Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Regular Meeting

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, March 1, 2000

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 408

Approved March 15, 2000

MINUTES

The meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by President Fillon.

1. Roll Call - Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENT:

Alfonso K. Fillon, President Roy Guinnane, Commissioner

Esther Marks, Commissioner Mark Sanchez, Commissioner

Rodrigo Santos, Commissioner Debra Walker, Commissioner

Bobbie Sue Hood, Vice-President - present at 1:20 p.m.

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.

President Fillon said that he did not have any formal report for this meeting. However, President Fillon did remind everyone that there were several items on the agenda on which the public would be speaking and asked that comments be kept to three minutes.

3. Director’s Report. [Director Chiu]

a. Update on the status of Public Computers on the first floor.

Director Chiu stated that this item was a continuation of a status report as to how the Department is responding to the customer’s needs at the first floor public computers area. Director Chiu said that at the last meeting he reported that new computers and new printers had been installed, but some members of the public reported that they were still having difficulties using the new system. At the February 16^th meeting, the Commission suggestedthat MIS staff be assigned to the first floor to help customers. Director Chiu stated that after revisiting the issue with staff, it was decided to have employees who were familiar with the new system and with the customer’s needs available to help train the public. If there were questions that the Customer Services’ staff could not answer, or if more technical information was needed, then MIS staff would become involved. Director Chiu stated that a MIS staff member was not needed for eight hours a day to answer customer’s needs and that their time could be better utilized. Director Chiu stated that MIS staff are involved with enhancing the system to meet staff and customer needs. Director Chiu said that the issue of a date not appearing on printouts and other issues raised by the public are being addressed. Director Chiu reported that he had personally followed the procedure outline that is available to the public and was able to retrieve information. Director Chiu said that one problem is that the public are used to the old system and it will take time for everyone to get used to the new way of doing things. Director Chiu said that he would recommend not staffing the 1^st floor counter with highly technical staff, but to assign someone who could help the public and tap into the technical staff when needed.

Commissioner Walker said that she heard from one of the people who had objected at the last meeting and was told that the person was very successfully assisted by someone who knew what they were doing. Commissioner Marks said that she agreed it would be a misuse of manpower to assign an MIS person at the public counter at all times. However, she said there were two other issues that were brought up in public comment. One was that the public was not able to locate the history or activity of permits in relation to a specific property. Commissioner Marks said that Ms. Hestor brought up the issue that if more than one item was needed, the customer would have to escape out of the system and start over. Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu to comment on these issues. Director Chiu said that in following up on the second item, the system does allow a person to check several items without logging out of the system. Director Chiu asked Commissioner Marks to repeat her first question. Commissioner Marks said that it was Patricia Vaughey who stated that when she tried to locate permit activity for a particular property it was not available. Director Chiu said that Ms. Vaughey was speaking about 500 Divisadero, a Burger King, and that information about who was filing the application and other items were not available. Director Chiu reported that he has met with Marcus Armstrong, Manager of MIS, about what the system needs to capture and to set requirements of what mandatory items need to be entered for an application. Director Chiu mentioned the legislation that is proposed by Supervisor Leland Yee that would require an applicant to state the business that will be occupying a property. This legislation is not law yet, but the Department is looking for a way to incorporate this kind of information into the system. President Fillon stated that he used the system and finds that the biggest difference is that previously the user did not have to know the specific address of a property. President Fillon said that in the past, the public could do very indiscriminate research and now the proper address is required. President Fillon stated that he did not see this change as a bad thing, but said he believed this was causing the public the most distress. Commissioner Walker asked if there was a time frame for when all of the information that is available will be accessible. Director Chiu said that at the moment he could not give a time frame, but stated that everyday that goes by the Department is seeking input from staff, the public and the Commission as to how the system can be improved. There is an ongoing list of what enhancements are requested, but prioritiesare set being set by what is most important. Director Chiu said that he will continue to report on the system as a whole and not just the counter service area. Director Chiu said that Item 3b may address some of the concerns Patricia Vaughey raised..

President Fillon asked for any public comment. Patricia Vaughey stated that she wanted to thank Director Chiu for the people that he sent to the public computers as they were very helpful and accommodating. Ms. Vaughey said that one of the problems she was having is with the little piece of paper with the instructions on it. Ms. Vaughey said that the instructions were written by a computer nerd and not in lay terms. Ms. Vaughey asked if the instructions could be rewritten in lay terms as it is still difficult, but has improved greatly. Ms. Vaughey said that as of last Friday, 500 Divisadero, since 12/23/99 is still on the DBI’s computer only partially, and is not on the Planning Department’s computer at all.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos thanked Director Chiu for bringing this item onto the agenda. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that since the Oracle system was installed since the change of the Y2K, there were some glitches. Ms Yovanopoulos stated that data that was missing is now being reentered into the system. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there are wonderful people working on the first floor who are willing to help the public. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that the only problem she has with the system now is that she is not able to see multiple permits for an address at one time.

b. Report on 500 Divisadero Street, Burger King.

Director Chiu said that 500 Divisadero was brought to the attention of the Department by a public member who was not able to access all of the information needed. Director Chiu stated that he had assigned this issue to Deputy Director William Wong and called on him to give an update.

Deputy Director Wong said that at the last Commission meeting on February 16^th, Ms. Patricia Vaughey spoke before the Commission with two concerns. One of the concerns was the computer input which was addressed in item 3a. Deputy Director Wong stated that Ms. Vaughey’s second concern was that she was not able to obtain copies of certain Notices of Violation and other documents regarding 500 Divisadero Street. Deputy Director Wong reported that Ms. Vaughey had submitted a public disclosure request dated January 31, 2000, which was received on February 11^th. Deputy Director Wong said that he had assigned that request to DBI’s Public Relations Officer, Mr. Peter Burns, who is working with Ms. Vaughey to obtain the records. Deputy Director Wong said that Ms. Vaughey had received all documents that were available. Deputy Director Wong reported that he met with Ms. Vaughey on February 25^th and went over all of the documents. Deputy Director Wong stated that Ms. Vaughey did express concern over one active permit that is in current review regarding the Burger King. Deputy Director Wong stated that he has asked a Code Enforcement Officer to work with Ms. Vaughey to go over the details of the application. The application is currently in process and is with the Planning Department for review. Deputy Director Wong said that he has appointed two staff members to work with Ms. Vaughey to address her concerns.

Ms. Vaughey stated that she hand delivered her request for information on January 31^st to Mr.Burns and Director Chiu. Ms. Vaughey stated that there is a problem that she does not know how to solve. Ms. Vaughey said that she is appearing before both Commissions (BIC and Planning Commission) to address this problem. Ms. Vaughey stated that the building is leaning approximately 10 inches and a main support beam is missing. Ms. Vaughey said that this issue has been coming up for almost two years. Ms. Vaughey stated that Marvin Ruiz of DBI and Alan Light of Planning Department visited the site at 500 Divisadero on November 11^th. Ms. Vaughey said that both inspectors did a write up on the property, but the information could not be found in Code Enforcement or anywhere, but it has been subsequently found. Ms. Vaughey stated that, in the meantime, an application has been filed for a Burger King in this building that has multiple code violations. Ms. Vaughey said that the outside is not even connected to the foundation and she questioned how the application could proceed this far. Ms. Vaughey said she is having a problem between DBI and the Planning Department and asked if when there is a Code Enforcement issue with a property, is the Planning Department notified, particularly if it is an egregious case. Commissioner Marks asked Director Chiu to respond to Ms. Vaughey’s concerns. Director Chiu said that generally speaking when a property has been forwarded to the Code Enforcement Division, in addition to a normal review process, Code Enforcement staff does further review to make sure all of the Code Enforcement issues are addressed. Director Chiu stated that in this particular case he has not had the opportunity to look into the case, but will report back at the next meeting.

c. Update on notification process for Newcomb Street.

Director Chiu stated that this item was as a result of a Commission request as to what type of notification process was done for this particular property on Newcomb Street. Director Chiu said that a public member complained, that as a result of a Director’s Hearing or some kind of Code Enforcement process, information was sent to the owner’s financial institution. Director Chiu said that the property address was 1676 Newcomb Street. Director Chiu referred to copies of the Building Code Section 102.4.1 where it requires the Department to notify any person who has any interest in the property, including any lending institute of any violations, etc. Director Chiu said that the Department was advised by the City Attorney’s Office that this code has to be adhered to and in this particular case stated that the Department was following the proper procedure as mandated by the code. Commissioner Walker asked if there was any communication with the Bank of America. Director Chiu said that his understanding was that the Bank of American did call DBI staff and made inquiries as a result of our notification to the bank.

Mr. Robert McCurn, owner of 1676 Newcomb, said he realized that DBI informed him that there is a code section that states that all interested parties, including financial institutions, are notified. However, Mr. McCurn said that the situation happened very quickly and became an emergency on a building that was vacant. Mr. McCurn said that in addition 85% of the write ups and violations on this particular building are incorrect. Ms. McCurn said that DBI records indicated that the front building was a single-family dwelling. However, Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil stated in a violation that the building was a commercial building and that Mr. McCurn had requested a change of use. Mr. McCurn stated that he did not request a change of use. Mr. McCurn said that Mr. Torres-Gil stated that there was not proper ventilation in a room where there was a water heater. Mr. McCurn said that the water heater is electric and that if thebuilding is commercial, then it does not have to comply with the ventilation requirement. Mr. McCurn said that Mr. Torres-Gil stated that there were no smoke detectors in the bedrooms. Mr. McCurn said that if the building is commercial no smoke detectors are required. However, there are smoke detectors in every room of the building. Mr. McCurn said that he is still in the state of limbo and has invested $300,000 - $4000,000 in this building that is being held up. Mr. McCurn said he needs his money and that the Planning Department has provided facts stating that the back building was units and the front building is definitely a single-family residence. Mr. McCurn stated that there were other minute writeups that are not true, and said that one DBI inspector met him at the building and acknowledged this fact. Mr. McCurn said that he has been wrongly treated and this projected is costing him thousands of dollars. Mr. McCurn said that he realizes that DBI has hundreds of violation cases to deal with and said that his situation is a case that was manufactured and he needs some action to get his problem resolved so he can move on with his life, pay his taxes and take care of his financial responsibilities. Mr. McCurn said that the individual Rafael Torres-Gil attacked him on this situation and he does not know why. Mr. McCurn said that he has spent a great deal of time in trying to provide the facts to get this problem resolved and he would like assistance. Mr. McCurn stated that he was willing to do whatever is requested of him to do to get this issue accomplished. Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu if he would be willing to personally do an inspection on this property. Director Chiu said that he would be happy to do an inspection and report back to the Commission. Mr. McCurn thanked the Commission.

Patricia Vaughey stated that this is one of the cases that she has been studying. Ms. Vaughey said that the Planning Department has approved three units and there are more than three units on the property. Ms. Vaughey said she has reviewed the documents on this issue and does not see where the Code Enforcement Division has done anything wrong at this time, unless it was something verbal. Ms. Vaughey said that she was once again going to bring this case back to the Commission, page by page, as she is still working on this case. Ms. Vaughey said that the Commission should look at the pictures of the side of the building that she will be submitting. Ms. Vaughey stated that more than one Code Enforcement Officer was involved in this case, along with several middle management staff and several inspectors.

Mr. Jimmy Jen said that the Planning Department has repeatedly provided documentation relating to the use of 1676 Newcomb Street. Mr. Jen stated that the back building in the early 60’s was a two residential dwelling. Mr. Jen said that documentation of this has been provided to the Building Department. Mr. Jen stated that before any building violations were issued, Mr. Rafael Torres-Gil confidentially visited the planner who was given this information. Mr. Jen said that only a microfilm permit back in 1924 relates to the back building as a one story house over a garage, but the violation states that a new story was added over the garage. Mr. Jen stated that he did not want to get into the details, but said that he thought this was enough evidence to say that this case is one of selective enforcement. Mr. Jen stated that there might be minor technical details with the property, such as a roof that was done without permit, but the facts are definitely different than what was written on the Notice of Violations. Mr. Jen said that, as he testified at the last meeting, this is not an isolated incident. Mr. Jen stated that he challenged the Commission to pay attention to the investigation of this individual along with others in the City, including the City Attorney’s Office. President Fillon asked that Mr. Jen keep his comments to the agenda item. Mr. Jen said that he was requesting an overall investigation, beyond the City level, to get true facts exposed. President Fillon reminded Mr.Jen that he was off of the agenda. Mr. Jen said that this issue was raised at the last meeting and he requested the Department to make disclosures about this individual as to Conflict of Interest. President Fillon said that Mr. Jen needed to keep his comments to the project as outlined in the agenda. Mr. Jen said that when an individual suffers financially due to a violation, the Department should look seriously into why unapplied items are included in the first place.

d. Status of notices sent to fill vacancies on various Committees, Boards and Commission.

Director Chiu said that at previous meeting it was reported that there are various vacancies on the Code Advisory Committee, Board of Examiners and Access Appeals Commission. Director Chiu reported that the Commission Secretary and the Director’s Staff have been working to obtain information from individuals who would be interested in serving on these various committees. Director Chiu asked if the Commissioners knew of anyone willing to serve on the various committees and boards to have them send in their resumes to Ann Aherne or Patty Perez. Director Chiu asked that this item be put on the agenda in the very near future to fill these vacancies. President Fillon asked when the resumes would be returned. Secretary Ann Aherne said that the resumes are to be submitted by the end of March and the Commission could agendize this item at an April meeting. Director Chiu asked how the Commission wanted to proceed with this process. Commissioner Hood said that she believed the method was outlined in the BIC procedures manual. Commission Hood said that selection is not particularly difficult as it is hard to get volunteers to serve on these committees. President Fillon asked if the secretary could set up the resumes for the entire Commission. President Fillon said that previously he made recommendations to the Commission and the entire Commission voted on the appointments. Commissioner Hood said that very often it is difficult to find anyone who will serve in these positions because they are complicated and time consuming. Commissioner Hood stated that the Commission is very pleased when qualified people are willing to serve. Commissioner Marks asked how these positions are advertized. Director Chiu said that DBI sends out hundreds of letters from a DBI data base. Commissioner Hood said that all of the professional organizations are contacted, such as the Society of Engineers and the AIA. Many of these organizations will include the invitations in their newsletters and Commissioner Hood stated that even then there are not many applicants. Director Chiu said that as soon as resumes are received he will be happy to work with the Commission. President Fillon asked for a copy of the mailing list and Commissioner Hood noted that if any Commissioner wanted to add an individual, that would be appreciated. Commissioner Walker asked for a breakdown of the vacancies. Director Chiu said that the CAC has 5 vacancies, 3 in BOE and AAC has 1. Commissioner Walker asked if there were any particular slots or requirements that are open. Director Chiu said that some of the vacancies are for particular seats. Director Chiu stated that a list of the vacancies would be sent to the Commissioners in case they know of any qualified individual who would be willing to serve.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she has participated in many of the Committees and stated that it would be helpful if the Commissioners had a list of what seats are vacant. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that there are certain requirements on the CAC. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that it would be helpful if all of the applicants were listed, not just those selected. Ms.Yovanopoulos said that many times people with certain interests are the ones who sit on these boards and as a tenant she would like to see a more balanced set up.

e. Report on current status of sprinkler requirements versus 1987 requirements.

Director Chiu reported that at the past few meetings, this item was brought to the attention of the Commissioners and clarification was requested between the 1987 requirements and the current code. Director Chiu said that in San Francisco there are many buildings that were built prior to any sprinkler requirements. In 1986 - 1987 the City came out with an ordinance to try and retrofit certain types of buildings to provide sprinkler protection. Currently, a brand new building has to comply with the new code. Director Chiu said that the new code requires all three story or more apartment or residential buildings; and/or sixteen or more dwelling units; or an buildings with an occupancy of more than 20 to be sprinklered. Director Chiu stated that essentially, the new code is much more restrictive as to sprinkler requirements. In 1986 the sprinkler requirement was for meeting rooms, stairways, hallways or corridors. It did not trigger the actual building to be sprinklered. Director Chiu said that as a result of recent fires in SROs and apartment buildings, this issue is being revisited. Director Chiu said that a couple of the Board of Supervisors have visited DBI to discuss how to enhance fire protection systems. DBI has been working with the Fire Department and the Board of Supervisors to build a bridge from the 1987 Ordinance to the current code. Commissioner Walker said that she is interested in this issue that came to her attention after the Western Hotel fire. Commissioner Walker said that she understood that the hotel did not have sprinklers in the rooms where most of the fires start. Commissioner Walker asked where the fires are in SROs and said she understood that it is difficult to sprinkler an old building. Commissioner Walker stated that if after hotel fires, either hotel fires or apartment fires, it might be of service to the Commission to have an automatic report about the buildings at the next scheduled hearing. President Fillon said that it would be helpful to have a report on what caused the fire. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to have a history of the building as to inspections, problems, etc. Director Chiu stated that sometimes it takes the Fire Department some time to determine the actual cause and location of the fire, but he would share staff reports and inspection reports.

Fire Marshall Gary Massentani and Captain Tom Harvey of Fire Prevention came forward to answer the Commissions questions. Fire Marshall Massentani stated that the Fire Department is currently working on an ordinance about getting sprinkler systems throughout SRO hotels. Fire Marshall Massentani said that a task force that works with the Police Department goes out to investigate each of these fires to find a cause and origin of the fire. A report is then forwarded to Sacramento. President Fillon asked how long it takes to get a copy of the investigation. Fire Marshall Massentani answered that time spent on the investigations varies according to the fires. Captain Harvey said that one problem the Fire Department has is defining which buildings are actually SRO hotels as the Fire Department does not have a list. Captain Harvey said that Fire Marshall Massentani has had his staff responding to any SRO fires or greater alarm fires. Captain Harvey said that if the fire is an undetermined fire, then a report is not going to be readily available, but if there is an obvious cause and origin, a report is available within days.

Captain Harvey said that anytime any of the Commissioners would like a report he would be happy to get it for them. Commissioner Walker said it would be of assistance to theCommissioners to have the Department records about the building itself to see if the building was inspected and if it is sprinklered. Commissioner Hood asked Fire Marshall Massentani how the Department could get old buildings to upgrade the sprinklers. Fire Marshall Massentani stated that the Fire Department is working on an ordinance and a number of the Supervisors are working on a funding program. Commissioner Hood asked if the Fire Department differentiated between SROs and hotels as they seem to be the same. Captain Harvey said part of the problem with trying to draft an ordinance is to narrow it down to the buildings that need extra protection. Captain Harvey said that normal building code occupancies cannot be used when referring to a particular type or sub-type ofbuilding occupancy within a general one. Captain Harvey said the Fire Department is working on a draft of an ordinance with the Building Department and Housing Division of the Building Department. Director Chiu asked Fire Marshall Massentani if the Fire Department knows where a fire starts in these fire damaged buildings. Fire Marshall Massentani said that there is not one particular area where these fires start. Sometimes it is just poor housekeeping by the residents, poor habits such as discarded cigarettes and disgruntled tenants. Director Chiu asked if most fires are started in the rooms, or in the common areas, as the sprinkler ordinance in 1987 was only for the hallways, corridors, etc. Fire Marshall Massentani said the majority of the fires are in the rooms and also in the light wells where a lot of debris is accumulated. Director Chiu said that hopefully the new ordinance will address these issues. Director Chiu said that cost is a factor in drafting this ordinance. Director Chiu thanked Fire Marshall Massentani and Captain Harvey for their input.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she is very interested in this subject. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she participated in the Fire and Life Safety Sub-Committee and the Housing Sub-Committee. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that some of the victims of these hotel fires attended the September 8, 1999 meeting and it was important to note the areas in the dwellings that need sprinklering. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that Captain Harvey agreed with her that sprinklers are needed in each of the rooms. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that cost is a factor, as she does not want to see people evicted or SROs closed down due to the cost of sprinklering. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that this rental housing is important to keep for these people.

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

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she read the Advocate that is published by BOMA and noticed that Mr. Buscovich is being appointed to the Building Standards Commission for the State. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she is writing to the Governor regarding this appointment. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she is a member of the San Francisco Tenants Union and one of Mr. Buscovich’s tenants suffered greatly and was constructively evicted for lack of heat and the back staircase was a mess. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she has questions about Mr. Buscovich’s appointment and is writing to the Governor.

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:

a. Letter to BIC and copy of letter sent to Todd Huntington from Alan Martinez, Architect regarding 425 Collingwood Street.

Commissioner Hood said that she would like to thank Todd Huntington for following through on the letter and getting back to Mr. Martinez.

b. Memorandum from Wing Lau, P.E., Secretary of the Board of Examiners regarding replacement for Board Member Dan Kennedy, Representative from the Building Trade Council.

There was no public comment on this item.

Commissioner Hood asked why there was a change to the format of Communication Items and why the Commission was reviewing them one by one. President Fillon stated that this was in response to a request that the public be informed what the correspondence was about and that it be included in the agenda.

c. Letter from San Francisco Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. regarding recommendation for James Reed of Century Electric Company consideration as a member of the Board of Examiners.

There was no discussion or public comment on this item.

d. Letter from Roberta Caravelli, Citizen Review, regarding Legal Constraints on Conduct of Meetings.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that Ms. Caravelli does have standards regarding meetings and stated that she will read the letter because she respects her standards. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she respects the time that the Commissioners take to listen to public comment.

e. Letter from Mr. Alex Chiappetta, Architect to Deputy Director James Hutchinson and Mr. Hutchinson’s reply regarding Carport Addition at 825-831 Scott Street.

There was no public comment on this item.

f. Thank you letter sent by Director Frank Chiu in response to citizens who sent letters to DBI employees.

There was no public comment on this item.

6. APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION D3.750-4 OF THE CITY CHARTER AND CHAPTER 77 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE:

Appeal of Ms. Darlene Crisp, private citizen, of the Department of Building Inspection issuance of the Certificate of Conditions of a temporary homeless shelter located at 1508 Church Street, San Francisco. Ms. Crisp has appealed to the Building Inspection Commission that the Notice of Code Violations has not been completed, ADAcompliance has not been started or completed and the contemplated use requires a conditional use permit.

a. Presentation by parties, including witnesses.

b. Deliberation and possible decision by the Building Inspection Commission on the appeal.

President Fillon stated that Item #6 before the Commission includes many different issues. However, the Commission is concerned with the appeal only. The Commission will decide touphold the Director’s decision to issue the Certificate of Conditions of a temporary homeless shelter, uphold the Director’s decision with conditions or grant the appeal. President Fillon said that Code provisions as outlined in AB029 allow the Director to waive certain code requirements for homeless shelters, provided that the reduction of these requirements does not create a life hazard or allow the building to become substandard. President Fillon asked Director Chiu to report on this issue.

Director Chiu went over how the Department applies the code to a typical homeless shelter in the City. Director Chiu reported that every year DBI receives approximately 8 to 10 cases of these requests and the Department applied AB029 to each of these requests to make sure they comply with the life safety requirements. Director Chiu said that DBI is ready to approve this project. However, there are complications because there was an issue raised by the neighborhood about using City funds for this project. This triggered other disability requirements, mainly ADA requirements. Director Chiu called on Deputy Director William Wong to give a chronological report on this item and said that normally the Department would generally approve this project.

Deputy Director William Wong referred the Commissioners to a 35 page staff report that was sent to the Commissioners earlier and stated that copies were available for the public. Deputy Director Wong stated that there was a summary at the beginning of the report that referred to the Exhibits that were relevant documents in the report. Deputy Director Wong said that the building is located at 1508 Church Street and the cross street is 27^th Street. The building description is a two story frame building, with assembly use as a church. This matter was brought to the attention of the Department on January 14^th when a written citizen complaint was received that work was being done on the premises without permit. Deputy Director Wong referred to Exhibit C, page 9 that lists the violations. The complaint was received on January 14^th and a Senior Building Inspector went to the job site on January 15^th. The inspector noted that there were 4 items that were done without permit. These were: 1) A kitchen installed in a community room; 2) Installed a shower in the bathroom; 3) Water heater which lacks combustion air which creates a hazard and 4) an enclosed light well that was roofed over with plastic. There were three other items that the inspector noted that were deficient. One of the bathrooms lacked ventilation and there were bathrooms that lacked disabled access accessibility. The inspector based this on the fact that at the time the property was used as a church. The third item was that the entrance to the building did not comply with the San Francisco Building Code for disabled access. Deputy Director Wong stated that these were the violations that were noted and posted on the building. During January and February, the Department received numerous communication items from various interested parties and the Department communicated with each of these parties either by phone or written communication. Deputy Director Wong referred to these items as Exhibits F through J. On February 10^th, the Ark of Refuge, the operator for this homeless shelter, submitted a written request for a temporary homeless shelter. Deputy Director Wong referred to Exhibit K thatoutlines the conditions that the Ark of Refuge will need to comply to in order to operate this homeless shelter. The Department processed this request as mentioned by Director Chiu in accordance with established procedures within Administrative Bulletin AB029. Deputy Director Wong stated that this bulletin has been in effect since 1987 and outlines the conditions that one would have to meet, both for a temporary homeless shelter, as well as for a permanent homeless shelter. Deputy Director Wong said that Exhibit A on page 4 outlines these conditions. The Department did prepare a homeless shelter temporary condition of approval which is shown in Exhibit L on page 20 of the report. This Exhibit lists the conditions for temporary approval which correspond with AB029. Deputy Director Wong stated that however, to date although DBI has approved the temporary condition of approval, the applicant, the Ark of Refuge has not countersigned the document for their acceptance. Commissioner Marks stated that she had received a faxed copy of the document signed by the Ark of Refuge. Deputy Director Wong said that he had not received this document. The Ark of Refuge applied for two building permits, one was applied for on February 10^th, to address the Notice of Violation. This permit was reviewed by DBI, the Fire Department and the Health Department and was issued on February 15^th. Because work was done without permit the applicant was assessed a 9X penalty which amounted to $1,200.00. The second permit was filed on February 15^th to add a temporary disabled access ramp at the front of the building to comply with that portion of the requirement. That application and plans were reviewed by DBI, the Planning Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department. This permit was subsequently approved on February 22^nd. As of this date, both permits are being appealed to the Board of Permit Appeals and the hearing date for both cases is set for March 29^th. Deputy Director Wong reported that the Department received two letters from Ms. Crisp appealing the homeless shelter conditions of approval. These letters are Exhibit Q, pages 32 and 33, and they outline the concerns of her appeal. When the appeal was received the Department suspended all work and posted a notice on February 23^rd. All work is stopped until these matters are resolved.

Deputy Director Wong stated that there are three items that are being considered. These are the two permits that are being appealed to the Board of Permit Appeals and will be dealt with by the Board of Permit Appeals. The matter that is before the Commission is the conditions of approval for the temporary homeless shelter which is shown in Exhibit L. Deputy Director Wong stated that the Commission could uphold the Department’s decision as written, grant the appeal which would reverse DBI’s decision or accept the conditions as shown with modification. Deputy Director Wong stated that he would be happy to answer any questions at this time. Commissioner Hood said that she noticed that the appeal filed on the permit is due to be heard before the Board of Appeals on March 29^th according to a letter from Bob Feldman. Commissioner Hood asked for clarification of what issues the BIC were to look at that would be outside those that the Board of Permit Appeals will be reviewing. Deputy Director Wong said that the BIC would be looking at Exhibit L which is the Department’s letter of approval and reviewing the letter to verify if the Department is in conformance with AB029. Commissioner Hood asked if the appeal were about whether this would be considered a temporary shelter. Commissioner Marks said she believed it was about the conditions of approval that were identified by Director Chiu. Commissioner Marks said that President Fillon explained that the code provisions allowed the Director to reduce or waive code requirements for a shelter, provided the reduction or waiver of these requirements did not create a life hazard or contribute to the building being substandard. President Fillon said that the issue before the Commission was to overrule or not overrule the decision by the Department to grant the certificate of temporary occupancy. Commissioner Hood asked the CityAttorney if anything going to the Board of Permit Appeals was not to be taken up by the BIC. Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian answered that the only issues before the Board of Permit Appeals are the two building permits. The Director’s issuance of the conditions of approval is not appealable to the Board of Appeals and that is why it is before the BIC. Ms. Boyajian stated that the BIC was ruling on whether the Director used his discretion, or violated the law in anyway by issuing this approval. Commissioner Hood thanked Ms. Boyajian for her clarification.

President Fillon asked Deputy City Attorney Boyajian for her opinion on this question. Ms. Boyajian stated that on the face of the issue it appears that Director Chiu’s decision complies with the law. The code does allow temporary homeless shelters to be approved without being considered a change of use. Ms. Boyajian said that there is a long standing bulletin that states that as long as the applicant complies with the Fire Department and the Building Department’s life safety requirements, other code requirements that would normally be triggered in the change of use, do not get triggered. Ms. Boyajian recommended that the Commission hear the testimony and determine if there were any issues that would cause doubts that this was not done according to AB029.

President Fillon asked Deputy Director Wong to read the conditions that were required by the Building Department. Deputy Director Wong referred to page 20 and read the seven conditions as follows: 1) the occupany of the chapel shall not exceed ten persons; 2) use is restricted to the first floor only; 3) minimum of two staff persons to be on duty at all times; 4) no smoking permitted in the building; 5) fire extinguishers and smoke detectors to be provided per San Francisco Fire Department and San Francisco Department of Building Inspection; 6) exits are to remain unlocked at all times and 7) provide showers and toilets per Table A of AB029 which states that one toilet is needed for every 30 occupants.

At this time the Court Reporter swore in all of the persons who wished to give public comment.

Jerry Kline, representative of the appellant, said that he was a former City Planning Commissioner and had a great deal of concern about the way that this particular case has been handled. Mr. Kline said that what normally happens with a certificate of compliance is that an existing facility requests permission to have a temporary certificate of compliance with the Code, so they can have a full length 90-day permit. Mr. Kline stated that the conditions that exist in those buildings have been examined by the Department and are certified as being within the requirements of life safety. In this case, Mr. Kline said that the shower and the kitchen are being cloned as facilities compliant with the code, but done without permits. Mr. Kline stated that it is very difficult to understand how the Building Department can certify what is in compliance when the work has been done without permits, and technically do not exist until they have permits. Mr. Kline said that since they do not have permits and since the permits that have been applied for are in the process of appeal and cannot be issued until the appeal is resolved, then it cannot be in compliance. Mr. Kline stated that it would appear to him that the issuance of the certificate of compliance is in error. Mr. Kline said that the Board of Supervisors provided $54,000 to provide temporary shelter for ninety days for ten people. Mr. Kline stated that since the building should only have ten physical bodies in the building at a time, only eight homeless people can reside there because there are two staff members required. Mr. Kline said that $54,000 has been provided to house eight people for ninety days and that these people could be put up at the Hilton for that much money. Mr. Kline stated that public money is being used to permanentlyrenovate a church for a permanent condition of housing homeless people. Mr. Kline said that requires a conditional use permit and until all of the conditions are met, Mr. Kline said he thought that the certificate should be suspended in compliance with the Department’s rules, this is a non-compliant building.

Ms. Darlene Crisp stated that the church did renovations illegally without permits which resulted in a Notice of Violation which was previously discussed. Ms. Crisp said that the bathrooms and front entrance do not comply with San Francisco Building Codes and handicap accessibility. Ms. Crisp stated that the building lacks handicap accessibility and the bathroom renders the building substandard. Miss Crisp said that these substandard conditions and the upgrading of the building means that the proper permits shall be obtained and work completed before the DBI Director signs the conditions of approval for a temporary homeless shelter. Ms. Crisp stated that the clause that addresses this issue in AB029 does not leave any discretion with DBI because this is a provision which requires proper permits and completion of the work prior to signing the conditions of approval. Ms. Crisp said that it should be noted that the approval permit itself does not contain anything pertaining to handicap accessibility for bathrooms in the building. Ms. Crisp stated that this means the Notice of Violation has only been partially addressed in the permits. Ms. Crisp said that due to the fact that the church intends to rent the building to a third party, they are compelled to comply with all of the handicap accessibility requirements set forth in the ADA codes. That is not discretionary and has not been done. Ms. Crisp said that therefore, the suspension should remain in place until there is compliance with ADA and completion of all the work required to correct the Notice of Violations and completion of all the work to comply with Title 24 and ADA. Ms. Crisp noted that Exhibit A in the Commission packet states that if work is required to eliminate substandard conditions, the proper permit shall be obtained, and upon completion of the work and final approval of the shelter, a conditions of approval for a homeless shelter shall be prepared and signed by the Director. Ms. Crisp said she feels this was signed before the work was done and the substandard conditions renovated. Ms. Crisp stated that the shower required in the approval notice is substandard. Ms. Crisp stated the conditions state that the occupancy shall not exceed ten persons. However, she believes that this is not what would be happening. Ms. Crisp said that there would be ten plus two more people which would include staff. Ms. Crisp stated that she wanted the Commission to uphold her appeal as it is written in AB029 that the completion of the work has to be done prior to the signing of approval.

Mr. Robert Cromey, Director of Trinity Episcopal Church at Bush and Gough Streets, stated that he is a resident of Noe Valley at 20^th and Church Streets. Mr. Cromey said that ten years ago, the Mayor of San Francisco asked the churches to house the homeless and Trinity was one of the first churches to do so. Mr. Cromey stated that Trinity has been housing 70 homeless people every winter for a month with no showers and no handicap access. Mr. Cromey said that the Fire Inspector comes to Trinity and checks them out every year. Mr. Cromey stated that they do not have adequate kitchen facilities, there are only four toilets and this has been going on for ten years. Mr. Cromey stated that there are six or eight churches in the San Francisco Faith Council on the homeless that operate each winter in the same way. Mr. Cromey said that he could not follow all of the legal issues, but said that he hoped the Commission would do whatever necessary to make this shelter available to the homeless as soon as possible. Mr. Cromey said that the homeless kids that he sees in the Castro are freezing in the rain and its seems to him that the City has the opportunity to take care of some of these youngsters, only ten, not seventy, for a few months.

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association stated that he was not present to speak on the merits for or against this issue, just from a procedural point. Mr. O’Donoghue said that when this Commission was put to the voters, over the opposition primarily of a coalition of San Francisco neighborhood groups, it was to provide a forum for appellants and neighbors to come in and complain and sprout off against whatever they considered defects in the system. Mr. O’Donoghue said that since this is an appeal, unlike comments on the calendar, the Commission should adhere to what the Board of Permit Appeals does when an appellant has a case. They allow seven minutes with rebuttals because if it is an appeal of a matter than it has an importance way beyond what is on the calendar in terms of public comment. Since this is one of the first appeals on a matter like this, the Commission is caught unawares, but Mr. O’Donoghue wanted to address this issue. President Fillon said that this is why the Commission allowed both the appellant and her representative to speak.

Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos said that she is on the steering committee of Friends of Noe Valley which is in the community. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that on November 22^nd, Reverend Jim Mitulski, the interim Pastor of Golden Gate Metropolitan Church asked Supervisor Ammiano to establish an emergency shelter facility for gay and lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning youth in the Castro/Noe area. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the request was actually for the funding of this shelter and was sent to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that the need was based on the fact that there was a need to accommodate 18 to 23 year olds. Ms. Yovanopoulos said there was a project that went on and was funded the previous year that was a total disaster that happened in the Castro and was not allowed to reopen on Collingwood. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that in July, Reverend Wotolsky became the interim pastor and began some work and started off on the wrong foot. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she went to a meeting to hear what the project was about, as she lives in the community. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that she learned from the neighbors that the neighbor in the back was concerned about the building property being all the way to the back of his yard going only to the first floor and that there was an apartment above on the second floor. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the neighbor was concerned that these young people might upset his yard and Reverend Wotolsky answered that there was no way that the youths could get into his yard, because they would not be allowed to the second floor at all. The only way they could get to his yard would be to jump out the second floor window. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that this prompted her to go to Simon Tam, of DBI and ask if there were any special requirements for homeless shelters. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that Mr. Tam told her that it was not in the code, but in an Administrative Bulletin. Mr. Tam provided Ms. Yovanopoulos with a copy of the bulletin. Ms. Yovanopoulos said she delivered a copy of this to Supervisor Tom Ammiano before a decision was made by the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that Mr. Green, Senior Building Inspector, went out on the 15^th and cited the violations. Ms. Yovanopoulos stated that she is concerned about the exits at this church and the lack of supervision. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that the program that was adopted has an Executive Director with lots of programs tacked on and she is concerned that there are two rooms at this building, one for sleeping which is a sanctuary and one for eating. Ms. Yovanopoulos said that if meals are prepared in this building she is concerned about the fire and life safety.

Pastor Jim Mitulski introduced himself as, Pastor of the Golden Gate Metropolitan Church and the Metropolitan Church on Eureka Street in the Castro District. Pastor Mitulski said that he was at the BIC to ask the Commissioners to please allow the project to continue. Pastor Mitulski stated that the Noe Valley Community Work Group that Darlene Crisp represents has used everylegal maneuver possible to prevent the use of the church as a sanctuary for gay and lesbian young adults. Pastor Mitulski said he did not know whether this group was prejudiced against gay people or just homeless people, but one way or the other they have used every possible maneuver. Pastor Mitulski stated that it was outrageous to hear this group talk about building safety and disability access, when they do not care about these things or about gay young people, the disabled or the homeless. Pastor Mitulski asked the Commission not to let this group use this process to prevent the project from going any further. Pastor Mitulski said that this project has been approved by the Board of Supervisors, the protocol has been signed off by the Department of Public Health, and they have met every condition that has been laid out for them. Pastor Mitulski stated that the permits the Noe Valley Community Workgroup and Ms. Darlene Crisp are opposing, are permits that they originally went to the Building Department to require them to get. Pastor Mitulski said that when the permits were acquired and the fine was paid, then the group had the permits suspended. Pastor Mitulski said that the appellants have only one agenda and that is to prevent the church from being used as a homeless shelter. Pastor Mitulski asked that the Commission not allow this church to be singled out in a way that Bethel AME Church, Third Baptist Church, Providence Baptist Church, First Unitarian Church, St. Mary’s Cathedral, St. Mark’s Lutheran Church, Trinity Episcopal Church, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church and St. Boniface Church are not singled out. Pastor Mitulski stated that he did not know if his church was being singled out because it was a gay church or because it is in a wealthy neighborhood and what they are doing makes some people, but not everyone, uncomfortable. Pastor Mitulski asked that the Commission not allow the building commission process be corrupted by Ms. Crisp and the Noe Valley Community Workgroup.

Mr. Eric Politzer, employee of the service provider that has been requested to run the shelter, the Ark of Refuge, said that he wanted to go on record to clarify that it was actually MCC that applied for the building permits and has been forced to do renovations at a great deal of cost.

Mr. Politzer said that he wanted to clarify some issues that Jerry Kline raised. Mr. Politzer stated that ten people is the allowance under 209 and in fact in speaking with the Fire Inspector, the spacial allowance in that building would allow as many as seventeen clients. Mr. Politzer said that the Ark of Refuge has made accommodations, time and time again, to the neighbors. Mr. Politzer said that he wanted to go on record as a neighbor of Noe Valley who welcomes the shelter in the greater Noe Valley area. Mr. Politzer said he is closer to the Mission area and would like to have a shelter such as this in the Mission, as well, as they are greatly needed. Mr. Politzer stated that the $54,000 that was referred to is not capital money, none of it is used for permanent renovations of the facility. Mr. Politzer said that he wanted to add that last year he ran a successful youth shelter at the Eureka Valley Rec Center which was signed off on by Director Chiu and his staff. That shelter did not have a shower, and Mr. Politzer stated that other programs have been allowed that did not have a shower. Mr. Politzer stated that he is concerned that a precedent would be set by any decision made at this Commission for shelters in the future. Mr. Politzer said that countless churches have come forth as part of the traditional mission, as well as a response to the Mayor’s request, in complete compliance with the Department of Public Health, Interfaith response to emergency homelessness. Mr. Politzer stated that the need for these programs is growing while the tolerance is waning. Mr. Politzer encouraged the Commission to support this program.

Ms. Mia Potakiana, operator of the flower shop next door to 1508 Church Street, also lives upstairs from her flower shop. Ms. Potakiana said that she could not bring up many issues as theywere not part of the agenda. However, she said that she wished the Commission could look at the premises. Ms. Potakiana stated that the building is built 150 feet back and there is an exit and an entrance that are at the same side of the building. Ms. Potakiana stated that she is very concerned with the fire safety issue. Ms. Potakiana said that she is concerned that the occupants of the shelter are heavy smokers and this is a danger. Ms. Potakiana said that the winter months are almost over and her complaint is the planning that was not put into this process. Ms. Potakiana asked why this group was being given so much money. Ms. Potakiana stated that she loved this church and the people who were in it. Ms. Potakiana said that this is a targeted group and wonders why the City are paying for the ramp. Ms. Potakiana said that it was a City truck that was at the property, blocking the sidewalk. Ms. Potakiana stated that this is a type of non-planning that the neighborhood is up against. Ms. Potakiana read a quote from a newspaper stating that Pastor Wotolsky said that he would open the shelter regardless of what the outcome of this hearing was, and stated that this is a dangerous attitude. Ms. Potakiana said she is not against a shelter in Noe Valley and is trying to find a solution. However this is not the proper location, as it is dangerous. Ms. Potakiana stated that the comment in the paper makes her frightened for the neighborhood as it is becoming a hostile environment. Ms. Potakiana said there has been physical damage to some of the property in the neighborhood. Ms. Potakiana asked the Commission to look at the safety issues involved in this shelter.

Mr. Enrico Honda, a homeowner two houses from 1508 Church Street, said that as President Fillon stated, the issue to be addressed was the process and the health safety issues caused by the building, not everyone’s personal opinions. Mr. Honda stated that at a meeting in January with Mayor Brown and two of his aides, Mayor Brown asked if all of the permits and procedures had been filed for regarding this shelter. The aides told Mayor Brown that the permits had not been applied for and he asked why not. Mr. Honda said that Mayor Brown stated that even though this was being declared an emergency winter shelter and certain requirements could be overridden, certain guidelines would still apply and would have to be followed. Mr. Honda stated that this is what he is arguing about. Certain procedures and code violations have not been dealt with and just because this is a church, they cannot be avoided. Mr. Honda said that many community groups are involved with this issue and asked that the Commission follow the guidelines that are set forth for all organizations in the City. Mr. Honda said that the water heater was installed improperly and he asked if an inspector could reinspect the water heater as a fire hazard.

Mr. Alfred Sekara said that Ms. Anastasia Yovanopoulos already described the fence that is in back of this building. Mr. Sekara stated that he is concerned that if there is a fire, earthquake or other emergency in the front of the building, the only way to get out of the lower floor of the building would be to go upstairs and climb over his fence. Mr. Sekara said that anyone with a physical or mental handicap would not be able to do this. Mr. Sekara stated that at another side of the building someone would have to climb up six to seven feet to a neighbor’s property and at his fence there would be a drop of ten to twelve feet. Mr. Sekara said that someone in a wheelchair would not be able to negotiate this situation and stated that the City are opening themselves to lawsuits if this shelter is allowed to operate in this building. Mr Sekara said the safety issue is very important and he felt that the appeal should be upheld.

Ms. Tawnee Walling, who works at both churches, stated that the doors in the front of the building are very big and it should not be a problem to get twelve people out of the building in an emergency. Ms. Walling stated that the church has satisfied all of the issues and there shouldbe no reason why the church could not get a conditional temporary use of this building. Ms. Walling said that all of the issues were satisfied before anything was done to the building and renovations keep being misrepresented. Ms. Walling stated that the church has had the money for about a year and have been waiting to open this shelter. Ms. Walling said that the church was not trying to snow anybody and that the group contacted the neighbors and are just trying to open this shelter to help homeless youths.

Mr. Walter Park, Director of the Mayor’s Office on Disability, stated that he would be happy to receive and respond to any complaints on ADA that anyone has to file. Mr. Park said he would attempt to untangle the ADA questions from Title 24 questions or the San Francisco Building Code questions. Mr. Park stated that the only complaint received to date was for lack of accessibility to the church. Mr. Park reported that the church is a private entity under Title 3 of ADA. Congress in its wisdom has seen fit under Section 307 of ADA to exempt churches from ADA. The church building itself is not an ADA issue. If there is an expenditure of public funds there then there may be a Title 2 problem. Mr. Parks said he has not received any Title 2 complaints. Mr. Parks stated that the shelter that will be at 1508 Church Street will trigger Title 2 and when such complaints are filed, they will be investigated and dealt with in a timely fashion. Mr. Parks said that, in the meantime, there are two permits which were issued and are now pending in suspension, one to include the restroom and kitchen areas and the other for a ramp outside the front door. Mr. Parks there would be a ramp at the front door today except for the fact that the neighbors have appealed that permit, and therefore put it into suspense. Mr. Parks said that once that permit is approved there will be a ramp at the front door and there will be ADA compliant accessibility through the primary entrance and throughout the building. Mr. Parks stated that the Mayor’s Office would request that the Commission uphold the decision of the Director.

Ms. Gracie Atherton stated that Darlene Crisp is speaking for herself. Ms. Atherton said that she was representing the neighbors and businesses in Noe Valley via the Noe Valley Community Workgroup. Ms. Atherton said that the group has listened to the neighborhood’s concerns both pro and con regarding this homeless shelter. Ms. Atherton stated that the group believes there is a need to expand homeless shelters in the City. However, the concerns that have been expressed regarding 1508 Church Street are more specific. Ms. Atherton said that the fact that the church chose to do extensive renovations without permits demonstrates a disregard of City codes, whether the money was available over a year ago or not. Ms. Atherton stated that the church could have gotten permits to do the work and therefore they were cited for code violations. Ms. Atherton said that the neighbors are concerned about life safety issues related to the building and the integrity of the building because it is not up to code at this point. Ms. Atherton said that the neighborhood wants to make sure that the church complies with all appropriate building codes, including ADA regulations. Ms. Atherton stated that this church needs to comply with ADA regulations because it is receiving City funds for this project. Ms. Atherton said that this facility should comply with the law as other City funded projects are required to do. Ms. Atherton stated that she did not believe that the certificate for temporary occupancy should have been issued per the bulletin AB029 and therefore, she requested that the Commission uphold the suspension of the approval until all appeals have been heard and all Notices of Violation be complied with.

Mr. Paul Wilson said that he wanted to relate two personal experiences and urged the Commission to go ahead and uphold the decision to issue these permits. When Mr. Wilson moved to San Francisco two years ago, he decided to add a bathroom with permits to his first floor. Mr. Wilson said this project involved moving a water heater from one side of the garage to the other. Mr. Wilson said that when everything had been completed that was involved with the permit process, the final inspector came and said that the water heater was not adequately ventilated. Mr. Wilson said that the water heater was sitting in the middle of a garage and the inspector wanted him to put two pipes, at a cost of $3,000, to adequately ventilate the water heater. Mr. Wilson said that when he had a contractor come out to do the work, they asked why he was doing this, because there was no way that air was going to become combustible, as it was a wide open space. Mr. Wilson said that he got the final approval by adding two vents to his garage. Mr. Wilson stated that he attended an orientation meeting at Golden Gate Church and made the mistake of getting off of the J line two blocks earlier than needed. Mr. Wilson said that he walked two blocks from 1300 to 1508 and in those two blocks not one, but nine cars were parked in driveways. Mr. Wilson said that these are illegal, as even two inches over a driveway is dangerous for a blind person walking with a cane. Mr. Wilson said that he wonders about ADA compliance as the church is willing to put in a ramp that will solve the ADA problems and he would urge the Commission to go ahead and approve the permit.

President Fillon said that he would allow the appellant more time as he was notified by the Deputy City Attorney that the appellant was allowed rebuttal time. Mr. Jerry Kline said that it is an interesting question as to whether an applicant can use illegally constructed work to qualify for a permit. Mr. Kline stated that at this point, the kitchen, bathroom and the work that has been done without a permit, does not legally exist. Mr. Kline said that this Commission would set forth a precedent in which a person could now use illegally constructed, and illegally used facilities, to comply with other sections of the code. Mr. Kline said that if illegal units can be used to house these people, it would make for a very interesting situation for the City.

Darlene Crisp referred to the last paragraph of AB029 and the condition of approval #7, to provide showers. Ms. Crisp said she assumed this meant that everything would have to be up to code and things are not up to code and not in compliance. Therefore, she requests that the certificate still be suspended. Ms. Crisp stated that the certificate was not supposed to be signed until everything was completed and there is evidence that everything is not completed at this time.

Commissioner Walker said that she would like to make a comment about setting precedent. Commissioner Walker stated that she has been sitting on the Commission since January and has heard several occasions where work was done without permit and the Commission was asked to support the process after the fact. Commissioner Walker said this precedent was set many years ago. Commissioner Walker stated that what was being looked at in this case was upholding the terms and conditions set forth by Director Chiu, which seem to have been put into suspense by actions of the appellant. Commissioner Walker said that it sounded like the work required by the terms and conditions had already been completed, at least as far what the Pastor has said. President Fillon said that the staff has also confirmed that work has been done. Commissioner Walker said that she would like to hear more discussion, but was ready to move on the issue. President Fillon said that many of the issues brought up in discussion did not apply to the agendized item. President Fillon said the key issue is whether the Director’s action should be upheld. Commissioner Marks said that she believed the neighbors are sincere in their concerns, but would agree with the issue before the Commission. Commissioner Marks stated that the Commission should uphold the decision of the Director and she would like to so move.Commissioner Walker seconded this motion. Commissioner Hood said that she supported the motion. Commissioner Hood said that she would agree with Pastor Wotolsky in that the effort to now obtain the permits, which is always required when people have built without permits, has been done. Commissioner Hood said that the effort to correct a wrongdoing to begin with has been done, even though the permits have been appealed. Commissioner Hood stated that she hoped that if the Commission upheld the Department’s decision, it will take this item away from those issues that need to be considered at the Board of Permit Appeals.

Commissioner Marks made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker to deny the appeal and uphold Director Chiu’s action.

The Commissioners voted as follows:

Commissioner Marks Yes

Commissioner Sanchez Yes

Commissioner Santos No

Commissioner Fillon Yes

Commissioner Walker Yes

Commissioner Hood Yes

Commissioner Guinnane Yes

The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.

[BIC Resolution No. BIC-016-00]

At this time, 3:10 p.m. the Commission took a break.

The meeting resumed at 3:30 p.m.

7. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Special Meeting of February 9, 2000.

Commissioner Hood made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos, that the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously among the Commissioners who were present at the February 9, 2000 meeting.

[Resolution No. BIC-017-00]

8. Review and approval of the Minutes of the BIC Regular Meeting of February 16, 2000.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Guinnane that the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously.

[Resolution No. BIC-018-00]

9. Commissioners’ Questions and Matters.

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

Commissioner Guinnane asked Director Chiu about the change in fees for apartment house fees, hotel room count and increasing the fees. Director Chiu said that he would followup with Lesley Stansfield, Chief Housing Inspector and the City Attorney’s Office to move forward. Director Chiu stated that he would report back at the next meeting.

Commissioner Guinnane said that he had received a list of all of the hotels with over 150 rooms and apartment houses. President Fillon asked the Commission Secretary to get a copy of this list for all of the Commissioners.

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

President Fillon announced that he would not be at the next meeting to take place on March 15^th as he is getting married on Saturday, March 4^th and will be on his honeymoon. Commissioner Walker congratulated President Fillon on behalf of the Commission.

Commissioner Marks asked if Amy Lee, Manager of Administration and Finance could prepare a second quarter report of the revenue and expenditures versus the actuals and also a performance evaluation report. Commissioner Marks stated that she would like a report of how the Divisions are doing in comparison to their performance expectations. Director Chiu stated that he has been meeting with all of the Division Managers and setting new goals and reviewing the old goals. Director Chiu said that he would report on what reasonable goals have been set and how each Division is achieving those goals.

Commissioner Hood asked about the deadline for the Commissioners to have their Form 700, financial information to the City. Commissioner Hood wanted to know when the Commissioners would be receiving the blank forms to complete this task. Commission Secretary, Ann Aherne reported that the Personnel Manager, John Marquez will be getting the forms to her in the next couple of days and she will pass them on to the Commissioners.

Commissioner Walker asked if she had filled out a form when she became a Commissioner, was it necessary for her to fill out another form. The Commission Secretary answered no.

Commissioner Guinnane asked if there were any appeals on the Sainez case or how many days were allowed for appeal from February 1, 2000. Deputy City Attorney Boyajian said that she believed they have thirty days to go to the Supreme Court, but she has not heard that there has been any appeal filed. Ms. Boyajian said that the Supreme Court has the discretion to accept an appeal or not. Commissioner Guinnane said that, assuming they have not filed an appeal, what is the next step for collection. Ms. Boyajian said that she would have Deputy City Attorney Manolius or Castillo call Commissioner Guinnane regarding this issue. Commissioner Hood asked if this item could be agendized so that all of the Commissioners could be given an update on the Sainez case.

Commissioner Hood asked President Fillon if he would be doing the agenda for the next meeting or would he like her to do the agenda and chair the meeting in his absence. President Fillon said that he would like Commissioner Hood to do the agenda.

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

There was no public comment on this item.

11. Adjournment.

Since there was no further business to be discussed, Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Santos, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.

[Resolution No. BIC-019-00]

The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne

Interim Commission Secretary

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS
Continuing followup of DBI’s new computer system. - Director Chiu	Page 2
Followup on 500 Divisadero Street - Commissioner Marks	Page 4
Report on Director’s inspection of 1676 Newcomb Street. -Commissioner Guinnane	Page 5
Draft of ordinance regarding annual apartment house fees by Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian, Lesley Stansfield and Director Chiu -Commissioner Guinnane	Page 20
Second Quarter Report showing revenues vs. expenses and Division goals vs. performance. - Commissioner Marks	Page 20
Update on Sainez case and collection process.- Commissioner Hood	Page 20 & 21

Prepared by: Ann Aherne

p:\mgb\minutes\03-01-00.doc