Building Inspection Commission
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Regular Meeting
BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, March 15, 2000
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408
Adopted April 5, 2000
MINUTES
The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by Vice-President Hood who acted as President in the excused absence of President Fillon.
1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President Roy Guinnane, Commissioner
Esther Marks, Commissioner Mark Sanchez, Commissioner
Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner Debra Walker, Commissioner
Alfonso Fillon, President - excused
D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:
Frank Chiu, Director
William Wong, Deputy Director
Ann Aherne, Interim Secretary
Tuti Suardana, Secretary
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPRESENTATIVE:
Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney
COURT REPORTER:
Doris Levine
2. President’s Announcements.
Vice-President Hood said that she did not have any formal report for this meeting. However, Vice-President Hood did remind the Commissioners that their financial reports (Form 700s) were due at the Ethics Commission by April 1, 2000.
3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]
a. Update on the status of notification to Planning Department regarding 500
Divisadero Street, Coe Enforcement issues.
Director Chiu reported that this was a case that was reviewed at a previous meeting. At that time, the Commission asked the Department to further inspect the property and report back. Director Chiu said that Deputy Director Wong had done further investigation as to the status of the property and asked Deputy Director Wong to present his findings.
Deputy Director Wong stated that this matter was brought to the attention of the Commission at the February 16, 2000 meeting when a member of the public came forward with several concerns about obtaining documents and the enforcement of this case. At the March 1, 2000 meeting the Department made a staff report responding to those concerns. Deputy Director Wong continued by giving a summary of the building. The address is 500 Divisadero Street, at the corner of Divisadero and Fell Streets. This is a light commercial/ residential usage neighborhood. The property is a two-story building with the upstairs used as a residential, single-family dwelling, and the ground floor is commercial. Currently, the ground floor is vacant, pending approval of building permits to install a fast food restaurant. The building has a landmark designation per the Planning Department.
Deputy Director Wong gave a brief history of the project. The applicant applied for a building permit in late 1997 to install a fast food restaurant on the ground floor. This was going to be a Burger King. From 1997 - 1998 there were a number of neighborhood concerns about the landmark status, work being done without permit and structural problems of the building. The Department responded and issued citations resulting in the suspensions and reissuing of the permit several times. Finally, on February 13, 1998 the Zoning Administrator, Bob Passmore, requested a suspension of all permits on this building as work was being performed on the exterior of the building that would affect the designation of the landmark status. Currently, there are two active Notices of Violation dated October 1999 and November 1999 for structural deficiencies. The building inspector observed that there were problems with the foundation and the building was leaning. The applicant applied for a building permit in December 1999 to address these violations and other concerns. The Burger King will occupy approximately 1,770 square feet on the ground floor. That permit has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department, the Department of Public Health and DBI structural plan check. The remaining stations that need to review this permit are the Planning Department, DBI mechanical review and Code Enforcement Division. Deputy Director Wong said that the public member who was concerned about the structural deficiencies of the building and the outstanding Notices of Violation, felt that this permit should be reviewed by the Code Enforcement Division before sending it to the Planning Department. A Code Enforcement Officer has discussed this project with the City Planner and the application is currently in DBI at the Code Enforcement Division. On March 10, 2000, the Department sent written comments to the applicant asking him to address the deficiencies as noted in the earlier violations. The applicant was asked to do this in one of two ways. One was to revise the plans to address the structural deficiencies as part of the current active application, the other was to submit a separate permit application to do so. Deputy Director Wong said that Department will have these violations addressed before this particular permit is issued. Deputy Director Wong informed the Commission that 500 Divisadero Street was scheduled for a Director’s hearing on March 16, 2000 to address the current violations. Deputy Director Wong said that he and Peter Burns have been working with the public member concerned about this issue and a Code Enforcement Officer has been appointed to work with her directly. Vice-President Hood asked if the Burger King was operating at present. Deputy Director Wong reported that the commercial space in this building is vacant. Deputy Director Wong said that the applicant obtained permits to do some structural remedial work because the building was structurally deficient and permits were issued to redo the foundation and to replace a post at the front of the building.
Commissioner Santos asked if a new foundation and support system had been installed, or if the permits were only applied for and no work done. Deputy Director Wong reported that he was not able to gain access to the inside of the building, but could observe from the outside that work was done on the exterior foundation. Deputy Director Wong said that some work has been done, but more is required because the building is still leaning. The Department is requiring a structural engineer’s report and proposal for how to deal with the entire building. Commissioner Santos stated that it would be a good idea to require a soils report. Vice-President Hood asked if the work that was done had been inspected. Deputy Director Wong answered that the portion of the work that has been done was done with permit and reviewed by an inspector. Vice-President Hood thanked Deputy Director Wong for his report.
Patricia Vaughey stated that the foundation was done, but not connected to the building. Concrete was poured, but the wall and foundation are not connected on the south side of the building. Patricia Vaughey said that this issue was addressed by both the Department’s Building Inspector, Marvin Ruiz and Adam Light of the Planning Department who inspected this site in September 1999. Patricia Vaughey said that this building has been deemed a safety hazard. The issue is that this leaning building has been reported since 1998 and Ms. Vaughey stated that a structural post that had been leaning had been replaced at the property. However, a main support beam on the first floor had been removed and never replaced. Ms. Vaughey stated that the property needed an outsider’s engineering report to see what happened. Ms. Vaughey said that the Code Enforcement Officer has never heard from the owner of the building. Ms. Vaughey said that Adam Light of the Planning Department told her that Mr. Castalucci had complete control over the building and Burger King was no longer involved as of the 1st of the year. However, Ms. Vaughey stated that now there is an application for the Burger King again, so no one knows what is happening on this piece of property. Vice-President Hood asked if the upper portion of the property is occupied. Ms. Vaughey said that it was presently occupied and has been rented for years.
Commissioner Walker said that she was concerned by the discrepancy between the staff’s report and what is being said by the public. Commissioner Walker asked if Commissioner Santos, a structural engineer, could decipher what Ms. Vaughey was presenting to the Commission. Commissioner Santos said that he could if he made an inspection and would do so. Commissioner Santos said that it would not take long for him to do an inspection. Deputy Director Wong said that he had taken pictures of the building and the Department did not perceive the building as an imminent hazard. If an imminent hazard had been determined, the Department would have taken immediate action to issue an emergency order. Some work was done that is not compliant, but the building is not going to fall down. Deputy Director Wong said that the Department wanted to give the applicant the opportunity to integrate the structural and architectural design of the building while the restaurant is being installed.
Commissioner Walker stated that she had concerns because there are people living in the second story of the building. Commissioner Marks asked for Deputy Director Wong’s response to Ms. Vaughey’s statement that the foundation is not attached to the building. Deputy Director Wong said that was Ms. Vaughey’s observation and once again said that he did not believe there was any imminent hazard. Deputy Director Wong said that the building could be reinspected from the inside and Commissioner Santos stated that temporary shoring could be done which would not interfere with the final configuration of the structure. Deputy Director Wong said that this is a "catch 22" situation as the developer wants to bring the
building up to code, but it is designated as a landmark property and any work done to the exterior has to be cleared by the Planning Department. Commissioner Walker asked if a post was removed or if one never existed. Deputy Director Wong said that the post was there. However, it was offset, so the applicant replaced it. The post is at the corner of the building. At this time, Deputy Director Wong passed around pictures of the building. Commissioner Walker asked if the moving of the post was done with or without permit. Deputy Director Wong answered that the work was done with permit. Vice-President Hood said that she was concerned that the developer has done work on the interior, such as the removal of the beam, and that there may be a hazard in the event of an earthquake. Vice-President Hood asked if the owner has been cooperative and Deputy Director Wong said that he had not heard that the owner was not cooperative. Deputy Director Wong said that as part of the plan review comments, an engineering report is being required. Commissioner Walker stated that Commissioner Santos had agreed to inspect the property, but again this is one of the process issues that keep coming up that she is concerned about. Commissioner Walker said that there seems to be a lot of work done without proper permits. Commissioner Marks said that she is concerned about a member of the public making statements questioning the safety of the building that is occupied, and having to ask the Commission to make sure the proper inspections are being done. Commissioner Marks asked why the staff are not doing this. Deputy Director Wong stated that the Department tries to have the applicant comply with the code and if this does not happen then the project moves through the Code Enforcement process. Deputy Director Wong reminded the Commission that this project is going to a Director’s Hearing and if the applicant does not comply with the time limits set at the hearing, then this project will be moved to the City Attorney’s Office. Director Chiu asked if Deputy Director Wong had any records of any other inspectors who had inspected the property for structural integrity. Deputy Director Wong said that he would check his records. Director Chiu stated that if the Department’s facts show that inspector’s had visited the property recently, he believed that if they were as alarmed as the public member, immediate emergency action would have been taken. Director Chiu commended Commissioner Santos for volunteering to inspect the property, but again stated that if any DBI inspector had reviewed the property, any imminent danger would have been detected. Deputy Director Wong said that on October 5, 1999 a Senior Inspector did visit the property. Deputy Director Wong read from the report which stated that the building appeared to be leaning 3" to 4" from vertical plumb toward, siding is missing, a side door at Fell Street is not securely attached to the building and that is the same condition that the building is in today. An inspector did go out to the building again in November. Vice-President Hood asked Deputy Director Wong to work with Commissioner Santos on this issue and report back to the Commission at the next meeting.
b. Report of inspection of property located at 1676 Newcomb Street.
Director Chiu stated that at the last meeting held on March 1st, as a result of a discrepancy among the project sponsor and the Department’s inspection reports, he was asked to go to the property and assess the violation. Director Chiu said that he asked Commissioner Guinnane to accompany him on the inspection. Director Chiu stated that the report he completed was not reviewed by Commissioner Guinnane. Director Chiu said that his report included 3 pages of his inspection, communication with the Planning Department, Assessor’s Office Records, affidavits signed by a pastor that lived next door to the property and a January 6th and revised January 28, 2000-report that was issued to the property owner. Director Chiu said that he went to the property without reviewing any file that had been previously put together by staff. Director Chiu stated that he wanted his report to be fresh from all Departments. Director Chiu stated that the main contention on this property is that there are major violations as to the rear building structure. Allegations were made that the project sponsor erected a second story on this rear building without a proper permit. Director Chiu said that in looking at pictures and from his observation at the job site, he noticed original windows on the rear property line wall, four actual brick openings. Director Chiu said that lack of maintenance probably resulted in the roof caving in, and in his opinion and records from the Planning Department support, that there has always been a second story present. The Assessor’s Office Records indicate that the ground floor had a 12’ ceiling height and the upper floor an 8’ ceiling height. Planning Department’s records also indicate a two-story building. Director Chiu stated that it appears that the pitch roof was increased to a flat roof. Director Chiu said that a new permit would have to be applied for stating what was done to the roof. However, as to the question of a second story, it appears that there was always a second story. Director Chiu invited comments from Commissioner Guinnane. Commissioner Guinnane said that he had seen pictures clearly showing a second story on the back building. Commissioner Guinnane said that he and Director Chiu went up to the top floor and looked out the back windows and looked at the block wall. The back goes all the way up to the top creating another floor and all of the brick looks original. Commissioner Guinnane said that the existing windows were there and the only concern they could find was that the windows that were there were on the property line, were wire glass and operable. Those windows were existing as a second means of egress. Director Chiu said there are some issues that need to be dealt with, for example, a second means of egress for the bedrooms. The project sponsor will have to demonstrate how he is going to comply with various rules and regulations. Director Chiu said that on a previous report the property owner was sighted for a third illegal unit on the ground floor. However, during inspection no third unit structure was observed. Vice-President Hood asked if Director Chiu and Commissioner Guinnane came away with the impression that the new owner was trying to repair this property and make it an asset to the neighborhood. Director Chiu said that in looking at the pictures and reading affidavits from the neighbors, clearly the structures were not p roperly maintained and the new owner was trying his best to bring it up to code. Director Chiu stated that there are some violations. Commissioner Walker stated that one of the biggest issues is that it the property was stated as prior residential and she had a staff report that sort of contradicts what Director Chiu stated about a second floor, that it was actually tall enough according to a prior permit application. Also, that the use was commercial and not residential. Director Chiu said that he had not reached this part of his report yet. Commissioner Walker said she was looking at a permit that was cancelled on September 27, 1973 wherein it was indicated that the ceiling could not be made 8’ as required. Commissioner Walker stated she understood the property had once been a stable and the second floor served as a hay loft. Director Chiu said he had nothing that indicated such information. Commissioner Guinnane encouraged the Commissioners to read a letter from the pastor next door to the property that indicated what was going on at the property regarding cars and a crack house. The property was a complete mess. Commissioner Walker said that she was only looking at building permits and the history of the building. Vice-President Hood asked Director Chiu to continue with his report. Director Chiu stated that as Commissioner Guinnane had indicated, there is a problem with the property line windows at the back of the property that needs to be addressed. Director Chiu referred to his report regarding the front building. Director Chiu said that the only known use of the front building was as a police station. However, there are no records to even indicate that the property was used as a police station. The Planning Department recognized the property as residential and indicated that in 1978 there was a rezoning of this area, and it was rezoned to RH-2. As a result of down zoning, the Planning Department indicated residential use and two units for the rear building. Director Chiu referred to a March 10, 2000-letter received from Gerald Green of the Planning Department. This letter states that the entire site is permitted to have up to three dwelling units. Vice-President Hood thanked Director Chiu for his report and asked for comments or questions.
Commissioner Walker said, zoning aside, a building does not change use automatically. Commissioner Walker stated that her understanding was that an applicant had to go through a process requesting change of use for a building. The process seems to have required some sort of application for conditional use and public notice therein, to actually get input and to have the program access the relevant safety issues of the structure. Commissioner Walker stated that all of the drywall is installed so no one can inspect anything. Vice-President Hood said that when the Commission has a question about the use of a building from a zoning point of view, it relies on the opinion of the Planning Department as that is their domain. If there is a letter from the Director of Planning that states there can be up to three units at this site, one unit in the front and two in the rear, then DBI assumes that the Planning Department has made that determination. Vice-President Hood said this question would be one for the Planning Department and not DBI. Commissioner Marks said that this seems far off to her. Vice-President Hood said that the Planning Department makes the determination as to what the use of a building is. Commissioner Marks said she disagreed with Vice-President Hood. Commissioner Marks stated that the Planning Department makes a determination what an area can be zoned as, but cannot make a determination just on the basis of zoning what a structure’s use is. Director Chiu said that he would respond to the original question that was raised by Commissioner Walker. Director Chiu stated that if, for example, there is an empty building and a change of use is required, under the current procedure, the applicant has to go through the proper permitting and through the Planning Department for Planning to look at the use of the zoning. Then the applicant comes to DBI to comply with safety requirements. However, the Department does not know what happened during the 1940’s or 1950’s. As a result of these findings, the property owner has applied for a permit to legalize the front building as a single family dwelling, and they have been asked to apply for the necessary permits to legalize the work that has been done on the rear building. Director Chiu said if someone were to come into the Department to convert a garage to a habitable space, such as a single family dwelling or any other use, they would have to go through the proper permitting. The Department has asked the property owner to do this, and they have agreed to comply. Vice-President Hood read the letter from Gerald Green of the Planning Department stating that the entire property at 1676 Newcomb was approved as one unit in the front building and two units in the rear building. Vice-President Hood asked Director Chiu what date the Planning Department approved the use of this property. Director Chiu stated that he did not have that information or see it on any of the documentation. Vice-President Hood suggested Director Chiu contact Mr. Augustine Fallay of Director Green’s staff to verify that date. Vice-President Hood asked if permits had been submitted for the reconstruction work done on the property. Director Chiu said that there was a permit filed for the front building and the rear building permit is pending with the Planning Department. The Planning Department was holding off until DBI investigated the property and reported to the Commission. Vice-President Hood stated that the Planning Department verifies the use and then DBI will have to verify that the property meets the codes. Director Chiu said that Vice-President Hood was correct and that he believes that the rear building roof structure was raised. The applicant needs to show the Department how this was done in order to determine that the work was done to code. Commissioner Walker said that she is not convinced that the records of the Department are correct as to the prior use of the building, and stated that she has concerns as to how this particular project went through DBI. Commissioner Walker said she would not go into further detail at this time as she wanted to give Director Chiu time to research issues surrounding this Newcomb Street property.
Vice-President Hood said that she would like to commend the Department for all of the work and time that has gone into researching this project. Vice-President Hood referred to a letter dated February 11, 2000 from the Metropolitan Missionary Baptist Church which is next door to the subject property. The church expressed their support of the project sponsor, as this property has been repaired and drug activity is no longer taking place on the steps next to the church. Vice-President Hood stated that this is a very good thing for the neighborhood and she would like to thank the Department for helping the project sponsor in his efforts to get permits. Vice-President Hood said she would rely on the Planning Department and their determination as to the use of the building.
Patricia Vaughey said that the issue with this property is not whether it should be housing. It is the issue of multiple violations and repeat violations on the same project. Ms. Vaughey stated that one of the things that was not in the March 13th letter to Mr. Wong was the fact that there is about $250,000 worth of work that has been done on this building and the permits only account for $32,000. If fines are charged on $32,000, it is nothing, but if fined on what it actually costs, then that would be substantial. Ms. Vaughey said that the Code Enforcement on this case has been dismal, not just on this case, but other cases. Ms. Vaughey wanted to know how much the fine would be for all of the code violations. Ms. Vaughey said that if there are continuous violations, a code enforcement program needs to be set up that hurts because it is not fair to the Department. Ms. Vaughey said that there should be a fine for putting down the wrong costs on an application form. Ms. Vaughey stated that this is something the Commission will have to address as there are some people who are getting away with this time and time again. Ms. Vaughey listed 1676 Newcomb and 2485-87-89 Pine.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos a member of the steering committee of the San Francisco Tenants Union, said that on May 28, 1998 there was a joint hearing of DBI and Planning. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there were many irate members of the public at that meeting and many of the issues discussed today were discussed at that time. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she did not think that DBI and Planning had gotten together since that meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she was thankful that Director Chiu took the time to procure all of the documentation and is following up with Code Enforcement on the issues. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she believed that the codes are in place to serve the public and that justice will be served.
Mr. Robert McCurn, who said he is the owner of 1676 Newcomb Street, said that it would be more economical for him if the building were commercial. Mr. McCurn stated that at no time did he ask his agent or engineer, nor at any time did he file any papers to change the use of the building from commercial to residential, or from residential to commercial. If the BIC would like the building to be commercial, Mr. McCurn said that was fine with him. The building was restored in the original, commercial appearance manner that it was originally. Mr. McCurn said he would like to thank the Commissioners for assisting him in getting this situation cleared up. Mr. McCurn thanked Commissioner Guinnane and Director Chiu for taking time out of their busy schedules to come out and actually look at the fabricated violations that were written up by an individual in Code Enforcement, who never had an opportunity to visually look at this property. Mr. McCurn said that he has been taken advantage of and this project has cost him money and time. Mr. McCurn said that this individual should be held accountable. Mr. McCurn stated that Rafael Torres-Gil should not, under any circumstances, be allowed to work in a position where he is dealing with the general public. Mr. McCurn said that there are blatant lies on the violation report and it has taken many people a great deal of time on this issue. Mr. McCurn said that his confidence in the Building Department and this system has been restored. However, it is not good government for an individual to have the authority to settle vendettas with citizens that are paying his salary.
Mr. Jimmy Jen said he wanted to qualify the scope of work on this project. Under application No. 9907636 he listed the scope of work to repair rotten wood framing, and added a note for the roof and floor to repair the integrity of the building, and a second item to remodel a kitchen and bathroom. Mr. Jen said that many times when work is started on a repair project, it is found that sometimes replacement is needed. Mr. Jen said that the $32,000 is not off the scale. Mr. Jen said that the situation that bothers him is that every department has a system that is set up. Mr. Jen said that he has complied with the system and that originally the Planning Department told him that the property could be four residential units. However, according to the Planning Department’s computer records, the correct information should be three units and that was how the application was filed. Vice-President Hood asked when Mr. Jen filed the application. Mr. Jen said the filing date was April 20, 1999. The front building was a simple remodel of the kitchen and bathroom with no physical changes. Mr. Jen said that after all of the inspections were completed and the penalties paid, Mr. Peter Burns abated the violations. Mr. Torres-Gil reopened the case, but Mr. Jen said that from the very beginning this case has been turned into a political issue. Mr. Jen stated that the Commission needed to do something about this case to retain the integrity of the Department. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Jen about work being done on the project that was not inspected by the Department. Commissioner Guinnane asked if Mr. Jen would give a signed, stamped letter to the Department stating that he had inspected all of the framing and that it all meets the code according to Mr. Jen’s drawings. Mr. Jen stated that the only wall added was a cosmetic wall, not a structural wall. Mr. Jen said that there is a pending application for the roof showing what has been built. Mr. Jen said that he did have the necessary inspections done on the roof. Mr. Jen said that due to bad weather he did not have some of the sheet rock inspected, but he was willing to carry the necessary liability with an inspection letter. Mr. Jen said he did have pictures of what was done and he would submit those at a later date. Director Chiu said that the Department would like to spot check any work done as appropriate. Commissioner Guinnane asked Mr. Jen to submit pictures to Director Chiu. Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to point out, for the record, that it was not one staff person who issued reports of violations, it was several inspectors from different departments. Commissioner Walker said that her concern was that the process did not work. As violations were being issued, new permits were being issued, and this is due to lack of communication within the Department. Commissioner Marks said that she would like to make a comment for the record. Commissioner Marks said the Commissions are not concerned with whether this particular project is going to enhance the neighborhood or not, but the Department does have a mission and that is to oversee the effective, efficient, fair and safe enforcement of the City and County of San Francisco’s Building, Housing, Plumbing, etc. codes. Commissioner Marks said that in the memo dated March 13th, to William Wong from Marvin Ruiz, it is stated that there is no record of required inspections. Commissioner Marks noted Mr. Hinchion’s assessment, another Building Inspector, that the second floor of the rear of the building was built without permit and a neighbor confirmed that the roof was raised in the past six months. Commissioner Marks stated that another Housing Inspector witnessed expansion of building for framing within and beyond the building scope. Vice-President Hood asked for the next public speaker to step up to the microphone.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue, Residential Builders Association, stated that, for the record, he was not a friend of Bob McCurn. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he does not agree with the Commissioners who have stated that the process is not working, he believes the process is being abused. Mr. O’Donoghue said that this case needs to be looked at. Mr. O’Donoghue said he is bothered by the fact that this building was a crack house that sat for four and one-half years with all sorts of violations written in the records. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Code Inspector in charge of it, ignored this building and then subsequently this building was purchased by Mr. McCurn and another associate. Suddenly, this case took on a magnitude and generated an interest that raises the question, why after four and one-half years did this building, when purchased by an African American contractor, become a questionable problem? Mr. O’Donoghue said that, all other issues aside, that question had not been addressed. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Commission needed to look into the record of this same inspector, who years ago was under investigation by the City Attorney. One of the allegations raised and discussed at the time, by African American people in that vicinity, was that every case that involved an African American homeowner with violations were taken from the bottom of the list and given priority. Mr. O’Donoghue said that if a Caucasian
homeowner was at the top of the list, the African American’s case would get top priority in terms of Code Enforcement. Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the investigation by the City Attorney’s Office, the allegation went so far as to say that this same inspector had approached various African Americans in the community who subsequently sold their buildings, one allegedly sold to the inspector. Mr. O’Donoghue said that he did not know if there was any merit to the allegations, but said that he believes there is selective enforcement against Bob McCurn. Mr. O’Donoghue said he was upset because this is all permit money, and the new buildings are paying the wack for all of these remodeling permits. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Commission and staff’s time is being taken up by going out on selective enforcement. Staff is not coming back with the right answers and the job is not being done correctly. Mr. O’Donoghue said he did not care what the code says and stated that when Commissioner Marks was on the Board of Permit Appeals he made the statement that it was impossible to get a permit in this City, even for remodeling a deck. Mr. O’Donoghue said it was easier at that time to do the work without a permit, but up to code and said that day is over with, but now there is a bigger problem.
Commissioner Walker stated that the Commission cannot enforce the law around crack houses, etc. That is the Police Department’s jurisdiction. However, Commissioner Walker said it is the responsibility of the Commission to enforce the building codes and that is what this case is about. It is about following the process that has been determined by the Department and following the rules. Commissioner Walker said that is what this issue is about, it is not about what ends up happening to this piece of property. It is about following the rules.
Vice-President Hood asked Commissioner Guinnane what further action needs to taken in this matter. Commissioner Guinnane said that in response to Commissioner Walker’s comments, this Department is not involved in crack houses, etc., nor is it involved in Planning issues. Commissioner Walker stated that the Commission cannot change the use of a building. Commissioner Guinnane stated that Mr. McCurn said he does not care whether the building is residential or commercial, so obviously he did not have a hand in changing the use. Commissioner Guinnane said that the only issue to be addressed is the windows on the back of the building which are for second means of egress. Property line windows are supposed to be wire glass fixed and these are wire glass operable. Commissioner Guinnane said that in speaking with Mr. Jen he asked him about the framing and other things that were done at the site, apparently without inspection. Commissioner Guinnane stated that Mr. Jen is willing to put his license on the line and write a letter, stamp it and take full responsibility for that framing and any action out there. Commissioner Walker said she believed that would be a bad precedent. Commissioner Walker stated that the people employed as Building Inspectors should be doing the inspecting, not the people hired to do the projects. Commissioner Guinnane said that Director Chiu said that the Department would cut holes in the ceiling and inspect the work that was done. Commissioner Guinnane said that in looking at the building, it appears to be quality construction. A great deal of cosmetic work was done to the front building and Commissioner Guinnane stated he did not see anything wrong with it. Commissioner Marks said that the concern was that there was extensive work done without permits. Commissioner Marks stated that she agreed with Ms. Vaughey that the total value of the work done is certainly over the amount listed. Commissioner Marks said that these are issues that concern her about how effective the Department is in fulfilling its mission. Commissioner Walker asked what the fine on this property is. Director Chiu said that there are two pending permits in the Planning Department and DBI, and it is premature for the Commission to say that the Department is not looking into this issue. The Department wants to give the project sponsor the opportunity to file for the proper permits and then the Department will move forward if anything else needs to be done.
c. Update on reinstatement of the Public Advisory Committee
Director Chiu said that earlier in January, he had suspended the Public Advisory Committee to allow more time to look at the organization and to set new goals, etc. Director Chiu stated that he was happy to announce that, as of yesterday, he reconstituted the PAC. One of the major items discussed was a second mean of egress for all of the properties in San Francisco. Vice-President Hood asked how the Department notifies the public about these meetings. Director Chiu said there is a mailing list of people that are notified and if any of the Commissioners knew of anyone who wanted to attend, they could be added to that list.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she participates in the Public Advisory Committee because she was invited by Mr. Laurence Kornfield. Ms. Yovanopoulos attended a meeting that was about electrical wiring for computers and she is on the mailing list. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she is concerned with the PAC minutes, as her comments do not come up in the minutes. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that Mr. Kornfield writes minutes on his lap top, but they are not true minutes.
d. DBI 1999-2000 Second Quarter Report.
Director Chiu said that he hoped the Commissioners had a chance to review the Second Quarter Report which ended in December of 1999. Director Chiu said that he would briefly highlight what was done during the quarter. Essentially, during the quarter ending December 1999, the Department processed more than 13,000 permits. Out of the 13,000 permits, approximately 3,600 were electrical permits and 3,400 were plumbing permits. Compared with last year, there was a work load increase of approximately 3%. Director Chiu reported that in looking at valuation for that quarter, the Department processed a total valuation of $405M in construction, which was a major decrease of approximately 67% from last year. Director Chiu said that means there were larger projects at the same time last year. Permit activity is up, but valuation is down. During the Second Quarter the Department conducted 33,986 inspections for Building, Electrical, Plumbing and Housing. Director Chiu said that 700 new complaints were received during this quarter and approximately 1,500 cases were abated for the same quarter, which means that the Department is doing a better job of catching up with the backlog of complaints. Director Chiu stated that he is aware that the Commission is concerned that the Department keep up with routine inspections for apartments and hotels, and this quarter 1,700 routine inspections were performed. Director Chiu said the Department has achieved the goals set for plan checking for the quarter by processing more than 85% of permits in one day. The turnaround time for inspections exceeded the goal of 90% within 48 hours. Director Chiu asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Commissioner Marks said that another item on the report was performance goals and stated it would be more helpful for the Commissioners if annual goals were set, and then make the quarterly report in relation to the annual goal. Commissioner Marks said that she had no sense of whether the number of inspections was down or up from last year. The information provided could be more helpful in having the Commission determine if the Department is on target. Commissioner Marks said that the Department is considerably under revenue projections for this quarter and said that the construction valuation was down, but the number of permits that have been issued has increased. Commissioner Marks asked if Director Chiu could explain this miss match. Director Chiu said that smaller jobs came in during the Second Quarter. If there were not applications for a high rise building during the quarter, that would account for a lower valuation. A typical high rise building has a valuation of $30 - $40M. Perhaps during the same quarter last year the Department had four or five high rise applications. It is possible that the number of activities is up, but the sizes of the projects are smaller. Commissioner Marks said her concern is that the Department does not go into crisis. $11M less in revenue than what was anticipated, is a major item to be concerned about. Vice-president Hood asked a question about MBO (Management By Objective) goals and said that she believed that the Director sets these goals for the year. Vice-President Hood asked about MBO goals on page 48 and page 51 showing inspectors meeting the MBO goal of 11 inspections, per inspector, per day. Vice-President Hood said that with San Francisco traffic she was surprised that this goal could be met and asked if this was indeed MBO goals set for the year. Director Chiu said that Vice-President Hood was correct and that every year around April, he has the opportunity to go over the goals with the Commissioners. Director Chiu said that he would like to have a future agenda item on new goals that have been set with his managers. Vice-President Hood clarified that the MBO goals do come out of the process that is done with the Department’s managers.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue, Residential Builders Association, said that regarding the issue of less revenue for the quarter, he was not surprised. Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the field, as interest rates continue to rise under the Federal Reserve Policy, building will diminish. In the last quarter and the quarter before that there were less building applications made because in his wisdom, Mr. Tom Ammiano decided that the City did not need any housing or live/work. Of course, then the RBA members started moving from live/work and are out doing guess what.com because the argument was that live/work was eliminating jobs. Mr. O’Donoghue said that now the "guru" says that the City needs more housing and less jobs. In the process of making the transition from one to the other, there is going to be less building done. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that during the winter months, less projects get started as the builders try to schedule them for good weather. Mr. O’Donoghue said that, in terms of the future, and he wanted the Commission to be aware of it, the City has a crisis in housing of incredible proportions and there are policy makers who are like ostriches with their heads in the sand. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the City needs housing. However, live/work projects and many builders are moving to Oakland. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Commission needs to be aware of this as the employment of Building Inspectors depends on revenue, and there could be layoffs if something is not done. Vice-President Hood asked Mr. O’Donoghue to stick to the agenda item, the DBI Second Quarter Report. Mr. O’Donoghue said he was speaking on the item because Commissioner Marks raised the question as to why there was a reduction in revenue.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos commented that she noticed two letters of complaints about plans and plan checkers. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she had not had a chance to read the Second Quarter Report to see if the Plan Check Divisions are addressing the problems, that people like Mr. O’Donoghue and the public find, with the backlog or the amount of time it takes for a project to be approved.
Patricia Vaughey said that one of the issues is that the computer system is still not working properly and when someone has a violation it is not on the computer. Vice-President Hood
said that this comment was definitely off of the agenda item and asked Ms. Vaughey to speak when public comment is taken.
e. Report on new performance goals for DBI.
Director Chiu said, as he stated earlier, he has been working with all of the Managers in the Department to set new goals. Director Chiu referred to a draft of the new goals and said he was looking forward to working with the Commissioners at a future meeting. Vice-President Hood said that one of the things she is hearing concerns about is the way the Department follows up on complaints or for failure to get permits. Vice-President Hood asked Director Chiu to think about how he could incorporate this issue into the Department’s goals.
Commissioner Marks raised the issue of having some way to measure the supervision given to the line staff as it pertains to the Department’s goals. Director Chiu said he would look at the organizational chart and see if he could incorporate this issue.
Commissioner Walker asked if there was anything in the new goals about the computer system. Director Chiu said that the goals were not complete yet and one goal for the MIS Department was to have online permitting available within three to six months. Commissioner Walker said she was concerned about making sure all of the information available in the Department gets entered into the computer, including how to implement the history of an application or address. Director Chiu said that he does intend to have an item discussed that deals strictly with MIS goals. Commissioner Marks asked about the Department updating the web. Director Chiu said that the Department is in the process of updating the web and some of the information has been updated already. Commissioner Walker said that the commission list is updated, but the Commission minutes and agenda are not yet on the web. Director Chiu stated that the FYI and the newsletters have been updated. Director Chiu said he would speak with the Secretary about the minutes and agendas. Director Chiu said that the San Francisco Building Code is on line as well. Director Chiu said that, at present the UBC cannot be put on line as the ICBO makes a great deal of their revenue from the copies of the code that they sell. Vice-President Hood said that the California State Codes are on line.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that she has a problem with a situation where someone who illegally builds a garage, gets red tagged, comes into the Department two days later and gets a permit to install a garage door. Ms. Vaughey stated that if there is a violation, it has got to be entered on the computer and the violation has to be described. Ms. Vaughey said this is not happening and she has 45 cases that she has pulled up. Ms. Vaughey said that people are not following the system and doing this deliberately. Ms. Vaughey said this problem is growing and that it will cost the Department a great deal of money.
f. Report on future collection of judgment on the Sainez case.
Director Chiu asked Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian to report on this case. Ms. Boyajian referred to a copy of letter a that was sent by Deputy City Attorney Karen Carrera to the Sainez’s representative on March 10th. This letter set forth two options of payment of the judgment which indicates totals of about $909,000, of which $16,000 has been paid. $893,000 is still owed, which includes attorney’s fees on appeal which the court has not yet been asked to award. The City Attorney’s Office will ask for the attorney’s fees when the case is remanded back from the Court of Appeals to Superior Court. The due date for response to the letter is March 17th, and if no response is received collection proceedings will be started. Commissioner Guinnane asked what prompted the payment of $16,000. Ms. Boyajian said she did not know, but would inquire from Ms. Carrera. Commissioner Guinnane asked if there was any appeal filed. Ms. Boyajian said that as far as she knew there was no appeal. In order to file an appeal, permission must be granted by the Supreme Court and Ms. Boyajian said she had not heard that the Supreme Court had been petitioned or that they had taken the case. Ms. Boyajian stated that she would be surprised if the Supreme Court would take a factually based case such as this one. Ms. Boyajian said would report back, once the deadline is past, as to what will happen next. Vice-President Hood said that the Commission worked very hard on this case with the City Attorney’s office and had turned down a $60,000 settlement fee to pursue this case. Vice-President Hood thanked Ms. Boyajian for her report.
4. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Ms. Patricia Vaughey said that she is seeing a pattern, not just about what she has been talking about today, but another pattern. Ms. Vaughey said that someone buys a building, gets in there as fast as possible before the change of ownership gets recorded legally and the Department notifies whoever is on the Assessor’s list. Next, there is a Code Enforcement hearing and the previous owner does not show up because they have sold the building and the new owner says they did not get a notice because it has not been legally recorded. Ms. Vaughey said that the work has been done under the first six weeks of ownership, and someone else shows up in front of the Commission and says they own the property. Ms. Vaughey said she does not know how to control the issue of who owns the buildings and notification. Ms. Vaughey stated that she has serious questions when she sees a file, that three times in the same month, something is filed and has three different opinions as to whether it is three units, four units or whether it says existing garage, etc. Ms. Vaughey said that perhaps the Department should require the applicants to bring pictures of the existing building. Ms. Vaughey said that the Department is losing thousands and thousands of dollars and nothing is being done about it. Ms. Vaughey stated that 90% of the people who come into DBI are honest. However there is 10% that are causing DBI and the Planning Department a lot of problems. Ms. Vaughey said that she is tired of finding these cases and tired of coming to the meetings every two weeks. Ms. Vaughey stated that she has three cases in her territory where the same builder is building without permits and converting commercial to residential. This builder is applying for sheet rock permits and building entire apartments and putting false amounts down. Ms. Vaughey stated that if this did not stop the Department would be bankrupt.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos of the San Francisco Tenants Union said she would be giving each of the Commissioners a copy of a letter she sent to Governor Gray Davis regarding the appointment of Patrick Boscovich to the State Builders Standards Commission. Vice-President Hood asked if the letter was being given as a matter of information as the Commission has no ability to determine who the State appoints to any Commission. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she did not care to be interrupted during public comment time. Vice-President Hood reminded Ms. Yovanopoulos that her public comments would have to address matters that the Commission can deal with. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the letter would be for the Commission’s reference. However, Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that the letter was about a building owner who has outstanding code violations and that is how she believes it applies to the Commission. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that it has to do with the Building Codes, which she thinks are important, and the City needs to have representatives in the State offices who are people of integrity.
Mr. Michael Powers of Power Exchange Sex Club said he was at the meeting to clarify an article that was in today’s newspaper. Mr. Powers said that he wanted to commend Jim Hutchinson and that any concept of him being corrupt was preposterous. Mr. Powers said that Mr. Hutchinson was the only person who helped him during the process of getting a permit to open his sex club, and the only person to show him any concern when he felt he was being harassed by Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil. Mr. Powers stated that Mr. Hutchinson tried to intervene, but was constrained by procedure at that time. Mr. Powers said the key reason he was present was because Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil has a history of distorted reports. Mr. Powers said that Mr. Torres-Gil was no friend to the gay community whatsoever. Mr. Powers stated that Mr. Torres-Gil’s behavior was ludicrous when he inspected his club. There was some very loud laughter by Mr. Norman Gutierrez which Mr. Powers said Mr. Torres-Gil later admitted, and then again lied and later denied. Mr. Powers said that there are sex clubs operating in San Francisco which are in substandard structures. Mr. Powers said that he was sued by the City Attorney’s Office and settled out of court for $55,000 along with paying approximately $40,000 in attorney’s fees and feels that he was singled out for selective enforcement. Mr. Powers said he does not seek revenge. However, there are still clubs operating in substandard buildings and he was told that the main concern with his club was public safety. Mr. Powers said that this is apparently untrue as three or four years have gone by and nothing has been done about these other clubs. Mr. Powers said he appeared before the Commission over a year ago and would like to see some action taken.
Mr. Joe O’Donoghue, Residential Builders Association, stated that he was present to be critical of how the Department handled today’s press releases on the report that was made concerning inspectors. First of all, the Department has to recognize and the Commission has to realize that the press is only as good the facts which they give. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department needs to give the press basic fundamental facts, either verbally or through the form of a press release, then they are going to have to print what they suppose to be accurate. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the press reported that Rudy Pada was transferred from the field into plan checking, when the reality was that though this may be correct in procedure, it led to a different conclusion. Mr. O’Donoghue said the reality was that Mr. Pada was an inspector in Housing for approximately sixteen years and requested a reassignment to become a Building Inspector, which he viewed as a promotion. This information never came out in the article because the press was not informed and this led the press to conclude that Mr. Pada was being investigated and that was why he was assigned to a new position. Mr. O’Donoghue said that it was the same with the press saying that a check was returned, which would presume that a check was received. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the check was never returned because you can not return that which was not received. The facts were that a $500 check was made out, apparently to cash, by the person making the complaint. This person bought the check into the Department when the Department was doing an investigation because the Department requested him to show how the bribe occurred. The complainant then looked at the check and said it was not endorsed. A check was made out that was never endorsed, and never came out of the possession of that person. However, to read the article it appears that the check for $500 came into the Department. Subsequently, another check for $100 - $150 was made out by the same person making the complaint that was dropped on the desk of a clerk. Mr. O’Donoghue said that this has led to character assignation and the Department is not doing any service to the employees by not facing the press. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department needs to recognize that the press has a job to do and the Department cannot be scared of them if principle and truth are on the Department’s side. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the Department should not listen to the City Attorney’s Office, because if it is going to be good for the City Attorney’s Office they will talk to the press. Mr. O’Donoghue urged the Department to follow their own intuition as has been done from the building perspective. Mr. O’Donoghue said he has taken hits from the press, but by responding has gotten at least one-half or one-quarter of what needed to be said in the article. Mr. O’Donoghue said this time the Department got nothing in the press that they wanted said. Now the press will say that the facts came out today. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that there was a report made by Rafael Torres-Gil on this building months ago and Mr. Torres-Gil made falsified allegations on that report. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Director should have bought this out, that there was a falsification in that report. Mr. O’Donoghue said he was furious over this issue.
Mr. Paul Lee introduced Mr. Far King Hun who came to explain about a situation that happened in 1990 regarding Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil. Mr. Lee acted as a translator for Mr. Hun. Mr. Hun purchased a property at 1501 - 24th Avenue at the corner of Kirkham. Mr. Hun bought the house to add a second story and obtained a permit to do the construction, as well as a permit for dry rot work. Somehow during construction, his job site was stopped saying there was a violation. Mr. Torres-Gil and Mr. Kornfield came to his job site. The violation cited was that he had demolished more than was allowed on the permit. The job site was stopped for over a year and a half and was settled when Mr. Frank Chiu went out to measure and verify that there was no violation and the permit was reissued. While the job was stopped someone called Mr. Hun in the middle of the night asking about purchasing his building, Someone said they were willing to buy the building "as is" and he did not know who the person was, but the person who came out was Mexican. Mr. Hun said he was staying in the lower unit of the building while it was under repair and at night when the phone call came through there was a City Inspector’s car outside. The inspector claimed that he was not staying at the house there, but at 6:00 there was an inspector’s car outside. Then the call came in the middle of the night asking him to sell his property. An appointment was made on a Sunday and a City inspector’s car was parked several blocks away with two people in it, but one person came forward and spoke to him. However, he does not know who the inspectors were. Mr. Hun said he was very angry over this situation. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu if he remembered inspecting this property. Director Chiu said that since it was over ten years ago he did not remember this particular project.
Mr. George Tsang, former Commissioner in the Building Department, said that when he was on the Commission there was an investigation regarding Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil. Mr. Tsang said he understood there was a large, two volume file on this investigation which is sitting in the Personnel Department. Mr. Tsang stated that under the California Public Record Section 6250 and the Sunshine Ordinance, Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, he would like the Commission to look at this investigation of Mr. Torres-Gil and make it known to the public. Vice-President Hood addressed this question to the Deputy City Attorney Boyajian. Ms. Boyajian said that she did not know what records Mr. Tsang was talking about. Ms. Boyajian said he office did have a report and their investigation would be privileged and any personnel files would be privileged, but Ms. Boyajian said that she would speak with the Director and if there are any records that are not privileged, they will be released. Commissioner Walker asked if any action had been taken. Ms. Boyajian said she believed that the City Attorney’s Office exonerated Mr. Torres-Gil and she believed that this information was reported in the press.
Mr. Tsang said that he wanted to ask about a specific address, 719 Capp Street. Mr. Tsang stated that this property never went on the market for sale and how could a Code Enforcement Officer buy this piece of property. Mr. Tsang asked how Mr. Torres-Gil could have been exonerated. Vice-President Hood said that she understood that Mr. Tsang was presenting a question that would be looked into. However, Vice-President Hood said it would be helpful if the question could be put in the form of a letter to the Director. Mr. Tsang said that he wanted to know, under the Sunshine Act, what kind of investigation was conducted and how the conclusion was arrived at.
At this time, 3:05 p.m. the Commission took a break.
The meeting resumed at 3:20
5. 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. The following communication items are included:
Vice-President Hood said that in the interest of time, unless a Commissioner had a particular item to be discussed, the Commissioners could review the communication items on their own.
e. Letter to Building Inspection Commission from Director Frank Chiu regarding City Attorney Referral of Disabled Access Complaints.
Commissioner Walker commended the Department on referral of these complaints.
b. Copy of letter from Ms. Mia Lord to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force regarding 174 Majestic Avenue.
Mrs. Mia Lord said that the interim secretary Ann Aherne is doing an excellent job, however, there were not enough agendas available. Mrs. Lord stated that two lines were missing from her letter and there was a crease down the center. Mrs. Lord said that she will be meeting with the Sunshine Task Force at the end of April. However, in the meantime, Mrs. Lord wanted to say that this was a gross injustice that has been inflicted against her for the past eighteen years that she has lived in San Francisco. The BIC and the DBI are blaming her for code violations at 174 Majestic Avenue which is blatantly false, because she was not even in the U.S.A. when 174 Majestic was built in 1977. Mrs. Lord stated that she lived in England until 1982 when she came to San Francisco to live. The DBI is solely responsible for the noise from 178 Majestic Avenue and Mrs. Lord said that the previous night was the worst night of all. Mrs. Lord said she took a very strong sleeping pill, but was awakened every hour throughout the night. Mrs. Lord said she would like to invite all of the Commissioners to her bedroom to witness what is going on in her life. Mrs. Lord said that DBI is responsible for giving an unlicenced contractor a permit to build and by giving an unlicenced designer a permit to design. Mrs. Lord stated that DBI also inspected her property to assure compliance with the code. Mrs. Lord said there are 44 code violations on the property for which DBI is responsible. This has caused her home to be condemned and she has been issued a lifetime moratorium. Mrs. Lord said that the Commission could still act to put her in a flat and rebuild her home and the case would not have to go to the Sunshine Task Force. Mrs. Lord thanked the Commission.
a. Letter from Lou Aurea, Technical Services Special Assistant, regarding the purchase of the building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and housing codes from General Code.
b. Memorandum from Amy Lee, Manager of Administration and Finance regarding the Monthly Financial Report for January.
c. BOMA Advocate Newsletter dated March 7, 2000.
d. DBI Newsletter.
There was no discussion or public comment on items 5c, d, e and f.
6. APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION D3.750-4 OF THE CITY CHARTER AND CHAPTER 77.5(d) OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:
Appeal of Ms. Darlene Crisp, private citizen, of the Department of Public Works issuance of the Minor Sidewalk Encroachment Permit #00MSE-044 for 1508 Church Street, San Francisco. Permit #00MSE-044 has been suspended pending final action of the Building Inspection Commission pursuant to Section 77.5 (d) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
a. Presentation by parties, including witnesses.
b. Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission on the appeal.
At this time the Court Reporter, Ms. Doris Levine swore in all of the persons who wished to give public comment.
The representative of the Department of Public Works was called on to give the Department’s presentation and then the appellant would make her presentation. Each speaker was allowed seven minutes and three minutes would be given for rebuttal at the end of the discussion.
Mr. Nick Elsner represented the Department of Public Works. Mr. Elsner said the Department was first contacted about this encroachment by Mr. Richard Skaff of the Mayor’s Office on Disability. Mr. Elsner said he was called on February 15th regarding the proposed temporary shelter at 1508 Church Street. Mr. Skaff explained that his office’s main issue was that the shelter be accessible and requested that the Department expedite a permit for temporary wheelchair accessible ramp in the sidewalk area. Mr. Elsner said that under the rules of the Department of Public Works there is no such thing as a temporary encroachment permit. The closest to that requirement is the temporary use of street space or temporary occupancy during construction. This is if some construction is being done on the building itself, the Department allows one-half of the sidewalk to be used for the purpose of staging pedestrian clearance and construction fencing. In this case, this did not apply. In speaking with his superiors, Mr. Elsner said they decided that an amended minor encroachment permit would be applicable in this case. This would serve as access to the building and allow use and enjoyment of the building as stated in the Public Works Code. Because the purposed ramp is only temporary, for a total of three months, the Department determined that it was not necessary to notify the neighbors within the 150 foot radius which is normally done for permanent, full time encroachments. If it came to the Department as a permanent encroachment on the sidewalk, the Department probably would have recommended against it, and even if it met permanent encroachment design requirements, a public notification would have been done. However, being that this is only a temporary ramp and that the shelter needs to be wheelchair accessible, Mr. Elsner stated that this is the reason the Department issued the permit.
Ms. Darlene Crisp said that she filed the appeal because work was started on the ramp at 1508 Church Street on February 28th, prior to the permit being signed by the property owner or his agent and prior to the 15 day period for a person to file an appeal. Ms. Crisp stated that work was started prior to the applicant submitting a 150 radius map and a list of property owners fronting and adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Crisp said that a neighbor came to her on February 28th, concerned that work was started by the City, as he observed a City truck and workers at the site doing construction. The neighbor was concerned because the permit to construct the ramp was under appeal, which should suspend work. He is a property owner adjacent to the subject property, but had received no notification of the encroachment permit. Ms. Crisp said she filed the appeal after checking with DPW and after they told her that this permit had not been signed, returned or notarized. Ms. Crisp was given a copy of the unsigned permit by the applicant. Ms. Crisp said that the citizens and neighbors of Noe Valley have a right to know how they are going to be impacted. Work was started, violating the notification process. Work was started in violation of a permit that was not effective and work was started violating the suspension of the building permit being appealed. Ms. Crisp asked who was accountable, regardless of the reason for the encroachment permit for the ramp being built. The issue is lack of due process and code violations by the City because they have an agenda which brings the citizens to the point. Ms. Crisp said that the citizens of Noe Valley would like to see the Commission uphold the codes and guidelines and act with conscience. Ms. Crisp stated this may not be possible because the Commission may have to vote to the Mayor’s, the City’s and Supervisor Ammiano’s agendas. Ms. Crisp asked the Commission to have personal integrity by voting to uphold her appeal. Ms. Crisp said that on the permit it says minor encroachment and under Section 723.2 Minor Sidewalk Encroachments, there are guidelines as to when the permit shall become effective. It should not become effective until it is notarized and a copy is signed by the owner. Ms. Crisp said there is a fifteen day period for time of appeal and she filed the appeal on behalf of the neighbor who is concerned, but unable to file the appeal himself. Ms. Crisp stated that she was asking the Commission, this time, to uphold the codes. Ms. Crisp did have a question about procedure. She asked if after all public comments she still had a chance to comment. Vice-President Hood answered yes, three minutes. Ms. Crisp thanked the Commission.
Commission Hood asked for any public comment.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos stated that she is a resident of Noe Valley who often walks on Church Street on her way to the produce store at 30th and Church. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she did not know about any work being done on February 28th until this meeting. Ms. Yovanopoulos said the point she would like to make is that Richard Skaff of the Mayor’s Office said that the shelter should be accessible and that they wanted to expedite the permit. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she knew a lot of people were pushing for this shelter, but the neighbors feel that they have a right to proper notification and all along during the process they have been ignored. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the proper fifteen day notice was not given at the outset on January 12th and she encouraged the Commission to uphold Ms. Crisp’s appeal.
Reverend Jim Mitulski, Pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church at 1508 Church Street, the subject property, said that he had his architect present who could answer any questions about the ramp. Reverend Mitulski said that he was at the Commission hearing two weeks ago and at many public meeting where Ms. Crisp has complained that the shelter should not open. Reverend Mitulski said that Ms. Crisp is not a private citizen, but actually represents the Noe Valley Community Workgroup. Reverend Mitulski stated that Ms. Crisp has spoken at many public meetings, saying that the shelter should not open because it is not handicap accessible. Reverend Mitulski stated that Ms. Crisp has done this at the Board of Supervisors and the Finance Committee. Reverend Mitulski said he does not know what he is supposed to do. Is there supposed to be a ramp or not? Is the shelter supposed to be accessible or not? Reverend Mitulski stated that Ms. Crisp is using the Building Codes to try and prevent the shelter from taking place by, on one hand saying it should not open because it is not accessible, and on the other hand it should not happen because they have not followed the permitting process. Reverend Mitulski said the process has been outrageous and that Ms. Crisp continues to use the Building Code to justify her dislike of gay people, her disrespect for the church and their mission, and her distaste for homeless people. Reverend Mitulski asked the Commission to not let Ms. Crisp use the codes to legislate and justify her prejudices. Reverend Mitulski stated that the shelter opened one and one-half weeks ago, and there have been no complaints about the shelter since it opened. Reverend Mitulski said that Ms. Crisp mentions her concern for the flower shop next door when the flower shop uses the entire sidewalk to promote their business. Reverend Mitulski asked the Commission to not justify Ms. Crisp’s use of the process, as the church has done everything they can to cooperate with the Department of Public Works, the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Commission. Reverend Mitulski said that the church has gotten permits, paid fines and are trying to do the right thing.
Ms. Jane Cee, architect for the project, said that she would like to address two issues. The first issue is that she did not have a notary notarize the permit application based on this being a temporary street sidewalk permit. Ms. Cee stated that she is working with Nick Elsner to make sure the permit is filed correctly. Ms. Cee said the second issue was that she met with Richard Skaff, Walter Park and members of DPW on site on February 14th to work to create a ramp that would minimize encroachment on the sidewalk. Ms. Cee said that a fully compliant 1 to 12 ratio ramp was not being created, it would actually be a 1 to 10 ratio ramp. This ramp would fit more adequately across the whole width of the sidewalk. Ms. Cee said that the sidewalk is a generous sidewalk, close to a 15 foot sidewalk, and there would be plenty of clearance from the tree planter to the outside edge of the ramp. Vice-President Hood asked what the clearance would be after the ramp was built. Ms. Cee answered that it would be about six feet.
Mr. Walter Park of the Mayor’s Office on Disability said that his office was very interested in providing as much access in this publically funded program as possible. Mr. Park stated that he did go out to the site on February 14th and looked at all of the options, including a motorized lift. Mr. Park said that it seemed that on a temporary basis, on an existing building at this site, the best option was the ramp. This ramp does leave more than the required walk way space on the sidewalk and does provide access into the building. Mr. Park said he was interested in getting people into the building on their own. Mr. Park stated that he found it somewhat ironic that the people complaining that the building is not accessible have delayed providing access into the site. Mr. Park said that he heard it said three times that there was construction on the site, and his office was very clear with DPW that there should be no construction on the site until this appeal had been completed. Mr. Parks stated that there has been no work there, but a crew did go out to do measurements.
Ms. Darlene Crisp was given three minutes to rebut. Ms. Crisp said that she has made no public or private record against any one group in San Francisco. Ms. Crisp stated that for the Reverend to use that in justifying circumventing codes is to her very negative and not something that she thought a Reverend should be doing. Ms. Crisp said that she did not appeal this issue to deny access, and as a matter of fact observed a temporary metal ramp access to the building, so there is some access for the disabled to the building at this time. Ms. Crisp said that the crew was out at the site and that a neighbor came and got her to observe work being done. Ms. Crisp stated that DPW had drilled into the sidewalk, put up a board and then removed it. Ms. Crisp said she is not a technician and does not know what this means, but work is work. Ms. Crisp stated that if a permit is on appeal there should be no work. Ms. Crisp said that to not enforce the codes for one group of people or project, and then to enforce the codes for another group of people or project, is not equal application of the law and not just unfair, but is in violation of the law and codes. Ms. Crisp stated that she was speaking for herself and for some neighbors in Noe Valley because they come to the Noe Valley Workgroup. However, Ms. Crisp said she was appealing this as a citizen. Ms. Crisp said that she has spoken to more than 200 people and more than 60 businesses who are concerned about this issue. One of the main items is circumventing codes to get something pushed through no matter what. Ms. Crisp stated that citizens rely on the Commission to be just and enforce codes, even if the project is City funded and approved by the City. Once again Ms. Crisp asked the Commission to uphold her appeal.
Vice-President Hood asked if the Commission wished to discuss this issue. Commissioner Walker stated that she was concerned if noticing was bypassed, but in this case where there is a situation where the Director creates a temporary status of a homeless shelter to avoid confusion in the future, the issue of what that includes should be looked at. For example, the issue of making a shelter accessible on a temporary basis could be better communicated to the community. Commission Walker stated that a temporary status precludes all of these arguments. Vice-President Hood said that it is important for the Commission to make sure the code is not used in a way in which it was not intended to be used to control the use of property, which is a matter for the Planning Department. Vice-President Hood stated that with the emerging accessibility requirements, both at the Federal law and the State and local requirements, the Department needs to look at older code provisions that may not have fully and accurately covered the issues, but where the intent was to cover a similar situation. Vice-President Hood said that this issue is very comparable because of the time period involved, only three months, to that intended for construction. Vice-President Hood said that a construction remodeling could easily be three months or even a year or two years. Therefore she believed the Commission was justified in upholding DPW’s ruling in this matter. Vice-President Hood stated that she would like to say that the Department of Public Works has done its job in working within its regulations and codes to achieve an equitable solution in this case. Vice-President Hood said that as Commissioner Walker suggested the Department should revisit this issue to make it more specific in the future. Vice-President Hood said that she would entertain a motion to support the Department.
Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to deny the appeal and uphold the Department of Public Works’ action.
The Commissioners voted as follows:
Commissioner Marks Yes
Commissioner Sanchez Yes
Commissioner Santos Yes
Commissioner Walker Yes
Vice-President Hood Yes
Commissioner Guinnane Yes
The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
[BIC Resolution No. BIC-020-00]
7. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of March 1, 2000.
Commissioner Guinnane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos, that the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously.
[Resolution No. BIC-020-00]
8. Commissioners’ Questions and Matters.
a. Inquiries to Staff. At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures which are of interest to the Commission.
Commissioner Sanchez asked if Director Chiu could address the news article that appeared in today’s Chronicle or what the future might hold for inquiries from the media. Commissioner Sanchez said that the public might loose trust in the Department. Commissioner Sanchez asked if Director Chiu could address this issue at this meeting, or if it would have to be at a later meeting. Commissioner Guinnane said that on the same item, regarding Jim Hutchinson and Rudy Pada, the article was terrible. Commissioner Guinnane stated that the article said that Rudy Pada was brought in from the field and is now doing a desk job. Commissioner Guinnane said that it had come out at this meeting that Mr. Pada had requested a transfer long before this ever came out. Commissioner Guinnane said perhaps a news conference should be held and the facts should be clarified very quickly, as this is very negative for the Department, the Commission and the individuals that work for the Department. Commissioner Santos recommended a letter to the Chronicle stating the position of the City as he totally disagreed with the content of the article. Director Chiu said that his position was that these allegations have been made and the Department wants to make sure that the allegations are not true. Director Chiu said that he did not want to comment one way or the other until he had a chance to investigate the issue thoroughly. Director Chiu said that he did agree that at the conclusion of the investigation that, one way or the other, the Department would let the public know what the facts are. He fully intends to do that. Commissioner Marks said that she was concerned that Director Chiu’s analysis not be restricted to the individual episodes quoted. Commissioner Marks said that there is a sector of the public that has an image of the Department, or some of the inspectors, as not being totally honest. Commissioner Marks said that whatever the conclusion of the investigation would address there is a broader concern than just the specific episodes mentioned in the article.
Commissioner Walker said that on a different issue, the Planning Department has certain conditions on a project and there does not seem to be a way, as it goes through the building process, through permitting and inspection, to insure that those conditions are part of what gets built. Commissioner Walker would like to know what the process is for tracking those conditions. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to report on this.
Commissioner Marks said that this brings up the issue of the relationship between the Planning Department and DBI. Commissioner Marks stated that, as noted by Ms. Vaughey, this was a concern on 500 Divisadero Street where there are code violations on a building and the Planning Department is not notified. Commissioner Marks asked if a procedure could be developed where that could be guaranteed.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she was concerned about the public getting notification. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that in her building, if she gets a notice of violation and there are things wrong in the entire building, the other tenants do not know that there is a Director’s Hearing happening or when there is an order of abatement on the property.
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.
Vice-President Hood stated that there are two items that have come up in a number of different instances that she would like to have agendized. The first of them is how the calculation of the permit fee is done to deal with the issue where a project sponsor puts down a valuation for the work to be done. Many times the work exceeds this calculation and Vice-President Hood wanted to know how the Department can better track the cost of projects. Vice-President Hood stated that she would like this addressed and also if the Commission thinks that there should be a modification to how it is being done, the Commission should have the ability to act on this issue. The second item Vice-President Hood would like addressed is the issue of online permitting and information available such as complaints. Vice-President Hood stated that she would like to know the Department’s ability to document multiple complaints on a single property and to document any conditions that come from any other Department. Vice-President Hood said these items should be able to be accessed by a single source such as an address. Vice-President Hood stated that she wanted to know how the computer system deals with this presently and what is planned for the future. Vice-President Hood said this make take time to prepare and Director Chiu said he would be happy to talk about this at the next meeting. Commissioner Santos stated that the City of Palo Alto could be used as a reference, as he believed they had implemented such a system. Director Chiu said that Palo Alto had launched this system, but had to pull back on it, as it was not working. Director Chiu stated that DBI is working with the same people that Palo Alto are working with. Commissioner Walker asked if the item of assessment of fines could be agendized. Director Chiu stated that the Department is working on this issue. Laurence Kornfield has been working on it and has not gotten back to the Director with a final report, but Director Chiu will check with Mr. Kornfield as to the status of this issue. Vice-President Hood said that this should be on the next agenda and asked the Secretary to include the ability to act on this issue as well as to hear a report. Vice-President Hood stated that there was one other issue that she wanted to discuss and that was how complaints are handled against DBI employees. Vice-President Hood stated that there are a number of people who look out for each employee such as, the labor unions, the Civil Service Commission and then the City Attorney’s Office investigate complaints against employees. Vice-President Hood asked how these complaints are dealt with and can any of the findings ever be made public. Vice-President Hood said that she knows there are very strict rules against making personnel files public, and yet it is a frustration on the part of the public’s desire to know how these things are resolved. Vice-President Hood asked if there are charges that cross over to criminal charges, are these handled by the City Attorney’s Office or are they referred to the District Attorney as a criminal procedure. Vice-President Hood said that she would like to understand this process and would like it to be that the Commission cannot only be informed, but can make any motion or action.
9. Public Comment: The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.
Joe O’Donoghue, Residential Builders Association, said that he did not get to complete that which he started in the beginning, which is that he disagrees once again with the Director regarding the manner in which the Department is addressing the issue before the press. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the press needs facts and that if the Department waits until such time as the investigation is complete to give the press facts, what will ensue is that when the people are found innocent, it will be a back line in the back of the paper. Vice-President Hood added, on a Saturday. Joe O’Donoghue stated that the press cannot be blamed, the blame lies with the Department. Joe O’Donoghue made specific reference to Mr. John McInerney who was maligned in the press under false allegations. The press printed what was given to them and Mr. McInerney chose not to comment about it, which Mr. O’Donoghue told him was a mistake. Mr. McInerney was found innocent by the Attorney General’s Office, by the City Attorney’s Office and it was a byline in the back of the paper. Mr. McInerney’s reputation has been maligned and the builders are going to look for other remedies. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the press cannot be blamed and there is a mistake being made by DBI. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the attitude of the public is that graft is occurring, and that a check was received by the Department. Nowhere did it say that Mr. Pada was a sixteen year, exemplary employee. Mr. O’Donoghue said that the only way Mr. Pada would have taken a check is if he was on crack, No moron would accept, if he was looking for a bribe, a check made out to cash. Mr. O’Donoghue said that Mr. Pada’s reputation is being maligned by the inaction of the Department and the Commission. Mr. O’Donoghue said it is Mr. Pada today, it could be anyone else tomorrow. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that when he left the meeting he would be contacting Mr. John Casey at the District Council of Carpenters to assign a full time representative to defend the reputation of the employees. Mr. O’Donoghue said this is not the first time this has happened and it happened to Larry Litchfield’s regime and that is why Mr. Litchfield is in Arizona right now because he allowed it to happen. Mr. O’Donoghue said that a press release should be done and the Department should not be afraid of the press. Mr. O’Donoghue stated that it is very rarely that he disagrees with the Director, but on this issue a serious mistake is being made. It is wrong and the employees are the ones being victimized.
Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she is glad that the City Attorney is looking into this situation because if there is an allegation that is where it belongs. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the media can have its heyday, but it all boils down to people being responsible and acting responsibly.
Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that the Housing Code was not available until August 10th and feels that the Tenants Union were shortchanged as a result. When it did come out things were tampered with in the Housing Code that did not need to be touched and so she wanted to emphasize that Building Inspection does not have to tamper with the Housing Code. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that now that the sprinklering system is being looked at, the code that is in there should not be tampered with. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she takes offense to the Housing Code being messed with.
10. Adjournment.
Since there was no further business to be discussed, Commissioner Santos made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.
[Resolution No. BIC-021-00]
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Interim Commission Secretary
SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS | |
Parking Plaques (?)for Commissioners - Commissioner Walker |
|
Follow-up on 500 Divisadero Street - Inspection by Commissioner Santos |
Page 5 |
Follow-up by Director Chiu with Planning Department - Date of approved use for property located at 1676 Newcomb Street - Commissioner Hood |
Page 6 |
Update on Sainez Case from Deputy City Attorney Boyajian, update to be available after deadlines. |
Page 14 |
Report from Director Chiu regarding how DBI deals with the process for handling conditions set by the Department of Planning, Director’s Hearing, Code Violations, etc. against a permit application as it goes through the permitting and inspection process. How is the public notified? - Commissioner Walker
|
Page 23 |
Report on how the calculation of permit fee is done and what process the Department uses to assure proper fees are being paid and valuations are accurate - Vice-President Hood |
Page 23 |
Report on the Department’s current ability and future goals for online permitting. Report of the Department’s ability to list multiple complaints or conditions on a single property (Retrieval by a single source - preferably address.) - Vice-President Hood |
Page 24 |
Report on assessment of fines. - Commissioner Walker |
Page 24 |
Report on how the Department deals with complaints against DBI employees - Vice-President Hood |
Page 24 |
Draft of ordinance regarding annual apartment house fees by Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian, Lesley Stansfield and Director Chiu - Commissioner Guinnane |
Previous Request |
Prepared by: Ann Aherne
p:\mgb\minutes\03-15-00.doc