January 20, 2010 | Department of Building Inspection

Building Inspection Commission - January 20, 2010

BUILDING INSPECTION COMMISSION (BIC)

Department of Building Inspection (DBI)

REGULAR MEETING

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 416

Aired Live on SFGTV Channel 78

ADOPTED May 19, 2010

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Building Inspection Commission was called to order at 9:39 a.m. by President Murphy.

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

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mel Murphy, President, left at 11:15 a.m.
Reuben Hechanova, Vice-President
Kevin Clinch, Commissioner
Robin Levitt, Commissioner
Criss Romero, Commissioner
Frank Lee, Commissioner
Debra Walker, Commissioner
Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Vivian Day, Director
Edward Sweeney, Deputy Director
William Strawn, Communications Manager
Pamela Levin, Administration & Finance Division Supervisor

Sonya Harris, Secretary

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE:

John Malamut, Deputy City Attorney (10:10 a.m.)

2. President’s Announcement.

President Murphy had no announcements.

3. Director’s Report.

a. Update on DBI’s finances.

b. Update on proposed legislation.

c. Update on other activities affecting administration of the Department.

Director Vivian Day said that she would report on item #3 issues during the budget presentation which was Item #9.

4. Update on the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS). – continued from December 18, 2009 meeting.

Laura Samant, one of the project managers for CAPSS, gave a brief overview of the project. Ms. Samant stated that the project was divided into three tasks:

Referred to as Task 2 which is a report describing the consequences of four large and likely earthquakes on the City of San Francisco as if they happened to the City as it is right now. This report focuses on the impact on housing, the economy, vulnerable populations and other things that make the City special. A few aspects such as estimating the post quake fire impacts and elements of the socioeconomic analysis are still being worked on, but the report should be ready for review by the BIC, the committee and the public by April 15^th.
Referred to as Task 3 which is a report to develop updated and improved standards for repair after an earthquake. A key question here is when should building owners be allowed to repair their building to exactly the state it was before it was damaged and when should they be required to make that building better. The technical team is in the midst of analyzing three types of buildings to create a method for the City. These include wood frame single-family homes, wood frame-multi family dwellings and older concrete dwellings. CAPSS hopes to have a fully reviewed version of this report by May 31^st.
Referred to as Task 4 which is mitigation recommendations. The report will be addressing the consequences identified and recommending policy approaches and programs that would make sense in the City after a large earthquake. The cost of what is to be recommended in terms of dollars and impacts on different groups of people in groups in the City will be analyzed for effectiveness. There will be a workshop next month to share ideas that seem to make sense to a broad cross section of San Francisco. The report will include what has been learned about different risk reduction approaches and their effectiveness. This report will be completed by the end of summer.

Commissioner Walker said that she wanted to thank Ms. Samant for her presentation and for all of the work that the CAPSS program has been doing. Commissioner Walker stated that this has been going on for ten years now and said that she was excited that the Mayor is now behind this program. Commissioner Walker said that this would help every person living in San Francisco, in the Bay Area and maybe even California.

Vice-President Hechanova thanked Ms. Samant for all of the work the CAPSS committees has done, but said that he was concerned that there are continued requests for additional time to complete the reports. Vice-President Hechanova said that he was concerned about the statements about repair as he would think that when something has been damaged whether it is minor or major in an earthquake that the building would need to be improved, not just repaired to a point of what it was before the damage. Vice-President Hechanova said that the building if just repaired would fail again. Vice-President Hechanova stated that he wanted to make sure UMB’s were included in the reports and that no additional money was being charged due to the time extensions. Ms. Samant said that ATC had asked for a no-cost time extension.

Commissioner Levitt said that he wanted to emphasize that there needs to be incentives for the public to do the seismic upgrading because it is important for the entire community. Commissioner Levitt asked when the CAPSS workshop was going to be held. Ms. Samant said that it would be on February 10^th from 10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. and that the Commissioners would be receiving invitations.

President Murphy expressed his concern that there was not enough representation of the public and property owners at the CAPSS meetings. President Murphy stated that it would take incentives, incentives, and more incentives for the property owners to buy into this project and said that these were the people that were going to be most affected by whatever the final outcome would be. President Murphy said that he thought that tenants were under represented and said that more outreach should be done to the public as all of the other groups, such as architects and engineers have been well represented. President Murphy suggested tax credits, allowing garages and perhaps extra units as some incentives for property owners.

President Murphy called for public comment.

Mr. Rodrigo Santos, President of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG) introduced himself as a structural engineer and said that he welcomed every effort made by the City to encourage property owners to seismically upgrade their buildings. Mr. Santos stated he agreed that this effort has to be complemented with tangible financial incentives and suggested the following:

Waive Permit Fees.
By-pass City Planning. It is a black hole and it will take months for any project to proceed.
Grant an automatic extension for ADA compliance for a commercial space.
Allow for the placement of garages in structures that fall within the new rules of the historical restrictions, particularly in District 3.
Allow for a clear path to legalize an illegal in-law.
Tangible financial incentives; if there is a full seismic upgrade done, then the property owner gets something.
Provide a reduction of property tax equivalent to the cost of the seismic upgrade.
Work with the rent board to protect property owners from claims that will come from tenants.

Mr. Santos said that property owners do have rights in San Francisco.

Mr. Luke O’Brien of SFCRG said that an interesting thing happened last night when a member of the Republican Party won in Boston against all odds and against all bets that were on the race on who would take that election. Mr. O’Brien said that this would tend to suggest that the people of this country want to see the government back off a little bit as they are a little bit disillusioned with what has happened. Mr. O’Brien stated that people want to see the government think more about the money being spent, more about shoving ideology or ideas down people’s throats, and telling everybody how it should be done. Mr. O’Brien said that this has a lot to do with this program as San Francisco government can approach this project by using the stick or the attraction method for implementation. Mr. O’Brien said that the previous speaker gave some ideas about the attraction approach and said that he thought it would not be a good idea to send a letter out to people announcing something that has been discussed for years that they do not know anything about, and they suddenly have to come up with $60,000 to $250,000 to implement a program. Mr. O’Brien stated that he hoped this is not done that way and said that he hoped it would be done with the suggestions that were made; spell that out to the people that it is necessary, cost effective, and good for the people of San Francisco. Mr. O’Brien said that there was a very compelling argument in another news featured item this week to what happened in Haiti and said that it is hard to discuss this program and not have pictures in your mind of what happened there and the tragedy that could be waiting to happen here. Mr. O’Brien stated that scientists have said that the Bay Area is due for the big one, so this program is a public safety issue that needs to be taken care of and it needs to be done carefully and methodically. Mr. O’Brien said that that there have been many meetings, but there is probably still a serious lack of awareness of this program in the city of San Francisco, despite these meetings. Mr. O’Brien said that a lot of money has to be spent to get the message out to everyone. Mr. O’Brien stated that a lot of property owners in San Francisco are not rich people and are living on a week to week basis; these landlords are trying hard to keep their heads above water.

Commissioner Clinch asked about the inventory of soft-story buildings that is published on the DBI website and suggested that these building owners be notified that their buildings are potentially unsafe. Ms. Samant explained that this inventory was done by volunteers who did a sidewalk inspection with DBI that was not intended to be published until further research was done. Ms. Samant stated that due to a Chronicle public information request the information had to be posted. Ms. Samant said that notification would be outside the scope of the work being done by CAPSS. Commissioner Clinch and Commissioner Hechanova expressed their concern that these owners be notified so that they have an incentive to do the seismic upgrades. Commissioner Lee said that these building owners should be told that their buildings have been chosen to be studied and that it is in their best interest to participate in that study; this might help bring the owners to the meetings. Commissioner Walker suggested contacting the San Francisco Apartment Association and the CEOP members that DBI supports to get the word out to owners and tenants to attend that workshop being held on February 10^th. Commissioner Walker said that a plan for outreach should be an agenda item for that workshop. Commissioner Levitt said that small property and business owners should be contacted.

There was no further comment on this item.

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

Mr. Chris Robertson of Co Co Computing Solutions said that he has spoken before the Commission on prior occasions under the same agenda item to make comments regarding an automated permit tracking system RFP. Mr. Robertson said that he made comments at this Commission as well as at the HRD about a substantial contract opportunity in the range of $9M potentially awarded to a company out of Canada, when there were local companies who could participate. Mr. Robertson stated that this company out of Canada was granted a waiver where they did not have to engage local LBE firms. Mr. Robertson said that these are serious concerns he brought before this Commission and said he was hoping to get some updated status on the RFP.

Secretary Aherne said that a short statement could be made in answer to Mr. Robertson’s inquiry, but there could not be a full discussion on this as it was not on the agenda.

Director Day said that the Department has intent to abort the contract as it has not been awarded and is on suspension while DBI investigates some matters regarding the actual award of
the contract or the procedures involved. Director Day said that the Department hopes to complete its investigation sometime this month.

President Murphy said that this would be an item for next month’s agenda.

There was no further public comment.

6. Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed Ordinance (#091113 - Mayor Gavin Newsom) finding a compelling public policy basis for expediting the processing and review of permits for voluntary seismic retrofit upgrades of soft-story, wood-frame buildings and amending the Planning Code, Building Code, Fire Code, and Public Works Code to waive permit processing fees for the proportionate share of work related to such seismic retrofit upgrades; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the City’s General Plan and Planning Code Section 101.1.

Jason Elliott and Starr Terrell of the Mayor’s Office were present to speak on this item.

Ms. Terrell said that as the Mayor’s liaison to the Board of Supervisors that she had been working with various departments to bring this item forward to the Board. Ms. Terrell said that she wanted to clarify what this legislation is and what it is not because she thought that there had been some misrepresentation or misunderstanding in the press. Ms. Terrell stated that Ms. Samant was really well spoken when talking about the consequences of doing nothing, and that was the impetus of taking this step to create some voluntary incentives. Ms. Terrell said that the Mayor’s Office is looking at mandatory legislation, but said that in the interim, the Mayor said he really did not want this on his conscience, so that is why this has been moved to the public forum to create some incentives. Ms. Terrell stated that this might really only impact people 10 or 20 people who take advantage of this voluntary legislation, but that would be 10 to 20 houses that might be standing after an earthquake.

Ms. Terrell said that this legislation is going to serve and already has served by starting to create a framework for looking at a mandatory program. Ms. Terrell stated that departments, especially Planning and DBI, are working together to think about how to define this even though it is still a work in progress. Ms. Terrell said that she did think that the public education components are very important as the City needs to start engaging all the people that will be impacted in this, and voluntary is a good way to start having people engage in that conversation without feeling threatened. Ms. Terrell said that there are some benefits that this legislation would provide to encourage people to do this work, and said that the Mayor’s Office is open to other suggestions from the CAPSS committee on what can be done in a responsible and feasible way.

Commissioner Walker said that she had an issue of someone doing the seismic upgrades voluntarily now and then the standards might change and they would not be required to do the more stringent upgrade later. Ms. Terrell said that she would defer to someone from DBI to answer the Commissioner’s question, but said the Mayor’s Office wants people to upgrade to a capacity whereby occupants can remain in that building and that the building will not go down.

Director Day said if property owners do come in to voluntarily retrofit their buildings, they would have to do the work to the current Code; in other words, there is a standard now in the Code to seismically upgrade a building.

Commissioner Walker said that for the maximum public benefit the goal should be not just keeping the buildings up, but keeping them occupiable for the short-term and long term. Commissioner Walker said the standards should save lives, which is really important, but said that it is also important to save some of these buildings that house tens and thousands of folks in San Francisco for the purpose of recovery.

Commissioner Clinch said that he wanted to clarify that the current Code for new buildings does not require the buildings be occupiable after an earthquake, so the City would be taking an existing building and trying to make it surpass performance of a new building, which is going to be a huge challenge.

President Murphy asked if the City has taken into consideration all the hundreds, maybe thousands of buildings that have been upgraded by responsible homeowners or landlords. Director Day said that this could be done with the voluntary program where the building owner has a structural engineer come in to do a special inspection and then the structural engineers writes a letter to DBI to inform the City that the work has been done.

Commissioner Levitt said that he hoped that this would be monitored as well postponing the development fees to spur construction. Commissioner Levitt said that this is a good first step.

Commissioner Hechanova said that on the incentive side that perhaps there could be a category where DBI could do an evaluation of where the offset might be on a property tax basis to compensate for DBI’s time involved. Commissioner Walker said that the State puts forth stimulus money to help fund mandatory seismic programs that cities implement that helps with administrative costs.

Ms. Terrell said that as the mandatory program is developed, front and center in that discussion should be how the City does this financially in order to support those who are going to have to do this.

Commissioner Walker said that she still has concerns about the standards, but said that it was important that the BIC make things better than they are, so she would move to support this and get things going. Commissioner Romero said that he would agree as he has come to realize that it takes a very longtime for these things to kick in and actually start moving forward. Vice-President Hechanova said that he thought it was important to consider Mr. Santos’ comments
about bypassing the Planning process and historical review or some sort of action between DBI and Planning to avoid the long delays that are caused by this process. Commissioner Levitt said that he did not want to bypass the City Planning process and the historical review, but asked that the process somehow be expedited and be affordable for the public.

Director Day stated that as part of this legislation, the process will be expedited between DBI and City Planning, and the departments are going to set up an expedited team to review these types of projects that come in so that they do not just get put in with the general run of the mill. Director Day said that this is a priority for both departments as directed by the Mayor in this legislation. Director Day said that the fees for Planning are being waived in this process along with the plan review process at DBI. Director Day said that the Department is working on trying to separate the seismic upgrades in case someone wants to do a renovation project or an upgrade at the same time, so the Department is working on expediting the process for that as well.

Vice-President Hechanova said that he was concerned about the compliance for illegal in law units in these soft story buildings and in making them safe for the tenants.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero that this Ordinance be recommended to the Board of Supervisors. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 001-10

7. Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed Ordinance (#091251-3 - Mayor Newsom) amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 107A.13 to establish a procedure for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to collect development impact and in lieu fees; to provide that the fees are payable prior to issuance of the first building permit or other document authorizing construction of the project; with an option for the project sponsor to defer payment to prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy upon agreeing to pay a deferral surcharge on the amount owed that would be deposited into the same fund that receives the development fees; to require that any in-kind public benefit benefits required in lieu of payment of development fees are implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project; to require DBI to generate a Project Development Fee Report prior to issuance of the building or site permit for the project listing all fees due with the opportunity for an appeal of technical errors to the Board of Appeals; to establish a Development Fee Collection Unit within DBI and a fee for administering the program; adopting findings, including environmental findings. The possible action would be to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for their further action. (This item was previously heard at the BIC Regular Meeting on December 16^th; this revised version incorporates revisions suggested by the BIC at that previous meeting.)

President Murphy asked if the Commission had to vote on this item again. Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that the item was on the agenda as an action item and said that it was up to the Commission whether they wanted to vote or not. President Murphy asked if public comment could be taken again and Mr. Malamut advised that public comment could be heard. Mr. Malamut said that the Commission had previously approved the legislation as proposed with some amendments and it was back before the BIC with those amendments actually contained in it.

President Murphy called for public comment.

Mr. Rodrigo Santos, President of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG) said that his profession as a structural engineer is a perfect barometer for the health of the construction industry, and said that any individual that has an entitled project at this time is only interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is to get an extension. Mr. Santos stated that no one is going to build a privately funded project for the next two years and said that every gas station in town, at 24th and Valencia, 19^th and Valencia, 19th and South Van Ness is just going to be fenced off. Mr. Santos stated that there will not be any new buildings in the next 18 months, but said that there might be some chance that a few courageous developers might jump in if this legislation passes. Mr. Santos said that the City has nothing to lose as no CFC will be issued until those fees are paid. Mr. Santos stated that this incentive is something that the construction industry badly needs, and said that he would encourage the BIC to pass this along to the Board of Supervisors, which undoubtedly will argue endlessly about the merits of this. Mr. Santos said that in terms of what the construction industry can gain, there is no question that there is a substantial gain.

Mr. Luke O’Brien of the SFCRG said that he did not want to regurgitate what the previous speaker said, but stated that there is a terrible recession, and the real estate and construction industries in particular are in the eye of that storm. Mr. O’Brien stated that he believed it would take another year-and-a- half to two years to come out of it, and said he would applaud the BIC for passing this on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. O’Brien said that hopefully this will be made public policy because every incentive and every support is needed in order to get these people back to work.

Commissioner Levitt said that he had concern that there be the funding available to make the necessary improvements to accommodate new residents when they do move into a neighborhood. Commissioner Levitt said that he thinks that it is worth trying this incentive because if something does not happen to kick start some of these projects there are not going to be any development fees.

Commissioner Walker stated that she did not support this legislation last time, and said that she would probably not support it again as she believed that this would not do anything but encourage the turning of property. Commissioner Walker said that there would be a value added that makes it valuable even to just sell, so there could be the likelihood of a project escalating in cost as it resells as an empty lot. Commissioner Walker stated that there is a lack of commitment there and said that she did not think it would be stimulating that much business. Commissioner Walker said that she thought a better approach would be to find and attach to some of the State funding programs available that actually loan money to developers for mitigation of fees, so that therefore, the mitigation would begin on the same schedule as the construction. Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to find ways of helping developers with these types of issues, but said that there has been a long and hard discussion about mitigation and the fees. Commissioner Walker said that Rincon Hill is an example of where there are a lot of people living there without the amenities.

Vice-President Hechanova said that San Francisco is a grand and terrific city and is one of few cities that will weather the storm a lot better than the majority across the whole country. Vice-President Hechanova stated that San Francisco, New York, and a few of the other what he would refer to as secondary cities to those two will always be attractive places to develop, and those will be the first categories of any developer to want to have real estate in those respective cities. Vice-President Hechanova said that San Francisco being one, the City should provide the incentive to want to build here and develop here as opposed to being restrictive and to handcuff developers from wanting to build. Vice-President Hechanova said that this legislation would create the incentive to build and develop in San Francisco as opposed to continuing to be restrictive to those developers.

President Murphy said that he did not see anything in this ordinance that says that the Water Department, the utility companies or anyone else is not going to get paid as this ordinance is about fees. President Murphy stated that some of the public speakers spoke earlier about no big projects starting in San Francisco for the foreseeable future. President Murphy said that this is about the small developer or small contractor; the guy with the pencil behind his ear that is out on the job every day.

Commissioner Clinch made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova, that this ordinance be approved. The Commissioner voted as follows:

President Murphy Yes

Vice-President Hechanova Yes

Commissioner Clinch - Yes

Commissioner Lee - Yes

Commissioner Levitt - Yes

Commissioner Romero - Yes

Commissioner Walker - No

The motion carried on a vote of 6 - 1.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 002-10

8. Discussion and possible action regarding a proposed Ordinance (#090584 - Supervisor Dufty) amending the San Francisco Building Code by adding a new Chapter 13D to require commercial buildings to increase efficiency of fluorescent lighting by 2011; amending Section 705 of the Environment Code to require City-owned facilities to increase efficiency of fluorescent lighting; adopting findings required by California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 and environmental findings; and directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to forward this ordinance to the California Building Standards Commission upon final passage.

Director Vivian Day reported that this was an ordinance that was proposed almost a year ago and was in the Code Advisory Committee for discussion and approval; it is being brought forward again for the Commission’s discussion and approval. Director Day stated that it requires owners of privately owned commercial buildings to increase the efficiency of their fluorescent lighting by the year 2011; DBI is working with the Department of the Environment to devise a method to implement this and to track all of the buildings for compliance. Director Day said that it would be DBI Electrical Inspectors that would be doing this work.

Vice-President Hechanova said that in the interest of creating higher and better efficiency there are even better and higher performing and more efficient types of lighting such as LED that are available since this legislation was first introduced. Vice-President Hechanova asked if there could be an amendment or some of the language that this will not only be limited to fluorescent lighting, but maybe some language that categorically says better and higher efficiency than where this benchmark would set. Director Day said that the recommendation could be added to the ordinance at the BIC’s suggestion, to include all types of lighting.

Commissioner Levitt said that he thought the legislation is a good idea and is well-intentioned, but his reservation is that he could foresee a bunch of building owners replacing fixtures that
are perfectly good, and the ballast and tubes and so forth would end up in a landfill somewhere. Commissioner Levitt stated that then there is no net gain in energy efficiency because energy is being used to produce new fixtures that would normally not have to be installed. Director Day said that the Department of the Environment is developing a way for the disposal of the old fixtures, to address that issue.

Commissioner Clinch said that he would agree with both Commissioners because the fluorescent lighting has not been too successful in the last few years. Commissioner Clinch said that there are fluorescent bulbs that are the curly kind, and they were supposed to be the latest, greatest and best, and they were going to last forever, however sometimes they only lasted a couple of months, and then you have the problem of disposal, and these things are supposed to be recycled which is quite possibly not being done. Commissioner Clinch said that this creates a larger environmental concern so he would agree that this should not be limited to fluorescent lighting, when the intent was to have more efficient lighting.

Commissioner Lee said that he was concerned that the compliance deadline is less than two years away. Director Day said that that was the original date when the legislation was introduced over a year ago, but the program would be monitored to see how it is working and how much compliance there is by 2011 maybe extend the program or see exactly where compliance is by that time.

Commissioner Romero said that he thought that there was already some type of program developed in the Department of the Environment that actually compensated businesses. Director Day said that there are grants for privately owned buildings from the Department of the Environment for the energy efficient lighting and that is part of this program.

There was no public comment.

Commissioner Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Walker, that this legislation be approved. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 003-10

9. Report, discussion and possible action on the proposed budget of the Department of Building Inspection for fiscal year 2010/2011.

Pamela Levin, Deputy Director for Administrative Services said that this item would combine the information for Item #3. Ms. Levin stated that in the past she had been reporting on the Department’s projections and said that today she was going to present comparative analysis of the projections for November and December and would then give some highlights of the 2010/2011 budget. Ms. Levin did a comparative analysis of the Departments projects for November and December and reported on several items including:

Apartment/rental license fees will be recognized in January as 60% of those revenues is collected in December, with the remaining collected in April.
There has been a small increase in charges for services.
Last month the surplus was $1.4M, but is now $2.7M due to the increase in apartment/rental/hotel license fees.
A fund balance of $1.4M would cover four days of payroll; now adding the additional $2.7M will account for 32 days of payroll.
Projected refunds are $1.2M, but could possibly go down.
There are savings in employees’ salaries and fringe benefits.
Graph showing DBI budget comparison from 2007/2008 budget to present.
The Department had a decrease of 88 positions which consisted of civil service positions plus 15 temporary salaries.
2008/2009 there was a fund balance of $553,000
2009/2010 there was an increase of fees and the Department closed projects.
2009/2010 DBI negotiated $875,000 in revenues for MOU’s with other departments.
Gave an analysis of the new budget including the MOU’s and without the MOU’s
Revenues are trending upward, but the Department is still being conservative.

Commissioner Romero asked if the MOU’s were difficult to set up and if they were for one year only. Ms. Levin said that they are over a three-year basis and that next year the Department expected $1.3M; with the Trans Bay Terminal DBI expected to collect over $7M in a three to four year period. Ms. Levin said that this would be fees for plan check only and inspection fees would be over and above that. Director Day said that DBI did not have too much difficulty in setting up the MOU’s mainly because the Department has the fee study completed that establishes the cost of work for other agencies and for the communities.

Ms. Levin continued with a report on the history of the Department’s fund balance and said that currently the Department is trying very hard to increase the fund balance. Ms. Levin said that the Department is trying to fund retirement services at a higher level to allow for payouts of vacation and sick benefits. Ms. Levin stated that the Department will be adding a Certified Access Program Specialist as required by Senate Bill 1608 and said that this person would receive specific training over and above what a Building Inspector would do. Ms. Levin continued with her summary of the 2010/2011 budget and said that the Department is trying to increase the number of clerks to meet the demands for inspection scheduling and record keeping and is trying as much as possible to combine groups in order to increase efficiency.

Ms. Levin stated that she wanted to give a summary of what the Department is looking at in terms of positions. Ms. Levin said that there are 233 positions in the 2009/2010 budget, but said that there would be a growth to 255 positions in the 2010/2011 budget. Ms. Levin explained that the Department would be adding limited duration positions, but said that there are many across limited duration positions throughout the City, but said that these would be timed out. Director Day explained that the limited duration positions were created for specific projects, but over time departments have extended and absorbed these positions after the projects had ended.

Ms. Levin said that in the 2010/2011 budget the Department is going to have to pay a City wide overhead fee for the cost of the Board of Supervisors, the Clerk’s Office and the accounting sections of the Controller’s Office. Ms. Levin said that she did not know the specific amount yet and said that as the Department gets more information the numbers will change. Vice-President Hechanova asked that the Department monitor the work orders to make sure that DBI is not being overcharged. Ms. Levin said that work orders from other departments are starting to come in so she will be negotiating those items to finalize the numbers.

Ms. Levin reported that the salaries and fringes are being increased by 13% over the 2009/2010 projections. Ms. Levin said that with MIS the automation project is being moved to the operating budget and that is just an even switch. Ms. Levin stated that there is a significant increase for mandatory training and Code changes associated with the 2010 California Code as California is publishing a separate Code for residential buildings. Ms. Levin said that the Department has to purchase Code books as they are not available on a CD. Ms. Levin stated that this cost is very defensible, but it is an increase. Ms. Levin said that there is some field equipment that the Department wants to buy for the Inspectors.

Ms. Levin said that the Department is delaying the follow-up fee study and the Customer Satisfaction Survey until 2011/2012 to allow for more time to see how the economy is recovering and to implement DBI’s stabilization measures. Ms. Levin said that the Department would be purchasing a Check/Debit system that will automatically determine if a check is good or bad and said that DBI is meeting with the Treasurer/Tax Collector about their charges for collecting the hotel license fees and to determine performance measures and the actual costs. Ms. Levin said that when the Tax Collector’s Office goes after bad checks there is a charge of 25% for their services so that is why the Department wants to purchase the Check/Debit system. Director Day explained that bad checks create a tremendous amount of work as DBI collects fees for other departments and when a check is returned the fees have to be backed out of each of those departments and it is an accounting nightmare.

Commissioner Walker asked if Ms. Levin could just explain the bottom line of the budget as most of the Commissioners were familiar with the Department’s budget.

Ms. Levin said that she just wanted to point out a few items in the budget and spoke about the following items:

Purchase of cameras for the field inspectors.
No charge for rent for real estate.
Working on the City Attorney’s budget and Worker’s Comp.
City-wide consolidation of MIT might result in additional charges.
Monies for SRO’s are being kept at the 2009/2010 level.
2 New Projects - Electronic Document Management System and E-Plan Check.
Converting records into digital format.
Automation Projects - updating the Assets Management Tracking System; upgrading the Cash Management System and implementing the Check Debiting System.

Ms. Levin said that the Department would be coming back at a Special Meeting on February 2, 2010 to provide the Commission with more details regarding the budget. Ms. Levin stated that the Department’s overall intent is not to exceed the budget that was presented.

Commissioner Walker asked about the process for approving the budget. Secretary Aherne said that the BIC did not have to take any action at this meeting as this is the first hearing of the budget; there will be a second hearing on February 2^nd and then an approval of at least five Commissioners is needed. Commissioner Walker said that if the Department is able to get the mandatory seismic program and the associated fund it would dramatically increase the workload at DBI and said that she hoped that this was being considered in the budget. Director Day said that the seismic programs had been taken into account.

Vice-President Hechanova said that he would like to integrate either through the electronic document management system or in a category of records management a way to track past recommendations or passage of what had been approved by the Access Appeals Commission. Vice-President Hechanova stated that this would be a real asset to the public as they would not have to try to reinvent the wheel if something had been approved for ADA compliance and could be a reference point. Director Day said that this was in the intention of the Electronic Document Management System (EDM) to make all relevant documents available to the public via the net or the web. Director Day stated that this is a major project to undertake, but it is something that the Department needs to do; it would eliminate the thousands of file cabinets in the office and make more room for staff. Director Day said that part of this will be in place by the end of the year. Commissioner Walker said that this would be helpful with outreach as well.

Commissioner Lee said that he had a question about the 53% increase in the purchasing of Code books and asked if there was any possibility of putting those on an electronic format and sharing them. Director Day said that the California Building Code is copyrighted and is not available on CD. Director Day stated that each Inspector needs a Code book with them in the field and now they will need second Code book as California has decided to go along with the International Codes.

Commissioner Levitt said that he hoped that this budget reflects a lot of caution and that the Department is not being overly optimistic about revenues and starting to hire new people. Commissioner Levitt stated that it would be good for DBI to set aside a rainy day fund for contingencies and emergencies. Vice-President Hechanova thanked staff for the terrific report and hard work that goes into trying to juggle everything, but said that DBI has to be vigilant against being victimized by other departments. Ms. Levin said that for the hearings this year one of the big issues is going to be the work orders and said that the Mayor’s cuts have already included some cuts in the City’s Technology Department so DBI’s charges have gone down.

Vice-President Hechanova asked if DBI had any recourse against the Real Estate Department or was DBI at the mercy of their ground rules. Ms. Levin said that since Real Estate in not increasing she doubted that DBI could negotiate any decrease; at some point in time DBI will be moving divisions from 1650 to 1660 Mission and that would save the Department some money.

There was no public comment on this item.

10. Review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of October 21, 2009.

Commissioner Levitt made a correction to Item #7 of the October 21, 2009 minutes. The word oppose should have been approve. Secretary Aherne said that she would make the correction.

Commissioner Levitt made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Hechanova, that the minutes be approved with the noted correction. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 004-10

11. Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

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

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

Secretary Aherne said that there was going to be a Special Meeting on February 2, 1010 to hear the budget again and that there would be another Special Meeting on February 24, 2010 as the Regular February 17, 2010 meeting is being cancelled. Secretary Aherne stated that there would be an Abatement Appeals hearing on February 24, 2010.

There was no public comment on this item.

11. Adjournment.

Commissioner Levitt made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 005-10

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________

Ann Marie Aherne

Commission Secretary

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS OR FOLLOW UP ITEMS
Report on more details regarding the budget. – Levin	Page 13