Guinnane asked how many apartment houses have more than 50 units. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said there were 248. Commissioner Guinnane asked why the fee structure stopped at 50 units. Commissioner Guinnane said he wanted to follow the same structure as hotels on the room count. The apartment houses stopped at 60 rooms and the hotels stop at 150. Commissioner Guinnane wanted to keep going and not stop at 50 units. Commissioner Guinnane pointed out that the structure goes from 26-50 units and asked why the fee is not continued to go from 50-70, 70-90, 90-110 or some structure until the maximum is reached. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said the Department could do that, as there were only 248 buildings remaining that have not been identified as to size. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said the Department could do a study on those 248 buildings. Once there are as many as 50 units, the amount of time spent on the inspection probably would not differ dramatically. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said it would be a good idea to investigate what the make up of the 248 buildings would be. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said she was not sure how many buildings have 150+ units. Commissioner Guinnane said that was the information he was asking for. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that she could do that once the Department was able to get the information delineated.
Commissioner Hood said the information looked liked six of one and half a dozen of the other. Commissioner Hood stated her concern was that this not be a regressive tax on apartment houses. Commissioner Hood said Pacific Heights or Russian Hill are the more expensive neighborhoods of the City. In these areas, there tends not be so many units in the building as the units are larger. However, in comparison some of the South of Market apartments or the private ones, are much smaller with many more units in a building. Commissioner Hood said that with new buildings in the South of Market area, there will be a very high number of units. Commissioner Hood asked if housing for poor people tend to have the higher fee or are they the ones the Department visits more frequently, and as a result you have the higher fee. Commissioner Hood did not want this to be a regressive tax. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said there are two issues. One of the issues is the ability to get the information and to keep the information current. A problem is when new buildings are built, the building permit does not state the number of rooms but the number of units. Therefore, before the Department can get these fees on the tax rolls and the license fee program, a certain amount of investigation needs to be done. This means, technically speaking, going into every unit or getting a copy of the plans. Sometimes this is easier said than done, and the Department wants to be able to facilitate the process making it easier to get new buildings identified right away. This has been a problem in the past. The second issue is the amount of service and time that it takes an inspector to inspect. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said inspectors were checking the public areas, checking if there is security for a building - deadbolt locks and peepholes, etc. Normally the amount of time is easier to calculate related to the amount of units because the inspectors are usually responding to complaints. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said the amount of service provided related to the number of units seems to be appropriate rather than the actual number of rooms in the unit. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that this was the background to this philosophy of making this change. Commissioner Hood thanked Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield for her comments.
Commissioner Marks said Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield did not answer Commissioner Guinnane’s questions. Commissioner Marks pointed out that in Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield’s opening statement she said the structure seems unfair that the same fees are involved with 50 units versus 150. Commissioner Marks said that this makes sense to her, but then the fee structure does not reflect what Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield presented and to the lay person may seem like a basic inequity. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that she would have the 248 buildings delineated so that the Department can determine whether or not there is a real issue to discuss about having the fee continue to increase and where they actually stop. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said she was informed and told what the largest building was, but did not have the information with her to present.
Commissioner Hood stated that the Code Committee has reviewed this issue and according to Mr. Alan Tokugawa’s letter stated that the Committee encouraged that this be adopted. The items outlined have been investigated and reported on during Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield’s presentation, so Commissioner Hood said she was comfortable to make a motion for the Commission to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they adopt the code change. Commissioner Hood said this would cut down on the amount of bureaucracy and bookkeeping, and stated that the uses of rooms can change. It can be difficult to figure out how many rooms there are in a building. Commissioner Hood moved that the Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the fee schedule change be approved. Commissioner Guinnane asked if it would be based on the present form. Commissioner Hood said that she would recommend approval once the information requested by Commissioner Guinnane was received. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said she would provide that information.
Commissioner Marks suggested the Commission wait until Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield provides the updated report. Commissioner Marks said she is aware of the concept of why it makes sense to count units rather than rooms, but she is still concerned about why the submitted report stops at 50 units. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said she would get the information for the delineation of the remaining 248 buildings. Commissioner Marks stated that she does not want to adopt this in its present form without the updated report. Vice-President Vasquez suggested the Commission wait for the information before proceeding. Commissioner Hood said that the Department is on the right track. Vice-President Vasquez stated that he agrees. However, he stated that in the past, the system of trying to count rooms has been difficult, and at times it has been left up to a survey that has been completed and returned by the owners. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that the owner’s definition of a room may differ from the inspectors and that is another problem. Director Chiu said the Department would be happy to look into the concerns of the Commissioners and bring information back to the next meeting. Then based on the new information, a decision can be made.
Commissioner Guinnane asked Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield what has been done to identify all the buildings that have escaped over the years and never paid Housing Inspection fees. Commissioner Guinnane cited a building on Eddy Street with 80 units that has escaped 11 or 12 years. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that she discussed the issue with the City Attorney and reported it is not possible to collect fees prior to the time when the fees were included on property tax bills. Also, if the ownership of the building had changed, the Department could not go back and charge for previous years. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that she has spoken with the Controller, Tax License Bureau, Tax Office and the City Attorney and is doing additional research. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said she wanted to focus on making sure that all of the buildings that were supposed to be paying a license fee were indeed paying. Commissioner Guinnane asked if this was done. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said there may still be a few buildings not paying. The majority of buildings that have not been on in the past should be on this year.
Commissioner Guinnane said when a building is built, a CFC is issued from the Building Department and is transferred to Housing Inspection Services where a file is created. From that point, Commissioner Guinnane asked why there is a lapse of six to 12 years with picking up fees on a new building. Commissioner Guinnane said that in some instances, the building is not being picked up at all. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that sometimes the information does not come to HIS and sometimes the CFC does not get signed off. It has been a problem in the past. Because the Department depends on the Assessor’s records to get information, there are many possibilities that occur, However, the Department is continually working on this issue. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield stated that the Department has a list from the Assessor’s Office of all of the buildings and they were being matched with the in-house database. The list used for investigation purposes this year was the one that was not matched.
Commissioner Guinnane asked whether or not the change of ownership fee was updated. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that there is no longer a change of ownership fee and this item should be taken off of the report. Director Chiu advised that the Department could go back three years to assess fees. This is when the statute expires. Commissioner Hood asked if the fees shown are the same as in the past. Director Chiu said the Department has not changed the fee structure, but has changed the way the Department assesses the rooms. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said these fees have been in place for almost 15 years. Commissioner Guinnane said he was concerned with an issue he brought to the Commission more than four months ago. Apartment house fees are charged from zero to 60 rooms and hotels went from zero to 150 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane asked why the Department stops at 60 rooms for apartment house fees as there are a number of apartment houses with more than 60 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane wanted to know what the largest apartment building is andwould suggest increasing the fees according to that size. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said the hotel fee would stay based on the rooms. At the same time, the Department could do a study on hotels with more than 150 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane said he would like that study as well. Commissioner Hood said hotel sizes have grown enormously and that it was very unusual to have a new hotel as small as 150 rooms. Commissioner Guinnane asked if the Commission could have the information for the next meeting. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that she would ask Marcus Armstrong to get the information for her. Commissioner Guinnane stated that this issue has been going on for four or five months.
Director Chiu said that one of the reasons why the Department stopped at these number is because, technically speaking, fees are based on services rendered. For example, as Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield stated, Housing Inspection Services expenditure and revenue is over $3,000,000.00. Director Chiu agrees with Commissioner Guinnane that the Department should not stop at 50 units. Director Chiu said that owners should be charged equally, but at the same time if there are 100 - 200 units in a building the Department needs to make sure DBI is not generating more money than the cost of the inspection. As a result it may be beneficial to reduce the fees at the lower end. Director Chiu stated that maybe this is what the Commission wants to do and he could support that. Hypothetically, the Department could be generating more than $5,000,000.00 a year, and would have to justify why $5,000,000.00 is being collected versus $3,000,000.
Commissioner Guinnane said there were concerns about doing routine inspections and complaint calls. If the Department was to generate $5,000,000.00 and have only $3,500,000.00 in expenses, more inspectors could be hired to cover the routine inspections. Commissioner Hood calculated if there were 250 apartment houses over 50 units and even if the fees were doubled on every one of them, the Department would only receive an additional $125,000. Commissioner Hood asked if this is worth the effort because it may cost more than $125,000. Commissioner Hood stated that this may be more of an issue on the hotel side because they have grown so much in size. Director Chiu said the Department will come back with the suggestion the Commission raised and it will be discussed at the next meeting.
Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said the Department was spending so much time inspecting hotels that they could definitely rationalize increasing fees. The amount of service has increased three to four times compared to what was provided five years ago. Commissioner Guinnane asked why the fees have not been increased if the Department is doing more work on hotels. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said because there has not been much support for raising fees.
Commissioner Hood asked if the Department was breaking even on this issue. ChiefHousing Inspector Stansfield said she was not sure whether the assessed costs and the license fees totally pay for the Housing Inspection program because it has never been broken down in that way. It has been considered part of the entire Department. Commissioner Hood said that this should be reviewed in terms of the budget. Commissioner Hood said that she generally does not like to look at raising fees, but she would like to ask the Budgeting Coordinator, Amy Lee, to take a look at this issue and make recommendations. Commissioner Hood said if this was a cost drain, the Department would need to bring fees into line with the state law stating that the fee charged should reflect the cost of the service. Director Chiu referred to his report last year on a similar issue about whether Housing Inspection Services revenue pays for this expenditure and reported to the Commission that the Department is just about even. Director Chiu said he believes Housing Inspection Services is running fine with revenue versus expenditures, and he would be happy to discuss this issue later. Commissioner Hood asked that since the Department is hiring five more Housing Inspectors what is going to cover the cost. This should be looked at during the budgeting process. Commissioner Marks asked if hotels are included as residential. Chief Housing Inspector Stansfield said that residential and tourist hotels are covered. Vice-President Vasquez asked if there were any public comment on this issue. There was no public comment.
Commissioner Guinnane requested a five minute break. The Commission took a break at 2:45 p.m. and returned to session at 3:05 p.m.
7. Review, discussion, and possible action on the proposed budget of the Department of Building Inspection for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Proposed action to approve the first budget draft.
Amy Lee, Managers of Administration and Finance gave a detailed report of the proposed budget. A copy of the summary is attached as part of these minutes. Copies of the summary and the entire report are available at the Commission office at 1660 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103 [Ann Aherne, 558-6164].
8. Discussion and possible action to waive the annual cost schedule adjustment for permit fees. The proposed January 2000 cost schedule reflects an average construction cost increase of approximately 5% over the January 1999 cost schedule.
Director Chiu said this item is based on Marshall & Swift Construction cost data. Director Chiu said Commissioner Guinnane raised an issue asking if the Department is required to routinely, approximately every 6 months, adjust permit fees according to theincrease in construction costs. Director Chiu said that construction cost data is done by an independent Marshall & Swift data that is used to measure actual construction cost. From this information the Department estimates its permit fee. Permit fees are based on cost of the project. Director Chiu states that if a cost of a project increases, using the schedule also slightly increases the permit as the fee is proportionally based on the construction valuation. Director Chiu said at the last meeting or several meetings ago, Commissioner Guinnane requested that the Department not adjust the cost until the Commission reviews additional information.. Director Chiu asked Laurence Kornfield of Technical Services Division to give a report on the proposal and get feedback from the Commission.
Chief Building Inspector Kornfield of Technical Services Division gave his presentation. Chief Building Inspector Kornfield said the Department did an automatic six month cost valuation adjustment based upon the national standard. This is part of the San Francisco Building Code to make sure that the fees the Department charges are based on some true and accurate cost of construction. At the recommendation of the Commission, the Department amended the code last year to say that the adjustment would be once a year or may be waived by the Commission, if the Commission determined that the fee selected would exceed the cost of the services provided. Chief Building Inspector Kornfield said the Department looked at the January 1, 1999 differential from the last cost adjustment. Generally, the cost of construction according to the Marshall & Swift index increased approximately 5% overall. This does not mean an increase in fees collected at 5%. This is an increase in valuation of work throughout the City. Chief Building Inspector Kornfield reported that the actual impact of fees have not been analyzed in detail. However, Chief Building Inspector Kornfield said he had spoken to Amy Lee and the impact would be lower, less than 1% change in the actual fees the Department collects. Chief Building Inspector Kornfield went on to say that the impacts of this goes beyond DBI because the Planning Department, the Fire Department and other departments look at the valuation placed on buildings for the purpose of assessing their fees. Chief Building Inspector Kornfield urged the Commission to waive any cost adjustment to the fee schedule. A fee schedule was prepared for the Commission’s review.
Commissioner Hood asked if there was a comparison of the current cost and the proposed changes. Chief Building Inspector Kornfield said he had attached the new fee schedule with a letter which includes a general increase and different construction types. Mr. Kornfield stated that he did do an analysis, but has not presented his findings in detail. Mr. Kornfield said he did not do a side-by-side comparison because of the many different categories. Director Chiu informed the Commission that Chief Building Inspector Kornfield reported to him Type 1, Type 2, Type 3 and Type 4 construction cost data shows a 6.2% increase compared to last year’s construction cost. For Type 5 construction, there is a 5.4% increase compared to last year’s construction cost. However, this does not mean that permit fees increase. If so, it would be less than 1%. Commissioner Hood commended the excellent management. However, Commissioner Hood said the Department is still having an excess of income each year and is still a solid department. While the Department is upgrading the information services, customer services and other things, there seems to be a gain in permit activity that has offset the cost. Currently, the Department is processing the highest level of permits ever. Commissioner Hood does not want to set the Department up for having false security should conditions change. Commissioner Hood does not want to see any increase in fees, and she requests a simple comparison chart outline current and proposed numbers before making recommendations or considering the issue. Commissioner Hood asked if the Department feels that to be fiscally responsible there needs to be an increase in fees. Director Chiu said that in no way would any adjustment result in an increase in permit fees. There has been no increase in fees for the last eight to 10 years. At the same time, Commissioners may over hear that San Francisco permit fees are very high and probably the highest. As some Commissioners know that San Francisco building fees are one of the lowest compared to other cities in the Bay Area. Director Chiu does not want people to think that San Francisco permit fees are one of the highest. While the Department knows that construction data changes, this does not imply that a fee increase is being requested. Director Chiu agrees with Commissioner Hood in regards to her request for a comparison of construction cost. Commissioner Hood said the fee is based on a percentage of construction cost and if construction cost goes up so do the fees. The dollar amount goes up even though the percentage does not. Commissioner Hood said that glancing at the information, she would like to request more detailed information on the changes. Director Chiu said he would be happy to get the side-by-side comparison.
Commissioner Walker asked for clarification that fees are based on a percentage of construction cost or on a formula. Director Chiu said they are based on a formula. Commissioner Walker said because construction costs are higher, if the same schedule is kept, the Department is increasing revenue for the same service. Director Chiu acknowledged her comment and said a formula is used for any construction cost.
Vice-President Vasquez interrupted saying that Commissioner Santos had another commitment and would need to be excused for the remaining portion of the meeting. Commissioner Santos apologized and said this was the only time it would happen. Commissioner Santos was excused at 4:00 p.m.
Commissioner Walker asked if cost was based on what the customer tells the Department the estimated cost of their project will be. Director Chiu said he was glad Commissioner Walker raised the issue and said that staff does not spend a lot of time figuring or calculating fees. Traditionally, if the applicant is honest and very close to the construction cost, the Department will honor the customer’s estimated cost. At the sametime, the Department has to ask if anyone can build a brand-new building for $60,000. Obviously, the Department is put on the defensive and when the document schedule is used, the scope of work is outlined and according to the schedule the permit fee would be calculated. Director Chiu said that routinely, the Department does not spend much time calculating. Instead guidelines are followed so that in case someone challenges, the Department has something to back it up. Commissioner Walker asked if there is a problem when this issue is resolved. Vice-President Vasquez said that it would be revised at the end. Director Chiu stated that ultimately the Department has a final say as to what the construction cost should be and have the documentation to support our findings. Director Chiu said this document is necessary in case there is a challenge by a customer. However, there have been very few cases where a customer challenges the valuation. Director Chiu said he would be happy to update the information and present a side-by-side comparison at a later date. Commissioner Hood thanked Director Chiu and Chief Building Inspector Kornfield for their excellent work.
Vice-President Vasquez asked if there be any public comment on this issue. There was no public comment.
9. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of December 1, 1999.
Commissioner Guinnane pointed out that several of the previous Commissioners in attendance at the last meeting are no longer on the Commission. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian advised that if the remaining Commissioners reviewed the minutes a quorum is not needed and approval is possible. Vice-President Vasquez asked the three remaining members if there were any changes to the minutes.
On a motion made by Commissioner Guinnane, seconded by Commissioner Hood, the minutes were approved by the three Commissioners present at the December 1, 1999 meeting. [Resolution No. BIC-001.00]
Vice-President Vasquez asked if there be any public comment on this issue. Anastasia Yovanopolous stated she was not in attendance at the last meeting and requested a copy of the minutes. Ms. Yovanopolous also suggested that the new Commissioners acquire a copy of the minutes to be informed of previous issues. There was no further public comment on this issue.
10. Commissioners’ Questions and Matters.
a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may take inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures which are ofinterest to the Commission.
Commissioner Walker had a question regarding the Department’s website and any update status for the site as a public information source to obtain agendas, meeting dates, newsletters, etc. Director Chiu said that as the Department continues to focus on transferring data from the Motorola system to the network and stabilizing the new system, the upgrading of the web page is a high priority. The website is scheduled to be used not only for content, but to incorporate online permits and permit tracking. Commissioner Walker suggested that setting up information sharing would be the easiest first step because getting information back and permit applications are more complex. Commissioner Walker suggests during the interim of upgrading to set up the site as a basic information source. Director Chiu said he would be happy to discuss this issue with Commissioner Walker further.
b. Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Building Inspection Commission.
Commissioner Bobbie Sue Hood said that the Commission should discuss goals and objectives at a future meeting and take another look at the Mission Statement.
Director Chiu said that he would be happy to present a brief overview of the entire Department at the next meeting to familiarize the new Commissioners with the Department. Vice-President Vasquez said he thought this would be appropriate.
Anastasia Yovanopolous gave public comment for future agenda items. Ms. Yovanopolous said that she had attended many meetings while serving on the Code Advisory Committee. Ms. Yovanopolous said that an ordinance for sprinkling in low income housing was enacted in 1986 in the Building Code. In the current Housing Code this ordinance refers to Chapter 9 in the Building Code. However, this ordinance does not appear in the Building Code. Ms. Yovanopolous asked that this error be looked into. Vice-President Vasquez asked that Director Chiu look into what exists with this ordinance.
Commissioner Guinnane asked that the Apartment/Hotel fees be agendized for the next meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that he wanted Chief Housing Inspector Lesley Stansfield to be more prepared. Director Chiu promised a complete table for the next meeting.
Commissioner Hood said that items needs to be agendized and the agenda should be veryliteral as to what is going to be discussed. Vice-President Vasquez said that time is an issue for agendas. Director Chiu said that there are some items that need to be on the agenda for the entire Commission to discuss, but some questions that are asked at the meetings are specific to certain Commissioners. Commissioner Hood said that some of the public’s questions can be answered by the Department or the President of the Commission without being agendized. Commissioner Walker agreed that some issues can be answered by a simple staff response.
11. Public Comment. The BIC will take public comment on matters within theCommission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
There was no public comment at this time.
12. Adjournment.
There being no other business, and on a motion made by Commissioner Guinnane, seconded by Commissioner Sanchez, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
[Resolution No. BIC-002.00]
_________________________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Interim Commission Secretary
Prepared by Ann Marie Aherne
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS | |
Discussion and possible review of applications submitted for various Commissions and Committees under the jurisdiction of the Commission. |
Pages 2 & 3 |
Follow up on Complaint #9901543 - work done without permit. Marcus Armstrong - MIS Manager to report. |
Page 7 |
Commissioners to send comments and/or regarding the BIC Secretary Job Announcement Draft to Director Chiu suggestions on BIC Secretary Draft. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian to provide clarification of process to Vice-President Vasquez. |
Page 9 |
Follow-up for by District Report for routine vs. complaint driven inspections by HIS - Commissioner Guinnane |
Pages 10 & 11 |
Follow-up on 2844 - 2846 Greenwich Street, building without permit. Commissioner Guinnane, Commissioner Hood |
Page 13 |
Report on status of customer counter equipment replacement on first floor. -Commissioner Hood |
Pages 14 & 15 |
Follow-up on calculating license fees for inspection of Apartment Houses and Hotel Rooms - Commissioner Guinnane |
Pages 16 -21 |
Comparison of current costs and proposed changes to permit fees. -Commissioner Hood |
Pages 22 -23 |
Sprinkler Ordinance in low income housing omitted from Chapter 9 of the Building Code - Vice-President Vasquez |
Page 25 |
p:\mgb\advanceminutes\01-19-00.doc